Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Question Of The Day: Does Snowe's Vote Mean Something Passes? | Main | The Curious Resignation Of Robert Wexler »

Oct 14 2009, 10:10 am by Chris Good

The Campaign Against Limbaugh: A Rush To Judgment?

Along with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay, and Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith has denounced Rush Limbaugh's participation in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, encouraging NFL players to speak their minds about Limbaugh and "embrace their roles not only in the game of football but also as players and partners in the business of the NFL." At least seven players have taken that advice. At Politics Daily, Carl Cannon points out that Smith is Obama supporter who has worked closely with Attorney General Eric Holder. Cannon points to Smith's campaign against Limbaugh, and concludes in part that there's too much politics going on here...that the NFL is supposed to be free of all that.

But Limbaugh's style and substance both are polarizing on their own. The pros and cons of Limbaugh-as-owner are a discussion the NFL was bound to have: it kind of makes one wonder if that campaign would have gotten underway on its own, without the help of a Democratic NFLPA leader. Encouragement from the union signals that it's okay to speak up, but the NFL is full of personalities, and lots of interviews happen daily. One has to wonder if just as many members of the NFL family would offer their opinions without anyone telling them it's okay.

:: Comments (12) :: Share This

Comments (12)

Conn Carroll

You left out the part where Smith's campaign against Limbaugh is a complete lie.
He never said the things Isray and co. are accusing him of saying.
But if Obama and his allies want to politicize every commercial entity in the country ... go right ahead.
I'm sure GM and Chrysler will come out of that just fine.

24AheadDotCom (Replying to: Conn Carroll)

Indeed. Back in June, I tried to get Nation Books to comment on their bogus "James Earl Ray" quote, and they refused to respond. I wrote that up after RachelMaddow used the quote on her show, and since that time ThinkProgress has used the quote. We can't expect the MSM to be everywhere and do everything, but you'd think that given such an inflammatory quote and given it being used by prominent people someone somewhere in the MSM (or even this site) could have talked to The Nation about this.

Yet, oddly enough, they did not.

My concern for someone buying an NFL team would usually be down there with, say, my concern for what Sting had for breakfast. However, in this case it matters because some really sleazy, despicable people are arrayed against him, and it wouldn't be good if they win.

Horace

Black players are playing with fire if they want to threaten to boycott a Rush-owned team. The Celtics in the '80s did great when they were two thirds white. I'm sure a mostly white football team would do well too. And considering that it's mostly whites footing the bill for the sport, those fans would probably enjoy it too. From there, maybe someone will get the idea of applying disparate impact law to professional sports, so teams are more representative of the broader population. If it works for fire departments, why not sports teams?

Toni (Replying to: Horace)

I can not believe how often I have seen that line of thinking since this started. Do you not realize that MOST black football players play for white owners RIGHT NOW? And many played at predominantly white schools with white coaches? Black players don't have a problem with white owners, they have a problem with Rush Limbaugh as an owner. BTW, some white people in the NFL and some white fans have a huge problem with it too.

Daniel (Replying to: Horace)

Hey Horace, you know how people throw around the term "racist", sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly? Well, you're racist. Here's why:

1. "The Celtics in the '80s did great when they were two thirds white. I'm sure a mostly white football team would do well too."

The idea here is that black players are supplanting equally or more skilled white players -- rather than that black players have earned what they have. That's classic affirmative action bitching in reference to the most obvious and effectively functioning meritocracy ever to grace the earth. So it's racist.

2. "Considering that it's mostly whites footing the bill for sports, those fans would probably enjoy it too."

What you're saying here is that whites would rather see white players play football than see the best players play football, if the latter happen to be black. Now, clearly that's not the case, as the NFL is rolling in money (despite some decline due to the economy). But it seems pretty obvious that it's your perspective. And it's racist, because you're saying that you favor race over merit.

The rest is obviously a snarky joke, so I'll leave it alone.

Northern Observer

So Limbaugh has never said racially divisive things, right Conn?
If Smith is wrong on a detail of his complaint it doesn't matter, the larger point stands, Limbaugh is a "racial warrior" and there are dozens of statements that underline this fact. He makes a reacial humdinger on his show roughly every 3 months. He would be a hell of an inconvenient owner and the other team owners and players know it. No need for Kremlin conspiracy theories to explain why people are vocally opposed to the Ditto King.

jb (Replying to: Northern Observer)

Just curious if you ever did some research and read the quotes. Take the McNabb issue. He DID say that he didn't think McNabb was that good and that he thought the defense was making that particular team, not the QB. Now that may have been wrong, but he was being paid for his commentary and he gave it. The statement that has gotten him in so much trouble was about the media (no wonder none of them are coming to his defense). He said that they wanted to have a black superstar quarterback and that McNabb wasn't it. By the way he also said that he thought that the NFL was overdue for a superstar black quarterback. That doesn't sound racist to me.

Is he controversial...yes. But is that disqualifying...don't think so.

Michael Bluth

The issue to me here isn't so much whether or not Limbaugh ever owns any part of an NFL team, which at this point looks very unlikely, but the strength of the reaction to the news that he was even considering it.
Having spent time around a D1 college team that has sent players to the pros recently, my concern here is that the vast majority of NFL players were either poor urban blacks or lower-middle class rural whites before they reached the NFL. Those are two groups that one would expect to generally be on exact opposite sides of the Limbaugh divide.
(check out this chart:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/StKuXS7Oo_I/AAAAAAAABWI/6MNEj_MWMuQ/s1600-h/nfldon.png )
I'm concerned that there is a sizable minority of perhaps even a majoity of NFL players who either don't care or support Limbaugh's bid, but that these men are being represented by a man who has made his beliefs to the contrary well known.

Michael Bluth

Here's a great article on the subject. Most interesting stat: 29% of campaign contributions by black NFL players were to Republicans. This group of men in particular seems be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/would-rush-limbaugh-hurt-st-louis-rams.html

Himself

It would be fantastic if Rush did the buy. This will create the cage match of all time: Conservative Talk Radio vs Sports Talk Radio.
Rush Limbaugh vs Jim Rome and all their clones, minions and mobs.
And I am here to tell you Rush, you are doomed. The politically active will be eaten alive by sports fanatics.

linda ivey

well i do wish rush had been able to go thru with the sale because i would like to see them black players give up the millioms give me a break they are not that STUPID.its just jesse jackson, smith an al sharpton AN THERE D-M RACIST MOUTH.