 |
Add to My Group
Rush Limbaugh: Why the NFL Just Said No
By Dave Zirin (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Dave Zirin - Writer
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 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 1st Amendment which 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.
Anytime 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?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZt4eS5xYV0
Maybe he should have tried to just buy the Redskins instead.
http://www.edgeofsports.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Skip Bayless
$11.00
Lowest New Price $37.99
Number of pages:
Publisher: Fireside
by Amy Hammond Hagberg
$14.99
Lowest New Price $3.39
Number of pages: 447
Publisher: Destiny Image Publishers
| 1 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
