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 conversationalist music lovers all across the uh fruit and play in the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular.
Growing my 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 a 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 EIB net.com.
Sandra Day O'Connor is still retired.
There is not, the president has not yet named a uh 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 uh 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 gonna 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.
Um they're upset about it.
The Wall Street Journal um actually has a pretty good uh uh 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 when you stop and think about it, after all, what happened?
Robert Novak has a has a confidential source.
Confidential source, somewhere high ranking told him the name of a uh 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 is 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 this conservative.
We want to find out who's talking to him.
Have you not been sort of humored uh 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 thart.
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 uh 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 in 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 Journalist 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 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.
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 Times 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 uh jury.
Some of the announcement uh some said the announcement by Norman Perlstein, Time Inc.
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, um, yeah, I think the media is in its last throws.
I I think that's I think I think all of this indicates that the you know there may even a point uh Pearlsteiner, not Pearlstein, but some of these critics may have a point I'm about this this corporate ownership, but they're missing what the real point is.
See, journalists traditionally don't want half 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 should get health benefits and time to walk the dog, uh, and dental benefits and a pension, whether their company makes money or not.
Because their mission is so important.
Why they are the defenders, 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, gonna get rid of 200 people.
Dan Rather, you can't do that.
All the other CBS News, you can't do that.
Tis said, why not?
Well, well, Paley never did it.
That's why you can't do it.
Well, I'm not Paley.
And I'm not gonna 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 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's the law.
Supreme Court says we gotta do this, and uh, you know, whether we like it or not, we uh we enjoy our freedoms because that very constitution we 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 uh 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's always owned the media.
So this is a straw dog.
I think what that just illustrates is that the most journalists couldn't care less whether the people they work for make any money or not.
They don't think it matters, certainly not to whether they get paid or not.
You know, and the shareholders and board of directors uh maybe a threat to journalism, uh Is what the the claim, oh, yeah, this is a threat to doing real journalism.
Sometimes, 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 uh 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 up starts?
They're not watching us.
Those who do those 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 uh that they would make.
Here is uh Orville Shell.
Orville Shell 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.
Uh we had a caller yesterday made a great point.
Burn the source.
The source is getting you and if 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.
Uh let's see, who else would have a quote here from uh 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 of Novik?
It's actually a column by Jonathan Turley, uh, a pretty lib uh legal analyst who gets passed off as a moderate conservative sometimes, but he's a professor at uh George Washington University Law Scruel, and uh he's he's all upset that Novak seems to be unscathed here.
Uh we'll take a break and get back to all this right after this, so stay with us.
Okay, since it's uh open line Friday, let's head back to the uh to the phones.
Uh we got more audio sound bites.
Yes.
I excuse me.
I have the soundbite of Brian Williams that uh of NBC that seems to have upset so many people.
Uh and we'll get to that here in uh well, he compared he compared the insurgent terrorists in Iraq to our founding fathers.
Uh on the Yes, he did, he did, he did.
And uh we we have we have the 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 caller ditors from what used to be Jesse Helms country.
Thank you, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Um, great to be.
I'm very glad to be here.
For a month, the Senate Democrats filibustered Janice Rogers Brown because of her extreme.
For years, right views on private property rights.
For years, three years.
Then several weeks ago, Joseph Biden said that he's against her appointment because she was 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 uh she would defend the people's rights to end their homes.
Bill Frift, Orrin 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.
Uh actually, uh 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 the San Remo Hotel is a hotel currently occupied by residents.
Low-income uh 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's.
You can't do that.
And the San Remo Hotel, so why not?
It's our hotel.
Oh no, it's not.
We have an ordinance.
And says we 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 that Joe Biden and Pelosi and Boxer couldn't deal with.
They were they were they they they thought that the uh 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.
Uh 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 DC Court of Appeals.
But if they follow my advice, the White House, and nominate her to fill the position of uh 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's she was just sworn into the D.C. Court of Appeals last week or two weeks ago.
They even better.
Should have a record there they can oppose.
Make them start it all over again.
Would love it.
Here's uh here's Tom and Berwin of Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Uh Megadetos from uh Live Eight Land.
I live uh with within spitting distance of Live Eight here in Philly.
And uh, 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 G eight to with uh um you know forgive all the debts and also give more money to China.
So that means that the uh money's gonna come out of the um the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which is funded by the United States primarily.
So I I'll give you three guesses as to what live eight actually is.
It's a tax increase.
It's a hoped-for tax.
In fact, he's exactly right.
Let's go to audio soundbites 1415 and 16 since we've got your call, because we have Bono, uh, who is uh he was on the CNN's uh 360 with uh Anderson Cooper, which is out of phase by 180.
Uh, and uh Anderson Cooper on Out of Fae is 180, interviewed Bono and said, Bono, live aid, target audience, people around the world try to raise money.
Live eight really is your target audience, the world leaders.
Live aid, the original live eight twenty years ago was about charity.
You know, we all we all put our hands in our pockets.
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 uh tax dollars can achieve in uh in the impoverished continent of Africa and elsewhere.
So I uh Tom from Berwin may have a point here.
The live eight concert is actually encouraging tax increases, worldwide tax increases.
Um I I would encourage all of you liberals, and I know you love Tina Brown.
I mean, she's pop culture goddess.
Uh 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 don't have 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 it and this guy said, you know, you can throw all the money at Africa you want, and it's gonna 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 and do raising money for Africa, never hear about Sedan?
Never hear about the uh the the the uh Rwandan Zenith.
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 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 well, I mean, what else is it, Mr. Sturdley?
Okay, a couple more sound bites here from uh from Bono with uh Anderson Cooper on uh CNN last night.
The last one's really uh actually the first the the the last one here is not from CNN, it's from CBS this morning.
Uh but after 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?
I mean, as you go into this G eight 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 at from a very low place.
And that's that.
So we're trying to turn that around now.
And I think uh, as I say, if it's targeted, focused aid, spent well to re reward um the uh 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 uh on CBS, uh their morning show, the uh the correspondent Tracy Smith reported on the Live Aid 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 twelve thousand dollars at a concert that's supposed to be about relieving poverty.
Ho ho ho ho.
Uh how long does this 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.
Isn't she maybe not really totally on board with the whole live eight spin?
Uh a sour note in this musical love fist, she said.
The stars are all getting goodie bags worth about 12,000 at a concert that's supposed to be about relieving poverty.
Uh it's no, actually, she's she's she's safe because she is wrong.
It's not about relieving poverty, it's about raising taxes.
This is a this is the first rock concert to raise taxes around the world.
It is historical in that uh in that sense that there has uh ever been a bah rock concert to raise taxes.
Here is Chris in Salt Lake City, your next at Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
I'm just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, I just have a question for you.
You know, I'm um been listening to your show about a year now, and I'm understanding liberalism a little bit more and more well, as much as you can, I guess, but can you how old are you?
How old are you?
I'm tw I'm 29.
29.
What's so hard to understand about it for you?
Uh well, you know, I just I think by understanding where it 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 yeah that's sort of like trying to define uh are we here by virtue of the Bing Bang or creation?
Okay.
But you know, we you can have some fun with this.
Now, if if I were my old uh 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?
Uh 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.
Yeah.
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.
Uh and and people have been, you know, they've been trying to answer where.
Where what?
Where why?
Where who uh and this is good because it it promotes a general curiosity, and anything that promotes general curiosity is good.
The second part of the question, did liberalism start?
Yes.
Um that's how Professor Irwin Corey would answer this question.
Uh we think, I think liberalism was officially enshrined with Marxism.
Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
Mr Mr. Snerdley thinks that liberalism uh domestically in this country was uh officially enshrined with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Um H. R. Kit Carson says, if you my chief of staff is if you want to find out where liberalism began, you're gonna have to go back into recorded history and find the first recorded instance of class envy.
Okay.
Uh because class envy is one of the building blocks of liberalism.
Uh but I th I think I think if you could 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.
Uh and and if if uh if their intentions were to uh make everybody live as miserably but equally as possible or as comfortable as possible, you can say that would be liberalism as well.
But you know, it there's so many ways to um uh uh I I mean I 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, but most people around the world have been willing to trade their liberty and freedom for safety and security, and that is trusting uh all powerful government or or what have you.
Uh the people who have stood for individual freedom, the little small man opposed to big odds, uh in David and Goliath, Goliath's the liberal, David's the conservative.
Uh and and that's that's that's been the the history uh 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 in uh something more powerful even than Moses, despite what he had demonstrated.
I mean, you it would be very difficult to to uh uh uh really trace beginnings of liberalism, but if you want to if official liberalism that spawned that kind of official thinking among powerful elites in this country, I you'd have to say it's Marx.
You'd have to say 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, it's ten points, you'll see that nine of them we already have.
And they're all they always involve big government, they always involve uh uh 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.
Uh FDR enshrined it in government with uh social security in the New Deal and the notion that government can provide all the answers and all the needs of all people.
Yeah, it's pretty phony.
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 is very conservative like yourself and um my mom, and 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, um I just my eyes started to open to things, you know, I'd watched you a little bit when you're on television and and I started tuning into your radio show about a year ago, and uh 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 is down in the dunce all the time, and I I gotta tell you, you've been very inspiring for me.
And uh, you know, I continue to listen to you to this day, and I you're absolutely right.
I mean, you just you make sense, and uh 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.
Uh a lot of people, a lot of people uh, you know, their their ideological opinions are formed by their parents, grandparents, and the uh the forces surrounding them when they grew up.
Some people even have tried some scientists lately tried to advance the notion that uh that ideology is genetic.
Did you see that?
That uh uh and all that.
But um, you I think yeah, you know, Mr. Snerdley has a point about you, Chris, and I'm I'm gonna repeat this.
It's a good point.
Following the November 2002 elections, Tom Dashell, after this humiliating defeat after the Wellstone uh rally that was disguised as a funeral, uh, or maybe it was the Wellstone funeral disguised as a rally.
I don't know what it was, but it it it it doomed them.
And then of course, their indecision on the war on terror response to 9-11.
Uh they they just they just doomed themselves.
And Tom Dashall, after this election, when he thought he was going to get control of the Senate back and didn't, uh, 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 uh 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 Dashell was talking about.
And it's happening, and it's been happening uh now for four sixteen years.
You know, I I can imagine the number of the things that 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 from 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 I can tell Tom Dashall what he believes faster than he can.
Ditto Harry Reid, did oh Ted Kennedy, did oh, any liberal.
I can tell them what they believe before they say a word to me.
All they gotta 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 gonna have a timetable?
Should we say we're not gonna go anywhere near a time table?
But if you if you 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 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 loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh, 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.
Uh here's Chris in Newport Beach, California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Rush, rush.
Do you remember I called you last year and I as the season progressed onward, I I thought, no, this is yeah, uh I thought of it several times.
He he he couldn't have known.
He couldn't have known Rothesperger would be in there.
So how did he do it?
But you did it.
You said uh oh, my dark horse team would be the uh would be the Steelers and my team that I think will repeat, which I asked you what who it would be, and you said yeah, I think they they would probably be the one.
So now it's two months away, and we're here again.
Okay, let me let me retrace the uh the steps here for people because you spoke from a context of being informed about your call, and some may not have heard it.
Uh Chris from Newport Beach called last week about this time and asked me going in the NFL season.
Uh who do I think uh will will surprise the the surprise team who 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 uh for all intents' purposes, both were uh right on the money.
Uh and he wants to know how I did this and then what my suggestions or predictions for this year will be.
Uh there wasn't any science in this.
Uh uh, you simply take the team least likely.
This is just the the the nature of the NFL.
Take the team least likely in everybody's minds to to succeed and pick 'em.
Because that's that's been what's happened.
Uh the the the all these surprise teams.
You can pick Cleveland this year and uh be a genius if uh their new coach turns up.
Well, I'm not gonna 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 about being nearly as good.
Steelers will not be nearly as good this year as they were last year.
Just mark my words.
And the uh Patriots, uh the reason I picked the Patriots last year is because they're just one of the best organizations out there.
And and you can go into the season, baseball or football, you know there are always gonna be some teams are gonna be there, and you know no matter what they do, some teams that aren't gonna be there.
So you throw those out, and then you're left with what could be the surprise teams and and uh the Eagles Eagles will not be there.
Eagles, I mean, they may win the division, but they're not they're not gonna go back Super Bowl.
Uh Eagles I don't think the Eagles are gonna uh Dallas uh uh no I don't think they still have a quarterback.
They still they they traded one 45-year-old for a 50-year-old.
Uh got rid of Testa Verde, got uh Drew Blitz.
Oh, no, no disrespect to Drew Bledsoe, but I mean they they they're not uh I don't see it.
Um throw some names, throw some teams out there for me, Chris.
Well tell me what you're thinking about it.
Well, I would uh what do you think about uh the uh Chargers?
Chargers are from the Chargers are one of these teams that that uh if if they do well, it's not gonna be a surprise this year.
They're they're they're they're gonna be a team having expectations.
Yeah.
Um and they've and uh high expectations gonna be on them because of their season last year.
Uh so I I won't be surprised if they do well again.
I think they're a young nucleus of a team and doing Steelers Steelers uh problem with the Steelers, they lost their offensive line in free agency or 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 got to re meld and merge.
Uh they've they've lost their six foot five wide receiver that uh was supposedly some attitudinal problems, but he was comfort zone for Rothesburger.
Uh uh Plexico Burris, who is who is now with uh with uh the New York Giants.
Uh as to the Eagles, that you got you got one answer to the Eagles problems, Terrell Owens.
I mean, he is Tigers or Tiger, Terrell Owens is is is Terrell Owens, and and there's already dissension on the team that they're trying to cover up and this sort of thing.
In terms of the uh the surprise teams, you wouldn't want to go with the Ford and Urdu's.
The 49ers are still so far down there that uh a surprise by them would be winning a game.
Uh the Jets.
The Jets, the Jets, the Jets, Jets.
Well, again, they were they were in a playoffs last year.
If they it wouldn't be a surprise if they made the playoffs this year.
Uh so his question is who on the who's the real and I'm just having trouble thinking uh right now of it.
But look, Chris, I appreciate the call.
I love you know, as you people know I love talking about this stuff.
But uh training camps haven't even opened.
We don't know uh who's gonna be thrown out of the league for behavior problems.
We don't know who is going to be on injured reserve uh for a while.
It's really too soon to start making uh uh these kinds of predictions.
Back after this.
All right, folks, that's it.
Uh HR had to leave to beat some thunderstorms, so he'd go on his vacation.
So uh Mr. Snerdley will be screening calls.
I'm just warning you uh for the final hour of the uh the program.
We'll get to it when we come back.
Uh be nice in there.
▲
Export Selection