The Limbaugh Precedent

So Roger Goodell, Jim Irsay (of the Baltimore Bolts), the NFLPA, Jessie ("Hymietown") Jackson and Al ("Tawana Brawley") Sharpton, and Commie Pinkos Democrats everywhere have managed to run off Rush Limbaugh as a potential minority owner of the St Louis Rams.

I think it's political correctness run amok. But your mileage may vary. Whatever.

Like any decent lawyer, however, my interest in the case has to do with the precedent it sets.

We now have an established rule that divisive and polarizing people can't own NFL teams. Fine. Applying that precedent, it seems obvious to me that the NFL must now take the Washington Redskins away from Danny Snyder.

After all, Snyder divides those Redskins fans who think he is the worst owner in the history of professional sports from those of us who think he's merely the worst owner in the history of Washington DC professional sports franchises.

As far as being a polarizing figure, at one pole are those Redskins fans who think he should be tarred and feathered and at the other are those of us would settle for a good flogging.

So there you have it. Divisive and polarizing. Out with the SOB.

I suspect even a lot of Washington Commie Pinkos Democrats will agree with me on this one.

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

We need a "wasted franchise" rule to take the Lions away from the Ford family. Even Detroit deserves better.

Go Steelers!

[Steven Taylor]

I would argue that Mark Cuban in re: the Cubs in MLB was a similar case for a less rambunctious potential owner (a dumb move by MLB IMHO, BTW). As such, I think that the precedent here is not quite what you are making it out to be. Further, I can't image those are the only two times that a possible owner has been considered controversial enough to effect which investment group has the best shot at buying a franchise. This is simply the most visible case.

Beyond all of that, Limbaugh is, in many ways sui generis, yes?

As I have argued over at my place several times: why would the NFL want a lightning rod like Limbaugh when it can almost certainly find a quieter investor? It strikes me as good business (or, at least, logical business).

And while I fully understand your ire at Snyder, it is a rather different situation than is Limbaugh.

Your Pinko Friend,

Steven ;)

[Steven Taylor]

BTW: I am of the opinion that given the super-majority needed to approve an buyer that the odds were very mcuh against Limbaugh from the get-go and Sharpton/Jackson were actually irrelevant (i,e., much sound and fury signifying nothing) and not, by any stretch, the cause of what happened.

[Brian]

The real awful precedent is that you get to make stuff up about "divisive and polarizing" conservatives and slander them in order to stop them from doing something you don't want them to do. Although it's actually pretty similar in that respect to the Rather-gate fiasco. Just like crazy Dan was fired, anyone in the MSM who broadcast the obvious lies about Limbaugh should be fired, because there is no way a rational person can claim they did even the most cursory of fact checking before going on air. They were either knowingly broadcasting lies, in which case they should be fired, or they are incredibly ill-informed and can't be bothered to do basic fact-checking, in which case they should be fired.

[Michael]

I hadn't realized what a pc world football and football commentary is. I wonder if this will hurt their franchise. The NFL and players are telling people who would like a diversity of opinion 'a black league doesn't allow that.' They seem to know that football is a fix you have to have.

[Matthew Bilinsky]

Saying that Limbaugh is simply "polarizing" in a general sense is a convenient way to justify his ownership.

He is not polarizing in the way Dane Cook is polarizing. He is polarizing on the specific topic of race relations which is a very germane topic to the National Football League.

Not allowing a guy who compared the professionals in the sport to Crips and Bloods is not "political correctness", it is sensible business.

So please, when calling Limbaugh "polarizing" do not conveniently leave out what subjects he is polarizing for.

[Matthew Bilinsky]

And no, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are not the reason Rush Limbaugh is not going to be a NFL owner. They are obsolete. Simply the fact that hypocrites and race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson just happen to be on the same side of the issue as the NFL owners does not mean that they were the motivating factor.