Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 14, 2009
POLITICS: Rush To Be Suckered

A few followup items on the fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes story.

*Mark Steyn has some fun with the fact that they have to invent stuff on Rush even though George Soros pays Media Matters to transcribe everything he says on air.

*Erick looks at the unsavory rap sheet of CNN's Rick Sanchez, one of the network reporters pushing the made-up quotes (so, unsurprisingly, are MSNBC's David Schuster, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, although to his credit Olbermann has actually argued that Rush's politics shouldn't stand in the way of his bid for the Rams). I had not known that about Sanchez, who is generally as dishonest as he is smug.

*The St. Louis Post-Dispatch issues a singularly weaselly sorta-correction on Bryan Burwell's use of the fabricated quotes.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:48 AM | Politics 2009 | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Olbermann, of course, is not a disinterested observer in the debate over whether one can be too politically partisan to have a business relationship with the NFL. But I don't really think Limbaugh's conservatism is the issue, so much as the fact that he's said racially divisive things in the past, and is virtually certain to continue to do so in the future.

Posted by: Jerry at October 14, 2009 12:49 PM

Agreed, Jerry.

Posted by: MVH at October 14, 2009 1:26 PM

Limbaugh in 2007: "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons"
Limbaugh 1990 story: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson" and ""Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.""

This isn't fabricated. I haven't followed the links beyond the first (many just link elsewhere), but do any of them criticize him over this? Seems to be they only try to back him up in generic terms.

Do you?

Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2009 3:03 PM

Limbaugh in 2007: "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons"

What is controversial about this statement?

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 14, 2009 4:12 PM

Game, Set, Match
At the NFL owners meetings this week in Boston, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed Limbaugh's potential involvement in the league and said "divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about."

The super exclusive Country Club does not want the loud mouth. It reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack.

There is a price for free speech, accountability!!

Posted by: javaman at October 14, 2009 4:57 PM

javaman,

As does alienating the 20+ million listeners many of whom are football fans. You aren't just telling Rush Limbaugh that his views are unacceptable, you are telling his listeners that you don't want them as customers. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Nobody at October 14, 2009 5:32 PM

Let me see: Mark Loria sold a team he owned down the river, and yet he was able to buy another baseball franchise; Mark Cuban was charged with insider trading; he's still ticking. To mention a few; I remember that George Steinbrenner had his share of troubles too, illegal campaign contributions, trying to fry one of his own players and so forth.

Tell me again: what, exactly, did Limbaugh do to warrant this treatment?

Posted by: DD at October 14, 2009 6:28 PM

Cuban's group to buy the Cubs was one the first to be eliminated.
Really, are his 7-12 million listens going to give up the nations new pastime???? please stop. Also, I bet all those listeners who have waited years for season tickets will just turn in their tickets and remove themselves from the list to buy tickets. Once again please stop.
Also, we are talking about NFL ownership not the other leagues. The NFL is the top of the heap and owning a franchise is the big toy for the super rich.

Posted by: javaman at October 14, 2009 6:43 PM

DD, the standard for what you have to do to be kicked out of a league is a lot different than what you have to do to not be let into it. The NFL doesn't need Rush Limbaugh - they can pretty easily find another ownership group, or Dave Checketts can find another investor. I'm sure Goddell wishes this issue had never come up, as there will probably be some backlash from conservatives, but not nearly the same as they'd get from blacks (in general, and specifically among the players) from approving him. And it wouldn't be an issue that would blow over - Rush is Rush, and isn't going to stop saying controversial things. It's a PR problem the NFL would be dumb to walk into willingly.

Posted by: Jerry at October 14, 2009 6:57 PM

Javaman, of course they won't abandon the NFL at the tune of 20 million, but 1% deciding to buy less or being less enthusiastic about the NFL is 200,000 lost customers. And I suspect the number is closer to 5%.

My point is the consequences cut both ways.

Posted by: Nobody at October 14, 2009 9:32 PM

Once again please 200,000 people are not backing out of the NFL b/c of this. Rush has a right to put his money up to buy the team and the NFL has the right to say no thanks. I thought you guys were all about private businesses doing what they want to do in a capitalistic society. Or is that only when the shoe is on the other foot???

Crank, are you saying none of the quotes are accurate? Also, if that is true where is the defamation suit?

Posted by: javaman at October 14, 2009 10:58 PM

"What is controversial about this statement?"
Republicans: Not understanding why minorities believe the GOP is actively working against them since 1968.

"you are telling his listeners that you don't want them as customers. "
You're doing no such thing. You're telling them that as a business decision, he brings more risk than benefit to the table.
Wait, I forgot who we're talking about again. There's no way that's going to be understood.

"Tell me again: what, exactly, did Limbaugh do to warrant this treatment?"
Raised the possibility that he would say something stupid in the future, as he has done in the past, and cost them money. You have people spending billions of dollars building stadiums, practice facilities, and the like. And now, go out and tell them that one of their owners - who only is bringing in money that is replaceable - has the potential to cost them money.

Also baseball owners actively worked with Loria on his team swap, Cuban was recently exonerated, and Steinbrenner owned the single biggest sports brand in the US. As Jerry brought up, they were all on the inside as well.

Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2009 11:07 PM

Frankly, it's disappointing to see conservatives run to the defense of one of the worst conservative commentators out there. As Jerry said, this isn't about Rush's political views, it's about his lack of good judgment when he opens his mouth. Of course, any opportunity to fire up the base is seldom missed. There is no doubt that Rush is popular.

I'm sure the NFL would have similar issues if Don Imus decided to buy an NFL franchise.

Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 9:21 AM

As Jerry said, this isn't about Rush's political views....

AHAHAHHAAHAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!


It's just a coincidence so many liberal sportswriters, so many liberal commentators, the two biggest race-hustlers in America (both liberals) and one liberal politician (government seeking to encroach on a private business?) were practically screaming into microphones - because the implications of money on the NFL. Yeah, that's what Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bryan Burwell & the rest were worried about; the returns on television profits, NOT Rush's politics.

[rolling eyes]

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 9:41 AM

javaman,

Nice way to change the subject. The NFL can do what it wants, just like Rush can say what he wants. As we agree there are consequences from their decisions.

The backlash has already started: http://moltenthought.blogspot.com/2009/10/punt-nfl.html

Anyway, the 200,000 number wasn't the total abandonment of the NFL, just a reduction in how much money they spend on it.

Regarding Cuban, the number of listeners aren't a point of blackmail. It is not because they listen to him they demand that he gets what he wants. It is the *reason* for rejecting him, and more importantly the *perceived* reason.

Posted by: Nobody at October 15, 2009 10:04 AM

RW,

So are you saying that the same outrage wouldn't have greeted Don Imus had he tried the same thing?

Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 10:11 AM

So are you saying that the same outrage wouldn't have greeted Don Imus had he tried the same thing?

The NFL has agreed to share marketing with an outfit that has Keith Olberman, of all people, heading up their Sunday night games.

The argument of some "loudmouth spouting off and saying something bombastic that will offend a large number of people" isn't going to work, my friend, unless you add the part of the politics involved as they pertain to the comments/commenter.

I mean, really, Keith freaking Olbermann.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 10:35 AM

Keith Olbermann was a sports guy on ESPN long before he had any political show. It's one of the reasons I don't watch any of his political stuff because he has absolutely no business doing it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him saying anything controversial on the topic of race, particularly something that would make black NFL players upset (rightly or wrongly).

You are comparing apples and oranges. Don Imus, and not Keith Olbermann, is the proper comparison because he's been embroiled in racial controversy.


Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 10:55 AM

The NFL has 32 owners, and all of them are rich white guys. I would imagine more of them are on Limbaugh's side of the aisle politically than are not. This is all about business, and the racial aspects of what makes Limbaugh controversial are bad for business.

I do think that Imus (who has the racial controversy without the conservative politcs) would, in a similar situation, be more controversial than, say, Sean Hannity (who has the conservatism without the racial controversy).

Posted by: Jerry at October 15, 2009 11:09 AM

Keith Olbermann was a sports guy on ESPN long before he had any political show.
Rush Limbaugh was a sports guy for the KC Royals long before he had any political show. Next.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him saying anything controversial on the topic of race...
And suddenly, the goalposts are moved.

Let's recap, from above:
"Tell me again: what, exactly, did Limbaugh do to warrant this treatment?"
Raised the possibility that he would say something stupid in the future, as he has done in the past, and cost them money. You have people spending billions of dollars building stadiums, practice facilities, and the like. And now, go out and tell them that one of their owners - who only is bringing in money that is replaceable - has the potential to cost them money.

That is no longer operational. Now, it's "saying anything controversial on the topic of race".

And it seems like it was just a few months ago that we were told how great it was that we were about to have this much-needed discussion on race (no, wait, that was a promise & not an accomplishment.....let's grant a Nobel!).

particularly something that would make black NFL players upset (rightly or wrongly).
Ah. Noted.
If you say something that would make black NFL players upset rightly or wrongly, then it's okay to deny your petition for purchase. BTW, "I voted for George Bush" might wrongly upset black NFL players. Maybe we need a list of items that might rightly or wrongly upset black NFL players. Hey, we can call it a "blacklist"...or would that upset them?

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Apparently, I am. I was responding to dave's answer to why he thought Limbaugh warranted this treatment (apples) and you're introducing a new paradigm (oranges) and are demanding that I change my premise.

Don Imus, and not Keith Olbermann, is the proper comparison because he's been embroiled in racial controversy.
Yes, Imus' "chicken and waffles" statement about a black football player was a racial controversy. Wait, that wasn't Imus who said it, it was Keith Olbermann. Wasn't a controversy & didn't upset too many black NFL players, though. Keith has the correct brand of politics, after all.

Then again, maybe I'm being to strident. We can all close our eyes and see a world where Rush Limbaugh discussing a black player's penchant for Chicken and Waffles and realize that the sort of person who regurgitated fake quotes about Limbaugh would, as they did with Olbermann, brush off any controversy because it's the context & person, not the politics. Can't we?

So, we have Olbermann being a loudmouth, liar, demagogue, partisan, hack and someone who divides & offends many people. Plus, we have him playing fast and loose with language that can be construed, rightly or wrongly, as being racially charged. Oh, and he's a liberal.

Let's set the baseline: Apple = this is all about politics.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 11:29 AM

Whoops, I think I screwed up my comment, which is why it's in the moderation queue. Apologies.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 11:32 AM

Republicans: Not understanding why minorities believe the GOP is actively working against them since 1968.

IOW, you have no idea why you are offended, just that you know you are supposed to be. Congratulations for your utter PC syncophancy. I'm sure your black friend is impressed.

Anyone else want to take a crack? Bueller?

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 15, 2009 11:52 AM

While my other comment is waiting....

Jerry, MVH,

The people opposed to Limbaugh relied on made-up quotes that they used as their basis for opposing him. They didn't say "well, he said that Donovan McNabb was overhyped & that's why I oppose" (although they did throw it in at the end), but rather relied on ridiculous slavery & James Earl Ray quotes. Almost every darn one of them did. So, they said "here's why I oppose it, because he said X". Well, now we know he didn't say "X" and most (if not all) of them are busy now seeking to find some (any) quote that they can use now to say "see, he's still a racist".

No one that I've seen is saying "wow, I was told he was a racist because he said those things, but now that I realize that he never said them, I don't think he's a racist". Nope, instead, they're saying "he has a racial history & therefore it's too risky for the league" or some other attempt to diffuse while having nothing other than the McNabb episode to point at. He was wrong in part because McNabb WAS a great QB, but he was right that he was overhyped because the media wanted a black QB to succeed.

The attack dogs were unleashed.

This was Sarah Palin, v2.0.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 12:02 PM

Moving goalposts?? Not me. OK, let's back up so we're clear which of us is arguing what.

(1) Though I don't particularly like Rush, it's fine with me if wants to own an NFL team.

(2) It's also fine with me if the NFL wants to bar him because they don't want a P.R. problem. It's a business decision.

(3) I don't think Rush's politics or whatever fabrication from the media influenced the NFL's decision. This is where we part company.

Now that we're clear what I'm arguing:

(1) Olbermann's status and position as a sports broadcaster - on a national network that covered football - was several orders of magnitude larger than Rush. His stint with the Royals as a "director of promotions" is inconsequential by comparison and hardly puts him in the national spotlight, particularly with regard to football. Next.

(2) Olbermann's alleged racial comment. You are right, apparently he did made one comment which someone might be able to construe as offensive. From a PR perspective, nowhere near on the order of magnitude as Rush's various political statements. And I highly doubt black players check a person's political affiliations before deciding whether someone has made a racially insensitive remark, especially when it happens to be the name of an actual food chain. It makes more sense that because they know him as a noted sports commentator whose numerous other coverages of football is decidedly non-racist. Rush does not have that relationship with professional football.

(4) There is enough said by Rush that -is- verifiable that would make the NFL nervous about having him as an owner. The media did not force the NFL's hand.



Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 1:10 PM

Excuse my lack of proofreading on that last post. Awful.

Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 1:13 PM

"IOW, you have no idea why you are offended, just that you know you are supposed to be."
Nice try. I believe he tried to wiggle out of this comment with an 'out of context' disclaimer. Glad to see you not even bothering.

"The backlash has already started"
So far this year, the right has had a tantrum about mustard, football and Star Trek - along with many other things. I'm trying to get a handle on what is next - the rock salt thing is promising, but I'm betting on yelling at clouds.

As I said above, there's no way 'risk' is going to be understood. Proven right in less than a day!

"Rush Limbaugh was a sports guy for the KC Royals long"
Olbermann was nationally known as a sports guy, Limbaugh was not. These are different things, and all you're doing is flailing around.

"No one that I've seen is saying"
He has a history of making racially charged comments, as well as outright race baiting.

'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' Words from Rush, that the right loves.

Posted by: Dave at October 15, 2009 1:20 PM

OK, I just ate up my lunch break cleaning out the comments-spam folder, but a couple of things:

1. Dave, how far back do we have to go to find Olbermann saying things worse than anything Rush ever said? Try this week. How about calling a female pundit a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."? But maybe you talk about women that way every day yourself, I don't know. But if the Left is going to get personal about collecting scalps on the Right, it's about damn time we drove Olbermann out of sports. (I'd suggest going after his advertisers as the Left does for Glenn Beck, but given the ratio of his salary to his ratings, there's no way MSNBC views his show as a business proposition). The NFL ought to be made to feel very uncomfortable about associating with Olbermann, if they're going to become the speech police. And he won't be the last one.

2. My main beef here is with the Left's use of fabricated quotes. I don't see the liberal commentators here (Dave, javaman) having any problem with that, unsurprisingly; to the contrary, they seem very happy that the fraudulent quotes had their intended effect.

3. Dave, I agree that some of the things Rush has said have been overly provocative at times, especially if you take them out of context. He does like to make trouble. That said, you're leaning too hard on some of your examples, and making generalizations you can't support. The Bloods/Crips line is not that different from the used-to-the-point-of-cliche analogy of football to war. The composite photo line (was that in response to Jackson's remark about his own reaction to meeting young black men on the street?)...hell, how many times have we heard liberals complain that the local news puts too many black faces to crime reports? And who did he say the "bone" line to, and in what context?

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 1:35 PM

In what way was Donovan McNabb overhyped? Please provide examples of this phenomenom. Here is the list, I believe, of QBs who have been to 4 or more Conference Championship games

John Elway
Joe Montana
Terry Bradshaw
Tom Brady
Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach
Steve Young

If I am correct that is the entire list. Notice anything? With the exception of Tom Brady who is still active these guys are all in the Hall of Fame. Say what you want to about McNabb what he has accomplished is only done by HOF level QBs. Please explain how that is overhyped. You're just siding with Limbaugh because you like his stances. He was so freaking wrong about McNabb he got canned.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 1:36 PM

jim - How many of those games had McNabb played in when Rush made that remark?

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 1:47 PM

McNabb had put together a resume like that when Limbaugh said the media was overrating him? No way.

In fact, he was hurt a lot of the '02 season and wasn't great when he returned. I agree he is an almost great QB, but the '02 Eagles seemed to play very well behind Feeley. So you can't credit McNabb's resume by the time Limbaugh opined.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 15, 2009 1:55 PM

I believe he tried to wiggle out of this comment with an 'out of context' disclaimer.

Really? Got a cite for that or did you just make it up? You "believe"? You people believe lots of stuff, and you repeat it even after you've been told it's false. Do better.

Still can't tell me why we should be offended with the supposed "Bloods and Crips" quote, eh? You know, if something offends me, I can usually tell you what I found offensive. If someone were to ask me and I couldn't tell them, I might conclude I was thinking like a PC liberal dipstick and surrender my outrage. Not you guys though--you just feel it deep in your ovaries.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 15, 2009 2:03 PM

The thing with McNabb wasn't a case of ESPN dumping Limbaugh because he was wrong - Terry Bradshaw said essentially identical things about John Elway around the time of his third Super Bowl loss, and he's still working. It was entirely the same reason he was rejected now - he upset the black players in the league.

Posted by: Jerry at October 15, 2009 2:14 PM

The point of Crank's post is not whether the NFL management or its players have to accept Limbaugh. Rather, it is that, for some reason, the media seems to think that it is fine to make things up about a controversial conservative as long as it fits their general overall impression of that conservative. That sentiment was encapsulated by Dan Rather's defense that the phony Bush national guard documents were "fake but true." Thus, the media believes that Rush is a bigot, so even if he didn't really say the quotes attributed to him, he probably believed them or would have said them and it doesn't really matter whether the misstatements are corrected or not. The whole thing reminds me of Mark Twain's quote that a lie can travel around the world in the time that it takes the truth to get its pants on.

Posted by: wd at October 15, 2009 2:15 PM

jim,

First, as I stated earlier, I think Rush was incorrect in saying that McNabb wasn't all that good - he was. But, the Philly defense was the primary reason for their success (it's a team game, which is why Trent Dilfer has a super bowl ring & Dan Marino does not) & McNabb *was* loved by the media, although not in an Obamaesque fashion. Not that good: wrong. Overrated due to a socially conscious sports media: right.

Here's one for the ages: "He's an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he'd be just another good guy."

Former NY Knicks GM and CBA owner, Isaiah Thomas. Evidently, making racial statements about someone being overrated due to their skin color is okay if they're the RIGHT KIND of racial statements about the RIGHT KIND of skin color. It took abysmal mismanagement for the Knicks to oust Thomas. He suffered no financial or character consequences for his statement about Bird.

MVH,
I don't think Rush's politics or whatever fabrication from the media influenced the NFL's decision. This is where we part company.
But the thing is, the NFL made no decision. The group that Dave Checketts built sought out Limbaugh and asked him to join & put up capital for the investment. The wanted him! Then, the media frenzy & fake quotes started to snowball and the pressure started building & you have some players (including the DNC contributor from the player's assoc.) chiming in, then Irsay & then Godell, and by that time you had people within the league jumping on board with their opinions, and the heat from the spotlight caused Checketts to drop Limbaugh from the group (ne now has to find someone to replace that cash). But this all began - 100% - from the partisan/political attacks.

From a PR perspective, nowhere near on the order of magnitude as Rush's various political statements.
If we're now going to look at various political statements, then Keith Olbermann's unfitness was just increased by a factor of about 20.

And I highly doubt black players check a person's political affiliations before deciding whether someone has made a racially insensitive remark
Those guys were responding to FAKE remarks.

It makes more sense that because they know him as a noted sports commentator whose numerous other coverages of football is decidedly non-racist.

I would contend that it makes more sense that they know him as MSNBC's highest paid political host. Olbermann hasn't been an employee of ESPN since 1997 (pre-Monica Lewinsky), so most NFL players only saw him host ESPN while they were in middle or high school. Yes, that's where he made his bones, but it's been a long time since ESPN.
There is enough said by Rush that -is- verifiable that would make the NFL nervous about having him as an owner

Okay, I have no problem with that. I know they probably wouldn't want Mark Cuban buying a team.
But, if that is the standard, there is enough said by Olbermann that -is- verifiable that should make the NFL nervous about having him as an announcer. But, it doesn't. And the examples of Olbermann going extreme & overboard could fill this blog. But, in his case, incendiary talk doesn't even cause a ripple.

The answer: no outrage from the media, primarily because they agree with him.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 2:17 PM

It was entirely the same reason he was rejected now - he upset the black players in the league.

The facts & history show otherwise.
When Limbaugh made that comment, Michael Irvin agreed ("Rush is right"). There were no retorts in the after-production meetings. No one said a word. No one said anything the next day. Then, on the following Tuesday, a Philly sportswriter penned an opinion piece lambasting the comments as being racist. Philly talk radio took off, Media Matters jumped on board, the snowballing began and before you know it ESPN fired Rush and by the time the next Sunday came around you had Chris Berman, Steve Young, Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson reading statements about how the comments from Rush, which didn't bother them as they were debating them with him, were insensitive and had deeply hurt them.

TJ wasn't all that offended when he was arguing, but 48 hours later, he was all verklempt.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 2:23 PM

"the NFL made no decision"

I didn't connect the dots in my post, but I have to believe that the reaction from the NFL leadership and the players was the primary factor that Rush was dropped from the group. An inaccurate media quote is not the root cause of every decision. Rush is controversial, period. He is often in the media because he is controversial. I just think you are giving this inaccurate quote too much explanatory power.

As to Olbermann:

Obviously I can't read the minds of NFL players, but I have a hard time believing that NFL players of this generation don't know Olbermann primarily as a sports/ESPN guy. Also, I can't even imagine any of them tuning into his MSNBC show or associating him with it.

Whatever Olbermann is saying now, his image as a sports guy is basically untarnished and strongly associated with ESPN. It's not that everyone in the sports field loves his politics, it's just that no one in the sports field -cares- about his politics.

Again, if Don Imus was part of this group, he would suffer the same fate.

Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 2:47 PM

"1. Dave, how far back do we have to go to find Olbermann saying things worse than anything Rush ever said? "
I don't listen to Olbermann any more than I listen to Rush, so you tell me. Saying that someone is only inflated by hate? I don't view that as worse, personally, when much of what they say and do is inflated by hate. Would 'balloon of anger' have been better?
I notice you didn't comment on the teacher who received death threats, only on the commentator. Gee whiz, maybe he was a bit peeved that Malkin's actions resulted in death threats against someone.

"2. My main beef here is with the Left's use of fabricated quotes. I don't see the liberal commentators here (Dave, javaman) having any problem with that"
I have a serious problem with it - I also have a problem with what your post was. ' on the fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes'
Many of his quotes were not fabricated. Some of them were, and at least one (if not more) have been in wide publication for years.

My greater objection is that all of the links make this generalization of fabrication, and not admitting there are some troubling true ones.

'3. Dave, I agree that some of the things Rush has said have been overly provocative at times'
You say provocative, I say race baiting for fun and profit. These are old - but there are newer ones too. Both of those ones are 20 years old(I believe the bone one to a caller he couldn't understand, presumably black), the Bloods one about 2 years old. I use these to provide a history, of making 20+ years of questionable statements. All of which point to risk, in the future, of making more of them - and costing owners money.

Which brings up what I hit on in my first comment 'but do any of them criticize him over this?.' and last 'Words from Rush, that the right loves.'. That as long as the larger message is pushed, things which are morally wrong - race baiting in this case - are tolerated.

Posted by: Dave at October 15, 2009 2:49 PM

PS - javaman, yes, the two frequently-circulated quotes are not accurate, and at least one of them has been traced to having been made up by somebody on Wikiquote.

Rush has threatened suit and apparently extracted semi-retractions from a few media outlets, but he may decide not to follow through; libel and slander suits are often more trouble than they are worth, depending on the kind of damages claimed.

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 3:14 PM

but I have to believe that the reaction from the NFL leadership and the players was the primary factor that Rush was dropped from the group
Absolutely agree.

Rush is controversial, period. He is often in the media because he is controversial.
Madonna is controversial. Dennis Rodman is controversial. Andy Dick is controversial. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative and very little that he does/says belies conservatism. He is only controversial in the eyes of liberals, who find his views an anathema & therefor controversial. Yeah, he says things in a bombastic fashion & his parodies are cutting edge, but it's not like he's advocating the eradication of puppies. When he says he's against affirmative action, that's controversial to liberals (and the media, but I repeat myself) but mainstream to conservatives. So, yeah, it's political.

I just think you are giving this inaccurate quote too much explanatory power.
Those quotes are the reason that the people that the media have been interviewing were using for their opposition. I'm using their own words.

Also, I can't even imagine any of them tuning into his MSNBC show or associating him with it.
So it's much easier to imagine Rush Limbaugh is a racist than consider that MSNBC's top rated host is, in fact, on MSNBC?

Again, if Don Imus was part of this group, he would suffer the same fate.
No disagreement.

We don't disagree on much, I'm betting, just looking at things from different directions.
The whole thing begins from the foundation that most black NFL players are Democrats & most/many Democrats dislike Republicans & think they're racists (they do).

Go to any left-wing blog or bulletin (your choice), pretend you're a black conservative or a white anti-affirmative action Republican & see how long it takes before you're called a self-hater or a racist. The norm is inside 5 responses.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 3:19 PM

Crank

Great post, as usual.

Best Comment I've seen so far elsewhere, Mark Steyn:

"Can Rush buy the St Louis Rams if he gets Roman Polanski to front the deal?"

Awful lot of comments here & in the MSM to the effect that, um, even if we can't find the actual racist Rush quotes that were alleged by the MSM, he has surely said enough bad things about minorities (though the examples produced so far don’t show any racism) that it's not surprising that all good men, OOPS persons would understandably believe that he really, really said something like these quotes & that, surely, someone will find some racist rantings by him somewhere if only we can look hard enough. And those racist things said by Liberals? Well, these people are obviously not racists since they’re Liberals

I’m waiting ‘til someone produces some HS history report of Rush’s criticizing something like Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. Oh, wait, that was necessary. As Joseph Welch said to McCarthy when Mac referred to one of Welch's minions early brushes with commies....

Finally, today’s sports writers (& writers of entertainments such as Law & Order) seem to fall for the false consensus effect, a/k/a, the Pauline Kael effect, by which they assume that since everyone they know thinks like them, everybody in their audience thinks like them & that it helps shore up their reputation (make them look like Renaissance men) to provide comfort thoughts on Big Subjects like Globalo Warming & War & Peace(like comfort food) in their work. They take it for granted that the mere mention of Bush 43 as a war criminal or comparing a sport team’s futility to what they absolutely know is our situation in Iraq under BushChaneyRumsfeldHaliburton will get them bonus points with their audience. When I read about or see an analysis of a game, I want a first-rate sports report, not a third-rate political rant.


Posted by: From Inwood at October 15, 2009 3:31 PM

So far Rush's detractors haven't hurt him regarding his show & his listeners & enough listeners keep listening to him so that enough sponsors keep sponsoring him.

Rush's detractors have, by their sneeering misrepresentations, forced some (many/most?) of his listeners to keep silent in public (e.g., at B-B-Qs/cocktail parties/lunches/speeches before civic groups) about their listening to him, or at least make such listeners apologetic & force them to publicly distance themselves somewhat from him. And make me comment anonymously. This does not bother Rush &, I guess, makes him think these wary listeners are wusses. Er, up to a point, Lord Rush.

Rush's detractors have, however, hurt him, Bigtime, with the NFL players & owners by painting him a racist even if they have no proof of any racist utterances from him. This absurd defamation may make him mad & put him in an attack mode, but it has prevented him from appearing again on ESPN & will prevent him from owning a part of an NFL team.

As many people have noted, with the MSM, sometimes a story is just too good to be fact checked before it's put out.

And I suspect that if Jay Leno went out on the street & asked "Who said the following words:

'Slavery built the South. It had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.'"

a lot of Jay Walkers would now answer: "Rush Limbaugh".

And I'd like to be a fly on the wall of some churches this Sunday when the minister gives his sermon.

Posted by: From Inwood at October 15, 2009 3:39 PM

"Can Rush buy the St Louis Rams if he gets Roman Polanski to front the deal?"

That's excellent - funny stuff.

Posted by: MVH at October 15, 2009 3:49 PM

In 2001 McNabb went to his first NFC Championship game. He threw 25 TD passes that year. That was 7th in the NFL. He also rushed for 482 yards which was probably 1st or 2nd in the NFL for QBs. His career record as a starter prior to 2002 was 24-13. People who knew football knew he was a damn good QB that was only going to get better (he has). The Eagles got him with the #2 pick in the draft. You know why they had the number 2 pick? They stunk. They were 9-22-1 in '98 and '99. There was every right to hype this guy. He was the real deal and 10 years ago there was not exactly a legacy of black QBs in the NFL so, sure, it was unique.

The media never does this with white guys. Oh wait, how about Jerry Cooney? He COMPLETELY SUCKED yet he was the Great White Hope and the media couldn't get out of their way to write about him.

Get over it. I'm not saying Rush was a racist. I'm saying he was a blowhard and a jackass who didn't know jack about football beyond layman crapola. (Oh, Michael Irvine a life-time Dallas Cowboy and arch-rival of the Eagles agreed? How amazing.) Limbaugh shot his mouth off about stuff he knows less than he portends (as per usual) and it bit him the ass then and it's coming back to haunt him now. Cry me a freaking river.

I'm not in anyway an Eagle or McNabb fan but if anything that guy has had to swim upstream for most of his career. Eagle fans wanted to dump him last year without considering who you get to play QB for you when he goes. The NFL is 75% QB and coach. That's how you win. McNabb showed he was anything but overhyped and when you see clips of Limbaugh and McNabb addressing this situation then and now you realize who is also a class act as a person and who is not.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 4:19 PM

Is there anything funnier than people complaining about "race-baiting" while signing up to a cause with Al Sharpton up front?

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 4:29 PM

Get over it. I'm not saying Rush was a racist.
Then there is no problem.
The thing is, his detractors have been saying JUST THAT.

The NFL is 75% QB and coach.
Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Danny White & many others would be surprised to hear that defense only accounts for (at most) 25%. I remember Mr. Favre needing Reggie White before he got his ring. And, once again, Trent Dilfer. And Jim Plunkett. Sorry, you're in the distinct minority - the QB can only run the offense, which is half the game. You gotta stop the other team, which is why the KC Chiefs couldn't go anywhere a few years back, despite one of the better offenses & passing attacks.

Lastly, my friend, the Eagles were not competition with the Cowboys during that period.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 4:46 PM

"Is there anything funnier than people complaining about "race-baiting" while signing up to a cause with Al Sharpton up front?"

Using the arguments of a five year old, specifically 'you do it too!', to completely avoid a serious topic. That is much funnier.

Protip - like many things in life, people who you disdain sometimes collide with things you agree with. The problem is when you are in lockstep with them.

Posted by: Dave at October 15, 2009 5:06 PM

The NFL, right now, is a QB and coach league. What happened to the Ravens the past several years? The Cowboys? Sure, there are exceptions but as the league is composed right now you are better off having an elite coach and QB combo than anything else. It's not even close. Years ago this was not necessarily the case. Speaking of over-hyped look up Joe Willie Namath's career stats. Guy wouldn't carry a clipboard in the league today. The NFL has evolved and for almost everyone not named Peyton Manning it is about not making mistakes at the QB spot and having a coach who knows what the hell he is doing.

You say that his detractors are calling him a racist. Fine. The other NFL owners aren't. They probably love the guy politically and personally (I'd be shocked if several owners did not know him at a personal level). But they are the ones kicking him to the curb. Actually it's his own investment group who realized that he is a liability to them in terms of garnering the necessary support from the other owners.

Rush isn't getting in because he is a potential liability and bad PR generator. Not because the powers that be think he's a racist. The noise on the outside of this is noise. The NFL can do and does do pretty much what it wants to do. Seen the ratings? Bad regular season games between bad teams outdraw the World Series.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 5:23 PM

I always wondered if Rush might have had a legitimate point but he just made a terrible choice by making it with McNabb.

Posted by: per14 at October 15, 2009 5:56 PM

per14 - I felt at the time that Rush's point was out of date. I think if he'd said it about Randall Cunningham in the early 1990s, he'd have been 100% correct. 10 years later, the media had sort of moved on from the "black QB" debate.

Dave - Given that you responded to my point about falsified quotations by attacking other things Rush has said, and responded to my point about Olbermann's treatment of Malkin by basically arguing that she had it coming, that response rings very hollow.

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 6:07 PM

Was Randall Cunningham overhyped in the early 90s? By the end of 1992 he was 51-33, been to the playoffs every year from '88-'92 (except '91 when he missed the season with an injury). He had never won a playoff game but that, along with getting sacked a ton and running too often (people thought) drew him a lot of criticism. I don't recall him being over-sold as the greatest QB to come along or any such thing. He was clearly viewed as unique but he was since he had a cannon for an arm, was a big guy, was very elusive and fast. He also came out of UNLV which isn't really known for its football prowess. He's in the top 35-40 for lots of career stats. Seems like he got about the right hype especially considering the time and circumstances.

Over-hyped might belong to Mike Vick who never developed a throwing motion that produced consistently accurate tosses, never developed into an NFL style QB mold and had generally low QB ratings yet a massive, massive contract. Oh, he killed a lot of dogs and went to prison. That's over-hyped.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 6:25 PM

"I don't recall him being over-sold as the greatest QB to come along or any such thing."

How about the 1989 preseason SI cover proclaiming him "The Ultimate Weapon"?

Those Eagles teams won in large part because they had great defenses. Cunningham was a talented QB but made a lot of bad decisions.

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 6:32 PM

Does one SI Cover make you over-hyped? He was coming off a year where he threw for nearly 4,000 yards, rushed for over 600, was in the Top 5 in completions, yards and touchdowns as well as being the top rushing QB in the NFL. It's not like he sucked. He was pretty damn good. Should SI have said, "Randall: He's OK"? That sells tons of magazines. You make it sound like that if someone gets any sort of coverage and they aren't the greatest of all time then they are over-hyped. If that's the case all but a very, very small percentatge.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 6:46 PM

...are overhyped.

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 6:47 PM

Randall Cunningham was uniquely qualified to make plays for a team whose coach allocated virtually all his resources on defense, so he was quite valuable to the Eagles at the time. But he was always more spectacular than consistently good, and was definitely overrated at the time (as Vick was before his fall).

If Limbaugh's point was true about McNabb, though, it wasn't true by much.

Posted by: Jerry at October 15, 2009 6:57 PM

Dude, he was overrated and he was overrated because the media wanted to fawn over a black QB.

Before McNabb they had another black QB in Philly(was it Randall Cunningham?) anyhow they were all over his sh-t also. The most exciting player in the NFL, blah,blah etc. The funny thing was he was the "most exciting player" but 4 or 5 different QBs (Simms, Hostetler,Aikman Rypien, Williams) just in his own division the NFC East, got to and won the Superbowl while he was the most exciting player.

Posted by: dch at October 15, 2009 7:25 PM

Who is not over-hyped that is not in the pantheon of Jordan, Montana, Bird, Gretzky, Ali, Woods, Nicklaus, Sugar Ray and the like? Do you really have to be either such a superstar or so far under the radar to avoid being tagged as over-hyped. Shit, everything these days is hyped to some extent. I just don't see it at all with McNabb. The guy just went to the NFC Championship game in his second year as a starter when Rush panned him. Does that make Cole Hammels over-hyped? He kind of blew this year. What about Evan Longoria. His team lost the WS last year and faded this year. Is he over-hyped? Where's the line. I mean if you can't be on the cover of SI for their football issue after generating 4,500 yards from scrimmage and accounting for 30 TDs and not be called over-hyped WTF do you have to do?

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 7:34 PM

"Dave - Given that you responded to my point about falsified quotations by attacking other things Rush has said"
To bring up that things were falsified (which they were) and used wrongly (which they were) without mentioning that several had merit(which they did) is a flawed argument.
For example, Whitlock's take (linked to through Steyn) would exist with or without these false quotes. I believe the tone of it would largely be the same just based on real quotes, and I believe it about some of the other stories as well. This is important to why I brought them up, as well as the history+risk I've spoken about.

"and responded to my point about Olbermann's treatment of Malkin by basically arguing that she had it coming"
Her actions resulted in an innocent person receiving death threats, so crass insults can be expected even if they should be avoided. Quick what's worse, a crass insult or a death threat?

And before someone responds with 'well she's received them as well!' - yes, I have a problem with that too.

I would love to exist in a world where you can express a variety of ideas without being insulted, threatened, or ridiculed. This world does not exist, and almost no one is interested in changing it(hint - it's one of the reasons I don't watch or listen to commentators of any political bent).
But tell me, what should be the proper response when actions result in someone receiving death threats(not for the first time)?
Please tell me, I'll file it away for future knowledge

", that response rings very hollow."
Knowing how the world works despite you not wanting it to is different from what I said.

Posted by: Dave at October 15, 2009 7:45 PM

jim, believe me, I was there. The hype was a lot more pervasive than one cover, the SI cover story was just the most egregious example. And it came during a time when the papers were stuffed with stories about the need for black QBs. Like I said, I think Rush was probably offbase about McNabb but the charge would have fit Cunningham.

Posted by: Crank at October 15, 2009 7:45 PM

Here's just one example of how Rush was right about the media (while being wrong about McNabb being "all that good"): after the Super Bowl, when Philly finally made it but came up short & McNabb had a somewhat sub-par game, I tuned into Sportscenter - which I rarely do, anymore - to see if they'd spin it since they'd hyped up the angle a bit. It took Stuart Scott twenty seconds, I timed it personally, to say "you can't blame the loss on Donovan".

Yeah, much of the media was desirous for a black QB to excel. Much like much of the media is desirous for lots of things; would, say, Leonard Nimoy getting married get even half the publicity of George Tekai? And I think there was an election last year where the media was desirous for a black guy to win & also desirous to destroy a certain beautiful VP candidate from the other side.

The NFL, right now, is a QB and coach league.The NFL, right now, is a QB and coach league.
Great, the Saints can't wait for Drew Brees to lead them to the promised land, like he did last year (those Giants had no running game or sack machine, eh?).

Rush isn't getting in because he is a potential liability and bad PR generator. Not because the powers that be think he's a racist.
Checketts knew of the liabilities & PR involved when he made the invitation. It wasn't until the "Rush is a racist, everyone!" attack machine went into gear that the NFL guys started chiming in and EVERY ONE OF THEM SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF RACE. That argument is going to go nowhere. History happened, we have the transcripts, we have the video.

Rush got ousted because his political enemies pushed the mantra that he was a racist, primarily based on false quotes, and the media was ready and willing to forward the talking points, just as they did with Sarah Palin.

I'm not a teen anymore, but I can still remember what happened last week. :)

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 8:59 PM

Two more things: It can depend on what "media" Rush was talking about when he made the McNabb comments. Someone in Sacramanto may not know what he was talking about, while someone who watched a lot of ESPN at the time would know exactly what he was talking about (they loved him, much like they loved Rocket Ismael when he was at Notre Dame). Not as much as ESPN loved Dennis Rodman, but they did love him.

Second, Vick's numbers were truly horrible, but as a very young QB he led the Falcons to the NFC title game (against McNabb & the Eagles, actually) after almost single handedly leading the offense to a victory in Green Bay and because of his unbelievable speed the Falcons were easily one of the better rushing teams in NFL history. Defenses had no clue how to defend the team, early on, because his speed was so overwhelming, so at that point in his career the achievements of his abilities seemed unlimited. Then, defenses realized that he couldn't complete a pass and, well, the rest is history. Took a while, though.

And that game against the Vikings.....he was phenomenal.

Posted by: RW at October 15, 2009 9:06 PM

Limbaugh has made millions catering to under-educated suckers who listen to his show and buy his products. I have no sympathy for him -- live by the sword, die by the sword.

Nevertheless, it was wrong to publish inaccurate quotes and all who did should apologize. (Though, given Limbaugh's propensity for personal attacks on others, it need not be fawning.)

Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things he has said over the years, the inaccurate quotes were things he could have said.

Posted by: magrooder at October 15, 2009 9:16 PM

The players don't vote on him, the owners do. Not one has said Rush is a racist.

The Giants won the Super Bowl in large part because Eli Manning played the best 4 game stretch of his career where a) he didn't make any bonehead mistakes b) he didn't thrown any picks c) Coughlin coached his ass off and played to his team's strengths and got Manning to buy into not trying to be his brother and d) Some dude made the fucking luckiest catch in the history of football on a play where Manning bailed his own ass out of a sack (not exactly his forte) e) the Giants D-line owned the Pats O-line. However, if Eli played like Eli usually played to that point in his career the Giants would have never even been in the Super Bowl. Oh, Favre threw a stupid pick in the NFC title game too. QBs and coaches. You can have all the D and running game you want but if your QB and coach are crap you aren't doing squat.

I was also there. I lived in NYC in 1991 and part of my territory was Philly where I spent a considerable amount of time (unfortunately but that's a longer and more expensive story). I know what went on and it's not tons different than hype guys like Jerry Cooney, Todd Van Poppel and a MILLION other white dudes have gotten as the Next Whatever. Hype is hype. No shit they wanted a black QB. It's something to write about. At that time it was almost singularly unique. Why the hell wouldn't they want to pimp that? It sells stuff.

Rush was way off base about McNabb and in the rear view mirror he looks like an idiot. He didn't say it about Cunningham so it's a non-starter. He could have said it about Drew Bledsoe and been 100% on target though. Not controversial enough?

Posted by: jim at October 15, 2009 10:33 PM

The Checketts group is among a reported half-dozen bidders for the Rams. So, he was only asking to be invited to bid not make the purchase. no where is the group that booted was guaranteed anything.

Posted by: javaman at October 15, 2009 10:36 PM

When Favre won those MVPs and the SB-it was warranted but the hype was annoying, the real overhyping has been the last 7-8 years and like someone mentioned he has made some truly bone head plays over the last 5 years or so because he keeps thinking he is 26 years old.

Posted by: dch at October 15, 2009 11:02 PM

Can I give you another example? Phil Ivey in Poker. Phil Ivey is one of the very best poker players in the world-phenomenal player-but there is about 12-15 players just as good. Chris Ferguson, Daniel Negraneau, Barry Greenstein, Phil Hellmuth, Alan Cunningham, Dan Harrington, Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson (getting old though), Howard Lederer, Sammy Farha to name some. However, he is the only black in that top, top echelon so now he is being pushed as "the best poker player in the world" He is going to be the lone pro on this years 10KNo Limit World Championship and if he wins-oy vey it is going to get unbearable.

Posted by: dch at October 15, 2009 11:26 PM

magrooder:

"Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things he has said over the years, the inaccurate quotes were things he could have said."

Proves my point above at 3:31:

"Awful lot of comments here & in the MSM to the effect that, um, even if we can't find the actual racist Rush quotes that were alleged by the MSM, he has surely said enough bad things about minorities (though the examples produced so far don’t show any racism) that it's not surprising that all good men, OOPS persons would understandably believe that he really, really said something like these quotes...."

It's like the old Irish biddy who, when challenged on whether her gossip was true, replied " 'tis true enough".

Or it’s “Print The Legend”!

Posted by: From Inwood at October 16, 2009 12:32 AM


"Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things Olbermann has said over the years, My inaccurate quotes about him saying that Bush had sex with the animals on his ranch & beat his wife were things he could have said."

Posted by: From Inwood at October 16, 2009 12:40 AM

Inwood,

Shades of the initial retorts about the Dan Rather fake memos: "fake but accurate".

Posted by: RW at October 16, 2009 6:56 AM

Bill Clinton could have had sex with a member of his staff, lied about it, denided it to the American people, and then when faced with that facts; admitted it. He could have done this-oh wait-he did do this!

Bottom line on the Rush thing, if it had been Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Whoppi Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.; then no one would have dared do to them what they did to him.

Oh, by the way-there are not minority owners in the NFL. How do like them diversity apples baby!

Posted by: Lee at October 16, 2009 7:24 AM

Limbaugh has made millions catering to under-educated suckers

Given that studies have shown that Limbaugh's audience is better educated and wealthier than the population at large, I can probably disregard the rest of your comment as being as obstuse and moronic as the offerings made by jim and dave.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at October 16, 2009 9:21 AM

Taken from the corner, this puts the nail in the coffin for this discussion, IMO:

" The outrage isnt that Limbaugh wont own a piece of the St. Louis Rams. The outrage is the lies and slander that have been bandied about with no basis in fact simply because it fits a media template namely, that conservatives are racist.

If they said, Rush is a bit bombastic and we think it would be a distraction from football, then there would be no cause to complain. But they didnt say that. They said the man was a racist and an advocate for slavery, which is a lie. They created a division, and then complained that Limbaugh is divisive. And in the process they have reinforced the stereotype of conservatives as racists.

It is sad when lies succeed and the truth does not. It is outrageous that these race-baiting bigots in the sports media managed to successfully slander a man."

Posted by: RW at October 16, 2009 9:27 AM

We can always count on Magrooder to come in and prove the point we're making about how stupid and dishonest liberals are. It's as if someone created magrooder to arrive in time to blow up whatever obfuscation the rest of the site-lefties try to pull off.

Obfuscating site-lefties: "We're not saying Rush is a racist and no one's actually buying those made-up quotes. No one's saying they're true because they sound like what we believe Rush says!"

Magrooder:"Rush is a racist and even if he didn't say that stuff he could have so it's true!"

OSL's: "*sigh*"

That cracks me up every time.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 16, 2009 9:42 AM

Zummo,

What have I said other than that Limbaugh was wrong about McNabb (which he was as history has born out)? You apparently either have a huge agenda or don't really read the stuff printed here. The only thing I have questioned is overhyped. Apparently only black people are overhyped according to some folks here. It is "egrigious" is a sports magazine puts a black QB (one of the first elite level black QBs in the NFL) on the cover after a year in which he throw/runs for a combined 4,500 yards and 30 TDs. But it is not egrigious if Time-freaking-Magazine puts a palooka like Jerry Cooney on the cover. Interesting.

Posted by: jim at October 16, 2009 10:55 AM

Wow, what paranoia on the right. Spongeworthy "quotes" me as writing, ". . . so it's true." I didn't write that. The point of my sentence -- I forget too often that you guys are a little slow on the uptake so it has to be spelled out for you -- was that in the pantheon of "controversial" things Rushbo has said over the years, the inaccurate quotes were not ones that lept out of something that you read and say "he would not have said that." Rather, and this does not excuse the inaccuracy, you read them and think, "yup, sounds just like him."

He can't spew the things he spews every day and, then, when he is not quoted accurately act like he's the church lady.

Paul Zimmo -- I'd like to see the source for your claim as to Limbaugh's audience; in any case, wealth does not equal intelligence.

Posted by: magrooder at October 16, 2009 11:13 AM

Here is an interesting perspective: basically that Rush would have been such a great owner that he would have shattered the "conservatives are racist image" and taken away that argument from the left.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/039984.html

Posted by: per14 at October 16, 2009 11:16 AM

dch,

I think Ivey might actually be better than all those other guys though. Dude's a machine.

Posted by: per14 at October 16, 2009 11:26 AM

Magrooder:

Speak for yourself. You wanted to believe them, you felt deep in your ovaries this was gospel and it conforms to your caricature of conservatives as racists. So you bought it and got suckered by friendly fire.

I didn't buy it. I figured "he would not have said that". Not because I know anything about Limbaugh but because lefties lie. A lot.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 16, 2009 11:38 AM

Per 14-he is incredible-but calling a person the greatest poker player in the world is sort of like calling someone the greatest singer or guitarist in the world-what language do they sing in? What style? What criteria?
The guys I mentioned above are all great players in different forms of poker and some are known for particular games-
Everyone says Samma Farha is the greatest pot limit Omaha player. They say Howards Lederer is the greatest limit hold em player. Tournament NLHL-probably Hellmuth. Razz-Huck Seed, etc, etc-I just don't think you can designate 1 person the greatest poker player in the world.

Posted by: dch at October 16, 2009 3:33 PM

Yeah, I'll buy that. Really hard to come with up with a criteria to determine the BEST poker player.

One thing about Ivey: he's so much younger than most the guys you mention. I think he's in his early 30s. Obviously we don't know what the future brings, but in 15 years, who knows how many accomplishments he will have accumulated.

Posted by: per14 at October 16, 2009 4:40 PM

Rush can be slandered and yet still be a racist. it's not like there isnt a treasure trove of validated racist quotes out of him coming straight from his program transcripts and recordings. "Take that bone out of your nose". The NFL looks like "crips and bloods". McNabb (he of multiple championship game fame) isnt any good, the media just likes him cuz he's black.

Just google "top ten racist Limbaugh quotes" and the like and let the fun begin.

Posted by: robert at October 16, 2009 8:10 PM

robert

There you go again, making things up, paraphrasing, or taking out of context as has been explained over & over. Are you reading at grade level? Who are you, Dr. Goebbels, repeating the Big Lie?

How about if I say about you:

"Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things you have said about Crank over the years, my inaccurate quotes about your having sex with your Ma & ten year old boys were things you could’ve said & anyway I found on Google where there's a treasure trove of things someone said you said.

Posted by: from Inwood at October 17, 2009 12:07 AM

Pew Research article on Rush's audience demos...


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1102/limbaugh-audience-conservative-men


Generally, his audience is very likely to self-identify as conservative (80%), male (72%), and seem to be somewhat more likely to hold a college degree than the general public (33% to 28%), but skew much more knowledgeable about politics than the general public (36% vs. 18%), assuming you believe that the Pew criteria for "high knowledge" is robust...

Posted by: Mark at October 17, 2009 10:12 PM

No one could have predicted that Rush would play the victim.

Posted by: Berto at October 20, 2009 11:55 AM

There is a huge difference between saying that Rush didnt say certain things attributed to him and then leaping to the conclusion that he hasnt said any racist things in the past. Conservatives seem to be making that leap.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at October 21, 2009 7:17 PM

Fake but accurate - touche
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910230019

Posted by: steve at October 25, 2009 11:53 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg