Rush Limbaugh: Why the NFL Just Said No

Over the last eight years, even though it often made me break out into hives, I've listened to a lot of Rush Limbaugh. I've heard him express the full gamut of his emotional range: from hateful to very hateful. But over all this time, I've never known him to be pathetic until yesterday.

As the media has now endlessly dissected, Rush was thwarted this week in his efforts to buy the National Football League's St. Louis Rams. His ownership group, led by St. Louis Blues boss Dave Checketts, dumped Rush without ceremony or pity. Checketts issued a statement saying, "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion."

His comments came the day after Rush insisted on his show that they would fight this to the bitter end. But Checketts, like most owners a long time donor to right wing causes, had no desire to link arms with Limbaugh for a public crusade. You might think Rush would have gone on the air to slam Checketts's absence of a spine. You might think he would have called out the hypocrisy of NFL owners who give prodigiously to right wing candidates and causes, but insist on doing it in the shadows. You might think he would rail against those who see their conservative support as something sordid and best done behind closed doors. You might think Rush would howl at the moon at those who think that being an open, unreconstructed right winger, actually hurts the almighty bottom line. You might think he would say that the right wing has failed a major test by refusing to back him. Or maybe you might think he would take a different tack and accept personal responsibility for why a group of billionaires wouldn't want his presence affecting their bottom line.

But no. Rush instead had this to say about why his defeat occurred:

This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have.....This is the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom who threaten the whole notion of state control tyranny and central authority which is typified by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party.

It boggles the mind. For someone who claims a belief in rugged individualism and rails against "victim politics" while he preaches personal responsibility, it was almost jarring to hear Rush whine about "tyranny" on the left when it was his compadres on the right who just said no.

It was even worse to hear MSNBC's Pat Buchanan defend Rush, comparing this episode to the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s, saying "this is blacklisting," which "liberals used to condemn." To compare a crew of billionaires throwing Rush under to bus to McCarthy's persecutions, is about as offensive as Glenn Beck's efforts earlier this week to compare Fox News to the Jews in the Holocaust. Yes, it hasn't been a banner week for conservative metaphor.

Let's be absolutely clear: there is nothing in the First Amendment that covers the right to own an NFL team. Owners have the right to protect their brand and Rush needs to deal with the fact that in 21st century America, he is a liability and not an asset.

As for the position "liberals" should take in such a manner, it seems more than obvious about what side we should be on. I would rather stand with the growing handful of players who were going public with the sentiment that they would never play for someone so noxious. Remember, NFL players have next-to no control over what team they play for. They don't have guaranteed contracts. A recent study showed that many suffer dementia or Alzheimer's when they hit their mid 40s. According to their collective bargaining agreement, they only have the right to view their own medical records twice a year. It's a situation that former player LaVarr Arrington called "slavery" on his radio show on Thursday. Any time they make an effort to exercise any kind of control over their professional lives, we should support that. They didn't want to play for someone who said that they "looked like the bloods and the crips without the weapons." Good for them.

As for Rush, maybe he just went about this all wrong. After all, this is a man who once said,
"Holocaust? Ninety million Indians, only 4 million left? They all have casinos...what's to complain about?"

Maybe he should have tried to just buy the Redskins instead.

 

 

Follow Dave Zirin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/edgeofsports

Comments

[Rmath]

There was no smear. Rush's worst enemy is his own big mouth.

[TommyMcCarthy]

I normally would not be thrilled with the idea of someone being refused a job or a business opportunity based on their politics.

That said, it's hard to summon a lot of sympathy for Mr. Limbaugh, who has amassed great pile of money being on the air three hours a day for 20+ years.. Another thing he has amassed is an extensive recorded archive of what he has said over the years.

I give people the benefit of the doubt, and am fond of saying that it's hard to know what is in another man's heart.
But the idea that some racist remarks attributed to Rush were distorted or even made up is beside the point.
As one who has listened to Limbaugh only sporadically over the years, I can say I have heard him make comments that were CLEARLY racist in tone on at least a dozen occasions.

Any N.Y. Knicks fan can tell you that an owners group headed by Dave Checketts is a respecter of only ONE color..and that is GREEN.

Wouldn't it be comical if the ACLU would (tounge-in-cheek) spring to Rush's defense on the grounds of the first ammendment in which Mr. Limbaugh oh-so-vociferously does not believe except when it comes to himself.

Never having been clear on exactly what a "petard" is....it has nevertheless evoked a chuckle or two from me to hear of Rush being so publicly hoisted on one of his own making.

Regards
tm

[EricArthurBlair]

I wanted him to fail. I'm glad he failed.

[americanfabius]

I believe Dave misses the point here (as do many of the comments). Rush's explanation linking Obama to his failed bid to own the Rams is a current viewpoint (in his mind) about the state of political discourse and freedom of expression in the United States and the limitations that can be encountered when you say controversial things that you believe in.

While many of the owners may be "Republican," and agree with Rush, they do not want to compromise the image of the team (or other owners) by allowing Rush to have part ownership of the team. It's been fairly easy to see the smear campaign against Rush over the past week, with many quotes attributed to him being undocumented and sometimes made up (which is why individuals began backing off of their initial onslaught against him). This climate of smear lead by mostly leftist journalists and newscasters shows how powerful the pen still is in swaying public opinion and creating controversy.

[Thaleson]

And you don't think Rush engages in smear?

[creolechild]

Part I--

Rush is refuting TWO statements that have been widely attributed to him but which he now claims he never made. Fine. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. But don't you find it the least bit curious that he didn't come forward earlier and correct the record when the statements first surfaced? Now he's a victim because his history of exercising "freedom of speech" rights has included voicing ugly, inflammatory, and controversial statements that created a backlash and prevented him from becoming an owner of a football team? When his business partners decided it wasn't in THEIR best interests ($$$) to move forward with him on board? Now it's the government's fault and they're out to get him?

A smear campaign? Okie dokie...

I think this calls for a trip down memory lane to re-visit some of the statements made by Rush, which, incidentally, have been verified for authenticity:

On January 24, 2008, Limbaugh claimed that then-Sen. Hillary Clinton is "in the Northeast. She is surrounded by her good old, white female -- white female new castrati male base, while her husband [former President] Bill [Clinton] pays penance -- left to deal in South Carolina, while she's up with her people, the whites and the less-than-blacks."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903030034

[creolechild]

Part II--

In a January 22 interview on Fox News' Hannity, Limbaugh...called Obama "an affirmative action candidate" and asserted during the May 14, 2008, broadcast of his show, "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago."

Responding to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated [from] today's government," Limbaugh asserted on February 5, 2007: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."

Limbaugh has made numerous controversial remarks about women, including frequently referring to feminists as "feminazis." For example, on the November 30, 2006, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh proclaimed: My "cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life" because his pet cat "comes to me when she wants to be fed," and "[s]he's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually [a] very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903030034

[creolechild]

Part III--

On August 23, 2006, discussing the CBS reality TV program, Survivor, in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves."

Limbaugh 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." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903030034

[creolechild]

Part IV--

Following the disclosure of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Limbaugh claimed in 2004 that the U.S. military personnel involved were just "having a good time," and that their actions served as an "emotional release." Limbaugh called the abuse "hazing," referred to it as "an out-of-control fraternity prank," and agreed with a caller that the abuse "was like a college fraternity prank."

On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone. When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea -- which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903030034

[adrian nyu]

Interesting how Limbaugh accepts little responsiblity or takes accountablity for what he says, and blames everyone else for his own statements and words. Do you blame the NFL owners for Not wanting this bozo as a partial owner??

[goodpyr]

Joe i think the number is 8 or 25% of the owners can veto an ownership bid.
There are urrently 32 teams.

[goodpyr]

I will try to make this as simple as I can.The Government has NOT had any input into Who
is or isn't selected into the Billion Dollar Boys Club also known as the NFL Owners Assn.
They and only they choose who is allowed to become an owner.Because of previous statements,
which can be proven,they decided they didn't want him.Look it up yourselves.Most 2nd grader can
do it.

[oscartucker]

Rush was dropped like a hot potato. Rush has money, but his money could not speak louder than the many insults that Rush had already spoken.

[macweenie]

Mark this day. It is rarer than the birth of a white buffalo to see MONEY not get its way in America.

[KWB1]

The one group that is not being mentioned here is the African-American players. A number of them had stated quite publically that they would never play for a team that is owned by Rush. NFL mgmt is not known for being stupid..Before that became a groundswell...and trust me it would have...Goodell and Co. moved to quash the problem before it even started. And rightly so. The vast majority of NLF players do not have criminal records and white or black, resent being referred to as "Crips *& Bloods", just one of many goofball quotes by Rush. As with any organization where there is a great deal of very close interplay between races i think you would have found the vast majority of White players standing with their Black counterparts.

[Poorsarah]

In other words: NFL players have a good/strong players' union. Rush has spouted that USA Unions are communist. Rush has made several racist comments toward NFL players. NFL players are the moneymakers for the NFL bosses. The bosses do not want to lose their moneymakers. G'bye, Limbaugh.

[IndependentBadger]

EEEEEEyep.

[bjeversole]

Actually, the NFL player's union is universally considered the weakest amongst the four major league sports. It was simply the free market working (for once); he's bad for the image of the league, and therefore he's out.

[GwenEcho]

Is the phrase "rugged individualism" some sort of code for something??

[Sarielle Stroman]

greed and/or narcissism

[feliznavidad]

"Rugged individualism" is code for "I got mine. You go get yours."
The underlying subtext is this: " "I got mine [with lots of govermnent assistance, including corporate welfare in various forms] Now you go get yours [sucka!]"

[BlackJAC]

More like "I got mine, you get lost."

[macweenie]

It has long been the practice of Republicans to pair words together to muddy their meanings: Compassionate Conservatism, Rugged Individualism, Activist Judges, Class Warfare etc. Each word in the pairing has a specific meaning but once they are combined by Republicans they USUALLY mean the mirror opposite of what a rational person would think they mean.

It IS a kind of code bot only in the 1 + 1 = 11 sense.

[IndependentBadger]

White Man.

[ramper]

There may be reasons not to allow him to buy into ownership but many of the comments attributed to him have no basis for accuracy. That is why so many have backed off their use of them. When I saw that one of the more racist comments was made up by some players I realized there was a knee jerk hatchet job underway.

[simplystunned]

Why is it that the Right and Dittoheads forget that there is audio and video tape? You can hear Rush say this stuff in his own words! We can't MAKE this stuff up!

And btw, his right wing partners threw him off the island. Geez..... Rush can dish it out but he sure can't take it.

[SVX77]

Juan Williams brought up a good point about this. If Keith Olberman can do comentary for the NFL then there is no reason to block Rush from being an owner. And yes they are both equal political hacks in my opinion so who cares.

Im from St Louis and while i dont agree w/ Rush i know he is a big football fan and would keep the team here, and he would actualy try and make the team win again.

[cstandri]

Counterpoint: Keith Olberman hasn't said racist remarks about the players he's reporting on. It has nothing to do with political ideology. It's about race.

If Keith had made many racist remarks over the years, he would likely be booted from the airwaves covering the NFL, too.

[oscartucker]

Please, Juan Williams? PLEASE! His statement is apples and oranges.

[JMBrodie]

Oh, I get it. The Black guy you have counters the other Black guys. Tired game. Let's stop playing it.

[americanalien]

God bless the NFL. I'm not a big fan of football but I might just take a second look at it from now on. The St. Louis Rams is now my favorite team.

[jukesgrrl]

Don't go too far with that. As Zirin said, most of these owners are not just Republicans, they are quite possible as far right as Limbaugh. They just don't want anyone to notice and Rush was drawing attention to their politics. If you want to support someone from the Obama team, cheer for the Steelers. The Rooney family (the only group that has ever owned the team) supported Obama during the election -- to the point that one of them got an ambassadorial appointment as a thank-you.

[janvoght]

some say Rush's brand of expression has the value of entertainment only...and choose not to take him seriously, others choose their entertainment more judiciously. when Rush was spouting off about the President loosing the bid for the 2016 games as being the ultimate loss, i saw thru his attempt at taking down America. when i heard Rush loss his bid to own an NFL team, i thought what a backfire if there ever was one. very entertaining Rush!

[oscartucker]

Rush is entertainment and entertaining until it's something about him or one of the repubs he is railing about.

[ccairnes]

Sixty-five percent of the people who work in the NFL are African-American. The owner of the Superbowl winning Pittsburgh Steelers was appointed ambassador to the UK by the first African-American President of the United States who is a Democrat in appreciation for his support during the 2008 election . I think it is disingenuous for Zirin to imply that the NFL owners are somehow peeps of the "Big Fat Idiot".

[jukesgrrl]

Actually, Dan Rooney, president of the Steelers' Rooney Family owners group, was appointed ambassador to Ireland, not the UK (BIG difference, especially to many Pittsburghers!). Also, the Rooneys stood pretty much alone in their support of Obama. The vast majority of owners in ALL sports are huge donors to the Republican Party. Some of them also contribute to rightwing fringe groups. In fact, the Rooneys didn't even have any obvious history of supporting Democratic candidates (even on the local level in Pittsburgh, a hugely Democratic city) prior to this election, so it's possible their support of Obama was largely an anti-Bush gesture.

I once did a computer search for political contributions by football coaches. It showed the majority of them are Republican, rather than Democratic donors. Only three people self-identifying as "football coach" contributed the maximum allowed to Obama. All the other large contributions were to McCain.