Defending Rush Limbaugh

MSNBC ^ | 10/2/2003 | Allen Barra

[Alia]

To presume that there exist no "politics" in all sports, sports media -- is to exert a willful ignorance. Politics is in everything. Whether it be governmental politics, the politics of office, the politics of friendship -- The point is, there exists a "left wing" politics YES - even in sportscasting, hiring, etc. ESPN hired Rush for exactly "the different" perspective he'd bring to the show. They knew he'd deliver it. And he did. And they, in cowardice didn't even have the gumption to handle it. Why hire Rush Limbaugh for ESPN if it isn't because his politics in discussing sports isn't like "everyone else's."

Rush could have asserted that Player X was better than McNabb. Right? And just left it at that?

No. The next question would be: Why do you think that, Rush? Rush could have trotted out scores to show how McNabb really was getting a promotional push by broadcasters, etc., but it still wouldn't have gotten fully to the real answer.

Point here is, if Rush had NOT answered the "next question" in his terms -- it *could* have turned into another "trent lott" scenario -- with his words not only being taken out of context -- but hammered in the negative through sheer "interpretation" by those with an axe to grind against Rush. In football, this "play" is called a "fumble", no?

Rush didn't fumble the ball. He delivered.

Ideologically, Rush was the "diversity" factor on that ESPN panel. And they, the fellow sportscasters and the usual dem racial-crats tried to steal the ball, and ended up chewing grass, instead. And why? Rush did not fumble, he delivered, and he hung onto the ball throughout. I'd call that a completed pass. His "coaches" (ESPN) were screamed at, railed at, threatened with protests, and lots of ugliness. Rush did the honorable thing -- he laid the ball down at the goal line, and honorably left the field. He didn't whine. He didn't threaten to sue or libel or smear anyone.

That's class.

[Exigence]

Would you mind giving me an example (or two) of how the other commentators on ESPN talk about race?

Anyone who listens to sports commentary has to have heard the constant discussions about affirmative action in sports. Why are there so few black quarterbacks, coaches, managers, owners, broadcasters, etc., etc., etc.? This has been a running conversation for several years now focusing on the question, "Are blacks/minorities relegated to the lower echelon spots in sports, i.e., players but never leaders?" I'm not sure I can think of any sports outlets with any sort of discussion and commentary who haven't covered the subject. Where have you been -- and why would you think it's fair game for others to prattle on about but off limits for Rush? Isn't that the position the extreme left takes whenever any conservative anywhere discussing any subject mentions race?

[Exigence]

Do you think the average dude at the sports bar cares about Limbaugh's view of the sports media or the world in general? I doubt it. It's more like they care about stats, standings, their fantasy teams, and the cute bar maid.

Well, obviously here's the problem. Some sports fans are intelligent, thinking, and into all of the aspects and issues surrounding other sports. Others are just at the bar...

However, I think it's arrogant to assume because you are the latter that there are none of the former.

[faithincowboys]

You sure are right about that. Mcnabb has behaved terribly in response to this. His attempt to make Tom Jackson and Mike Irvin collateral damage is disgraceful. Truly sickening how he is blaming his shabby performance on this. If we focus on half of what Limbaugh said we forget that Mcnabb sucks this year. Also, the liberal media was lying in wait for this.

[Conservababe]

Lord love a duck...when the NFL has to interview blacks for coaching jobs or else be fined, which has happened...how can they justify their response that Rush made racist statements?

It does not matter what a white man says, if it is taken up by the PC crowd.

It is not going to get any better, either, because of the black leaders and their angst against whites.

Black parents in the inner cities are demanding vouchers for their children to be better educated. They are demanding that crime be reduced in their neighborhoods.

But, does the media listen to them? No, they listen to a black quarterback who whines.

[wingman1]

"Point here is, if Rush had NOT answered the "next question" in his terms -- it *could* have turned into another "trent lott" scenario -- with his words not only being taken out of context -- but hammered in the negative through sheer "interpretation" by those with an axe to grind against Rush. In football, this "play" is called a "fumble", no?"

And you think this is not another Trent Lott scenario? Of course his words have already been "hammered in the negative".

It's not just a presumption on my part about politics and ESPN. Rush, himself, mentioned on his show and on the ESPN show that he was not to inject politics.

When he announced that he had taken the job he said he would be there to challenge the other commentators. Twice I heard him tell Steve Young and one of the others that they should not bring up politics.

I'm fully aware of the left wing agenda, but Rush's words gave his political opponents an opening to smear all conservatives with the "racist" label.

I have heard Rush many times talk about racial issues. He does make a lot of sense. I already mentioned his comments about the Lions and Mariucci. But he is smart enough to do these in a time frame of his choosing. The format of the ESPN show did not allow for a long monologue, debate, etc.

And, for what must be the fifth time I have said this in this forum, it was a sports show.

[thinking]

Rush's error was that he "attacked" the media....the integrity of the media can NEVER be questioned.

[wingman1]

So, in other words, the lack of blacks in coaching, etc is not a legitimate issue? It's merely "prattle"?

The Lions and Mariucci fiasco is deserving of discussion as an issue of affirmative action and an issue of NFL policy.

What Rush said was based on his opinion not FACT.

Do you know for a FACT that McNabb is hyped by the sports media because he is black? I sure don't. Even Fred Barnes disagrees and says McNabb is a "terrific QB".

Last year, McNabb came back from a broken leg to play in the Eagle's playoff game. It was remarkable, inspirational, even. I thought it to be courageous and so did alot of other people. If, indeed, McNabb IS being hyped by the sports media, why can't it be for the act of courageousness that drove him to overcome a serious injury in order to help out his team? Why does color have to be the only reason?

[wingman1]

"However, I think it's arrogant to assume because you are the latter that there are none of the former."

Ouch. That sure hurt.

Kinda reminds me of the knee jerk reaction left wingers have when they attempt to vilify their opponents.

Go back and read my post and see where I was describing the average sports fan.

[Alia]

Dear Wingman1 -- I DO understand what you are saying!! If all the panelists are saying "oh yeah McNabb" is the best, how is Rush saying "no he is not" and "I think it's because you guys WANT him to succeed because he is black"? Injecting a "race" or "political issue" into something that is ALREADY A RACE OR POLITICAL ISSUE?

When it ALREADY IS this way; how or why is his commenting upon it being "BLAMED" upon him?

Let me give you another example: A teacher in a classroom teaching math -- suddenly injects a "newism" into her lecture as to how stupid the Bush Administration is for not doing the math correct in projecting what this war would cost. Student replies -- Projections are necessary and because we are at war, there are so many variables, and the constants are upon which the hard stats reside, Ergo, Bush is doing the right thing. Teacher then says: I don't appreciate you injecting politics into my math class.

Let me give you another -- Preferential Affirmative Action. In the early days of Prop 209 -- 209 people were massively accused of trying to politicize "affirmative action".

The very process of what became affirmative action -- the very deed of what is now preferential discrimination, had been politicized LONG before 209 arrived on the scene. It had become a political "football". But then, folks begin commenting upon it -- and so many people were upset that 209 was "politicizing" preferential affirmative action. When in fact, 209 not only was disagreeing with politicized affirmative action, it was daring to make it clear how off track of original intent it had become.How "political" it already was!

Rush called the kettle and the pot black, and he is not to be blamed for it, in my books. He addressed a political "hidden" assumption. Hidden only in that the "diversity/tolerance" crowds demand that what they believe, what they promote "politically" never be questioned, commented upon, or addressed. And nor do I think he in any way was casting aspersions upon McNabb -- Rush was addressing a "lowered standard" sportscasters are carrying (and we already know what those lowered standards do to everything it touches (education, for one)). And he called them on it.

[Edit35]

"Do you think the average dude at the sports bar cares about Limbaugh's view of the sports media or the world in general? I doubt it. It's more like they care about stats, standings, their fantasy teams, and the cute bar maid."

Yes I do think the "average" NFL fan cares more about sitting in the sports bar and staring at cute bar maids.

By trying to shoe-horn the "average" sports fan into some mindless world, you are cutting out all us here at FR. IN fact, I always did wonder why the media seemed to be over-rating Donovan McNabb, and Limbaugh's explanation seemed as plausible as any.

If the NFL did not want to mix politics with football, they would never have created this quota system by which they are forcing owners into interviewing or hiring selected people based on race rather than talent.

[Exigence]

So, in other words, the lack of blacks in coaching, etc is not a legitimate issue? It's merely "prattle"?

Here's a prime example of someone taking a comment out of context and trying to twist it into being a point that was never made. It's just this sort of deliberate misunderstanding and exaggeration that fed this whole trumped up debate to start with.

[Exigence]

If the NFL did not want to mix politics with football, they would never have created this quota system by which they are forcing owners into interviewing or hiring selected people based on race rather than talent.

Outstanding point. Nothing is more political than big-money sports and anyone who tries to pretend there is a separation between sports and politics is just kidding himself.

[Exigence]

Go back and read my post and see where I was describing the average sports fan.

I did. It was drivel, IMHO. I *am* still allowed to have an opinion, aren't I? Or have you decided anything that doesn't square with your only-there-for-the-cute-barmaid crowd is irrelevant?

[Proverbs 3-5]

Just a little nit-picking here.
You said

"I love Rush, but his comments about McNabb's ability showed his lack of football knowledge as much as his comment that Mike Martz had never taken the Rams to the Superbowl even though Martz did indeed take the Rams to the 2001 Super Bowl."

But as a point of clarification the 2001 Super Bowl featured Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7

The Rams went in to SB XXXVI Feb. 3, 2002 New England 20, St. Louis 17

http://superbowl.com/history/recaps

Point being is it is easy to mispeak.

But Rush analysis on McNabb is being proved by others as well as his analysis on Martz.

See:
On McNabb:
Slate's Allen Barra: Rush Is Right About McNabb http://slate.msn.com/id/2089193/

CBS SportsLine.com senior writer Pete Prisco back on Sept. 18: "McNabb is still a good player, despite his pedestrian numbers from the first two games. He's just not a great one. And that's why he earns the Most Overrated Player Award. "

On Martz:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/Sports/Rams/815786C7534547A086256DB4006A82CE?OpenDocument&Headline=Who's+the+genius%3A+Martz+or+Vermeil%3F

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/Bernie+Miklasz/7508ED95D369235886256DA00006F129?OpenDocument&Headline=If+Rams+fail,+Shaw+may+force+changes+on+Martz&highlight=2%2Cmartz

[<1/1,000,000th%]

No one said a word when Dusty Baker said the Cubs couldn't win because they had too many white guys. He wasn't even asked to resign.