All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:22
January 31, 2008, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, one of the most frequently visited tourist sites in all of the big city.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, America's doctor of democracy, a general all-around good guy, powerful but good, a harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Here's the phone number if you'd want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
Back to the audio sound device, just a couple.
This is from the debate last night.
Anderson Cooper of CNN said to Governor Huckabee, Governor Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh says if you or Senator McCain were nominated, would be the nominee, you would destroy the Republican Party.
Your reaction?
You know, I wish Rush loved me as much as I loved Rush.
I think he's a great voice for conservativism.
It doesn't mean he's inerrant or infallible.
And on this, he's very wrong.
One of the things that Rush Limbaugh once praised me for was creating what I call the note, the Tax Me More Fund.
And the way that worked was that we had a lot of people in our legislature who wanted us to raise taxes.
And I said, we don't need to raise taxes.
We need to cut our spending.
You'd already done that.
And so I created a fund called the Tax Me More Fund.
I said, there's nothing in the law that says that you can't just pay more if you want to.
And I had envelopes printed.
And I said, anybody who wants to pay more taxes, just fill it up with whatever will make you feel better and send it right in.
And it proved that a whole lot of people didn't really want to pay more taxes after all, because after about a year and a half, there was only about $1,200 in the account, $1,000 of which had been given by a liberal legislator.
Already raised.
So if we're going to talk conservativism, I'd like to be in on the discussion.
All right.
Now, again, let me stress here.
I love Governor Huckabee as a man.
I think he's funny.
I think he's an engaging, charismatic figure and personality.
I have no personal animus toward any of these guys.
And they've accomplished a lot.
They've achieved a lot.
Running for president is not an easy thing to do.
It's very hard.
But I do think that Governor Huckabee has to know that he's not going to win this.
But he's going to stay in.
And the reason he's staying in is because I think there's a little tag team going on between him and McCain to freeze votes away from Mitt Romney, which is fine.
Look at, I know a lot of people are saying to Huckabee, get out of this.
You know, you're gumming up the work.
I know.
I'm not going to tell these people what to do in that regard.
He's free to stay in, thinks he has a chance here.
But if he really doesn't want Romney to win, if he sided with McCain and wants McCain to win and this is his way of helping, then fine and dandy.
Just put it out there for you to see, for you to process, and for you to make a judgment on, and so forth.
I think the question would have better been asked of Senator McCain, frankly.
But that's just me.
You know, I wasn't moderating the debate.
Now, CNN Alive, after the debate, and to Reagan Liberty, for those of you in Rio Linda, Anderson Cooper spoke with Bill Bennett about me.
Cooper said the need now for all these candidates, but for McCain in particular, to try to reach out to cooperatives and in particular, I guess conservatives, conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.
He does again have to respond to these serious claims about that he is too far to the left on things like immigration, on campaign finance reform, on Anwar, on Guantanamo.
There's a long list.
Now, John McCain, if he gets on his high horse and says, well, you all know who I am and I've done a lot, he's going to be in trouble.
So here's Bill Bennett essentially backing up what Scarborough said, that there isn't a Republican establishment candidate, meaning the old blue-blooded old boys network, country clubber guys, That's not enough to put them over the top.
They're going to need conservative support in the general election if they don't have a prayer.
And the McCain camp knows this, and at some point, after they think they've got the nomination secured, there probably will be tentacles of reach out that find their way into certain places.
I don't expect to see one of those tentacles.
I know HR, well, I mean, you'll get it if it happens, and then you'll tell me.
And when it happens, we'll deal with it.
Too much left to be determined.
Now, there's other stuff in the news, folks, and I want to get to it because it's an incredible stack of stuff out here.
And I want to start by getting to some of the Clinton stuff because Bill Clinton said was in Denver, Colorado.
He's out there stumping for his wife who says laughably that she can control him.
This is the website.
This is the ABC News blog, and this is the way they write this.
In a long and interesting speech, Clinton characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way.
He said, yeah, I'll tell you what we need to do out there.
We just need to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions because we have to save the planet for our grandkids.
So we've got to slow down our economy.
Well, then we can't have a stimulus package, folks.
That means the government can't grow.
We've got to slow down the folks.
Do you understand this?
This is precisely what Gore and his crowd want to do.
Destroy the economy, slow it down, put government in charge of more and more people's lives and freedom.
We just have to slow down our economy.
The simple fact about it, you go and look around the world, as I have done, and you will find that the slow economies or the non-existent economies, the true poverty-ridden countries on this planet, are the filthiest, the dirtiest, the most polluting cesspool places that you'll ever run into on the planet.
And yet they try to make our country out as the culprit.
Jack Hollander has written a book.
Let's see.
It's called A Real Environmental Crisis.
Why poverty, not affluence, is the environment's number one enemy.
Drawing a completely new roadmap toward a sustainable future, Jack Hollander contends that our most critical environmental problem is global poverty.
His balanced, authoritative, and lucid book challenges widely held beliefs that economic development and affluence pose a major threat to the world's environment and resources.
Of course, without even giving any details and having to read it, he's exactly right.
Common sense would tell us this.
The attack on all the industrialized nations, including us, at the top of the list, ought to be the biggest giveaway as to what's really at stake here.
Hollander points to the great strides that have been made toward improving and protecting the environment in the affluent democracies.
He makes the case that the essential prerequisite for sustainability is a global transition from poverty to affluence, coupled with a transition to freedom and democracy.
The real environmental crisis, the title of the book, it takes a close look at the major environment and resource issues, population growth, climate change, agriculture and food supply, fisheries, forests, fossil fuels, water and air quality, solar and nuclear power.
In each case, Hollander finds compelling evidence that economic development and technological advances can relieve such problems as food shortages, deforestation, air pollution, and land degradation, and provide clean water, adequate energy supplies, and improved public health.
The book also tackles issues such as global warming, genetically modified foods, automobile and transportation technologies, and so forth and so on.
The significance of the Endangered Species Act, which Hollander asserts never would have been legislated in a poor country whose citizens struggle just to survive.
So whereas in this country, if the bald eagle is protected in a poor country where it's not, you go out and capture whatever you can to eat it because it's all you can do because you can't, you know, you don't have refrigeration, you don't have transportation, you don't have just it's it's catch, it's still catch what you eat and eat it tonight.
And whatever you can catch, you eat.
He asks us to look beyond the media's doomsday rhetoric about the state of the environment because most of it's simply not true and to commit much more of our resources where they'll do the most good, lifting the world's population out of poverty.
Amen.
Spread capitalism around.
And so here's Der Schlikmeister running around in Denver.
Yeah, the only way we're going to save the planet for greenhouse gases and global warming is we got to slow down our economy.
Who in their right mind ever talks about, look at the panic this country goes into when you tell them we're headed to a recession.
And here's Clinton out there basically, yeah, we got to slow it down.
We got to, you know, maybe not a full-fledged recession out there, Limbaugh, but at least at least slow it down.
It's absurd.
Pattily absurd.
Speaking of all this, this is from Oz, Australia, the Australian newspaper.
Major Australian greenhouse gas emitters believe that emissions trading costs of about $65 a ton of carbon are inevitable, forcing household electricity bills to rise by almost 100%.
So how are the poor going to pay for heat when it doubles in the aim of saving the planet?
The new director of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Mike Hitchens, told a newspaper that business should look to evolving carbon markets in Europe to estimate the future cost of emissions trading.
We all need to understand that linking to other emissions trading schemes outside of Australia is inevitable, whether done formally or informally.
And that means that it's the world price of permits that we need to incorporate into analysis about the impacts on the Australian economy.
The price of emissions in Australia will very likely be set in Europe.
Australia is a price taker for commodities in all other global markets.
It will be a price taker in this global market as well.
The European Commission has estimated a future price of about $65 per ton of carbon, with European banks predicting a price of between 60 and 80.
Do you understand what these trading?
I first heard about these back in the early 90s.
And when I first heard about them, I started laughing myself silly.
And I got an email, a warning email from my good friend Professor Hazlett, who I've referenced several times in this process.
He said, look, Rush, trading pollution credits, they're now called carbon credits, but trading pollution credits makes all kinds of sense.
They say you have company A, you got pollution levels that the EPA or the government or some other wonderful, lovely agency sets, and company A is way above those limits.
But company B out there is way below those limits.
So company A can buy the credits, the remaining pollution not being created by company B, And that will allow them to continue to pollute above the levels as long as company B stays below them.
And that's what this whole carbon trading scheme, offset scheme is.
You know, it's what Al Gore does.
Al Gore hadn't reduced his carbon footprint at all in his giant mansion down there in Nashville.
But what does he do?
Well, he invests in a company he owns.
So he takes money out of one pocket, puts it in another, and what do they do?
They want to plant trees.
They say they plant the trees.
The trees are supposed to soak up all this extra carbon.
But I thought trees soaked up oxygen.
Carbon, I'm sorry, then they produce the oxygen, which people have said just compounds the problem.
But anyway, it's a total scheme.
So now what's happening here in Australia is that the cost of these carbon credits or pollution credits is being set on the world market, not on the market circumstances in Australia.
And so for these people in Australia to continue to produce the power they need to satisfy the population, they're going to have to go buy some carbon credits somewhere in Europe at whatever the price is, $65 a ton, which means the power companies in Australia are going to add what they have to buy in Europe, which is permission to pollute, and they're going to add it to the bills.
So in the process of supposedly reducing the carbon footprint of the world, the customer is going to have their electricity bills doubled.
Do you see the scheme here?
And, well, but Rush, the whole point here is to get people to use less.
Don't give me that.
Countries like Australia and us, conservation is a wonderful thing, but it's not the answer and it's not growth.
And by the way, the next story in all of this, get this.
This is Reuters.
Listen to this, HR.
Congress urged to help more people pay their heating bills.
Home heating oil dealers, home heating oil dealers, corporations urged Congress to put extra money in the U.S. Economic Stimulus Package to fully fund a program that helps poor families pay their expensive winter heating bills.
The New England Fuel Institute and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America asked lawmakers to back a proposal to add $3.6 billion to the low-income home energy assistance program, LIHEAP, as part of the stimulus package that will send rebates to taxpayers to spur the economy.
No one should have to choose between putting food on the table or staying warm.
Of course not.
And nobody should have to choose between dog food and medicine.
And nobody should have to choose between medicine and food.
Nobody should have to choose between a flat-screen high-definition TV and unemployment on the Super Bowl weekend.
So just that headline: more whining.
Checks aren't going to be out until this spring, you people, sometimes not till August.
But the whole concept, Congress should help pay heating whining heating.
You know it's going to go up every year.
You live where you live.
And notice the heating oil providers.
And I said, you know what?
We'll bite the bullet this winter.
We think people ought to be warm.
You know, we're going to lower our prices.
We'll lower our profit.
No, no, no, no.
Of course, why should they?
No, they want you and me to pay their price so people in the Northeast won't freeze to death.
And by the way, I mean, it's February, March.
I guess there's some cold months left, but with global warming, it ain't that bad.
Okay, other items in the stack of stuff here not having to do with the election, the presidential election.
I mentioned this yesterday.
It looks, ladies and gentlemen, that the tax package passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, this stimulus package, will include refund or rebate checks to illegal aliens.
John Ensign, a senator from Nevada, is going to introduce an amendment in the Senate to see that this doesn't happen.
But it's in there.
It's in the House version.
The Senate wants to put it in there.
And if you ask me, this is just another in a long line of backdoor attempts, behind the curtain attempts, for Congress to get the amnesty they so want.
Let me ask a question.
If illegals have records from the IRS, in other words, they've got to know who you are.
Somebody has to know who you are.
I mean, even people that don't pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes.
You've got to file a tax return, even if you don't earn anything.
You have to do that.
Now, if the IRS can find these people, these illegals, to give them the rebate, what more do they need to be considered legal?
I'm very suspicious of this.
This is one of these things.
It's not what it appears to be.
This compassion.
Oh, Russia, they're here.
They're working hard.
We're going to stimulate the economy.
If you think our friends in Washington have given up on the idea of amnesty for these, you have another thing coming.
The Reverend Jacks criticized Major League Baseball today for sending investigators to the hometowns of umpires to ask neighbors questions that include whether the umpire belongs to the Ku Klux Klan.
Have you heard about this?
Major League Baseball sending investigators to the homes of the towns where umpires live.
And they're going to the neighbors to ask them all kinds of personal questions, including, did you ever or are you a member of the Klan?
The Reverend Jackson, in an amazing act of triangulation, said Major League Baseball has done a disservice to his progressive social history by equating southern whites with white supremacists.
I'm surprised the Professional League, which helped change social attitudes in all sports leagues about segregation by championing Jackie Robbins, it would make such a destructive move.
In other words, the Reverend Jackson is opposed to finding out whether any Major League Baseball umpires are members of the Klan.
But where did this come from in the first place?
What in the hell inspired this?
All right, so I asked right before the commercial break, what the hell would inspire Major League Baseball to send investigators into the towns where umpires live and start asking neighbors?
The ump member in a Klan.
So the EIB Memory Division went into gear during the break.
And I remembered there was a story out there some time ago about some statisticians, Daniel Hammermesch, a professor of economics, University of Texas, did a survey, did an actual study and concluded that umpires might be racists, that black umps favor black pitchers when it comes to calling balls and strikes, that white umps favor white pitchers when it comes to calling balls and strikes.
I remember when this came out, it was Time magazine, August 13th of last year.
And the story written here by Kathy Rooney.
So that, okay, and then Major League Baseball stepped up background checks of its umpires last August when that big cheating scandal hit the NBA, that ref Tim Donaghy, for betting on games.
But that still doesn't explain why in the world you're sending investigators in to ask people if your umps are members of the Klan.
I mean, I okay, they're asking if they're members of any groups, but they're including the Klan.
Look at, you know, that just the whole, the whole, the whole notion here.
But I mean, if you're going to ask that specifically, I know they're asking if you've got any fancy members of groups, but they say including the Klan.
Do they know something here?
Oh, don't div me this, cover all the basis stuff.
Are you a member of the NRA?
You listen to the EIB network.
Do you think Senator McCain is a conservative?
I mean, where were these?
These questions stop anyway.
Anyway, the Reverend Jackson's against this.
That's one of the fun.
Reverend Jackson is against this.
He thinks baseball's done a great job desegregating, so forth.
A couple other headlines.
Oh, and folks, by the way, programming note: I will not be here tomorrow.
I cannot avoid tomorrow, and it happens when the program is on.
We have Jason Lewis coming in here, but I will be back on Monday.
Don't panic.
Plenty of time on Monday to continue our discussion.
Jason can handle this tomorrow with what's coming up on February 5th and the Super Duper Tuesday.
But because of that, like the Hutch just sent me a note, said enough politics.
It says, talk Super Bowl.
I just got an instant message from Brian.
Are you going to talk Super Bowl since you're not going to be here tomorrow?
I guess we should.
I sent Hutch a note back.
I said, call in if you want to talk about the Super Bowl.
He told me in his email, he was picking the Giants.
He wants the Giants.
I said, call in.
So sternly keep a sharp eye.
I don't know how often he checks his email, but he's got the call-in number because he got it right now.
So he might call you.
In the meantime, immigrants hit hard by U.S. slowdown and subprime crisis.
Yesterday it was animals.
You know, the pets, the dogs, and cats.
As economic slowdown and a subprime mortgage crisis deepen across the country, Hispanic immigrants are increasingly in danger of losing their jobs and their homes.
Fine, we're all miserable.
We're all paycheck away.
That's why they're being included in the stimulus bill.
I have three stories here.
Speaking of the Super Bowl, three stories warning of how you can die.
Watching it.
Super Bowl could be a heart health hazard.
This is from the AP.
For rabid fans of the Giants and the Patriots, Super Bowl won't just be a game.
It may be a health hazard.
Heart attacks and other cardiac emergencies doubled in Munich when that nation's soccer team played in World Cup matches, according to a new study.
While history suggests European soccer fans get a bit more worked up than the average American football fan, doctors think there are some valid warnings to be shared.
And the rest of the story is, you know, don't drink this, don't eat that.
Try to keep your temper in control, your emotions in check.
Oh, yeah, don't beat your wife.
Have a phony story that the nags put out that wife beating triples on the Super Bowl because angry husbands and her team loses or screw up, take it out on a wife.
Turned out to be totally bogus.
But anyway, that's just story one.
Number two, sports is a strain on fans' hearts.
LA Times by Jia Ruichong.
Talk about heart-stopping games, studying medical records in two.
Oh, it's just a repeat of this German business.
But it says, after you're done beating your wife, the study says you may have a heart attack during the Super Bowl.
People with heart disease are at greater risk.
And then, let's see, what's the third story here?
Oh, yes.
From Jeremy Menier, Chicago Tribune, don't be a Super Bowl statistic.
Stress of watching the big game can be hazardous to heart.
So one study, one study from some people in Munich has created a wave of drive-by stories about how you can die watching the Super Bowl.
And there are tips in here to avoid death while you are watching the Super Bowl.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is an indication of just how helpless they think you are.
Watching the Super Bowl is now a health risk.
It can kill you.
This is what you can do.
If you have access to a fax machine and you have the numbers of all the newsrooms of the drive-by media, you can create a literal panic over the fact that you might die watching the Super Bowl.
Bob and Bronx, great to have you with us, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
You know, I originally started, and I want to go immediately back to it.
I wanted to make some comments about Rudy and Rudy last night.
You watched the same press conference as I did, or the announcement by Schwarzenegger, you know, his backing McCain.
Yeah, I saw that.
I was just curious, though, and maybe I'm just dreaming here.
Do you think there is a ghost of a chance that come nomination time and if McCain does go this far, that Rudy might be his vice presidential candidate?
You know, I haven't even thought about who McCain's vice presidential candidate would be.
David Broder, however, big liberal writer for the Washington Post is advising us to choose Huckabee.
Okay.
Because he's a conservative and would essentially be president in waiting.
Right.
Let's see.
You know, I was just taken with their closeness over the last two days, and I thought, hmm, I wonder if there is a ghost of a chance, of course, New York papers say that that won't happen.
Rudy will go back to his.
It's not going to be Lindsey Graham.
It's not.
It's not.
No, he doesn't need South Carolina.
It's not going to be Lindsey Graham.
No.
Yeah.
Look at me be wrong.
I don't know.
I mean, Lindsey Graham certainly close enough to it to die of anal poisoning.
You know, you start Rudy.
It might be Rudy because Rudy's out there could maybe theoretically bring the Northeast, bring New York.
Yeah, I'm wondering.
But then you've got to get, you've got to, in figuring this out, you've got to go to McCain's temperament.
And is McCain going to want to choose anybody people might like better than him?
Is McCain going to choose anybody who might bring more to the table on some things than McCain does?
I don't know.
I haven't gotten down to that road yet.
I would think McCain might choose, if this rift continues, might try to buy recalcitrant conservatives off by asking some conservative to be the vice president, which might give some people pause to consider.
Using Broder's line, Broder said this, I didn't.
I'm just repeating it.
President in waiting.
And what is that?
Why is that relevant?
Well, you go back to Anna Quindlin yesterday.
I didn't say this.
She did.
Newsweek magazine.
When is too old old?
Or when is old too old?
There are subtle hits here that McCain is an arch, he's archaic and so forth.
That's down the way.
I can tell that you are very emotional about Rudy getting out, and you would be desperate for Rudy to get back in here.
You know, he could be attorney general.
He could be, you never know.
I mean, there's going to be some payback here if McCain goes all the way.
And Schwarzenegger can't do anything.
Well, he can't do Veep.
You know, he could become Secretary of Solar Power, I guess.
Well, no, I love Fox.
I mean, Super Bowl is on the Fox broadcast network, which is all fine and dandy, but they're not the best high definition out there.
They're 720p, 720 progressive, 720 lines.
CBS and NBC are 1080i.
1080p is the absolute top.
Well, you can double that, but there aren't TVs yet that can produce it.
But if you're watching, let's say on a 30-inch or 40-inch TV, you probably won't notice, and I guarantee you, your wife or girlfriend won't.
All they won't care about is a thing come on.
We hit the power switches and come on.
High-tech, picture-quality, super-duper projectors.
You know, women don't care about that.
Yeah, just have a black eye anyway because people beat their wives in a Super Bowl Sunday.
But when you blow the picture up, you got the Hutch.
When you blow the picture up, like when I put a high-definition, watch my, when I watch Super Bowl in my media room, I got a 16-foot screen in there.
I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080.
It's a huge difference.
But you can't on a smaller screen, it's not that it's not that big a deal.
And that's so, you know, Fox carrying the Super Bowl, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
But it ain't the best.
And by the way, who else?
Fox is 720 and who else is 720?
ABC is ABC 720.
When are these people going to get up to 10?
Oh, ESPN 720.
When are these people going to move up to 1080?
That's what I ask as a consumer.
We got the Hutch.
Hutch from Seattle, nice to have you, sir.
The Super Bowl coming up on Friday.
You said enough politics in the email.
Enough politics, baby.
Let's get with the Super Bowl.
All right.
Now, we got time constraints here.
I'm looking here, maybe three, four minutes max.
That's enough.
Giants.
Thanks for the call, Hutch.
Why Giants?
Now, I got to ask you, we talked about this the last time during the championship round.
Is this objective or you got some emotion in this?
I got a lot of emotions.
Why the Giants?
Why do you want to see the Giants win?
It isn't that I want to see the Giants win.
Well, then you've got emotion.
I just think they got it, man.
Have you seen their eyes?
It's something about that team, bro.
Plus, it's time for more history to be made.
It's nothing like stopping a perfect team in the Super Bowl.
Now, that's history right there.
Do you think that's bigger history than the Patriots going 19-0?
Yep.
You know why?
Because the Giants have no pressure on them.
Everyone expects them to lose anyway.
If they lose, big deal.
But, man, look at all the pressure.
And look at week 17, Rush.
What happened in week 17?
The Giants almost beat them, and they believe now they can beat them.
Yeah, but you know, it's been two weeks, Hutch.
Do you think Belichick's going to show Eli Manning the same defensive look that he got on the 29th in week 17?
There's got to be all kinds of tricks thrown at him.
Absolutely.
Do you think the Giants are going to come with the same plan?
It's been two weeks, Rush.
Well, yeah, but I think the offense that the Giants have is a little bit more predictable what Belichick's defense is going to be.
They didn't stop him in week 17.
That's true.
38-35.
I understand it was a three-point game.
That's right, bro.
You got Plexa Glass Burris.
Sorry, Plexa Coburis.
Others saying 27-17 says the Patriots only going to score 17 points.
You know, what I'm afraid of is it may not be close.
So you better hold your breath.
Now, you're really, you're really stepping up.
It may not even be.
You're on the verge here of saying a Giants route.
Rush, I'm going to tell you, if they get that rush on my boy, it won't even be close.
Who's your boy this game?
Who are you talking about?
I'm talking about Tom Brady.
Paul Brady, if they get the rush.
I'm going back to the same.
They got to sack him three times to win.
Well, you know, Baltimore sacked him three times.
And they all bunch of botched referee calls and stupid timeouts by the Ravens defensive coordinator.
That's right.
Hutch, you made this interesting because, you know, everybody does think that this is a slam dunk for the Patriots.
And even the Patriots are the most hated team in football right now.
Quarterback takes the supermodel.
Everybody's jealous of that.
You know why I think Tom's going to lose?
Tell me.
I'm going to tell you straightforward.
You know that Peyton Manning, Brett Farr, and Tom Brady went to see God.
And God asked Peyton Manning said, what do you believe?
He said, I believe in family, winning, and going after everything you can when you got the opportunity.
God said, I like that belief.
Take a seat on my left side.
He asked Brett Farr, said, what do you believe?
He said, I believe in winning, going after everything, taking advantage of family.
He said, man, I really like that belief.
Sit on my right side.
He asked Tom Brady, he said, what do you believe?
Tom Brady says, I believe you're in my seat.
So you think he's a big-headed going into this game?
Yeah.
Yeah, I do.
Well, you had us to take this seriously because the Hutch played the game.
And the Hutch was with the Cowboys.
It was with the Chargers and the Seabirds.
And you were in playoffs.
And plus, you're Mike linebacker.
I was still impressed by that.
Thank you, my brother.
I'm impressed that you are impressed.
You're probably impressed.
I know what the Mike linebacker even is.
Do you know what the strong and weak linebacker was called?
No.
Sam linebacker and the Willie linebacker.
Sam and Willie.
So Sam, Willie, and Mike.
That's the three linebackers.
Yeah, but the Mike is key.
I mean, quarterbacks got to know where the Mike linebackers, especially when you got four of them, when there's a 3-4 defense, because the Mike linebacker is going to be in a different place every set.
Usually he's to the strong side.
Usually, but not always.
Not always, but he's usually to the strong side towards the tight end.
Yeah, but see, that's where Belichick's going to meet.
That's what Brady is superb at spotting the mic.
At any rate.
Now he is.
All right.
So a possible rout of the New England Patriots because Tom Brady thinks he's God.
Only you, the Hutch.
What about his ankle business with Brady?
Well, I think that he'll be ready.
He's got two weeks, and I don't think that's going to be a factor at all.
They may try to use, they may try to use that after they lose.
Yeah.
Now, you know what this is.
And Hutch, you should know this.
This is something I'm happy to be able to tell you something.
And you know, you just didn't, it just didn't occur to you.
This is all about getting out of the Pro Bowl with credibility.
It really is.
That's all it is.
It really is.
You wear the boot one day, going into your girlfriend's house.
You're never seen in a boot yet again.
You limp with a big glob of tape on your ankle out there to first practice this week, and all of a sudden you're not even on the injury report.
It's the Pro Bowl.
Hutch.
The Pro Bowl, baby.
Got to run.
We're out of time.
Great to talk to you.
We're going to keep you in mind here on Monday when we review the results.
Nobody, nobody gives me respect.
Now I'm getting email from people saying, you know what you're talking about?
720p is much better for sports than 1080i.
My eyes don't lie.
I will see you Monday, folks.
I wish I could be here tomorrow.
Can't be Jason Lewis.
▲
Export Selection