All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
January 11, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
Intelligence guided by experience as we make the complex understandable, all while serving humanity, half my brain tied behind my back just by showing up.
The telephone number 8800-282-2882 and the email address is L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
So to um to review Hillary Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders has for all intents and purposes vanished.
It is now being speculated on no less than ABC News by George Stephanopoulos, who hell, all I know, still is uh, for all intents and purposes a Clinton employee or staffer, disguised as a journalist at ABC is now acknowledging that Hillary could lose Iowa and New Hampshire.
And that that means it could be a long process.
And the old idea that delegate count thing could be out the window now.
Bernie Sanders is fired up and revved up, and he's going after Hillary on every front, except the women.
He's leaving that one alone.
He knows that the Republicans own that one.
But he's hitting her on everything else.
Uh even trying to get to her left on on gun control.
Now to show you how wacko that is, Hillary's out claiming credit for Obama's gun control actions of last week.
He had that gun control pep rally in the White House, and then he had the gun control town hall on CNN.
You know what I think, folks?
I think you get this news here that self-identified Democrats are at an all-time low, 29%.
I think a Democrat Party.
And the only reason this is true is because the Republican Party has has essentially ceased to exist as an opposition party.
The Democrat Party is is don't misunderstand this, because the media is still the media and they're still Democrats, and they're still formidable for a host of reasons, but man, they are bankrupt.
Now let's imagine where they are.
They've had, we're now our eighth year of Barack Hussein Oh and his regime, and basically anything they've wanted, they got.
They've given nuclear weapons to Iran.
You know, I I think this bunch uh speaking of that, you know, people trying to I don't think you can rationally explain these key these people.
There's no rational explanation to knowing who Iran is, giving them access to nuclear weapons and releasing sanctions, resulting in them getting a hundred to a hundred and fifty billion dollars on the hope that doing so will turn them into nice people.
I mean, if that's if that's really the reason they're doing it, then they're not balanced.
These people are just dangerously unbalanced.
I I just the the idea that all we have to do is treat these people nice and show them we respect them.
Um there's a couple indications here that they even know what they're doing is wrong.
They're even they they know what they're doing won't work, and yet they do it anyway.
Now that is irrational.
That is unbalanced.
So you have, I think the Democrat Party is out of ideas.
And I think the focus on gun control is the perfect illustration.
I wish I could remember, wasn't that long ago, but I made mention on this program.
It's just it's it's within the last five years, I guarantee you.
It may be back you know what?
It may be the the 2004 campaign.
It well, that it was, in fact.
Remember John Kerry trying to make himself out to be a pro-gun guy.
And a lot of the Democrats were trying, because the polling data was in, and it was clear that attacking the Second Amendment was a losing proposition for the Democrat Party.
It was a losing proposition to go after people's guns.
It was a losing proposition to appear Interested in getting rid of the second amendment, attacking it, leaving the impression you want to take people's guns.
They were they were doing just the opposite.
I remember pointing out on this program.
Maybe Coco can do a site search, because I can remember a number of times pointing out on this program how the gun control issue is now officially over because the Democrats are trying to get on the right side of it, the correct side of it.
Well, that's out the window.
So they've gone back to it now, which to me indicates they don't have anything else.
They're now, they have to do something to fire up their base.
They have to do something.
Their base is split now with Hillary and Bernie.
The idea that Hillary Clinton's not progressive enough, the idea Hillary Clinton's not liberal enough.
Um when they're out of ideas, and they are.
Now, that doesn't make them less dangerous because their ideas are still around, and their big idea is total control or as much control over everybody's life as they can amass.
And how they go about it is the various elements of their policy.
But that that hasn't changed, and they still want to accomplish that.
It's their effectiveness here.
I just think using going back to gun control as a tried and true thing that exists in their playbook when all else is lost, go to guns.
Because it's an automatic rallying point for their base.
But they're doing it knowing full well that they're not anywhere near on the popular side of that issue, which tells me that they know they're in trouble with their own base.
And I think it's real, and I think it's serious, and you don't know anything about it because the media is part of that party, and they're not going to report that party's problems, and they don't.
So they focus on the supposed dysfunction and controversies within the Republican Party, which are real, but in the process, they ignore what's going on.
The Democrat Party, everybody assumes it's just happy go lucky, everything's uh fine and dandy over, and it isn't.
The Democrat Party is in heap big trouble.
Now, don't misunderstand.
Uh I'm I'm talking about in terms of the being the party of the future with innovative ideas.
Uh they have they have lost the ability to capture young minds.
The problem, the the biggest thing they've got going for them is not themselves, but the successful misbranding of the Republican Party they've succeeded in.
It's the point like Joy Behar said on the view last week.
I don't care.
I would vote for a known rapist if he were liberal rather than vote for a Republican.
And she was applauded by by people on the left.
And that's a Republican branding thing.
That's just Republicans, I was what was it?
Somebody else uh some looney tune writer I was quoting last week in the New York Observer, who couldn't make up his mind, yeah, maybe I'll vote for Hillary, but maybe I won't.
And he lists the things he doesn't like about her and list the thing he does.
He said, Yeah, but you know what?
My daughter said she probably likes it.
Because I just can't imagine voting for these Neanderthal Republicans whose policies on social issues are back in a stone age.
So it doesn't matter to a lot of people how far down the Democrat Party falls.
The idea of voting Republican is still an ethymate to them.
So the Democrats can have all kinds of internal problems that still isn't gonna be that damaging because of the successful misbranding of the Republican Party, which is why another one of the many reasons why Trump is succeeding the way he is.
He doesn't appear to be part of any party, really.
He doesn't appear to be part of any political establishment.
And he's playing that up and plays it up smartly and and very well.
Art Laffer, did you hear what he said?
Art Laffer is the uh author, one of the many of supply side economics, uh, quote unquote, the Reagan tax cuts, essentially.
This is a story from over the weekend at the Hill.com.
Arthur Laffer is predict that the Republicans will win 47 states.
He's predicting a 47 state landslide this November.
He said, I would be surprised if the Republicans don't take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50.
I think we are going to landslide this election.
I look at these candidates.
I don't see one of them who wouldn't do a great job as president, meaning the Republican side.
I think Trump's phenomenal.
I think Rand Paul's done a great job.
I even like Jeb Bush.
I think Jim Bush is great, did a wonderful job in Florida.
Chris Christie's phenomenal.
Hillary Clinton's days are over.
You know what I think?
I think outside the Republicanist net, I think there are a lot of people who think this is possible.
Who just don't have the gust to say it because it sounds so wacko.
It sounds so impossible.
Oh, come on.
You've somebody who really thinks this wouldn't dare say it because the blowback.
Somebody who thinks, and I think there are a lot of people who think this could be a landslide, and that they think there's evidence backing it up.
You can look at the midterms 2010, 2014, the fact Obama's not on the ballot.
Hillary Clinton, really?
There are a lot of smart people who realize Hillary Clinton is not the cat's meow.
She is not Princess Di.
She doesn't have an automatic, axiomatic hold...
She doesn't have an audience that she's bonded with.
Hillary Clinton couldn't draw 20 people to a book signing ceremony.
Hillary Clinton can't draw a crowd, period.
It's to the point they have to put mannequins in the audience and make the crowd look like it's filled up at a Hillary event.
She has no bond with her audience.
The people are going to vote for Hillary.
It's not because they love Hillary and they have this bond with her and they're invested in her and they hope she succeeds.
It's just that they're Democrats or more importantly that she's not a Republican.
And Bernie Sanders has a bigger bond with his supporters than Hillary will ever have with hers.
Hillary has never had this bond that I'm talking about.
The way I mean it is the way Trump has a bond.
His supporters are deeply personally invested.
Hillary does not have that.
Bernie Sanders has it to an extent, but not nearly like Trump does.
Ted Cruz has a little bit of it.
Ted Cruz has a bond with his supporters, a personal investment.
People who are more than just supporters.
There is a trust bond.
There's a loyalty bond.
There's a uh uh an implied commitment.
Hillary doesn't have that.
And the evidence of that's 2004 or 2008, rather.
If if if Hillary had this bond, it was unbreakable, that made her campaign the prelude to a coronation, then 2008 would not have happened.
But Rack Hussein would not have been able to come along and steal it from her.
Now, what's happened since 2008 that makes Hillary stronger than she was in 2000?
Nothing.
She's weaker.
There are more questions than ever about Hillary.
There's less enthusiasm for her than ever.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Democrats could lose huge.
And if you think, as I do, that a vast majority of the American people are fed up and put out and totally oppose what's been done to this country the last seven years, I...
I think there's a huge majority in that camp.
I don't think it's a bare majority, just barely ahead.
I think it's a lot of people who are scared to death of what's been done to this country and are afraid of what's going to happen if it continues and do not want it to.
And I think there are a lot of people for a whole host of reasons, many of which we've discussed over the years, who are not going to say that at all.
We're never going to know they think this until election day comes and goes.
No, I'm not predicting it.
All I'm telling you is I don't think Laffer is that far outside the mainstream with his prediction of 47 states.
If you go back to the last time that happened, which was 1980, And one of the, I think the second to last poll of the presidential race had Jimmy Carter winning by nine points, if I'm not mistaken.
Reagan's landslide was a total shock.
Except that it wasn't.
The insiders knew all along.
Jimmy Carter conceded the race before the polls had even closed in California.
Jimmy Carter conceded the presidential race before 10 p.m. Eastern time, election night 1980.
The pre-election polls were bunk for whatever reasons.
And that landslide didn't just happen in the last week.
People deciding in the last week to vote Reagan.
I mean, it was a longtime, but there was never any evidence for it, other than common sense.
The country was in a tailspin.
We were in a self-described Carter self-described melees.
We had interest rates out of the wazoo.
You couldn't afford to buy a house.
The unemployment rate was sky high.
The economy was flat line.
Jobs are being lost left and right.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Like what's happening.
The the the major difference then and now is the welfare state was not nearly as deep and widespread or effective from the Democrat standpoint as it uh as it is today.
So I'm not making an apples to apples comparison.
1980 to today.
My point is that this paranoia or fear of Hillary Clinton is unjustified.
And there's no reason to have a defeatist attitude.
And I'll tell you, it's out there.
Michael Gerson wrote recently in the Washington, he's a former speech writer for Bush.
He's got a piece about how Donald Trump's nomination will destroy the Republican Party.
Earth to Michael.
You've already done it yourself.
The Republican Party is already in heap big trouble long before Trump came along.
Trump is evidence of the party being in heap big trouble.
Not Trump has caused it.
People inside the Republican Party at the establishment leadership level are responsible for that, not Trump.
Trump's just picking up to pieces.
Anybody else smart enough to position themselves as such, as outsiders or what have you.
It's a fascinating read, however, because it opens the door, lifts the shades on the real thinking inside the Republican Party.
And I guarantee you, there you won't you probably won't find anybody who thinks they're even gonna win in 2000.
Well, this year now.
Anyway, let me take a break here, folks.
We'll come back.
It's time to uh get back sound bites or phone calls and details on all of this that we discussed up to this point.
Hang in there, be tough, be right.
Okay, let's squeeze a phone call in here, folks, so that we can say I did it.
We're gonna start Cleveland.
This is uh this is Nate.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
All right.
So uh I got two points for you.
Number one, um, I wanted to correct something you said when you said the Democrats are shifting so dramatically to the left, and Bernie is such a leftist.
He is.
You know, after Ronald Reagan, you saw the rise of what's called third-way Democrats who liked the deregulation and the trickle down.
It's why Hillary and Bill were so corrupt.
If this was a direct reversal of the ethos from the 1950s, the Democrats and the Republicans were always into this democratic socialism.
In the 1950s, Eisenhower had a 91% tax rate.
Now, capitalism is the foundation of this country, but the idea used to be bottom up.
Now, Reginald Maximus, your hero, created a huge shift to the right for both Democrats and the Republicans.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Who's my hero?
Reginald Maximus.
Ronaldus Maxis.
Ronaldo's Max's, yes.
Oh, sorry about that.
Okay, so my point on this is Democrats are simply going back to Eisenhower economics.
This used to be a Republican idea.
This is not dramatic leftism.
And this is why there are so many conservatives going over to Bernie Sanders.
Let me make point number two before you jump all over me for that, okay?
There aren't any conservatives going over to Bernie Sanders.
Ooh.
I challenge your listeners to look it up.
There's a bunch of them.
Where do you go look it up?
Conservatives for Sanders on Google?
Yeah.
Go for it.
Do it.
Now you can put them in a phone booth for crying out, what is this?
You know, it's a large group of libertarians who are Tea Party or the original.
I knew it.
You're from the Ron Paul faction.
I knew it.
The only way it can possibly explain you.
Is that you are you are from the militant libertarian sect.
I love you, Nate.
I I do, but it's a it's it's a lost cause to try to Bernie Sanders.
Conservatives from Bernie.
And that Eisenhower is the genuine leftist out there.
Look, uh you you may have a point about pre-JFK Republican and Democrats, FDR liberalism, but after the JFK assassination is when everything changed, and when the left wing lost it in this country and moved closer and closer and closer, Soviet Union style uh philosophy.
And and uh Bernie Sanders is that.
Uh Bernie Sanders, and he's perfectly qualified, he's a total economic dunce.
And which is exactly what every hardcore liberal is.
Yeah, here you go.
Gallup poll.
Look at this now.
Gallup poll October 26th in 1980, so basically a couple weeks before the 1980 election, two weeks out, Gallup had it, Carter 47, Reagan 39, Carter winning by eight, two weeks before the election.
Exactly what I'm talking about.
I also, just for the fun of it, I went out there and I Googled, and you know what I found?
I found articles from last year in The Atlantic, Salon.com, the LA Times, the Daily Cause, a bunch of radical left-wing websites and publications who all ran stories on Bernie Sanders conservatives.
It was incredible how in sync these stories happen to be.
It was last year, and it uh the numbers are admittedly small, but they're trying to make a big deal.
Uh and it was these stories were done to enhance the image of Bernie.
A to soften the image of Bernie as a flat out.
Uh unmistakable socialist slash leftist.
It was that was the purpose of the numbers we're talking about here infinitesimal, and it might not have even been conservatives.
They could have just made the assumption that all Republicans are conservatives, which of course is not the case.
Some of the stories call it Republicans for Bernie and then assume they're conservatives.
But regardless, it's not that many, and these stories talk about four or five people, then they extrapolate.
So our our uh libertarian caller was not making it up.
But it was a it was uh obviously an in-sync and combined effort, a bunch of left-wing politicians to enhance Bernie's appeal.
To make him look like something he's not.
Let me go to this this Mike Gerson piece.
Gerson, a former speech writer for George W. Bush, now ranking member of the Republican establishment, and he has a piece and his his column.
Here's the actual title of thing.
Trump's nomination would rip the heart out of the Republican Party.
Every Republican of the type concerned with winning in November has been asking the question, at least internally, what if the worst happens?
Cruz's nomination would represent the victory of the hard right.
This is Gerson writing now.
Cruz's nomination represent the victory of the Hard right, religious right and Tea Party factions within the Republican coalition.
After he loses, the ideological struggles within the GOP would go on.
No, the worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Trump.
It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton would end up.
No, it isn't.
That's it's not hard to predict that.
You know, there's a theme coming out of the Republican Party, there's a theme coming out of the Republican establishment, a theme that comes out of Republican consultants.
There is a theme that's all over the drive-by media.
It's conventional wisdom.
And you know me, I am not in sync with conventional wisdom.
In fact, when I bought it, I run the other way.
And it is this.
We cannot win if Trump is the nominee.
Hillary will wipe the floor with Cruz or Trump.
Hispanics, blacks, women will never vote Republican, especially if it's Cruz or Trump.
If we nominate Truz Crump or Rubio, less Rubio, the GOP will be dead for the conceivable future.
This is the running conventional wisdom coming out of the Republican leadership.
And it's all predicated on the fact that any of these things happening, Cruz winning a nomination, Trump winning a nomination will destroy the Republican Party for a generation or two.
From the Republican Party, we never hear what is actually happening in this Republican primary debate.
These Republican candidates, whether you like them or not, and to one degree or another, are offering new ideas.
Some of them are offering new plans on how to do things that will help all people.
They're offering plans to resurrect and breathe new life into the United States of America.
And why the Republican Party cannot zero in on this, it's as though they've become incapable of being positive.
It's as though there is a pessimistic fatalism, which may be redundancy, that has overtaken all of them.
And I think it's rooted in the fact, you know, it's tough.
It's tough when the establishment and the elites realize that they do not run the show anymore.
Or at least when they realize that it isn't automatic.
And I think the elites in both parties have something in common, and that is that they're not accustomed to opposition.
That is actually more true of Democrats than Republicans, because Democrats rarely face critical press, destructive press, the Republicans deal with it a lot, but when you get to the elite levels of the establishment, which contains uh obviously members of both party, both parties, um, there is a uh I think a jaded existence.
And when anything comes along that would appear to upset the apple cart, and then they are unable to stop it or deal with it, that's when they start caterwalling.
That's when they start squealing about how all these serfs, nerfs, and outsiders and nimrods are going to upset the apple cart by getting involved in things they don't understand, i.e., running the country or what have you.
Now back to Gerson's piece here.
The worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Trump.
It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary would end up.
Clinton has manifestly poor political skills.
Trump possesses a serious talent for the low blow.
But Trump's nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the Republicans' ideological factions.
It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the GOP and its history.
If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.
And he says that the Trump nomination would essentially make the Republican Party an enterprise of squalid prejudice.
And then he goes on to admit that he doesn't know how Trump would do against Hillary because of her poor political skills and Trump being the master of the low blow.
So he has no idea.
There's a new Fox poll out.
And this poll shows that the...
uh has the numbers uh which we know by heart now, Trump 35, Cruz 20, Rubio 13, Trump 39, uh Cruz 24.
You know, it's all over the ballpark, but the the the order is the same, the percentages pretty much the same.
But then you get to the general election in this in this Fox poll, the head-to-head matchups.
Rubio beats Hillary 50 to 41 in this poll.
Cruz beats Hillary 50 to 43.
And Trump beats Hillary by three points.
In other words, the top three Republicans in this latest Fox poll all beat Hillary.
But inside the Republican establishment, I guess they haven't seen the poll.
If they have, they don't believe it.
Because they love running around talking about how Trump's a nominee that Hillary wins in the biggest landslide we've ever seen.
Hillary mops the floor.
Same thing with Cruz.
If it's Cruz or Trump, oh my God, oh my God, Hillary's going to win so big.
Oh my God, the Republican Party's going to cease to exist.
I think Gerson misses something that's so obvious.
The Republican Party is already in big trouble, long before Trump even came along.
Trump coming along and having the success he is having is the evidence of the problems which exist in the Republican Party, not the beginning of it.
Trump isn't the cause.
Trump is the beneficiary.
And a lot of it's aimed at the Republican establishment.
And these guys can sit there and twiddle their hands and you know.
Their hands in consternation and fear over over Trump destroying the Republican Party.
It ignores what they themselves have done.
And I think Art Laffer is more right than Gerson here.
Trump, Cruz, I think any number of these people could beat Hillary.
And I I I say this from the standpoint that I've always occupied.
I just, I'm sorry, I'm not impressed with Hillary.
I'm not dazzled.
I have never been of the opinion she's unbeatable.
I've I I've never been paralyzed over the prospect.
I've never been afraid of it.
I just I just in fact I think she's more beatable today than ever.
I think she and Bill Clinton can be sitting ducks at the uh at the hands of the right campaign.
Anyway, that's that's I think the the interesting illustration here with the Republican Party is that everything to them is doom and gloom in the middle of this primary when you have an imminently winnable election.
But what it goes to show is that when you get down to it, the Republican establishment is more interested in themselves preserving their power than the party winning.
Because it's clearly possible for the party to win in ways the establishment wouldn't like, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
And that's not new either.
They were they have the same attitude about Reagan back in 1976 and 1980.
Brief timeout again is just time zipping by here, fast as three hours in media.
We will be back and continue after this.
America's real anchor man, Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
And a Stone Mountain, Georgia, next we go.
Oh, this is Leonard.
It's great to have you, sir.
Leonard, how are you?
I'm great.
How are you doing?
Fine Ben.
I love your brother.
I bought my grandbabies, the Rush Revere books, but today you sound like Hillary defending Bill.
I think you need to get the Hillary pants suit on the way you're protecting the Pittsburgh Steelers.
What?
Protecting the Pittsburgh pantsuit.
Protecting the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Yes.
They're one of the most violent teams in the NFL.
And I got you're talking about Vontez Burton's hit on Lil Brown.
You have you kind of slid past the fact that Schlayer, number 50 for the Steelers, speared our running back.
No call.
Oh, yeah.
Early in the game, as Burton was blocked ten yards after the whistle was blown over the ground.
No one made a call against that.
Come on, Rush.
You're talking about number 50, Ryan Shazier.
There you go.
Who hit the running back of the Bengals.
He didn't hit him.
He speared him.
He led with his helmet, and that is against the rules.
And they didn't call a foul.
No, they didn't.
I was, in fact, when that happened, you know what it was.
I'd lost the telecast because the thunderstorms here, so I went to the NFL app and I got the Cincinnati radio broadcast.
And then they were outraged.
The Cincinnati radio broadcast was outraged at the fact that no penalty was called in the Shazer hit.
I didn't see it because the uh we had lost the television.
Well, I didn't see it then.
I saw a replay of it uh later on.
So your point is that that's what started everything, and the refs not calling balls.
Well no, this started back after the first game, and Le'Veon Bell got hurt, and then the Steelers had death threats to some of the Cincinnati Bengals players.
That's why the second game was so bad.
It's been going on, you're talking about linebacker number 98, Vince Williams has tweeted something about uh you know the death threat Devontae's burfitt and so forth.
Um all I know is, you know, I'm not trying to be protective of the Steelers, uh, but uh I I don't I don't think the Steelers.
I'm just saying I think I don't think the Steelers have a player on their team that has anywhere near the reputation or image two or three of the Bengals.
I think the Bengals for the for the longest time, your guys were more often found in jail or under arrest.
Go back to the Chris Well, you remember the Chris Henry days?
It became something of a joke that the Bengals went out and drafted these guys and took a chance at Marvin Lewis could control them.
They cleaned that up for a while, but it looks like it's gone back and reversed itself.
I mean, the Bengals led the league in arrests.
I'm going back now to the nineties, the uh early, early 2000s.
But anyway, I I should have known that you're a Bengals fan when I heard you say our.
Uh I don't care what you say.
You know, it's still you can see you can say the Steelers did this and that all night long.
The fact of the matter is what number 55 did and what number 24 did lost the game.
Forget everything else.
Just the sheer stupidity.
Especially 55, could have been the toast of the town, could have been the MVP of the weekend, could have been the MVP of the playoffs, had just a great killer game, blew it all up, and it was clear this guy wanted to settle scores more than he wanted to win the game.
It just mind-boggling.
Bobby in uh in Los Vegas.
Great to have you, sir.
Welcome to EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello, and it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Um I know you're a big Steelers fan.
And all I want to say is it actually goes way back to before the to the to the middle nineties when everybody would come into Cincinnati and beat them like a drum.
And Pittsburgh was very proud of the fact that they called um Cincinnati Stadiums, whether it was Riverfront or whatever, they'd call them uh they they they treated it like they're annexed.
They'd go on and expect to win, but everybody went in there and expected to win.
So it really goes for the back end.
I think they were trying to say, don't come in our house and treat us like you're B.I.H. ever again.
I really think that's part of it.
You think that's what the Bengals were doing on Saturday night?
I think that's part of it, not all of it.
No.
Listen to the way you're talking.
You're I tell you, there's there's there's cultural stuff to learn here.
This is the exact point that I'm making.
You don't get to come into our house and call us bitches anymore.
That's why they play the game.
The hell was winning or losing.
Now, after this, the Steelers can't call them bitches anymore.
You want to bet that's not going to happen?
I mean, I just, this is this is classic.
And it's but, you know, say what you want.
The numbers are in, and the game is the highest-rated wildcard playoff game in the last four years.
31 and a half.
What are you guys in there looking at each other for?
You think you should blip me saying bitch.
It is amazing.
Here we are on the recognized leading political radio talk show in the world.
But see, everything is politics, folks.
This is what I've always tried to tell you.
Everything is politics.
So is this thing that happened Saturday night with the Bengals and Steelers?
And it's politics in the sense of what it says culturally about where we are.
And the fact that no authority figure seems to think they can stop it.
The boss, the people that run these teams think they can't stop this.
Well, if they can't, then why should a parent be able to?
2011, Cincinnati Bengals led the league in arrests.
2005 to 2014, they were number three in arrests in the NFL.
▲
Export Selection