Rush to Judgment?

I was going to let the Rush Limbaugh-as-NFL-owner controversy go, but two things happened. First, Jim Irsay commented on the story, thus making it vaguely relevant to the Colts. Second, Jason Whitlock commented on the story. As you know, we enjoy Whitlock even when he is wrong. I think he's wrong in this situation. Here's the facts as I see them, feel free to disagree.

Valid reasons to exclude Rush Limbaugh from ownership:

1. Limbaugh has a history of prescription drug-addiction, for which he was prosecuted. If the owners need a reason to ditch El Rushbo then look no further. The addiction makes him a liability. Although, and I'm seriously just remembering as I type this, I believe Jim Irsay struggled with very similar issues in the recent past.

2. He's too controversial. This decision is voted on by the owners, and the NFL is a business. If Rush is too hot to touch then so be it. It's not like Rush has earned himself a lot of wiggle room with the other 50% of the country. He's made his own bed etc...

Poor excuses to exclude Rush Limbaugh from ownership:

1. He is a racist. The evidence Whitlock provides are a pair of discredited quotes from Wikipedia. Quotes that may or may not be made up, and are given with no context. Is that the best Jason can do? Whitlock falls back on our preconceived notions of Limbaugh, which isn't enough for me. I take charges of racism more seriously than that.

Side question: If Rush is a racist would he really be seeking entry into an industry where 75% of the workforce is black? I don't know the answer, but it is worth asking. If someone can come up with hard evidence of his racism feel free to provide it. I haven't seen any yet, but I'm not saying it is not out there.

2. Limbaugh implied that Donovan McNabb was being propped up by the media because of his skin color. Was Rush right? I don't know, but I don't think it was as outlandish as Tom Jackson and others claimed at the time. The media badly wanted first Michael Vick and later Vince Young to be the next big thing. They ignored obvious flaws in each each player's game. It was truly embarrassing. Was race a factor? Probably not, but I can't say for certain. Was it wrong for Rush to bring the topic up? I'm an adult and I didn't have a problem with him asking an edgy question, but ultimately it was up to ESPN to decide what topics are appropriate.

The important thing is that Rush was badly wrong about McNabb's ability. Turns out McNabb is really good. But in fairness a lot of people were questioning his skills at the time (actually people were still questioning Donovan as recently as last week).

On a sidenote, I'm not sure why Whitlock thinks this is a publicity stunt. Limbaugh recently signed a contract extension worth an estimated $400 million. He doesn't need the publicity. He doesn't need anything really. Except perhaps a really bad football team.

Final sidenote: Does Whitlock still think the Titans would smoke the Colts?

Comments (57) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Phil B is also reporting the Ed Johnson cutting
written by Cass, October 13, 2009

here:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20091013/SPORTS03/910130384/1100/Colts+release+defensive+end+Ed+Johnson+again

...
written by DemondSanders, October 13, 2009

what the?

Ohh Demond
written by dmstorm22, October 13, 2009

don't you know. Ed loves his weed. Ed needs his weed. Ed can't live without the weed.

...
written by Chip Bennett, October 13, 2009

Rush may have been prosecuted (for doctor shopping, by the way - *not* for drug abuse per se), but to my knowledge he was never convicted. Therefore, that issue is moot and irrelevant. (And, like you said: Limbaugh wouldn't be unique among the ranks of NFL owners with substance abuse issues.)

Rush Limbaugh too controversial? Seriously? For the NFL? Seriously? Al Davis? Tom Cable? Terrell Owens? Give me a break.

All that matters is this: would Rush Limbaugh be a good businessman? Based on all salient evidence, the answer is a resounding YES.

By the way: Limbaugh is threatening legal action against the specious and libelous claims of racism. It is one thing to sling unproven (and even outright debunked) accusations and bogus quotes at him while he is merely a talk show host; it is another thing altogether to threaten a business relationship and deal with those same accusations.

Personally, I want to see all these racist and race-baiting idiots (like Whitlock and the local moron sportswriter for the Compost-Disgrace here in St. Louis) get their butts handed to them.

Oh, and by the way, at the time of Limbaugh's comment about McNabb (that is, early in the 2003 season), he wasn't wrong. Here's what he said:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Up to the 2003 season, McNabb had posted passer ratings of 60.1, 77.8, 84.3, and 86.0. Here are his complete stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=1753

Look at his performance prior to 2003. He was utterly average.

Even if Limbaugh isn't ultimately successful in his ownership bid, he's doing a darn good job of exposing a bunch of racists and hypocrites in and involved with the NFL.

...
written by IanSB, October 13, 2009

Rush Limbaugh is finally learning that actions have consequences.

NFL owners have every right not to want to enter into business with a race-baiting shock jock.

...
written by Chip Bennett, October 13, 2009

@IanSB: Produce some bona fide, properly sourced evidence of Rush Limbaugh engaging in race-baiting, please.

You've expressed a compelling argument for why the NFL should not enter into a business relationship with Al Sharpton or Jason Whitlock, but with respect to Rush Limbaugh, your argument is specious.

not a biggot? really?
written by saintnixon, October 13, 2009

Rush Limbaugh via his website:

"The NFL all too often the looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it."

Surely THAT had nothing to do with race...

...
written by IanSB, October 13, 2009

Chip:

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

As well as the McNabb and Crips and Bloods comments above.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

Rush Limbaugh is not a racist. Most Americans aren't. But he does use racial language to get a rise out of people, mostly to gain attention for himself. I understand why, it's a job and an act and he's paid luxuriously for it, but I understand an NFL owner not wanting that kind of language or behavior or image as part of their league. I certainly wouldn't if I were running a global entertainment network.

I honestly have no problem with Rush being an owner
written by dmstorm22, October 13, 2009

I feel like it will backfire, as most of the NFL will not want to play with him. It will be riveting how that turns out.

Nice work, all.
written by Bob M, October 13, 2009

Chip, I think you are underestimating his polarizing affect on a broad segment of the population. Think Roman Polanski. Cable and Al Davis are morons and T.O. is an unstable, yet talented, media whore, but I couldn't see numerous groups picketing their businesses (Raiders fans, yes, but outraged non-fans, no). And that polarizing effect is likely to extend to the workforce as well. Davis/Cable/TO are clowns, really, but Rush touches people's deepest beliefs for better AND worse. He does it daily and to a wide audience. It's his gift/curse and it's made him very successful. But those people whose core beliefs about the world are deeply touched will have their say, pro and con. And I am pretty sure than people angry about something tend to speak a LOT louder than those who are happy about it. (Marketing 101--every unhappy customer is as vocal/harmful as 10 happy customers are beneficial.)

Good businessman? Most likely. But the NFL owners essentially approve new owners like the membership committee of a very exclusive private club. Finances are generally #1, will he represent my umbrella company well and help it prosper is #2, but then "is this the kind of guy I'd want to work, negotiate, meet, and socialize with?" is probably #3.

Now where does the vast majority of NFL revenues come from? TV contracts. Limbaugh is a very prominent media personality whose business dealings (Radio, TV, satellite, God knows what else) might conflict with the biz interests of the golden goose. When you sign on to the club, you agree to abide by its rules and if the highest bidder for the next TV contract also owns his stations, or wants to, or whatever, he'd possibly be in a conflict of interest situation. The other owners would then gut him for voting against their overall best interest, and his millions of fans would gut THEM for... whatever.

He's made zillions by being very openly opinionated and it's hard to feel sorry for him if that comes back to bite him because the club he joins MAY not want any additional headaches.

This was the genesis of my I heart Irsay note earlier today.

Sorry to ramble so much, but I think it would be a mistake for the NFL. I also think it would be a mistake to have Howard Stern--on the other end of the political spectrum--doing this as well. (Actually, Stern's star has faded a lot, hasn't it?) He's also "too hot" IMO, and not worth the media circus, headaches, potential outrage. Do I want to play his team and have protestors picketing outside MY STADIUM, harassing my fans, just because they disagree with what the other owner said last week on the radio? Hell no.

aw hell, and I illiterate?
written by Bob M, October 14, 2009

Effect in my first sentence above, not affect. Moron.

This does remind me of an interview I saw with an old favorite, Charles Barkley talking about running for Alambama Governor years ago. His grandma asked him which party and he said "Republican."
"Republican!" she screamed. "That's the party for the rich folks!"
"Well, Grandma, we ARE rich folks now...."

That killed me. It surfaced as I was trying to think there the NFLPA as a union, and where the players as individuals would fall. My guess is 40% in favor, 40% opposed, and 20% neutral.

And speaking of good businessmen, Paul Allen seems to be a visionary, but a pretty s**tty businessman, at least in terms of his investments and people skills. Still, his $15B bank account certainly mitigates that and he's run a pretty good organization here in Seattle.

Real issue is that Limbaugh is a provocateur and commonly uses race
written by orex12, October 14, 2009

as a medium for stirring controversy and while that is desirable characteristic for a talk show host, it is not a desirable quality for an NFL owner. I really doubt that the NFL Commissioner desires to have to answer for Limbaugh's radio show comments. What Commissioner would want to touch these comments he has made on his show.

"The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives." On February 1, 2007, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report about a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated from today's government" by asserting, "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."

Limbaugh on Survivor series: "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do." On August 23, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that the competition in a season of CBS' Survivor, in which contestants were reportedly divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, "is not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events." In support of this assertion, he cited a March 2, 2006, HealthDay article reporting that "young blacks -- especially males -- are much more likely to drown in pools than whites." He later added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." On his September 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh claimed "[t]here can only be one reason" Survivor scrapped "segregated" competition after two episodes -- "the white tribe had to be winning."

Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans "Injuns."

Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers." On April 14, Limbaugh suggested the "correct" way to look at a situation in which Obama sent the military to retrieve American hostages from Somali pirates was that "if only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young, black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot."

source: MediaMatters

...
written by ColtsHeadBen, October 14, 2009

People talk about how pro athletes are overpaid, but Rush just signed a "contract extension worth 400 million"? How does a person make so much money just by being angry and uninformed?

...
written by sb, October 14, 2009

Did certain sportswriters and pundits want a black QB to succeed? Sure, they admitted it. Just as a number of sportswriters and pundits openly said that they wanted a black coach to win the Super Bowl.

Was Steve McNair overrated as a QB? Sure, just look at this web site for that opinion. Was it due to his color? That would certainly be a possible explanation. Was McNabb overrated as a QB at the time Rush made his comments? A lot of stat crunchers agreed with that assessment. Was he overrated because of his color? Certainly possible. An alternative possibility is that running QBs are overrated. [But that might brings us right back to the issue from another direction.]

Would it be racist to say that a lot of people voted for Obama because of his color? A whole lot of people said they did and the president himself has cited it in speeches around the world. I can't imagine how a political commentator stating that fact could be considered racist.

So I don't see how Rush's statement about McNabb could be racist. Pundits had openly admitted that they wanted to see black QBs succeed. There was a solid body of evidence from which to conclude that McNabb was overrated. And it was perfectly reasonable to connect those two dots.

What I find interesting is to speculate about all the people who might be barred from ownership using the standard being applied to Rush. Ted Turner obviously has no possible shot. Think of the possibilities!

Why it's a publicity stunt
written by Drew Funk, October 14, 2009

Anyone remember Ann Coulter? I haven't heard much out of her lately, although I'm sure she's still talking. Now Fox has Michelle Malkin filling her role.

Talk show hosts are egoists, plain and simple, and Rush has been outshined by O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck in spells over the past decade. Hell, O'Reilly can't make it through a show without mentioning how great his ratings are. Rush is always looking for a bigger megaphone, because if he can't find one he'll become obsolete, so please don't think he won't try to use the NFL for that end (again).

Also, about 'the media' propping up Vick and Young as stars: they were stars. Vick brought exciting plays and a scrambling element that couldn't be duplicated by any other QB in the league. Young was a star on a smaller scale: Heisman winner, QBed the exciting and memorable nat'l championship against USC. And at least as early as 2004, analysts were turning on Vick, saying (rightly, imho) that he needed to make more plays throwing from the pocket to progress further, while Merrill Hoge and Gregg Doyell (http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/9626003) were anti-Young from the start.

Now, if you wanted to make an argument that McNabb, Vick, and Young got more media attention than, say, Leftwich or Campbell because they fit the stereotype of 'black quarterback' better, that might be valid. But those three were stars in their own right, based on their skillset and history, not because someone in a broadcast booth wanted them to be.

...
written by IanSB, October 14, 2009

McNabb's team kept going deep in the playoffs. Vick was the first opposing QB to win in Green Bay in forever. Vince Young's team made the playoffs his rookie year. These guys were overrated because THEIR TEAMS WON, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK. You know who else was overrated? Jake Delhomme, Chad Pennington, Tony Romo. Quarterbacks on good teams are overrated, black or white. Peter King just compared Kyle Orton to Tom Brady!

This media favoring black quarterbacks thing is ridiculous, wrong and uninformed. If you believe it I feel sorry for you.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 14, 2009

I like your arguments, Drew, but I don't totally agree. Rush seems to genuinely want to own part of the team. He's from the area and likes football. He does enjoy publicity stunts (example: telling Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primary), but I don't think this is one of them. I could be wrong.

Indeed, there were a few VY detractors, but they were in the small minority. It was a big deal when Hoge bashed Young because there were so few people doing it. We had to write the VY files because the "Vince Young just wins games" mantra was driving us nuts. Again, I'm not saying that the Vick/VY hype was about race. It probably wasn't. I am saying it is not outlandish to pose the question. (Was a football show on ESPN the right place to do it? Uh, no.) The hype was clearly about something besides quarterbacking skills alone.

...
written by sb, October 14, 2009

IanSB,

A lot of sportswriters have openly admitted that they root for black QBs to succeed because they want to smash the old stereotype. Many of the same writers openly rooted for Tony Dungy, Denny Green, et al for the stated reason that they want black coaches to succceed.

It isn't a leap in logic to look at such statements and think that the desire to see QB X succeed might influence the speaker's assessment of QB X's ability.

My own feeling is that fans, pundits, and some coaches get way too excited about running QBs. I've written before of the difference. Suppose a Peyton-type QB reads blitz with his presnap read, changes the pass pro at the line and hits a quick hot read in the seam for 15 yards. The crowd yawns, it's just another completed pass for a first down. Nice, but no big deal. But if a Vince Young-type QB comes to the line and fails to smell the blitz, he finds himself scrambling for his life as he drops to pass. He jukes, spins, breaks an arm tackle and accelerates upfield for 15 yards and a first down!!! He's turned a sack into a big play. Wow!

Both players used their skills to burn the blitz and pick up 15 yards. Only one of them thrilled the crowd, precisely (in part) because his skill set has a higher risk of serious injury. Which would you rather have on your team? Which would be more likely to set hearts aflutter in the pressbox?

...
written by DemondSanders, October 14, 2009

"Peter King just compared Kyle Orton to Tom Brady."

LOL. You make a great point about winning, and I think you are largely correct.

But I still don't think it is ridiculous to pose the question. Most of us were "desirious" to see a black president elected. And to see Tony (and Mike Tomlin) win a Super Bowl. Those were cool moments for our country, reflecting the progress we've made.

So why is it "ridiculous" to think that we (or the media in this case) would want to see black quarterbacks have similar successes?

Anyway -- you guys have made some great points.

...
written by IanSB, October 14, 2009

Here's the rub: Rush made the claim that McNabb was overrated BECAUSE of his race, ie him being black made others inflate his ability.

You rooted for Dungy and Obama because they were qualified professionals who HAPPENED to be black. We weren't overrating them because they were black, we were happy that finally black professionals were given the opportunity to succeed.

Rush played off the idea that the praise given to McNabb (blacks) was detracting from that given to whites. Essentially: The media is giving McNabb a free pass because he's black...therefore they don't do the same for white QBs. It's an old trick, and a disgusting one at that.

Anyone with any understanding of the history of the NFL knows just how hard it's been for black QBs to make it, for little reason other than inborn prejudice.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 14, 2009

Obama actually helps prove the point. I didn't think Obama was qualified. But I loved the idea of electing a black president. I thought and still think it is good for the country.

Is it possible to prop people up out of a desire for them to succeed? I think it is a question you should be able to ask without being called a racist.

Okay, I'm done talking about this.

Back to football for a minute
written by Bob M, October 14, 2009

Did anyone realize that as of now, NE (7), Pitt( smilies/cool.gif

, Balt(6), and SD(6) all have allowed as many or more passing TDs in 4-5 games this year than Indy allowed all of last year?

I still cannot quite Denver seriously, but I suppose I should.

wtf
written by Bob M, October 14, 2009

Okay, why does a numeral 8 in parentheses look like a smiley face abve? Oh, crap, now I get it. But what if one actually WANTS to put an 8 in ()??? This happened to me before putting 18 in () and I assumed it was some kind of Manning trigger. duh.

Back to the Colts
written by IanSB, October 14, 2009

Has Jim Caldwell shown any other facial expression other than the lower-lip-sticking-out frown?

...
written by DemondSanders, October 14, 2009

lol. Bob, this goes back to the question why does the I-pod have to auto-correct my spelling?

If I type 'si' I'm either googling Sports Illustrated or speaking spanish. I'm not trying to type the word 'so'.

Racism
written by coltsfanawalt, October 14, 2009

Anyone with any understanding of the history of the NFL knows just how hard it's been for white RBs to make it, for little reason other than inborn prejudice.

If people can openly say they are pulling for someone (like Dungy, McNabb or Obama) to make it because they are black, and that's not racist, why is it racist for someone else to say that people are pulling for someone to make it because they are black?

Look racism is real. However, it's real both directions. Just like a person's take on what someone says is tainted by how their political views line up. An example is a commenter posting about egotistical talk show hosts and only listing ones from a conservative viewpoint.

If two people make the same type statement and I find fault with only one of the guys saying such things, perhaps I'm the one who is prejudiced.

The race card needs to be taken off the table in many cases. In both directions. Just starting it up is problematic and often racial. It sure is keeping things stirred up that only breed anger and hate.

As a side note, if Rush can't own a team because of political bias, controversial statements and such, then let's apply that across the board with all owners, beginning with Ted Turner.

Caldwell's expressions
written by Bob M, October 14, 2009

Ian, I think he is, like Dungy, a very emotionally stable guy. No Jack Del Rio bulging veins in the neck, no Bill Cowher spittle flying ten yards. (business idea: They should have marketed tiny bottles of "coach spit" when Cowher left for $5 each at the stadium, and when the refs blow a call, the fans throw their coach spit on the field, just like Cowher used to do. hmmm, then the fans in front end up drenched in faux spit. Maybe it's not such a great idea.)

I have seen Caldwell widen his eyes, just a tad, when surprised. Not sure he blinks. Note to self: never play this man in poker. All the emoticons above have more expression than coach. And that's fine with me. Maybe one reason some coaches do better/worse in college/pros is this very issue--kids need more rah-rah motivation, and older players need a steadier hand... No idea. Just babbling at this point, trying to avoid work.

...
written by sb, October 14, 2009

IanSB,

You are wrong and you are engaging in slander. The assertion was made that McNabb was overrated. That point was made by a number of people in a number of different venues including the Wall Street Journal by a Harvard economist. Agree or disagree, it was a widespread theme. [Perhaps you think all those folks were racist because they criticized a black man.]

Rush stated an opinion on WHY McNabb could be overrated.

His statement is no more "racist" than a certain ESPN pundit claiming that a certain QB would win 4 Heismans because he played for Notre Dame and voters favor players from ND. For many years, it was widely recognized that ND players had a huge advantage in awards voting. It was true. It would have been perfectly legitimate for a pundit to say e.g. "I don't think Tim Brown deserves the Heisman, but he will win it because he plays for ND and the voters love Notre Dame."

He didn't say that McNabb is black and therefore not a good QB. THAT would be racist.

Good Job Irsay
written by MileHighHoosier, October 14, 2009

I'm glad Jim Irsay said he would vote against Limbaugh. The NFL doesn't need a man like him, whose racist generalizations have no place in football or America. He's a bigot.

...
written by MileHighHoosier, October 14, 2009

SB: That Notre Dame analogy makes no sense. Absolutely no sense.

...
written by DZ, October 14, 2009

Let me weigh in:

1. I have to say, this was an enjoyable discussion to read. Can I be honest and say it actually made me proud that readers of this blog could engage in a level headed and honest exchange about this.

2. Whitlock said at the time that Rush made exactly the right point about exactly the wrong QB. If I remember his quote more or less accurately, he said, "Had Rush said what he said about Culpepper or Vick, I would have hung my head and had to agree with him. The problem was that he picked on the one African American QB who was ACTUALLY good". In my mind, that gets him off the hook. His analysis was bad, but not racist. If it would have been true about Vick, but not McNabb because McNabb was good, then his claim can't be held against him. BTW: 18to88 has long supported McNabb as legit. He's one of the few running QBs (NOT BLACK QBS) who figured out how to pass from the pocket.

3. While I think the speech police in America have duped the public into thinking that racism is about words more than actions, Rush does more than just say things to stir the pot. He is trying to irritate, annoy, and wound people. He gets paid well to do it. Personally, I don't think that someone who is trying to hurt people with his words is the best fit for the ultra-corporate NFL. I will say this however, if he was going to be the Raiders, I'd have to think twice about my objections. Nothing Rush would do would wound the NFL as deeply as Al Davis's last 5 years of terror.

I said that I appreciated Irsay for taking a stand, because I think it showed a degree of conviction and courage. You can disagree about the veracity of those beliefs, but I'm glad he believes in something. It shows he gives a crap about the world he lives in.

Limbaugh
written by Pausk, October 14, 2009

You want to talk about addiction? The son of a former drunkard owner is worried about Rush's character? Seriously?

Jimmy just needlessly alienated about half of the Colts fan base...dumb.

My cursed work ethic only allows me one comment per shift
written by Drew Funk, October 14, 2009

Just a couple replies:

1. Demond: I'll concede a few points. None of us know Rush's true intentions; it's quite possible that he wants to be a silent partner in a trainwreck of a football team because he's a fan. However, and I think this was the crux of Whitlock's argument, Rush's past suggests that this is not the case, and his previous actions earn him no benefit of doubt.

Also, whether we treat blacks (or any other group) differently because of race is definitely a valid question in the proper time in context. Again, based mostly on Rush's past and reputation, it's not likely that he wanted to have a reasoned discussion on the topic as much as he wanted be inflammatory or spiteful.

2. coltfanawalt: I thought this would be clear, but I guess I need to clarify. I only mentioned conservative commentators because Clearchannel and Fox are not going to hire Michael MOore and Keith Olbermann to replace Rush and Beck. They fill different niches. My point was that, based on his history and the competition for conservative opinion big shot, Rush would use his ownership of the Rams to further his career.

Also, while my politics are pretty much opposite of Rush's, the issue isn't political leaning. If Steve Young, who is an active Republican, to buy the Rams, no one would have an issue with it, because we are all certain he wouldn't make any race-baiting comments and would use his ownership to address issues within the NFL and the Rams. Rush's tactics and brashness set him apart: he cannot help but politicize any situation, any cultural touchstone. Olbermann worked on SportsCenter and sorta works on Football Night in America because he sticks to football; if he went on rants about the abuse of the power of the Presidency every night, he'd be canned too.

3. DZ: I can't agree that Rush's picking of the wrong QB to criticize gets him off the hook for bigotry. If he looked at McNabb, who was good, and immediately went to "Black QB = Overrated because of race" without examinination or analysis, I think it's an extremely damning insight to his mindset.

...
written by sb, October 14, 2009

I haven't heard Rush in years (since the web became a source for news and commentary). But I listened to him for many years and never once heard him make a racist statement or engage in anything remotely close to race-baiting. Those who say he does are lying. The vicious slander engaged in so casually by people who have never listened to him does not reflect well on them. They ought to be ashamed.

Just because you disagree with someone's politics doesn't give you license to vilify them with baseless slanders. See e.g. Keith Olbermann -- "the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Okay
written by coltsfanawalt, October 15, 2009

Drew Funk: I don't think that is a fair or accurate representation of Rush's comments on McNabb. He genuinely thought he was overrated. I disagree with Rush on that point. My biggest knock on McNabb is his propensity to get injured. But Rush felt he was overrated, and he offered a suggestion that it may in part be because many people were really hoping for a black QB to succeed. That is a true statement that people who feel that way have at times admitted. Even Whitlock, as noted above, had stated that it was a true statement about the wrong black QB. But it would've been true in the right context.

I fail to see how that is a racist statement. You may wish people wouldn't share all their thoughts aloud, true or not, and I may agree that some things are better left unsaid. However, that statement is hardly racial when fairly applied. Rush doesn't get a pass to say it because some who just don't like him are predetermining, like MileHighHoosier above, that he is just a bigot anyway. That is hardly fair.

Oh, and if Olbermann went on political rants EVERY NIGHT, he'd be fired too? How does that equal what Rush said one time about McNabb, which got him fired? Goodness. I'm not even much of a Rush fan, but c'mon.

By the way, Sharpton has been running his big mouth on this situation a lot. He has said far more racial and divisive things through the years than Limbaugh. I wonder if he'd get this kind of opposition for trying to own part of a team. Hmmm.

Pausk: You're right. Irsay blew it here. He entered into an arena that will make him less volatile in the fan perception. Many will love what he said. Many Others will hate him for it. I am personally disappointed in it. But he has opened the door to that scrutiny. He as an owner engaged in an inflammatory, politically emotional issue here like Rush is getting flamed for having done. Shoulda stayed out of it and ran his franchise.

sb: Well said.

Oust Ted Turner. And fire Keith Olbermann.

...
written by IanSB, October 15, 2009

sb

To quote J Jonah Jameson, "I resent that! Slander is spoken. In print it's libel."

It's a moot point now that Rush is out of the ownership group, but when all is said and done I'm proud of Jim Irsay for standing up for what's right, even if it's unpopular in Indiana.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

@ Drew as many others have said, Rush never said Black QB=overrated QB. That's a myth. He said:
McNabb=overrated QB, why overrated=back. That's a huge difference.

In the end, I don't really care because I don't give a crap about Rush. He's not my cup of tea at all. What he said about McNabb was not inherently racist. His motivations may or may not have been, but I can't speak to the motivations of any man. Those are hidden in the heart.

RE: Irsay alienating half the fan base: so what? Dungy alienated lots of people for speaking his mind about what he believed. I applauded him for that too. I hate the thought police on both sides of the aisle. I want people to have strong view points and express them with tact and intelligence. Irsay pissed off conservatives and Dungy pissed off liberals. So what? People need to stop getting mad just becuase others hold contrary viewpoints. Why should anyone be mad at Irsay for saying what he believes?

Of course that's the kind of commentary you'd expect from someone who is politically liberal (I hate war and love poor people), extremely socially conservative, and believes in libertarian principles of economics. People like me drop out and move to a slum in Argentina because the whole situation is sickening.

...
written by sb, October 15, 2009

DZ,

You should give a crap about what happened to Rush. If you encourage people to share strong opinions, you should care when vicious slander and libel (thanks ianSB, but I'm a lawyer and I'm well aware of the difference) are used to deny them business opportunities.

You should stand up for truth. You should care deeply when society allows people with the "wrong" beliefs to be treated as second class citizens. When a certain segment of society comes to believe that their political affiliation gives them license to mistreat and abuse those with whom they disagree, the fabric of society gets frayed and torn.

Conservatives observing what happened to Rush understand that he got the same treatment as the black guy in St Louis who was beaten by union thugs at a tea party rally. The union thugs still haven't been charged. When your politics aren't acceptable, you're fair game to be abused by your political "betters". People with the wrong attitudes "deserve" what they get.

Give Rush a chance
written by TNCOLTSFAN, October 15, 2009

The main thing here we have to look at is that he was only going to be a minority owner. What does him being racitst(though I don't think that he is) have anything to do with whether or not he can be part owner in a team. This is the same league that let Leonard Little back in the league after killing someone in a drunk driving accident and the same league that let Vick back in the league after his dog fighting. Whitlock gets on my nerves more than any other sports writer. Rush has just as much right to own a team as any other celebrity (Williams sisters, J Lo). The only reason why this is a big deal is because people think that he is a racist. Being a minority owner what does a racist have to do with it. Its not like he will have the authority to create an all white team. Give me a break, Right wing left wing, republican democrat, conservative liberal none of that matters. And Jesse Jackson knows nothing about football nor its owners. When the word racist comes up he is involved.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

@ SB...First off, Rush Limbaugh does not stand for "truth". He stands for a political ideology that he sells by being as controversial and insulting as possible. It's not his ideas that are in question, it's his method of expressing them in as condescending and insulting a way as possible so as to infuriate others and stir up controversy.

I stand up for truth on a daily basis, but I don't get my truth from talk radio. I think I've found a slightly more dependable source. Tony Dungy got criticized for what he believed. That troubles me deeply. Rush on the other hand is getting heat for the way he chooses to express his opinions. That does not trouble me. If you want to be a loud mouthed jerk, you can't whine when people say, "I want nothing to do with you". It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with attitude. Rush got rich by being an a-hole. Good for him. Jim Irsay finds him offensive and wants nothing to do with him. Good for him too. This isn't a question of dogma, it's a question of propriety. Rush has none. It has cost him a chance to own an NFL team. Them's the breaks.

@TN Interesting argument, but there is a difference between Rush/Vick:

Vick, Little, ect have had to change their behavior in order to stay in the league. I think that if Rush was going to stop his radio show to own an NFL team, people might feel differently. Instead, every time he says anything controversial, the NFL would feel like it had to comment, approve, disapprove whatever. Who wants that headache?

Rush isn't a racist, but he is an inflammatory and derogatory person. I have no problem with people who would see him as a liability to a league that doesn't want/need more controversy.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 15, 2009

I agree 100% with everything DZ has said. (And I'd be more than happy tell you if I didn't.)

I listen to Rush for about 10 minutes every day at lunch. I find him funny at times, and I often agree with his view on the role of government. But he is inflammatory, and he has no one to blame but himself for how non-listeners view him. His behavior has made him a billionaire, but there are going to be tradeoffs. Not being able to own a pro-sports team is merely one of them.

Does he deserve to be called a racist? I don't think so, but he obviously can't be surprised that some are taking that route.

...
written by sb, October 15, 2009

IanSB,
Try real hard to keep up here. I didn't say that anyone should support Rush's ideology. They should stand up for the principle that lies and slander are wrong. Rush was the target of deliberate lies. There is no question about that. He was targeted for blatantly political purposes. That ought to scare the living crap out of every American citizen who cares about the future of this country. If people think it was wrong for Hollywood to blacklist writers because they were members of the Communist Party, consistency requires that they think it wrong for Rush to be blacklisted by the NFL because of his political opinions. Especially since the "opinions" he supposedly held were lies!

And the idea that Rush's "controversial" style makes him unfit to associate with the NFL is rather curious in view of the fact that a nasty, vicious hatemonger like Olbermann is one of the approved official faces of the NFL on television. Apparently the nastiness of his style doesn't matter, even though he is far nastier than Rush has ever been.

It should be obvious to anyone that a minority owner in a franchise is nowhere close to representing the league image as much as a tv commentator who is hired to serve as the face and voice of the league. Yet, Olbermann, nasty as he is, doesn't cause anyone to question his association with the NFL?! The reason is obvious -- vicious liberals are OK because their politics are approved. The lesson here is readily apparent -- Conservatives need not apply and making up the most horrific lies about them is considered an acceptable way to eliminate their involvement.

I can't imagine anyone not having a problem with that.

Phony quotes
written by Pausk, October 15, 2009

If Limbaugh is "constantly saying inflammatory and racist things on the radio", why did his attackers have to invent phony quotes? Wouldn't it be more effective to use all those real ones?

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

No, SB...you try to keep up:

1. Is it wrong people printed untrue things about Rush? Sure. That's not why and how this whole thing feel apart. There are enough things he HAS said that make me dislike him and not lament his predicament. Why do people have to make up lies about him? Beats me. Maybe because they want to hurt him because he spends so much time insulting and belittling people. That issue is 100% separate from this discussion. It has nothing to do with anything. Rush shouldn't be lied about. He should be judged by what he actually says and does. What he actually says and does is enough for the NFL to say, "Thanks, but no thanks".

The whole point of this column was to point out that there were OTHER reasons to disapprove of Rush apart from the whole "he's a racist" card. We've said he isn't.

2. Conservatives and liberals both engage in the same tactics. Don't act like one side does it more than the other. Bringing up the McCarthy hearings is ridiculous. This isn't compulsory government testimony without due legal process. If anything, it's a test of one's right to freedom of association. What could be more American?

3. There is a HUGE gulf between Olbermann's role on an NFL pregame show and Rush owning a team. I think Olberman is awful (in both his jobs), but he is not an "approved official face of the NFL". That's just silly. He's an approved official face of NBC. Chris Berman isn't a 'face of the NFL'. No one working a pregame show is. Rush used to be one of those guys. He was bad at it, and eventually got fired for saying something that he KNEW would make people mad. I image the same thing will happen to Olberman eventually. The NFL does not hire studio hosts or announcers. Olberman does not work for the NFL.

...
written by sb, October 15, 2009

DZ,

I didn't bring up any official government hearings. (insert snark about keeping up) I brought up the Hollywood blacklist. That was a group of business owners who decided to ban certain people from working in their industry because of their political beliefs. Rush has been banned by a group of business owners because they don't like the political beliefs he has expressed.

And if NFL owners were offended by Olbermann, he'd be gone from NBC's Sunday night broadcast in a heartbeat. I don't know the details of the broadcast contract in terms of their approval rights, but the practical reality is they'd have no trouble getting rid of him if they wanted. Of course, Irsay and company would likely have been in violation of antitrust law if they had actually boycotted Rush. So don't confuse legal rights and actual power to influence. The owners could can Olbermann in a heartbeat. He serves as a face of the league.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that NFL broadcasts often end with an announcer saying "thank you for watching this presentation of the National Football League". Apparently the NFL wants viewers to see those presenting the telecasts as representatives of the league.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

1. Don't twist history. The Hollywood blacklist was directly connected to the government hearings. The two things were directly connected:

"Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist federal investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.

The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities."

2. Olbermann is in a pregame studio show...NOT the official game broadcast. He does the exact same job Rush used to have, just on a different network. There is a massive difference between that and owning an NFL team.

Phony accusations
written by Pausk, October 15, 2009

"There are enough things he HAS said that make me dislike him and not lament his predicament. Why do people have to make up lies about him? Beats me. Maybe because they want to hurt him because he spends so much time insulting and belittling people."

As opposed to all the people who spend so much time insulting and belittling Limbaugh? Why they would use phony quotes beats you? Here's a thought--they are lying?

Guilt by anonymous accusation is not only un-American, it's potentially dangerous to everyone.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

I know they are lying. I never said the weren't. This entire post was based on the concept that the accusations that Rush is racist are untrue.

I'm not sure what you want from me. I don't like Rush because of the way he presents his ideas. I strongly agree with some of his thoughts, and wildly disagree with others. Mostly, I don't like what he's done to contribute to the destruction of honest discourse in America. He's not my cup of tea.

Do I wish people wouldn't lie? Sure, I do. But I don't waste a lot of tears weeping for multi-millionaires who routinely abuse other people with their words.

Abuse?
written by Pausk, October 15, 2009

"I'm not sure what you want from me.....I don't waste a lot of tears weeping for multi-millionaires who routinely abuse other people with their words."

Just an example of how Limbaugh "abuses other people with his words" that differentiates him from anyone else in politics. Attacking others and their ideas with words is all that politics is, and has been about for hundreds of years. Ever see MSNBC or the floor of Congress?

Too many issues mixed together.
written by coltsfanawalt, October 15, 2009

But they all deal with consistency problems. Why is anything Limbaugh says a big deal, but "oh well" about his slanderers? I'd say that the lies are a huge deal.

Is Rush controversial? Yes. Is Olbermann controversial? Yes. Sharpton better never ask for any part of a team. I don't think that controversial talk is what kept Rush out. I think it was being well known for conservative politics. That's incredible.

What was the big deal with him having a piece of ownership in an NFL team? That is bogus, plain and simple. And it is concerning.

I obviously don't agree with Irsay's view, so I am disappointed in it. And it will bring bad feelings to many fans. Bringing up the Dungy thing is different to me.People were publicizing his views that were spoken away from the NFL and stirring it up. Irsay got vocal on this controversy front and center.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with that last assessment, let me make this one. It's easy to be all proud of Dungy's position and Irsay's stance, when you agree personally with both. I wonder how proud some would be of Irsay speaking his mind had he spoken up in strong defense of Rush getting a shot here. Still an admirable owner full of conviction and guts? I am disappointed in his position personally. To each their own, I guess.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

Attacking the ideas of others is one thing.
Attacking them as people is reprehensible and I deplore people who do it. The fact that you think it's normal and acceptable is disturbing. For the record, I have zero respect for MSNBC and would never be caught dead watching it. My opinion of Congress isn't much higher.

As for specific quotes by Rush, I would say that among his classics:

Feminazi (calling anyone a Nazi who isn't a Nazi is abusive by definition)
His quotes about Michael J Fox were utterly indefensible.
There was also this quote:
“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work”

The list goes on and on. Rush says things to be funny or to make a point or whatever, but I don't think he's funny or interesting. I don't blame the NFL for not wanting to have anything do with him.

Rush isn't a racist but that doesn't mean he's not an abusive bully. He tries to make people mad, not to make people think. He's right about many things, but sullies the ideas he champions with his bravado and condescension. That makes money, and it wins him a lot of fans.

I'm just not one of them.

...
written by DZ, October 15, 2009

@Coltsfanawalt

I've never excused his slanderers. What they did was wrong. They aren't applying to own an NFL team, however, so there isn't much point in discussing them.

There's no evidence that Rush was booted for his conservative politics. The issue was a series of quotes that had racial overtones. Some were phony, some were no big deal (the McNabb quote), and some were rightly offensive (take the bone out of your nose, bloods and crips).

My point with Dungy was that he was attacked for expressing a deeply held religious conviction in a civil, calm way. That worries me. That's NOT what happened to Rush at all. Rush is a guy who tries to make people mad and then acts surprised that people are mad at the things he says. I have no sympathy for that.

I was proud of Irsay for having an opinion. I don't personally care about Rush AT ALL. I don't care if the NFL approved his bid or not. I spend precious little of my time worrying about Rush Limbaugh (except for this week). I was proud of Irsay for expressing an opinion he believed in. I personally don't agree or disagree with it.

My entire point in the whole debate is that the NFL is totally justified for wanting nothing to do with Rush. I agree with my brother that his being a racist isn't the best justification for that position, but that Rush has given the NFL dozens of other reasons to not associate with him.

Gotcha
written by coltsfanawalt, October 15, 2009

Agree with you on a couple of things there. For the rest I will just respect you as a decent person with a different opinion.

Despicable?
written by Pausk, October 15, 2009

No, I asked for examples WORSE than Democrats use.

"..calling anyone a Nazi who isn't a Nazi is abusive by definition"
Charlie Rangel (Dem, NY), commenting on Newt Gingrich's Contract with America: "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things."

Would the NFL want to have anything to do with the abusive Rangel? Think he'd be denied a seat with the owners? They'd be so frightened of the "racist" label they'd pay him to join the club.

...
written by IanSB, October 16, 2009

sb,

Thank god you weren't Marvin's lawyer or he'd be doing 20 to life right now. You're flying through so many arguments it's hard ot keep up.

Can this bye week end soon so we have something to talk about?

...
written by sb, October 16, 2009

DZ,

The private actions of Hollywood producers were not govt actions. Nice try, but really weak. [and freedom of association trumping the antitrust issues of a group boycott? I'm sure the Hollywood blacklists, or all manner of discrimination cases could be "defended" as freedom of association. While you may feel there is nothing more American, it has no chance of holding up in a courtroom.]

IanSB,

Good luck with that inability to keep up. You might check out a local adult education agency for help with that.

I don't see the point in flogging this any further. The arguments are getting strained and the logic is fraying. It's curious that anyone would try to convince Rush's listeners that they don't understand what he says on his show. Those who listen regularly have a much better understanding of what he says than those who don't.

...
written by IanSB, October 16, 2009

sb,

I agree, we all should embrace adult education. Like Woody Allen said in Annie Hall, "adult education's a wonderful thing. You meet a lot of interesting professors. You know, it's stimulating."

DZ, your point is obvious (and correct, for what its worth) to anyone bothering to listen. Not sure how you can make it any clearer.