Rush is using the case of Lynne Stewart to illustrate how the Clinton approach to fighting terrorism is different from the Bush approach. Attorney Lynne Stewart committed sabotage by helping her terrorist client communicate with his followers overseas. She should be put to death, and it's certainly true that the judge who gave her a lenient sentence is a Clinton appointee.
However! This doesn't demonstrate any difference, because the Bush admin hasn't done anything to change this sentence.
And the Feds can certainly do that: remember how Bush Senior decided Rodney King was an angel, and kept on trying the Los Angeles cops until he got the proper verdict exonerating Rodney King and punishing the cops for doing their job correctly.
If we want to argue that Bush is doing things differently, we'd have to see that Bush is in fact doing things differently. But he isn't.
And while I'm knocking Rush, one more thing. He (along with most of the Brand 'R' talking-points vendors) insists that "you can't win by losing."
Sounds good, but doesn't make sense. The whole point of having a free-market system with competition - and for that matter the whole point of having life - is to learn from experience.
A business gets a signal that its product is inadequate when nobody buys the product. A sports team gets the message that it needs to replace the coaching staff when it loses too many games. A political team (party) won't learn that its coaching staff is incompetent until it gets the message by losing elections.
If voters decide not to give the signal, we are just postponing
the day when the party will learn how to perform properly.