Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No, the NFL Isn't Too Good for Limbaugh

By Jo-Ann Armao

Ringleading a notorious dog fighting ring wasn't enough to prevent Michael Vick from being welcomed back into the National Football League’s fold. Likewise, his involvement in a fatal drunk driving accident probably won't prevent Donte Stallworth's eventual return to the league. So it strikes me as more than a little ridiculous that the league thinks it is too good for Rush Limbaugh.

In case you haven’t heard, Limbaugh was just dropped from a group trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams, following a fuss about his inclusion in the deal. Dave Cheketts, the leader of the group aiming to buy the team, said the possibility of the conservative commentator being involved had become "a complication and a distraction."

I am no Limbaugh fan. Not only is he infamous for ugly remarks, but he is a practitioner in the politics of hate. But -- and here I write as someone with a special interest in the First Amendment -- Limbaugh is being banished for essentially exercising his right to speak. Perhaps the difference between Limbaugh and Vick and Stallworth is that the latter two, at least, professed remorse. Limbaugh is unrepentant -- and that’s the reason I would have enjoyed seeing his team get trounced.

By Jo-Ann Armao  | October 15, 2009; 3:41 PM ET
Categories:  Armao  | Tags:  Jo-Ann Armao  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forget Tea Parties, Throw COLA Parties
Next: From Joe to Beau?

Comments

Let me guess...Al Sharpton and Jackson, along with the Mcnabs of this 85% black league, claim he is racist and shouldnt be an owner. This amounts to reverse discrimination and it is a picture of things to come hen the tail wags the dog. I am no fan of Limbaugh, however I do know of his love for the game and I feel he would have been a great owner along the lines of Kraft. Maybe we can get a nice Rapper to represent the owners.

Posted by: livefreeordie2 | October 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh has the right to speak...and the NFL has the right to say there is no place in the league for him and his potty mouth.

Posted by: gipper01 | October 15, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Why do people keep mentioning the First Amendment? It has NO bearing. The First Amendment concerns congress making laws prohibiting free speech. It doesn't, nor should it, say anything about what the ramifications may be if you choose to express yourself in a socially unacceptable manner. Limbaugh has the right to say what he wants - nobody is taking that away from him. The NFL has the right not to associate with anybody as socially inept as Limbaugh.
I can say what I want, and my employer can fire me for saying it - no First Amendment issue.

The idea that spewing vitriole should have no consequences is not how civilized people behave. Limbaugh is unwelcome among any decent people.

Posted by: bflorhodes | October 15, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Rush has issue a "put up or recant your statements publically. It should be interesting if he sues a bunch of sport writers who may have used reports that cannot be verified.

Posted by: sales7 | October 15, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Beautifully stated, bflorhodes. Words have power. Words have consequences. Rush has to reap what he sows.

Posted by: fmjk | October 15, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh is being banished for essentially exercising his right to speak."

What?

Limbaugh - based on his own actions, albeit words he spoke - is dropped from a group of potential investors in a private transaction because it hurts their chances of a successful bid. How exactly is this an indictment of the 1st Amendment and not the cold feet of his fellow investors?

Posted by: Goombay | October 15, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

As an employee of the Washington Post, do you have the right to make racist remarks? And keep your job?

Posted by: NMP1 | October 15, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

bflorhodes said, "I can say what I want, and my employer can fire me for saying it -no First Amendment issue."

What planet do you live on?

Posted by: lydog26 | October 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Let’s simply apply the same rules to both parties in the Limbaugh debate. How would this matter be handled/debated if Limbaugh was a member of a defined minority. Would the same rules apply? or would the hue and cry of racism be dominating the debate? It’s simple apply equally the rules you wish applied to you. In this case it is clear that reverse racism is very much being practiced with no regard for Limbaughs' rights

Posted by: Acdgrad | October 15, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

If Rush was a black then Al and Jesse would never open there mouths about him. This has reverse racism all over it. I think that Al and Jesses are the real racist. Without them keeping racism alive they are able to pay there morgages and car notes every month. When was the last time they came to the aid of a white man......NEVER.

Posted by: creepyjackolopeeye | October 15, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh can keep exercising his right to free speech, and NFL can keep exercising their right to free enterprise.

The worst day of Rush's career. The ego has landed!

Posted by: leftcoaster | October 15, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Let's get one thing straight. This is NOT a free speech issue. Limbaugh has the right to say anything he pleases. Congress has not abridged that right in any way. He had a radio show last week, he has one today, and he'll have one next week. And he can say whatever he pleases on that show without threat of arrest.

The issue here is that a group of businessmen have decided that associating themselves with Limbaugh would hurt their brand more than he would help them. They faced similar considerations with Michael Vick, and came to an opposite conclusion. That's business.

I have a Constitutional right to roll into work tomorrow and say anything I damn well please. Unless I threaten someone, I face little chance of arrest. But my employers would be well within their rights to fire me if they felt that I was disrupting or harming their business. That has nothing to do with free speech.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

If Rush was black man. Sorry.

Posted by: creepyjackolopeeye | October 15, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

On you people talking about reverse racism are just being ridiculous. The league owners are not predominately black. But they are good businessmen and they don't want to invite the controversy that a figure like Rush Limbaugh would bring.

This is about money, plain and simple. Just because the league has many black players don't make this about poor Rush being discriminated against.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | October 15, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if there will be a backlash against the NFL for this.

Posted by: alstl | October 15, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many people who vilify Limbaugh have ever actually listened to him. Potty mouth? He's not a cusser at work - you must have him confused with Rahm Emmanuel. Spewing vitriol? Limbaugh is mostly about ideas - not vitriol. Just because you don't agree with someone's ideas doesn't make them vitriolic.

Posted by: SB52 | October 15, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

What Mr. Limbaugh needs is the right to be quoted accurately. I've never seen such an explicit public slandering by the media of a private citizen in my lifetime. His quotes about slavery and James Earl Ray were complete fabrications. His quote supposedly equating the NFL to a Bloods and Crips gang fight was taken out of context. And it seems like everybody is so quick to feign outrage at his comments about McNabb(which was a comment about the media) that nobody has bothered to stop and consider whether there is any merit to it. Note that his former (African American) colleague on ESPN initially agreed with the comment during the telecast.

Posted by: andrewfields88 | October 15, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I have listened to Rush many times. Just because he doesn't use curse words doesn't mean he isn't a potty mouth. He uses his words to incite people and he doesn't worry about the consequences.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | October 15, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Rush's quote about the NFL being the crips and the bloods wasn't out of content. He said exactly that and added the "Yeah, I said it" to the end for emphasis. Look, Rush says crazy stuff. That's what he does to get ratings. He even admitted that during his interview on the today show.

So don't play the race card because he doesn't get an opportunity to own an NFL team just because he wants to. Good grief, he doesn't have a RIGHT to own an NFL team. The other investors didn't want to be bothered with all this controversy and they dropped him. That's it.

Now he and the rest of his listeners need to get over it. And quit whining.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | October 15, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The First Amendment applies only to the government. The NFL has every right to include or exclude Rush Limbaugh. They're in the entertainment business, and if they decide he doesn't fit their profile, so be it. It's hardly a double-standard: if Rush has occasionally been offensive or boorish, he's been tolerated because his ratings are high. But that's not transferable -- once he's away from the mike, people will evaluate him however they watn to.

Posted by: sketchpen | October 15, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It boils down to Rush didn't get the team.
btw rushbo is now blaming the entire Obama administration as the cause.

GET OVER IT!

Posted by: neec13 | October 15, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I have listened to Rush many times. Just because he doesn't use curse words doesn't mean he isn't a potty mouth. He uses his words to incite people and he doesn't worry about the consequences.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | October 15, 2009 4:28 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You mean like all the superstars of the Left?

Posted by: NoOneSpecialAtAll | October 15, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh is mostly about ideas - not vitriol. Just because you don't agree with someone's ideas doesn't make them vitriolic.
Posted by: SB52 | October 15, 2009 4:23 PM

---------------------

Fine and dandy. I happen to disagree with you about Rush's propensity to spew vitriol. But he has a right to say whatever he wants to say.

And those of us who disagree with him have a right to disagree, and complain about what he says.

And if the fat-cats in the NFL owners' boxes decide that inviting Rush in would be bad for business, well, he's always got his radio show to fall back on.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey.........bflorhodes,

You'r correct..........and I have the right not to give a dimes worth of my $, time or business to the NFL. I suggest those who think Rush got screwed tell the NFL to take a hike.

Zeek the dog

Posted by: tkessis | October 15, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

NFL doesn't have to worry about the 1st amendment. They're a private organization, not a govt. actor, thus the 1st amendment isn't applicable to them. They could ban him because they don't like his ties, anything really, and not violate his constitutional rights. The 1st amendment only limits government action, NFL ain't the govt...

Posted by: adhughes | October 15, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Moral turpitude has no place in anything, right?

A sports league trying to maintain something of a decent posture, at least the supposition of one, is out of line.

Insult and denigrate and race bait a league with a huge percentage of the insulted...

and then let them own you. RIGHT?

The Washington Post employes the dumbest and the lowest. Lots of Jews.

Now, how about a job on thee editorial board, please.

Posted by: whistling | October 15, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Again I ask to apply the same rules to both parties equally. I agree that Limbaugh is an entertainer and not a credible one at that but that does not give his opponents the right to discount his rights. If the roles were reversed and a minority were being objectified in this manner the flavor of the debate would be much much diffrent. Lets agree that the whole idea of "political Correctness" was a huge social gaff

Posted by: Acdgrad | October 15, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

You'r correct..........and I have the right not to give a dimes worth of my $, time or business to the NFL. I suggest those who think Rush got screwed tell the NFL to take a hike.

Zeek the dog

Posted by: tkessis

--------------

Agreed completely. If you folks don't like the way the NFL treated Rush, by all means, organize a boycott. That's Free Speech in action.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Just who is stopping Limbaugh from spreading his noxious bile?
He's still polluting the airways, still dictating Neanderthal policy to the Republicans.
Someone brought up Michael Vick. Vick paid a price for his cruelty and stupidity. Rush as not, unless you count a bruised ego as cruel.

Posted by: lewfournier1 | October 15, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

As I wrote this afternoon at Popdose, the distinction between a controversial, even convicted player and a pariah owner is clear. Owners are unlikely to collude to keep a talent like Vick's off the field, as long as his debt to society is paid. Meanwhile, a player like Vick, no matter how much he's booed by the fans, will be protected by his teammates and rivals alike -- team and union loyalty are strong.

On the other hand, no such bond ties together player and owner -- and it's easy to imagine Limbaugh's Rams having trouble attracting free agents or maintaining their fan base. Imagine the PR (and legal) quandary in which the Rams and NFL would find themselves the first time a high draft pick refuses to accept being selected by Limbaugh?

If nothing else, his ownership would create a potential competitive balance issue -- and that, combined with the league's obsession with keeping renegade personalities in check -- makes Rush's exclusion a no-brainer. Kinda like Rush himself.

One more thing: As long as right-wingers are mentioning Limbaugh and Vick together -- as examples of degenerate embarrassments they believe the NFL should be willing to tolerate -- Limbaugh's image is right where it should be.

Posted by: jonfromcali | October 15, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Again I ask to apply the same rules to both parties equally. I agree that Limbaugh is an entertainer and not a credible one at that but that does not give his opponents the right to discount his rights. If the roles were reversed and a minority were being objectified in this manner the flavor of the debate would be much much diffrent. Lets agree that the whole idea of "political Correctness" was a huge social gaff

Posted by: Acdgrad

-------------------

Yeah, because Obama didn't have to throw Rev. Wirght under the bus because of incendiary things he said, right?

Seems to me that the same standards are being applied.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

McCarthyism lives in the NFL.

Posted by: sarno | October 15, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

What I find strange about this argument is that Rush practiced free speech and those who oppose him practiced free speech.

Owners have to vote on new owners and the voters (owners) have a right to vote as they choose.

Posted by: rlj1 | October 15, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's get one thing straight. This is NOT a free speech issue. Limbaugh has the right to say anything he pleases. Congress has not abridged that right in any way. He had a radio show last week, he has one today, and he'll have one next week. And he can say whatever he pleases on that show without threat of arrest.

The issue here is that a group of businessmen have decided that associating themselves with Limbaugh would hurt their brand more than he would help them. They faced similar considerations with Michael Vick, and came to an opposite conclusion. That's business.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse
====================================
How would you feel if he had been dropped for being a controversial campaigner for civil rights?

Posted by: ZZim | October 15, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Rush is a jerk but the smear campaign by the African American left was out of line. You see I also think Rev. Sharpton is a jerk too. Since when is the NFL any of his concern? Why do we listen to him any more than Rush?

Unfortunately (and amazingly) I side with Rush and do not want to ever hear or see Sharpton again - ever, ever, ever!

Posted by: mgd1 | October 15, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

How would you feel if he had been dropped for being a controversial campaigner for civil rights?

Posted by: ZZim | October 15, 2009 5:00 PM

------------

The next time that a controversial campaigner for civil rights is given a chance to buy into an NFL franchise, give me a call.

Also, your argument implies that Limbaugh is a controversial opponent of civil rights, which is what many of his critics have been saying.

That said, I never opposed Limbaugh as an NFL owner. I wouldn't oppose Sharpton or Jackson if they wanted to buy into an NFL team. But I would certainly understand why they (like Limbaugh) would be shut out. That's business.

Like I said earlier, Obama had to throw Rev Wright under the bus for much the same reason. Firebrands have every right to be firebrands, but they shouldn't be shocked when the mainstream doesn't want to do business with them.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Considering some of the owners the NFL has - Al Davis and Dan Snyder come to mind - having Limbaugh in the fold would be a big step forward for the league.

Posted by: TArbiter | October 15, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

McCarthyism lives in the NFL.
Posted by: sarno

--------------------

McCarthyism was a case of the government persecuting people for their political beliefs. The last I heard, the NFL isn't an arm of the government.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Jo-Ann, you wrote: "I am no Limbaugh fan. Not only is he infamous for ugly remarks, but he is a practitioner in the politics of hate."

I am no Limbaugh fan either but not for the same reasons. Many of the talking points he raises are ones that you and I would not hear about in a media dominated by an Obama enchanted, liberal press. So liberals see his discoveries as hateful. They may, in fact, be true and valid issues - but are so contrary to the liberal's world view that they appear to be the politics of hate.

The left did and continues their own brand of the politics of hate every time former President Bush is mentioned. Liberals just don't see it as hateful. In fact, in the same way as those who agree with Limbaugh's point-of-view, they see it as totally justifiable.

I am not a fan of Limbaugh's because of the acid I get in my stomach when I hear his rants and those of some of his callers. On top of that, the ads drive me crazy. But, like you, as a citizen I too have a special interest in the First Amendment.

If Limbaugh was not given the opportunity to invest because he his commentary, it is wrong. If, as I presume, it is because the buying group want to be successful and believe his notoriety is too much of a distraction and may impede success, then the decision was pragmatic.

Posted by: 2009frank | October 15, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh's problem reminds me of a Stevie Wonder song: You might have the cash, but you cannot cash in your face. Too bad, too sad.

So he didn't get his way. Tell it to somebody who cares.

Why would he want anything to do with the NFL anyway? It's the closest thing to socialism we have in the United States these days, if you look at their revenue sharing plan (and the way owners shake down cities for bigger and more expensive stadiums).

He'll find a way to get something out of this. Rush Limbaugh thrives off baiting people, and he'll do that again. It what makes him tick. He's a master baiter.

Posted by: jcbcmb68 | October 15, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Where were the arguments for context when Limbaugh, et al were blasting Rev. Wright for his comments? Just wondering.

Even after he was booted, Rush had the opportunity to take the high road. How about publically thanking Checketts for allowing him to participate, then expressing his disappointment and moving on? That would have been the classy thing to do.

But no. He somehow equates his loss to Obama, liberals, and the media. And you clones fall for it hook line and sinker. He proves the NFL owners were spot on.

And there actually are folks calling this decision racist. Racist in a league where all of the owners are white (and conservative). And you clones eat it up. Its laughable.

He's playing you for suckers and most of you are too stupid to realize it.

Posted by: cotton2g | October 15, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Lets agree that the whole idea of "political Correctness" was a huge social gaff"

......................................

HA! Let's agree that you and Rashbo want to say any racist, sexist, homophobic thing you want, and SUFFER NO CONSEQUENCES. That's the deal you want.

Btw, what happened to that "personal responsibility" that Rush touts as a core conservative principle? You and Rush have the freedom to say any ignorant thing you want, and others have the right to keep you at a distance as a result.

Posted by: Lori1 | October 15, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a combat veteran who fought for our nation and defended the rights of people to express their opinion and participate in a free society. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for 18 years and found him entertaining and knowledgable regarding political issues. He is not a liberal but nor does he spread hate simply by being a conservative. On the other hand, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used race to incite riots, lynch innocent people in the press (Duke students), and extort money from organizations through the use of criminal organizations like ACORN. Barak Obama was a lawyer for ACORN yet the liberal media will not investigate his affiliation with a criminal organization that encourages tax evasion, voter fraud and assists those who would set up child prostitution rings. Why isn't the liberal media interested in this story? Why won't they do their job? I will continue to watch FOX News and Rush until the liberal media proves it is not biased and refuses to cover stories critical of left wing politicians and organizations.

Posted by: quillerm | October 15, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

This is just the beginning. The radical Left has taken over America, and the worse is yet to come. Next stop, current NFL owners. Mr Jones (Dallas Cowboys) get ready to hand over controlling interest to Jesse Jackson, and AL Sharpton.

Posted by: BillyDeKid | October 15, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh makes all sorts of crude remarks about various people and then finds out that those remarks are the basis for denying him something he wants.

Rush Limbaugh then whines like a spoiled brat.

Why am I surprised?

Oh, wait I'm not surprised.

Posted by: mickle1 | October 15, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Hs ha ha! Jesse cut Rush's N*ts out!!!

Posted by: alvin12 | October 15, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Let me see if I got this straight......

You have this group of people that have a large percentage of wife beaters, rapists, drug addicts, felons, dog killers and general misfits.

And....you have a conservative, perceived racist that wants to invest money to further their antics.

And.....he is to extreme for them.

21% of NFL players have been convicted of serious crimes. http://www.amazon.com/Pros-Cons-Criminals-Who- Play/dp/0446524034

National Felony League http://alltalksports.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-national-felony-league/

Posted by: petedist | October 15, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh's words incite what actions --- rallys? revolutions? the looting of private property? the loss of personal freedoms? No - that's the legislative and executive branches of government. The NFL owners better watch it before a football czar is appointed to decide how they should run their league. Get a life Limbaugh haters --- turn off the radio if you don't agree with him. It should've been up to the owners to decide -- but it never got that far because of the rantings and ravings of the politically correct class.

Posted by: jeffreyshovlin | October 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

When all the HGH steroid enabled NFL players can pass lie detector tests about their drug use then they can cast stones. Look at them bodies guys...they tain't real. I'm no fan of Rush but to call him racist is to call fat Al Sharpton educated or Jessie a model of marital virtue...

Rush is an idiot OK but has anyone looked hard at most of the NFL owners or the players credentials. How many NFL players can read at n eighth grade level?

Posted by: Boils | October 15, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh now will be blaming... President Obama for the reason why the NFL turned him down. As he put it today, he has been, "Obama-nized." And what Rush failed to mention today on his show is the fact that many WHITE owners don't want him in the NFL either. If Rush could go one week without insulting Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, the French, Russians..etc. Rest assured, Rush would have NO audience. Rush is a racist, and so are the KKK clan that listen to him. Case closed.

Posted by: kubrickstan | October 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Justice will always be served, no matter who you are.
It is the law of the harvest, that one reaps what one sows.
There are those who will never understand this principle, or how one's inhumane actions towards others will lead to the same thing for oneself; so there are those who will forever the reap the calamities of their own making. It is written in the language of the stars.

Posted by: saveoursouls | October 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

As much as I like football, it's time to boycott. Than maybe those racist football players will play football and not politics....

Posted by: tdl62 | October 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

As much as I like football, it's time to boycott. Than maybe those racist football players will play football and not politics....

Posted by: tdl62 | October 15, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh how it hurts when the tables are turned!
Get a grip on your hate now, or it will only get worse for you.

Posted by: saveoursouls | October 15, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh's words only incite one action in the mainstream -- opposition. Those who are pro-Limbaugh should boycott the NFL. Turn off the NFL if you don't agree with their decision.

Posted by: js_edit | October 15, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The First Amendment bars government from prohibiting speech, but it has absolutely nothing to do with private parties' behavior. Thus the Washington Post is allowed to set whatever standards it sees fit for us to post replies, and the NFL is allowed to set its own standards for admission to the club. I do not believe that fat, whiny, drug-addled white guys are a protected class, so he probably can't sue on grounds of discrimination either.

Posted by: BuddyK | October 15, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

If Michael Vick or any other NFL player had illegally acquired and abused illegal drugs to the extent that Limbaugh did they would have gone to jail. He might call his drug of choice a pain killer, but when you have acquired enough oxycontin to supply a hospital for 5 years it's more than just a pain killer. Was someone paid off?

Posted by: billwan | October 15, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

This is purely political. No different than Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins not being invited to the 20th Anniversary of "Bull Durham" movie at Cooperstown because of their unpopular (with some) Leftist, anti-war remarks.

Except this one against Limbaugh was by the usual pack of black race-baiters and their Lefty boot-lappers inc. the "usual suspect" journalists.

The NFL does have an image problem, but it is one that predictably...nearly every month..some black thug who dons a football suit in the NFL is arrested for some major felony..And about every 6 months a marquee white or black QB is arrested for DWI or drugs.

The problem is worse than even the NBA, which has done wonders cleaning up it's late 90s "Gangsta" image.

But contrast the NFL or NBA to baseball, pro golf, pro tennis, those in the Olympics sports.

As many or more of those athletes are in those sports as the NFL or NBA. And you rarely hear of any major crimes or disgusting behavior...aside from the manufactured "baseball steroid scandal"...which basically comes down to almost no player violating the law and doing a de facto "legal cheating" since League officials were well aware it was going on.

The NFL? One of their toughest debates is how high to draft a player that did crimes in HS or college. Or how much fitness rehab a player needs after a jail stretch.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | October 15, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Electrocuting dogs and getting drunk and killing people are one thing. But to let Rush in???

C'mon, we have to have some standards! I guess what goes around, comes around, huh?

Posted by: patrick10 | October 15, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

No one has abridged Rush's First Amendment rights. He said what he wanted to say, and the government has done nothing to punish him. The First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental entities, so the NFL or any other private company is free to disassociate itself from Rush. Rush is simply suffering the free market consequences of engaging in extreme behavior.

Posted by: doubleagle | October 15, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

LIBERAL HATE


Madam, you hate. It shows. God will judge you.

So Mr. Limbaugh is against affirmative action and government waste. BFD -- so are tens of millions.

On Nov. 2, 2010, working Americans will throw out dozens of LAZY STUPID WEAK Congresspeople. Count on it.

Posted by: russpoter | October 15, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

You have a special interest in the First Amendment - yet you fail to realize that this is not a First Amendment issue?

Good Lord.

Posted by: khead | October 15, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

First Amendment? Limbaugh refused because of denial of freedom of speech?
What plant are yo on?
Limbaugh is being refused because he is SLIME, and that's a FACT.

Posted by: lufrank1 | October 15, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh clearly the league isn't "too good" for Rush. Consider the example of a Bob Irsay. I recall him drunk and cursing reporters in Baltimore who reported he was fielding offers from Arizona and Indianapolis to move the Colts. He lied to the Colt fans and then took the team in the middle of the night to Indianapolis.

The league isn't too good for Rush. But league owners are smart enough not to get tangled up with this walking PR nightmare. Recall Rush was fired from his gig at Monday Night Football for doing his race-baiting schtick on camera. And that's the real point here. Rush brings a ton of negative baggage to the table and no special talents to the role as team owner. Michael Vick and Donte Stallworth have the talent needed for their role in the NFL. Rush is just a blustering gas-bag with money.


Posted by: paul6554 | October 15, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh is being refused because he is SLIME, and that's a FACT."

Michael Vick participated in the ABUSE, TORTURE, AND KILLING of dogs for 6 YEARS!!

I guess words have consequences but actions don't!

PATHETIC!!

Posted by: Rubiconski | October 15, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"But -- and here I write as someone with a special interest in the First Amendment -- Limbaugh is being banished for essentially exercising his right to speak."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Rush Limbaugh can say anything he wants. But he doesn't have a right to own an NFL team. Actions have consequences. Rush Limbaugh has a history of offensive remarks and this is a consequence of them.

If Limbaugh were a true conservative, he could appreciate that he is not getting "special rights." Of course if he were a honest conservative, he also should have gladly served his time in jail for buying drugs illegally.

Posted by: pdxer | October 15, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: patrick10 | October 15, 2009 6:43 PM
Electrocuting dogs and getting drunk and killing people are one thing. But to let Rush in???

Posted by: Lori1 | October 15, 2009 5:32 PM
Let me see if I got this straight......
You have this group of people that have a large percentage of wife beaters, rapists, drug addicts, felons, dog killers and general misfits.
And.....he is too extreme for them.


I agree, the NFL and it's players have a lot of house cleaning to do before they have the moral authority to criticize anyone. Books like "Pros and Cons" sharply illustrate the criminals of the NFL.

There have been a multitude of NFL players who have committed felony crimes and the league simply looks the other way.

This incident with Limbaugh has put the NFL in another ugly light.

It seems the NFL requires one to check their freedom of speech at the stadium door.

Posted by: chicago77 | October 15, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh sure acts like he has an ENTITLEMENT to buy a team.

The MARKET has spoken, the players, the owners, the fans. They DON'T WANT YOU LIMBAUGH.

You can't FORCE the owners to accept you against their will and business judgment.

.

Posted by: PacNW | October 15, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I love all the liberals on here who think Rush is getting his due. The fact is, he was approached about investing in a minority stake of the team. It interested him to be able to say he was a part-owner of a NFL team. Now D Smith (an Obama loyalist) and the hate pushers/race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson made a fuss and Rush's fellow investors asked him to back out.

While disappointed, I think he will be just fine. He'll make a few more million dollars, entertain a few more million listeners, and continue to drive you liberals crazy. Life is still good at EIB.

Posted by: mdpotter | October 15, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

What has happened to the quality of the Washington Post? The First Amendment says the GOVERNMENT can't silent speech. The NFL can do what it darn well wants. Jeesh.

Posted by: blueoysterjoe | October 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

So many posters have pointed out the flaws with the premise of this article, and it's phony 1st amendment tie in, that I'll only comment on the lack of editorial standards at the Post. Saddening.

Oh, and another thing, If the WAPO is still considered MSM, I'd ask my conservative friends to reconsider their liberal media bias argument. Have you been reading it these past few years?
Liberal bias my white hiney!

Posted by: fnlorrain | October 15, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Rush is a controversial figure.. not a bigot. If the team that put in the bid for the 49ers think it will hurt their chances...I have no problem with them dropping him

What I do have a problem with is the real bigots and anti American libertard spin. Here's a little bias for you...

Olbermann shouldn't be a commentator for football and the liberal panty wearing sissy party of pink shouldn't even be allowed to watch football.

Posted by: Straightline | October 15, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

No matter how much of a scum bag you are, Limbaugh has got you beat. A grown to adulthood, moon faced and totally snow white low life Charlie Brown on pcp (How else to explain the vicious removal from anything honest and decent?) making a living of destroying Americanness (Perhaps a new word?) and trying to indoctrinate morons into believing that to be an American you must be a Republican. The scuzbag got rightly put in his place by that true American institution, the NFL.

Posted by: WilliamJW | October 15, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Ms.Armao, I don't know what you do for a living. But legal columnist would be a bad choice. The NFL owners are free to choose who they do business with. The first amendment does not have a role here.

You are entitled to your own opinion about the Noble Mr. Limbaugh. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Please correct your demonstrably false statement.

Posted by: Dollared | October 15, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Look, any one with half a brain knows this isn't a 1st Am. issue no matter how much you scream. This is just evidence of the Washington Post's new and more relaxed approach to facts. To quote Howard Kurtz:

"It is by definition opinion. Of course some readers are going to disagree."

So quit complaining and click on some ads.

Posted by: whowhat | October 15, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

This is a commercial decision, as was the Vick decision. A reformed dog fighter who can play won't cost the league, might make a profit if he can still play. An unreformed loud mouth, might cost the league a good size chunk of their audience. For what? There are plenty of rich guys waiting to play NFL owner.

Posted by: pbassjbass | October 15, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"...as socially inept as Limbaugh."

The idea that spewing vitriol should have no consequences is not how civilized people behave. Limbaugh is unwelcome among any decent people.
_____________________________________________

Well said Sir...Thank you...

Posted by: lindarc | October 15, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

livefreeordie2; you don't need to get a rapper, a cornerback or running back would do just fine. Your problem, just like Rush's is that football is a team sport, designed to bring out the best a man has to offer,any man;white black,latin asian...etc. Rush's problem is that the best he has...is less than desirable. Leaders inspire, haters hate and deride and tear down Rush is worse because he earns his keep this way,he's ignorant...know what i'm writing? I G N O R A N T. He's not wanted because he's a loser and by nature losers don't win. Rush Limpballs will go as far as the deep south can take him.

Posted by: herealongtime | October 15, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

It sure would be nice if people even had a clue about what the 1st Amendment says. I'll give you a hint, it's right in the very beginning:

"CONGRESS shall make no laws..."

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do with a brand not wanting a racist involved with it. And if you don't think he's a racist, why would he say this about the players who were against him?

"Who do these 70 percent African American players think is paying their salary?"

Posted by: MikeS7 | October 15, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh has a national platform that could, and would, effect how the National Football League conducts itself. Imagine, Limbaugh on his radio program calling for "whatever"????
He would be a toxic voice in the world of sport where, regardless of our political leanings, we can ALL come together.
And, coming together is what I just love about sport. How often have I high-fived all the people around me when my team has won and joined with them in the despair of a loss.
Limbaugh threatens that. He is a political animal and should remain in that zoo.

Posted by: cms1 | October 15, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Waaaaa Rush called us THUGS! Punish him!!!

Reminds me of the bogus Imus incident.

Isn't dog fighting, all part of rapper, thug culture?

Words have consequences but actions don't?

Posted by: Rubiconski | October 15, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Sharpton, Limbaugh, Olberman etc., only care about their buffoon like charachters. The NFL owners have every right to reject side-show clowns.

Posted by: tifoso1 | October 15, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

You're correct that he's being "punished for his right to speak," by their right to reject his speech. And so they did. Let him speak elsewhere - say, on his very own radio program.

Posted by: daphne5 | October 15, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with race. This is business and only business.

Rush Limbaugh has prominently positioned himself to the far right, whereas no one actually knows how the other potential owners are positioned politically.

St. Louis is a democrat town and the state of Missouri is split right down the middle with exactly half of its senators/congressmen on the right and left. Rush Limbaugh's presence in that state therefore becomes very politically charged. The potential owners might suffer season ticket reductions from democrat season ticket holders who would not want for Rush Limbaugh to profit from their ticket purchases since his profit becomes GOP gain.

It really is as simple as that. If market research began to show that an abysmal team would suffer at the gate if Limbaugh is included in the ownership picture, then Limbaugh has to be removed. He is a victim of his own divisive success.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | October 15, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm reading these comments and you people are crazy you can't possibly be football fans. What football fan would want to stick it to the NFL? Are you clowns even American? What man in their right sense would not want to watch football...other than those that either can't play, shop on sunday or spend their time in the garden. Football is a team sport, it requires everyone to peform on the field and off. I don't see that level of understanding in most of the comments that i'm reading. Rush was kicked off the team because he is insulting and only appeals to a select crowd...that's bad for business,bad for football and bad for America...that's just common sense. Rush was a liablity and potentially damaging TO the Rams and footballs bottom line...Clowns. It doesn't matter what color the players are, the actual factor is that the players that take the field are the one's that sell the product and anything that gets in the way of the product is a problem. What fool would let a buffoon limit their revenue. Now if you just like Rush and don't know anything about politics,capitalism,football or ethics..then by all means continue to sit in your rooms at your parents house and blog this site...or order your 2 pizzas and get fatter because you can't get a date. It's sad to get back on line and see a bunch of comments that illustrate a loserS mentality.IT'S OBAMA ARRRRGHHH...NO NO WAIT IT'S JESSE JACKSON!!!!! NO AL SHARPTON!!! THAT'S WHO IT IS.....THE BLACKS ARE MAKIN ALL OF US INTO RAPPERS ARRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!! WHAT HAPPENED TO POLKA!!!!! Put it this way, If it were Jesse Jackson rather than Rush Limballs he would be axed too...theY'RE one in the same,IN TERMS OF BEING POLARIZING CLOWNS. and from reading most of these comments you all deserve each other. I'm headed to the bar go back to hatin. PEACE..P.S CINCINATTI IS PLAYING USF 2NIGHT..HAHAHAHA

Posted by: herealongtime | October 15, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Armao needs to refresh herself on the Constitution. The First Amendment opens with "Congress shall make no law..." The First Amendment places restraints on the GOVERNMENT, not private parties like the NFL. That said, Limbaugh got exactly what he deserved.

Posted by: statman89 | October 15, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

If Rush was a black then Al and Jesse would never open there mouths about him. This has reverse racism all over it. I think that Al and Jesses are the real racist. Without them keeping racism alive they are able to pay there morgages and car notes every month. When was the last time they came to the aid of a white man......NEVER.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah and you're right so what's your point? Rush is not a black and he has had people like Pat Buchanan and others speak out for him and his right to own a team and it didn't matter. Al and Jessie do what they do whether you like it or not the same as Rush, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and the rest of the right wing blowhards. Why are Al and Jessie racist but the others aren't? Bottom line is, no one cared. The mains stream American don't appreciate Rush and the crap he spews. Rush and the rest can dish it out but not take it? They need to suck it up if they want to play with the big dogs.

Posted by: catmomtx | October 15, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

"I will continue to watch FOX News and Rush until the liberal media proves it is not biased and refuses to cover stories critical of left wing politicians and organizations."

Posted by: quillerm
-------------------------------------

And you will continue to be disinformed.

But on the plus side, the folks at FOX who disinform you will continue to get rich making sure you vote against yur own best interests.

Posted by: MikeS7 | October 15, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

mdpotter wrote: While disappointed, I think he will be just fine. He'll make a few more million dollars, entertain a few more million listeners, and continue to drive you liberals crazy. Life is still good at EIB.
-------
He is 100% correct. Eugene Robinson wrote a bait article yesterday and WaPo posted a pic of Rush and there were well over 2000 response comments. It drives liberals nuts that Limbaugh has such notoriety. Looks like both sides have a Rockstar!

Posted by: 2009frank | October 15, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

1) If RUSH would have made the comments that he is accused of ... Jesse Jackson , Rangel and the rest of the GOO SQUAD would have been MARCHING IN THE HOOD and doin the IMUS DANCE ! It didn't happen.

2) If the TEAM doesn't like RUSH because They don't like being owned by WHITE TEAM OWNERS ... then they need to stop the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION that gets them the COLLEGE GRANTS AND TUITIONS to be on the team. And I can FIRE all my Black employees tomorrow because GOD FORBID they should be working for the white guy !!!

3) The WHITE NFL OWNERS need to tell the players who the BOSS IS and if they don't like it ... GO PLAY SOMEPLACE ELSE . If the BLACK team players pull crap now with RUSH , it is OPEN SEASON ON THE REST OF THE OWNERS and they are letting the BLACKS DESTROY the NFL.

When the WHITE owners can posture and call POLITICAL CORRECT STANDARDS ON RUSH then welcome a SCUMBAG DOG FIGHTER back with open arms and act like it's no big deal

THE EFFING NFL IS A DONE ANYWAY !!!! No more fun than watching FAKE WRESTLING . Burn your TEM SHIRTS and don't buy another thing ...

Shopping at WAL MART ( or whoever sells the most NFL STUFF ) where they sell so much should be off limits till after the season is over ...

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | October 15, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a football fan so I don't know exactly what Vick and Stallworth bring to the table, but presumably what they do have is talent. The NFL, like any other sports organization, and football fans, like the fans of any other sport, want games to be competitive and desire to see some exhibition of athletic talent. Therein, lies the value of Vick and Stallworth. Despite their respective controversies, they add value, or least have the potential to add value, to the NFL. Limbaugh, on the other hand, brings nothing of value to the table except for his money - not talent, not management experience, not any valuable or unique insight into the game, not even his celebrity or star-power. But, lots of people have money. So, in that sense, Limbaugh is entirely dispensable and not worth the burden to his partners or to the league.

Limbaugh is entitled to use his money to pursue co-ownership of an NFL team, but the NFL, the current owners and even his erstwhile partners are likewise entitled to refuse his entreaties. It's the capitalist's choice; no double standard here. If Limbaugh were truly the champion of Capitalism he claims to be, he would easily understand this.

Posted by: atlasfugged | October 15, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The difference is that the guy with the dogfights made a mistake, realized it, and took his punishment. The guy with the car wreck made a more serious but also more transient mistake, so it's easy to believe that he's not fundemntally a bad guy.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, has been a first class jerk day after day for years now. He's not only unrepentant, he's proud of it.

There's a differnce between freedom of speech and freedom from the consequences of your carefully chosen and oft repeated words.

Posted by: rwolf01 | October 15, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

wonder how many people who vilify Limbaugh have ever actually listened to him. Potty mouth? He's not a cusser at work - you must have him confused with Rahm Emmanuel. Spewing vitriol? Limbaugh is mostly about ideas - not vitriol. Just because you don't agree with someone's ideas doesn't make them vitriolic.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious? I actually try to listen to Rush a little every day but believe me it is hard to listen to that ego maniac who I really think he actually believes he is on loan from God. Rush has badgered our President every day since even before the election. His reaction when the United States lost the Olympic bid should tell sports people everything they need to know about him, but we don't have to stop there, by all means listen to him if you dare. Rush has been free to say what ever he wants without anyone saying a thing against him. Whenever a Republican has come forth to say anything, they immediately apologize. What we have seen is that Rush isn't as powerful as he and his worshipers would like to think he is.

Oh and by the way when was the last time anyone even heard from Rahm Emmanuel?

Posted by: catmomtx | October 15, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Here's the $64,000,000 question for any Redskins fan: Would you trade Snyder for Rush?

Are we having fun yet?

I'll be under the 14th Street Bridge, counting the bodies of all the folks who jumped off it while trying to answer that one!

Posted by: andym108 | October 15, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"Not only is he infamous for ugly remarks, but he is a practitioner in the politics of hate"

Would you please cite some of Limbaugh's ugly remarks or examples of his practice of hate?

One would be enough.

Good luck.


Posted by: hoyatiger | October 15, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

It is a shame that so few black racist race-baiters cost so many so much . NFL profits took a nose dive because of them.Even those involved with the NFL that had nothing to do with it. I will NEVER AGAIN watch a NFL game . I am NOT ALONE .

Posted by: Imarkex | October 15, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

These are dark days for America, I tell ya, when a good ol' boy like El Rushbo gets slapped inta the gutter by the National Football League. Half his brain tied behind his back, on loan from Gawd-a, still the boy tumbled. No justice, y'all.

Posted by: dudh | October 15, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"here I write as someone with a special interest in the First Amendment -- Limbaugh is being banished for essentially exercising his right to speak."

You may have a special interest in the First Amendment but you do not appear to have much knowledge of it. The government took no action either way regarding Limbaugh's desires.

Another facet of the First Amendment to be aware of is that one has the freedom to accept the consequences of exercising their First Amendment rights. If Rush is being "victimized" because of something he said then whatever blame might exist attaches solely to him.

There is also no Constitutional right to ownership of a football team.

Was there a point to this op piece?

Posted by: washpost18 | October 15, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

herealongtime, is exactly right. "Rush was kicked off the team because he is insulting and only appeals to a select crowd." YES, that is absolutely true!
He splits people apart instead of bringing them together which is what SPORT does!
Rush is a radio celebrity who makes his millions off of political issues.
He has NO identity apart from that. He simply does not qualify as a person capable of bringing us all together through the joy of sport.
He should not be permitted to merge his political celebrity into the world of sport. ESPECIALLY, since he makes his money off of being such a BAD sport in his own political world.

Posted by: cms1 | October 15, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Good point about Michael Vick. I suggest we send Rush to prison for a year and then let him buy a team.

Posted by: FKoretz | October 15, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limpbrain is not being punished for exercising free speech; he slammed the door on his own pig face. The NFL franchise is business, that has an equal right to protect the business. The First Amendment protects no person from publicly bad mouthing his employer or engaged in controversial issues impacting the company, and then expect to remain employed. Limpbrain is free to say what he wants, and the NFL enterprise is free to determine whether a controversial figure is harmful to product image, employee morale and revenue.

NFL players involvement in tragic or cruel incidents must face the consequences of law and punishment; making a case for Limpbrain on their back is imperceptive and lacks understanding of free speech limits.

Posted by: JohnDebba | October 15, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Atlasfugged- And you think the NFL can't find someone just as talented as VICK ? THE WOODS ARE FULL OF THEM.

YOU THINK RUSH DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING TO BRING TO THE TABLE ???

HE HAS 20 MILLION LISTENERS ... What do the other owners have ? ???

What are the capabilities of their sales opportunities for NFL PRODUCTS AND PLAYER SUPPORT ???

Do you know what NFL now stands for since this POLITICAL BALL was thrown ? The "N" no longer stands for ..." NATIONAL" ...

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | October 15, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Of course Rush is a bigoted racist but the real problem is that St. Louis has lots of trouble winning games with a dead offense and no defense. Just think what would happen to the poor Rams if all plays ran around the right end.

Posted by: wickiser | October 15, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

So, he never tried before the Democratic Convention to incite those attending to disrupt and have another 1968 type convention? Does he have derogatory names for anyone he disagrees with? He is a racist. I just wish he would admit it. He preaches hate. And I cannot imagine who would consider themselves free thinking and use the word "ditto" in the same sentence. We got Rush and a bunch of sheep. Start thinking (for yourself).

Posted by: piman1 | October 15, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah the scumbag, I mean airbag, does have a right to free speech just as the owners have the right to free association.

Posted by: democratus | October 15, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Here's what George W. Bush said about the Dixie Chicks boycott:

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. And just because -- they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/international/worldspecial/25BUSH-TEXT.html?ex=1147838400&en=7ba14546a8cc8d35&ei=5070&pagewanted=all

Posted by: James10 | October 15, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The real issue is that Rush has gotten so big and powerful that he has trancended the give and take of the democratic process. There is no eqaul time on his show he can unduly influnce policy, intimidate the political parties and interfere with governmental operations. No unelected person should be that powerful or as powerful as Rush Limbaugh in this democracy. HE HAS CROSSED A POWER THRESHOLD. Its dangerous for all parties.
Plus he is not that smart. Even Al Sharpton would beat him in a face off.
It was like when Teddy Rosevelt came after the trust. Size matters plus he has been hurtful and high handed to many people and groups.
His and all shows past say 300 stations require regular check and balanace. Bill O'Riely always has opposing view and debates. Mr. Limbaugh has skillfully and deliberatly avoided such contact. Its bizzare and many say tyranical.
He screens most his calls, he does no real public debate and when he is challenged, even by liitle ole' ladies he goes on and on for days.
This bid was his first foray into the real world, beyound his 'all powerful' bubble.
Its the give and take reality that all political leaders from Sharpton to Bush from congress, governor to statehouse have to face. This is the strenght of American and western civilization.
Lord Rush should be happy! Finally after twenty years, of living in the clouds with the fabled gods and thus avoiding due and regular account, he has made real contact with the human race.
Next he should try running for office.

Posted by: empireport | October 15, 2009 10:05 PM | Report abuse

So Limbaugh has filed a libel suit against some of the media. The question becomes does he have a valid suit? If Limbaugh can prove that the media attributed quotes to him that he never said, which is what Limbaugh is claiming, then Limbaugh can sue the pants off those media organizations. Considering the fact that there are meticulous recordings and transcripts of every single radio show that he has ever had, he probably has a pretty strong case with a libel suit.

Posted by: liberalsareblind | October 15, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The only reason to have Limbaugh in the NFL would be to see him run the Rams into the ground. He obviously has no self-control and would be a ridiculous micromanager. He'd probably make Dan Snyder look like a genius.

Posted by: thebuckguy | October 15, 2009 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Hoyatiger posts:

Would you please cite some of Limbaugh's ugly remarks or examples of his practice of hate?
--------------------------

Sure. Limbaugh asked, "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." Falsely accusing others of hate is as bad as preaching hate.

And I'm not taking Rush out of context. Listen to him say it at this link. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290018

According to the fact-checking site snopes.com, Rush acknowledged in an interview for Newsday, making the following two statements:

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

And to a black caller, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp:

Posted by: paul6554 | October 15, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh is no rascist.He can be bold,defiant,arrogant and an egomaniac.His real sin and achilles heel is he is a CONSERVATIVE.We all know that is an affliction that the Liberals simply can`t tolerate.As a result,Rush has been smeared and libeled with lies,innuendo,and blatantly false allegations with one goal:destroy him!The tragedy is screaming "rascist" is the purest form of hate speech when it is used as a weapon by the race baiters like Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton,and a host of other scoundrels.Sadly,the NFL is diminished as a result of its` gutless capitulation to reckless allegations and veiled threats.They will play a severe price in future negotiations with the player`s association.

Posted by: bowspray | October 15, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't buy the 'they hate us because we are conservatives' argument. The problem with Rush is that he gives up no eqaul time, while attacking wildly and always. People know its unfair and inhuman. His adepts do basically the same thing.
Thus its polarizing. This is what conservatives may be feeling, as they come up short in the zero sum game. Most folk are about fair play, moderation and sporting behavior in political debate. We are all equal. Elections are usually won in the middle. Rush & co. say its in the extremes.
Plus free speech exist only in a give and take context otherwise there will be pushback, this is what conservatives may also be feeling.

Posted by: empireport | October 15, 2009 10:38 PM | Report abuse


The NFL essentially told Rush Limbaugh that they have standards, and that he doesn't meet them.

Also, if Rush is right that the his inclusion was in fact approved at the highest levels of the League, then that can only mean that PUBLIC OPINION is also against Limbaugh's style and content.

There is poetic justice in this decision. How sweet it is!

Posted by: Anadromous2 | October 15, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh is like the kid nobody really wanted on their team and if they did it was because he had the candy.

Posted by: MILLER123 | October 15, 2009 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh fell in his own hole.

Posted by: MILLER123 | October 15, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Well, lets see here for all of you trying to link freedom of speech to el-rushbooby's failed attempt to buy an NFL team! If I'm not mistaken, the NFL, MLB and NBA all have clauses in players' contracts which allow them to cancel contract and or fine players for "doing" or "saying" anything to the detriment of their respective leagues! Yes, you have freedom of speech, but you had better be careful of what you say as you could loose your contract for saying the wrong things and that was the choice for all players who agreed to the terms of their contracts! So, yes, Rushboob has a right to say anything he wants and I and everyone else have the right to say he should be fired or not have the right to own an NFL team! And for all you Rushboob fan idiots, REALLY, do you really think this is going to hurt attendance and interest in one of the most popular sports in the good ole USA? Not likely for sure, but all you Rushboob fans who choose to boycott the NFL, it should help clean up all the drinking problems and bad sportsmanship by far-righty-neo-Nazis-KKK-John Burch type redneck fans that have plagued the sport for years! Good riddance to all of you backwoodsman neanderthals!

Posted by: yankeechess | October 15, 2009 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh is no rascist.He can be bold,defiant,arrogant and an egomaniac.His real sin...he is a CONSERVATIVE. We all know that is an affliction that the Liberals simply can`t tolerate"--bowspary

Let me get this straight; Limpbrain is "arrogant and an egomaniac" but the real sin is "CONSERVATIVE" Sheesh.

Listen, if Limpbrain's racism causes you discomfort, that's your problem. Take you're "we all know" and fellow Limpbrain to hell; I could not care less.

Posted by: JohnDebba | October 15, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Rush will be gaining more fans over this!

Way to go libs!


Posted by: Rubiconski | October 15, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

"I suggest we send Rush to prison for a year and then let him buy a team."

For what...expressing his opinion?

Libs are off the deep end on this!

Posted by: Rubiconski | October 15, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

paul6554 responds to my post:

---------------------------

Hoyatiger posts:

Would you please cite some of Limbaugh's ugly remarks or examples of his practice of hate?
--------------------------

Sure. Limbaugh asked, "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." Falsely accusing others of hate is as bad as preaching hate.

And I'm not taking Rush out of context. Listen to him say it at this link. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290018

According to the fact-checking site snopes.com, Rush acknowledged in an interview for Newsday, making the following two statements:

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

And to a black caller, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp:

===========================================
My response:


I checked out the "fact checking site" http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp because I'm open minded and am prepared to be persuaded by the facts. Alas, no facts here, just the same old horse s**t:

Here's numero uno from snopes.com "Top 10 Racist Rush Limbaugh quotes:"

1. "I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Here's number two:

2. "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

You already cited snopes's quotes number 3 & 9, so no need to reprint them here.

Gee, I think I've seen these quotes before. Where was it, Paul6554? CNN?

Really, Paul6554, is this the best you can do? You make this too easy.

Just one example, but it has to be true. (Sorry, I had forgotten to mention that last qualifier.)


Posted by: hoyatiger | October 15, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"I am a combat veteran who fought for our nation and defended the rights of people to express their opinion and participate in a free society"--quillerm

Brother, I thank you for your service, but don't ride in here with your campaigns and ribbons. You're not then only that fought and bleed for America; difference being, many of us don't believe we're entitled a greater right of opinion

Posted by: JohnDebba | October 15, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

The National Felons League is private, and therefore should be allowed to decide who gets to attend the party. As for the Colts, whose owner was one of the first owners to show Limbaugh the finger, I will now cheer for their opponents. I will somehow still support their quarterback, but I hope he is traded.

Posted by: EliPeyton | October 15, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The NFL essentially told Rush Limbaugh that they have standards, and that he doesn't meet them.
====================================
Standards of the NFL:
1) It's OK to run over and kill a person on the way to South Beach.
2) It's OK to mutilate animals.
3) It's OK to be Little and drunk and kill a woman.
4) It's OK to leave the scene of an accident.

Posted by: EliPeyton | October 15, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Note to NFL: I will never watch another NFL game, unless you issue handguns and baseball bats to the black players, and excuse the white ones from the ensuing bloodbath, which would be really cool to watch.

Posted by: doctorfixit | October 16, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Duh

Posted by: doctorfixit | October 16, 2009 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Actually, being thrown out of the deal because of the false statements of the media works in Rush's favor. While reports enjoy the 1st Amendment rights, they are subject to lible and slander. I suspect more than a few are feverishly digging through all the transcripts trying to find all these quotes. Media Matters began covering their butt today saying they never provided the said quotes. I have no problem with any American being taken to task for what they say - but reporters better darn sure be sure they are reporting and not slandering. I suspect the coming show should be entertaining. As for the NFL, I've let them know I'm done with them. Considering there are so many players that are convicted criminals the fun of the game was fading for me. This was simply the final straw.

Posted by: wkeller1 | October 16, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

if rush could pass, block, or run, the league would accept him wholeheartedly. this comparison to vick or any other "troubled" athlete is completely pointless--rush is not a player! rush is just some nut who makes a lot of money off of the ignorance of other nuts. if he could throw a football 60 yards, maybe it's be another story.

Posted by: ewww | October 16, 2009 12:14 AM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh is unrepentant"

About what, not being a leftie?

I would be, too. Purveyors of the Left are trying to ruin this country.

Posted by: EnoughISEnough | October 16, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Listening to Limbaugh is something i have never done except by mistake when changing channels or hearing his voice when played on liberal channels i listen to such as "Countdown" with Keith Olberman....however,allowing someone who led a dog fighting ring and personally tortured and killed dogs is more offensive to me than allowing an idiot like Rush to own a team......and to all the many players saying they would not play for him...yeah right....with all the high morality on pro football....money would not matter....

Posted by: kiler616 | October 16, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Grow up, Jo-Anne.

Pigboy Limbaugh stated that watching the NFL on Sundays was akin to watching the Crips and the Bloods lining up to fight.

If someone went around saying Wendy's hamburgers were made out of horsemeat, do you think he would be offered a franchise?

Pigboy lives by the hate sword, and in this case, he justifyingly died by it. There is such a thing a karma.

Posted by: filmex | October 16, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

All of you should be very afraid of decisions like this. Sharpton and Jackson sing the phoney "race" trump card to interfere with the livelihood of someone you don't like because of his political beliefs. Very dangerous. Who knows, maybe they'll next decide all you accountants out there or all you landscapers shouldn't be permitted to expand your business "too much" cause that means you're making "too much money", or you don't have enough of the "right kind" of employees.

Also this was the Players' Union in league (no pun intended) with Sharpton and Jackson to intimidate the NFL. This was a warning that "you better play ball (again, no pun) with us, or we'll punish you."

On top of that, the president of the Players' Union has close ties with the current administration. You can bet this was a not-so-subtle threat that they won't hesitate to use those ties to the White House to intimidate the NFL.

Posted by: rjohnson2842 | October 16, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Here's a suggestion. Let's put Rush and Vick into a large cage with about 20 large vicious pit bulls with rabies. If Rush or Vick emerge alive, they can have the franchise, or at least their little share in it.

Posted by: dsrobins | October 16, 2009 1:03 AM | Report abuse

The "hate Rush" crowd just easily passed along his so-called racist comments. No one bothered to check if the were true or not.

Rush Limbaugh always has his butt covered, and when this is all over, he will most likely come out of this with more listeners, and the NFL will just look stupid.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 16, 2009 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh's erstwhile biz partners made a business decision. (Not the NFL, for all you boobs out there who can't read).

What's wrong w/ you republicans; I thought you were in favor of letting businessmen make decisions.

What are you, socialists?

Posted by: slowpoke132 | October 16, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

No - Rush Limbaugh was uninvited by the man who invited him because the man, the NFL, and all the other owners didn't want the controversy that Limbaugh makes money sparking.

Its not a matter of his free speech... its the free enterprise of the NFL - and its their asset.

kinda funny... Limbaugh has been the primary hater for years, spewing against
half the whole country day in and day out. Many a soul has been skewered, exposed, ridiculed, hounded from their jobs or their offices or their volunteering by his hatred.

What goes around comes around.

Posted by: dutchess2 | October 16, 2009 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Its funny he'd want to participate in a business that includes revenue sharing..aka..income redistribution.

Further, this is NOT a first amendment issue, any more than workplace dress codes.
Banks, phone companies, too, have no talking to media clauses, as do many other businesses.

Lastly, this is all about the NFL's image.

Take that, conservatives.

Limbaugh is more divisive than Michael Vick!

Posted by: kreator6996 | October 16, 2009 2:38 AM | Report abuse

I pay no attention to Mr. Limbaugh and other right wingers. However, most people in this country seem to realize there is usually a double standard in this country, one set of rules for celebrities, especially athletes, film and television performers, popular musicians, leading politicians and other rules, far more rigidly applied to the masses. The misdeeds of the former are more likely than not, to be excused or only have to deal with diminished penalties.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | October 16, 2009 2:41 AM | Report abuse

sales7 wrote:
"Rush has issue a "put up or recant your statements publically. It should be interesting if he sues a bunch of sport writers who may have used reports that cannot be verified."

DC Sage wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is a fat-headed millionare junkie bigot whose hate speech caused him to get a little comeuppance. Who does this liar and junkie bigot sue after all of his lies and incendiary speech against other people?

This junkie bigot can still invest his millions in the drug cartels and make a bundle. Besides, as much dope as he shoots into his fat arms, he would be his own best customer.

Posted by: DCSage | October 16, 2009 3:20 AM | Report abuse

Michael Vick hurt some dogs, and he stopped doing it. He also has been punished and made amends for his crimes.

Rush still is out there making his money with hate speech, and doesn't care for the harm it does to people.

So yea, I'll pick the guy who's sorry about hurting a dog in a hot minute over the guy who's not sorry about hurting people.

Posted by: timscanlon | October 16, 2009 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: timscanlon So yea, I'll pick the guy who's sorry about hurting a dog in a hot minute over the guy who's not sorry about hurting people.

*****************************************
Tim...the guy didn't just hurt a dog...he ran a dogfighting ring and tortured and killed many dogs.....my only point is ,that if you're judging someone for saint hood.....there better be a bunch of sanctified people under your tent before you start judging

Posted by: kiler616 | October 16, 2009 4:31 AM | Report abuse

Rush is earning a living in radio, even after his drug conviction. Trying to compare him to Vick is wrong and does not fly. Vick was being denied his return to his job. Now if Vick was applying to buy a dog kennel than I would have a problem. What's with these organizations comparing apples and oranges. Comparing the President to the Secretary of State in a poll is wrong too. One is President and the other isn't. (The numbers would be flipped.) What do you think we are dopes?....Well anyway you shouldn't take advantage of us.

Posted by: MILLER123 | October 16, 2009 5:02 AM | Report abuse

no one is comparinmg apples to oranges....if you use moral judgement as a hedge to judge someone as worthy of owning a team....you should use that same moral judgement as a hedge to play on a team...bottom line is that we are a morally inept society to need entertainment so bad we pay men millions of dollars to play a game

Posted by: kiler616 | October 16, 2009 5:17 AM | Report abuse

pompous CEOs of insurance companies earm millions a year....ball players earn millions playing ball....nuts blow themselves up to meet some virgins...soldiers die for some outdated propaganda of dying for freedom while in reality fighting for oil companies...a weeklong celebration memorializing Michael Jackson........isn't it time for a meteor to hit the earth and put us out of our misery?

Posted by: kiler616 | October 16, 2009 5:30 AM | Report abuse

I am center right and have never listened to Limbaugh in my life. I do know, however, that a lot of the things he supposedly said are more urban legend and not things he actually said. The worst comment that is "fact" is the "media being desirous of a black quarterback doing well" comment, which is provocative, but in no way should bar him from being an owner. Nor does that comment make him a racist. It's ridiculous. Have you heard some of the things Jay-Z has said and he is part owner of the Nets? And I like Jay-Z, but the comparison is very appropriate. I guess if the purported aggrieved group is protected by political correctness it is ok, but if you're socially conservative and say something provocative it is not. Balderdash!!!!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 5:39 AM | Report abuse

creepyjackolopeeye wrote: "If Rush was a black then Al and Jesse would never open there mouths about him"

What I don't think you understand it isn't what Mr. Limbaugh looks like it what he believes nd says that has made many people dislike him.

Posted by: youngj1 | October 16, 2009 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Slowpoke,

Quit being a dope! Why do you think his business partners made such a "business" decision? Are you that intellectually lazy and bigoted?

The obvious answer is bc of the phantom racist comments and the pressure that was brought to bear bc of them by the likes of Al Sharpton. Go figure! I'm shocked. The race baiters are back in business.

And wise up!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 5:46 AM | Report abuse

Michael Vick hurt some dogs, and he stopped doing it. He also has been punished and made amends for his crimes.

Rush still is out there making his money with hate speech, and doesn't care for the harm it does to people.

So yea, I'll pick the guy who's sorry about hurting a dog in a hot minute over the guy who's not sorry about hurting people.

Posted by: timscanlon | October 16, 2009 3:30 AM | Report abuse
_____

More typical intellectually lazy comments. What has Limbaugh done to "hurt" you? Nothing. If you don't like his politics, don't listen. I never have. But comparing him to Michael Vick is flat out stupid. I think Vick deserves a second chance, but I also think Limbaugh deserves a shot at owning a team. Speaking is not a crime last time I checked and just bc you don't like his politics doesn't make it so either.

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 5:51 AM | Report abuse

While we are on the topic, the left/far left are, generally speaking, much more hateful and personal with their attacks on people with whom they disagree. Case in point, Sarah Palin. They attacked her intellect, her family, her baby, etc etc. Again, not a huge fan of hers either, but it was way out of bounds. I'm sure most of the people attacking her were sooo much smarter than a governor of one of our largest states. Yeah, right.

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 5:55 AM | Report abuse

I guess Katie Couric, David Letterman, etc etc..are Rhodes scholars and not just TV talking heads. They haven't run a thing in their lives!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Words have consequences. Limbaugh's words have offended many people yet his defenders say he should be held harmless because he has the right of free speech. He certainly has taken advantage of that right. Now he wants to be an owner in a business about which he has made racially insensitive comments.

Should those who have been offended sit back and allow someone they find offensive to become their boss? Don't they have the right of free speech? Don't they have the right to say they won't work for and support someone whose attitude and words they found hateful?

NFL players say they'll put their careers on the line by not performing against a team which Limbaugh owns or co-owns. They say they're willing to jeopardize highly lucrative jobs because of their beliefs. They're willing to put their cash on the line against a man who makes his cash by saying things many find offensive. That seems brave on the part of the players.

For the right - the self-styled defenders of the Constitution - to put Limbaugh's "business right" above all others is both typical and hypocritical.

Posted by: kcbob | October 16, 2009 6:13 AM | Report abuse

lol..have to add the ever pompous Bill Maher to that list as well. All he ever does is denigrate religion, conservatives, and whomever he disagrees with. Provocative for sure, actually much like Rush Limbaugh, but on the left. I am sure the anti-Limbaugh people would have no problem if Maher actually had enough money to buy a team, to do so. What a joke!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 6:15 AM | Report abuse

kcbob,

At least you have an intellectual point. But, almost all of his supposedly "racial" comments, he never said!

Again, the only one that is fact, is the "media being desirous that a black quarterback do well" comment about McNabb. Now, I certainly would not have said that, but that comment is actually probably true as far as the media rooting for McNabb to do well bc it fits the politically correct mold. And I am not saying that is wrong either. Were you living in DC or anywhere when Doug Williams won the Super Bowl? What was wrong was his premise that McNabb is overrated although that comment was made at a low point in McNabb's career. So, I could understand if McNabb would never want to play for his team - lol.

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 6:36 AM | Report abuse

Grow up, Jo-Anne.

Pigboy Limbaugh stated that watching the NFL on Sundays was akin to watching the Crips and the Bloods lining up to fight. If someone went around saying Wendy's hamburgers were made out of horsemeat, do you think he would be offered a franchise?

Pigboy lives by the hate sword, and in this case, he justifyingly died by it. There is such a thing a karma.

Posted by: filmex | October 16, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse
_____

Why don't you grow up! It's my understanding that off the cuff comment was made in the context of talking about all the crime problems the NFL was/is having. How horrible! You think Limbaugh has 20 million listeners by being boring on air??? You make it a racist comment bc you want it to be, which says more about you than him. I could very easily hear say a Bill Maher making similar off the cuff comments about whatever. Provocative does not equal racist or hateful! I guess in your world the Crips and Bloods aren't criminals either, but victims of society.

Like I said, why don't you grow up!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Too funny- ever since Obama got elected, all the white conservatives have been having an endless fear fantasy, proclaiming themselves "discriminated against," and projecting their massive shortcomings onto the world. They're VICTIMS of racists, Nazis, socialists, Muslims, communists, and they see bizarre conspiracies everywhere they look (example: the birthers).

Grow up, little Republican men. Stop wetting your diapers every day over some phony outrage. Football is not like other businessess- we wouldn't let a drug dealer own a team, why should we let an ignorant racist oxycontin-and-sex-junket-loving gasbag like Limbaugh own a team. What's he going to do, play "Barak the Magic Negro" over the loudspeakers at the stadium?

He's just another whiny wet-pantsed redneck who can't handle losing the 2008 election and who doesn't like having a black guy as president. Who cares about this idiot?

Posted by: losthorizon10 | October 16, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Vick is clearly sick! He was reasponsible for cruel and unusual treatment of animals. No offense to PITA but Rush deals with cruel & unusual treatment of humanity-far worse. He also is a sick puppy but there are lots of humanity-haters that love the fact that he articulates the hate they believe. I think both should be banned but clearly Rush's life has no redeeming value at all. Vick is just a thug. Always has been, and always will be.

Posted by: DefenderDick | October 16, 2009 7:01 AM | Report abuse

We all have "a special interest in the First Amendment." Armao is either very self-centered, or not very bright, or both.

Posted by: misterjrthed | October 16, 2009 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Actually I got a better comparison and then I'm out. Howard Stern. Both Limbaugh and Howard Stern say/do a lot of provocative things to maintain their large radio audiences. I doubt Stern would be vilified as a sexist, racist, or anything else if he were in Limbaugh's shoes. And, I believe Stern has been far more stereotypical, racially provocative, and sexist. Yet, somehow, I think Stern would get a pass from the NFL owners.

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Maybe you, Jo-Ann Armao, and others, would enjoy seeing Rush Limbaugh's team get trounced had he become an owner but I would have derived no pleasure at seeing a fat racist pig benefit from a sport that has been dominated by black men.

The First Amendment does not give anyone license to spew hate, something Rush Limbaugh is very good at.

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | October 16, 2009 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Losthorizon,

Again, your comments say more about you than make any real intelligent points.

"Barak the Magic Negro" was an article written by a liberal author that Limbaugh was satirizing. Nice try though! I love defending someone I don't even like, but I dislike misinformation and unintelligent commentary more!!!

Posted by: rphilli721 | October 16, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Do you know what NFL now stands for since this POLITICAL BALL was thrown ? The "N" no longer stands for ..." NATIONAL" ... -- Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE

Why no - why don't you enlighten us as to what the "N" in NFL stands for in your "mind".

Posted by: washpost18 | October 16, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

The First Amendment prohibits interference the GOVERNMENT with free speech. We citizens are just as free to civilly punish the offensive exercise of that freedom through criticism, ostracism, and boycotts. It is an American tradition to assume that the coalition with justice on its side will prevail. Civil rights marchers boycotted all manner of segregated businesses and institutions, and white reactionaries not only retaliated in kind but resorted to actual violence, yet the marchers ultimately prevailed.

Likewise, Rush is (FINALLY!) reaping the shriveled, bitter fruits of the hatred, selfishness, and disinformation he unapologetically sows every day.

Posted by: hayesap8 | October 16, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Please, please, please. Give me a break. It's not as if we don't have enough real issues to deal with today. I really don't give a rat's behind whether Mr. Limbaugh is or isn't a minority owner in the NFL. I personally think he is worth no more than the garbage I put out on my street every Friday, but then again the entire league is nothing more than a bunch of egotistical commercial vultures looking for their next dollar anyway.

Were it not for media that scrambles to fill time (there's not enough real news in the universe to warrant 24-7 "news"), he could have already been a silent minority owner and no one would have known or cared. But, therein lies the problem. Silent and Rush used together in a sentence would be an oxymoron, so this entire deal was, I am sure, conveniently leaked in advance to the press in order to provide Mr. Limbaugh with more fodder to carry on his white victim crusades.

The real news might just be in whether or not Mr. Limbaugh's friend heading up the little group of investors has recently purchased a part of Mr. Limbaugh's business. I am sure that Rush is going to milk a billion or so for himself out of this horrible, horrible case of reverse racism. Oh my, I've got to go find my handkerchief.

Posted by: Sammywonda | October 16, 2009 7:41 AM | Report abuse

I also find it intriguing that Limbaugh says "it's not about race. It's about conservative views versus liberal views."

I would assume that the investor group is distancing themselves from him as a result of a conservative view. Furthermore, since this entire issue really has no definitive conservative or liberal side, does not the entire thread of comments show that it really is about race?

Posted by: Sammywonda | October 16, 2009 7:53 AM | Report abuse

There is no comparison. If Vick messes up again, he can simply be removed. If Rush puts on a hood, well, he's an owner. As we all know, its not easy to get rid of an owner.

Posted by: Veritasamus | October 16, 2009 7:58 AM | Report abuse

It would be most wise if you learned the meaning of the First Amendment before you starting screaming that it's been violated, Ms. Armao. As it is, you just look pretty ignorant.

Posted by: Jayne | October 16, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

White Men feeling threatened by reverse discrimination? You are all idiots.

Posted by: mjwies11 | October 16, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

The First Amendment only protects from GOVERNMENTAL restrictions on free speech. A private employer an association is wholly within their rights by holding employees or associates to a code of conduct, as long as it doesn't single people out. Last I heard, jackasses and buffoons aren't protected categories.

Rush Limbaugh knows this, knows he has no case, but is telling his know-nothing minions that he is taking the high road.

Posted by: richardlerner | October 16, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

should read "private employers OR an association"

Posted by: richardlerner | October 16, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Vick's is a story of someone gone wrong, paying a debt and seeking redemption. He's got a ways to go, but that's his story. Limbaugh gets paid millions of dollars to spread hate and lies about anything that isn't far right wing. Nothing remotely close to a redemption scenario there, so the comparison is pretty much apples and oranges.

Of course, the owners get to choose who they associate with, who will sell tickets and who will not. No difficulty in that call. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights.

Posted by: tfspa | October 16, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Sue, Rush, sue. Clearly there is malice and damages on the part of the loonylefties who put their own words in your mouth. What fun to see NBC, MSNBC, et al have to pony up gazillion$$$$$$ for their slander/libel. Now about those chickens coming home to roost, 'rev' Wright/Wrong.....

Posted by: segeny | October 16, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"I agree that Rush is a jerk but the smear campaign by the African American left was out of line. You see I also think Rev. Sharpton is a jerk too. Since when is the NFL any of his concern? Why do we listen to him any more than Rush?

Unfortunately (and amazingly) I side with Rush and do not want to ever hear or see Sharpton again - ever, ever, ever!"

*********************

So, let me get this right - you are willing to take away Al Sharpton's right to free speech? But not Rush's?

Al Sharpton was NOT in a decision making position - the group of potential owners were, it was that group that dropped Rush. All Al Sharpton did was to offer his opinion via FREE SPEECH something Rush does everyday and it is his right to do so - sometimes what you say has consequences. But you still have the right to say it.

Posted by: Kathy5 | October 16, 2009 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Why Limbush and not Ahmadinejad?
They both have big stinking mouth and it is their right to vomit whatever please them. But the so called civilized first amendment abider people in USA prefer the Iranian to be silenced and the Caucasian to be broadcast in all media.

Posted by: Makiz | October 16, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I am a combat veteran who fought for our nation and defended the rights of people to express their opinion and participate in a free society. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for 18 years and found him entertaining and knowledgable regarding political issues. He is not a liberal but nor does he spread hate simply by being a conservative. On the other hand, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used race to incite riots, lynch innocent people in the press (Duke students), and extort money from organizations through the use of criminal organizations like ACORN. Barak Obama was a lawyer for ACORN yet the liberal media will not investigate his affiliation with a criminal organization that encourages tax evasion, voter fraud and assists those who would set up child prostitution rings. Why isn't the liberal media interested in this story? Why won't they do their job? I will continue to watch FOX News and Rush until the liberal media proves it is not biased and refuses to cover stories critical of left wing politicians and organizations.

Posted by: quillerm

*********************************

First, thank you for your service. However, I don't know what that has to do with your post - it doesn't give your post anymore validity than someone posting and not mentioning it.

Second, Obama - ACORN's lawyer - Obama represented ACORN in two cases - why so angry about ACORN? I don't get it - ACORN is a group representing the poor - not many groups in this country doing this and it was the right in this country who went on a "mission" to destroy them and it seems they have succeeded. Let's see, Rush doesn't get to be part of a group of NFL owners - the poor in this country lost their biggest representative - hummmmmmmmmm, where oh where do my sympathies lie? It's not with Rush I'll tell you that. I think the big concern is that the poor have lost one of their greatest advocates.

Call me crazy ..............

Posted by: Kathy5 | October 16, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I thought I'd read it all, but this has to be one of the most ignorant position pieces I've read in the Post.

Vick: committed a crime, admitted committing the crime, served his sentence, got out, expresses remorse, tries to make amends, tries to educate others about the horrors of what he did.

Limbaugh: dozens (if not more) of documented racist remarks (and not only is he, IMHO, a racist, but even worse he inspires racism in others), made a career of judging people, now denies making the statements in the first place, continues to inflame, and blames his ouster from the group on Obama.

Equating racism with dog fighting is asinine - and I think dog fighting is one of the most reprehensible of all crimes.

Add to that the notion that Vick and Limbaugh were "applying" for completely different jobs: Vick as am employee, Limbaugh as an owner/board member. There aren't many companies that don't have more stringent vetting processes and standards for potential executives.

And as a "practicioner of the First Amendment" I hope you realize that Amendment addresses government control of speech, not employer control, or peer control, or consumer control.

It's not about the league being "too good" for Limbaugh. Bringing Limbaugh in would have been a disaster in terms of Public Relations. The LAST thing the NFL wants or needs is to be referenced whenever Limbaugh says something controversial (hourly) or monumentally stupid (daily) or outright racist (whenever he can).

Posted by: kemp13 | October 16, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

This is really simple. Michael Vick committed a crime, served his sentence, expressed remorse. Michael Vick criminal actions showed hate for animals. Since he was punished and has expressed remorse, we must assume he no longer harbors those hateful feelings toward animals.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has committed no crime. However, he has and continues to express his hateful feelings toward HUMAN BEINGS. He has NOT expressed remorse for his hateful ways.

Vick = Repentant. Limbaugh = Unrepentant.
Vick = Used to hate dogs. Limbaugh = Still hates people.

The choice is clear.

Posted by: GreenMeansGo | October 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Errrrgh. Do we have to explain this AGAIN?

a) NO ONE is infringing on Limbaugh's speech. He has the LARGEST RADIO AUDIENCE IN THE COUNTRY; he uses it every weekday to demonstrate his full, unimpaired ability to say whatever he wants, no matter how asinine.

b) The right to free speech gives you the right to say what you want without government penalty; it does NOT grant you blanket immunity from any other consequences. I am free to say I think my boss is an ape; guess what? I'll still be fired tomorrow.

c) You are making a false comparison between Vick and Limbaugh. People with the ability to play NFL quarterback well are a very limited supply- teams do not have the luxury of passing because of character defects. Believe me, there HAVE been white bigots that played QB in the NFL. Vick has served his time for his crimes, expressed remorse, and is not likely to be engaging in any acts of animal cruelty any time soon.

On the other hand, Limbaugh has never expressed any regret for his racist comments, and will continue to make them. NFL franchises are in limited supply, and the league has the right to approve their sale based on what ownership is good for its image.

The St. Louis Rams will not be owned by Limbaugh the same way it will not be owned by adult film makers, known gamblers, or members of NAMBLA- and I doubt you'd get in a huff about how the free speech rights of any of those groups are infringed because of it.

Posted by: howlless | October 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting how being a pro sports star overcomes a myriad of bad behaviors and often boorish comments and actions.

It's okay to be a drug user, murderer, sexual pervert, alcoholic or other type of lawbreaker and still be allowed to play in the NFL - or any other pro sports team.

But it's not okay to be a politically verbose, rabble roouser whose schtick is to inflame and insite his audience and be a part owneer of a professional sports team.

It seems to be there's a tremendous double standartd being set up by the NFL that discriminates against Rush Limbaugh.

Do I think he's a blowhard, braggart and gereral nincompoop?

You betcha.

Do I think that disqualifies him from owning part of an NFL team?

No. Not as long as the NFl continues to welcome back with open arms people like Michael Vick, Steve McNair,Michael Irvin, Lawrence Taylor, Randy Moss to nane a few and the other "stars" of the game who commit crimes.

Posted by: stephenrhymer | October 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Vick served his time and has admitted he made mistakes. Limbaugh has yet to admit he has offended anyone and continues to excuse his behavior. Limbaugh needs to "serve" his time and demonstrate some humility before he will be accepted by most Americans.

While what Limbaugh says may not be illegal or a violation of his Constitutional Rights', he is offensive and polarizing.

Americans love their football. The majority don't love Rush.

Posted by: ilcn | October 16, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh and Vick are both contemptible--there's not a hair of difference between them. Both should be banned permanently from their respective fields and sent to Abu Grahib to be turned over to the inmates.

Posted by: nicekid | October 16, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

It is funny to read this article and the subsequent comments (and I admit I've only read a few) and see how the author and commenters such as lydog26 really don't understand what the First Amendment actually does...people should do research before spouting off about things they know nothing about.

Posted by: VeronJ | October 16, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"All of you should be very afraid of decisions like this. Sharpton and Jackson sing the phoney "race" trump card to interfere with the livelihood of someone you don't like because of his political beliefs. Very dangerous. Who knows, maybe they'll next decide all you accountants out there or all you landscapers shouldn't be permitted to expand your business "too much" cause that means you're making "too much money", or you don't have enough of the "right kind" of employees.

Also this was the Players' Union in league (no pun intended) with Sharpton and Jackson to intimidate the NFL. This was a warning that "you better play ball (again, no pun) with us, or we'll punish you."

On top of that, the president of the Players' Union has close ties with the current administration. You can bet this was a not-so-subtle threat that they won't hesitate to use those ties to the White House to intimidate the NFL."

Posted by: rjohnson2842
*********************************

Excuse me but do you even have a brain?

HIS BUSINESS PARTNERS DROPPED HIM nothing more, nothing less for god sakes! Now you try to tie this to the WH - please ignorance abounds!

Posted by: Kathy5 | October 16, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm just going to guess that there are more racial equality proponents than animal-rights activists in the NFL. Wow! Alot of the issues here stem from the fear that African-American players would refuse to play for a team owned by such a blatant racist.

Posted by: joshlct | October 16, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

i applaud the nfl..thank god someone has some brains..take a hike rush..

Posted by: pwmackieee | October 16, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

First off you right wing neo-con idiot, yes you, the author of this garbage, Vick committed a crime and did his time. What Vick did not do is incite or promote biogtry and hate.

Limbaugh is an arrogant racist azz and if he wants to own a football team he should go recruit a bunch of skinheads, ku klux clansmen, and aryans. I am sure the banking industry would be willing to loan him some money as well as some of his bedfellows. Then we can see how superior they are on the playing field.

Posted by: TheBeatDontStop | October 16, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Not a first amendment issue at all. Just as Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he likes (within certain constraints), so does the league have the right to restrict team ownership however it likes (within certain constraints). There's no Constitutional question here in the least, and introducing it just muddies the waters.

Now, SHOULD the league take these actions? Clearly, it puts its finger in the air and sees which ways the wind blows, in the form of almighty dollars. If it thought there was a chance, an even tiny chance, that advertisers might withdraw ads from Rams games (say on the lucrative Sunday or Monday night programs), Limbaugh was toast.

People, and companies, vote with their wallets. That Rush now faces a harvest of ill will that he's been sowing for years reflects more on him than it does on the NFL.

Posted by: BSDetector | October 16, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

First of all, you cant compare Rush Limbaugh to Michael Vick. One is an athlete and the other is a radio personality (not)Second, I am sure the NFL would rather Limbaugh boycott the team than the fans and the players. He can spew whatever he wants to, and the NFL has the right to bring on board whoever they want to. You morons that try to blame the current administration need to get an education, or better yet, move to a country that promotes hate and dissent. Why is it ok for people to want to fire an owner or coach of a team (Dan Snyder for one) but its not ok to not hire one in the first place? Get a life.

Posted by: tisch1 | October 16, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

People in general are such hypocrites. I do not endorse many (perhaps even most or all) of what Rush says.

However, what an entertainer/political columnist says should not, in my opinion prevent him from engaging in commerce.

For an entity like the NFL that is essentially a monopoly to play the role of excluding someone from ownership based on their politics is really appalling.

This is very troubling to me and I hope to many - on both sides of the political spectrum.

In a league that permits wife beaters, drug users, dog fighters, coach assaults, cheating (video of the jets), etc. to continue with little more that a slap on the wrist - it seems petty and inappropriate to implement a ban on a minority interest in an ownership deal based on politics.

Shame on all involved.

Posted by: sullyjohn1 | October 16, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

If Rush was a black then Al and Jesse would never open there mouths about him. This has reverse racism all over it. I think that Al and Jesses are the real racist. Without them keeping racism alive they are able to pay there morgages and car notes every month. When was the last time they came to the aid of a white man......NEVER.


Posted by: creepyjackolopeeye | October 15, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Remember it was Jackson who went across the water about 10 years ago to negotiate the release of some of our soldiers. Jimmy Carter tried first, but only Jesse was able to get them released.

Posted by: yonahdad | October 16, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The problem the NFL has with Limbaugh isn't so much what Limbaugh has said in the past -- the problem is the running commentary he'd be providing as an owner. I'm no fan of Vick -- and I live in Philadelphia -- but he's kept his nose clean since he's been back in football. Limbaugh would be delivering new embarrassing moments to the NFL's doorstep almost daily. That's why even Republican owners weren't keen to invite him into the club.

Posted by: waltmguire | October 16, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

God Bless the American Free Market! The same market that gives Rush an audience (and provides him millions of dollars) has spoken once again. In this case, the consumer (NFL owners) has decided they don't want to buy this product. They pulled it off the shelf, looked at it, smelled it, and decided not to purchase. God Bless the American Free Market!!

Posted by: CNY-DC | October 16, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The comparison between Limbaugh and Vick is inapt on many levels, but one fundamental one is that Limbaugh wanted to be an owner and Vick wanted to be a player. I'm sure that if Limbaugh went to an NFL tryout and made the team, the NFL would let him suit up. In fact, Jeremy Shockey, who on the subject of gay people sounds an awful lot like Rush Limbaugh, is an NFL star (and a whole lot less controversial one than Michael Vick).

Posted by: otherquaker | October 16, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Vick, Stallworth, etc., are players and only players. They are perhaps jerks in their personal lives but they are awesome football players. Beyond that most true football fans don't care much about their personal lives (only gossipy old women talk about that crap anyway).

Limpbaugh on the other hand has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I doubt he could even lift a football, let alone throw one, and he hosts a radio show that spans the nation, spewing hate-filled rants and anti-American politically-charged vitriol at an ever accelerating rate to millions of citizens on a daily basis.

But the main point is that any team he was part owner of would carry his stigma, and the rest of the partners obviously did not want that kind of baggage. It's not whether it's fair to El Blimpo, it's their right to tell him to disappear if they can't stomach him.

In fact, it is probably nothing to do with politics or Drugballs nasty, crap-filled mouth -- it's all about ticket sales and the fact that millions upon millions of Americans despise the fat dork. Simple.

BTW:

Go Saints!! :-D

.

Posted by: Frank57 | October 16, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The irony of this situation is that it most of the owners are probably Republicans and they told him to take a hike (no pun intended). One cannot blame the left wingers for this one. This is free market at work. It was a business decision, pure and simple. Deal with it haters.

Posted by: chefra | October 16, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The problem is not free speech. He has a right to say whatever he wants. The thing is the NFL does not want his free speech to invite bad press. Secondly the NFL is full of black players. Do you really think they would play for a team that he has any part of? I mean I could see a srike happening.

Posted by: Lolabee | October 16, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The NFL sits at the capstone of a complex and extremely valuable piece of the American experience over the past 100 years. It involves all levels of government in our federal system, private enterprise, and public expenditures of many billions of dollars.

In the twenty-first century no American national institution of the breath and scope of the NFL can in any way be associated with a fat, loud-mouthed, racist, tart. The NFL and Rush Limbaugh and “his” America, are an oxymoron. The American free market in both money and ideas has produced a multi-billion dollar industry for the likes of Limbaugh and his kind of craven filth; but that same twice free market has produced both Oprah Winfree and Barak Obama. In the present case it is also credited with producing national institutions such as the Democratic Party, the US Armed Forces, and the major sports leagues, both amateur and professional.

In the above named 21st century national institutions, the casual, public, anti-negro racism of their past leadership, which was always on display thirty to forty years ago; has long since disappeared. It was not just a change of heart, or a change in the national mood, it was, and has simply become, impossible to operate a contemporary national institution or enterprise contaminated with the filth of Rush Limbaugh’s ideas, ideology, social, or political viewpoints.

Imagine if you tried in 2010 to run the Southeastern Conference with a Rush Limbaugh as athletic director at LSU, Alabama, Georgia or Florida. Imagine if the SEC or ACC Commissioners had the publically espoused the racist views about black football quarterbacks, which Limbaugh publically stated about the NFL’s Donovan McNabb; referring to the Florida football National Championship quarterback, Chris Leak or; over a decade before Leak, Florida State’s national championship quarterback, Charles Ward.

Imagine if an NFL owner or part owner publically referred to former Redskins players Darryl Green, Douglas Williams, or Gary Clark, as being like members of a street gang. Not only would such comments be out-of-bounds; they would presume upon the personal and professional judgments of coaches like Joe Gibbs, general managers like Charles Casserly, and owners like the legendary Jack Kent Cooke.

No, Rush Limbaugh in the ownership group of an NFL franchise in 2010 would be a true act of affirmative action and preferential racial quotas. He and the minority of Americans who enjoy listing to the vomit he puts out every day, are, a minority, and have long been so. The NFL candidate ownership group that dumped him; and the NFL Commissioner who questioned the judgment of a candidate ownership group that included him; simply concurred with the judgment that true conservatives have been making over the past thirty years, that preferential quotas are bad for making personnel decisions, and are bad for organizations and institutions.

Posted by: rc115shepherd | October 16, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Rush has the "IDEA" that Whites are entitled!
He enjoys his forays into divisiveness to the tune of 400 million over 8 years. The jokes on the intolerant following that he has. Never mind that he's Gay! You guy's just need a reason to HATE! Use common sense for one minute and you would see him for the farce that he is. The reason Racist hate is so divisive is that more than dogs were murdered but joyful picnics of Lynchings took place and just like the Jews and the Holocaust, so too is overt displays of Hate! by Whites like Rush unappreciated by African Americans. Some of you out of work or losing your homes should see if he'll lend you some money. I know he can get you high if you like. He's got a pill for that.

Posted by: minco_007 | October 16, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Armao,clearly can't see the forest for the trees. Limbaugh was never a part of the leaguge and threfore never suspended from participating in it, likewise he was never enjoined from joining it either. The Commish told Vick he needed to see some element of change in his behavior before he was reinstated and will do the same for Stallworth. Had an outsider (Checketts) not dropped Rush the Commish I suppose could say the same thing to Rush, let me see change in your behavior and we'll consider you joining our organization. Of course we know with a head as INFLATED as Rush's he'd never change just to join an organization like the NFL. Also once reinstated, a team had to sign Vick, if a team doesn't sign him he doesn't play, same for Stallworth. Similarly, if a team (Checketts in this case) doesn't sign Rush he doesn't play. Consequently, Rush has no one to blame but himself just like Vick and Stallworth can only blame themselves for their situations. Really its just Rush's own free market principles at work. If I want you I'll let you in, if I don't you stay outside, no govt involved period.

Posted by: bev1799 | October 16, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If Rush were black and worked for Air America as a liberal talk show host and had said controversial things about conservatives, there wouldn't be a problem. Yet the NFL is full of drug abusing, wife beating, drunk driving, dog killing thugs. That's OK because all of these poor football players came from such dire conditions as youths. The man made them the way they are. Pleassssse.

Posted by: theBozyn | October 16, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

It isn't Rush who is the problem cause as he says he says things for "entertainment purposes". Instead its the "crazies" who he incites and feeds their sick ego's.

Entertainers all appeal to a certain type of people and he has found an audience. Sick as they are its still an audience. As long as these people do not break the law they can spout their vile speech.

So let Rush stay in his corner with his sorry self but only there. He does not need to ruin the fun of millions of Americans on Sunday football with his big mouth idiotic entertainment negative opinions about a football game or its players.

Posted by: mac7 | October 16, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Please read the Bill of Rights before talking about El Rushbo's constitutional rights being violated.

"Congress" (not a Missouri-area based business group, not the NFL) "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."

Business is business. Make racially-tinged or inflammatory comments repeatedly and unapologetically over nationally syndicated airwaves for 20 years, surprise! You won't be invited to a league that has a powerfully strong nose for the bottom line and smells that diversity is good football business.

Posted by: Meepo | October 16, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

If Donovan McNabb can do this as a pay-back, with the help of other African-Americans, that is a good thing. It shows that African-Americans no longer have to be satisfied with whatever white America is willing to give them. African-Americans now have a degree of both political and economic power.

No one else has been able to stop the hate, lies, and character assasination spread by Limbaugh. Republicans embrace him, treat him as their spokesman, and punish those in their ranks who cross him (RNC chairman). All the while, radio station owners laugh all the way to the bank.

Posted by: esch | October 16, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

gipper 01 said "Limbaugh has the right to speak...and the NFL has the right to say there is no place in the league for him and his potty mouth."

Funny, that wasn't the liberals' attitude when country fans called on radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chicks music after Natalie Maines dissed Pres Bush. The stations were accused of censorship. There's that 'ol liberal double standard again--not that I want to see Rush own a team, I just hate hypocricy!

Posted by: Dakota6 | October 16, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

The NFL is not public. It is a private club. It is not tax exempt. The current club members (owners) can have any criteria they wish for membership. That's their rights. They have not violated any of Rush's rights. He doesn't have any when it comes to joining this private club. If they wanted to tell Limbaugh no because he was ugly they would be within their rights without violating any of his.

This issue reminds me a once well known and wealthy Washingtonian named Herbert Haft. For those of you who either don't remember Haft or never new him he is the guy that created Trak Auto and Crown Books among other things. His personal net worth was estimated at well over 500 million over 20 years ago. Anyway Mr. Haft happened to be Jewish. The DC area has a very prominent Jewish Country Club called Woodmont. (great country club by the way) Anyone Haft applied for membership at Woodmont a number of times and was turned down each time. It seems over the years Haft had less then acceptable business dealings with too many club members and friends of club members. Haft might have been rich, but he wasn't thought highly of within his own community. Haft wasn't allowed membership based solely on not being liked. I assume the same can be said of Rushy and the NFL. Ruse isn't the most likable person. Nobody's rights have been violated.

In another case DC area has another country club named Burning Tree. Very exclusive and all male. This created quite a stir a few years back. Since Burning Tree was operating as a non-profit which allowed them tax breaks the Fed's came in and said if they didn't admit women they would lose their tax exempt status. The membership voted to give up their tax exempt status and not admit women. Whose right's were violated? Simple answer: nobody's rights were violated. As a private club they can exclude women.

If one goes through life on a Limbaa hate mongering, fear mongering path they shouldn't be suprised when someone says they don't like them. I wouldn't have Rash over to my house for dinner and I wouldn't want him talking to my children. Why should the NFL be any different?

Posted by: boblund1 | October 16, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The NFL is a cartel. So I am not surprised that they don't care if a person has a criminal background and care if a person speaks his mind. This organization really needs to be broken up because it is far from being a free market one.

Posted by: trumeau | October 16, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

As a Black American, I have to say that I am sick and tired of imposters like Jackson and Sharpton "speaking" for me. They are irrelevant rabble rousers, relics of a bygone era. They are hypocrites in the highest sense, fueling hate and derision. It boggles the mind how many of their blatant shortcomings have been overlooked and forgiven. They speak of morality and justice yet pratice none of it themselves.

Even I assert that a large amount of the athletes in the NFL are thugs with poor resolution skills. How many times have people forgiven these people for killing others, beating their wives and girlfriends, skipping out on child support, killing defenseless animals, and violating all sorts of laws, only to be paid TENS OF MILLIONS. If you handed me even $500,000 I'd be marching in lock-step. I am willing to bet the farm that not a ONE football player would quit the ball club if Rush Limbaugh ever became an owner. For $40 to $100 million, they'd dance a jig if Rush asked them to.

Another thing is, if Rush was really as racist as they said he is, wouldn't you think he'd not want to have any part of NFL considering how much it glorifies and pays black football players? Don't you think he'd not want to see a black person get a dime if he hated them so much? Ponder it.

And what burns me even more is that GEORGE SOROS (remember him?) was even a part of that bidding team yet you hear NOTHING about him. I wonder why that is?

Enough is enough, people. Stop letting these hypocritical reverse racists bend ears and strongarm you into making ridiculous decisions.

Posted by: Diocletian97@yahoo.com | October 16, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I don't agree with Limbaugh's politics, don't listen to his radio show, and find his behavior personally abhorrent. However, he should be allowed to buy a football team if he can afford it, which he can.

Football ceased being a team sport or about sportsmanship years ago. It's now entertainment on the level of WWE. Limbaugh is an "infotainer" so he fits right in the NFL three-ring circus.

The next stop is Paris Hilton buying a team and putting the players in see-through pants with thongs. Yawn...who cares.

Posted by: arancia12 | October 16, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

careful Diocletian97, some punk loud mouth may tell you to "get back on the porch".

I don't think Juan Williams will ever be mistaken for even a moderate liberal but he say's what he really thinks and not what the talking points of the DNC. I hope he kicks the snot nose's behind right under the porch.

Posted by: theduck6 | October 16, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

If you look at any NFL organization as any other business, the problem with Rush is that he injects politics into the workplace.

Even the most vocal owners in sports are careful about expressing their political views because that expression just might keep them from recruiting the best person.

They express their views discreetly... through financial support of certain causes or even running totally seperate organizations that are not publically tied back to the franchises they own.

Rush's JOB is to promote his political views and if he's ever tied to a team, that team is going to be tied to his views as well. The other members of his ownership team better be ready to get a share of all of his controversy.

Posted by: AJohn1 | October 16, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Vick Yes. Limbaugh NO!

Vick did something terrible, but he never wished harm to America like Limbaugh did.

Vick did something terrible, but he never expressed his hope that I would my job and became homeless just to make Obama look bad, like Limbaugh did.

Vick did something terrible, but he never used his fame and fortune to try to divide and destroy the foundation of democracy and bipartisanship in our great country like Limbaugh does.

I'll take Vick any time. Limbaugh, the rich bigot nazi can rot in hell.

Posted by: pjc8300892 | October 16, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

If you favor the First Amendment,then let the owners and the players have their moment using the First Amendment.Somehow people think the freedom of speech clause can be isolated from the freedom of religion clause.How does anyone do that?How do you set about setting up standards for any one of the freedoms,including freedom to assemble.One way is to use the insurance companies as watchdogs.Another way is to use the right to assemble to stage a strike against a team,like the Rams. Supposing the players' union decided it would not play the Rams. What would the NFL do?

Posted by: TarheelChief | October 16, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Vick Yes. Limbaugh NO!

Vick did something terrible, but he never wished harm to America like Limbaugh did.

Vick did something terrible, but he never expressed his hope that I would my job and became homeless just to make Obama look bad, like Limbaugh did.

Vick did something terrible, but he never used his fame and fortune to try to divide and destroy the foundation of democracy and bipartisanship in our great country like Limbaugh does.

I'll take Vick any time. Limbaugh, the rich bigot nazi can rot in hell.

Posted by: pjc8300892 | October 16, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

First of all, the 1st Amendment protects your speech from government infringement. Private individuals and companies have the right not to do business with people who say things they don't like - whether that's a Catholic church not partnering with a pro-choice nonprofit or the Miss USA pageant distancing itself from the homophobic Miss California. And Limbaugh is a racist, who has said racist things about the NFL in the past, like comparing players to gang members. In an organization with a large number of African-American and Latino players, it's not surprising they wouldn't want to associate themselves with a jerk like Limbaugh.

Posted by: sophia86 | October 16, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Apples and oranges, hon.

Posted by: bmschumacher | October 16, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Hey Jo Ann,
You got most of it right. Its actually the corporate sponsors who sacked rush. And Yes they would rather see a reformed sinner in the game and not the big fat idiot!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: haa1313 | October 16, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

pjc8300892, where on earth are you getting this rubbish? Get your facts straight. Let me at least tell you that we are NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC.

sophia86, just because he doesn't kowtow and acquiesce to the loud opinions of some angry black people and manipulative liberals doesn't make him a racist. I'll be the first to say that much of the behavior of many of the football players is just downright embarrassing. I personally wouldn't even date a football player because I wouldn't want to be associated with their foolishness.

And you can't tell me for one second that all the owners of every football club are not controversial and are totally on the up and up.

Posted by: Diocletian97@yahoo.com | October 16, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Will one of you rube Republitards please provide some proof that:

1) Limbaugh's free speech rights were violated?

2) This was anything other than a business decision made by his partners, who didn't want a drug-swilling boob as a partner.

God, you people are stupid. It's amazing you can get out of bed and dress yourselves in the morning.

Posted by: slowpoke132 | October 16, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Diocletian: "And what burns me even more is that GEORGE SOROS (remember him?) was even a part of that bidding team yet you hear NOTHING about him. I wonder why that is?"

Dio, you boob, when Soros bid on the Nats, ELECTED REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, LIKE TOM DAVIS, THREATENED MLB WITH REVOKING ITS ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION.

I have this amazing tool in my house called Google, with which I can check facts. It keeps me from posting ignorant and ill-informed nonsense. You should try using it sometime.

Posted by: slowpoke132 | October 16, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The NFL stands for Not for Limbaugh. Vicks is not Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party Jenna. Maybe Rush should go to jail first too. Rush got what he deserved. He was snubbed by his peers so don't blame it on Sharpton nor racism. I know he's not a racist, but that's the image he projects so he has to deal with it. He's a foul mouth pig by a lot and loved by others but in this case, not considered good for business. I loved watching O'Reilly and his in house nig.er Juan Williams trying to defend Rush last night. Fox News publicly embraces black commentators, but, as many readers and viewers have noticed, most black commentators and analysts who appear on Fox News are of a very hawkish, right-wing, self-loathing orientation.

Those blacks (and non-blacks) who have the intellect, poise and emotional stability to withstand the sophistry of its anchors are verbally abused and disrespected on the air. It is for this reason that Juan Williams, Larry Elder, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Angela McGlowan, Michael Steele, et al., play the game as safe as possible.

After all, the rewards of doing the master’s wishes are enormous! No, you don’t get your own show, but you get to share the stage, for 4 to 6 minutes (occasionally), with some of the world’s most fascistic-minded pundits ever seen.

Juan Williams, in this field of play, is a veteran athlete, and one of the most skilled.
Williams has, over the years, found it very hard to dissent from Fox News’ unregulated hatred of black people. His ability to remain at the service of his bosses has earned him a special place in O’Reilly's and Hannity’s hearts. A frequent analyst, he is prone to say what he feels is compatible with Fox News’ racist identity. As the African American go-to guy for black-bashing, immigrant-bashing, Iraqi-bashing, Williams knows his role and plays it well. Last night on the O’Reilly factor, Williams showed why he’s, after all, Fox News’ golden black boy.

Posted by: sherardg | October 16, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Why Vick and not Rush? Vick served his time and now has the right to go on with his life. Rush??? It's just a matter of time before he ends up in a legal jam.

Posted by: JoeNTx | October 16, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Ok, lets take this thing to it's logical conclusion. You are essentially saying Limbaugh should have become an owner of a NFL football team. I can see how that would have worked out. The first losing season for the Rams under Limbaugh's umbrella it would have been okay for him to say, let's see, "...oh god, I should have known better than to buy all these n*****s in the first place. Would WaPo have been editorializing that?

Posted by: rlcampbell | October 16, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The last time I checked Obama, the liberal media, blacks, illegal aliens, gays or whoever Rush blames for not approving him did not have a vote in the process. Guess who voted him out? The ones who look just like him....

Posted by: tsamm | October 16, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Funny, that wasn't the liberals' attitude when country fans called on radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chicks music after Natalie Maines dissed Pres Bush. The stations were accused of censorship. There's that 'ol liberal double standard again--not that I want to see Rush own a team, I just hate hypocricy!"

_____

If liberals are hypocrits for crying censorship in the Dixie Chicks case but not in this Limbaugh issue, then Conservatives are hypocrits for supporting the Dixie Chicks ban but complaining about the Limbaugh snub. It goes both ways. If you hate hypocrisy, you've got to hate it on all sides.

I think we really need to get beyond defining ourselves and each other in these terms. Pigeon-holing ourselves and others only empowers politicians--they don't need to address our concerns if they can brand us and then count on us sticking to that brand.

Posted by: writinron | October 16, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

@ livefreeordie2

Now, Bimbaugh knows there ARE consequences that go along with his pronouncements. Apparently, no one has the stamina to make him see that I don’t agree with what he says, I think he is racist, and that he has a smarmy attitude that puts his kind in the gutter. He speaks to offend! You note “his love of the game.” Who does he think is playing this game? Words hurt and sometimes there are consequences!

Now, he can go whine to his fans and have an extended round of blame it on Obama! I vote for the nice Rapper!!!!

Posted by: ummhuh1 | October 16, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

My question is, if they were attempting to remove "evil" or "controversial" elements from this bidding pool, then why wasn't there outcry to remove Soros this time as well?

And I really don't care what your affiliation is if what you are doing is violating the Constitution, then I can't abide by it.

Now, Davis was not right in trying to use political pull to try and get Soros yanked, but I don't think that any outside sources should influence that decision at all, UNLESS, the person in the bidding was someone like say, Kevin Jennings.

But I sure as hell don't think that all of this should have come about because of some unsubstantiated racist comment that Rush was supposed to have made back in 1998.

And as far as the Donovan McNabb comment, I could care less honestly. I think it's pathetic that everything hinged on a comment like that. If that was the case, then people like Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan should be run out of town. Yet they are exalted for their racial slurs. It's not permissible, regardless of your race. I'm not even that football saavy but it doesn't take a John Madden to see that some players are extremely overrated. Disgustingly so.

Posted by: Diocletian97@yahoo.com | October 16, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

This is becoming a very tired argument. Perhaps what Limbaugh does and says is worse than what Vick or Stallworth did? And both paid restitution in each case. Vick by going to prison and paying large fines. Stallworth by coming to a settlement with the family of the victim.
If you want a real comparison, look at the penalty to RL for doctor shopping vs. what would have happened to almost everyone else, black, brown or white, for the same crime.

Limbaugh is not contrite at all about his part in making this country worse through his bloviating. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

It's refreshing that character overcame money for a change.

Posted by: maiapapaya | October 16, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Question

Is the inability to think critically a requirement to become a "conservative?" For most people, opinions differ (at least it is this way for normal people) but for the right, they all have the exact same script. Word for word. I am just wondering if they are issued these talking points? If so, who is issuing them and at what age do they acquire them?

Posted by: rlcampbell | October 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh obviously involved himself in this very public matter to simply ratchet up his radio ratings among conservatives. He loves the attention, but sooner or later it will catch up with him. After all, how long can conservatives go around excusing criminal behavior such as that engaged in by Limbaugh in obtaining OxyContin illegally. Everyone knows he's guilty of the crime, but conservatives forgive him because he is a conservative. Rush Limbaugh is the O.J. Simpson of the conservative movement. Anyway, Rush's ulterior motives are exposed by his knowledge that no non-white NFL player would play on any team in which he has an ownership interest. Contracts notwithstanding, any player could choose to drop a pass or fumble the ball at the most inopportune moment thus making a Limbaugh owned team the joke of the League. At least, that would be my response to any effort to enforce a contract I might have as a player with a Limbaugh owned team. The bottom line, though, is that this fat white racist pig has no place among true Americans and his followers simply define for the rest of us those who traitors to the real United States of America.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | October 16, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest to EVERYONE, that if you haven't listened to Rush, then do. Give him at least a week or two and don't listen and read the comments about him, but rather use your own opinion. Even if you listened to him in the past and formed an opinion, put it aside and try it again. I seriously doubt many people even know that Bo Snerdley is a black man. At some point everyone should realize that there are race baiters and we are getting sick of them, we should not let them continue to control our movements.

What happened to Rush, shows where we are in our society today and if we don't take control of the situation, we are going to be in big trouble, oh wait, I guess we already are.

Posted by: uscitizen6 | October 16, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Winner of the best rebuttal please see bflorhodes comment. I could not have put it any better myself. Cheers!

Posted by: acococure | October 16, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse


How would you feel if he had been dropped for being a controversial campaigner for civil rights?

Posted by: ZZim | October 15, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse
===========================================
Um that happened and or happens all the time. Most of the campaigners for civil rights were KILLED for being "controversial"

Posted by: acococure | October 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The author of this article is not competent to be an American citizen if they can't tell the difference between speech protected under the first amendment and the freedom of a business undertaking not to incorporate a bombthrowing, divisive drug addict into their upper echelons. I've suffered the experience of listening to Limbaugh-he is a racist and the fact that some listeners claim he isn't is a sign of their myopia and ignorance. The fact that Limbaugh supporters revert to racism to defend their racism is just another example of maddening ignorance, the kind that is truly destroying America.

Posted by: sparkplug1 | October 16, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Rush's mouth just caught up with him. How does it feel Ruch?

Posted by: egghd1697 | October 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

uscitizen6: "I would suggest to EVERYONE, that if you haven't listened to Rush, then do."

I already do that, just to remind myself how truly toxic this guy really is to public political discourse. Frankly, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a victim here; as you sow the wind, so shall you reap the whirlwind.

NFL owners rightfully determined that any association with Rush Limbaugh is bad for their business, just as ESPN learned to its own chagrin a few years ago that hiring Limbaugh as an analyst for its NFK pre-game show was bad for its business.

Thus, NFL owners made a business decision commensurate with their determination. That's the essence of a free market at work.

Posted by: dkoelper | October 16, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it is.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 16, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Jo-Ann,

You obviously know something about the constitution that I don't. Where in the first amendment of the constitution does it give anyone a right to buy into a closed corporation? I've read the constitution many times and have yet to see that right. Also, I see zero logic to interrupt the first amendment to mean anyone can buy into a closed corporation.

As several posters have pointed out Rush not only has the right to freedom of speech he regularly abuses this right. However, as much of a nitwit as I think Rush is he has the right to be a butt head. What does this have to do with the NFL? If you are trying to argue he is being denied entry into a closed corporation for exercising his right of free speech you don't have a lawful argument. Whether it's rush, you or me makes no difference. None of have a right to buy into a closed corporation. If the stock holders of the corporation wish to sell it to us they can. If they don't it doesn't matter what the reason is. They can discriminate against Rush for being white, for being stupid, for being fat, for the clothes he wears. They don't need a reason to exclude him. That's their ownership rights. There is no first amendment issue here. This is nothing more or less then a group of conservative businessmen saying they don't like Rush and they don't think he's a good fit for their product. They have every right to do this.

Posted by: boblund1 | October 17, 2009 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Duh, Rush was banned because of fear that he might hurt sales of the entertainment product. A perfectly acceptable action under capitalism.

Posted by: Riograd | October 17, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh is being banished for essentially exercising his right to speak"

No, no one told RL that he can't speak. He is being banished for what he says and they don't want to hear it week after week day after day and neither do the majority of fans. He has every right to say what he says and those that tune in to hear him say it do just that. The rest of us have exercised our right to speak by suggesting we don't want to hear him and someone heard us.

Posted by: lynettema | October 17, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Your right, the "victim" Limbaugh, has every right to say what he wants, EQUALLY so does the NFL and the players within.

Posted by: fimclennan | October 18, 2009 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh - unrepentant for WHAT exactly?

Posted by: stepup | October 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

bflorhodes and js_edit: you both state that it isn't McCarthyism because this wasn't the government banning Rush. The truth is that McCarthyism was NOT about the government banning dissenters - that is not what it was about, normal censorship from the government. McCarthyism was, rather, exactly parallel to this situation - private companies, especially in Hollywood and in professional sports, voluntarily blacklisting certain performers and artists in order to curry favor with the government. When McCarthy actually tried to use the government to directly target dissenters, he not only failed, but the unconstitutional attempt is what brought him down.

Posted by: squarebird | October 20, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company