About us Login Get email updates
Karl Frisch
Print

Media Matters: Limbaugh's NFL dream slips through his "formerly nicotine-stained fingers"

October 16, 2009 10:51 pm ET

Six years after Rush Limbaugh was forced to resign in disgrace from his gig on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for, as CNN reported at the time, "his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed," the nation's top conservative radio host was dropped from a group seeking to purchase the NFL's St. Louis Rams.

A statement released by Dave Checketts -- a member of the group seeking to buy the Rams and the chairman of the NHL's St. Louis Blues -- said Limbaugh was dropped because his "involvement ... has become a complication ... endangering our bid."

"Complication" sure is a nice way of putting what transpired this week.

In the week since El Rushbo confirmed his intention to help buy the Rams: the executive director of the NFL players union came out against Limbaugh's bid, saying football "overcomes division and rejects discrimination"; Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said he "couldn't even think of" supporting Limbaugh's Rams bid due to his divisive rhetoric; NFL players reportedly said they "wouldn't play for" a Limbaugh-owned team due to his "flat-out racist" comments; NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Limbaugh's "divisive comments are not what the N.F.L. is all about"; and a host of sports media figures blasted the very notion of the right-wing talker being an NFL owner based on his controversial statements.

As you might imagine, Limbaugh didn't take the controversy surrounding the bid or his ultimate exclusion from the group seeking to buy the Rams lying down.

Attempting to defend himself from mounting criticism, Limbaugh said -- with a straight face, no less -- "I'm colorblind. ... I treat everybody equally." Of course, such a statement ignores his "colorblind" history of racially charged comments. Who could forget these gems?

  • "We are being told that we have to hope [President Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." [1/21/09]
  • "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy." [7/27/09]
  • "Obama's entire economic program is reparations." [7/22/09]
  • Obama is "Halfrican-American." [7/24/07]

Or my personal favorite: the time Limbaugh invented a "racial component" to Iraq war vet Paul Hackett's decision to withdraw from a Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio. Yep, after Hackett's departure from the race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown, Rush said, "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too." In fact, Brown is white.

One needn't dig too far back -- Rush was happy to offer more racially charged statements this week. For starters, he whined that the NFL was an "outpost of racism and liberalism," apparently missing last month's report by the Center for Responsive Politics that showed that since 1989, NFL teams, owners, players and personnel gave overwhelmingly to the GOP.

In what can only be described as an odd attempt to beat back criticism for his past remarks, Limbaugh turned to basketball, complaining that rappers "own parts of NBA teams" and "[t]hey're celebrated -- 'Cool, daddy, cool!' " He even said that acclaimed sportscaster "Bob Costas is a ... very unhappy little diva." Is it any wonder that the world of professional athletics resoundingly rejected El Rushbo, dashing his dream of team ownership?

Limbaugh's defensive line was quick to come to his aid. Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said NFL players would pick Rush over "Nazi collaborator" George Soros because "a lot of them" are "real Christians" -- as opposed to fake ones? MSNBC's resident cranky uncle and in-house bigot Pat Buchanan played defense, as well, which unsurprisingly resulted in more bigotry.

The Wall Street Journal came to Rush's defense with an op-ed making a ... I'll just say it -- stupid false comparison between Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann's work on NBC's Football Night in America. The Journal claimed not to have "heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann's nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL." Perhaps the Journal could use a hearing test, because various right-wing media figures and bloggers have done just that.

So, no, El Rushbo won't be purchasing a pro football team any time soon. He could always try his "formerly nicotine-stained" hand (or "fingers," as he would say) at owning a fantasy football team.

Then again, he's got the 2010 Miss America pageant to look forward to, where he'll be serving as a judge.

Other major stories this week

Fox News vs. The White House

Be sure to check out the latest from Media Matters' Eric Boehlert, who offers up a compelling "memo to the media," which reads, in part:

Fox News has changed the rules. Now the press needs to change the way it covers Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch's cable cabal is now, first and foremost, a political entity. Fox News has transformed itself into the Opposition Party of the Obama White House, which, of course, is unprecedented for a media company in modern-day America. That partisan embrace means the news media have to expand beyond typing up Fox News-ratings-are-up and the White-House-is-angry stories, and it needs to start treating the cable channel for what it is: a partisan animal.

The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman's agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players -- not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition -- because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It's a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.

I understand Fox News still wants to enjoy the benefits of being seen as a news operation. It still wants the trappings and the professional protections that go with it. But it no longer functions as a news outlet, so why does the rest of the press naively treat it that way?

Fox News is now at the forefront of a political movement.

[...]

Completely detached from traditional newsroom standards, Fox News has become a political institution, and the press needs to start treating it that way. The press needs to treat Fox News the same way it treats the Republican National Committee, even though, frankly, the RNC probably can't match the in-your-face partisanship that Fox News flaunts 24/7. Think about it: Murdoch's "news" channel now out-flanks the Republican Party when it comes to ceaseless partisan attacks on the White House.

Truth is, in recent years the RNC used to use Fox news to help amplify the partisan raids that national Republicans launched against Democrats. It was within the RNC that the partisan strategy was mapped out and initiated. (i.e. it was the RNC that first pushed the Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet smear). But it was on talk radio and Fox News where the partisan bombs got dropped. Today, that relationship has, for the most part, been inversed. Now it's within Fox News that the partisan witch hunts are plotted and launched, and it's the RNC that plays catch-up to Glenn Beck and company.

And I'm sorry, but the Fox News defense that it's a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of "news" team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of "news" team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all? What kind of "news" team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)

[...]

It's clear that in 2009, Fox News is no longer in the business of journalism. Fox News isn't trying to inform people, it's trying to misinform them. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. But as long as the press continues to hold up the façade of journalism, Fox News will try to hide behind it.

Boehlert's takedown of Fox News can be read in its entirety here.

We're through Dobbs' foggy looking glass (or camera lens)

CNN's Lou Dobbs is none too pleased with his critics. At issue is a new television commercial from Media Matters and America's Voice that was to air during CNN's broadcast of its upcoming Latino in America special. In what appeared to be talking points prepared in the style of Mad Libs, Dobbs denounced the ad, claiming it was created by "George Soros attack groups" as "propaganda."

CNN, for its part, refused to run the ad -- skipping out on yet another opportunity to provide some accountability and distance itself from its ongoing Dobbs problem. In August, Media Matters bought a week of ad time on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in Washington, D.C., New York, and Atlanta to air an ad calling on CNN to address Dobbs' repeated promotion of birther conspiracy theories. As The Huffington Post reported at the time, "[F]ive of the six cable providers contracted for the project have informed the group that they are declining to put the spot on CNN."

Dobbs was in rare form this week in going after his critics. He decried the "mad propaganda emanating ... from the extreme left, the Media Matters folks, all of them funded by George Soros" and complained to Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) that "left-wing ethnocentric interest groups" are "calling for my firing from CNN." You know what happens when you point a finger, right, Lou? That's right: Three are pointing back at you.

Firing or reining in Dobbs may be a moot point anyway. According to recent reports, Dobbs met with Fox News president Roger Ailes over dinner last month. Could Dobbs be taking his immigrant-smearing hysteria and loony quest for Obama's already-available birth certificate to Fox Business Network?

We do agree with this one, perhaps Freudian, comment Dobbs made this week: "It's getting so you can't trust cable networks anymore."

EXCLUSIVE: CNN's Castellanos on the take from insurance industry

This week, Media Matters exclusively obtained evidence that CNN contributor Alex Castellanos' political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the new ad blitz by the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plan (AHIP) that attacks Democratic health care reform plans.

According to the detailed ad buy information obtained by Media Matters, Castellanos is responsible for placing, beginning October 11, more than $1 million of AHIP advertising in five states. A review of National Media's client list indicates that Castellanos' work for AHIP isn't his only conflict with regard to health care reform. National Media has done work for the Federation of American Hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry group PhRMA, and the HCA Sunrise Hospital. Castellanos last appeared on CNN September 30; during a debate with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) on The Situation Room, Castellanos defended Republican health care proposals.

After noting CNN's responsibility to properly identify Castellanos' industry ties and ensure that his obvious conflict of interest does not tarnish the network's future coverage of the health care debate, Washington Post Co.'s Greg Sargent reported that CNN admitted that Castellanos worked for the health insurance industry and promised full disclosure in the future.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: in a message to the media, Eric Boehlert says Fox News is now the opposition party, Jamison Foser discusses the media's Glenn Beck problem, and Karl Frisch wonders if Dr. Fox-enstein -- errr ... Roger Ailes is building another monster.

Simon Maloy notes Rush Limbaugh's fantasy football conspiracy in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg and join in the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes/RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (October 16, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
      6 3
      "The United States needed to return to Racially Segregated Buses" Who said that David Duke or Rush Limbaugh?
      Could it be the guy that runs his mouth so much he should have a Sore Jaw?
      He is defended by "O'Reilly the Tiller Killer" who's staff couldn't find a single Racist Quote.
      Fox News, a network that coulnd't find the Truth if it was lodged down their own Throats.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (October 18, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
        2 1
        News Corp. "A Racist Enterprise" Rush Limbaugh an overt Racist that thinks he's in Disquise.
        Fox News "Barack's Baby Momma" Mr. Limbaugh, A man not afraid to pitch a few Racially Tinged Lies.
        It's been said that "Birds of a Feather Flock Together" but most are looking for a Mate.
        David Duke, Rush Limbaugh & News Corp. The Three Amigo's of Hate.

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (October 17, 2009 3:48 am ET)
      6  
      it's actually kind of unfortunate about limbaugh being booted from the buyer's partnership, i was sort of hoping he and terrel (i'm the most toxic athelete in the world!) owens might get together; a match made in hell.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© (October 17, 2009 9:29 am ET)
        8  
        El Fathead's meltdown was so worth it, though.
        ~
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
          4  
          Indeed, it was, and the whole "blaming Obama" for him not being able to buy what he wants is also pretty darn funny.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by retiredinsf (October 17, 2009 10:33 am ET)
      2 16
      Here are just a couple examples of the hypocritical left for the dozen or so MMFA folks who actually read MMFA:

      NFL Owners Who Use the N-Word and Wet Their Pants On Stage
      by Stage Right
      And now a word from an NFL owner:
      “And the game done chose me to bring pain to ni--as and pu--y holes, they one in the same.” - I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

      http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/10/16/nfl-owners-who-use-the-n-word-and-wet-their-pants-on-stage/
      =============================================================
      The debate over Rush Limbaugh's NFL bid is roiling the racial landscape. This evening, after Juan Williams explained that Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" parody was based on a column by an African-American author, a black radio talk show host told Williams to "go back to the porch."

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/16/oreilly-guest-juan-williams-go-back-porch

      Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.




      Report Abuse
      • Author by pros2pros2940 (October 17, 2009 11:55 am ET)
        6  
        Hilarious.....you couldn't find any better sources than those two ?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
        8 1
        Golly darn, do we have to go over this again?

        The intent is what is important here. Did the black author and Rush have the same intent? Did Jennifer Lopez intend to smear blacks?

        I can say the n word when I am describing someone else who was saying the n word in an offensive way and not be offensive at all.

        JLo can say the n word and be using it in a non-offensive way.

        This baloney of false equivalence gets boring to shoot down time after time after time, but don't worry, we'll keep at it until you stop with the false equivalency arguments!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dandelion (October 18, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
          3  
          "Intent" is too complicated a concept for some. So is context. That's why Rush and Sean Hannity go on about reverse racism as if our history of slavery didn't exist, as if "Barack the Magic Negro" is the same joke from a bigoted radio host as it is from an African American newspaper columnist. They. Don't. Get. It.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 10:18 pm ET)
            3  
            Also, just read the article in question, it's not racist at all.
            Obama the Magic Negor..

            Also, after reading the article in question again, isn't it interesting that within the article that these guys keep saying the words "Barack the Magic Negro" appears, it actually never says that in the article or the title?

            So, yet again, we find Limbaugh, and his defenders, making things up.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© (October 17, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
        4 1
        Shorter wingnuts: How come colored people can use the N-word, but we're not allowed to? IT'S NO FAIR *sniff*
        ~
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pilotx (October 17, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
        7  
        The L.A. Times article was a thoughful piece that explained partly the racial climate in this country. That being said did Rush HAVE to make a song that parodied the article? Did someone twist his arm and make him do it? Did he do it just because he got to call a presidential candidate a "negro"? The author's intent was to foster a serious dialouge about Obama's place in the election but what was Rush's? You know that so why must we play these games as Warren knew and Juan should have known. If Juan didn't know this he SHOULD go back to the porch.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 17, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
        6  
        And now a word from an NFL owner:
        “And the game done chose me to bring pain to ni--as and pu--y holes, they one in the same.” - I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.


        YOU should try doing your own research.

        The lyrics YOU cited are a RE-MIX of Jennifer Lopez's ORIGINAL song, by rap artist Ja Rule.

        They're NOT Jennifer Lopez's ORIGINAL lyrics!

        Ja Rule : I'm Real Lyrics...

        Ja Rule Lyrics and Songs...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
        5  
        Well, let's see how to start debunking your nonsense.

        Number 1: Jo-Lo doesn't own any part of the Dolphins, her husband does. And no, it's not the same thing. Marc Anthony owns part of the Dolphins. So you fail on that part. Jo-Lo, not a minority partner of the Dolphins.

        Number 2: As someone else said, the lyrics you posted, were not written by Jo-Lo, they came from a remix of her song by someone else (Ja Rule I believe it was). So, fail #2, and since your little nugget of information came from Breitbart, we can assume it's wrong anyway.

        Number 3: The original article that referenced the Magic Negro, was a well written article about how that certain frame of reference came about, and how the media, and the country in general was putting Barack Obama into that role (the non-threatening nice black man, ala Morgan Freeman, or Sidney Poitier before him, I suggest you read the actual article). And yes, it was written by a black man. And no, Rush's "parody" song has nothing to do with the article, but instead is an apparent attempt at inciting, yes, racial hatred. So, once again, you fail again.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
           
        This has nothing whatsoever to do with political ideology. Rush Limbaugh has made racist comments for years. NFL leadership [the commissioner's wife is Jane Skinner on Fox], owners, coaches and players spoke out regarding Rush's part in the investment group trying to buy the team . . . the investment team kicked Rush out.

        Bringing up instances of other racist incidents is totally irrelevant. Rush's investment partners made the decision to push him out. Rush is reaping the benefit of his big, racist, hate-filled mouth. He and his blind followers are unable to accept his responsibility.

        [Oh, BTW, your continued use of a second-grade teacher's attempt to honor this country's first black president during Black History Month shows how childish you are. I'm sure the children understood that childish little ditty better than you did. And you think you represent real conservatism? How very sad.]
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GodStarDad (October 17, 2009 11:10 am ET)
      1 11
      This whole story is a joke. Limbaugh isn't going to be allowed to become an NFL owner only because he is he. Not because he is racist, that's laughable in itself. The NFL is full of felons, & yes , racists. Media matters is so left wing they won't or can't even look at both sides. Jesse Jackson is much more racist than Limbaugh, for that matter, Al Sharpton is an even bigger racist than Jackson... The current President is more racist than Limbaugh. remember his quote about his mother? {'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'} Who's the real racist's here? Jackson, Sharpton, & Obama. I can imagine how the left is full of glee because of this, but the real truth is if Soros wanted to buy a team, they would roll out the red carpet for him. That's the real tragedy... Limbaugh will be fine, the left won't hurt him in the least, & Maybe, just maybe the poweres that be will start looking at the bad habits and law breaking of the NFL players instead of whining about Limbaugh ! ! !
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (October 17, 2009 8:45 pm ET)
        8  
        Since YOU feel so horribly offended by Obama and his "racism", certainly you can understand why the NFL might not feel so thrilled about having Limbaugh as an owner. I would think you would therefor understand how ugly and damaging racism is, seeing as how you are SO victimized by it. As documented above, Rush being Rush of course comes off as racism to many people even though some might (somehow?)disagree. just as some will strongly disagree that Obama has been racist ,I am sure you understand therefore that the NFL can feel Rushbo has been racist regardless of how others will spin such hateful remarks as harmless.

        As you suffer from the horrible "racial attacks" from Obama and drift through life under the oppressive burden of a life shared with Jessie jackson, remember that in Obama's case, you can vote for someone else in 3 years. In this case, the NFL made the feelings known and had an impact on the decision.

        Oh and Soros is hiding behind your couch right now! Get him before he gets you!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (October 18, 2009 10:08 am ET)
        5  
        {'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'}
        How the hell is it racist for him to not want to ingratiate himself to white people? That doesn't conform to the definition as far as I'm seeing. And if you're going to create a lower threshold for the term, then Limbugh is going to cross it with any number of comments.
        That's the real tragedy... Limbaugh will be fine, the left won't hurt him in the least, & Maybe, just maybe the poweres that be will start looking at the bad habits and law breaking of the NFL players instead of whining about Limbaugh ! ! !
        Who's "whining"? Is there any way for people to reject him without doing that, in your view? And yes, Limbaugh will be fine, which is why his reaction to his rejection is much easier to classify as "whining".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
        4  
        Indeed, Limbaugh is not being allowed to become an NFL owner because he is Limbaugh, and the things that he's said over the years are now coming back to haunt him in this regard. He made his bed, and now, he can lay in it. Yes? Do words have consequences? Apparently, they do, and he's seeing that now.

        Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Colorblind, has said so many racist things in his lifetime on talk radio, it's laughable that you think it's laughable that he's not a racist.

        How is Jesse Jackson a racist? How is Al Sharpton a racist? Tell me how, because I'm pretty sure, you can't do it.

        How is President Obama a racist again? Please, explain in detail. I mean, he's so racist, that he has a white mother, and white grandparents. The quote about his mother? You're bringing that up again? It's not a racist statement, and if you think it is, maybe you should go back and really think about what racism is.

        I'm not full of glee because Limbaugh isn't able to buy something that he thought he could, I'm full of glee because of people like you who seem to think he's been wronged because the NFL owners don't want his money.

        This isn't about left or right, it's about Limbaugh being an a-hole, and people not wanting to be associated with him. Limbaugh isn't hurt by this? Well, from all of the whining (by Limbaugh himself, and people like you), apparently, he is hurt. I mean, fer' crying out loud, he had an Op-Ed in the WSJ about not getting what he wants, and gosh darn it, he's going to hold his breath until he gets it! You guys are just really made and whiney when the free market that you so cherish and uphold bites you in the butt.

        What does Soros have to do with this? Nothing. You bring him into this as some sort of "liberal boogeyman".

        We're not talking about NFL players who break the law, and other things like that. We're talking about Limbaugh's failed bid and rejection. And that's the funny part. If someone is in the NFL, and they break the law (Vick as a prime example), they need to be tossed in the clink if they're convicted of whatever crime it is they commit. In case you haven't noticed, the NFL IS cracking down on their players when they step out of line (Again, Vick, Burress, and some others).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dandelion (October 18, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
        3  
        So you're saying the real racism is against wealthy white men? Somebody needs to call the ALCU! Oh wait, we hate them. Never mind.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
        1  
        No, pretty much it's because of Limbaugh racist mouth.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      9  
      Again we see them complain that they are being discriminated against simply because they disagree with us. That Rush is being censored because he holds an opposing political philosophy.

      But I dare anyone to show me one example of that actually happening.

      It doesn't. He is being castigated because of his offensive speech - speech that should be offensive to anyone except racists, that is. Everyone, regardless of their political philosophy, should condemn some of the things that have come out of Rush's mouth - there's a good list of them above.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (October 17, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
        1 9
        example: rush limited and/or dropped, depending on which base, from armed forces radio because dem politicians put pressure on the pentagon to add more liberal programming... even though rush's ratings in all demographics among military personnel trounced anything offered up by air america 3 to 1...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pilotx (October 17, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
          9  
          True but if 1/3 of the personnel want to listen to Air America they should be able to. Also as a person of color why should my only choice of radio programming be a man who regularly makes me uncomfortable while listening?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (October 17, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
            1 9
            they can listen to air america... armed forces radio is a network, not just one channel... and if you're tired of wind bags on both sides of the aisle spewing talking points, then listen to sports or music... furthermore, unlike the vietnam era when soldiers and sailors were limited to whatever their transistors could tune to, today there's these new innovations called ipods and iphones that allow them to access whatever they want...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (October 17, 2009 8:06 pm ET)
              7  
              Well then they can get Rush on iphones as well. The media is not suffering from a lack of Rush and his views. There are many outlets for Rush and his allies. If I want to know what the conservative viewpoint is, I can find Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Miller, O'Reily, and several of the blond chicks. I can go to Fox news anytime, night and day. In fact I can completely surround myself with conservative analysis and political correctness and never come up for air. It is all readily available and hard to avoid.

              Finding a critical analysis of recent political and financial calamities is not as easy. Also real penetrating investigations are apparently not as entertaining as hearing Rush or Hannity spin themselves silly as the heroes of automatic uncompromised correctness. Reality based media is not easy or profitable.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by heru (October 17, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
          7  
          my taxes pay for armed forces radio. i'm not paying for white racist programming of soldiers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (October 17, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
            1 7
            how about non-white racists?... but if you think rush is a racist, then i regret to inform you that you are indeed paying for him to program our soldiers... better him than amy goodman...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (October 17, 2009 8:11 pm ET)
              6  
              If Rush is paid for, why not Amy Goodman then?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mookie von zipper (October 17, 2009 11:20 pm ET)
                1 4
                i don't have a problem with amy goodman being on AFR, nor do i have any idea as to whether she actually is... i just think congress should but out of AFR...

                Report Abuse
                • Author by pilotx (October 18, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
                  3  
                  No, congress saw a chance to broaden the type of radio our soldiers get. Why should Rush and conservatives be the only voices heard on AFR. Diversity is a good thing.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
          7 1
          Not even close to an example of Rush being censored because of his political views. It was because of the offensive way he presents those views. It was because of the dishonest way he presents those views.

          It was not because he held conservative views.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (October 18, 2009 12:18 am ET)
              5
            i agree it's not close, it's spot on exactly why... the dems pestered the pentagon about rush because they wanted "balance", not because of anything offensive or dishonest he said...

            don't confuse this with harry reid calling for rush to be dropped from AFR because of his mischaracterzation of rush's "phony soldiers" comment... because nothing came of that other than reid making an ass of himself and rush auctioning off a letter of complaint reid had written to clearchannel's ceo for 2 million dollars, which he donated to a marine charity, and matched with another 2 large...



            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 18, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
              4 1
              He wasn't banned or removed or censored because of his political views. It's pretty plain and simple.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
          2  
          Well, according to the Armed Forces Network radio schedule, Rush is still on every single day during the week on the network. Along with Huckabee, Hannity, FoxNews, NPR, and a bunch of other stuff, and this is no way represents Rush losing his voice at all. False equivalency. Rush wasn't taken off of AFN radio, at all.

          And here we go with the ratings thing again. We get it. Somehow ratings = correctness. But, it doesn't really.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by 4freedomstill (October 17, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
        10
      So made up comments and attacks can make people submit to the will of another in this land of the free? What a great day for freedom. You may not like Rush but what if you are in the way? there are those who will stoop to anything to try and destroy you, what about when its you or your family? There is a new evil in this country. From Yoda "Destroy you they can"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
        2  
        His investment partners pushed him out because of the opposition they were getting from other owners, coaches and players. The only person responsible for Rush's "woes" is Rush. It was HIS mouth that caused his problems.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by 4freedomstill (October 17, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
        9
      What a great day for freedom! Any citizen can be smeared with made up things and make people get in line with the powers that be. Whether you like him or not when someone is denied something simply due to their political beliefs, not on their actions we all lose some freedom. What about when it happens to you? Will you cheer?
      Can we not speak out about what is happening before our very eyes without fear of repercusion? There was the 1st amendment in this country at one time.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 10:51 pm ET)
        6  
        Gosh, another dum-dum making the dumb argument that somehow criticizing Rush Limbaugh for his hateful speech has anything to do with the First Amendment.

        The First Amendment protects individuals from having their free speech rights infringed upon by the government.

        It does not give people like Rush Limbaugh total freedom to say whatever they want without criticism!! How you can NOT know this and still attempt to educate US with your insights baffles us all!

        And yeah, Rush should be denied the right to lie without being challenged about his lies. Anyone who lies should be challenged. I would wager that you wouldn't want someone on the left to be allowed to spew lies without any criticism, but when it's done to your sacred Rush, you pitch a fit.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 18, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
        5  
        Whether you like him or not when someone is denied something simply due to their political beliefs, not on their actions we all lose some freedom. What about when it happens to you? Will you cheer?

        In the NFL, you have PLAYERS who make or break the team. The PLAYERS can CHOOSE to work really hard for their team, and thereby give the owners a profit. The PLAYERS also get traded to other teams and some contracts have a clause where the PLAYER can decide if they want to go to the other team, or get traded to another team.

        IF the PLAYERS won't play for St Louis and the PLAYERS won't allow themselves to be traded to St. Louis, WHAT NFL OWNER wants to face that possibility?

        So in the interest of MONEY, the PLAYERS CHOOSE not play for ANY Limbo owned team and the OWNERS CHOOSE not to have a Limbo owned team!

        You folks want to whine and moan about poor Limbo, the media and Liberals are sooo mean, but you FAIL to understand and ACCEPT that the NFL is about MONEY! And ANYTHING Limbo, does NOT sell in the NFL!

        Can we not speak out about what is happening before our very eyes without fear of repercusion? There was the 1st amendment in this country at one time.


        Limbo is allowed to say ANYTHING he desires and the NFL PLAYERS and their OWNERS are ALLOWED to tell Limbo that they don't want ANYTHING to do with Limbo!

        THAT is FREEDOM!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
        2  
        No, this happened because of free market pressures. As in, the other NFL owners pretty much said they don't want Rush, or his money, and hence, he didn't get in. It's got nothing to do with his political opinions at all, they don't want him. Rush would be a distraction. This isn't about freedom at all.

        Rush's 1st amendment rights have not been infringed upon at all, and neither have yours, and neither have mine. You forget that when you say things, words sometimes have consequences, and Rush is now learning that he is not immune to what he's said in the past.

        What has been made up about Rush? Nothing. He's said those, and more horrible things in the past, and it's made him a lot of money. And fortunately, the NFL doesn't want any of it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
        1  
        There still is a First Amendment

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


        Tell me what part of the First Amendment applies to what is happening with Rush. He opened his racist mouth one too many times and his business partners, under pressure from other owners, coaches and players, pushed him out. Rush can say whatever he wants and so can the owners, coaches and players. His business partners can push him out. Rush's First Amendment rights are still intact.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pezzimiztix (October 17, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
        8
      so ironic....
      it's amusing how the NFL only represents and stands for equality. just look at their hiring practices - obvious racism. what's also amusing is watch the political hacks in here (most of the comments in here) turned a blind eye on the moral relativism of their comments. it's sad to see how ideology has trumped common sense and define intellectual dishonesty.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 17, 2009 8:00 pm ET)
        6 1
        And its amazing how little information can be conveyed in so many words.
        If 4fiefdom and Ihasapez would perhaps exsercize their 1st amendment rights to be a little clearer in WTF their talking about...it would be greatly appreciated.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (October 17, 2009 8:28 pm ET)
        7  
        Moral relativism is convenient for those who would rather not face up to the consequences of their actions. Making certain media figures accountable for their actions is what this web site is about! The great conservative American pastime of having hours and hours on the air spitting fourth editorial and analysis without rebuttle is somehow above reproach. Rush has had several hours a day all to himself for years. Mostly his message is about how certain groups of fellow citizens are vile trash bent on destroying all that is well and good. It amazes me that those who feel the wrath of his unfounded and irrational attacks are supposed to just put up with it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
        4  
        So let me get this straight.

        You're mad about the hiring practices of the NFL and the racism inherent in that, that's fine, there could be a point to be made there with how many black head coaches there have been over the years (not many).

        But then you're also mad because another rich white guy isn't being allowed to buy something. Which point are you mad about? The racism in the NFL, or that another rich white guy isn't being allowed to spend his money on an NFL team?

        What moral relativism are you talking about? Explain please. It's just funny (in an ironic way) of how Limbaugh's chickens are coming home to roost, and how people like you, and Limbaugh are crying victim about it. It's called personal responsibility. Limbaugh has to be responsible for the things that he's said over the years, and have been documented by this website, and others.

        This has nothing to do with ideology, as much as you'd like to think it does. It's called the guys who are trying to buy the Rams didn't want to get tagged with the walking controversy that is Rush Limbaugh, as in, his money isn't needed or wanted in this case.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
        1  
        You are completely missing the point. The NFL didn't prohibit Rush from buying the Rams. He was dropped by his business partners.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 17, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
      7  
      There's an old saying,"live by the sword die by the sword."LIMBAUGH has made a living out of hatred of anyone that is not white, male,and politically neo-conservative. He spews out his hate day after day but somehow believes that there will not be any consequences. Well RUSH ,WAKE UP what you sow you shall reap.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcamp (October 17, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
      4  
      I have noticed an increase of attacks on George Soros recently on right-wing sites like SH, lately for the outrage of offering $1.1 billion of his own funds for research on climate concerns. Are they running out of targets that they must now aim their vitriol at a man who should be the epitome of capitalism?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by srichardson (October 18, 2009 9:11 am ET)
      8  
      What is wrong with people? Rush was dropped from his bid to own an NFL team because he is Rush. It has nothing to do with his political views, it has to do with his hateful, damaging rhetoric. Rush has such a huge ego that it simply can't be about him being a jerk. He has to make it into an issue of us against them, liberal versus conservative. I think it has been well established that the NFL usually donates to the republicans, not the liberals. So how does the argument hold water that the "liberal" NFL kept Rush from buying a franchise. It doesn't. Instead of just accepting defeat, Rush is once again using defamation to justify the people speaking. He is blaming the liberals, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama..... And the people who continue to defend this man. What happened to morals in this country. The liberals do not want to stop Rush and his ilk from speaking their minds, just from speaking and spewing hate and lies. And the morality of the so called right wing is drawn into question when they continually take up for Rush and his hate speech. If your mind is so narrow that you can't listen to this man and hear the immorality he spews, then you need to evaluate yourself and your values. For once, just accept that the majority of people who choose to use their first amendment right of free speech are choosing to speak out against hatred. The constitution isn't just meant for the right wing, it's for all who are American. It seems the right wing, who in my humble opinion are the narrow minded, hateful, bigoted party, feels that anyone who disagrees with them is immoral and unpatriotic.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pls5671 (October 18, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
        4  
        Rush also has a blown up high opinion of himself. He thinks he is a little smarter and better liked than he actually is. I think he got a little of his high air knocked out of him and he couldn't take it. Period.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 18, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
        4  
        Oh, and don't forget, it's Obama's fault.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pilotx (October 18, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
        4  
        Yep, the party of personal responsibility. Irony is lost on conservatives.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fdscjsr2445 (October 18, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
      3  
      No one has mentioned the most offensive comment Rush Limbaugh has made about the African American community, which I heard on his radio show in March 2005. Rush was commenting on Bill Clinton going to Selma AL for the 40th anniversary commemoration of the Selma March. Rush referred at least twice to Clinton commemorating the "Selma riots." Selma is where John Lewis and 600 civil rights marchers were so badly beaten by police on March 7, 1965, it was called "Bloody Sunday." Selma is where 3 white ministers were viciously beaten on the night of the 2nd march (3/9) and one of them, Rev. James Reeb, died from the beatings. Selma is where, on March 25th, the night the 3rd march ended in Montgomery, Viola Liuzzo, a white mother of 5 from Detroit, was shotgunned in her car as she ferried marchers back to Selma.

      Selma broke the back of segregation. No one has ever denigrated its memory by calling it a riot.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 19, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
        1  
        fdscjsr, all RUSH cares about are the rights of his own kind, not everyone. He is a hatefull piece of garbage.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 19, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
           
        Actually, I think Selma could accurately be called a police riot.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by kb8nfu (October 19, 2009 3:14 am ET)
      1 5
      WoW!
      You dem guys are really messed up. Why are you not concerned or commenting on important issues? Where are the topics that concern me as an American tax payor?
      Instead you are fixated on radio personalities, I don't care who owns a small part of a football team. Lets get with the program, the change that Obamma promised. I don't see it getting better, the in party bickering is getting worse. I actually am glad for the discourse, as it is the right of all Americans to openly question the decisions made by the legislature, even within the Presidential office.
      Oh yea, that's right, We as Americans think more about what Rush sayes or wants to buy, than our own personal interests, get real, quit making your own opinions, or your personal problems, out to be news. Rush is not news, he is a radio talk show host that expresses his own opinions. That is what he gets paid to do. The elected body does not get paid to comment on radio talk show host!
      I am a Federalst, here, let me explain. Don't worry, let me get that for you....
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=federalist

      blake_braesicke@netzero.net
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (October 19, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
        1 1
        Feel free to get an education, then come back and try to make a rational argument!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 19, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
          1
        Netzero? Your address should be IQZero.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 19, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
           
        Answer me this, sicke:

        If I start a conversation telling you you're really a jerk, how much of the rest of my spiel are you going to listen to?
        Report Abuse