Rush Limbaugh as NFL owner?

[Oleg Bach]

No way 'Bro..I have always sported a natural 'fro....my sisters use to do that hot hair pressing thing with scalp burns to prove it...then Lincoln set us free....ha!

There is a movie out about blacks and their hair..I never like the idea of flat straight hair on a black woman ...maybe a man - like Chuck Berry...it reminded me of a woman that wanted to be white - for instance my youngest sons girl - is from Central America - she keeps her hair straight - but when she lets out her waste length hair down and natural - the curls look fantastic - like an angel......so was Lincoln black? Or was that Jefferson? Or was it just his sperm that was black? Love you brother..later. Of all the people - you have warmth - and brains - how can that be - YOU are black...

[kimmy]

Saying that he was given a 'pass' because he's black is insulting, and nobody knows for sure that it's true. So Rush isn't "pointing it out" as Sharkman says, but just assuming it's true and insulting McNabb by implying he isn't good enough to be an NFL QB, and that he's only there because of his race.

He never once said that McNabb was only there because of his race!

The Eagles got off to a poor start that season, which had people asking "what's wrong with Donovan McNabb? why is he playing worse than usual?"

Limbaugh's argument is that he wasn't playing worse than usual. He argues that McNabb received more credit that he deserved for the team's success in prior seasons, when the defense had been the bigger reason for the team's success. He claims that the reason for the over-estimation of McNabb's role in the team's success is that the media had been hoping to see a black quarterback do well.

That's very different from saying that McNabb was only there because of his race!

If you watch to the end of the clip I provided, you'll notice Limbaugh says that the Eagles' investment in him (the enormous contract they awarded him before the season) was "a good investment", which I doubt he would say if he thought McNabb was just an "affirmative action" employee.

Do NFL commentators ever say anything that controversial in their broadcasts?

I believe that Limbaugh was brought onto the broadcast to add some controversy to their panel, to get more people to watch half-time and sit through the ads.

Do they ever insult players that badly ? I can't think of any examples of commentators saying a player shouldn't be in the league, which is effectively what he was doing, let alone insulting them that way.

Well, I disagree that Limbaugh's comments were as insulting to McNabb as you believe.

But yes, I have, a number of times. One that stands out in my memory was when Glenn Healey questioned Patrick Thoreson's courage, after Thoreson was hurt blocking a slap-shot that hit him in the ... uh, gonads.

Have you ever watched a segment of Coach's Corner? Don Cherry frequently makes comments that make Limbaugh's remarks about McNabb seem diplomatic by comparison. Of course, in Cherry's case, the targets of his vitriol are almost always white, so the race aspect doesn't play into it. (Unless Swedish count as a race? I don't think so.)

You're very naive if you believe Limbaugh got in trouble because he insulted a player. Limbaugh got in trouble because he brought race into the discussion.

And if you disagree with my assessment, you may at least agree that Rush went on his own with that comment, and showed his poor judgment in thinking he'd get away with it.

Since his comments lost him that gig, I think it's fair to say that he used poor judgment.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

K,

He never once said that McNabb was only there because of his race!

He didn't say it directly, but there's no other way to interpret his words.

The Eagles got off to a poor start that season, which had people asking "what's wrong with Donovan McNabb? why is he playing worse than usual?"

Limbaugh's argument is that he wasn't playing worse than usual. He argues that McNabb received more credit that he deserved for the team's success in prior seasons, when the defense had been the bigger reason for the team's success. He claims that the reason for the over-estimation of McNabb's role in the team's success is that the media had been hoping to see a black quarterback do well.

That's very different from saying that McNabb was only there because of his race!

"He claims that the reason for the over-estimation of McNabb's role in the team's success is that the media had been hoping to see a black quarterback do well."

ie. A white quarterback wouldn't have been given the same credit McNabb had, and McNabb was getting preferential treatment.

Not very different at all.

If you watch to the end of the clip I provided, you'll notice Limbaugh says that the Eagles' investment in him (the enormous contract they awarded him before the season) was "a good investment", which I doubt he would say if he thought McNabb was just an "affirmative action" employee.

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Oct 18 2009, 04:09 PM) *

Do NFL commentators ever say anything that controversial in their broadcasts?

I believe that Limbaugh was brought onto the broadcast to add some controversy to their panel, to get more people to watch half-time and sit through the ads.

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Oct 18 2009, 04:09 PM) *

Do they ever insult players that badly ? I can't think of any examples of commentators saying a player shouldn't be in the league, which is effectively what he was doing, let alone insulting them that way.

Well, I disagree that Limbaugh's comments were as insulting to McNabb as you believe.

But yes, I have, a number of times. One that stands out in my memory was when Glenn Healey questioned Patrick Thoreson's courage, after Thoreson was hurt blocking a slap-shot that hit him in the ... uh, gonads.

Have you ever watched a segment of Coach's Corner? Don Cherry frequently makes comments that make Limbaugh's remarks about McNabb seem diplomatic by comparison. Of course, in Cherry's case, the targets of his vitriol are almost always white, so the race aspect doesn't play into it. (Unless Swedish count as a race? I don't think so.)

You're very naive if you believe Limbaugh got in trouble because he insulted a player. Limbaugh got in trouble because he brought race into the discussion.

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Oct 18 2009, 04:09 PM) *

And if you disagree with my assessment, you may at least agree that Rush went on his own with that comment, and showed his poor judgment in thinking he'd get away with it.

Since his comments lost him that gig, I think it's fair to say that he used poor judgment.

I realize that Rush was in trouble for bringing race into the equation. Cherry is a special case, but your examples show that dire insults happen, even if they're rare.

I didn't know about the other comments Rush made about McNabb either... Thanks for that.

[kimmy]

He didn't say it directly, but there's no other way to interpret his words.

I strongly disagree.

I will attempt to use a couple of other examples to illustrate why:

If Willie O'Ree wasn't black, you wouldn't have heard of him. His NHL career-- 4 goals and 10 assists in 45 NHL games-- do not merit remembering when many players who had more on-ice success have been long forgotten. HOWEVER, pointing out that O'Ree's fame is disproportionate to his actual accomplishments does in no way dispute that he deserved to be in the NHL (and, indeed, the length of his hockey career and his success at lower levels of hockey indicate that he did get to the NHL on merit.)

If Danica Patrick wasn't female, she wouldn't be one of the richest and most famous race-car drivers on the planet. Her accomplishments on the race track certainly have not earned her the fame she's acquired. HOWEVER one can point out that obvious fact without saying that she isn't good enough to be on the track. (I don't follow racing enough to be sure about this, but it seems as if she's consistently competitive despite her shortage of victories.)

If Anna Kournikova weren't a buxom babe, she wouldn't have been the most famous and richest female tennis player in the world during the peak of her career. She was far more famous and made far more money than a lot of players who were better than her. HOWEVER, saying as much doesn't suggest that she wasn't good enough to be on the professional tour. (indeed, she won enough matches to be in the top 20 for much of her career, and even in the top 10 at times.)

I think everybody would agree that Anna Kournikova did not earn her level of fame by her accomplishments on the tennis court, but rather from her physical attributes. But it is equally true that her ability at tennis would have made her a legitimate professional whatever her appearance.

Now, that's not to say Donovan McNabb is Anna Kournikova. He's been one of the better NFL quarterbacks for 10 years. Never at the level of the elite quarterbacks, but head and shoulders above a lot of quarterbacks who come and go in the NFL.

If McNabb were a white guy, I think he'd be recognized as a good player who has had a solid career. I don't think he'd have been hyped up the way McNabb was in his first years in the league. I think hindsight has somewhat vindicated Limbaugh's remarks... McNabb has been in the league for 10 seasons now and has failed to get himself or his team to the next level.

"He claims that the reason for the over-estimation of McNabb's role in the team's success is that the media had been hoping to see a black quarterback do well."

ie. A white quarterback wouldn't have been given the same credit McNabb had, and McNabb was getting preferential treatment.

Not very different at all.

There's a big difference between saying a guy is overhyped because of his skin color, and saying that he's only in the league because of his skin color.

And there's no "preferential treatment". The somewhat exaggerated credit McNabb got for the Eagles' success turned into somewhat undeserved criticism when the team struggled (as the start of the clip illustrates.) Oddly, Limbaugh is in essence *defending* McNabb from the accusation that the Eagles' struggles were because McNabb wasn't playing up to form.

And, while I basically agree with Limbaugh's comments, I should mention that quarterbacks in general get more credit than they deserve when the team is succeeding, and more blame than they deserve when the team struggles.

edited to add:

By the way, before anybody gets the wrong idea: I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan. I've never listened to his show, I don't want to listen to his show, and what few soundbites I've heard from the guy seem like the same sort of stuff Ann Coulter puts out there: stuff designed to get attention.

However, I spent enough Sunday mornings watching football with daddy to form an opinion on this subject.

And, I wanted to comment on this because it annoys me to see people crying "rayyyycism" in response to an entirely reasonable argument. If this is an example of racism, then racism has become a completely meaningless term.

This didn't create controversy because it was racist. It created controversy because it made people uncomfortable. "Politically incorrect" and "racist" aren't the same thing.

-k

Edited October 19, 2009 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, Kimmy, I guess where I'm not seeing this the same way as you is reflected in your examples.

They seem to talk about general perceptions of the athlete, or fame or whatnot. I concur that somebody who is different will get more attention, such as a female Indy driver etc. With McNabb I had the impression that the question was whether his salience was giving him a 'pass' on his performance, from journalists - which is a different thing.

But, you seem to be pretty informed on this. Am I wrong ? Wasn't Rush talking about critics and journalists and even the NFL evaluating a quarterback differently ? This, to me, speaks to the right's general attitude towards and statements on affirmative action.

[kimmy]

Ok, Kimmy, I guess where I'm not seeing this the same way as you is reflected in your examples.

They seem to talk about general perceptions of the athlete, or fame or whatnot. I concur that somebody who is different will get more attention, such as a female Indy driver etc. With McNabb I had the impression that the question was whether his salience was giving him a 'pass' on his performance, from journalists - which is a different thing.

It's not a question of "getting a 'pass'."

The numbers speak for themselves, nobody could dispute that he was playing very well.

Here's what happened: the arrival of McNabb (and new management, and a new coach) coincided with the Eagles turning from a bad team into one of the better teams in the league at the time.

And the common perception was "wow! McNabb is incredible! Look at how he turned the Eagles around! He's going to carry that team to the Superbowl!" He was being hyped up as one of the greats in the game.

And then they struggled to start the 2003 season, and common perception was "hey, the Eagles look terrible, what's wrong with McNabb?" As if the team's success or failure rode entirely on McNabb's shoulders.

Limbaugh correctly argues that McNabb wasn't the biggest reason why the Eagles succeeded, and he was taking an undue share of blame for the team's early struggles. (as the clip opens, you hear Limbaugh disputing the claim that McNabb had "regressed".)

Limbaugh is on less solid ground in claiming race as the reason McNabb's performance was overhyped.

It's entirely plausible that had McNabb been white, he'd have still been hailed as the next big thing... quarterbacks always get an undue share of credit for a team's success and an undue amount of blame when things are going wrong.

I would say that Carson Palmer (of the Bengals) is a similar case involving a white kid. Palmer arrives, coincident with a new coach and new management, and the Bengals turn from a perpetual embarrassment into a competitive team. Palmer got a lot of credit for being the difference, and was indisputably playing very well. However, I don't think Palmer ever got face-time comparable to McNabb... perhaps partly because it was Cincinnati instead of Philadelphia. But I do think sponsors and the networks and the league itself were hopeful to have a black quarterback as a marquee player in the league.

But, you seem to be pretty informed on this. Am I wrong ? Wasn't Rush talking about critics and journalists and even the NFL evaluating a quarterback differently ? This, to me, speaks to the right's general attitude towards and statements on affirmative action.

The coach plays the players that give the team the best chance to win. In Philadelphia, that has meant McNabb as quarterback. This has nothing to do with affirmative action.

This has always just been about perception. The perception of whether McNabb was the reason the Eagles turned things around and why they struggled. The perception of whether McNabb was hyped as one of the stars of the league because he was really that good, or whether he was hyped up because the league and its sponsors wanted a black quarterback to promote.

Comparable: CBC has always hyped up Sidney Crosby as the face of the NHL. Is he really the best? No. Ovechkin and Malkin are better. But they're not Canadian.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, well, I have to say I understand the situation better than I did. Rush's comment was more about the media then.

Now I'm wondering what they wanted him to say in the booth and what they didn't want him to say. Surely somebody must have given him some guidelines, but I doubt we'll ever know.

[sharkman]

The bottom line is if Rush was a left wing commentator he would not have been forced to resign for the McNabb comments, and his announcement to be part of a group of investors would have made page 13 of the business section. Hypocrisy in the media is turning people off.

[Michael Hardner]

The bottom line is if Rush was a left wing commentator he would not have been forced to resign for the McNabb comments, and his announcement to be part of a group of investors would have made page 13 of the business section. Hypocrisy in the media is turning people off.

Sharkman,

What in blazes are you on about ? How could a left wing commentator make those kind of comments. He got fired for saying those comments, you know.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like he's that bright. Why he wanted to be a football commentator is beyond me, anyway. He has his little fifedom as the Republican lunch time raver and has done well by it...

Why doesn't he just retire ?

[sharkman]

Michael, you seem unaware of the types of things the left gets away with in the media. I am not going to enlighten you. It took Kimmi several posts to convince you that Rush's comments were about the media. Believe anything you wish.

[BubberMiley]

That sounds like what my dad used to tell me when he didn't have an answer. "If you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you!"

But the truth is, if Rush were a left-wing commentator, he wouldn't be in a position to even consider being part-owner of a football team.

It's amazing how the right can own the media and still feel victimized and that the world is out to get them.

Edited October 20, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

Sharkman

Michael, you seem unaware of the types of things the left gets away with in the media. I am not going to enlighten you. It took Kimmi several posts to convince you that Rush's comments were about the media. Believe anything you wish.

Actually, if you think about it the idea of somebody changing their mind on boards like these is actually pretty rare. Kimmy participated in a dialectic, answered my questions and convinced me.

Has a left-of-center poster ever done the same to you ?

Although I get the point of your post, and I agree that left-of-center comments aren't treated the same I doubt you could provide an analogous comment to Rush's prove your point anyway. The fact is that comments on race and the like are just a "third rail".

Is it fair that some outrageous left-wing commentators are given a 'pass' ? No, but what do you want to do about that ? Complain ? That's likely the best approach.

There are also right-wing biases, as the real bias is (IMO) towards the 20% of college-educated east-coast power base of this country. That means liberal rather than conservative, corporate rather than entrepreneurial, newspaper readers more than cable news watchers.

[Shady]

Well, Rush wasn't rejected. He quit.

I just wanted to correct the record. He didn't quit, he was let go as part of the bid. This poster is misinformed.

[Shady]

I doubt you could provide an analogous comment to Rush's prove your point anyway. The fact is that comments on race and the like are just a "third rail".

Keith Olbermann:

With the Denver drive having stalled, Roscoe Parrish on the punt return. Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles at its finest. He could go the entire distance and does and it's seven-zip Bills

As Dave Chapelle would say, it's no secret that black people have a certain fondess for chicken. And apparently Keith is quite aware of this as well.

[Michael Hardner]

You have a point. I doubt Rush could get away with saying that.

[kimmy]

To me, the reaction to Limbaugh's comments about McNabb-- condemnation and outrage without actually understanding the context or even what he actually said-- typifies the "shoot first, ask questions later" atmosphere that happens whenever issues involving race are discussed.

-k

[Shady]

To me, the reaction to Limbaugh's comments about McNabb-- condemnation and outrage without actually understanding the context or even what he actually said-- typifies the "shoot first, ask questions later" atmosphere that happens whenever issues involving race are discussed.

-k

Exactly. Which is why he's been calling them the drive-by media for a few years now. They drive by, cause a mess, and then leave when a new story grabs their attention. In this case it was the balloon boy hoax.

[Michael Hardner]

kim/Shady,

It's not like Rush isn't living in a glass house over the 'drive by' phenomenon. His inaccuracies are so well documented that when I protested them with a Rush fan, his response was that Rush was an entertainer, not a journalist and therefore not subject to the same standards.

Okaaay... then that means we SHOULD listen to Robin Williams and Sinbad on political issues then ?

[weareone]

kim/Shady,

It's not like Rush isn't living in a glass house over the 'drive by' phenomenon. His inaccuracies are so well documented that when I protested them with a Rush fan, his response was that Rush was an entertainer, not a journalist and therefore not subject to the same standards.

Okaaay... then that means we SHOULD listen to Robin Williams and Sinbad on political issues then ?

And ignore the other poster because Robin Williams and Sinbad probably make more sense.

[Shady]

It's not like Rush isn't living in a glass house over the 'drive by' phenomenon. His inaccuracies are so well documented that when I protested them with a Rush fan, his response was that Rush was an entertainer, not a journalist and therefore not subject to the same standards.

Okaaay... then that means we SHOULD listen to Robin Williams and Sinbad on political issues then ?

Well, I never said he was just an entertainer. So maybe you should continue that particular conversation with the Rush fan you referenced. He's definitely entertaining, and uses quite a bit of satire during his show. But he's much more than that.

And unfortunately, people already listen to Hollywood's opnion on political issues. That's nothing new.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I never said he was just an entertainer. So maybe you should continue that particular conversation with the Rush fan you referenced. He's definitely entertaining, and uses quite a bit of satire during his show. But he's much more than that.

And unfortunately, people already listen to Hollywood's opnion on political issues. That's nothing new.

You're right.

And Rush remains as repugnant as ever, and a bigger problem for the Republicans than the Democrats, in that he can't be unelected. Too bad for them.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Shady]

You're right.

And Rush remains as repugnant as ever, and a bigger problem for the Republicans than the Democrats, in that he can't be unelected. Too bad for them.

How is he repugnant? And you're right, he can't be unelected, because he hasn't been elected in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

Shady,

How is he repugnant? And you're right, he can't be unelected, because he hasn't been elected in the first place. blink.gif

I'm taking it that you're visually impaired. My apologies.

The fact that he is UNelected is a problem for the Republicans, as I said, because they can't make him go away. And younger voters are starting to equate the sticky old fat man with the GOP.

A problem !

[Shady]

Shady,

I'm taking it that you're visually impaired. My apologies.

No need to apologize, my vision is quite good.

The fact that he is UNelected is a problem for the Republicans, as I said, because they can't make him go away.

You're quite right, they can't make him go away. He's a private citizen, working in the private sector. So damn straight they can't make him go away.

And younger voters are starting to equate the sticky old fat man with the GOP.

A problem !

Not really. When they grow up, I'm sure they'll figure it out. And btw, Rush isn't fat, he's lost nearly 80 lbs over the last year. So you'll have to come with a new, highly intelligent insult. Maybe stupidhead???

[Michael Hardner]

sure... Dunderhead. Dittohead.