All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:11
September 1, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, so I'm checking the email during the top of the hour break, the subscriber email, and I get this.
Hey, Rush, I had a vasectomy this morning, and you are totally making the recovery easier.
Watching you on the Ditto Cam today is especially delightful.
Thanks, Rush, and happy trails.
His name is John.
Yes, my friends, just so there are no questions, this is a very hard-hitting show, but never in the groin.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Oh, yeah, there's another email.
Guy wrote in, he says, I got a title for your movie if you actually do the movie about Clinton being beheaded.
Bill Clinton, no more head.
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, the sick thing is Clinton would probably love a movie made about him in it.
I think the guy's just, I think he'd probably absolutely love it.
Anyway, here's the rules for Open Line Friday.
Ladies and gentlemen, when we go to the phones, the program's yours.
Talk about whatever you want to talk about.
In case, you know, Monday through Thursday, this is really, we keep it tied down to things that interest me.
But on Friday, we'll expand that so that you can have a say, if you want, about things that haven't been discussed that you think should be.
Again, telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I want to play you one more soundbite about the Canadian movie Death of a President about the assassination of George W. Bush.
I had some people write and say, hey, Rush, you don't know what you're talking about.
The president was assassinated last year on 24.
No, the ex-president was assassinated on 24.
Not a sitting.
Besides, it's a fictional show.
You can't draw the comparisons.
Anyway, good morning, America, today.
Tana Hernandez, this is how she reported the story.
In the 93-minute film Death of a President, President Bush is about to deliver a speech at a Chicago hotel when he is confronted by a massive anti-war demonstration.
Later, as Mr. Bush leaves the hotel, he is shot by a Syrian-born assassin.
What's most disturbing for some is how real the scene looks.
Actual assassination scenes have been a source of national trauma.
The shooting of President Reagan and the murder of alleged Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
So even though the film is a work of fiction, advanced response in this country has been harsh.
Director Gabriel Range's reaction, quote, it's a striking premise which may be seen as highly controversial, but it is a serious film which I hope will open up the debate on where current U.S. foreign and domestic policies are taking us.
The White House won't comment, simply saying the movie doesn't dignify a response.
All right, there you have it from the director himself, Gabriel Range.
We'll open up the debate on where current U.S. foreign and domestic policies are taking us.
This is, what do you expect he might be saying?
I mean, with a foreign policy like this, you would expect the guy to get shot, and that's what we're going to look at.
So it essentially is blaming Bush for taking us in this direction, blaming Bush and saying, hey, it only makes sense if we get assassinated, and that's why I'm doing the movie.
The left is going haywire.
You probably have heard about the Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, had this big anti-war, anti-Bush rally yesterday.
You know that we've been chronicling this for you.
The left is getting all upset again.
Rumsfeld is out there making speeches at the Salt Lake City at the American Legion Convention.
And he has an op-ed today in the Los Angeles Times.
And all of a sudden, out of the blue again, the Dems, you can't challenge our patriotism.
How dare you challenge our patriotism?
Getting awfully defensive about this, which tells me, folks, that what Rumsfeld and Bush are doing is resonating.
And what we are saying on this program is resonating with the Dems.
They're getting all defensive about the fact that they are invested in America's defeat.
And they are now trying to redefine what patriotism is so that you can support and advocate for the defeat of your country.
That is patriotic.
Mrs. Clinton in that screeching soundbite that we keep playing says that it's patriotism to disagree with the president of the United States.
The Democrats are now wanting to censure Rumsfeld.
They are seeking a vote of no confidence in Rumsfeld.
They want Rumsfeld to shut up.
Democrats are actually Harry Reid and so forth.
What he's saying is not useful.
They're actually telling Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, not to make any more speeches.
They're advocating this publicly.
Why?
Because he's exposing them.
He is exposing them as Bush exposed them yesterday in his speech to the American Legion.
And so now, in addition to running against Bush, the Democrats are running against somebody who hasn't even been elected, and that's Rumsfeld.
This notion that they're going to run away with the House and the Senate don't buy this, folks.
You got to hear these soundbites.
This is Mayor Rocky Anderson at the anti-war, anti-Bush rally in Salt Lake City yesterday.
Let no one deny that we are patriots.
Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism.
A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet, to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host, or to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, warmongering, human rights-violating president.
And there you have it.
So there's the new definition of patriotism, standing up against a warmongering, dishonest, human rights-violating president.
Now, these are the people, as I mentioned to you yesterday, who want to punish this country for a few incidents in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
These are the same people that want to shut down a foreign surveillance program designed to catch and apprehend those who want to kill us.
These are the same people who are doing everything they can to secure our defeat.
And yet they don't want their patriotism challenged.
Well, to me, it isn't patriotic to act as they are, especially if you are invested in your country's defeat.
Patriotism to me is rallying around the country and not destroying the mission and the morale of troops who are out fighting the mission.
But they've just gone over the cliff, folks.
They are insane.
They are in the first stages of utter madness.
Here's more from Mayor Rocky Anderson.
That is not a patriot.
Rather, that person is a sycophant.
That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience, a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular.
And I suspect that person is afraid.
Afraid we are right.
Afraid of the truth, even to the point of denying it.
Wait a minute.
Stop the tape.
Mr. Anderson, Mayor, nobody's trying to shut you up.
In fact, we want you to keep talking.
We want you to keep exposing yourself.
We want the American people to know who all of you people are.
We're not advocating that you be silenced.
We're not advocating that you shut up.
We're not telling you to go to the back of the line.
I think it's your side doing that.
I think I've got the story right here in the Washington Post.
Lawmakers seek a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary.
It is Democrats running around out there trying to get Rumsfeld to shut up.
It's just, you are the oppressors, Mayor Anderson.
You're the guys who authored political correctness.
You are the ones who want to shut up the people with whom you disagree because you can't debate them.
All you can do is attempt to discredit them and call them names.
But you can't debate us or them on the merits.
And so you want them to shut up.
And you try to come up with newfound ways of accomplishing it, either in the law or outside of the law.
Political correctness, which is nothing more than censorship of free speech.
And you guys are the authors.
Here's the rest of his soundbites.
I'm not afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane regime that does not respect the laws and the traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.
Yeah, right.
Well, the American people elected this presidency twice.
Economic news continues to be great.
Unemployment at 4.7%, a whole bunch of new jobs.
There's even a story, somebody out there, say, you know, the American people, I actually have this, it's in the stack.
I actually will find it.
The American people, quote, the American people are not cooperating with economic forecasts.
The American people are not cooperating with economic forecasts of an economic downturn or an economic slowdown.
Here is Rocky Anderson, final portion of his remarks.
We will not stand for it anymore.
No more lies, no more preemptive illegal war based on false information.
No more.
God is on our side.
Religious nonsense to justify this immoral, illegal war.
No more humanity.
So let's raise our voices and demand, give us the truth.
Give us the truth.
Give us the truth.
Do it for Paul.
Do it for Paul.
Sounds like Tom Harkin at the Wellstone Memorial.
Do it for Paul.
Say yes for Paul.
Did you notice in these soundbites, we didn't, in this last bite, we did edit the applause, but you heard the applause starting and we edited for time.
But the one thing in all these bites that got resounding applause was in the guy RIPS religion.
When he rips God, that, folks, I can't tell you that the left, its fingernails on the chuckboard amplified to a thousand decibels.
They just can't stand it.
And I just know that yesterday, Bush just drove them nuts when he referenced Almighty God in his speech to the American Legion.
A brief time out.
We'll be back and continue in El Jiffo.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
El Rushbo on top of things, every moment of the busy broadcast day at 800-282-2882.
Washington Post today.
Democrats target Rumsfeld.
So they now want to run against Rumsfeld, another person not running for an office, who hasn't even been elected to an office.
The story is by Jonathan Weissman.
Democrats planning to push for a vote of no confidence in Rumsfeld this month as part of a broad effort to stay on the offensive ahead of the November midterm elections.
Keep it up.
Keep going.
Keep it up, Libs.
Make sure every American knows where you stand on national security.
Make sure every American knows you want to censor people who say things you can't stand, you can't agree with, and that you can't defend when they're right.
In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they've found a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush, and what they see is his blunders in Iraq.
Why do you need to stand in for Bush?
Is that not going well?
All of a sudden you need to stand in for George W. Bush.
Rather than change the subject to domestic issues, as they have tried in past years, Democrats are hoping to confront Republicans head-on.
Nancy Pelosi will not be swiftboarded on this issue.
Yes, you will.
It's going to be fun.
Harry Reid, Dingy Harry, we're approaching 2,700 dead Americans, 20,000 wounded, many of them missing eyes, missing limbs, and facing paralysis.
They want to debate that?
We're happy to debate that.
Okay, and then Rumsfeld himself comes back firing today in the Los Angeles Times.
New enemies demand new thinking.
And this is an op-ed that's in response to all the cat calls of opposition from his speech earlier this week at the American Legion Convention.
And basically what this piece does, it says, hey, I meant what I said, and here it is again, pal.
In the last few days, I've had the opportunity to speak at the annual convention of EFW, the American Legion, always a humbling experience.
We were again engaged in conflicts that are testing whether we believe that the defense of liberty is worth the cost.
And again, there are those who disagree with the mission, who question whether it's worth the sacrifice that's to be expected in a time of war.
Today, some think that World War II and the Cold War were black and white affairs, good versus evil, but there was always, there were always those who thought that we should treat, retreat within our borders.
In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of World War I, much of the Western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia.
In the years before World War II, those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism, and communism were often ridiculed and ignored, i.e. Churchill.
The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we've faced in the past, but its goal is similar, to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world.
In speaking to our veterans, I suggested several questions to guide us during the struggle against violent extremists.
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?
That just really bore when you call them appeasers.
But what are, when their answer to everything is diplomacy, when their answer to everything is we must have talks, when their answer to everything is we must have dialogue, we must have peace resolutions.
We must go to the United Nations.
Where is Dominic de Villipin?
What else are they?
If not appeasers.
Rumsfeld asks, can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
As I have brilliantly asked, how do you negotiate with people whose starting point is your death?
Oh, go, go.
Can you wait for 10 years?
Maybe 15 or 25?
No.
All right, how about if we give you, how about if you, just, we'll all let you have one of our arms.
Okay, go ahead and do that.
We're still going to kill you.
Okay, how about if we give it all the Republicans for fine?
I don't care where you start.
We're going to kill you anyway.
Can't you just wait a while?
I mean, we don't want to die.
Is there something we can give your lives?
Where do you start with these people?
When good negotiates with evil, evil always wins, ladies and gentlemen.
Rumsfeld also says this.
We also should be aware that the struggle is too important, the consequences too severe, to allow a blame America First mentality to overwhelm the truth that our nation, though imperfect, is a force for good in the world.
And that is just driving them nuts.
They are the blame America First crowd, and that's why they're in a conniption fit.
It is about time somebody in the administration started speaking this way.
I am ecstatic that Rumsfeld did this because he's calling them out, and it's working.
You can't, what do you mean, Blame America First?
Listen to this Rocky Anderson guy.
We're not unpatriotic.
We just want this country to lose.
We are tired of having a lying, stinking president who told us lies and get us into a war and it's not more blood.
Yeah, don't like it, do you?
They just can't stand it when the truth about them is said.
Liberals' entire existence is camouflaging who they are, except out there on the nut roots.
They're perfectly honest and happy, to be honest, and that's good.
But the other liberals try to hide who they really are.
Consider that a database search of the nation's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib than of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the global war on terror.
And that's exactly right.
When you have people who are more interested in punishing this country for a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay, and everybody there has been punished themselves by this country, when you have people more interested in punishing the country over those things than they are in defending the country against people who want to kill us, what do you call that?
I don't call it patriotic.
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't patriotic.
It certainly isn't patriotic when you are advocating positions that guarantee your own country's defeat.
I don't care what anybody says.
That is not patriotic.
So Donald Rumsfeld is out firing both barrels and they can't stand it out there.
And that's why they're demanding that he be given a vote of no confidence as though this is some parliamentary government or that he shut up.
But they won't.
They're not going to shut up now and they're not retiring now.
We're in it for a long haul.
Wow, they keep finding new people to subsidize these ads.
Open line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh back to the phones.
Stand by up there, audio soundbites 8 through 10.
Richard in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to our broadcast.
Thanks, Rush.
I did want to say that yesterday I paid $2.59 for gasoline.
I'm holding my receipt in my former nicotine stained fingers.
And a year ago, I was told that my president raised the price after Katrina to $305 a gallon.
So I just wanted to call and say my president lowered the price yesterday to $259.9.
What a president.
What a deal.
I'm going to vote Republican.
Well, that's right.
That's exactly right.
But did you hear the commercial we just played from moveon.org?
Yeah, I did.
Thanks for that.
That's all a conspiracy, aren't they?
They're falling for it, Richard.
Of course, Bush lowered the oil price to gas price.
Bush and Rove, it's election season.
Right.
Big oil.
They have the market demand, Russia.
It's supply and demand.
Of course, it is, of course.
But they're panicked.
You know, this is the thing.
Bad news for them is good news for America.
Good news for America, bad news for the Democrats.
What, Mr. Sturdley?
Yeah, some of the cable guys are reporting gas is going down, but it's not nearly the coverage that we got when the gas prices were going up.
Gas prices were going up.
We heard about it every nickel.
But we're not hearing about the gas price going down.
We're not hearing hardly anything at all about it.
That's why I'm saying it's good news for America, bad news for the libs and the drive-by media, and versa visa.
Yeah, let's have some congressional hearings.
Let's find out why the gas price is plummeting.
What's happening to price oil out there?
Because something's odd.
The Chinese are not using less.
The Russians aren't using less.
Where's the worldwide demand gone down?
We need hearings.
There's something not right about the gasoline price coming down, folks.
There really isn't.
You know, maybe Big Oil is counting on another destructive hurricane to keep the price up.
When the hurricane didn't become a destructive hurricane, well, we can't carry the jig up for very long here, so who knows?
But we need hearings into this.
This is Democrats are so nuts.
When the price is going through the roof, John Kerry, the campaign demands Bush get together with the Saudis to do something about it.
When the price is going down, they get paranoid that there's some kind of a secret deal with big oil in order to screw them regarding the election.
All right.
As you know, the President of the United States and Secretary Rumsfeld are referring to our enemies as Islamofascists.
And the left doesn't like that.
Just ask yourself a question.
Forget the label.
They're the enemy.
We can call them scalywags.
We can call them human debris.
We can call them Nazis.
We can call them anything.
We're calling them Islamofascists and the left.
And the drive-by media is beside itself.
Now, why?
What does it matter what you call them?
Are we disrespecting the enemy?
Or is it that the Bush administration is finally defining the scope of terror that people need to realize we face, and the left is paranoid that it might work?
It is obviously the latter.
We have some sound bites to illustrate this.
Today on CNN's American Morning, the guest is correspondent and political scientist Bill Schneider.
The co-host, Soledad O'Brien, said another word for terrorist has become Islamic fascists or Islamic fascism.
And we've heard it a number of times.
What do you mean, you guys won't even call them that?
Reuters not allowed to call them terrorists.
You people at CNN persist in referring to them as insurgents.
That's probably the answer.
Insurgents can't call them terrorists.
Now they're Islamic fascists.
This is why we question what your true patriotic beliefs are, those of you people on the left.
What does this matter?
This obviously upsets you for political reasons.
So Soledad O'Brien says, Bill, we've heard this a number of times now, and the president's kind of linking the fascists, the Nazis, and the communists all together, especially, you know, in front of a very friendly audience he was talking to of veterans.
What's behind this strategy, Bill?
The word fascism, I'm not sure, is entirely descriptive.
Fascism implies belligerent nationalism, racism, dictatorship, an all-powerful state.
Terms that aren't really descriptive of the religious extremists and radicals that are involved that are really the enemy in this fight.
But it does throw, it serves a political purpose more than an analytical purpose.
It throws the critics of the war on the defensive because it portrays them as people who are not fighting fascism.
It sees this as a new Cold War in which the critics are really not doing their part.
Yeah, it's pretty accurate, Bill.
Congratulations.
I don't know how long you have left at CNN, but got something right there.
Now, it is not a stretch to link militant Islamists with Nazism.
The former Grand Pubah Mufti of Jerusalem met with Adolf Hitler back in the 30s.
We've got the article in our archives at the website.
We have posted it.
There are pictures.
I mean, militant Islamists and the Nazis had something in common.
They hated Jews, and they were in unison all the way back in the 30s on this.
And some of the techniques Hitler used are obviously being employed now.
It's not a stretch whatsoever.
Last night on Hardball, Nora O'Donnell interviewing political analyst Bob Schrum.
Bob, you think part of the problem the Democrats have is they don't have a message to respond to the president?
When the other side, and in this case, the president of the White House, start throwing around analogies to Nazis and fascists and words like that, you know they're desperate.
They're going to run the third 9-11 election in a row because they have nothing else to run on.
I don't think it's going to work because I think the American people know we have a Katrina foreign policy.
This president says we have to win the war on terror.
We're not winning it.
Osama bin Laden is on the loose.
Al-Qaeda is reorganizing all over Afghanistan, has cells around the world.
And you don't want to do diddly squat about it.
Unbelievable.
Has anybody heard their plan to deal about this?
Has anybody heard of the Democrat plan to deal with it?
If they think this is true, that bin Laden's bigger than ever, that they're reorganizing with cells all over Afghanistan, all over the world.
Tell me, Mr. Schrum, what your plan is, what your party's plan is to deal with this.
Because I'll tell you, the way you're dealing with it right now is trying to make people think the threat's not that big, that Bush has made it all up, and it's just a campaign issue now.
Do you people understand how strange you sound?
How delinked from reality you sound?
Now, stick with me on this, folks, because what we have here are a bunch of Democrats in the media outraged, beside themselves, wringing their hands, pulling their hair out over the term Islamo-fascist.
Got a note today from my buddy Jim Garrity at National Review Online.
Thought of the day, he writes, seeing how senior Democratic lawmakers are strenuously objecting to administration officials using the term Islamist fascism and insisting the comparison is inapt, and their comparative silence when Dick Durbin compared the U.S. troops in Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime poll pot,
we've now reached the point where it is acceptable to compare a U.S. soldier guarding a captured terrorist to a Nazi, but not the guy he is guarding.
And Jim is exactly right here.
I know there was an outcry over Durbin, but it was from the right.
It was not from the left.
The left wasn't bothered what Durbin said.
They weren't bothered about it at all.
Mr. Garrity further shares with us an anecdote that he wrote on his blog, The Carry Spot at National Review Online.
This is from 2004.
I'll read this briefly.
In 2004, the final night of the Republican convention, after wrapping up coverage, I had one of those rare big shot moments of my life going to the rainbow room at Rockefeller Center.
I ran into another National Review editor.
We talked about Bush's speech and the likely outcome of the race.
Bush has to win, this editor said, because you don't win a presidential race by throwing a propaganda film of half-truths at the multiplex.
He was talking about Fahrenheit 911.
You don't win the presidency because you get Hollywood to come out and help you putting Ben Affleck on crossfire.
You don't get to be commander-in-chief by repeating I served in Vietnam endlessly or making nonsense claims that Bush will reinstate the draft or because Bruce Springsteen's doing concert rallies through the swing states or because your supporters infiltrated Madison Square Garden to disrupt the president's speech, essentially protesting the president's right to address the nation.
Bush wins this and maybe the Democrats wake up and get serious and offer a coherent alternative.
Well, the editor was right.
It didn't add up to a formula for victory for the Democrats.
Whether the party learned from their mistakes is another story.
Today, there's frustration in the land.
Understandable bloggers are fed up with pork, want to track down Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, get a good secret hold on their collars and shake them vigorously.
But do Democrats get to win back Congress this year based on the performance they've turned in lately?
When their plan on Iraq is essentially pull out and hope it gets better, and the most prominent spokesman wants a rapid response force based in Okinawa?
Do they deserve to win when a potential committee chairman, John Dingell, said he doesn't want to take sides for or against Hezbollah?
Do they get to win when they object to the term Islamic fascism, essentially arguing that the guys we're fighting can't be fascist because they don't have spiffy uniforms and a distinctive march?
What?
Are they worried that the label fascist will unfairly tarnish the reputations of al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Nasrallah and Hezbollah, and the Iranian mullahs?
Judging by the reaction at Durban last year, Nazi comparisons are okay for U.S. troops guarding al-Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but not okay for the actual terrorists these guys are guarding.
When they knock out the one undisputed hawk in their caucus, Lieberman, replace him with Ned Lement, who pledges America is stronger when we work with our families and our allies, do they deserve to win for this?
Do they deserve to win?
Do they get to win back Congress?
When they've spent much of the year beating the drums over a crime that didn't occur, the Plame episode, when they had to abandon the culture of corruption argument because members of their caucus had cash in their freezer and took a swing at a capital police officer?
When there's no chance whatsoever that these folks would really crack down on illegal immigration and they not so subtly suggest that wanting immigration laws enforced is de facto racism, do they really get to win the presidency on issues like this?
Do they really get to win?
Do they really get to is that how you get the presidency?
Produce documentaries like Al Gore and Fahrenheit 911.
Is that how you do it?
Almost worked, but it didn't work, and now they're trying to...
Look, it's a great piece for illustrating the vacancy of their ideas.
The vacancy of who they are.
Brief timeout, my friends.
Back with much more right after this.
Our old buddy, Al Wilson, and show and tell from the mid-1970s in the approved bumper rotation.
I've been thinking about the name of our movie we're going to do on Clinton being beheaded, kidnapped and beheaded.
Guy wrote in with a suggestion, Bill Clinton, no more head.
It may be going a little far, maybe a little brutal to assume that.
I think we should call it brave crotch.
It's Open Line Friday.
El Rushbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Mike in Pittsburgh.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you.
Rich White, brainwashed Christian Ditto.
Appreciate that.
While on hold, I'll be quick to my point.
While on hold, I was wondering about that Utah mayor.
If a liberal's in a forest and no one's around, is he still anti-Christian and un-American?
Yes.
Okay.
Wherever they are.
That's right.
Now to my point.
And don't be a liberal.
I want black and white answers.
Steelers' record, do they win the division?
And your PC pick, the dirty, polluting Steeltown team versus the angel-like, smarter-than-human whale killers.
All right.
We'll do the environmental wacko pick next Thursday because the Steelers and Dolphins open the season in Pittsburgh, which is traditional.
Now, it'll be on NBC, Al Michaels, and John Madden.
So, we'll do the environmental wacko pick of the Steelers and Dolphins next Thursday on the day of the game.
As to the Steelers' record this year, you know, last year I thought they'd be 9-7.
I did not foresee anything last year.
This year, my doubt, my only doubt about the Steelers, is they don't have the bus and they don't have a pounding-running game inside the 10-yard line inside the 20s, unless Deuce Staley can somehow come back to the form he had two years ago when the Steelers signed him as a free agent from the Philadelphia Iggles.
If they don't have a big bruising back, they get Willie Parker, who is a speed demon, fast Willie is easy.
He's a great back, but they didn't use him.
He scored four or five touchdowns all year last year to bust far more with much many fewer yards.
So, if they don't have the big bruising back, if Stanley doesn't make it, then they're going to have to require a change in their offensive scheme to accommodate for that.
Last time the Steelers became a throwing team, they ended up 6-10.
So, they're not going to do that.
I know that the Cowers are not going to go back and emphasize the passing game to the extent that they did that year with Mike Malarkey, who was the offensive coordinator.
Ken Wizenhunt, Coach Wiz, is the offensive coordinator now, and I don't think they'll make the mistake.
But it's going to necessitate some changes.
And you just can't look past the Cincinnati Bengals.
I mean, that team is up and coming.
Carson Palmer looks like he's back in his head as well as physically in the knee.
So it's going to be a great season.
It's all I can tell you.
It's tough to repeat as Super Bowl champs.
That's what makes the New England Patriots and the 70s Steelers so amazing.
Don and Lake Ron Konkama, nice to have you with us in New York.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, we make it as rush.
Great to see you.
I'd like to go back to that to the ABC film, the 9-11 film.
Okay, and it seems that Clinton's call to Robert Iger that did the edit of the 9-11 film, it's not new.
If you remember, our friends over at the Media Research Center, Franco's Health Group, they reported that the VH1 tape of the Benefit for New York was doctored to remove the booze of Hillary Clinton at that event.
I do have a vague memory of that.
Yeah, you remember you had Firefox.
VH1, the sister network to MTV, they both used to be pretty good.
Now they've just gone to the sewer.
That's right.
But I remember you had Firefighter Mike Moran, whose brother died.
Yes.
He was on the show.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
And that's where it was that all these booze for Mrs. Clinton when she just showed up.
When she just showed up.
And VH1, Clinton called up Tom Freston.
I think it was running the place.
Hey, pal, you know, you saw what happened to Torch, Torcelli, and Andrew Cuomo.
You're going to edit some of that out, aren't you?
I don't know what he's going to threaten Bob Iger with.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Washington Post in an editorial today says it's unfortunate so many people took Joe Wilson seriously.
I kid you not.
They actually write that.
That's how it ends.
▲
Export Selection