All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
July 1, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to your thrill seekers, conversationalists, music lovers all across the fruit and play and the award-winning thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program back on the air serving humanity.
It is Friday, so let's hit it.
And the rules are basically this.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about the things that interest me.
I refuse to talk about things I don't care about because I would be bored, and so would you.
But Friday, we let you choose the things that we talk about, even if they don't interest me.
It's a huge career risk that not too many broadcast specialists nor veterans ever take.
But I do it once a week.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Sandra Day O'Connor is still retired.
There is not, the president has not yet named a judge to replace her.
Okay, that's out of the way.
Moving on now to other items.
Wall Street Journal today has an editorial about Judith Miller and Matt Cooper and the prospect that they might be going to jail.
Looks like Matt Cooper won't be because Time's going to turn over the relevant documents that the court wants revealing their sources.
And the rest of the media is just in a shambles over this.
The rest of the media just doesn't get it.
They're upset about it.
The Wall Street Journal actually has a pretty good take on this.
The subhead is The Press Corps Unleashed a Prosecutor on Itself.
You know, this really is true.
The press really has only itself to blame for this.
When you stop and think about it, after all, what happened?
Robert Novak has a confidential source.
Confidential source, somewhere high-ranking, told him the name of a CIA agent, and he published it.
Oh, hell broke loose.
You can't do that.
Why, that's a crime.
Why, you can't protect me.
You can't reveal.
The media normally would circle the wagons around Novak.
Except Novak is a conservative.
So rather than circle the wagons around Novak like the media circle the wagons around Dan Rather and Newsweek, the media demanded a special prosecutor.
The media demanded an investigation.
Why?
Because Novak's a conservative commentator.
His source was likely an administration official.
And the media wanted to know.
The hell with confidentiality when a conservative is involved.
So the same media that had an orgy of defense for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and Deep Throat and all the other confidential sources there have been in lib media history.
The same media that showed their willingness to go to the mat to protect Woodward and Bernstein and Newsweek and so forth, showing a double standard and agitating for disclosure.
Oh, yes.
The media.
Yes, they had to know who was talking to Novak.
Why aren't those people talking to us?
Novak's is conservative.
We want to find out who's talking to him.
Have you not been sort of humored by the number of press people demanding that Novak reveal his source?
Well, Novak could stop this tomorrow, right, if he would just reveal his source.
Nobody would ever say that about Matt Cooper or Judith Miller or any other liberal media person.
So what we have here, we have a prosecutor who is taking steps far out of proportion to what's required here, given that it's doubtful a crime was committed.
I'll say this again.
We have a prosecutor taking steps far out of proportion to what's required, given that it's doubtful a crime was committed when information was provided to Novak in the first place.
And these two have come to a head now, and it makes both of them look pretty pathetic.
to me.
I don't think the prosecutor looks particularly good here.
I think the media, the Wall Street Journalists, brought this on themselves by demanding to know who Novak's source was and demanding that Novak be forced to release it.
And so the administration heard those calls.
And this administration is responsive to the media, folks.
Oh, you want to know who Novak's source was?
Well, it wasn't us, but we'll gladly appoint a special prosecutor.
We'll have an investigation.
And look who it ended up snaring.
Two lib reporters and not Novak.
So it's, in a way, in a purely human sense, you sit back and laugh at it.
But when you get through with that, you have to, this is just, it's just pathetic.
The Los Angeles Times today.
Many in media criticize Time's move.
Some say the decision of Time to reveal sources confirms fears that corporate ownership is a threat to press freedom.
Others contend the magazine had no choice.
Journalists and media observers voiced anger and dismay Thursday over the decision by the publisher of Time magazine to give information about one of its reporters, confidential sources, to a grand jury.
Some of the announcement, some said the announcement by Norman Pearlstein, Time Inc.'s editor-in-chief, confirmed their fears that increasing corporate ownership of media organizations had become a threat to press freedom.
But others said that Time had no choice but to comply with a lower court ruling and turn over the information after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.
For 30 years, said David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author, for 30 years, we've assumed that strong journalistic institutions would stick together and protect their employees.
Now a new wind is blowing.
And that United Front is gone.
Oh, isn't that rich?
Oh, you're still circling the wagons, Mr. Halberstam.
It just depends.
It's got to be Dan Rather or Newsweek.
You won't circle the wagons around Novak, as we've just illustrated.
Well, I think the media is in its last throes.
I think that's, I think, all of this indicates that there may even a point.
Perlstein or not Perlstein, but some of these critics may have a point about this corporate ownership, but they're missing what the real point is.
See, journalists traditionally don't want to have to face any bottom-line pressure, meaning financial bottom line.
Most elite journalists think that they should be paid, whether the company they work for makes money or not.
They think they should get health benefits and time to walk the dog and dental benefits and a pension whether their company makes money or not.
Because their mission is so important.
Why, they are the defenders of the very country in which we live and breathe.
Why, journalists are the defenders of the very Constitution, even though none of them seem to understand it anymore.
I'd never forget Lawrence Tisch, a businessman from top to bottom, took over CBS, looked at the news division, saw all the red inks.
Okay, going to get rid of 200 people.
Dan Rather, you can't do that.
All the other CBS news, you can't do that.
Tisch said, why not?
Well, Paley never did it.
That's why you can't do it.
Well, I'm not Paley.
And I'm not going to sit here having bought this company to sit here and leak and see money.
Well, do it somewhere else.
You can't cut it.
We're the news division of the Tiffany Network.
You can't do this to what...
Well, it's been done.
200 of you out the door.
See you later.
No, they don't want to have any responsibility to the bottom line.
Profit loss doesn't make any difference to them whatsoever.
So here comes Norman Perlstein.
Well, you know, the law is the law.
Supreme Court says we've got to do this.
And, you know, whether we like it or not, we enjoy our freedoms because of that very constitution.
We've got to obey it.
What he didn't say was that if they didn't obey it, in addition to jail time, there would be huge fines.
And the fines could have negative impact on Time Inc. shareholders on Time's bottom line.
And so from that standpoint, it may well be that corporate ownership, but there's always somebody of a corporate nature who's always owned the media.
So this is a straw dog.
I think what that just illustrates is that most journalists couldn't care less whether the people they work for make any money or not.
I don't think it matters.
Certainly not to whether they get paid or not.
You know, and the shareholders and board of directors, it may be a threat to journalism is what the claim.
Oh, yeah, this is a threat to doing real journalism.
Sometimes the public is a threat to doing real journalism too, when they refuse to believe some of the garbage that is printed or broadcast.
So you could say the public is a threat to journalism.
If you're a journalist today and you work at one of the big three broadcast networks or one of the two or four big newspapers, well, any newspaper now, if you're a big-time journalist that works at a couple of the cable networks and you are losing readers and circulation and viewers in record numbers, wouldn't you have to conclude that the public is a threat to journalism too?
Why, those damned upstarts, they're not watching us.
Who do the American people think they are?
They're not reading us.
So, I mean, it's easy to pick holes with every argument that they would make.
Here is Orville Schell.
Orville Schell is the dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
He said, I can't believe there will be too many anonymous whistleblowers who will want to communicate with Matt Cooper knowing that he can be burned and turned in by Norman Perlstein.
What happened at Time Inc. is clearly troubling for anybody who values the watchdog function of the media.
We had a caller yesterday who made a great point.
Burn the source.
If the source is getting you, why do these people protect sources that end up screwing them?
The one case we can think of is because maybe the source is a woman that the reporter's chasing.
Got the hots for.
You never know.
I mean, these kind of things happen.
Let's see.
Who else would have a quote here from?
Well, that's pretty much it.
And then the LA Times has one more story.
We'll have to do that in just a second.
So what's the story on Novak?
It's actually a column by Jonathan Turley, a pretty lib legal analyst who gets passed off as a moderate conservative sometimes, but he's a professor at the George Washington University Law Schruel.
And he's all upset that Novak seems to be unscathed here.
We'll take a break and get back to all this right after this, so stay with us.
Okay, since it's Open Line Friday, let's head back to the phones.
We got more audio soundbites.
Yes.
Excuse me.
I have the soundbite of Brian Williams of NBC that seems to have upset so many people.
And we'll get to that here in where he compared the insurgent terrorists in Iraq to our founding fathers.
Yes, he did.
He did.
He did.
And we have the bite.
Well, we'll get to it here, folks, in due course.
But first, Chris in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush, fourth-time color dittos from what used to be Jesse Hilm's country.
Thank you, sir.
Great to have you with us.
I'm very glad to be here.
For months, the Senate Democrats filibustered Janice Rogers Brown because of her extreme right-free views on property property rights.
For years, three years.
Then several weeks ago, Joseph Biden said that he's against her appointment because she would severely restrict the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and these are the people's rights she would restrict.
Last week, the Supreme Court makes this outrageous eminent domain decision, and the Senate Republicans have since said nothing.
They have not tied this in with the filibusters and the fact that she would defend the people's rights and their homes.
Bill Frist, Oren Hatch, George Allen should have come forward immediately and cried in a very indignant manner that the Senate Democrats are just the definition of hypocrites.
Well, wait.
Actually, they may not be hypocrites, but that may be the point to make.
I know what you're referring to.
Janice Rogers Brown, while on the California Supreme Court, was a very strident no vote in the San Remo Hotel case.
This is where the San Remo Hotel is a hotel currently occupied by residents, low-income, homeless types.
And the San Remo owners, you know what?
We want to turn this hotel into a hotel.
We want to actually have rooms and a cafe and a coffee shop and room service.
Guests actually pay us to come here.
And so they announced they were going to do this.
City of San Francisco says, you can't do that.
And the San Remo hotel said, why not?
It's our hotel.
Oh, no, it's not.
We have an ordinance.
And it says, we've got to have X number of rooms in this town that are devoted to public housing.
And sorry, if you do this, you're going to pay a fine of $500 and some odd thousand dollars or a tax.
So the San Remo said, well, screw you.
We're going to go to the courts and kill you.
Well, they lost at the California Supreme Court, but Janice Rogers Brown basically referred to this as government thievery.
And it is that Joe Biden and Pelosi and Boxer couldn't deal with.
They thought that Justice Brown was just as wrong as she could be.
Yet here comes this decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, and it affirmed that the San Remo Hotel couldn't do what it wanted to do with its own property.
And where are most of the American people on this?
They're not with Joe Biden.
They're not with the Democrats who oppose Janice Rogers Brown.
They are with Janice Rogers Brown.
Most Americans think she was right.
That's what ought to be trumpeted if somebody wants to do it.
The reason they didn't do it, Chris, is because she's on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
But if they follow my advice, the White House, and nominate her to fill the position of the recently retired Sandra Day O'Connor, you can bring it all back up again.
Say, see, she was right.
And look at how many American people agree with Janice Rogers Brown.
She's got it exactly right.
I think she'd be a great nominee, and I would do it ASAP.
But Rush, but Rush, but Rush, she was just sworn into the D.C. Court of Appeals last week or two weeks ago.
They even better.
Shouldn't have a record there they can oppose.
Make them start it all over again.
I would love it.
Here's Tom and Berwin, Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, Mega Dittos from Live 8 Land.
I live within spitting distance of Live 8 here in Philly.
And, you know, they're calling specifically for nobody to give donations.
They don't want your donations.
It's a charity event.
And what they want is for the G8 to with forgive all the debts and also give more money to China.
So that means that the money is going to come out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which is funded by the United States primarily.
So I'll give you three guesses as to what Live 8 actually is.
It's a tax increase.
It's a hoped-for tax increase.
In fact, he's exactly right.
Let's go to Audio Soundbites 14, 15, and 16 since we've got your call, because we have Bono, who is on CNN's 360 with Anderson Cooper, which is out of phase by 180.
And Anderson Cooper on Out of Phase 180 interviewed Bono and said, Bono, Live Aid, target audience, people around the world to try to raise money.
Live 8 really is your target audience, the world leaders?
Live Aid, the original Live Aid 20 years ago, was about charity.
You know, we all put our hands in our pocket.
This is not about charity.
This is about justice.
This is about people getting out on the streets, tuning in, being educated about what their tax dollars can achieve in the impoverished continent of Africa and elsewhere.
So Tom from Berwin may have a point here.
The Live 8 concert is actually encouraging tax increases, worldwide tax increases.
I would encourage all of you liberals, and I know you love Tina Brown.
I mean, she's pop culture goddess.
She had a column, I think, yesterday in the Washington Post, decrying the usual suspect guests on cable television and pointing out that they're really far more intelligent people to have talking about things like Africa than the usual suspects that end up on TV.
And she quoted one guy, and I don't remember his name because I'm at the column right in front of me.
But this guy made an interesting point.
And it's not often I recommend a Tina Brown column for serious consumption.
I often recommend them for laughter and diversion and so forth.
But this was actually interesting.
And this guy said, you know, you can throw all the money at Africa you want.
It ain't going to change anything.
That's what people have been doing all their lives.
The problem with Africa is that the best and the brightest and the smartest Africans leave.
They leave and go elsewhere to educate themselves and work.
They don't stay there.
So we can have charity.
We can have worldwide tax increases.
We can have all this.
Isn't it interesting we never hear of discussions into raising money for Africa?
We never hear about sedan.
We never hear about the Rwandan zenocide.
We don't hear about Mugabe.
And we certainly don't hear about Mugabe and Rhodesia in historical perspective.
I mean, why should we throw money at people like that that are killing and starving their own people?
And is it any wonder when that's the kind of government you have there that the best and brightest in Africa leave?
They leave because there's nothing but oppression there in far too much of the country.
So basically what you have here is a feel-good exercise.
We're doing something.
Join us in forcing your fellow citizens to have their taxes increased so we'll even feel better.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Well, I mean, what else is it, Mr. Sterdling?
Okay, a couple more soundbites here from Bono with Anderson Cooper on CNN last night.
The last one's really, actually, the last one here is not from CNN.
It's from CBS this morning.
But after Bono said that, you know, it was really not about charity.
It's about getting people around the world to pay higher taxes and the money going to Africa.
Anderson Cooper last night said, well, how does America stack up in your estimation?
As you go into this G8 meeting, what do you want to see America doing?
Because, I mean, what Americans will say, what this administration will say is, look, we've done more for Africa than any American president.
That's what the Bush White House is saying.
Yeah, they have done a lot.
But they started out from a very low place.
And that's that.
So we're trying to turn that around now.
And I think, as I say, if it's targeted, focused aid, spent well to reward the good government.
I think Americans are the most generous people in the world.
And if they feel the money's not going down a rat hole, they're ready to stand up and say, spend this.
It's a matter of pride for the Americans I meet that when people see the American flag around the world, they go, wow.
Yeah.
All right.
So this morning on CBS, their morning show, the correspondent Tracy Smith reported on the Live Eight concert.
The end of her report, this is what she said.
Now, one sour note in this musical love fest, the stars are all getting goodie bags worth about $12,000 at a concert that's supposed to be about relieving poverty.
How long does this correspondent have to work at CBS?
How did they sneak that one past the editors?
That's not the stuff they're supposed to be reporting about this concert.
And did you notice her tone?
Her tone was a little suspicious and dubious.
Maybe not really totally on board with the whole Live 8 spin.
A sour note in this musical love fest, she said.
The stars are all getting goodie bags worth about $12,000 at a concert.
That's supposed to be about relieving poverty.
No, actually, she's safe because she is wrong.
It's not about relieving poverty.
It's about raising taxes.
This is the first rock concert to raise taxes around the world.
It is historical in that sense that there has ever been.
Hubba-hubba.
Rock concert to raise taxes.
Here is Chris at Salt Lake City.
You're next at Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How you doing?
I'm just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
Honor to talk to you.
Hey, I just have a question for you.
You know, I've been listening to your show about a year now, and I'm understanding liberalism a little bit more and more.
as much as you can i guess but can you know how old are you how old are you I'm 29.
29.
What's so hard to understand about it for you?
Well, you know, I just, I think by understanding where it all stemmed from, I could try and make a little bit more sense of it.
I mean, as much as it really doesn't make sense, where did it all start?
Oh, when did liberalism start?
That's sort of like trying to define, are we here by virtue of the Bing Bang or creation?
Okay.
But, you know, you can have some fun with this.
Now, if I were my old chemistry teacher in high school and you were me, and you called with this question, my old chemistry teacher would say, well, why don't you write a report on that for us and have it in in five days?
Making me answer my own question.
And it's a good learning exercise to do that.
But we were talking about, because I've seen your call up on the board here for a while, we were talking about where did liberalism begin?
And of course, it's a two-part question.
The first part of the question is where?
People have been asking where for as long as there have been people.
And people have been, you know, they've been trying to answer where, where what?
Where, why, where who.
And this is good because it promotes a general curiosity.
And anything that promotes general curiosity is good.
The second part of the question, did liberalism start?
Yes.
That's how Professor Erwin Corey would answer this question.
We think, I think liberalism was officially enshrined with Marxism, Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
Mr. Snerdley thinks that liberalism domestically in this country was officially enshrined with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.
H.R. Kit Carson says, my chief of staff says, if you want to find out where liberalism began, you're going to have to go back into recorded history and find the first recorded instance of class envy.
Okay.
Because class envy is one of the building blocks of liberalism.
But I think if you could probably go back to ancient Rome, any big tyrannical government that oppressed its citizens and denied them basic freedoms, you have to say has its roots in liberalism.
And if their intentions were to make everybody live as miserably but equally as possible or as comfortable as possible, you could say that would be liberalism as well.
But, you know, there's so many ways to, I mean, I would actually say it's difficult to answer because if you most people throughout the history of the world, and there are exceptions, which is why there's conservatism, most people around the world have been willing to trade their liberty and freedom for safety and security.
And that is trusting an all-powerful government or what have you.
The people who have stood for individual freedom, the little small man opposed to big odds, in David and Goliath, Goliath's the liberal, David's the conservative.
And that's been the history of it.
Moses, you could say, was a conservative, and his flock became pretty liberal during times of rebellion against him because they refused to believe him.
They got mob rule going, and they believed in something more powerful even than Moses, despite what he had demonstrated.
I mean, it would be very difficult to really trace beginnings of liberalism, but if you want to, official liberalism that spawned that kind of official thinking among powerful elites in this country, you'd have to say it's Marx.
You'd have to say it's Marx and Engels.
Read the Communist Manifesto, and you'll see that nine or ten of those, well, that's 10 points, you'll see that nine of them we already have.
And they always involve big government.
They always involve, you know, to each according to his needs, from each according to his means.
I mean, that's typical.
That's right out of Marxism, and it's liberalism today.
FDR enshrined it in government with Social Security and the New Deal and the notion that government can provide all the answers and all the needs of all people.
Well, that's pretty funny.
But, you know, if I could just give you some quick background on myself, you know, growing up, mom and dad never talked politics at all.
I want to say that my dad is very conservative like yourself.
And my mom, they never talked about it.
But I'll tell you, I was raised on television.
And I found myself, I was a liberal and I didn't even know it, you know.
And growing up, I just, my eyes started to open to things.
You know, I'd watched you a little bit when you're on television and I started tuning into your radio show about a year ago.
And my eyes just started open.
I just was a doom and gloomer, a defeatist, you know, poor me playing that card.
And it just didn't work for me.
I mean, I just was down in the dumps all the time.
And I got to tell you, you've been very inspiring for me.
And, you know, I continue to listen to you to this day.
And you're absolutely right.
I mean, you just, you make sense.
And I think it's great.
I really do.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
And I'm really heartened to hear this because you came to it on your own.
A lot of people, a lot of people, their ideological opinions are formed by their parents, grandparents, and the forces surrounding them when they grew up.
Some people even have tried.
Some scientists lately have tried to advance the notion that ideology is genetic.
Did you see that?
And all that.
But I think, yeah, you know, Mr. Snerdley has a point about you, Chris, and I'm going to repeat this.
It's a good point.
Following the November 2002 elections, Tom Daschell, after this humiliating defeat, after the Wellstone rally that was disguised as a funeral, or maybe it was the Wellstone funeral disguise as a rally.
I don't know what it was, but it doomed him.
And then, of course, their indecision on the war on terror response to 9-11.
They just doomed themselves.
And Tom Daschell, after this election, when he thought he was going to get control of the Senate back and didn't, held a press conference and announced that he and his party were actually very concerned about me.
And they were concerned because experts, quote-unquote experts, had told them that it wasn't just conservatives and Republicans listening to me like they had thought all along, that I was actually changing people's minds.
And this is dangerous because I'm such a whatever, fill-in-the-blank.
And so for all those years, the Democrats thought I was preaching to the choir, but they obviously got some focus group data or marketing research that indicated, oh, you know, this guy's converting Democrats and liberals.
And you sound like one of those guys, Chris, that Tom Daschell was talking about.
And it's happening and it's been happening now for 16 years.
You know, I can imagine a number of the things that would burn you up.
Like this whole business of war and terror and Iraq and Afghanistan.
No matter how you slice it, the Democrats always seem to side up with the wrong people.
They always end up blaming this country for all of these entanglements.
They blame America.
They just can't help themselves.
And yesterday we had these unbelievable stories in the Boston Globe about both House and Senate Democrats having private meetings even now to try to come to a consensus about what they believe.
When these meetings are a sham, we know what they believe.
We listen to it.
I can tell Tom Daschell what he believes faster than he can.
Ditto Harry Reid, ditto Ted Kennedy, ditto any liberal.
I can tell them what they believe before they say a word to me.
All they got to do is tell me they're liberal.
But they're having these meetings.
Why?
Because they're trying to figure out what to say that masks who they really are.
But if you stripped it all away yesterday, what you learned was that they were coming up, okay, how should we deal with Iraq?
Do we have a timetable?
No.
Should we get close to a timetable?
Should we say we're going to have a timetable?
Should we say we're not going to go anywhere near a timetable?
But if you boiled it all down, the Democrats were discussing variations of defeat, variations of retreat, variations of giving up.
And that's what they're doing.
They think they're going to appeal to a majority of the American people, and they're not.
American people don't want to give up.
American people don't want to retreat.
The American people don't want defeat in the war on terror or Iraq or anywhere else.
For some reason, the Democrats either think they do or want for it themselves.
And so they're coming up with, and I don't know that they know how they sound to people.
I really don't think, but guys like you, Chris, you hear how they sound and it doesn't dovetail with your instincts anymore.
And so welcome to the fold.
We're happy to have you, and I hope our answers to your timely question of when did liberalism begin helped out.
Back after this, stay with us.
Talent on lawn from God.
Rush Limboy, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, despair, chaos, Supreme Court resignations, torture, hysteria, humiliation, and when they happen, the good times.
Here's Chris in Newport Beach, California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Rush, Rush.
You remember I called you last year, and as the season progressed onward, I thought, no, this is, I thought of it several times.
He couldn't have known.
He couldn't have known Rothelsberger would be in there.
So how did he do it?
But you did it.
You said, oh, my dark horse team would be the Steelers, and my team that I think will repeat, which I asked you who it would be, and you said, yeah, I think they would probably be the one.
So now it's two months away, and we're here again.
Okay, let me retrace the steps here for people because you spoke from a context of being informed about your call, and some may not have heard it.
Chris from Newport Beach called last week about this time and asked me going into the NFL season, who do I think will be the surprise team of the year?
And I said, the Steelers.
And he said, who do you think will repeat?
And I said, the Patriots.
And for all intents and purposes, both were right on the money.
And he wants to know how I did this and then what my suggestions or predictions for this year will be.
There wasn't any science in this.
You simply take the team least likely.
This is just the nature of the NFL.
Take the team least likely in everybody's minds to succeed and pick them because that's been what's happened.
All these surprise teams, you could pick Cleveland this year and be a genius if their new coach turns out well.
I'm not going to pick Cleveland as a surprise team.
I haven't thought about the NFL season enough yet, but I'll tell you this.
The Steelers will be a surprise team again by being nearly as good.
Steelers will not be nearly as good this year as they were last year.
Just mark my words.
And the Patriots, the reason I picked the Patriots last year is because they're just one of the best organizations out there.
And you can go into the season, baseball or football.
You know, there are always going to be some teams that are going to be there.
And you know, no matter what they do, some teams that aren't going to be there.
So you throw those out, and then you're left with what could be the surprise teams.
And the Eagles will not be there.
Eagles, I mean, they may win the division, but they're not going to go back Super Bowl.
The Eagles, I don't think the Eagles are going to Dallas.
No, I don't think they still have a quarterback.
They traded one 45-year-old for a 50-year-old.
Got rid of Testa Verde, got Drew Blitz.
No disrespect to Drew Bledsoe, but I mean, they're not.
I don't see it.
Throw some names, throw some teams out there for me, Chris.
Tell me what you're thinking about it.
Well, what do you think about the Chargers?
Chargers are from.
Now, the Chargers are one of these teams that if they do well, it's not going to be a surprise this year.
They're going to be a team having expectations.
And high expectations are going to be on them because of their season last year.
So I won't be surprised if they do well again.
I think they're a young nucleus of a team.
Steelers, problem with the Steelers, they lost their offensive line in free agency, a lot of it, and they've got some injuries on the remaining parts.
They got some injured guys that were out all last year coming back this year.
They've got to remeld and merge.
They've lost their 6'5 wide receiver that was supposedly some attitudinal problems, but he was comfort zone for Rothlessberger.
Plexico Burris, who is now with the New York Giants.
As to the Eagles, you got one answer to the Eagles problems, Terrell Owens.
I mean, he is Tigers, a Tiger.
Terrell Owens is Terrell Owens, and there's already dissension on the team that they're trying to cover up and this sort of thing.
In terms of the surprise teams, you wouldn't want to go with the Fortinets.
49ers are still so far down there that a surprise by them would be winning a game.
The Jets, the Jets, the Jets, the Jets.
Jets.
Well, again, they were in the playoffs last year.
It wouldn't be a surprise if they made the playoffs this year.
His question is, who's the real?
And I'm just having trouble thinking right now of a bit.
But look, Chris, I appreciate the call.
As you people know, I love talking about this stuff.
But training camps haven't even opened.
We don't know who's going to be thrown out of the league for behavior problems.
We don't know who's going to be on injured reserve for a while.
It's really too soon to start making these kinds of predictions.
Back after this.
All right, folks, that's it.
HR had to leave to beat some thunderstorms, so he'd go on his vacation.
So Mr. Snirdley will be screening calls.
I'm just warning you for the final hour of the program.
We'll get to it when we come back.
Be nice in there.
▲
Export Selection