All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
February 1, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about this, folks.
According to the White House, big cis, Janet Napolitano briefed Obama this morning on government preparations for the latest bout of winter weather.
Yep, Janet Napolitano went in, told the president about the latest bout of winter weather, what it's going to mean.
Why doesn't he just mandate everybody to go out and have a snowplow?
I'm not kidding.
The White House says that Obama stressed the need to be prepared for all scenarios, including significant power outages.
And he was not talking about Egypt.
So he could mandate that we all have generators, too.
Massive power outages because of the storm.
So those of you with electric cars, you won't be able to charge them.
We've heard a lot, ladies and gentlemen, about a teachable moment, what a teachable moment Tucson was, even when it wasn't a teachable moment.
My question is, why aren't we hearing what a teachable moment these Middle East uprisings are?
Or are they teaching the wrong lessons?
The dangers of runaway power and unresponsive governments.
This is what our regime is telling us we need to learn.
This is what happens when you have an unresponsive government runaway power.
They could be talking about themselves.
They say Mubarak has not listened to his people.
Really?
Is this regime listening to us?
We don't want and have never wanted their health care.
You remember how so many of the Democrats refused to even go to public events or attend town halls during the last campaign?
They didn't want to hear from their constituents.
So let's hope this is a lesson.
Here's another passage, by the way, from Judge Vinson's ruling voiding Obamacare, making it unconstitutional.
I note that in 2008, then Senator Obama supported a healthcare reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating, if a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.
Judge Vinson put this in the ruling.
And Judge Vinson is right.
Obama was opposed to a mandate.
You know why?
Because Hillary Clinton was for one.
And during the campaign, he was trying to distinguish himself from her.
And when she came out for the individual mandate, he reamed it.
He obliterated the whole point of a mandate.
So we can't do it that way.
That's not the right way to go about it.
We need to do it in other ways.
The words of the framers.
I mean, you could, you know, Obama's a constitutional scholar, folks.
He taught constitutional law.
More properly, he taught how to subvert the Constitution to a bunch of acorn types when he was in Chicago.
Anyway, great to have you back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address ilrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
We'll get to your phone calls in this hour, I promise.
Other exciting items in the news, seven in ten Americans.
This is a Gallup USA Today poll.
Seven in ten Americans would like to see Republican leaders in Congress consider the Tea Party movement's ideas as they confront the country's challenges.
70% of Americans want the Republicans to consider the Tea Party ideas.
In a Gallup USA Today poll released Monday, 71% of those surveyed said they want to see Republican leaders look to Tea Party positions when developing policy.
42% said that listening to the Tea Party ideas was very important.
Another 29% said it was somewhat important.
Support for congressional Republicans to adopt Tea Party positions was strongest among Republicans.
88% saying that it was important for party leadership to take Tea Party ideas into account.
53% said that it was very important.
35% somewhat important.
Independence.
This is where this gets interesting.
Independents were just slightly less supportive.
46% saying Tea Party ideas were very important for congressional Republicans.
26% saying somewhat important.
Therefore, 72% of independents think the Republicans ought to pay attention to the Tea Party.
Though just 6% of Democrats surveyed said they support the Tea Party movement, only 11% had a positive view of it.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The poll did not explain or ask these people why.
So we can only speculate, which we can do, but it is fascinating.
70% of Americans, 72% of independents want to see the Republicans listen to Tea Party movement ideas.
I'll tell you what this tells me.
Folks, this tells me that independents largely consider the Tea Party to be themselves.
Independents look at the Tea Party as not being Republicans or Democrats.
And we're always told that the precious independence, by the way.
Now, you listen to any campaign strategist, Republican campaign strategist, Democrat campaign strategist, you listen to any of them.
And all they talk about is the independents, the great unwashed, the open-minded among us, the great moderates, the people who make up their mind issue by issue, candidate by candidate.
These are not closed-minded ideologues, we are told.
No, no, no, no.
These are the people over whom each election is fought.
Well, guess what?
70% of them say, listen to the Tea Party.
Tea Party, therefore, not identified as a Republican movement.
This might explain why some Republicans and Democrats in Washington view the Tea Party as, or in the same way, intruders, outsiders.
We're going to do something about these people.
We're the ruling class, and these outsiders are going to come in here and they're going to shake it all up.
GOP should listen to Tea Party.
By the same token, Democrats ought to as well.
I mean, this is not included in the poll, but by the same token, it's what this means.
So the media can do everything it can.
The Democrats can do everything they want to do to try to portray the Tea Party as a bunch of oddball kook French people.
The fact is, they have captured the support and the sentiment of a clear 70% of the Tea Party.
70% of the people of this country, which is a great, great bit of news.
And I'm going to tell you, you're not hearing much about this poll, I guarantee you, because of the stuff going on in Egypt and the health care law being voided.
But believe me, the poll watchers, and we know who they are, and they are numerous, and they'll look at this, and they are not going to be happy.
And you people in the Tea Party had better be ready because both parties are going to be aiming guns at you.
Seven in ten Americans want to see Republican leaders consider the Tea Party movement's ideas.
That's got to include a lot of Democrats.
Super Bowl coming up, media day today.
The Packers went first this morning.
The Steelers are up now.
This is from Health.com.
This Sunday Super Bowl could prove to be a real heartbreaker for some fans of the losing team.
A new study suggests that the emotional stress fans feel after a loss may trigger fatal heart attacks, especially in people who already have heart disease.
You see, ladies and gentlemen, stress generates the so-called fight or flight response, which causes sharp upticks in heart rate and blood pressure that can strain the heart.
For people with heart disease or those who are at risk due to factors such as obesity, smoking, and diabetes, such strains can prove fatal on Super Bowl Sunday.
Now, the last such idiocy was many, many moons ago when the nags tried to put out this notion that wife beating was at an all-time high on Super Bowl Sunday.
Of course, they put the story out.
Everybody ran with it.
Nobody questioned it.
It came from an accredited group with a fax machine and a nice-looking logo.
And it fit the template at the time that American men are brutes and predators.
And it turns out the whole thing was bogus.
Yesterday, we had this notion that you sleep with your dogs, you could die, unless you spend more time and money with the vet.
I'll tell you what I did.
I went home last night.
A lot of people have been complaining to me ever since on our Facebook page and at rushlimbaugh.com.
We've been posting a lot of pictures of me and the dogs.
And the cat lovers in the audience are afraid somehow that their pumpkin's gone or has left the house in protest or has been relegated to irrelevance.
I mean, I'm getting emails.
What about pumpkin?
What about pumpkin?
Are her feelings hurt?
My gosh, you never even talk about her anymore.
Okay.
All right.
So I went and got pumpkin and took a couple, had Catherine take a couple pictures of me, you know, punking almost asleep on my shoulder.
Punkin'?
Yeah, she recognized me.
She recognized me.
I was gone for four days.
She recognizes me.
She lets me know.
Well, she was mad on Sunday when I got back.
She always is mad when I've been gone for four days, comes and headbutts me in bed and so forth.
She was cool, but she demanded top billing.
So no dogs in this picture, just two pictures of me and Punkin.
Then she demanded top billing alone, not even me.
So I put her on top of the sofa, took a great picture of her.
There's three of them up there, just to let people know that punkin' still around and ruling the roost.
But I ran the risk of death.
According to the news report yesterday, you could die if you sleep with your animals.
Punkkin was right there on my shoulder.
I'm alive today to talk about it.
Today, your team losing in the Super Bowl could be the next thing to kill you.
Well, right, here it is from health.com.
And they have an anecdote here to prove it.
1980, when the Pittsburgh Steelers staged a fourth quarter comeback to beat the Los Angeles Rams, heart-related deaths shot up 15% among men and 27% among women in the following two weeks compared with the same period 1981 through 1983.
There were also a significant increase in deaths among people ages 65 and older after the Steelers comeback win in 1980 over the Rams.
Fams develop an emotional connection to their team, and when their team loses, there's an emotional stress.
And besides, look at what people eat during a football game, all those high-fat snacks and stuff.
And it says right here, consuming copious amounts of beer and fatty foods like buffalo wings, practically a requirement at many Super Bowl parties, can also trigger a potentially deadly heart attack.
One high-fat meal can cause your blood to be more likely to clot two weeks later.
Yeah, within two weeks.
I am not kidding.
Well, yeah, you give follow.
Look, the bottom line is, it's nonsense, is it not?
Every day.
Every day a story, something's going to kill you now.
Your team losing in the Super Bowl combined with you eating buffalo wings and high-fat foods.
All right, we'll get to some of your phone calls when we come back.
El Rush Baugh and the EIB network.
Sit tight.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Let's go to Traverse City, Michigan, and we'll start with Bob.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
I listen to your program so I can inoculate myself against the bird brain flu.
Well, I appreciate that, sir.
Whatever the reason, we appreciate it.
Well, my question is that the Judge Vincent there ruled that the Congress can't regulate inactivity.
And I know that immunization mandation comes from the states.
I'm sure that's been the Supreme Court, and I'm sure the Supreme Court's upheld it.
But how is this mandate to buy this insurance much different from immunizations?
Can you answer that?
What is the difference in the states mandating people buy insurance and be immunized?
Yeah, a childhood.
It's a hearing problem, is that what you...
Yeah, exactly.
Well, the states have, states can do far more than things with it.
The Constitution is very precise, very, very cogent, and the states have far more powers of that kind than the federal government will ever have.
Thomas Jefferson boys saw to it.
Okay.
For example, the states can mandate that you have automobile insurance.
The feds cannot.
But this immunization business has to do with the, what I'm saying is it has to do with the inactivity.
The auto insurance has been held up because you're out putting people at risk.
You can't buy an automobile.
No, no, the inactivity is just a logical conclusion.
If they can make you buy something, then by logical extension, they have the ability to tell you you can't buy something else.
Which is used to illustrate the fallacy of the premise that they have the right to tell you to buy anything.
Because they can isolate you in the state, for example, but in the federal government can't do that.
So the states could mandate you do this program and the feds can't.
The state does.
Many states already do, but the federal government cannot.
I got you.
Very simple.
And I'm glad you called because a lot of people have the belief, and it's furthered by people like Pete Stark who says there's nothing the federal government can't do.
It's being run by people who have that attitude.
And there's a constitution that makes it clear that the reason it exists is to keep the federal government from becoming an aristocracy or a kingdom or a dictatorship.
That's the express purpose of the Constitution, one of many.
The First Ten Amendment, the Bill of Rights, the reason the left doesn't like it, because it tells government what it cannot do to people, what it cannot do for people.
Our founders had fled a totalitarian dictatorship, a kingdom for all intents and purposes, where everything about their lives was regulated.
They had to adhere to a certain religion.
They had to do this.
They had to do that.
If they didn't, they were heretics.
They could be put in jail.
They didn't like that.
They wanted all kinds of freedoms.
So they wrote a constitution limiting what the federal government can do.
And the Commerce Clause is very clear.
Commerce Clause makes it clear the federal government cannot require any person buy a product or a service or anything of the sort.
And by logical conclusion, they can't tell you that you have to forego something at the same time.
So don't get caught up in a petty issue that you may have here with immunizations and whether to do it.
The states can do what they want.
States can mandate that you have auto insurance.
Federal governments never have the ability.
They can urge you.
They can have all these scare meetings.
Hillary Clinton bill up there saying you've got to get this vaccination.
Kathleen Sebelius, this wine flu is coming.
You're all going to die.
They can't make you get the vaccine.
And in fact, a lot of people will refuse to get a vaccine if the federal government's pushing it.
Simply because it's the federal government pushing it.
They don't trust it.
Pure and simple.
So get rid of this notion the federal government has omnipotent powers.
It doesn't.
This bunch running the country thinks that they do and are acting under the premise that they do.
And that's what's been struck down here.
And that's what's profound about this.
Many of us are thinking it's about damn time somebody applied the brakes to this bunch.
And not just this bunch, but everybody who thinks the federal government's powers are limitless.
Screw them.
Tom in what is it, Hanford, California.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
It's a pleasure, Rush.
Hey, I believe this administration has basically wasted two years.
They should have done all their homework, but instead they were trying to force feed their agenda.
You know, and basically they should have been working on getting jobs together or trying to promote jobs, and now all of a sudden there's a jobs crisis.
Exactly as intended.
Well, you say they wasted their time.
Well, they've wasted our time.
They wasted their time.
They've spent countless dollars promoting this and trying to, you know, tell us how good it's supposed to be.
I mean, there's advertising campaigns, all kinds of crap.
Right?
Exactly by design.
They didn't waste anything.
Their intent was to get this health care law passed with this mandate and eventually get rid of the private sector insurance industry so that they were the only place you could go to for health care insurance and coverage or treatment.
They, as far as they're concerned, their mistakes, I guarantee you, if they will admit to any, what they're going to realize their mistake was not putting in a severability clause in the legislation.
And the judge references this.
A severability clause, many pieces of legislation have them.
And essentially, it says if one part of this piece of legislation is ruled unconstitutional, it does not mean the whole thing is.
The judge says they did not ask for severability.
Therefore, they knew that if any aspect of this was ruled unconstitutional, the whole thing goes down.
And it did.
They didn't waste any money.
They didn't waste any time.
They got flummoxed here.
They've got to go back to the drawing board.
Let me tell you when the job crisis is going to be.
Job crisis is going to be 2012.
And you know why?
No president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%.
That's right.
I am pretty sure of that.
That's when the job crisis will become a crisis.
If we get to mid-2011 throughout 2012, that's when you're going to see the laser-like focus.
Now, let me explain severability.
I explain you what it is.
Let me tell you why they couldn't put that clause in.
Severability says if any part of this legislation is found to be unconstitutional, only that part will be struck.
The rest of the legislation holds up, remains intact.
The reason they didn't put severability in is the CBO.
They had to find a way to create the illusion of revenue being created to keep the cost of this thing over 10 years under a trillion dollars.
Well, you know, some of the tricks, but the figure that's relevant here: 32 million uninsured.
The law mandating that you buy insurance adds 32 million times an annual premium, which is revenue.
They had to have that.
They had to have that even if it was just theoretical.
They had to be able to send to the CBO that 32 million people were going to be required to buy health insurance or face a fine.
There was going to be a source of revenue from those 32 million one way or the other.
Either they bought a policy or they paid a fine.
And they had to do that.
If you take away the mandate, which leads to revenue being generated from the uninsured, the CBO would not have been able to claim, a lie.
CBO would not have been able to claim that it would lower the deficit.
And Obamacare would have to sunset in 10 years, just like the Bush tax cuts, because if something doesn't come in at a projected budget figure, it forgets the formula, then it goes away.
If it causes the deficit to go up, then it dies.
And they had to find a monkey wrench way to show that the deficit would not go up, that in fact, that it was going to be reduced.
And so they've had this magic number of 32 million uninsured.
And they're going to get money out of them somehow.
They're either going to force them to buy a policy or pay a fine if they don't.
So without the mandate, there would be no savings, and it would have to sunset.
And they would have lost a huge propaganda point, which is an outrageous lie anyway.
And the health insurance companies would have never supported the bill without that mandate.
The insurance companies, they got, they got, wish I could have talked to them.
But the insurance companies were just looking two years down the road.
They weren't looking for the rest of their lives.
They saw, wow, this stupid regime is going to give us 32 million new customers.
Hell yes, we're going to support that.
So they went along with it.
They would have never supported the bill had there been no mandate.
So you can't allow severability.
You can't allow a federal judge to take that out.
Because you take that out and the rest of the bill goes by the wayside because it fails to meet the fiscal responsibility aspects of the law.
So this whole thing, folks, was concocted on a series of lies or prevarications or frauds or what have you.
And this is essentially what Judge Vinson has spotted and seen and, frankly, what a number of us did.
That mandate is unconstitutional, but without it, this law can't survive.
I don't, I think they rolled the dice.
I don't know whether they thought it would be challenged.
I don't know if they had any idea that 26 states would file suit against it.
I don't know if they figured somebody would say it's unconstitutional.
I don't know what they thought.
I don't remember if they said anything about that.
All I know is they couldn't put a severability clause in it.
They had to be thinking about it, obviously, because they couldn't put the severability clause in.
They couldn't give a judge a right to take just that out of it and let the rest of it survive.
Because the truth is, you take the mandate out and it all falls by the wayside.
And you watch.
They're going to file for a stay.
They keep implementing this.
And their legal argument is going to center around the fact that the mandate is constitutional.
That's what this is all going to be about.
When it goes to the appellate court and acts, there'll be some other things too that Judge Vincent ruled on, but it'll focus on that, then up to the Supreme Court as well.
As to whether or not that mandate is constitutional, pure and simple.
And it's fascinating to watch this.
And it's such, I can't tell you the swelling of pride in my heart last night when I heard this.
This is one of the best affirmations that we as a country still exist as founded and as we've known it, that we've had since this bunch was immaculated into office in 2009.
I cannot tell you.
And that is why I spent the first hour here trying to explain what the Republican Party strategy here is.
They've got the biggest boost that they've ever had to defunding this thing and repealing it.
They have, this is, I mean, they've got the wind at their backs now.
They don't have to just simply rely on the people don't want it because that doesn't mean anything to the regime.
Now we're going to find out if the Constitution means anything to the regime.
Because this law has been voided, folks.
It is unconstitutional.
And again, for the gazillionth time, the judge did not say that they can continue to implement it while it's appealed.
We'll keep a sharp eye on this.
This is Ray, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Very good, sir.
Thank you.
I'll get right to my point.
Earlier, you were talking, and you just now finished a monologue about what I'm going to say.
And that is, you're talking about 70% agreeing with basically the principles of where the Tea Party is moving.
And as is always true, it created an epiphany for me, which is I'm in my mid-50s, and I cannot remember a time when the American people were truly ready to write the ship in this country.
And I will tell you this.
If the politicians squander this opportunity, they not only squander their opportunity for power, in my opinion, they're an opportunity to make the United States what it really is truly supposed to be.
Wait a minute, you can't remember a time when the American people were ready to write the ship.
You mean correct it?
I'm sorry, say that one more time.
You can't remember a time when the American people were ready to write the ship?
Not like, no, not in my lifetime.
I can't remember when they were truly ready to tackle these problems and get things back on.
Well, one of the reasons is there's never been this kind of outreach or overreach by any administration.
We've never had this before.
That's true.
And it is heartwarming to see.
There's no question.
I agree totally with you about that.
Well, I mean, what we have, and when you think about it, I mean, Barack Obama is truly the founder of the Tea Party.
Because it's a, you know, it's basically like the law of physics.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yeah, I know.
I know exactly what he's saying.
Who's the Tea Party leader?
Who don't have one?
They'd be wise not to have one.
It's a grassroot effort that's bubbled up, but it's clear Barack Obama was the impetus.
We've never had a president like Obama.
We've never had a Tea Party movement like this other than during the founding.
This is it's all good.
Everything here is all good.
Now we just have to see if the Republicans in Washington are going to remain focused and not go lazy on us.
Maybe they could sit there and say, well, okay, the court says it's unconstitutional.
Let the court do the heavy lifting.
We'll just sit back while it's not putting our necks out on the line.
Hope they don't do that.
I hope they understand here.
You got this Gallup USA Today poll.
70% of the American people think the Tea Party's ideas are good should be listened to.
Federal judge Reagan appointee.
This thing's unconstitutional.
Void it.
It has no business being a law in this country.
Well, if they're serious about repealing it, this is a nuclear bomb in your MO.
This is a nuclear bomb in your arsenal.
And this should be like an afterburner being turned on for you.
And that's what it ought to be.
I continue to hear, ladies and gentlemen, just overwhelming rave reviews from people who have heard me talk about this massive new or magical new hearing assistance program called ESTEAM.
I keep wanting to call it a hearing aid, but it isn't a hearing aid.
It doesn't use a microphone.
It doesn't use amplification.
There's no speaker.
The ESTEAM is an implant.
It's an inner ear, prosthetic, inner ear stimulator.
And it doesn't use a speaker or microphone.
It's not a hearing aid.
After the surgical implant, which is invisible, no one will know that you had a hearing loss.
And this outfit, this product, ESTEAM, is the only approved method to effectively replace and eliminate hearing aids.
It's an entirely, it uses your eardrum.
It does not just make things louder and compensate.
It's an entirely new revolutionary process.
You know, there are people out there that are being misdiagnosed with Alzheimer's.
The truth is, many of these people are simply losing their hearing.
What do you mean by that?
It's very simple.
I can't tell you, you know, I can't hear.
I'm totally deaf.
And I guess I get weird looks, facial expressions when I'm trying to understand somebody, especially in a crowd.
And I'm not aware of it.
I'm just really trying to concentrate.
And sometimes when I'm trying to hear somebody say something and don't quite hear it, I get frustrated at myself.
And I will make a facial expression or I will go, ah, damn it.
And people will think I'm mad at them.
People will think that I'm think they're stupid or whatever.
And my reaction has nothing to do with them.
It all is about frustration with me not being able to hear what they're saying.
Well, a lot of people, if they're a certain age, this is looked at as somebody losing their mind, misdiagnosed with Alzheimer's and all kinds of things.
There are a number of people who have hearing loss that'll never admit it.
They don't want anybody to know about it.
It's some sort of weakness.
If you're one of these people and you don't want to get a hearing aid, you don't have to now.
Simply call 800-518-7320, 800-518-7320, or visit this website, envoymedical.com, E-N-V-O-Y, envoymedical.com for a list of side effects and benefits associated with esteem.
Back in a moment.
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right, 99.6% of the time, 800-282-2882.
It appears, ladies and gentlemen, the regime is just going to ignore the judge's ruling.
We go now to who is this?
Gene Cummings, the managing editor of the Politico.
She was asked, what's the administration going to do?
I think the administration is just going to move forward and hope for the best and hope that they get the ruling that they argue they deserve.
Clearly, this judge in Florida went further than anyone else did and basically put the entire issue of the law now before the Supreme Court once the case gets there.
But the Supreme Court would have had the ability to review the whole law anyway.
So whether these negative rulings are narrow or broad doesn't really change the process that this issue is on, and that is resolution in the Supreme Court.
Right.
Well, but it does.
See, this is the key, and this is where, as I mentioned earlier, any one of the 26 attorney generals who have filed suit can move now and ask for an immediate ruling from Judge Vinson.
The minute the signal is made that the regime is going to ignore his ruling, then somebody needs to consult him again.
And that's what this sounds like.
Well, you know, they're just going to keep going because everybody knows it's going to go to Supreme Court anyway.
So we'll just wait until he gets there.
In the meantime, they're just going to move forward.
They're just going to move forward on all of this.
Doesn't surprise me.
Frankly, it's what I expected from.
I mean, this is an increasingly lawless administration anyway, ignoring the judiciary.
I just want you to think back again.
What would happen if Nixon had done this during Watergate?
What are you going to do?
The judges ruled X. Nixon says, fuck this.
I'm not going to pay any attention to him.
Screw him.
We're just going to keep going.
There would have been nuclear blow-offs, explosions going off all over Washington, D.C. Back to the phones.
This is Carla Carlos, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very good.
Thank you.
I can't believe I'm talking to you.
Wow, I was born and raised in Pittsburgh.
And I, too, left in the early 80s.
I wanted to ask you, did you ever go to Monroeville when you were in Pittsburgh?
Did I ever go to Monroeville?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I went out to Monroeville, the Monroeville Mall.
I went out, what, a holiday house?
Absolutely.
Yeah, they used to have stars.
Well, listen, my comment is I was watching the media day when the Packers were talking, and Coach McCarthy, isn't he from Pittsburgh also?
He's from Greenfield.
Yes.
Well, anyhow, he and also Aaron Rodgers, they kept talking about how Aaron Rodgers conducts himself off the field and how he has a lot of integrity and blah, blah, blah.
They kept talking about that.
And I thought, maybe that's supposed to psych Ben out or maybe draw attention to the fact that Ben had some issues off the field.
But it just struck me so funny that, you know, that was their big thing that they were talking about.
I saw a little bit of Aaron Rodgers asked about that.
And he said, I'm not going to talk about somebody's private life.
It's none of my business.
And he went on to praise Rothlessberger as a quarterback.
So I didn't hear what McCarthy said, but I heard Aaron Rodgers say this exact opposite.
Oh, well, I just, I didn't think that he would come right out and say anything directly about Ben.
But I mean, he didn't even imply it.
He said, I don't want to go there.
I don't know what you, I'm not denying that you heard what you heard.
I just saw Aaron Rodgers when he was at the podium.
They asked me one of the first questions I have to look at.
I don't talk about people's personal lives.
Now, you might want to think that was a reference to it.
But he said, I don't talk about personal lives.
It's none of my business.
I'll talk about stuff on the field, which is what he proceeded to do.
That's not the big transgression that's happened this week.
If you want to talk about stuff, I'll tell you about the real transgression when we come back.
Yesterday morning, Sports Illustrated on its website had a story that Roger Goodell had talked to about 20 Steelers players back in the spring and the summer, and not one of them would say a good thing about Rothlessberger.
It turns out that that's not what Goodell had said.
Goodell did not say talk to Steelers players.
He'd talked to 20 players throughout the league.
And it was things like, yeah, he won't sign my jersey or things.
And people are looking at that as an attempt here to stir things up.
▲
Export Selection