All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:25
June 4, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, when I did Russia's show about a year and a half ago, right around the time President Obama was being sworn in, I think it might have actually been the December between the election and the inauguration.
I argued the point on the show that Obama was going to be in over his head.
Came back into the show a few months later.
It was right around the time that the stimulus bill was being obstructed a little bit by the Republicans in Congress.
Obama was throwing his hissy fit that Republicans weren't going to go along and vote for this along with the Democrats.
He wanted it to pass unanimously.
And I made the point again that he's in over his head and he doesn't know how to run anything.
Now there's been an alternate theory out there that these people are crafty and devious and that everything that they are doing is on purpose.
I don't deny it.
I understand that there's an agenda here.
It's merely my contention that what you have running the country right now is a very amateur group.
In some areas, this is serious stuff.
And it's frightening.
I don't care if you're liberal or conservative.
The prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is dangerous.
Whether you're liberal or conservative, the prospect of North Korea getting its hands on a nuke and destabilizing Asia is serious stuff.
Some of these matters require competence.
And when you see a president who somehow naively thinks that he can reason with the clerics and mullahs who run Iran, that naivete is frightening.
When you see a president who thinks that he can charm our enemies, that's frightening.
When you see a president who dumps all over the allies that we have while kissing up to our enemies, that's frightening.
When you see a president so ill at ease on the national stage that he's running around bowing every time he meets a despot, that's frightening stuff that sends a bad message.
When we live in a world in which Islamic terrorism is a real thing, never mind 9-11.
How about all the attacks since?
The guy who tried to blow up Times Square.
And a president who doesn't seem to grasp the seriousness of this, who won't even use the word terrorism.
That's scary stuff.
That speaks to the amateurishness of what's going on here.
You have a very inexperienced team and a president who has surrounded himself with his old hack buddies from Chicago.
Look at who this administration is.
Biden has no role.
They can't use him for anything.
They can't even trot him out to do an interview without sticking his foot in his mouth.
So he doesn't have what Bush had in Shaney, a veteran who's been around the block a few times.
His chief of staff, whom he apparently relies on for everything as Ram Emanuel, another Chicago hack who came out of the exact same system that produced Obama, that nefarious Chicago Democratic organization where nobody gets anywhere by winning elections, they make all of their advancement by kissing up to the right boss, since there are no Republicans in Chicago in contested races.
Whomever gets the Democratic Party support tends to win the elections.
So he takes Rama Manuel, who's out of that very, very unique Chicago political structure in which we all know how things are get things get done.
His top policy advisor is Valerie Jarrett, again, another Chicago Democrat.
Even his social office is run by another Chicago Democrat, and we're told that he relies on the input of his wife.
So you're talking about a really, really insular operation here, dealing with a bunch of people who are completely in over their heads.
They have almost no experience on foreign policy.
Who does he choose as a Secretary of State?
Hillary Clinton.
Well, what's her foreign policy experience?
Before she became a senator from New York, when she was meddling around with public policy, it was always almost always on domestic stuff.
You're dealing with people who I think do not know what they're doing.
And it's exacerbated by the fact that the president himself is not a leader.
He presents himself as a leader through his eloquence, his Stature, well dressed, commanding voice, but he's never run anything.
His entire background has been somebody who's simply working the system, community organizer, would-be politician, big shot on in his neighborhood, pals with the left wing radicals in Chicago.
Then he gets himself elected to the state senate from Illinois and somehow finds himself in the United States Senate because the Republican candidate was imploded by the media.
Now he's the president of the United States without any experience running anything.
And as I said, while that's dangerous in some respects, it's comical in others.
I don't think this business of offering all these jobs to every Democrat who dared to run against an incumbent Democratic United States Senator is the most important story in the world.
There may be laws broken, and it may develop into a scandal, but no, I don't think it's the worst offense that's ever been committed by a presidential administration, and I don't think it's as important as Iran getting the bomb.
I don't think it's as important as the stagnation in the American economy.
I don't think it's as bad as the fact that we've got American businesses that will not hire new workers, but it's out there.
The way they are handling this is hilarious.
You've got a different story offered every day because they don't want to come out and admit the obvious.
Yeah, we offered these guys jobs so that they wouldn't run for office.
First, you have Sestack from Pennsylvania who initially said, Look, they offered me a job if I wouldn't run against Ireland Spector.
What are they gonna do?
Call him a liar?
He is now the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate.
Spectre lost that election.
Sestack said, Yeah, I was offered a job.
Now he's charged back, I guess I wasn't offered a job.
I was, I wasn't, I was, I wasn't.
They trot out a new name.
Well, it was Messina, the deputy chief of staff who did nobody ever even heard of him.
So they're now going to pass him off as a low-level functionary, and now comes the guy from Colorado, Romanoff, who apparently was offered three jobs, none of which he apparently was eligible for.
Well, he approached us first, and we weren't on offer him a job.
What this is is amateur hour.
See, I'm not going to sit here and shill and claim that no Republican has ever offered a political job to a buddy for political reasons.
Obviously, it happens.
In politics, if you need to get someone out of the way, you give them a reason to move out of the way.
It's happened before, and it's happened with Republican administrations.
I know that, and I acknowledge it.
But there's a way to do it that doesn't become a scandal.
But only if you know what you're doing.
The first thing is you don't put anything in writing.
We've now got emails from Romanoff going back and forth in which he's expressing interest in jobs.
The second thing you do is that you don't make it so obvious that that's what you're doing.
You usually wait until a time has passed, and then you give the person the job.
You usually have the conversations with go-betweens.
These people are so clottish that they have deputy chiefs of staff and others, top officials in the administration, openly talking about these jobs.
This would not have happened in a presidential administration run by people who have experience.
I'll tell you exactly who would do this.
A bunch of hacks from Chicago.
Now I made this point on yesterday's program that the Chicagoization of this administration was going to come back and bite Obama.
The way things are done in Chicago doesn't sell in the rest of the country.
The Chicago way is exactly what the stereotype is.
Everybody ends up on a public payroll.
If you're part of the organization, we find you a job.
If you're a part of the organization, we'll do your legwork for you.
It's who knows who who knows who who knows who.
If you don't believe me, just check out any of John Cass's columns in the Chicago Tribune over the last couple of years.
The guy just has the whole thing nailed about How everybody's connected to somebody else.
The problem is that when you take that power way of doing business, well, we'll take care of this, we'll take care of that, and bring it to the presidency, it doesn't play the same as it does in Chicago.
Now, Kimberly Strassel, who's a great columnist for the Wall Street Journal, she writes the Washington column and appears every Friday.
She's on the same theme that I talked about yesterday and I'm expanding upon today.
I want to give you three paragraphs from her column today.
She writes, political jobs for favors are, of course, as old as politics itself.
The White House's real mistake was thinking it could practice such tactics as brazenly on the big stage as in the Windy City.
No phrase is more feared in Washington than quid pro quo.
And Beltway politicians carefully avoid any hint of it.
There are winks and nods, yes.
But you'd have to be crazy to put something in an email.
Crazy or from Chicago, where it's simply where it is simply understood that the political machine decides elections and hands out consolation prizes accordingly.
The White House's other mistake was thinking Washington Powell's would follow Chicago rules.
It is one thing to make deals with a local ward boss who knows his livelihood depends on keeping his mouth shut.
It is another to make offers to a Pennsylvania Congressman who is angry that you are fighting him in the primary and who views the United States Senate as way cooler than an advisory board.
Sestack viewed it in his interest to blab, and he did.
And he won.
The White House's initial refusal to talk only fed the story.
And Bowers, that's White House aid, uh a too late, too clever Sestack memo has created new problems.
And the story goes on.
I don't know exactly how far all of this is going to go.
What I do know is that it's a direct result of an administration that doesn't know what it's doing.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Did you see what happened at the Tiger Baseball game yesterday?
Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew the call that cost the Detroit pitcher Galaraga, Armando Gallar Galaraga, his perfect game on Wednesday night.
Galaraga came out Thursday afternoon, yesterday afternoon, and he was the guy that brought out the lineup card.
Handed to Joyce, who was now the home plate umpire.
And of course the cameras are closely focused on Joyce.
The guy was kind of tearing up, didn't really acknowledge the crowd, but you could tell, you could tell this umpire feels terribly that he's screwed up.
I mean, it's that rare case in which you see a person who through his expression and his brief comments realizes that he made a judgment call and he was wrong, and that the consequences are real.
This guy's a professional umpire.
It's his career.
You can see by the way he's responded to the whole thing that he's a guy who does have integrity.
And he realizes that his entire career now is going to be defined by terribly screwing up a call and demon denying baseball immortality to this pitcher, and he feels awful about it.
When's the last time we saw that in this country?
I'm not suggesting that we need to have everybody down on their hands and knees begging forgiveness.
Jesus.
But one of the reasons why BP is so reviled right now is you don't get any sense of remorse over the oil spill.
Do we get any sense of remorse from this administration over the fact that their employment program isn't working?
Instead, it's just adamant defiance.
We don't care, no one's accountable.
This guy Joyce is not going to be fired.
He's not going to lose his job.
He's apparently a respected umpire.
He simply blew a call.
The thing that's killing him, and you know that it's tearing the poor guy up, is that he knows he screwed up.
And without going out there and throwing himself on the mercy of the American public, he's just agonizing over the whole thing.
And I think that the human emotional response here that he's showing is healthy and it's decent.
In the meantime, a huge issue is developing over this, and it goes right to the White House.
By the way, if you're wondering what take to take on this story, always look for direction from the Obama administration and move the other way.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs speaking yesterday.
I'm speaking with the full weight of the federal government, laughter, for whatever that's worth.
Now let me say I'll say a couple things.
I hope that baseball awards a perfect game to that pitcher.
The commissioner Bud Sealig, who has the ability to step in and act in the interest of baseball, will not do it.
He said, I'm not going to do it.
The call stands.
Now, if you haven't seen the replay because you don't watch Sports Center and you haven't seen any of this on TV, the pitcher for the Tigers on Wednesday night had two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning and was pitching a perfect game, which used to be very, very rare.
There have only been 20 in baseball history, but oddly, and nobody has an explanation for this, there have been two already this year.
And I think there was when did Mark Burley pitch his?
I think there was one last year and the year before.
It used to be that these things occurred like once every 10 to 15 years.
Don Larson pitched one in the World Series in 1956, and that was like the first one in 25 years.
I think uh Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Senator, he pitched one in 1964.
They're very rare, but there have been several of them just in the last couple of years, and two already this year.
And he was on the verge of pitching the third, and a perfect game means nobody reaches base.
Not only no hits, no errors, no walks, no hit batsmen, you face 27 batters and you retire all of them.
He's got the first 26.
Ground ball the first base.
The first baseman, Cabrera, ranges to his right to field the ball.
That means the pitcher has to come over and cover first base.
The first baseman flips the ball to the pitcher who steps on the base right before the runner.
Every replay seems to indicate he was out and it was a perfect game.
The umpire ruled him safe.
Since the replays are clear, it's undisputed.
Is Gibbs right?
Should the commissioner step in and say that it's a perfect game?
Or should the error be allowed to stand?
Now I'm torn on this myself.
People who listen to me on my Milwaukee show know that I'm just passionate, that rules should never get in the way of doing the right thing.
That while rules have a place in our society and we have to we're governed by rules, and you can't have any kind of order without rules, and a sport like baseball is obsessed with rules, there still has to be the ability to overlook a rule and do the right thing.
On the other hand, if you overturn this call and say it was a perfect game, how far are you willing to go?
What I would like to do is throw this to Russia's audience.
Should the Commissioner of Baseball declare that Galaraga indeed pitched a perfect game because the replays clearly indicated that he had done what was necessary to pitch that perfect game.
Furthermore, since the game dispute the result of the game didn't change, Detroit won, the commissioner wouldn't be overturning a winner or loss, he would merely be saying that a perfect game was pitched in this instance.
He's got the power to do it because as the commissioner he can do anything he wants.
I'm gonna throw it to Russia's audience.
Should the commissioner declare it a perfect game or should he allow the result to stand and say that because the umpire missed the call, he missed the call, and there is no perfect game.
1-800-282-2882 is the phone number.
I have no idea which way the Rush Limbo audience would go.
I have no idea which way my Milwaukee audience would go on this.
Should this be declared a perfect game?
Or should the call stand?
Now I well, I mentioned that Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has said, speaking as he claims with the full weight of the White House that the perfect game should stand, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is not liberal and is conservative, has come to the same conclusion.
Bud make it perfect.
They write, come on, bud.
The earth has stopped spinning on its axis.
No one cares anymore if the Yankees win their 99th World Series.
Little kids with a lifetime of baseball ahead of them are asking their fathers to explain why it has to be this way.
It doesn't.
It wasn't.
It was perfect.
Mr. Commissioner, words fail, but there's no reason that you should.
So the Wall Street Journal is also weighing in and saying that the Commissioner should step in and declare that this was indeed a perfect game.
I want to pull the delegation here, poll the audience.
Should the commissioner overrule the call, say it was a perfect game or not.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
All right, I'm going to do this for one segment on a Friday afternoon.
Should baseball overturn the terrible call that cost a pitcher a perfect game.
Before we close up shop this afternoon, I am going to prove, however, that government can screw up literally anything.
On the perfect game question to Burden, Ohio, Jeff, it's your turn on EIB with Mark Belling.
Mark, how are you?
I'm great, thanks.
I believe it should stand.
I like the human element of it.
I think Jim Joyce manned up wonderfully.
We need more of that.
He uh had the opportunity to not referee or not umpire the next game, but he uh he took it.
Yeah, he stepped right out.
He first of all, he took his medicine, I thought, admirably.
I mean, the strong human temptation would be for the guy to say, I screwed up, I feel badly, I'm gonna take a leave of absence for a couple of days.
Instead, he came right out and did the next game.
I think baseball deserves credit for not yanking him.
In fact, he's he his the normal rotation would have him be the home plate umpire since he umpired first base the day before.
They had him behind the plate.
I thought what the Tigers did in having the pitcher Galaraga go out and hand out the lineup card himself was very, very classy.
It was all classy.
The problem with the inspiration for our kids.
I know.
The problem though with saying that it shouldn't be reversed, is that if you reversed it, you wouldn't be changing the outcome of the game.
It's not like if C League came forward, he'd turn a win into a loss.
He would merely be saying that this is deemed to be a perfect game for the purpose of the record book.
What harm would that do?
Uh a ton.
But you know, uh I'm gonna go.
Yeah, but I'm I want to know what harm it would do.
Uh changing the the outcome or changing the the decision.
Yeah.
Is that what you're asking me for?
I guess.
That's the problem.
There is it.
I it doesn't do any harm, which is the argument, which is the argument for doing it.
Let's try somebody else now.
Charleston, South Carolina, Steve, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Uh congratulations, Mark, on the great job you're doing subbing for uh the big one.
Thank you.
Uh, regarding the uh the baseball situation, Celig needs to uh change his mind on this and give the perfect game because we're not dealing with a controversial call in the sense like the uh the umpire said no, he was really out.
He admitted that he blew the call.
It was done immediately at the end of the game.
Everybody agreed that it was a bad call.
The man making the bad call admitted that it was a bad call immediately, and as you mentioned, it doesn't change any of the statistics, the outcome of the game or anything else.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm waffling even.
Even though I am waffling career, we'll we'll do this.
All right, but here's the problem with it.
Doesn't it open the door to changing every call after the fact?
What about the 1985 World Series where an umpire's bad call change the outcome of the world series?
Should the commissioner intervene then?
Once you step in and start saying that something that was called on the field wasn't called and is changed afterwards, aren't you screwing everything up?
No, I the the the very fact that it did not change the outcome of the game, and it was really a personal statistic for one player.
I feel it's worth overturning.
Now we're not talking about changing the game or changing the World Series outcome or anything.
The only difference is that this man will retire from baseball eventually and have the knowledge that he managed to pull off one of the Rarest events in baseball, a perfect game.
Thanks for the call, Steve.
But the question is, did he pull it off?
Since mistakes by umpires are part of baseball and there was a mistake made, does it does that mean that the game wasn't perfect?
Let's try Hyde Park, New York and Gary.
Gary, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Should the commissioner step in or not?
Absolutely not.
The base the game of baseball is m is a judgment, a game of judgment, and it's more than any other sport.
Every play is a judgment call.
If we reverse this, then who knows, we will be reversing balls and strikes before the um uh the the century is out.
So I think to maintain the integrity of the game, because it is a judgment game, and the umpires are the judges, we should keep it the way it is.
Everybody was a as you said earlier, a class act, and everybody handled it very well.
And aside from the instant replay, we we would have not had this much controversy.
Well, and I don't want there to be instant replay because I don't want umpires to do what they do in football, which is go underneath the hood and hold up the game five minutes to reconsider everything.
The difference though in this instance is is that the commissioner could clearly say that this is a one-time only occurrence.
I'm not changing the outcome of anything, I'm merely accepting the umpire's statement after the fact that he knows that he blew the call.
It's one time until the next time.
Well, that is the next time and the next time.
See if it if we go down this uh this uh door through this door, we'll never, never, never stop going through the doorway.
So in an effort to maintain the integrity of the game, we have umpires for a reason.
They make calls, they make good calls, they make bad calls, they make mistakes, but they're human.
And um, if they're human, we have to factor in the fact that they are going to make erroneous calls from time to time.
That man is young enough where he has the capability to do that all over again.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and you can prove that his radar was faulty, should the judge convict you of speeding or should he find you not guilty?
Well, uh, isn't the commissioner just being the judge here?
I did have that occurrence, and uh the the judge will always side with the law.
Well, no, I I don't know that that I'm asking what the right thing to do would be.
Let's go to St. Louis and Richard.
Richard, it's your turn on E.I.B. The integrity of the game.
Go ahead, Richard.
Uh Richard.
A new rule that uh by God, if it's the last inning, the last out, and uh of the of a game like that, and it doesn't change the outcome, they they can change the rules.
But by God, they should bring uh the uh technology to baseball, it's in every other sport.
Well, I know, but you like the fact that it's in every other sport.
Just about.
Name one that doesn't have it, that doesn't have instant replay.
Yeah, I think just about all of them.
Does golf have instant replay?
Uh well, it doesn't need it.
Well, okay, I was able to na I was able to name one.
I do kind of like the notion that we're willing to accept that a mistake was made and not do anything about it.
The great reason to change the call is everybody thinks that that's what would be fair.
It would be but that would be like pretending that the call wasn't made in the first place.
This whole notion in life that we've got to level every playing field and write every wrong, and that there's some sort of way of correcting every mistake that's ever made, I don't think is particularly healthy.
Thank you for the call.
All right, we have no consensus.
Which way would I go?
I wouldn't overturn the call.
I think it opens the door to everybody who has a complaint about an umpire's call to then go and complain to the commissioner.
So I wouldn't do it.
I do think that this was a uniquely American moment, however, in which everybody saw this replay, and everybody could relate to the emotion of the umpire, everybody could relate to the disappointment of the pitcher, and so far everybody's handled it with class and integrity.
By the way, the uh statement from uh Robert Gibbs here, let me say a couple of things.
I hope that baseball awards a perfect game to that pitcher.
In other words, we need to correct the mistake.
If Gibbs is consistent, the American public should be given the opportunity to correct its own mistakes, including the one that was made in November of 2008.
So if we're going to open the door to turn around and rewrite history and say that the perfect game that wasn't a perfect game is a perfect game, let's go back and rewrite history and pretend that the results of the 2008 Election did not occur either.
When we come back after the break, I am going to prove that government can screw up anything.
That government can bollocks up the one thing that you would think nobody could mess up.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
On Monday, Dr. Walter E. Williams will be here.
I talked at length about the economy in the first hour of the program.
I'm just an amateur with strong opinions.
He's got a PhD in the stuff.
Walter always does a great job when he sits in for Rush.
He'll be here on Monday.
As a PS to our discussion of the last segment about the pressure on the commissioner of baseball, Bud Sealig, Milwaukee guy, by the way, to rule that the pitcher for the Detroit Tigers Galaraga pitched a perfect game despite a blown call by an umpire on what would have been the third out of the game on Wednesday night.
I think I have the argument that could settle everything.
Let's imagine it was reversed.
Let's imagine the runner was actually safe, and the umpire called him out.
In other words, the call on the field created a perfect game.
Would you want the commissioner to step in after the fact and overrule the umpire and say the pitcher didn't pitch a perfect game?
Seems to me that if you want to rectify a wrong after the fact, you'd have to be consistent, and that just opens a whole can of worms, and I don't think we ought to do it.
Now, to an example that demonstrates that government can screw up anything.
Tomorrow is the uh big horse race, the Belmont Stakes in New York.
I'm doing the program from the EIB studios in New York, it's the third leg of the Triple Crown, which draws attention to a New York City agency that is bankrupt.
In New York, unlike I think any other state, off-track betting parlors are run by government.
A private entity runs the private entities run the racetracks.
Belmont Park itself is owned by a nonprofit private organization.
But for the people who don't want to go to the track, who want to bet at these neighborhood betting parlors, those operations are run by government.
To my knowledge, they're the only government-run off-track betting operations in America.
This is a total racket for government because they have no real expenses.
All they get to do is collect a commission on each bet that's placed.
Somebody goes in and bets $50 to win on a horse.
New York City OTB takes a cut of that wager as a commission, passes the rest of it along into the betting pool, gives a little bit to the track.
They don't have to operate a racetrack.
They don't have to own any real estate.
They don't have to hire stewards and employees and concession dealers and parking attendants.
They don't have to have a track announcer, they don't have to have the massive grandstand, they don't have to pay property taxes, they don't have to do any of that.
They merely open up these parlors and collect bets.
Despite this, they're bankrupt.
They are so broke that they owe the New York Racing Association, which runs the Thoroughbred tracks $18 million, and they own a harness track, Yonkers, $20 million, and they say we're not going to pay.
We don't have the money and we're not going to pay.
Only government can do that.
And for those of you who think that this is too great of a leap to say that health care won't be the same way, it's the classic government response.
It believes that it's above everybody else, and it's totally incompetent in what it runs.
If you can't make money as a bookie when you don't have any operating expense, how in the world are you going to take over one-sixth of the American economy?
And the reason they don't make money is the same thing that's going to happen with healthcare.
They are overstaffed.
The whole operation, the New York City off-track betting is filled with political appointees.
They've got a lot of employees who stand around and don't do anything.
You've got a lot of cronies who are given supervisory positions, and the betting parlors themselves are absolute dumps.
In fact, there was a column written by a guy named Bradford Cummings about all of this, in which he describes New York City off-track betting as The anti-cheers.
Where nobody knows your name.
And they're never glad you came.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Here's what we're going to end the program with.
Some of you know who Jay-Z is.
Hard to escape him.
His ego is, well, his ego is bigger than that of any talk show host that I know, including myself.
He and Alicia Keys did this song about nine months ago that's being played everywhere.
And Jay-Z says this is the song that should replace New York, New York, as the official theme song of New York City.
It's called Empire State of Mind.
So you know, if you follow all of this, he's wrapping all of these references to New York, and he says these are contemporary references, and they're far more relevant than what Sinatra did 35, 40 years ago.
The catchy part of the song is the Alicia Keys chorus, in which she uh she sings her part.
Now, why do I bring this up?
Well, first of all, Jay-Z has said this, and the song has become been an enormous hit.
You hear it everywhere.
You go into restaurants, they're playing it.
The Alicia Keys part is just melodic enough and just catchy enough that people like that, even if the Jay-Z part is all about himself.
I mentioned that tomorrow is the Belmont Stakes horse race.
Three races make up the Triple Crown.
The Kentucky Derby, the most famous of all.
When the horses come on the track for the Kentucky Derby, they have a singer or band plays My Old Kentucky Home, which is the old Stephen Foster song, and it's emotional, and they show the jockeys throats going up and down, and they show the old ladies in the stand singing the song as My Kentucky Home is played when the Kentucky Derby horses come out.
When they run the Preakness in Baltimore two weeks later, they do the same thing, only it's Maryland, my Maryland.
For the Belmont Stakes, years ago, they always did Sidewalks of New York, the old East Side, West Side, that song.
But for really about 40 years now, they've played the Frank Sinatra song New York, New York, or they've had a Broadway singer sing New York, New York as the horses come on the track for the Belmont Stakes.
So each race had its signature song.
The Kentucky Derby had My Old Kentucky Home, The Preakness has Maryland My Maryland, and the Belmont Stakes had New York, New York.
Tomorrow, the running of the Belmont Stakes, they will not play New York, New York.
They're going to play that song by Jay-Z.
If you don't think we're losing control of our culture, there's nothing more pathetic than the old goats who run horse racing trying to make themselves appear hip by playing that.
By the way, Game On Dude wins the Belmont Stakes.
▲
Export Selection