Football's Follies
Some in the NFL universe are voicing opposition to Rush Limbaugh as a possible team owner, suggesting the conservative talk-show host is too controversial, or perhaps even racist. Give me a break. This is the politics of personal destruction on the gridiron. Is Limbaugh bombastic? Assuredly. Racist? No.
Limbaugh, who consistently promotes the NFL on his show, doesn't care what color anyone is. The key thing for him is what a person believes. Limbaugh has had an African American fill-in host for years, Walter E. Williams, and he regularly quotes from intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell, another African American.
What Limbaugh said years ago about the media desiring that a "black quarterback" do well was a critique of the media, not Donovan McNabb's race. You can disagree with him on this point if you want, but it was not racist. I remember when legendary broadcaster Howard Cosell was railroaded off the air for an unfortunate comment on Monday Night Football; I'd like to think we have learned a thing or two about tolerance in the Age of Obama.
And who is the NFL to throw stones? The league has more criminals per capita than any business this side of San Quentin. It has players (and coaches) in good standing who have taken steroids, organized dog-fighting, shot themselves in nightclubs, beaten their girlfriends, and killed people with their vehicles.
And if the NFL, in its ever-expanding money-grab, thinks Limbaugh is too controversial, why is the vicious and unfunny liberal Keith Olbermann accorded a seat of honor every Sunday for "Football Night in America"? Limbaugh has twice the wit of Olbermann (and 10 times the audience), and just as much knowledge of the game. Plus, I think it's safe to assume that far more fans identify with Limbaugh than with Olbermann.
Lately I've grown a bit tired of the NFL. The game isn't what it used to be. If the politically correct character assassination of one of the league's greatest fans continues, I may find something else to do with my Sundays (and Mondays, and Thursdays, and Saturdays).
Limbaugh represents millions of decent people in this country. What distinguishes his beliefs (anti-big government, pro-free enterprise and personal responsibility, a distrust of the oldline media) is not their strangeness, but their ordinariness. If he gets ripped apart for these beliefs, millions of fans might feel they have been rejected, too.
posted by Stan Guthrie at 5:06 AM
StanGuthrie.com
5 Comments:
Hey Stan,
It's been a while since I've made a comment, but fall break affords a chance to catch up with my favorite right-wing blog. ;-)
I think it's beyond disingenuous for Limbaugh to make a career out of throwing political firebombs, and then squawk when someone doesn't like him. (Or in this case, a lot of some ones.)
Having a few black friends (or substitute host), doesn't change the fact that Limbaugh doesn't refer to Jesse Jackson without making fun of (i.e., mocking) the way he speaks, or his glib dismissal of the problems faced by racial minorities. When someone "doesn't care what color" anyone is, that amounts to a denial that race still matters in this country. Many players in the NFL get that; they get that Limbaugh thinks their struggles are just the fault of bad morals and poor decisions; that substandard schools, corrupt law enforcement, political neglect and ghettoization has nothing to do with the struggles of many black families today.
Limbaugh made his bed and how he needs to just lie down and take a nap. Considering the margin by which Obama won the White House, I think there are plenty of NFL fans (indeed, a majority) who are happy to see Limbaugh out of the game.
Brian,
I guess I'll take your reference to my "right-wing blog" as a complimment! You meant it that way, right? ; )
I agree that Rush should be able to take as much as he dishes out. But I think character assassination--and that's what this is--should be out of bounds. Rush certainly walks near the edge with his comments, and in the view of some occasionally steps over the line. But who in the public eye doesn't?
Limbaugh doesn't sqauwk when sommeone dislikes him, but when someone libels him. There's a difference.
And I know this sounds simplistic, but when we finally have a black president, why can't we stop making race the defining issue in our society and let everyone be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin? I believe that is Rush's position. Of course race still plays a role, but that role should be shrinking as time goes on.
As far as mocking Jackson, doesn't this race-hustling shakedown artist deserve it? And remember, Limbaugh is an equal opportunity mocker: it's part of the schtick.
As far as all the people who voted for Obama, have you looked at the opinion polls lately? They voted for a unifying moderate but got instead a divisive liberal.
Stan
Hi Stan,
I think everyone should have a favorite political interlocutor on the other side of the fence, and you are mine, so yes, I mean it very complimentary. :-)
As for the topic...
I'm sure there are bloggers out there vilifying Limbaugh, and maybe CNN or Fox News has found some folks to call him a racist or compare him to Hitler or whatnot. I read Al Sharpton's piece on the Huffington Post the other day, and it was pretty even handed. No character assassination there.
(How do I make a link in a post? Anyway, here's the link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/in-the-case-of-rush-limba_b_326549.html)
And I don't think Jesse Jackson is so irrelevant or contemptible as all that. I agree Jackson steps in it occasionally and seems a glory-hound, but I also think he's not ready to deny the structural problems affecting African Americans, and on that, I agree with him.
Faced with the facts that African Americans are disproportionately likely to go bankrupt, be in the criminal justice system, be poor, be a single parent, go to substandard schools, etc. etc., we have two options. One, the "culture of poverty" thesis; there is simply something wrong with "those people." Or two, there remain cultural and structural barriers to the success of African Americans. This does not excuse any individual from the choice he or she makes, but the election of Obama (elected with a minority of the white vote) signals changing demographics as much as changing attitudes. It is too soon to say that race is irrelevant. (Although I certainly agree that progress is being made, not, however, thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh.)
P.S. Obama's numbers have certainly (predictably) dropped, but I've seen most polls at over 50%, numbers Bush couldn't see with a telescope in his last three years. (Mean, I know, but I couldn't resist.)
Brian,
There has been a lot of character assassination of Limbaugh, which is my main point. I think we are agreed that we want African Americans to have more opportunities to succeed in this society and we probably share convictions on some points on how to get there and disagree on some other points. There is more than one way to help, so let's be faithful to the calling God has for each of us and leave the results to him.
Stan
dittos. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home