Politics everywhere: Owning an NFL team
Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh wanted to become one of the owners of an NFL football team, the St. Louis Rams. It didn’t work out — he’s just too controversial, said league pooh-bahs. Bosh!, said Rush, blaming an “on-going effort by the left in this country — to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.”
Blackballing a prominent — much loved in some quarters, much despised in others — media figure is an especially interesting step, to say the least, in light of some of the unsavory characters to whom the NFL establishment has not objected — the worst of whom was undoubtedly the notorious George Preston Marshall, the virulently racist owner of the (you guessed it) Washington Redskins. Anyway, into the fray has jumped, of all sources, the Wall Street Journal, to refute Limbaugh’s talking point: “In truth,” notes Steve Kornacki in the October 16 issue of the Journal, “if prominent conservatives were barred from owning NFL teams, about a dozen franchises would be for sale.” Here are the particulars. Anyway, to sort everything out properly, we’d need a experimental design in which some left-wing mirror image of Rush Limbaugh tried to buy into an NFL franchise.
Comments
It’s not just that he’s conservative. Here’s what he said when he was a color commentator on an Eagles game on ESPN:
“The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
The league is wise to avoid the headaches that would inevitably come with Limbaugh owning a team.
Posted by: Jesse Livermore | October 21, 2009 09:40 AM
I had asked at another blog whether the NFL drug policy applies to team owners. There was no response.
Posted by: Shag from Brookline | October 21, 2009 09:47 AM
Jesse highlighted the key Rush quote above — it was important because it showed that Rush wasn’t able to drop his talk-show persona when he was in the football context. By contrast, as far as I know Olbermann (who is a studio guy at NBC for its NFL coverage) apparently can behave himself when he’s back on the sports beat (at least on air, and at least wrt politics).
I’m recommending TNC on Rush:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/the_gop.php#more
Posted by: Jonathan Bernstein | October 21, 2009 01:42 PM
The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.
All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, (which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism, one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money (Marshall Faulk) that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well they work as a team and not on whether or not Rush is an owner.
As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)
Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last couple of days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so what is being stifled, it simply is not true, of course, you may not have a radio, so you might want to get one.
http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html
PS – I am sure someone is working to put the tapes together maybe all you subscribers can help, since you are all about getting to the truth?
PPS- Beauty Pageant Judge - Now I understand why he lost the weight, to find a new wife, creepy.
Posted by: Paul | October 21, 2009 11:14 PM
“into the fray has jumped, of all sources, the Wall Street Journal…” The WSJ has long had a wall between news and editorial. The policies of its editorial page have not affected the reporting of facts in the news section. (Nor, apparently, have the facts reported in the news section affected what gets written in the editorials.)
Posted by: Jay Livingston | October 22, 2009 11:36 AM