All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:33
February 3, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So we had a drive-by caller called in Mr. Sterdley.
They didn't want to go on the air, but had a question.
Why would a mayor like the mayor of Phoenix allow a big prostitution bust after a big prostitution sting the day, the night of and the day after they have just made millions of dollars from tourists because of the Super Bowl?
Why would you put the screws to the guys, i.e. the NFL and players that are bringing the money into the city?
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh here at 800-282-2882.
Okay, so here you got Super Bowl in your Phoenix.
Actually, Phoenix did not have the Super Bowl.
Glendale did.
And it's different.
Glendale made the bid.
Glendale, Arizona had the Super Bowl.
Glendale had the host committee.
Phoenix is the generic area.
But in terms of actual cities behind the Super Bowl was Glendale, and the mayor of Glendale has been complaining all week how much money they lost.
They lost millions of dollars putting on the Super Bowl, this guy said.
To which a lot of people said, well, then why did you bid on it, dude?
Well, I don't know.
It depends on what the, you wouldn't believe.
Look, I have experience with host committees.
And you wouldn't believe what the league demands that the host committee pay for as part.
And the host committee is just local donors and hangers on and groupies that donate money to get close.
And there's some civic-minded types, too, that do it, and charitable types.
But the host committee is, the host committee has to, I can't remember off the top of my head, I remember being shocked when I learned some of the things the NFL demanded that the host city pay for that you would think the NFL would pay for.
But no, no, no, no, no.
The NFL holds all the cards here.
And if you want the game, here's what you're going to pay, is what you're going to provide.
But still, the question, why would you run a sting?
And by the way, the sting wasn't of NFL players per se.
It just happened to nab a couple.
But I think it's all about, who knows?
You got a Super Bowl.
You're attracting all kinds of humanity there.
Some of it undesirable.
But I don't think it has anything to do with insulting the NFL just because you grab a couple of guys.
Now, I want to go back to this question before we get back into other things here.
This is something I have been wondering about for the longest time.
I misunderstood a question a caller was going to ask.
He's asking about player discipline, and he wanted to know about why would the Seahawks jump offside in the fourth quarter when all they would have had to do tried to create a safety.
And it was after the interception, and Brady was taking a snap in the end zone.
And so they jumped to try to get a safety and get the ball back.
In that case, I think Brady's cadence drew them off.
They're so eager.
And Michael Bennett, their best player on defense of Seattle, had just been anticipating snap all day and had been giving Brady all kinds of trouble.
So I think that was the kind of discipline I'm talking.
Look at Marshawn Lynch crotch grabbing.
That's one thing.
This other guy, Doug Baldwin, scores a touchdown and pretends to drop his pants, take a dump on the football.
In baseball, you have players that do not run out ground balls to first base.
You've got players routinely will hit a long flyball and stand there at the plate, watch it.
Posing, and it won't go out.
It'll hit the wall.
And instead of ending up at third base for a triple, they're barely making it back to first base with what should have been an automatic double.
But in football, any of these other unsportsmanlike or taunting penalties that players get or unsportsmanlike they get for improper celebrating in the ends and the rule is the rule.
Where are coaches on this?
When I was a kid and didn't run a ground ball out to first base, I got benched.
I got, I mean, I was coached.
I was told you're going to hustle.
I remember when I played high school football and I didn't get away with this for very long.
The end of every practice was sprints.
After two hours of just physical torture, here came the sprints.
Sometimes there were 70 yards, sometimes 40, sometimes 65 across the field and back.
And position groups ran with each other.
I was an offensive tackle, so I ran with the tackles and the guards, the offensive linemen.
And I'd always take a look as we're doing the sprints.
I'd make sure I finished in the middle of pack.
And eventually a coach should say, first three tackles, take it in.
Well, I was always among the first three because I had been pacing myself.
So one day coach came up and said, Mr. Limbaugh, I notice during sprints, you're always here in the middle of the pack until it's time to go in, and then you're just beating everybody.
What are you doing?
I said, I'm pacing myself, coach.
He said, you know, Mr. Limbaugh, in football and in life, we don't pace ourselves.
We go all out all the time.
So you're running 10 extra sprints for the next five practices, no matter where you finish.
If they didn't run a ground ball to first base, they got yelled at, chided.
I mean, this is not how we play the game.
Get a ground ball, you never know.
They're going to throw it away.
You dig, and you get there as fast as you can.
Don't sit there and preen and think that you're automatically thrown out.
Get to the professional level.
And I wouldn't think these guys need to be coached.
I don't understand professional football players who behave in immature.
Well, I do understand.
That's the point.
But why it's not coached?
Why it's put up with by the coaches.
Now, I understand.
Well, the players are getting all the money.
If the coach says, hey, Marshawn, stop the crotch grab.
Marshawn is going to say, screw you, buddy.
If one of the two of us is gone, who do you think it's going to be?
It's going to be you.
I'm just using him because he's a recent example.
There's all kinds of people that players that the coaches seem to exhibit no, I mean, ridiculous 15-yard penalties that are killer penalties against a team.
And a player will get one for stupidest post-play behavior or whatever.
And I just, do the coaches not take these guys aside after game and said, one more time like that, and you're not starting?
It makes real sense to me.
So that's what I thought I meant by player discipline and the lack of it, because there clearly is lack of play discipline.
Now, look at this here, folks.
Look here.
I have a story here.
Fortune magazine.
The 317 immunization program is taking a hit, although officials believe rising insurance rates will pick up the slack.
With all the irresponsible spending, look at what's buried here in the president's budget.
Obama's budget cuts $50 million from a vaccine program for the underinsured.
Here it is.
So here we have today the creation of a new war on whoever it's going to end up being issue.
The Democrats come along and accuse the Republicans of being insensitive and cold-hearted, whatever it is on vaccinating our kids against measles.
And you know what drives the Republicans on this, by the way?
It's their voters.
There are a lot of parents who just do not want to accept verboten what the CDC says about any kind of vaccination.
There are a lot of parents who just are going to not totally trust when the government says inject this substance into your child, especially with all this highfalutin theorizing out there that injection vaccines cause autism, for which there's no link proven, by the way, but doesn't matter.
Once you put it out there, people aren't going to take the choice.
So the Republican candidates may be all in favor of doing this.
Who knows?
But it's not just Republican voters.
It's all kinds of people in this country who are leery because they, in a legitimate sense, don't trust the government.
Government makes all kinds of mistakes all the time, and people die.
The government is not something you can universally trust because people instinctively know that the government's all about politics.
And so some people are not just going to bend over and do whatever when the government says, you stick that needle in your kid and you vaccinate because we got an outbreak.
Hold on.
Not necessarily going to believe what you're telling me, Mr. Government Man, Mr. Government Scientist.
So the Democrats try to turn that into a Republican war on science.
Republicans oppose to scientific evidence about the nature of vaccines and this measles outbreak, which we're only again dealing with because of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
We have a measles outbreak.
We have an outbreak of a disease that we have conquered.
So we have open borders and we have let sick kids with this disease flood the southern border.
And now all of a sudden, this is a Republican problem?
I mean, this is just asinine.
This is absurd the way this is shaped.
Anyway, final story here that in Obama's own budget, he's cutting funds for vaccinations.
While the Democrats are setting up this major story that it's the Republicans who oppose vaccines because the Republicans are backwards on science and because the Republicans don't have the requisite amount of compassion for our kids and because Republicans don't have the requisite amount of compassion for our mothers, you know, war on women stuff.
Meanwhile, when you dig deep, you find it's Obama and Hillary who have opposed massive vaccination orders because of the link to autism.
And now Obama cutting $50 million from a vaccine program for the underinsured.
Just, it just, you can't keep up with it.
But the hypocrisy and the lies that come out of these people on the left, I mean, it's their front and center for anybody who wants to see it and believe it.
And here, the CEO of Gallup, I've always thought Gallup was part of the state-run media.
Always thought of Gallup as almost, not quite, but the official pollster of the Obama regime.
And the CEO, Jim Clifton, has a piece, The Big Lie, 5.6 unemployment.
Here's something that many Americans, including some of the smartest and most educated among us, do not know.
The official unemployment rate, as reported by the Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.
Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street, about how unemployment's down to 5.6%.
The cheerleading is deafening.
The media loves a comeback story.
The White House wants to score political points.
Wall Street would like you to stay in the market, but none of them will tell you this.
If you, a family member, or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job, if you're so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking, the Department of Labor doesn't even count you as unemployed.
That's what this guy is telling us something.
This is striking.
You, as members of the audience of this program, have known for 15 years what the U6 and the U3 unemployment numbers are.
The U3 number is what's reported.
And what he's talking about, the U6 number does count people who've given up and are no longer working.
The number that's released, this 5.6% number, does not count the millions of people who were unable to find a job in four years and have given up looking.
This guy thinks he is issuing breaking news.
And sadly, to a bunch of low-information voters, he is.
So when he says the big lie, 5.6 unemployment, all he's talking about is the U6 versus the U3 number.
And it's, these are categories: U, capital U, letter U, 3.
It's just a category, U6, it's another one.
But the unemployment number every month that's reported is U3.
They do not count as unemployed, people no longer looking.
The U6 number is the real, and that's up at around 12% right now.
And his point, that's the big lie.
The big lie is that real unemployment is closer to 12% than 5.6.
Now, you in this audience have known this for gosh, how many years?
The CEO of Gallup decides to publish it today as though it's breaking news.
And I'm sure to some people it is, sadly.
You know, the New York Post has a story today that I just wonder why some things.
Well, never mind.
I know why it makes the news.
Hell perversion sells.
Sterling, you remember back when we used to do our flipper updates the story over in the UK where a woman went swimming with the dolphin and the dolphin ended up displaying a flying finger of love or something.
Finger friendship.
Sorry, the finger of friendship.
And the woman professed to fall in love with a dolphin or whatever it was.
Well, the New York Post has a story.
A dolphin seduced me and we enjoyed a torrid year-long affair.
And it's a guy.
And it's been memorialized in a documentary movie, a documentary movie that premiered at the Slam Dance Film Festival last week, which I guess is a takeoff on Sundance.
A man details his year-long affair with a dolphin.
Malcolm Brenner, now 63, says he was working as a photographer at the Sarasona Theme Park, Florida land, in 1971 when he met Dolly, a female dolphin.
He tried to remain pure, he claims, but Dolly, the dolphin, seduced him.
He says, Yeah, at first I discouraged her.
I wasn't interested, Brenner says, in the movie.
After some time, I thought, if this was a woman, would I come up with these rationalizations and excuses?
He finally succumbed to the dolphins' advances.
I started rubbing along her back, working my way to her flukes, her tail.
And as I was rubbing her and moving my hand towards her tail, Dolly was slowly rolling around on her long axis.
And then other stuff happened requiring the mismatched couple to elude the male dolphin so we could spend some time alone.
There's a documentary about some guy.
And I knew this was against the law, snurdly.
It's not animal abuse when love is involved.
Besides that, remember my prediction, once you change the definition of there's no boundaries.
Once you change the definition of but okay, so the guy does it.
It makes a documentary.
The New York Post puts it in.
I guess it's a perfect story for the New York Post.
Anyway, Kathy in Austin, Texas, we head back to the phones.
I'm glad you waited.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
I wanted to call, I'm from the great state of Texas.
Of course, if you're Representative Hastings from Florida, I would be the crazy state of Texas.
Yeah, but he's not my representative.
He represents some Looney Tuned people to the north here, not ours.
Well, that's good to know.
But I wanted to tell you that I am so glad that you're bringing the immigration debate into the measles vaccine issue because I have been saying it from the beginning, from the first day I heard it.
How can it not be the people coming flooding across our borders that are not immunized?
How can that not be a factor, a major factor in this deal?
Do you happen to know off the top of your head, it's not a trick question.
If you don't know, there's no wrong answers.
I don't think anybody else does.
Do you happen to remember when the CDC officially declared the measles virus eradicated in the U.S.?
Do you remember when that was?
I do not.
It was the year 2000, 15 years ago.
And so now we have an outbreak?
Well, what's we conquered this disease.
It was declared eradicated.
And now we've got a flood of obviously infected young children from Central America.
And in this whole debate, nobody is talking about that.
And nobody is telling us this is why.
And because in the why is the answer to the solution.
They're scared.
They're scared to tell the truth because if you speak the truth, then you are called anti-immigrant.
But the vaccine debate has been going on for years and we haven't really had a problem.
But coincidentally, we had hundreds of thousands of people, mostly children, pouring across our borders last summer.
Now, uh-oh, we have a problem, and they want to blame it on a mother that refuses to inoculate her child.
Right.
And the Republicans.
Yes.
So thank you for speaking the truth.
I listen every day, and I just appreciate it so much.
Well, thank you very much.
It's the truth, but to me, it's simply common sense.
If we have, and everybody knows measles have been conquered.
They may not know that it was officially announced as eradicated in the year 2000, but everybody knows they haven't had a measles vaccine.
You haven't had a vaccine, vaccinate your kids against measles, and how long?
And all of a sudden, it's a major outbreak.
Well, what the, and how does it not get mentioned?
It's only common sense why this outbreak is happening.
And as I say, it's like fighting ISIS or the militant Islamists.
Can't even identify the cause and the problem and eradicating it.
So we've got to make up some other phony, responsible party like this mother you talked about, or the Republicans were crying out loud.
Staying on the phones, this is Cranberry, New Jersey.
Perry, welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to EIB Network.
Hi.
How are you doing, Rush?
It's like 24 degrees out here.
I'm walking my cocker spaniel Little Lulu.
24 degrees?
What's a wind chill?
It's even colder than that.
I'm not even taking that.
It's like the actual temperature is I'm looking at now, 25.
I was up there.
We were up in New Jersey on Saturday, and a wind chill was like 10.
Yeah, man, it's cold.
So I put on my suit jacket instead of just wearing a shirt sleeves.
That's cold.
So look, this is what I wanted to say to you.
About an hour ago before I took Lulu out, I was watching the TV and it said that Standard ⁇ Poor's is going to have to pay a $1.4 billion fine for its role into the 2008 crash.
And what that is, is that, you know, I hear you say all the time that liberals want free stuff.
Well, I'm a liberal and I don't want free stuff.
Even though I didn't make a lot of money in my life, I'm 60 years old.
I was investing and I had a broker and the broker told me that these mortgage-backed securities were AAA-rated by Standard ⁇ Poor's and I should go ahead and buy them.
What a crock that was.
Excuse me?
What a crock that was.
Triple-A-rated?
Subprime mortgages?
Standard and poor's.
And so it turned out that when it crashed, not only did I lose my money, but my tax money had to go bail out Wall Street.
Yes, exactly.
And so as a liberal, I don't want free stuff, but I want to make sure that somebody regulates and keeps an eye on what these people do because so far we found out, Rush, that the honor system just doesn't work.
And that's what regulations are for.
Okay, so what is your real point here?
Are you calling as a liberal to say we do need regulation?
Are you translating that to the vaccines?
Or are you just talking about something entirely different than vaccines?
Oh, no, I'm not talking about vaccines at all.
I'm talking about what, you know, the news that just came on the news an hour ago.
Okay.
Now we're starting to find out that the reason why the whole economy crashed was because the Bush administration was looking the other way while Wall Street did what it did.
No, that's not why the economy crashed.
It's not.
No, it's not why the economy crashed.
I lost half of my net value that year.
Thankfully, it came back big time.
I tripled my net value.
That must have happened in the Obama administration then.
That I tripled it?
Absolutely.
Yeah, yeah, I figured that's well.
I mean, it had to be.
But the honor system doesn't work.
Rush, the first thing that the Republicans did when they just got in this new Congress was repeal Dodd-Frank because Dodd-Frank was put in there to make sure that companies like Standard and Poor's couldn't lie.
It hasn't been repealed.
They didn't repeal it, but they took away a lot of the regulations.
No, they haven't.
They've wanted to.
They announced there and they made a proposal, but they didn't go anywhere because the Democrats oppose it.
Obama's not going to sign it.
Dodd-Frank is still alive and ready and is able to sign it, right?
We don't want free stuff.
We just don't want to get swindled.
Okay, now I understand what this is.
This is out of left field.
I'm struggling here to relate.
This is an open line Friday call, and I don't know it.
I'm the last to figure it out.
This guy's calling in relationship to nothing that we've talked about today.
He's just a liberal, and he's offended that I say liberals want freebies.
And he's calling to say he's a liberal and he doesn't want freebies.
He just wants what's due him because the economy crashed when the Republicans were in the White House and because the honor system doesn't work.
I just thought to, you know, worn out.
Let's get worn out.
Especially when now the subject of the subprime mortgage, the one place, the one place where somebody tried to stop that from happening was the Bush administration.
The effort might have been half-assed, but they at least tried.
I can get audio soundbites for you of Barney Frank telling regulators to go pound sand as they were trying to rein in what was happening.
Honor system, my foot, there wasn't any honor system, and nobody ever claims the honor system.
You get this idea that we here are totally opposed to regulation, that we are for unfettered, unchallenged, unregulated capitalism, and nobody's ever made such any such assertion.
Your colleagues is coming out of the clear blue here.
It's like it's your turn to call talk radio, and at Media Matters, you gave you this topic.
So here you're reading from the script.
Oh, man.
The subprime mortgage crisis was birthed by Bill Clinton.
It was fueled by Jimmy Carter, birthed by Jimmy Carter, fueled by Bill Clinton, and it was sent to the moon on a rocket ship by the Democrat Party.
And it was based on the premise that it's unfair that people that can't afford houses don't have them.
And the government made lenders.
I can't believe I'm going through this again.
The federal government, starting with Carter into Clinton, demanded that banks, Janet Reno threatened the banks if they didn't do this, demanded that the banks loan money.
lend money to people that could never have a prayer of paying it back.
And if they didn't do that, they were going to be investigated by Janet Reno and the Justice Department, and all hell was going to be breaking out against them.
Okay, so these banks and institutions are told they've got to make these loans, which nobody in their right mind would make.
So what did they do?
They figured out a way because not anything is static.
You see, Clinton and the boys thought the banks would sit there and suck wind for a couple of years in order to make Clinton look good and compassionate so he could say, look what I've done for home ownership.
But the banks say, you know what, we're not going to lose money here.
We're not going to loan money to people that can't pay it back and sit here and go out of business.
So what they did was package these worthless loans into what became mortgage-backed securities.
And you know what they were worth?
Nothing.
They started out being worthless and they stayed worthless, but they were packaged.
What they did was pool all these mortgages and then they sold them.
And they sold them on the basis that all these mortgages combined were going to produce this millions of dollars worth of income every month.
And so those worthless mortgage-backed securities were purchased under the belief that there was massive amounts of monthly incomes via the monthly payment that all these mortgages were going to create.
And as each buyer of the worthless mortgage-backed securities learned that they had bought nothing, they continued to repackage them into something that some other sucker would buy until there weren't any suckers left.
And that's when we got the financial crisis.
And that's when they all had to be bailed out.
And that's when the Bush administration and everybody fell prey to the crisis presented to us by Henry Paulson and everybody else.
And if we didn't bail out these banks, which the government had demanded make these worthless loans in the first place and backed by the Democrat Party, but it was their idea, Bill Clinton and his alone, with Barney Frank and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac were all involved in this.
It was all designed to make poor people experience the American dream of homeownership because it wasn't fair.
Don't forget that people who couldn't afford a house didn't have one.
Well, it was not just poor minority people.
It was a large block of it.
It was minority based.
But it wasn't just poor minority people that didn't have houses.
There's a bunch of poor white people that didn't either, and they were part of the – it was all a ruse.
It was all a ruse to show how compassionate the Democrat Party, anyway, by the time all this worthless paper had made the rounds and had been sold and sold and sold, all over the world, the stupid, the smartest bankers in the world who bought worthless paper time and time again, then claimed they needed to be bailed out because if they weren't, the world economy was going to collapse.
And so Henry Paulson got his guys together and he said, do you like your second and third homes in the Hamptons?
They said, yep.
You guys in California, you like your second and third homes in Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs?
They said, yep.
Do you like your private jets where you're flying your dog and kids around?
Yep.
Well, then you're going to sign this piece of paper demanding that you want $35 billion minimum from the government.
The Wells Fargo guy said, I didn't do this.
I didn't join this parade.
I don't want to bail out.
Paulson said, you're not getting out of this room until you sign it.
So they all signed it.
All the banks did, making it look like every bank needed to be bailed out.
That gave us tarp and a number of other things, all to save the global economy.
Now, what's the caller's name?
Perry.
Perry, I know you're still out there.
If you want to know why all of this happened, and by the way, you found yourself, because your dollars were used to fund mortgages for people that had no money to pay them, had no money, no business being given to them.
If you want to know why all that happened, the Democrat Party behaving under the auspices of liberalism.
Led by Jimmy Carter, the first fool to get involved.
Bill Clinton saw a great idea and tried to expand on it, got Janet Reno threatening the banks.
And it was people in the regulatory agencies that you seem to love here during the Bush administration that were trying to get accountability into this and to shut it down.
And it was Democrats led by Barney Frank of liberalism, which was doing everything to intimidate these regulators to shut up and go the hell away.
This one's owned from beginning to end by the Democrat Party.
Now, there may have been some Republicans involved in this bailout, and Paulson, who don't know what he was, he was part of the Bush administration engineering all this.
But this was a bailout.
And what do you think quantitative easing is, buddy?
That is more of your liberal Democrat banking buddies being given money printed by the Federal Reserve so that they can enjoy profits through the roof in the stock market.
Everything you're supposed to hate is propping up Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
You ought to be out there decrying every day that Wall Street has a big gain.
Because the reason it's happening is that the insiders are taking care of themselves.
The Fed's printing money, buying stock with it.
You want to know why there's a big gap?
Wealth distribution gap.
Why the rich keep getting richer?
What do you think is going to happen if the Fed is going to print $3.5 trillion and essentially give it to the stock market?
You think people in the stock market, Perry, are going to do okay?
Now, who's in the stock?
Who do these people at Wall Street vote for, Perry?
Same guy you voted for.
You realize under Barack Hussein, oh, this income distribution gap, the income gap, however it's portrayed, the wealth gap, income gap, inequality, it has skyrocketed under Barack Obama.
It's just mathematics.
You print $3.5 trillion, and that's not an error.
Called quantitative easing is to make sure the stock market didn't plummet with the rest of the economy because the masters of the universe are going to take care of themselves and not become paupers.
If they control the money, if they control the printing presses, why in the world should they ever go broke?
That's the way they look at it.
That's the value of going to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, whatever.
Anyway, got to take a break.
How did that call happen?
I'm still.
All right, here's Randy, Minneapolis.
Randy, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, it's my honor to speak with the great one.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you very much.
Well, I just had a comment on that Seahawk Patriot game.
I think Carol made the right call, tell you the truth.
You know, Lynch was one for five in that situation in the past.
And I tell you, that pass is rarely intercepted in that area.
And I think Russell just overthrew the pass just a little bit right into the Patriots' hands.
Well, that's actually not what happened, but I understand.
I don't mean to sound mean saying that's not what happened.
I don't mean, I'm not being disrespectful, Randy, because some people think it was a good call.
You're one of them.
And that had they executed, everybody's talking about what a brilliant call it was.
And that happens to be true if they'd executed.
But they had the wrong receiver chosen.
They should have chosen some guy 6'465.
If you're going to throw it, do a fade route in a corner end zone where if it's incomplete, it's no way intercepted.
This route, they gave it to this guy, Lockette, who had not done much all day.
Did you see the way he got bounced off his route by this cornerback?
And the reason he got bounced off of his route is because the pass was ill thrown.
He led the receiver.
He should have thrown that ball over the receiver's back shoulder where only the receiver could have caught that ball.
The only thing the cornerback could have done was maybe deflect it.
But he led the receiver.
And had he not done that, he's close enough not to have led.
He could have just fired a dart right in the receiver's gut or on that back outside shoulder.
So the cornerback couldn't have gotten to it.
But your point is that it was Wilson's fault.
And I don't disagree with that if you're going to analyze the play for what it was.
But I still think it was the wrong call.
And if you're hell going to throw in a pass, you've got this guy Matthews.
Now, I know that the Patriot defense had put a different cornerback.
They took Arrington.
Kyle Arrington had been burned by Chris Matthews.
They took Arrington.
Put a taller cornerback on Matthews, and that cornerback shut him down from the moment they made that change.
But you still go with your 6'5 guy on a corner fade route.
And if it's incomplete, it's incomplete.
You've still stopped the clock and you've done your precious pass play, as Carroll said.
Matthew's the receiver.
He's got a good future.
He's fine.
He's going to be fine.
Anyway, let's see.
Fred in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania.
Hi, you're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you, sir.
Herb.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I'm in Wilkesbury.
I'm actually a truck driver from Akron, Ohio.
But just to follow up on that previous caller, I also have the take that it was a good call.
Something that's not getting attention, though.
The touchdown was there except for one thing, the New England rookie that made the interception.
I wonder why he doesn't get any attention.
Well, he's starting to.
I mean, in the shock of the disbelief of the call, the focus, obviously, on the coaching staff, the Patriots.
Now, as time is passing, they are focusing on Malcolm Butler.
Brady's going to give him the truck that he won for MVP.
He's going to give it to Malcolm Butler.
Malcolm Butler makes it league minimum.
He's an undrafted rookie-free agent, which I think rookie minimum is $500,000.
Brady and Giselle spend that in a day.
So he's going to give him the truck.
But yeah, good call.
I mean, it wasn't.
It didn't work.
Well, if that rookie didn't have it figured out.
Well, then Seattle, brilliant.
I'm not.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm out of time here.
I've got to go here.
I wish I weren't, but I am.
Well, just like gay marriage, Obama has evolved on vaccinations.
Josh Ernest, a White House spokesman, says Obama doesn't believe today what he believed in the campaign of 2008.
Audio soundbites coming up.
Also, the Politico reporting that I rally behind Scott Walker, and the Republican establishment may not be thrilled with that.
▲
Export Selection