All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:56
January 3, 2008, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Come on, point at me.
Tell me it's time to go.
Come on.
19 and a half years, they still don't trust me to execute the programming format.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to be with you.
The telephone number, if you'd like to join us, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, folks, let me try to explain this a different way.
Let's go back to the November elections of 2006.
Remember, we were all angry and disgusted leading into that election over a number of things.
We were upset over the maca business of George Allen and how they've been blown way out of proportion.
Washington Post accomplished, sadly, its objective, which was what?
To keep George Allen out of the presidential field.
If you want to talk Reagan-esque, George Allen.
But he's not there.
Macaca.
Then in the House, we had the Mark Foley incident with the pages and all that other stuff.
And so the Democrats took the House, and how did they do it?
You know, our memories are so short.
How did the Democrats take the House?
What'd they do?
How many of you remember?
The Democrats ran in southern states, conservative Democrats, against Republicans who had campaigned as conservatives, who had been incumbents, who had strayed from conservatism.
And what happened?
The conservative Democrats, enough of them won, to put liberal anti-war nuts in charge of the House of Representatives.
Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and her whole group.
What was the real reason the Republicans lost the House in 2006?
Real reason was that they had abandoned conservatism, the conservatism they swore to, the conservatism they campaigned on.
I mean, it was said, you know, various degrees.
Yeah, they got caught up in all of power and they felt invincible and they abandoned their conservatism instead of doing what they wanted to do to stay there and exercise their power and feel it.
So hello earmarks, hello increased spending and so forth.
I'm here to tell you that the reason the Republicans lost the House in 2006, you could chalk some of it up to Foley, but the corruption stuff was largely focused on the out-of-control spending, whoever was to blame for it, and the perception that Republicans were simply abandoning that which they had promised, conservatism.
Now, I know that coming up in the 2008 presidential race, a number of Republicans just want to win.
They want to win for a number of reasons.
They can't have Hillary.
We don't want Edwards.
We don't want Obama.
We don't want any of those people because they're all the same.
And I'll tell you, by the way, on the Democrat side, Dan Balls has a story in the Washington Post today.
It's pretty accurate, too.
The Democrats are pretty much in the same mode.
They don't care about ideas in this campaign.
They're going to do whatever it takes to win.
Look at Mrs. Clinton.
Every day, a different campaign strategy.
One day she's the woman.
The next day, she's experienced.
The next day, she's for change or what have you.
The Democrats are out there calculating whatever it takes to win.
And they're admitting it in this story that Dan Balls writes in the Washington Post.
I have always believed that campaigns that win do so on the basis of ideas, that take the American voting public seriously, don't insult the American voting public, and actually campaign on ideas.
When this happens, conservatives win.
They win in landslides.
I'll never forget Reagan's two landslides.
And after each of those landslide elections, you'd have Alan Cranston, the senator from California.
Well, that was just a triumph of slick marketing and packaging over common sense.
David Broder, after 1988's 84's landslides, said the same thing in the Washington Post.
They could not, and they still can't.
Liberals could not reconcile the idea if they'd gotten beaten by competing ideas.
And I think there's a lot of, I have a fear that on the Republican side, there's the same attitude.
We got to win, Washington.
We just have to win.
We just have to win.
All right, fine.
I agree.
We've got to win.
But how do you do it?
Do you win by calculating how to win or do you win on the basis of ideas?
Ideas are what give you the mandate.
Ideas, you run on ideas and have your three-legged stool.
I'm going to do these three things or make it four, whatever you want.
Keep it simple.
And then you have, if you win, a mandate to go ahead and implement those things.
You understand what the Democrats are going to do if they win.
They're going to remake this country like you've never seen.
National health care.
They're going to try to implement the fairness doctrine.
They're going to do whatever it takes to make sure they never lose power again.
They're going to do whatever it takes to take out the opposition and make it harder for the opposition to find a voice in the media.
They're going to build up as much social programs as possible, try to create as much dependence as possible on the American people.
They want to remake this country, but they're not going to say this.
They may propose a national health care bill.
Edwards, by the way, is coming the closest of any of them to saying it.
Edwards is out there pretty much telling you what all these Democrats are going to do.
They're going to go after all the corporations.
They're going to go after everybody that claims that they claim is rich.
They're going to go after everybody that disagrees with them.
They're going to try to make as many people dependent on government as possible.
Edwards is the only guy really saying it.
The others are saying, how can we say this without saying it?
How can we get elected without saying it?
Because they really can't get elected if they say it.
Country is not liberal.
So they're out there calculating how to win.
And if they do win, it's just like in 2006 in the November elections.
Do you realize what was not in the campaign in 2006 congressional elections, the war in Iraq?
I don't care.
Go back and look, folks.
The Democrats were not making a big deal about the war in Iraq.
They were talking about a bush at mismanagement, this and that, and the other thing, but they were not pledging to get us out.
They were not pledging to end it.
But after the election, what did they do?
They claimed that as their mandate, which is what they always do.
Whatever, if they win this election, which I think is crucial, if they win this election, they are going to do whatever they're going to do and claim that the American people elected them to do it, which will not be the case if they win.
This is a long way of saying, a roundabout way of saying that ideas matter.
And calculating ways to win is what the Democrats do and what the liberals are doing.
And I think on our side, we have a pretty, compared to them, any one of our candidates is far preferable to any one of theirs.
Many of the campaigns on our side are engaged in a assemblance of ideas and so forth.
I know you've got the dirty campaigning going on.
It's part and parcel of the whole thing.
It's like Huckabee said on a tonight show last night, if you can't stand the side of your own blood, don't get into politics.
This is before he played the guitar, or maybe it was after he played the guitar.
Clinton-esque.
Clinton played the saxophone on tonight's show.
Huckabee last night played the guitar, the bass guitar.
Bottom line is, yes, I'm a purist, and I know we're not going to get pure, but I think you can, I think we can get closer to it by demanding it than if we don't demand it, that we don't ask for it.
If we simply choose upsides based on whatever reason that we choose, and then claim, well, this is the best we got.
I think this is the guy it ought to run, then try to claim that person fits the conservative mold when that person may not is devastating to the future of conservatism.
And I just don't want it to be redefined, nor do I want Reaganism to be redefined.
Let me give you the latest polling data.
Insider Advantage, this is the Republican side.
Huckabee 30, Romney 24, McCain-Thompson 11.
American Research Group, ARG, Huckabee 29, Romney 24, Thompson 13, McCain 11.
And Zogby is reporting Huckabee 31, Romney 25, Thompson 11, McCain 10.
These are the final polls out today as we head into the Hawkeye Kaucke tonight.
Let me read something to you.
I want to ask you if you know who said this.
You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democrat candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter.
These days, all those candidates, all the Democrat leaders, are one and the same.
They're all NEA, moveon.org, A-CLU, Michael Moore Democrats.
They've allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles.
This election is important to salvage a once great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses.
It's time to give not just Republicans, but independents and yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once proud party of working people, the Democrat Party.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual.
I'm asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me, not only for what I have to say to them, for what I have to say to the members of the other party, the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic Party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.
Who said it?
Who said that?
Tell you when we come back.
Don't go away.
I will read the last paragraph again and ask you, who said this?
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual.
I'm asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party.
The millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democrat Party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.
It was interesting.
Members of my staff during the break answered my question.
Some say, it was Lieberman that said that, right?
I said, nope.
HR said, it was Reagan that said that, right?
No, it was Fred Thompson who said this on the, I think in the middle of his 17-minute YouTube video that he did that was broadcast throughout the state of Iowa.
By the way, speaking of Thompson, a politico.com posted a piece last night about 11 o'clock in which someone close to the Thompson campaign said that if Thompson does poorly in Iowa, he's going to quit the race and endorse McCain.
Well, I had heard about 7 o'clock last night that this was in the works.
The story was in the works.
So I began to dig deep.
Wanted to find out if this is actually true.
I found out before the political story went up that the Thompson people were saying it wasn't true, that there was nothing to it.
It has been further denied this morning by Rich Galen.
He was spoken to by Byron York at the National Review online.
Byron wrote, good morning from Des Moines.
Just got off the phone with Rich Galen, top advisor to Thompson.
It would be an understatement to say he is strongly denying the political story, reporting Thompson will drop out and endorse McCain.
Story cites several Republicans close to the Thompson campaign, but Rich Galen said, I'm a Republican official in the Thompson campaign, and I am denying it.
Galen also said that no one inside the campaign was a source for the story.
Galen said, I can't put enough adjectives in front of the deny to accurately describe how vehemently I am denying the story.
And Galen said, just to make sure he checked with Thompson himself, who told him the story was not true.
We have a schedule for Saturday and Sunday in New Hampshire, and then we're going down to South Carolina, said Galen.
So the political story about Thompson bailing, he doesn't do well tonight, endorsing McCain has been specifically denied.
Bozeman, Montana, as we go back to the phones.
Hello, Dan.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, are you there?
Yeah, right here, sir.
I love you, Rush.
You're one of my heroes, but I am concerned that you seem to be supporting Romney over the other candidates.
This concerns me because I feel Romney is probably the poorest of all the GOP candidates right now.
I like all of them, but Romney has flip-flopped way too much to be taken seriously, in my opinion.
And, you know, you were talking about some of these conservative candidates seem to be rewriting the definition of conservatism.
Yeah.
In my opinion, Romney is not only rewriting the definition of conservatism, he's actually attempting to rewrite his own record.
You were mentioning the McCain Amnesty Bill.
Well, Romney expressed support for the McCain amnesty bill.
He also raised fees.
There's a lot of skeletons in his closet, in my opinion.
Where do you get the idea that I have thrown my support to Romney?
Okay, well, you've never explicitly stated it, Rush.
I will acknowledge that.
But, okay, let me put it this way.
So you used that as a ruse to get on the program to attack Romney.
Who are you supporting?
I like all of them except Romney.
But I probably prefer Thompson or someone like Duncan Hunter who has definite conservative credentials.
Yeah.
But let me put it this way, Rush.
When you criticize Huckabee for his record on immigration, you should also criticize Romney for his terrible record on immigration.
By propping up Romney as a conservative, you take away votes from the true conservatives like Thompson or Hunter.
And I have no problem with you taking on Mike Huckabee's record.
I have no problem at all.
I admit that he has some problems.
The amazing thing is, I haven't, I'm not propping any of them up.
You know, I've said wonderful things about Giuliani.
I have said wonderful things about Mitt.
I have said wonderful things about Thompson.
In fact, I just did.
I have even been gracious to Governor Huckabee until the little contretome started.
But I've not come out and thrown my support to either or any one of these people.
So you are making an inference here that's incorrect.
Okay, well, you know, I apologize if I'm reading you incorrectly on this one, Rush.
Let me just say, going back to what you said just a bit ago, I have no problem with you taking on Huckabee's record, but Mitt's record is far worse.
And I know McCain and Giuliani have problems as well, but compared to Romney's record, they all look like Ronald Reagan.
And I'm not saying they are Ronald Reagan, but compared to Romney, they're the preferential choices in my life.
I will admit to you, and I will proclaim and announce here for the first time, that I have spoken to Rudy Giuliani since his candidacy was announced.
I have spoken in person, met with him.
I have spoken to Mitt Romney.
I have asked both of them specifically about immigration because you know, if you're a regular listener to this program, you know how crucial it is on so many fronts to this country, illegal immigration in terms of border security, in terms of economics, in terms of social programs, a number of things.
I have asked them point blank, and they have told me that they oppose any kind of amnesty, that they are going to secure the borders.
I have not spoken to Governor Huckabee, but I listened to what he has said about it in recent days, recent weeks, and he's not saying the same things that Thompson is saying about it, that Huckabee, or that Romney is saying about it, or that Rudy.
I trust Rudy on that.
I believe his word.
I mean, Rudy has been consistent, but Romney, he says he's a conservative, but you're not a conservative just because you say you're a conservative.
You have to have a record to back it up.
Well, I appreciate your call.
Thanks, Rush.
And again, I want to say you're one of my heroes.
I remember you from way back when you sat in on the Pat Sajak show, and I've been a huge fan ever since.
If you were a fan after that show.
No, that was the best.
You stood up to all those scumbags in Sajak's audience.
All right.
I'm glad you called.
I understand people wanting to call in here.
And what are you chuckling at?
Did he say something I didn't hear?
What did he say?
He said S-bags?
Oh, he said S-O-S-S-N-O.
All right.
Well, what I was going to say is I understand people calling here wanting to advance their candidate and so forth or condemn others.
That's what campaigns are all about.
But I haven't chosen up.
And if people think I have, you know, it's fascinating to me.
I have spent, you know, after Romney's speech, heralded it to the treetops.
I have mentioned about Fred Thompson and how I very much admire his principled, rooted conservatism.
I've admired Giuliani.
I've known Rudy Giuliani since the early 90s.
And I like all of these people.
Don't misunderstand, but believe me, folks, there's nothing to be gained by getting involved in these primaries and making endorsements and so forth because you tie yourself to a candidate, you're dead.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back.
And again, let me, with lots of love and compassion, remind you of this.
It is one thing to, and I'm not addressing this about a specific caller.
This is something that's been going on here for the past couple days and even prior to the Christmas break.
But during this primary season, when I said, you know, I'm going to stop carrying the water for these guys.
They're on their own.
They make or break themselves.
And I have it endorsed.
I said I'm not going to endorse.
And there's a number of reasons.
Folks, from a strictly professional standpoint, forget politics for a second.
Let's say it's a year ago or six months ago and I decide, you know what, I'm going to endorse somebody.
What would be the real reason for endorsing somebody if I really don't believe in that person?
The real reason would be to demonstrate my power, to show that I can put somebody over the top.
And I don't operate that way.
I know I have a lot of power, but I don't think about it.
I don't consciously try to exercise it.
I do not.
I don't care what you're laughing about in there.
I just do what?
I do what?
I don't sink people.
This is that they sink themselves.
This is Dawn's in there, you know, being very wifey.
You know, I'm sitting here, I'm being honest, and I'm saying, I know I've got a lot of power, but I don't endorse it.
I'm not going to sit here and endorse it.
I'm like, especially somebody I don't believe in just to demonstrate my power.
She says, yeah, you sink people.
They sink themselves, folks, is the bottom line.
I don't target people for destruction here.
But here, let me get to the professional reason.
Why get behind a candidate so far out in the primaries when that candidate may do something down the road to totally implode?
I don't have control over any of these guys.
I'm not on their campaign staff.
I'm not their campaign managers.
Endorsing during primaries, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local, is something that I have stayed away from as a political and professional practice.
And I have not abandoned it at this point.
I'm not going to.
So, but in light of this, because I have it endorsed, there are those of you out there who want me to endorse your candidate because you think that if I were to come out in favor of your candidate, that it would provide a boost.
And so what happens is people, since actually throughout the whole fall and the early winter, people were calling here, why don't you endorse somebody?
Why don't you endorse this candidate or that candidate?
It happened to be their own.
And I gave my reasons for not doing so.
It is one thing to call here, ladies and gentlemen, and try to fool me.
But it's another thing to fool yourself.
And that's the thing that troubles me most.
I mean, you can try to fool me, but it is a guaranteed failure.
I'm a highly trained, seasoned political strategerist and analyst, as well as a highly trained broadcast specialist.
You can't fool me.
You can try, but it is ineffective.
The thing that worries me is that you might be fooling yourself about things.
Somebody's conservative when they're not.
Somebody believes certain things that you want them to believe that they really don't because of an emotional attachment that you might have to a candidate or what have you.
Remember what this program is about.
This program is about creating as many informed, educated, and engaged people as possible who participate in the electoral process in this country, not create a bunch of mind-numbered robots or sheep or what have you.
Now, let's go to the audio soundbites.
Mike Huckabee just happens to be up in the order here on the tonight show last night, had his big appearance out there.
Yesterday on his campaign tour bus in Iowa, he talked with reporters about his appearance with Jay Leno.
My understanding is that there's sort of a dispensation given to the late night shows.
Is that right?
No, it's not right.
There's no dispensation with NBC in the tonight show.
Huckabee, in effect, crossed a picket line to appear on the program.
It doesn't matter to me.
It's totally irrelevant, but he went in a side door.
It's the Letterman show that made a deal with the Writers Guild of America.
And so Letterman's show had union-authorized jokes last night.
The Leno show didn't.
By the way, the Leno show jokes were funnier than the Letterman Show jokes.
I stood up and watched, or stayed up and watched.
Well, I didn't stay up.
I was up.
And I was engaged in other stuff.
I had the football game on.
I had Oklahoma and West Virginia on.
And I say, it's 11.30.
Who am I?
I'm going to turn them on.
I haven't watched any of those shows.
I can't tell you how long.
And Letterman's a little bit of trouble today because he claimed he wrote his own monologue.
Letterman claimed he wrote his own jokes, which is a violation of the strike because he's a Writers Guild member and he's also performing as a clause says that a performer cannot write his own stuff in the middle of a strike.
And Leno said that he did.
It's unclear if anything will happen because of this.
But Huckabee was confused.
He was saying, I thought there was a special dispensation that was arranged.
No, that was only with Letterman's, not a dispensation.
They have a separate deal to end the strike for Letterman writers.
So on the tonight show last night, Jay Leno said, the Democrats also seem to be in a dead heat in Iowa.
Let's say you win.
Who would you want to win on a Democrat ballot?
I have a great respect for Barack Obama.
I think he's a person who is trying to do in many ways what I hope I'm trying to do, and that is to say, let's quit what I call horizontal politics.
Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican.
I think the country is looking for somebody who's vertical, who's thinking, let's take America up and not down.
And people will forgive you for being left or right.
Okay, now after that, I don't want to hear from any of you Huckabee people who tell me he's Ronald Reagan.
When he first says Obama is the guy closest to him on the Democrat side, and then he eschews all of this left-right, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican.
Let's take the country up instead of picking it left or right.
See, that's the thing, folks.
You take the country up by taking it right.
It's been established.
So here we have, what we have here is an excellent example of populism and appealing to the center, the great unwashed, the moderates, the independents.
This is not conservatism.
Now, it's interesting.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the Brett Girl was given space to outline his big campaign theme of attacking special interests.
And without reading the thing to you, let me summarize what the Brett girl was saying.
He said, if you're a business that creates wealth, you're a special interest.
If you redistribute that wealth, you're not a special interest.
That was his theme.
Well, here is the dirty little secret, folks.
The redistributionists today are the trial lawyers, the Brett girls' biggest contributors, not to be confused with special interests, you see.
By the way, the trial lawyers, they often rake in obscene amounts of money in cases where harm to anyone is hard to find.
That's how Edwards made the money to afford his 20,000 square foot house, buy the land across the street.
You know this guy, this is kind of interesting, too.
You may not remember this, but I will remind you.
There's a guy living across the street from Edwards' $20,000 mansion plus his gym and his swimming pool.
Who knows what else is in there?
And all the acreage and the trees he cut down to give himself a view from the 20,000 square foot house.
And across the street is a shack.
And it's lived in or was lived in by a gun-toting Republican who doesn't like Edwards.
And Mrs. Edwards said she didn't like living this close to a guy like that that had guns and lived in a shack.
In other words, Mrs. Edwards doesn't like living close to that second America that her husband's out there always talking about.
Well, guess what?
Somebody, and nobody knows who, came up with $1.6 million to give this shack-owning, gun-toting Republican $1.6 million to buy him out, and he's moved out of state.
He is gone.
And they've investigated his sale records.
They can't find him.
The guy whose name the deed's in didn't have the money to do it.
Somebody gave him the money.
They're trying to figure out, follow the trail, who actually bought this thing.
But the point is the Edwards had an undesirable neighbor from that other America he's always claiming you want to do so much for.
And they got rid of the guy.
They got rid of his shack and they got rid of his guns.
And the guy happened to be a Republican.
So he's got enough money somehow to buy his 20,000 square foot house and buy the land across the street from the gun-owning Republican.
Now, he and the rest of the Democrats want people and voters to think that their enemies are the businesses that produce goods and services, and their saviors are the lawyers and politicians who are going to get even with these people.
In other words, what the Brett girl and Barack Obama, and I fear Mike Huckabee, based on that clip from the tonight show, they want you to fear big oil.
They want you to fear Walmart.
They want you to fear Starbucks.
They want you to fear people who make incandescent light bulbs.
Oh, don't get me started.
I am fit to be tied over this energy bill that bans those things in 2012.
The incandescent light bulb never hurt a soul.
More on that as the program unfolds.
Wait till you hear the list of illnesses being caused by these compact fluorescents.
I have the story here in one of the stacks of stuff.
But look at their enemies list.
It's big oil.
It's big anything.
It's big pharma.
So Edwards, Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and apparently Huckabee want you to fear and think of as your enemy, the businesses that produce goods and prosperity and jobs and services.
And instead, they want you to look upon themselves in government as saviors, as the politicians, as saviors.
Your bulwark against the people and big this and big that that are out to screw you.
Here's one thing that I know for sure.
Even the most overpaid CEO in this country can do nothing to me.
The most overpaid CEO cannot take my freedom away.
The most overpaid CEO cannot raise my taxes.
The most overpaid CEO cannot tell me where I can and cannot smoke my cigars.
The most overpaid CEO in the world cannot tell me what I can and cannot drive.
The most overpaid CEO in the world cannot tell me what kind of stupid damn bags I have to use in a grocery store.
But politicians and lawyers can take away all of those liberties and freedoms and property.
And they do it on too regular a basis.
And so anytime a politician comes up and says, Mr. Limboy, your enemy is big media.
Your enemy is big food.
Your enemy is big oil.
Your enemy is big this or big that.
I'm going to protect you from them.
I say, you don't need to protect me from them.
They're not harming me at all.
They're not hurting me at all.
They're making my life better.
You're the one standing in my way, Mr. Politician.
And let's go back to the phones, folks.
People have been patiently waiting.
Pat, excuse me, Columbus, North Carolina.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine.
Very well.
Thank you.
Okay, I've got a quick question about Huckabee and Thompson.
And then if you have time, I have a football question.
Sure.
But I have to say hi to my sister Mary in Stoughton, Wisconsin, because I got in really big trouble last time because I didn't say that.
So hi, Mary.
Hi, Mary.
Hi, how are you doing, Mary?
Benjamin said hi to three or four times and make up for all the lapses in the past.
I know.
I really got in big trouble that time.
Hey, what I wanted to ask you about was when people say that they're for Huckabee because he's pro-life, it's not like there's not another pro-life candidate out there.
Thompson has always been pro-life.
I mean, I understand some of the other candidates aren't or they've switched, and that makes people nervous.
But that's what I don't understand.
It's not like they don't have any other choice.
It's called identity politics.
Huckabee is a former Southern Babs preacher.
He's closer to the issue, thus people who care about that issue than anybody else can be in their minds.
Okay.
It doesn't make sense to me, but.
Sure, it does.
Explain how it makes sense.
It makes total sense.
If you understand the power of identity politics and its appeal to people, you know, you have to understand something here about the conservative Christian right and the evangelicals.
They think that everybody's out to get them.
They think the Democrats want to wipe them out, and that's true.
And they think there's a bunch of Republicans that don't like them, and that's true.
And so here's their guy.
Huckabee is their guy.
If their guy can win, they feel secure.
They don't like being pariahs.
I mean, I understand it emotionally.
I understand their emotional attachment to it.
That's what the purpose of identity politics is.
It causes you to abandon introspection and investigation of anybody else and their issues, or even your own candidates to stand on other issues.
Pure and simple.
I guess.
Can I ask my football question?
Oh, yeah, what is the football question?
Well, I'm a big cheesehead because I'm originally from Wisconsin.
Yeah.
So what do you think about the Packers?
I mean, I'm surprised they're this far.
And of course, I love Brett Favre.
I think a lot of people are surprised they went this far because the expectations this season were not that high.
They didn't have a power running back.
They didn't think they ended up with one.
Packers are a great lesson here that you should not overspend for a running back in the NFL.
Their guy is like a walk-on free agent.
Willie Parker for the Steelers, the same thing, a walk-on free agent was not drafted.
And he, up until the time he broke his leg in a Rams game in that cheap artificial turf in St. Louis, he was the NFL's leading rusher.
There were a lot of surprises.
The Packers game this year has been pretty much Brett Favre in the offense until they found this running back.
And I find it fascinating.
A lot of people are suggesting here that the worst thing could happen for the Packers is to have a home game in that inclement weather because they got blown out by the Chicago Bears in Chicago on a typically favorable Green Bay weather day.
It was cold and blustery and windy and so forth.
But the biggest problem the Packers have, I think, I think they'll probably survive their home game.
They got to go to Dallas, and they have not won in Dallas.
I know.
They just haven't won there.
Favre, I don't think he's ever won a game there.
They're certainly not in the playoffs there.
But there's always a first time.
The Cowboys limped into the playoffs.
Cheryl Owen's still not practicing.
He may not be back.
The high ankle sprains, a bad injury.
Plus, it looks like Bill Parcells in Miami is going to raid the Dallas coaching staff.
He's already hired his general manager from the Cowboys.
That won't affect the playoffs this year and all that.
But a lot of teams limped in based on the last couple weeks of the season.
The Dallas Cowboys in their final game against the Redskins had one yard rushing.
Yeah.
One.
But you know, Rush, one thing, maybe since we look like such wimps in Chicago, that maybe playing in Dallas would be a good thing because it'd be warm there.
That's what they're that.
I mean, that's that's the mitigating factor.
Exactly.
Okay, we got to go, but it's still Dallas.
Back at so, Brian, those HR 21s are due to arrive tomorrow, along with a 5 LNB.
And how long to install, do you think?
The weekend.
The weekend.
▲
Export Selection