- The Washington Times - Friday, October 16, 2009

You knew Rush Limbaugh’s NFL ownership bid was done the moment Roger Goodell read the politically correct tea leaves and dropped the “divisive” word on the highly controversial, ultra-conservative, extremely right of center talk show host.

By comparison, Keith Olbermann is a beacon of reasoned restraint. The same with Chris Matthews, who has the eternal thrill going up his leg. So, too, Anderson Cooper, Ed Schultz, Katie Couric, David Letterman, Bill Maher and so on.

The latter are all thoughtful commentators who would be seen as wonderful additions to the pristine NFL community, which has a well-documented history of inclusiveness.

Making it “rain” at a strip club before firing several gunshots is not “divisive.” Accidentally shooting yourself at a nightclub is not “divisive.” Killing ill-performing fighting dogs is not “divisive.” Vehicular homicide is not “divisive.” We could go on and on with the felonious habits of the NFL, but this is not a tome.

Limbaugh’s fiery political words are hurtful. Actions that lead to a person becoming paralyzed after being shot at a strip club are unfortunate.

The hypocrisy in the Limbaugh matter is so deep, so absurd, that the perpetrators ought to be required to wear a bag over their heads in shame.

“Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,” Goodell said.

We’ll see about that during the next labor-management spat.

Of course, you know that Limbaugh, deep down, is a racist.

You know this because of what he once said of Donovan McNabb, which was: “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.”

As Time magazine’s Bill Saporito put it: “… As a commentator for ESPN in 2003, Limbaugh made a racist remark that quickly got him benched: He disparaged Donovan McNabb, arguing that the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback got higher marks than deserved because of his color. Philadelphia fans were outraged - mostly at being accused of grading anyone on a curve. In Philly, nobody but nobody gets a pass, except the wideouts.”

Cute stuff, except Limbaugh expressed no issue with Philadelphia’s fans. His issue was with the lefties in the media, which apparently eluded Saporito in his zeal to condemn Limbaugh.

To suggest the predominantly left media looked favorably on McNabb’s accomplishments because of skin color is hardly racist. Was his a valid point? Not in my opinion.

Limbaugh was merely attempting to flip a time-worn template back on the old media, and that is not how the racial game is played.

Why, why, the guy must be a racist if he does not know how to play the racial game.

Limbaugh also is guilty of hoping the policies of President Obama fail.

This, too, apparently is racist because of Obama being the nation’s first black president.

You have to be very careful in how you oppose, say, government-run health care.

Opposing government-run health care would not seem to be a polarizing position, given how many Americans instinctively feel about bureaucrats.

Here is what many of us know from government-run services: You inevitably deal with sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome or Lyme disease whenever you go to the post office or to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Are these the same folks who will be in charge of your health care?

And do you really want to put your health care in the hands of an anonymous bureaucrat?

It is perfectly all right if you do. It is perfectly all right if you believe that government-run health care will not end up as just another bankrupt entitlement program in the manner of Social Security.

But it is not unreasonable - or racist - to question the quality, costs and efficiency of a government-run health care system.

Given the fact that future generations will be stuck with it - gutless politicians do not roll back entitlement programs - Americans ought to be elated that the Limbaugh types of the talk world are asking the difficult questions.

Alas, that is not the case. The generation that urged everyone not to trust the government, the establishment or anyone older than 30 in the ‘60s now asks the masses to trust the institutions it dominates. Funny how that works.

Carol Slezak of the Chicago Sun-Times dispensed the left’s conditioned responses on Limbaugh.

“I’ve listened to the show just enough to know that Limbaugh is a buffoon,” she wrote.

Here is a person who has endured in an industry that spits out so many, but he is a buffoon.

OK. It must be luck on his part. Or, as Slezak suggests, he is taking advantage of the gullible.

“I know that many people take him seriously,” Slezak wrote, “but no one should. He’s a charlatan who preys on stupid people.”

So because Slezak vehemently disagrees with Limbaugh, then the millions who listen to him are uneducated dolts.

That is not an argument. That is a your-mother-wears-combat-shoes retort from grade school.

No matter. It is predictable. You know the condescending script: The urban dwellers on the two coasts are intellectuals. The gun-toting, Bible-thumping folks living in the heartland and in the south are morons. And racists, too.

The old media’s outcry against Limbaugh has been intellectually dishonest, as red-state America has come to expect.

It is a media that has noted the Limbaugh-induced concerns of those two people-uniting reverends, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with a straight face.

It is all just too rich.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide