This time of left leaning businesses, which is somehow supposed to vindicate Rush Limbaugh. Where to start . . .
What happened to Rush Limbaugh in the press wasn't fair, but it wasn't the fault of the NFL, or of left-leaning businesses either--you can thank irresponsible reporters for that. A book titled "Horrible Quotations from Right-Wing People I Hate" or somesuch nonsense is not exactly definitive. Who single-sources a quote of a public figure praising slavery?
But if Rush Limbaugh had said these things--and it wasn't crazy to believe that he had, given how widely these things were cited--then they would have been perfectly within their rights to block his bid, for the same reason that Marge Schott did not improve the image of MLB. By the time the errors were corrected, it was too late.
Moreover, AFAICT, he really did say some things that were creepy--though not as offensive as the fabricated quote--such as that a typical NFL game looks like a match between the Crips and the Bloods without any weapons. You could sort of understand why some NFL players might not want to play for an owner who had characterized them thusly, and no, I don't find the "context" all that mitigating.
Also, as I think I mentioned before, boycotts don't work. You may get some small moral satisfaction out of depriving yourself, but unless you think you can muster the angry widespread committment of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, all you're doing is costing yourself a couple of months of consumer surplus. You're also inviting a counter-boycott by liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh, who may happily buy up all your season tickets. Do you really want that?
Announcing yet another boycott with the expected active lifespan of one of those rainforest butterflies that breaks out of its cocoon and then spends one happy hour mating and laying eggs before expiring on the soft, mossy floor of the primeval forest . . . well, this does not actually achieve any worthy goals. It just illustrates how few people care, when no noticeable dent appears in merchandise or ticket sales.
If you want to boycott something, boycott the St. Louis Dispatch. Being as they are a newspaper, their circulation is guaranteed to go down. And by happy coincidence, they're actually the ones at fault.
[Hunkers down. Prepares for onslaught of people accusing her of being a liberal Rush-hater, rather than, say, someone who really doesn't care for shock jocks of any stripe. Prays. ]
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
>Who single-sources a quote of a public figure praising slavery?
Ahh, the innocence of youth.
That being said, pissing off the 20 or so million who listen to Limbaugh sounds like an amazingly innovative business strategy.
Derek
But if Rush Limbaugh had said these things--and it wasn't crazy to believe that he had, given how widely these things were cited
Yes, it was. If he really had said those things, there would have been audio of him saying them, and there would have been huge explosions at the time he said them.
Anyone who engaged in even a modicum of thought knew the quotes were BS. Most certainly, they knew the quotes were BS the second that those claiming the quotes were true tried to put the burden of proof on Limbaugh, rather than accepting it for themselves.
"But if Rush Limbaugh had said these things--and it wasn't crazy to believe that he had, given how widely these things were cited"
Yuck.
Gullible much?
Remember Anderson Cooper's parade through the Superdome, melodramatically waving a child's shoe to underscore the "atrocities" that occurred there in Katrina's wake?
Boycott, schmoycott, whatever. The problem--pardon the finger-wagging--is Cooper's sneering pretense of objectivity. He's a clown. Really. He once hosted World News Now. And "The Mole." He's like an MTV VJ that hit it big.
That video I linked to? Check out 4:20 "I was doing combat reporting when I started, so..." He actually, with a straight face, claimed his combat reporting informed his experience hosting "The Mole." Good God. So self-reverential. So smug. For an interview that will run at 2 am.
But what does he care, if people will believe him based on how many repeat him?
And how is this relevant in any way, shape, or form?
How is Cooper's history of making statements about things not relevant?
If professional sports league owners can accept George Soros' money, Limbaugh's spends the same. If the NFL can take back a dog killer and forgive druggies, then they need to treat Rush with the same welcome.
When you broadcast 15 hours per week, that is at least 6,000 hours of audio per year available to edit or pluck out of context when the extreme left is so inclined ... and they usually are. I cannot go a single hour without muddling some words, so cherry-picking Rush's words ought to be easy.
Doubly so when he's not exactly the most reasonable guy in the world to begin with.
That said, 15*52 = 780. You meant to say 600(to account for vacations and stuff), not 6000.
Shrug. I've never been a big fan of Rush, but I have no objection to one righty saying to other righties "Hey, maybe we should putting money in the pockets of people who hate us." He doesn't even call for a boycott, per se, just to be more politically aware in one's purchases.
At least they're not shaking companies down like Jesse Jackson made a career of doing.
Just because a bunch of leftist think something to be true doesn't mean it's not crazy to believe them--after all, these are people of the same stripe who overwhelmingly believed the Soviet Union was a real workers' paradise, or who still believe that Cuba should be a model for health care, or more recently, hurricane preparedness...
Not to mention their belief that Saddam Hussein & Iraq had a hand in the planning and execution of 9/11.
Oh, wait . . .
Cause, after all, we know George Bush actually planned it.
Interestingly, blue-staters, liberals, and watchers of CNN/CBS/ABC/MSNBC tend to believe that Saddam Hussein & Iraq had no connection with terrorism.
That's just as false and quite a bit more ignorant than the reverse.
"Lies and Damn Lies" at American Thinker questions the admitted deliberate publication of un-sourced quotations attributed to Limbaugh by the extreme leftists at Media Matters.
Just because one quote was unsourced doesn't make the rest of the critique untrue. Rush has said many nasty and ugly things and everyone knows it. To pretend otherwise means you like Rush/ and or are okay with his brand of hatred and bigotry.
What happened to Rush Limbaugh in the press wasn't fair...
There wasn't anything in the least bit "unfair" about it.
It reminds me a bit of the Imus situation (in full disclosure I've been a pretty avid Imus fan over the years). Imus has a right to say whatever he wants, and make whatever ill-advised or poor-in-taste jokes he wants. But he doesn't have a right to advertiser dollars.
Similarly, Rush has a right to say whatever he wants. And he indeed has a right to build a staggeringly successful career as a proponent of hard right, extremist politics.
But he doesn't have a right to ancillary commercial opportunities, or partnerships with individuals or organizations that find his views objectionable or controversial or simply risky, from a business perspective.
If missing out on the occasional investment deal on your way to becoming a zillionaire is "unfair," then I'm a member of the John Birch Society.
He was falsely credited with a racially offensive quote he never said, by a media instrument that never did any actual research. This, in turn, got circulated widely, including mentions by both CNN and The Huffington Post, and the unwarranted negative publicity is credited with sabotaging his opportunities to fulfill certain terms of business with the St. Louis Rams.
I wouldn't expect you to know that, since it was rather a sideshow to all of the more important things going on in the news, and if you're like me then you probably don't even care who owns the St. Louis Rams these days, but perhaps you can become a role model for the St. Louis Dispatch by researching before commenting.
He was falsely credited with a racially offensive quote he never said, by a media instrument that never did any actual research.
I cited the wrong excerpt of Megan's: my apologies.
I didn't mean to write (or imply) that false quotes are justified or fair or anything less than vile.
I meant to write (and I must say my meaning was pretty obvious from the totality of my words) that there was nothing unfair about what happened (ie., the fact that he was turned down for NFL ownership). In other words, this outcome was entirely predictable, expected, and yes, from a pure commercial standpoint, justified. There's simply nothing unfair about Rush's not being allowed in on the Rams purchase.
So yes, by logical implication it follows -- and yes, I'm claiming -- that the more incendiary things he's been falsely accused of didn't make a difference with respect to the outcome. Still, that obviously doesn't mean those things don't hurt Rush's feelings, or that he or anybody should be the recipient of malicious falsehoods.
But the bottom line is: A) his reputation for extremist conservative politics and B) the things he has said (especially the McNabb comments) were sufficient to kill this deal before it got started. Why would anybody in a high profile business want a business partner who's given to uttering ham-handed inanities, or who is deeply unpopular with the workforce, and with a huge number of customers?
And this isn't a left/right issue. I'm sure there are "mainstream" conservatives (and liberals) who would have no problem buying a franchise. But "Rush" and "mainstream" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence.
At the end of the day the vast majority of the perks or pleasures or opportunities usually open to one with Limbaugh's massive wealth and success remain open to Limbaugh. I doubt he's had many problems purchasing the finest housing money can buy, or the choicest private jets, or the most sumptuous restaurant meals, or the most lavish yachts. But "high profile positions in PR-sensitive industries" aren't among this list. We all make choices.
Yeah, I think you missed the part of the story where the most damning quotes were fake.
You imply that he cares.
There wasn't anything in the least bit "unfair" about it
I remember when Jasper said blacks were better off as slaves.
That's disgusting, but hardly surprising.
After all,
Most lefties are racists.
Jasper is a lefty.
Therefore, Jasper must be a racist.
Jennis,
IMHO, TallDave should probably not have made that comment, but it is _quite_ obvious from the context (which he explicitly quoted) that he was _not_ drawing inferences about lefties.
Rather, Dave (who may or may not be tall) was trying to show how unfairly Limbaugh was treated by the press.
Jasper is simply confused about what Ms. McA said. She didn't say it was "unfair" that the NFL declined to enter into a business relationship with Limbaugh. She said it was unfair that the press single-sourced an unbelievably damning quote and reported it as fact. It was "too good to check", I think, for those who find Limbaugh objectionable.
The quote was no quote at all, but a fabrication by someone with an agenda.
If I published a book "quoting" a graduate school paper by Pres. Obama like this, "The only hope for humanity is that the United States will destroy its economy by overspending and, as a result, become a ward of more enlightened nations, moving to a less privileged position in the community of nations," you can bet it would not make "breaking news" without someone seeing said paper and making efforts to authenticate it.
[Tip for Mr. Rather: And said paper should not be set in a font or composed with a technology that did not exist at the time the paper was written.]
Actually, the MSM would aid in its suppression, as they did with Mrs. Obama's thesis.
Megan: I know you've got better things to do than play kindergarten cop, but this is pretty vile even by TallDave's usual knuckle-dragging standards. Just sayin.
Given that you have corrected yourself, I would agree with you that it was a low blow, but the truth is that I was going to do the exact same thing as Dave if you hadn't corrected it when you did.
Yancey: I'll respond to you in detail because unlike some other people around here you're civil.
There's a big difference between inadvertently failing to accurately reflect the contents of a blog post in one's comment (as I did), and actually making substantive slurs/accusations myself. In other words, I didn't say "Yeah, damn straight, that Rush Limbaugh is a fucking KKK member!" (or what have you).
So, while screaming "Jasper you don't know what the hell you're talking about -- there's absolutely nothing fair about lying!" is perfectly in order, saying "Jasper said blacks are better off as slaves" is, quite simply, vile -- in other words the same, ethically speaking, as those who apparently spun falsehoods about Limbaugh.
Fair enough.
I only refrained from the jab on Thursday because I wasn't 95% sure what you meant when you called the treatment Limbaugh got in the press fair, but I could easily see how others were.
Also, it is only vile to make such a remark in that context if the average reader isn't going see it for what it is- calling you out on your original comment by giving you similar "fair" treatment. Not retracting the comment after your mea culpa is more troubling, but it is likely no one is reading this thread any longer but you and I.
So, you're saying it seemed a bit... unfair?
Even by your usual knuckle-dragging standards, it's pretty dense of you not to realize that was intended ironically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Did you really think I was seriously claiming you said that? That just makes it even funnier.
I remember when Jasper said blacks were better off as slaves.
You know, I read that somewhere.
You know, I read that somewhere.
I've read it twice now, so it must be true. I'll be back in ten minutes when I get done editing Wikiquotes.
I just about fell off my chair laughing when I read that.
derek
Megan
That is exactly right. For further information, check out one of the admittedly few good David Brooks articles.
He briefly describes the last Republican primary (sorry, a bit too long to quote), and then writes this:
And this is the world of politics. If any sizable number of NFL fans ever gave a damn about Limbaugh story (and that's a big if), they have forgotten all about it by now.
Brooks gets it exactly right, and the Democrats have been there already. Wishful thinking is a powerful thing: many conservatives, including the usual trope - Limbaugh, Malkin, etc. have quickly concluded that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough.
And there are some people who actually believe it all - they sum up all the millions of various talk-radio personality plus Fox News ratings and Glenn Beck's book sales, and conclude that approximately 90% the country is ready to elect Jim DeMint.
The results of the last Republican primaries are, of course, ignored.
Mr. Roberts,
I'm not so sure that conservatives believe that Sen. McCain was not conservative enough. Rather, they think the Republican Party was not conservative in its actions.
Many of the folks who voiced dissatisfaction with the Republican Party over the last five years were not people in the middle or on the right who suddenly became lefties. Rather, they were people who became frustrated by the way the GOP did not act on their (the people's not the party's) principles.
The more libertarian wing of the GOP became increasingly frustrated by the way statism was accepted by (and propagated by) the (larger) traditionalist wing of the party.
Some of it is a consequence of being too-long in power. Some of it is the GOP alienating natural allies. Libertarian-leaning GOPers became frustrated or were lured by the promise of liber_al_tarianism. I think the last 9 months have reduced the effectiveness of that lure.
I'd always thought Jasper was a bit outrageous. But I still thought it was a bit unbelievable when someone said he'd said the blacks were better off as slaves. But now that I think about it, I think he was an Imus listener once upon a time - runs with people who talk that way I guess. And I've read about him saying it a couple times now. So I guess it's not that crazy. At this point, the only way you could doubt it is if he was the object of some really nasty smear campaign.
But TallDave's really on to something here: If you think destroying someone is more important than the truth, then all it takes it chutzpah and a gullible audience for your slanders to do real damage.
Megan's usually pretty bright, but she's got a real big blind spot here. Would she be so sanguine about this sort of thing if it were somebody taking the most idiotic things the most idiotic libertarians had ever said and attributed them to her? Because people who are dubious about libertarians would probably be just as quick to believe outrageous quotes attributed to a prominent libertarian commentator as she is to believe nasty things attributed to radio commentators that she's allergic to.
As much as I admire Megan, I agree that she bends over a little too far backwards to accommodate the Limbaugh haters. (I'm also not a fan of his.)
When she cites a negative comment of Limbaugh's and discounts the context over-much, she should remember how those who disagree with her waged an almost-endless campaign to drive her from public discourse using an injudicious comment she made. (I'm thinking of structural lumber, here, though I am loath to bring it up. Megan: I hope I don't cause hard feelings here.)
Megan,
I, too, have wondered about your unwillingness to cut Rush a little slack. He frequently says things that should not be given their literal meanings. (An innocent example of something that should not be given its literal meaning is when a young mother, kissing her baby, says, "I could just eat you up!" No one should understand that to mean the mother is about to eat her baby.) Such verbal flights of fancy are part of Rush's shtick. He trusts his audience to not give an unintended meaning to his words.
You, too, depend on your readers to not give unintended meaning to your words. Colin refers to one of the many times that trust has been violated. No fair reader could have interpreted what you wrote as a call for physical violence against anyone; yet unfair readers insisted you own the literal meaning of the words you wrote. That was manifestly unfair. It's hard to write in a manner that cannot be willfully misconstrued. It's even harder when trying to write about serious subjects in a light and entertaining manner.
Despite your own experiences with readers willingness misconstrue what you write, you often insist Rush own the literal meaning of what he says on the radio. In this you are being every bit as unfair to him as some of your readers have been to you. In listening to Rush your ears are itching for him to say something offensive and you interpret anything that can have more than one meaning in the worst light possible -- causing you to get it wrong and to miss the humor. Try listening to him in the same spirit you hope your listeners read your words; give him the benefit of the doubt. Don't assume the worst. In short, don't violate his trust. You'll better understand what he really means and you'll find the experience more enjoyable.
That doesn't mean you'll become a fan. Listening to Rush requires more effort than listening to straight news or music. The comedy of Richard Pryor was more demanding of the audience than the comedy of Bob Hope. It's perfectly okay if Rush's brand of humor and commentary isn't something you enjoy. What's not okay is being offended by a message he didn't mean to convey.
As much as I admire Megan, I agree that she bends over a little too far backwards to accommodate the Limbaugh haters. (I'm also not a fan of his.)
Don't be ridiculous. If she wanted to accommodate the "Limbaugh haters" she'd write a post that was, you know, harsh on Limbaugh. But instead she, you know, writes a post that's sympathetic to Limbaugh. This is a perfect example, by the way, why the terms "concern troll" and "Megan McArdle" are seen as increasingly synonymous among lefties: she never comes out and gives a full-throated opinion on anything. It's always a citation -- usually written with a lot of tut-tutting in tone -- that kinda sorta telegraphs what her opinion is.
Can't say I'm entirely non-sympathetic to her predicament. I can't imagine coming out with a post saying "Rush Limbaugh is a fine person who ought to be allowed to be an NFL owner goldurnit!" gets you many brownie points with the Dupont Circle cocktail set. Far safer to say things obliquely.
Ya know, Jasper, some people really do see the world with shades of nuance. I used to hear that word a lot back when Bush was in office, usually by lefties complaining that his take on the world was too monochromatic, and that he was making enemies and saying stupid things by not considering the many sides of the problem. Funny how that talk dried up in a hurry when democrats got control of both executive and legislative.
He didn't mean what he intended it to mean. And it didn't sound like what he meant it to sound like. So there.
Left-leaning businesses, eh? Damn those communist-capitalists! And you know they were all in on the secret plot to prevent Fatboy from getting his new toy.
Somehow, I think Rush will be okay. And if not, well...that's what libel suits are for.
Damn those communist-capitalists!
It's funny how a company's supposed values and their business models can sometimes contradict one another. "Leftism" in the west is not necessarily communism, but opposition to Judeo-Christian values and is based on the French revolution (where the church had fused itself to the state, which causes people to wrongly associate 'the far right' with monarchy. The bible actually depicts monarchy as a far from optimal form of government.)
Though, to be fair, for Old Testament Israel, the intended form of government was theocracy, not monarchy.
Kristian - The OT, in I Samuel 8, depicts the Israelites wanting a king because they had abandoned God. But it also depicts the Davidic monarchy as the first constitutional monarchy, and David as annointed by God.
I agree that Jesus urged people to respect the authorities as being placed there by God (and the OT depicts David as being anointed by God.) However none of this overturns the point that monarchy is depicted as a departure from God.
I'm open to counterarguments, but I don't see how the passage you cite supports your point.
That Powerline blog entry is a riot. The rationale:
1- Boycotting the NFL wouldn't work. "Let's not be ridiculous", he says.
2- Conservatives are already spontaneously abandoning left-leaning enterprises, such as the infamous MSM.
3- So let's get to boycotting!
As long as you think that it isn't crazy to be a Truther or a Birther, given how widely those things were cited. Or that it's not crazy to believe any urban legend that gets repeated and perhaps even entered into Wikipedia and Wikiquote unnoticed for a while. It's certainly true that when questionable and false accusations are repeated by most of the outlets you listen to, and you're not willing to go to primary sources, it's pretty natural to believe those things, by simple Bayesian reasoning. It's not everyone's fault that they believed that CNN or MSNBC or The New York Times were responsible journalists.
Those quotes weren't plausible, for anyone who's ever listened to Rush even a few times. (I'm not a regular listener by any means, but I've been in the car with someone who was listening or occasionally heard his show, maybe a total of ten times ever.) But people who don't listen to him were willing to believe, just like people who don't like Obama or Palin or anybody else are willing to believe the most outlandish or ridiculous accusations about them.
No offense, but it's obvious that you've never listened to him, considering your ridiculous comment earlier about how Limbaugh's fans wouldn't understand satire. His show is filled with satire, some of it over the top or in somewhat bad taste, but understood to be satire by someone listening in context. The satire does tend to be quoted out of context, understandably upsetting people who aren't familiar with him. The same people that scoff when someone takes the Daily Show or the Colbert Report seriously go one to believe that every one of Limbaugh's satires is supposed to be serious.
(The satires on his show include what are outright radio skits.)
"The same people that scoff when someone takes the Daily Show or the Colbert Report seriously go one to believe that every one of Limbaugh's satires is supposed to be serious."
Foreign newspapers occasionally quote the Onion. I can remember a pretty disgruntled statement by China's Peoples Daily saying that it's really very inappropriate for this American news source to carry false stories that trick people.
Rush does satire? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard yet.
"Announcing yet another boycott with the expected active lifespan of one of those rainforest butterflies that breaks out of its cocoon and then spends one happy hour mating and laying eggs before expiring on the soft, mossy floor of the primeval forest . . ."
Maybe one hour for a butterfly is like 70 years for a human being. In that case, the butterfly lives a long happy life of doing nothing but having hot sex. Some would call that bliss.
Jeez, only a liberal, left-wing, socialist, fascist Rush-hater blinded by her furious hatred for Sarah Palin, god, tax cuts, and traditional marriage could miss that obvious point.
So honestly, is it the contention that Mr. Limbaugh has not made racially intemperate comments over the years? Or that the owners of the NFL teams should not have the ability to weigh the individuals making offers?
I think far to too many people confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of that speech. Even putting aside the falsely attributed quotes.
So what consequences will be paid by those who were repeating obviously made up "quotes" and couldn't be bothered to verify them because they were "too good to check".
Seems the press (and the left, but I repeat myself) is happy with "fake but accurate" more and more these days.
RomanX : So honestly, is it the contention that Mr. Limbaugh has not made racially intemperate comments over the years?
MM : ... he really did say some things that were creepy--though not as offensive as the fabricated quote..
Rush has been a public figure for what, twenty or thirty years now? He runs his mouth on the radio three hours a day, Monday through Friday. He gives speeches. He had a (short-lived) TV show. He writes op-eds. He may have even written a book.
And in all that time and millions of sentences written and spoken, the best you Rush-aphobs can come up with is vauge references to intemperate or creepy comments. The only specific comments I've seen quoted are the 'Crips/Bloods' and 'McNabb is overrated', both of which make a certain class of people uncomfortable but are perfectly defensible in context.
If there are quotes as inflammatory as the fakes that can be unambigiously attributed to Rush, why can't you produce them?
The fakes had to be used because nothing Rush has ever been documented as saying, after clocking thousands of hours of public speaking, rose to the level that would justify denying him participation in Rams ownership group.
If there are quotes as inflammatory as the fakes that can be unambigiously attributed to Rush, why can't you produce them?
The fakes had to be used because nothing Rush has ever been documented as saying, after clocking thousands of hours of public speaking, rose to the level that would justify denying him participation in Rams ownership group.
You are joking, right? Besides, the NFL is a private business. They can admit whomever they want to. I can't remember the last time anyone called Irsay(the owner of the Colts who said he'd vote against Limpballs) a raging lefty. In fact, Irsay has made donations mostly to Republicans(especially Bush/Darth Cheney).
Rush mainly gets in trouble because he's so uncouth to speak about uncomfortable truths. He then compounds the issue by using evocative language in a less than nuanced medium - not that nuance has ever saved anyone once "he's a racist, burn him" starts.
The NFL has a rather serious problem with athletes and the law. Most of it is likely from the steroids and lots of cash for very young men - not a good combination, as you can see from self destruction in other sports with different demographics. The exacerbating tendencies for other elements like the unsavory entourages is a class thing. It's just with football there aren't too many white players with the right mix of class and home-town to get the air of criminality - if you look at boxing/MMA or European sports you'll see loads of white kids with the same problems. Poor urban white kids don't end up getting to the NFL at the same rate as poor rural white kids, rich suburban kids, or poor urban black kids.
On Donovan McNabb - he's been proven right and other columnists have sheepishly admitted that. Soft bigotry of low expectations meets a very "stuff white people like" attitude towards black people (they're cute and cuddly props to demonstrate my right-thinkingness) on top of very recent history of discrimination and racism. Warren Moon was treated horribly, and there are still coaches at lower levels of the right vintage to not believe black kids can quarterback. Faking up a Great Black Hope is useless, and nearly as racist as the desperate search for a Great White Hope was in the first place - funnily enough both searches have been conducted by thumbsucking journalists...
Rush's most famous race problems boil down to stupid things to say because you JUST CAN'T SAY THAT. I vacillate between raging at the idiocy of playing with that kind of fire, raging that this kind of taboo exists, and (as it seems Megan does) wondering why someone would want to get into those kinds of questions. Great fun with racial politics.
Rush's comments about McNabb said a lot more about sportswriters and the general social climate than they said about McNabb's abilities as a quarterback.
In 2003 when Rush was making comments about McNabb, Steve McNair finished the season as the NFL's top passer (100.4 rating) and co-MVP with Peyton Manning. He was playing for Tennesse which unlike Philadelphia didn't win their division (they had the same 12-4 record as Indianapolis but lost on tie breakers), though they did win their wild-card game. IIRC Philadelphia had been humiliated in the 2002 Division title game by eventual Super Bowl winner Tampa Bay.
Rush didn't say that Steve McNair was overrated.
Miss McArdle, now you know how those Republicans who dared speak ill of Limbaugh felt. Time for the next step:
"I'm sooorryy. I didn't mean to. I've just talked to Rush on the phone and apologized personally. Rush accepted. He's such a great guy!"
Know your readership, Miss McArdle (man, I wish this sounds much better in Latin).
People sure do get their knickers in a twist when it comes to Limbaugh. On both sides - he seems to inspire the worst in the left as well as managing to get people on the right saying some pretty dumb things, like he isn't really a drug addict because his doctor prescribed his medicine at first.
I've listened to Limbaugh a good bit over the years though not much if at all in the last several. I used to listen to him when I spent a good bit of time on the road, it is hard for me to imagine people sitting around listening to him or any other talk radio absent being trapped in a vehicle for hours. Like you Megan I didn't find it at all impossible that he would have said things like the false and maliciously manufactured quotes that were attributed to him. The fact of their plausibility is what sold them after all.
On the other hand if what Limbaugh says is so outrageous then quotes wouldn't need to be manufactured to discredit him. Right?
I find myself unable to muster much sympathy on the subject for a guy like Limbaugh who has become a multi-hundred millionaire largely by saying outrageous things. If I were him and I was really bothered by all this I'd drag every one of the news organizations that ran this stuff into court just for the fun of it all. Its not like he can't afford it.
Sometimes I wonder if his audience isn't mostly left-Dem since just about every time I hear about him it is because some left-Dem is crying about something he said. The guy is a radio talk show host for Heaven's sake. Why in the world would anyone take what he says or does so seriously?
regarding Limbaugh's NFL bid: even without the fabricated quotes, his bid was doomed from the beginning. Rush is a polarizing figure, and in a situation where your ownership group requires 25 of the other 31 owners to approve your bid -- you don't want a polarizing figure in the mix to unnecessarily cost you votes.
in general: Rush is an entertainer. He is to politics as Howard Stern is to sex (well, maybe not quite that far....). You can't do a radio show for 4 hours a day, 5 days a week for years and stay comfortably away from saying controversial or edgy things and remain interesting.
Rush serves a useful role for both sides-- for the right, he gets to criticize the opposition in a direct and impolitic way that resonates with every day people. For the left, he is the right wing boogey man that embodies their widely accepted stereotypes of conservatives.
I agree with market. Rush is just too polarizing for the other owners and players.
I listen to Rush regularly when I am in my car and his show is on. While I have no idea if Rush is personally racist ( I doubt it), there is no question that he panders to the racists in his audience. Sure it's parody, but it's pander, too. So those quotes were fabricated, but their spirit is on the air daily. You know something like this--In Obama's America black boys beat up white boys.
Sometimes you just get what you've earned, the good and the bad. It's been fun listening to Rush play the victim.
I find myself unable to muster much sympathy on the subject for a guy like Limbaugh who has become a multi-hundred millionaire largely by saying outrageous things.
I agree. I gave up listening to Limbaugh years ago because he was so tediously predictable, but in the years prior I heard him say many racially offensive (perhaps racist) things. Howard Stern does the same, and far worse, but bothered me less because sometimes they were humorous and were clearly satiric and once in a while even played against his listeners prejudices. Not so for Limbaugh
If Limbaugh feels he has been slandered -- I think it's clear tha he has been -- then he should sue for damages. Within all the constraints of tort reform that I suspect he favors.
He says things that offend leftist turds. For that he is punished.
And he says things that appeal to rightist turds. And for that he is rewarded. So what's your point? That the "marketplace of ideas" is being unfair to poor little Rush?
Rush can sleep well at night because of that $250 million deal he's signed. Don't worry about El Rusbho, or Maha Rushi as we dittoheads like to call him. He'll be alright. With talent on loan from GOD and half his brain tied behind his back JUST TO MAKE IT FAIR!
Megan, but a typical NFL game does look like a gang fight between the Bloods & Crips. Why deny reality to appease the PC gods? Just say the fucking truth for once.
The reality you want to deny is that NFL players are young men in, for the most part, superb athletic condition. While playing, they wear uniforms for their home teams, and not gang wear or colors. The only thing they have in common with the Bloods and the Crips is the color of their skin and, for some, creative hairstyling. So, while I generally like Rush and think he was unfairly tarred for outrageous statements, I believe I am not appeasing the PC gods by saying that to ascribe criminality to young men purely based on the color of their skin is a racist statement. If you want to defend the man, this is not the statement with which to start.
How many NFLers hang out with actual gang members? Every week I'm hearing about some player getting arrested for being involved in some shooting. Rush is 100% telling the truth, and the PC gods don't like him for that.
Rush's comment about the Crips and the Bloods was in the following context: At the end of a playoff game a player for San Diego (IIRC) was penalized for a unsportsmanlike like conduct for taunting. Absent the penalty, the game would have been over and San Diego would have advanced. With the penalty, the other team won and San Diego lost. A caller asked Rush what he thought of the situation, prompting his comment that too often NFL games are like watching the Crips and the Bloods.
Recently CNN asked Mercury Morris, a Hall of Fame running back who played for Miami and who happens to be black, whether Rush's comment was racist or not. Morris said the comment was NOT racist. Morris said he knew exactly what Rush was talking about and that he agreed with him. Too many players, in Morris' opinion, have brought gang culture to the NFL. They spend too much time and effort trying to show up and show off rather than just playing the game. He said the NFL, the teams, and coaches, needed to do a better job of helping these young players know how professional athletes should act.
So, Rush's comment was not about race. It was about behavior.
Thank you for the context, David. As I said, I am a Rush supporter. But some of his statements without context ping my "not quite right" radar. I live in Boston. I can find maybe 1 in 20 people who don't think Rush should be strung up in the town square and who don't think Republicans are dyed in the wool racists. I guess what I'm trying to say is that comments like this make it harder. Because when I'm trying to defend Rush, conservatives, the Republican party (when it deserves defending) I will now have to give two paragraphs of context in order to defend one sentence.
@ redfly
...I am a Rush supporter. But some of his statements without context ping my "not quite right" radar. ... I guess what I'm trying to say is that comments like this make it harder. Because when I'm trying to defend Rush ... I will now have to give two paragraphs of context in order to defend one sentence.
I understand. Rush's program tends to be very self-referential. He'll often play with something discussed a day or two before. Even if you're fairly up-to-speed on current events, if you've not listened to his program regularly you're apt to miss the context that makes a comment funny rather than "not quite right". For example, Rush has frequently played a parody song, Barack the Magic Negro (sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. Before he played the parody for the first time, he discussed the inspiration for the parody -- an op-ed piece written by a liberal African-American entitled Barack the Magic Negro. If you missed Rush's discussion of the editorial, then the parody might have seemed "not quite right" when Rush played it a day or two later without bothering with an explanation.
As discussed above, this is one of the things that makes listening to Rush so demanding. He trusts his audience to understand that, even when they've missed the context, there is an explanation that makes the "not quite right" alright. Rush's program is like listening to an intimate conversation among good friends. In such settings, the formal rules of what's acceptable discourse are relaxed a bit. That doesn't mean anything goes; it does mean each listener is obligated to assume the best intentions on the part of each speaker. That's why it's so unfair of Megan and others to take what Rush says out of this context and hold it up for ridicule. She's imposing an entirely different standard on what was said. We all say things in private that might seem offensive if said in a public forum. For example, I might say something to my Mom that she'd find amusing -- because she'd know I was joking and I was playing off something that happened 20 years ago -- others hearing what I said to my mother might wonder about my lack of civility.
The bogus quotes are worth noting and correcting, but Limbaugh's rejection as an NFL owner shouldn't surprise anyone. There are lots of precedents for pro sports leagues needing to do PR damage control when someone makes an offensive remark. Limbaugh's made a career of offensive remarks. The NFL is just being prudent.
I haven't listened to 45 seconds of Rush Limbaugh in the past 5 years. I'm not upset about Rush. Nor am I inclined to look for Albert Schweitzer II's In Search of the Historical Rushbo. I don't know diddly about McNabb. What I learned during the airing of the Rushbo controversy is that another broadcaster, black, on ESPN told the network 'Either he goes or I go' after Rush that the 'media was sensitive about having a good black quarterback and that McNabb was, for that reason, overrated.' True or False, I think maybe McNabb had a dip that was being skated over. I didn't really see it as a criticism of McNabb as much as of the media. I think McNabb had been injured and was trying. The NFL Player's Association in effect said, and the commissioner agreed, 'They were taking the football and going home.' White players in the game broadly speaking need not apply. Be my pleasure is my feeling.
Yup. You'll never hear Rush say something like that. He's willing to lock horns with anyone. But the liberal fascists want to suppress all dissent.
Prepares for onslaught of people accusing her of being a liberal Rush-hater, rather than, say, someone who really doesn't care for shock jocks of any stripe.
Well, you *are* a Rush-hater. And Rush is not a "shock jock", as any fan of Talk Radio (including Howard Stern) who has paid attention to Rush's show can tell you.
Who single-sources a quote of a public figure praising slavery?
Someone who hates Rush for his political prominence so much that they would believe *anything* bad about him --no matter how absurd-- and the worse the better.