Thursday, October 15, 2009

Limbaugh out of St Louis Rams Bid

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams
ESPN's Adam Schefter first reported the story on Wednesday.
Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a group headed by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts. Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh's participation had become a complication in the group's efforts and the bid will move forward without him.
Checketts told the Associated Press he will have no further comment on the bid process. 
Three-quarters of the league's 32 owners would have had to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh's potential bid would be met by significant opposition. Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh's potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh's bid.

Basically this was a concerted effort by the left to get back at Rush.  Picking up bogus racist statements and treating them as truth had poisoned many of ill informed minds. Add to the fact that many in the NFL feared the racist charge especially given Al Sharpton’s involvement and Rush’s fate was sealed.

What I find ironic is that the NFL has taken such a high tone. How many of their players were involved with real scandals and were still allowed to play.  Michael Vick shoots to the top of the list. So it seems funny that the NFL is all of a sudden shying away from controversy.

As far as Rush’s true controversial statement from back in the day about Donovan McNabb:

 "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."

One has to wonder just how controversial it really is today, given how the media went head over heals over the idea of the first black president.  For those in the media color has very often taken precedent over skill.



Mnut said...

Personally, I feel cheated by this. As an "Evil Lefty" I wanted Limbaugh to get ownership of the Rams. No one would turn down his money. No one turned down Marge Schott.

I would have LOVED to see what he would have done with the revenue sharing situation. Under which the Rams, as part of the lower 17 teams, are given money from a pool into which the most profitable 15 teams (NYJ, NYG, Dallas...)pay into. Sounds like Rush's description of "socialism" taxing the successful to prop up the less successful. That's a minimum of $50 million a year.

Then there is the stadium situation. The current one is built on land seized through eminent domain, with taxpayers money. The current owners are insisting on a repeat of that before 2014. Would Rush also insist on his business by the government while railing against government hand-outs?

The owners of all of the Florida teams have sure taken this hypocritical route.

Ted Remington said...

I've grown very bored of the casual use of "censorship" and "freedom of speech" to mean that anyone can say anything about anything without consequences. It seems to me that this episode illustrates the applicability of two values that conservatives trumpet: consequences and the wisdom of the market.

Because of what Limbaugh has said in the past, his connection to this financial transaction made it more likely to fail. He was cut from the deal because his presence adversely affected the potential profitability of the deal for all involved. The market has spoken. Adam Smith's invisible hand bitch slapped Rusty, and hard. Get over it.

Clifton B said...


Re: Profit sharing. That is not socialism. Not so long as "choice" is involved. Those teams chose that arrangement and Rush would choose to enter into that arrangement. Socialism, where the government TAKES from the rich and gives to whom it deems needy is a whole new ball of wax because choice is removed from the equation.

RE: Eminent domain. I have to admit you have me at a loss on this. I do not know how the stadium was built. Was fair market price paid to those displaced? Did those displaced voluntarily accept displacement? Was this a shameless blind power grab by local government? Can you point me to a starting place so I may find out?

Clifton B said...

Ted Remington:

We are in partial agreement with how freedom of speech actually works. Where we disagree is that the decision to deny Rush was probably based on false quotes attributed to Rush. That is patently unfair and dare I say un-American.

Mnut said...

Since the second tier teams outnumber the first tier teams (17 to 15) and the arrangement was instituted via a vote, it seems to me to be the exact same as our current situation. Whether 17 to 15 or 70 million to 60 million there was still a vote.

As for the eminent domain issue. The people were payed what the government said was fair market value but the government has since lost multiple lawsuits maintaining that FMV was not used. The building and paying for the stadium was not put up to a vote and the only ones who got to chose were the politicians.

I think from the NFL's standpoint it was more of what Rush said about McNabb that kept him from the deal. And also highlighted his ignorance of the game. There have been many successful black QB's (Doug Williams, Randall Cunningham ...) The only "social concern" I think one could arguably point to would be for successful black head coaches. But I think that has passed as there are now several.

Janelle said...

Sorry, Clifton, if mentioning Bo Snerdley was unappropriate. He would certainly be able to clarify how silly this whole brouha is. He has worked with Rush for years.

Related Posts with Thumbnails