The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

26 May 2006

Rush Limbaugh, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Talk Radio

TALK TITANS CLASH

Limbaugh, Snow Face Off Over Illegals





Even if some of his pro- Bush rhetoric on the white- hot illegal immigration debate seemed a bit hard to swallow, it was truly a pleasure to hear White House Press Secretary Tony Snow interviewed by Rush Limbaugh on Thursday's program.

Not only is Snow providing the Bush Administration with a much- needed boost, but as a longtime fellow host, he has greatly elevated talk radio's nationwide stature.

Despite difficult circumstances, for what he's accomplished, many of us in the radio business greatly admire him.


That said, Snow didn't enjoy any kind of a honeymoon period from longtime friend Limbaugh, who took Tony to task over Bush's ill- advised illegal alien amnesty program. From the official Rush transcript:


RUSH: But, you know, I've always fantasized about having your job for one day, and I generally have this fantasy after watching David Gregory and the "zoo" that you referred to earlier, that was really hit a peak with poor old Scott McClellan. But I don't think I would want it right now, because I would have a tough time doing your job. I know you're speaking to the press, but I don't understand the disconnect that exists between Washington and constituents. It's a bigger disconnect than I've seen in 18 years: illegal immigration, the reaction of the House leadership to the William Jefferson search, office search. Everybody in Washington seems tone deaf on immigration to what the American people want and say, and it defies logic -- and I don't know how you explain it to people.

SNOW: Well, I mean, for instance, the issue came up today, and you and I probably disagree at least in part on this, but my view is the president's right -- and I'm not just saying this; I said it while I was running a radio show -- that if you're going to deal with this problem, you gotta deal with everything at once, and here's the reason why. I think border security is something that's going to take a couple of years to get right. So already, by the way, the president is going to start moving assets first week of June. He's not going to need a special bill from Congress, and that's the good news. But the fact is it's going to take a couple of years to get every --

RUSH: You're talking about the wall?

SNOW: I'm talking about the wall; I'm talking about electronic surveillance; I'm talking about getting Border Patrol agents trained up, because at different places you're going to need different stuff. In some places you need a wall. In some places you need agents, and in some places where you've only got, you know, 200 miles of Sonoran desert and mountains, you probably need sensors and surveillance. You put in place what's necessary to make that part of the border secure. So it takes a while to do it. Now, I don't think anybody wants to sit around and wait to go after employers who are hiring people illegally and know it. You want to go after them right away, and I don't think people want to wait to figure out who the illegals are. You want to find out that is rapidly as possible, and I, frankly, don't think people want to wait to start figuring out what we do with the 11 or 12 million illegals, and that's really what the president... It's interesting. I've heard... Every conservative I talked to on Capitol Hill says, "We want to do that stuff, but we want to do it later." My answer is, "Why? Don't you want to go after employers now and don't you want to figure out who the illegals are now and don't you want to start solving this mess now?"

RUSH: But the Senate bill doesn't do any of this though!

SNOW: Well, sure it does. What the president's proposing does. I mean, you take a look, for instance, at the issue of illegals. You get these tamper-proof IDs with biometric stuff. You can't fake that. Now, once you have that in place, employers no longer can say, "Man, I don't know. That birth certificate looked okay to me, and that fake driver's license, I thought it was legitimate." Suddenly you've got something you can't fake.

RUSH: Wait, now who's going to get these cards? Is it legal employees going to get them or illegals?

SNOW: Well, see, it's going to be illegals.

RUSH: Well, how you going to find 'em?

SNOW: Easy. The employer's now under pressure.

RUSH: (Laughing.)

SNOW: If they don't have it, guess what? They get hit. Furthermore, as you know, in a marketplace like ours if somebody thinks that a competitor nearby is using illegals and undercutting them in terms of price and stuff, guess what they're going to do? Their first call is going to be to the immigration authorities to say, "You know, that go is hiring illegals and I'll bet he doesn't have the documentation for them." If you don't have it all of a sudden now, unlike in the old days, if you don't have that particular kind of ID, you're in trouble -- and so it gets enforceable in two ways. The employees have to find it if they want to work, and the employers have to make sure they got it if they don't want to end up paying big fines and wind up in jail.

RUSH: Why should we believe there's going to be enforcement now when there hasn't been since '86, there hasn't been in Simpson-Mazzoli?

SNOW: Well, a couple of reasons.

RUSH: Because the enforcement appears to be voluntary on the illegals. They've got to show up to pay the fine. They've got to show and up go to the back of the line. They've got to show up and do this. Now they've got to show up and get this card, this ID card. What's the incentive for them?

SNOW: There are several reasons. First, on the ID card, again, you get the discipline from the employer side. The employer doesn't have it, and they're doing it -- and you and I have seen places, you know, in our neighborhoods and elsewhere where guys were probably illegally, they get there they work early they do all the stuff but they're illegal! Now if all of a sudden somebody shows up and says, "Show me your cards," and they don't have it, that does change behavior. The other thing is, this issue is of far more concern now than it was in 1986. From 1986 until, what, eighteen months ago, most people didn't give a rip. I mean, they really didn't. Now all of a sudden it's top of mind, which means the people who see activity that they find objectionable and illegal, they now think, "Okay, I can call the government to do this. I can call the cops on this. I can call the Border Patrol. I can call the legal enforcement." They suddenly realize that you're going to have a government that also has gotten a message because for a long time people didn't the give a rip -- and, as you know, this town, Washington, response when people say, "Hey, you gotta do something," and I think the message has been received pretty loud and clear. We need to do something.

RUSH: Well, I've been aware of it for longer than a year and half, I haven't been able to go to California for the last five years and not have a conversation about this among people who are livid.

SNOW: Yeah.

RUSH: Prop 187 certainly older than a year and a half.

SNOW: Well, that's right. That goes back to Pete Wilson years, but I'm telling you: rising to the level of national concern. It's been hot in California for a long time; it's been heating up in Arizona, but now it's an issue. It's an issue in Iowa; it's an issue in Utah; it's an issue in Ohio; it's an issue in Maine. It's now an issue that has reached all around the country and people are concerned about it. So before, you just didn't have enough momentum to get everybody in Washington sort of focused on it. I mean, look, it has taken this long. Do you think that the House speaker was giving speeches on this three years ago? I don't think so. I'd have to go back and look at the record, but the point is issues like this take a certain amount of time to get to a boil.

RUSH: Well, they do. The history of this is it takes 20 years. Every 20 years it metastasizes. It gets to the point where people notice it, and it becomes a burden in their lives that they can't explain. They don't understand why "illegal" doesn't mean anything. They don't understand why they [people for enforcing the border] are called "nativists." I mean, Tony, just politically here, I'm talking about what's coming out of the Senate now.


While it's true illegal immigration is on the national front- burner these days, how can Snow say that few outside of California cared about it until recently?

Across the nation, it's been a hot talk radio topic for over a decade. As a former host, he should be well aware of that.

Overall, however, listening to these two talk titans clash was very entertaining. For Rush, it will go down as one of his most memorable shows in some time.

For more on the Limbaugh/ Snow clash, visit Michelle Malkin, Expose The Left, California Conservative and Dad29. Here, MSM liberals attack Snow.

Also: At LGF, hate mail from Reuters!

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of your final purchases, are vital to supporting this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Snow-Limbaugh image: RushLimbaugh.com

22 Comments:

  • So the illegals get the ID card? Why aren't they arrested when they come for the card? If legal people don't have a card why the hell would anyone carry a card that says they are illegal. Who are businesses suppose to ask for a card? If you asked a Hispanic guy to see his illegal card and he doesn't have one, he is either lying, or he is actually an America about to sue your dumb ass for ethnic profiling. I think someone has recently performed a late term abortion on Snow, his brains are gone.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 26 May, 2006 07:38  

  • Rush did something no one in the mainstream press has dared to do: Ask tough questions about the immigration bill. The blow-dried, puffy-headed talking heads of the MSM treat it like a game... who's winning on this issue, Republicans or Democrats. Rush asked the hard questions his listeners want answers to, not just "who's winning politically?" or an elitist repetition of talking points ("nation of immigrants" "jobs Americans won't do")

    OK, that's my take. Now, let's let the AAR-apologists and liberal suck-ups begin the name-calling. I predict we will soon be reminded that Rush once had a drug problem.

    By Blogger V the K, at 26 May, 2006 07:40  

  • V the K farted: ...The blow-dried, puffy-headed talking heads of the MSM treat it like a game...

    ... Now, let's let the AAR-apologists and liberal suck-ups begin the name-calling. ...


    Thanks again for demonstrating the hypocrisy and the lack of intelligence and education of the wingnuts on this blog.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 May, 2006 12:54  

  • Lefties can be relied upon to fail to distinguish between editorializing and name-calling. Decribing the characteristics of a thing is not the same as name-calling. Do you understand, or do I need to dumb the point down for you, HH?

    They can also be relied upon to ignore the substance of a post and proceed directly to an attack on the person making it.

    By Blogger V the K, at 26 May, 2006 14:01  

  • V the K hilariously spun: Lefties can be relied upon to fail to distinguish between editorializing and name-calling. Decribing the characteristics of a thing is not the same as name-calling.

    And what does the wingnut come back with? A double-standard. When he does it, it's not name-calling. It's editorializing. Hilarious.

    Let's describe your characteristics. You're a hypocrite. Check. Uneducated. Check. Simple-minded. Check. Dishonest. Check. Self-deluded. Check. These are just your characteristics mind you which as you point out is not the same as name-calling.

    They can also be relied upon to ignore the substance of a post and proceed directly to an attack on the person making it.

    There was absolutely no substance to address. And I was just editorializing about your gross hypocrisy and your lack of brains. You're the poster child for all the wingnuts on this blog.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 May, 2006 14:28  

  • My descriptions are all verifiably accurate. True, MSM journalists particularly those on TV are fastidiously made-up. True, MSM journalists focus entirely on the political game and have largely ignored the hard questions about the immigration bill (the substance of the post). True, the MSM and AAR have many apologists in this forum. And, as HH amply demonstrates, name-calling is their stock in trade.

    If HH can likewise submit proof as to my lack of education or dishonesty, he is welcome to do so. If he can not provide support for his allegations, then, they are simple name-calling.

    By Blogger V the K, at 26 May, 2006 14:37  

  • That's got to be a typo in your lead. Has Rush really been "pro-Bush" when it comes to immigration? I'd think it was the exact opposite.

    By Blogger BF, at 26 May, 2006 15:04  

  • My descriptions are all verifiably accurate. True, MSM journalists particularly those on TV are fastidiously made-up. True, MSM journalists focus entirely on the political game and have largely ignored the hard questions about the immigration bill (the substance of the post). True, the MSM and AAR have many apologists in this forum.

    Hilarious. When challenged, all the name-calling conspicuously disappears from the original wingnut rant in a pathetic attempt at revisionism. Jump higher next time.

    And, as HH amply demonstrates, name-calling is their stock in trade.

    I was just editorializing.

    If HH can likewise submit proof as to my lack of education or dishonesty, he is welcome to do so. If he can not provide support for his allegations, then, they are simple name-calling.

    Likewise? You have provided nothing but confused and weightless opinion. Your previous rants and your pathetic revisionism are ample demonstration of your obvious wingnut shortcomings.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 May, 2006 16:26  

  • The lede refers to Tony Snow's pro-Bush rhetoric, not Rush's.

    By Blogger V the K, at 26 May, 2006 16:39  

  • HH has accused me of being uneducated, hypocritical and dishonest. Apparently, he defines all of these terms to mean "expresses opinions I don't like."

    By Blogger V the K, at 26 May, 2006 16:43  

  • HH has accused me of being uneducated, hypocritical and dishonest.

    You forgot simple-minded and self-deluded.

    Apparently, he defines all of these terms to mean "expresses opinions I don't like."

    Your opinions are so confused and lightweight, it's impossible to figure out whether to like them or not. But they do irrefutably prove your lack of brains and education.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 May, 2006 17:38  

  • HH - is V the K a poopy-head too? Does his momma wear combat boots? Do you feel the need to stick your tongue out at him?

    I think I can appreciate your anger at V the K, as he does a pretty good job at making you look like an only slightly more-articulate charicature of RWW.

    The Condensed HeadHunter from this thread: "Thanks again for demonstrating the hypocrisy and the lack of intelligence and education of the wingnuts on this blog...(snip)...And what does the wingnut come back with? A double-standard. When he does it, it's not name-calling. It's editorializing. Hilarious. Let's describe your characteristics. You're a hypocrite. Check. Uneducated. Check. Simple-minded. Check. Dishonest. Check. Self-deluded. Check. These are just your characteristics mind you which as you point out is not the same as name-calling...(snip)...There was absolutely no substance to address. And I was just editorializing about your gross hypocrisy and your lack of brains. You're the poster child for all the wingnuts on this blog....(snip)...Hilarious. When challenged, all the name-calling conspicuously disappears from the original wingnut rant in a pathetic attempt at revisionism. Jump higher next time...(snip)...I was just editorializing...(snip)...Likewise? You have provided nothing but confused and weightless opinion. Your previous rants and your pathetic revisionism are ample demonstration of your obvious wingnut shortcomings...(snip)...You forgot simple-minded and self-deluded...(snip)...Your opinions are so confused and lightweight, it's impossible to figure out whether to like them or not. But they do irrefutably prove your lack of brains and education."

    So let's check the HeadHunter rhetorical scorecard, shall we?

    Insults? Check.

    Kossack buzzwords? Check.

    Accusing others of employing talking point discussion tactics while doing so at the same time? Check.

    Original thoughts or additional facts or logic brought to the discussion at hand? Mheh.

    Threadjacking? Do I have to answer?

    Executive Summary: HeadHunter is, like RWW, a dullard and a coward, only slightly more articulate. The good news is that at least HH knows how to use the shift key and proper punctuation and grammar. So, if the voices in his head ever tone it down, logic may, some day, be able to punch through the rhetoric in his mind.

    By Blogger JD, at 28 May, 2006 20:49  

  • Oh look... JD comes dashing to the defense of V the K. That's very touching... you guys must be very close.

    But of course you're just another hollow wingnut who would rather unthinkingly defend the blatant hypocrisy, the double standards, and the dishonesty of your fellow conservative kooks than use his brains. Oh that's right... my bad... Malonely's sycophants have no brains... which explains your whiney 3rd grade post. You must get picked on and pushed around a lot. I wish I could help you but I'm not a miracle worker. I guess you're stuck with being one of life's bottom-feeders.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 May, 2006 09:47  

  • Thank you, JD.

    By Blogger V the K, at 29 May, 2006 18:38  

  • Damn, HeadHunter, it must just suck to exist in this world with people who don't hie to your view of things. It must just be frustrating as hell to have to deal with all of these "wingnut[s] who would rather unthinkingly defend the blatant hypocrisy, the double standards, and the dishonesty of your fellow conservative kooks than use his brains." How do you get out of bed in the afternoon? Do you sleep the long morning away dreaming up little barbs like "Malonely," eager as all get-out to get onto that Evil, Zionist, Neo-Con BushRovian KKKonspiracy site and lay all those wingnuts low with your brilliant repartee?

    Of course, whilst engaging in your diatribe, you conveniently forget to demonstrate just exactly what makes your POV any more correct than ours (you know, facts, logic and all that), but maybe that's just because such Lofty Thoughts are above and beyond the ken of anyone who does not instantly holler "NEO-CON!!!" every time someone utters a thought that isn't out of the Kossack playbook. I would direct your attention to other such Lofty Figures of the Left like Atrios or Maryscott O'Connor, but I have a feeling you wouldn't find them to be Orthodox enough, although some of your spew does carry the quality of O'Connor.

    You know what, HeadHunter? I've changed my mind - I think that you and RWW do share one mind, or at least somewhere between three-quarters and seven-eighths of one. The only thing you know how to do is spew.

    But at the end of the day, without facts to back it up, spew is just that, spew.

    It must just suck to be you.

    By the way, you are a giant poopy-head, and your momma does wear combat boots - size 11, and with arch supports.

    By Blogger JD, at 29 May, 2006 21:16  

  • V the K wimpered: Thank you, JD.

    Ahhhh... that's cute. I knew you guys would hit it off.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 May, 2006 06:41  

  • JD babbled: Damn, HeadHunter, ... blah blah blah ... ...eager as all get-out to get onto that Evil, Zionist, Neo-Con BushRovian KKKonspiracy site and lay all those wingnuts low with your brilliant repartee?
    ...


    Please try a little harder. This unoriginal bolierplate just makes you appear even less intelligent than your previous post... if that were possible.

    Of course, whilst engaging in your diatribe,...

    You obviously just came across the word "diatribe" or you wouldn't have put it and the rest of your mindless drivel in the same post.

    ... just exactly what makes your POV any more correct than ours (you know, facts, logic and all that)...

    Yes, you conservative kooks would look a little less stupid if you used some facts and logic. Now you're starting to get it. Good for you.

    ... but maybe that's just because such Lofty Thoughts are above and beyond the ken of anyone who does not instantly holler "NEO-CON!!!" every time someone utters a thought that isn't out of the Kossack playbook.

    Nope. I guess my optimism about your progress was unfounded. You've regressed back into that knee-jerking wingnut who is incapable of thinking beyond black-or-white absolutes.

    But at the end of the day, without facts to back it up, spew is just that, spew.

    Now you're back on track. But in order to avoid your statement from sounding hollow, try using some facts next time yourself.

    It must just suck to be you.

    No. It's absolutely fantastic to live in a country where I have been able to live a dream made possible through a good education, hard work, and a desire to help others. I just feel sorry for conservative kooks like you who will never have what I have.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 May, 2006 07:10  

  • Bob Samuelson, writing in the WashPost makes the exact same point I did. The mainstream media has avoided asking any substantive questions about the Amnesty Bill.

    "One job of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed."

    I guess he's just an uneducated loser, too. But then, I notice that HH hasn't presented any evidence of the mainstream media asking tough questions about the Amnesty Bill. He's just called a lot of names and bragged about himself.

    By Blogger V the K, at 31 May, 2006 08:46  

  • V the K cried: I guess he's just an uneducated loser, too.

    No. Bob Samuelson is a graduate of Harvard and winner of numerous journalism awards who has written for the WaPo for nearly 30 years. You're an uneducated loser. Do you see the difference?

    He's just called a lot of names...

    I was editorializing about you and the other wingnuts on this blog.

    ...and bragged about himself.

    And I wasn't bragging about myself. I was rejoicing about America and how... with a good education, hard work, reality-based common-sense, and positive intentions... dreams can come true. I know how much you nutjobs hate this country so I can see why you misunderstood.

    But I was also lamenting that conservative kooks like you will never have anything... because you have been pathologically deluded into a false life of lies and hate by people who have stolen your money and your vote.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 31 May, 2006 13:05  

  • Keep digging, HeadHunter. Just keep digging...

    By Blogger JD, at 31 May, 2006 14:42  

  • I think the disparity between HH's stereotype of my life and my actual circumstances is hilarious. Funny how these supposedly open and tolerant lefties revel in their ignorant prejudices. Talk about a life of delusion and lies, HH is soaking in it.

    It's also funny that when Bob Samuelson expresses exactly the same opinion as I did, he doesn't get attacked or name-called at all. So, is it still a lightweight opinion, unworthy of refutation, as HH previously asserted? HH still hasn't produced a single fact to counter it.

    JD, do you find this as comical as I do? I've been referring friends to this thread so they can get a laugh, too.

    By Blogger V the K, at 31 May, 2006 17:00  

  • Not really. It's kind of sad and tawdry, actually.

    By Blogger JD, at 01 June, 2006 22:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger