Packers go back to the future, plus Rush and Fergie. Andrew Brandt
Why is there unlikely to be much activity prior to the NFL trade deadline next Tuesday?
As is the case every year with the trading deadline, there will be lots of smoke but little fire. It’s the job of personnel departments around the league to check out every possible avenue to improve the team, and that will include potential trades. However, there are several reasons why, after all the talk, there is usually very little action.
APWill Terrell Owens follow the Braylon Edwards path and be the next big-name receiver to be dealt.
There are players around the league who only want to get traded because it might mean a new contract for them. So they really don't want to be traded; they simply want a new deal. Those players will be tough to trade unless the acquiring team is willing to make a large commitment. As we’ve seen with recent trades for Richard Seymour and Braylon Edwards, a new contract is not necessarily part of the equation.
One player always looking for a new contract is Terrell Owens, now the subject of trade rumors. The Bills, however, have already paid Owens roughly $2.5 million of the $6.5 million he’s owed for the 2009 season. If they were to trade him now, they will have paid him more than $200,000 for each of his 12 receptions as a Bill. It would be hard to justify that investment so soon. Speaking of new contracts, there’s more uncertainty than ever before about the future status of player contracts in 2010. There are roughly 175 players who will be free agents if there’s a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (with the same free agency requirements as now) but who will only be restricted free agents as we currently stand entering an uncapped year. This also makes trading problematic.
Every year, there’s debate about the early date of the trading deadline. Unlike the NBA or Major League Baseball -- where there is much more buzz at the deadline and much more activity -- the NFL maintains a trading deadline after six weeks of a 17-week season, not wanting the "rent-a-player" mentality in which players are sent from non-contending teams to contending teams for the stretch run. The NFL’s early deadline usually prevents knowing which teams are also-rans at this point (although this year may be an aberration to that theory).
My sense is that there will be a few trades but none of the "blockbuster" variety that have become common in other leagues.
Why did the Packers bring back Mark Tauscher this week after he had been a free agent since February?
APThe Packers hope that Mark Tauscher will provide some stability to their offensive line.
Have you seen the Packers’ offensive line recently?
They went back to the future on Monday and brought back Tauscher, a fixture at right tackle for almost a decade. Tauscher unfortunately tore his ACL 10 months ago heading into his free-agent year but is now ready to go.
Interestingly, this was not the first time Mark had torn his ACL. In fact, I negotiated a contract extension with him while he was on injured reserve with that torn ACL.
The circumstances were that we were in the process of negotiating an extension when he suffered the injury. After talking to our doctors about the injury and the successful surgery, we proceeded with the deal rather than scrap the negotiation, giving Mark a small initial bonus with a larger bonus after a year of proving that the injury did not affect him continuing to play at a high level.
Mark is also one of the only players I dealt with who negotiated his own contract (and did an impressive job). I’m often asked whether any players represented themselves instead of using agents. Mark started with an agent but eventually handled the key parts of the negotiation himself. We were friends and were able to separate business from personal, although I must admit I would always rather deal with an agent since the subject of a player’s worth can be very raw and emotional if not buffered through a representative.
Mark is a true success story, having barely been drafted at the bottom of the seventh round -- a true find by former general manager Ron Wolf. I remember Ron being amazed by Mark's ability to mold himself in a way to stay in front of onrushing linemen. Mark was integral to the Packers’ success, a reliable presence who was as dependable as could be.
The Packers certainly hope he can re-create that presence after his 10-month forced sabbatical from the team.
Why is all the attention on Rush Limbaugh not necessarily bad for the Rams?
APRush Limbaugh has actually helped deflect some of the negative attention away from the Rams for their poor play.
Have you seen the Rams perform recently? Limbaugh is naturally a lightning rod, causing all kinds of attention due to a confirmed involvement in one of the groups seeking to purchase the St. Louis Rams. His conservative views and racist comments of a few years ago have brought out the usual suspects -- Al Sharpton included -- to rail against the possibility that he could surface in an ownership position.
The upside for the Rams, of course, is that while the news of the moment involves a certain potential member of an ownership group, there is less focus on the play of the team. They’ve scored 34 points in five games, a number smaller than five teams are averaging! Their last two games saw them lose 35-0 and 38-10. Ugh.
Despite these statistics, however, we tend to hear more about the futility of the Raiders, Chiefs, Bucs, Bills and Browns more than we do the Rams. They can thank Limbaugh -- who brings new meaning to phrases such as “silent partner” and “minority investor” -- for that.
Why did the Dolphins bring in Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas as another minority investor?
As with the recent addition of investors such as Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan, Venus and Serena Williams and Jimmy Buffett, the Dolphins have identified a strategy and are sticking to it. In a market with as many entertainment options as any in the NFL, Dolphins owner Stephen Ross is trying to corral that elusive concept of “buzz” around Dolphins games.
Every owner would like to have the scene at their games rival that of a Lakers game, a feeling that a person has to be there because it’s “the place to be.” From those I talked to at the game on Monday, that feeling was there. Then again, it was a Monday night game where the team played well against a division rival.
Let’s see if Fergie and company can create some buzz in Week 16 against the Texans.
Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt
@Blaise63,
as someone who grew up listening to Rush more than a decade ago while my grandfather drove me places when my parents were both working, plus on trips to the driving range with him, etc., I can most definitely assure you that even the most staunch supporters of Rush (such as my grandfather) admit that he crosses the line into racism at times. Some of his statements ARE racist, not in the classic "_______ people are _______" form, but insidious, highly intellectual forms of stereotyping and race-mongering. And I say this as someone raised in a predominately conservative, pro-choice, anti-global-warming, free market family. The guy is a sleazeball--or at least plays one on the radio and incites his listeners. None of that, even if it is a front for making money (which is his #1 goal, not "saving America" or his other asinine claims), is productive in a society still working to erase (and in some cases, admit) the scars of racism.
Blaise, that is such a "small potatoes" pointing-out... it might be the nitpick of all nitpicks.
Why do you go to such lenghts to defend Rush when Brandt didn't even do anything to him...
Just as Rush has a right to say what he wants, those seemingly (and perhaps not even) opposed to him have the same right. Rush stretches the truth, lives on the edge and pokes at eveyone just to get ratings. And you defend that, rightfully so.
So why nitpick such a tiny, I guess you must think, "miscue" by Brandt when Andrew didn't even attempt to attack him in anyway? You come off as so sensitive, even though your guy Rush is the shock jock.....
I second the comments of Blaise63. Accusations of racism are too incendiary to be tossed around casually. If you really want to call Rush a racist, I think you need to support it factually.
@ Blaise
I am a libertarian that believes in free speech. But if you honestly believe that Rush has not made racially-charged and offensive comments, then you are ignorant. Not all racists comments contain the n-word and refer to stereotypical slave labels. Not everyone makes racist comments do it like Atlanta bar owner, Patrick Lanzo. Racist comments can be subtle, and still very offensive towards a group of people who have fought for equality and fairness for hundreds of years.
You stated that he’s not made racially offensive comments since the Clinton presidency.
- In 2003 he stated that the media had an agenda to promote Donovan McNabb because of their desire to see an African-American QB do well.
- In 2008 he played a song ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ repeatedly on his radio show. As well as claim that President Obama had sold out his black half during the presidential campaign.
Here’s some other links to look up (all with video/audio clips of Rush making racially-charged comments):
- http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/09/15#0023
- http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230055
All I am saying is that this guy is known for his polarizing rhetoric. And while he is an entertainer and gets paid well for his personna, I would rather professional sports stay away from having the Rush Limbaughs and Marge Schotts of the world taking ownership of its teams.
Who called Rush a racist? Brandt didn't call Rush anything...
Again, why so sensitive? It seems like you guys are fine with Rush walking a thin line, but yet when Andrew Brandt writes an article you claim foul.
Rush will always remind me of the McNabb incident... how do NFL owners prevent him from saying something as stupid as that if he's allowed into the group.
meateater you are right. I am hoping Andrew meant to say controversial not racist comments.
I don't really have time to correct all the misstatements in your post, but let's look at the more egregious ones. Rush never said he hasn't made racially offensive statements since Clinton. He said the supposed quotes being thrown around, which he denies making, were claimed to have been made in 1998, ie during the Clinton presidency. It defies belief that he said something so offensive then yet it is only now surfacing.
The "Magic Negro" spoof was a takeoff on a column written by a LA Times columnist, a liberal by the way, who characterized Obama as a "magic negro" who alleviated white guilt.
The McNabb comments were a jab at sportswriters over their liberal guilt. If Tom Jackson said it, no story. Rush? Somehow it's racism.
Basically your point is that anyone who comments on anything with a racial angle and who does not toe Jesse Jackson's line 100% is "polarizing" and hence unfit to be part of the NFL.
I disagree with that, and I think the vast majority of fans do as well. This is nothing short of an organized effort to make it untenable for anyone with conservative views to take part in public life. If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton were trying to buy a team, the league would be too terrorized to object, but if it's a conservative white guy, suddenly they are oh so sensitive.
Who cares about Rush, he doesn't have NFL kind of money anyway, it's a joke.
The problem with this article is you saying that Owens won't be traded because if you did all you got was 12 catches for their $2.5 million. Ever heard of cutting your losses? You sound like the type of guy still holding onto his GM stock because you bought it at $40 and there's no way you are selling it until you get back to even. Horrible strategy. Tell me he can't be traded because of a cap hit or something, don't say it's because you haven't got any results yet. If he had a ton of catches YOU WOULDN'T BE TRADING HIM!!!!!!
So if I repeat someone else's racially-charged comments then that means my comments are not racially-charged?
Commenting on race is one thing, but stating absolutes (often stereotypical) about race without unbiased scientific evidence is a racially-charged comment. Something that minorities have been fighting for centuries.
Rush does have money, its reported that he makes $100 mill a year, Checketts has no money, thats why he was contemplating bringing in Rush to carry the load for him. We don't need to have a Rush argument on here, this was all a publicity stunt to get Checketts' name out as a "viable" bidder for the Rams. I wish Brandt could divulge the other two parties that submitted bids, but it seems as if Goldman Sachs won't let anyone in one the bidding war...
My reference to racist comments were from Limbaugh's comments regarding McNabb. It is admittedly a small, albeit meaningful, sample of his views.
As for Owens, my point was that the Bills would probably want to see more for their investment than to cut losses this early. He has also brought some spotlight to a franchise that has starved for attention on the national stage.
I will never understand how stating a fact - that McNabb's status as a QB was elevated by the media for reasons other than his performance - became a form of racism. McNabb's never performed at levels higher than Mark Brunell, Jeff Garcia or Kerry Collins and yet the media STILL treats him like he's Manning or Favre or Brady. Sometimes facts are offensive folks - that doesn't make it racist.
I don't follow Rush anymore (became a libertarian once I quit drugs and my brain kicked in) but frankly, he'd be a tremendous gain for the league as well as the Rams. It's no different than what the Phins are doing with their celebrity minority investors except this one actual had a following and would be committed to helping build a winning program.
Why should we expect owners to be nothing more than quiet, aging folks that don't care about the game? What could he possibly say or do that would be worse than the things Al Davis does with frightening regularity? Or what about Dan Snyder? Or Mark Cuban (not in the NFL but a similar situation)? And his money's legit - ain't like he can afford this due to certain gambling operations or other questionable activities. Or that their money only exists due to federal bailouts of certain industries.
He'd be a minority partner with a day job, big friggen deal. Get over it folks - the economy ain't good enough for the league to be getting picky about ownership and nobody has the right to discriminate against someone based solely on their political views.
I just deleted national football post from my favorites and will not visit this site any more. For Andrew B to to call Limbaugh a racist is poor journalism and I can't trust his analysis or research. Andrew use to be better than that and i wonder why he stooped that low.
Andrew - the problem is that too many American's can't see a difference between commenting on race and a racist comment. Rush made a comment on race with legitimate basis in fact - McNabb's status is elevated by a media that places an emphasis on promoting blacks throughout the league where blacks have traditionally struggled. They didn't worship Trent Dilfer when the Ravens were winning, they didn't worship Rex Grossman when the Bears were winning, they didn't worship Kerry Collins when the Titans were winning, heck we even debate if Eli Manning is better than average, but they worship McNabb when it's the same situation of defense and running game carrying an average QB, which in fact, is what McNabb is as a matter of historical performance.
Stating that fact isn't racist.
The fat, druggie buffoon is not going to obtain part ownership in the Rams so it's a non-issue. The Rams would be the most hated franchise in football and most players, black and white, would refuse to play there. How anyone can support one of the truly worst people in the world is beyond me.
J Servi- thanks, you're doing us all a service.
Explain this to me: How can you sit here and cry foul about what Brandt typed, and yet see nothing wrong with what Rush says on a daily basis.
I don't care whether what Limbaugh says is racist or not, right or wrong, I don't care.. but what did Andrew Brandt type in the above article that could have possibly offended you! He didn't call Limbaugh anything!
You're being so bias it's comical... for that to offend you and yet be fine with what Rush says is about as bias and ignorant a position as I've seen.
Well, Andrew, guess you hit the nail when you wrote "Limbaugh is naturally a lightening rod. . ." I won't go over other comments since I couldn't respond any better than Mr. Murder and Scott M. As to Richard's comments, guess your profiling of Limbaugh could be also fit a number of present owners; so which one of those will you drum out of the NFL? Those on the left love to portray Limbaugh as "extreme right wing" but choose to ignore that he has, by far, the highest rated radio show, and probably the highest rated show in all of media. And the Rev Jackson/Sharptons of the world reflect main steam thought?!?
Now, must give my props to another who is the pride of UW, Madison and Aburndale, WI. Taush has shown that hard work, professionalism, and dedication can pay off. An almost afterthought not only for the NFL but for even his last year at the UW. Perhaps he can bring Barbre along since all reports say he has the physical attributes but still has a small college mindset.
Andrew,
I think it's unfortunate you have apparently hopped on the bash Limbaugh bus. The McNabb comment got spun as racist because of the old black QB cliche, but Rush merely pointed out that writers wanted to bury it and thus were not critical of McNabb. How that is racist escapes me. For the life of me, I can't understand why you would want your column to become politicized, but liberals seem congenitally incapable of avoiding it. Cocngrats, you just alienated half your readers.
A lot of people see these attacks and just want to avoid getting involved, so they shy away from Limbaugh or say something they think will placate the attackers, like the gutless Goodell. Unfortunately, appeasing bullies and extortionists only emboldens them. Look for Jesse Jackson to try to exploit this situation to demand money from the league.
Sorry, meant to say meateater when I wrote Mr Murder in my last post
@ Scott M
It's not that black players have traditionally struggled at QB, it's that they weren't given the chance to play that position. When Warren Moon came out of Washington, there was pressure on him to play WR. That's why he went to the CFL. That man could play quarterback at a very high level. So can Donovan McNabb. To say that he is getting a pass because of his ethnicity is disingenuous at best and racist at worst. In reality it's probably somewhere in the middle and the fallout from those comments was a bit extreme.
Oh and please tell me who these people in the media are that "worship" McNabb?
Andrew--
You jumped the shark with this article.
I believe I speak for many, many readers of this site when I say . . .
Buh Bye.
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." Rush Limbaugh, 2003.
This is the racist comment that is at the forefront for most players. Spin the McNabb issue however you want, it was a STUPID comment to begin with. Find me a time when Tom Jackson came anywhere close to uttering such nonsense. Rush talks about how its the left that pushes the black labels on people, the right doesn't consider race. But he goes out of his way to bring up McNabb's race and relate it to the media wanting a black QB to succeed? Whatever.
Rush is clearly trying to make the point that games in the NFL remind him of a fight between two black gangs. Those who are upset that Rush was dropped from the ownership group submitting the bid really need to look at the facts. Media, your supposed arch enemy, is the business of promoting the most dramatic story. Rush is no different. Rush loves to be overly dramatic to push emotional buttons of those that tune in. Emotional listeners are the ones that drive his popularity. He's an extremely intelligent entertainer and he uses it to bring in big, big money for himself and his sponsors.
Unfortunately, when he uttered these words, he removed himself from having any credibility with the players, white, black, green, etc.
If I am out of line, then explain to me what Rush really meant there.
frenchy - not going to waste time with a list but the fact he's been in multiple Pro Bowls and was once the runner-up for AP's League MVP voting when he's had a total of one good season in his career is what I was getting at. And yes, I'm well aware that many blacks weren't allowed the opportunity to play quarterback. Neither were most Hispanics, about 99.9% of whites, and I don't know that any Asians have had the chance but saying that apparently would make me a racist.
Bottom line is that anyone who can turn a fat, ugly white guy with no money and no physical talents other than a big mouth into a multi-billion dollar industry is a brilliant businessman and the owners are fools for pushing him away. He knows more about negotiating for and marketing of human talent than any existing owner in the league. He also comes with key political ties to navigate some of their ongoing legal issues. He could've seriously benefitted the league but oh whole.
I think it's a total cop out to label people as anything. All that was said was that Rush has made racially-charged comments. I already defined this in my earlier post. But Rush's statement that the media was desirous to see a black QB do well was no more a statement of fact than people who think President Bush planned 9/11. It's a comment made from opinion based on some kind of media conspiracy. And because it is not fact, but opinion, makes it a racially-charged comment (and offensive to some African Americans).
Besides, this whole notion of a media conspiracy is simply a delusion. It's a total cop-out to blame something on "the media" because it feeds into the paranoia of people who are too lazy or ignorant to actually take the time to do a little fact-checking. If something is reported that a person doesn't like - it's because of the liberal/conservative media. Please.
Frankly, I could really care less if he becomes an owner. Heck, if I thought he'd turn the Lions franchise into the Steelers or Colts franchise, I'd gladly accept him as the owner instead of William Clay Ford.
But to argue that Rush's comments about McNabb were factual is wrong. It was an opinion. And when a person makes an opinion about minorities without concrete verifiable evidence, then it stands to reason that some may be offended.
"I will never understand how stating a fact - that McNabb's status as a QB was elevated by the media for reasons other than his performance - became a form of racism. McNabb's never performed at levels higher than Mark Brunell, Jeff Garcia or Kerry Collins and yet the media STILL treats him like he's Manning or Favre or Brady. Sometimes facts are offensive folks - that doesn't make it racist." - Scott M.
Stating a fact? Unless it's backed up by evidence, it's called an opinion, Scott. I looked at the evidence to see if you were right. I checked number of games started, pass attempts, completion %, pass yards, pass TDs, INTs, rush yards, rush TDs and overall record for McNabb, Brunell, Garcia and Collins.
In 128 starts, McNabb has 4342 pass attempts at 59% completion. They went for 29663 yds, 199 TDs and 91 INTs. He has rushed for 3166 yds, and 27 TDs. His career record is 82-45-1.
In 150 starts, Brunell passed 4594 times at 59.6%, for 31826 yds, 182 TDs and 106 INTs. He rushed for 2433 yds, 15 TDs and has a record of 78-72.
In 116 starts, Garcia has passed 3676 times at 61.6%, for 25537 yds, 161 TDs and 83 INTs. He has rushed for 2140 yds and 26 TDs, with a record of 58-58.
In 164 starts, Collins has passed 5854 times at 55.8%, for 38471 yds, 191 TDs and 186 INTs. He has rushed for 688 yds, 10 TDs, and has a career record of 79-85.
The stats show that McNabb has more TDs and fewer picks than Brunell or Collins, in fewer starts. He has more 38 more TDs, and 8 more picks than Garcia, but has started 12 games more. His overall career record is clearly better than the other three. His rushing record is a distance ahead of all three, also.
McNabb has been to one Super Bowl, and lost, and is a 5-time pro bowler. Brunell has no Super Bowls, and is a 3-time pro bowler. Garcia has no Super Bowls, and is a 4-time pro bowler. Collins went to one Super Bowl and lost, and is a 2-time pro bowler.
The stats show that the four quarterbacks have had broadly comparable careers, but McNabb is ahead in all key stats except completion percentage and INTs. The INT stat can be attributed to having over 600 more pass attempts than Garcia.
Thus, your claim that "McNabb's never performed at levels higher than Mark Brunell, Jeff Garcia or Kerry Collins" is false. He has clearly performed at a higher level than all three.
This is no comment at all on Rush Limbaugh, by the way. I have no interest in that issue. This is a comment on people giving opinions, and claiming them to be facts.
Andrew,
Stick to what you know.
The McNabb comment wasn't racist.
All of these race baiting idiots are making me nuts.
Coming from Denmark ind Europe, I find that fFor a nation that promotes, and defends, freedom of speech so vigorously as the US, you all are taking a small and taken out-of-context comment way too seriously. If Mr. Brandt were to shout it from the rooftops or run for public office, and in the process of doing so, making these kinds of comments, then I would stand by your attempts to discuss, refute or downplay them. But since it's a part of a very much non-political context (namely the issue of the an NFL teams ownership and image), I think that all the Brandt-bashing should cease, and your collective brain-powers (which is clearly present, given the extent of the vocabulary and overall awareness of the individuals) should be put to better use.
I don't even think the Limbaugh-issue is the most important og interesting part of the column. I'm more interested in knowing whether you (Mr. Brandt) think that the addition og Tauscher will help improve the Packers' pass protection or if more help is needed to fix the huge protection problems they have??
Love your insights and the site as a whole.....I think it has built, and maintains, a very high level of quality in it's insightfulness and level of insider-analysis and overall knowledge.
Sigh. It's a pretty sad commentary on our society that we've come to this: the most racist thing that anyone can say is to call another man racist. It ultimately doesn't matter how obviously racist that person is; he should not have to suffer the indignity of being CALLED a racist.
Why? Why is "playing the race card" worse than actual racism?
Rush's racist comments about Donovan McNabb are well-documented. He got fired for them. The facts are not in doubt.
Yet, I knew as soon as I read the words, "racist comments," I knew that the comments would be overflowing with indignation.
It baffles me. We see racism every day. Why is pointing it out so terrible? I've taken it on the chin in these comments (and elsewhere) for suggesting that the NFL was more lenient with Brett Favre's drug addiction, Matt Jones' open cocaine use, and Tom Cable's casual violence, than they would have had the same people been black (Quincy Carter, Steve Smith). I've been vilified for daring to suggest that the reason so many Bengals get arrested might have more to do with Cincinnati's incredibly racist police force than the character of Marvin Lewis' players.
EVERY TIME people simply go crazy when there is a suggestion of racism. AND it is always turned around as some kind of reverse-racism. Why is it so wrong to call out racists? What is the harm?
As for the argument that Donovan McNabb is not "really" a good QB and he is the recipient of some kind of NFL affirmative action? That argument held a hell of a lot more water in 2003 (and it was so bad and obviously racist that ESPN fired Rush). But to read the commenters on this page say that they STILL feel this way? After 5 more years of excellence? I mean, if he was so mediocre, wouldn't the Eagles have replaced him by now? Or, wouldn't the Eagles have been bad??
Donovan McNabb is 11th all time in QB rating. 8th among QBs who have played 10 years or more. 8th!
Now, I don't think that makes him the 8th best QB of all time. But I think it mean's he's sure say he's of the top 10 QBs in the NFL. I think at LEAST 20 teams would be glad to trade their QB for him.
I mean...really? McNabb isn't good? In 2009?
justthefacts - see, that quote is really what this is all about. Any normal person looks at that reference and see's it for what it is - a reference to gangs of criminals. But you and so many others look at that and all you see is blacks but you point the finger at the rest of us. Never mind that there are plenty of Hispanics and whites in gangs as well, as well as females, your sure he wasn't calling the players a bunch of women?
He likely made that statement while talking about the tendency of the league and teams at the time to ignore off-field illegal behavior or to give minimal discipline prior to Goodell. It was only a common topic amongst everyone who commented on sports for years.
@swansoncide
Just one point of clarification, Rush was not fired. He resigned due to the fallout.
And no one is saying Rush is a racist. He just made an opinion that involved race. And when a person makes an opinion about minorities, it's a racial comment that some will find offensive.
If Rush had said, "the media wants Mark Sanches to do well because he's a Hispanic QB" or if he had said "the media wants so-and-so to do well because he's an openly gay QB" would he have had the same kind of response? I believe so.
Regardless, the NFL clearly doesn't want someone who comments on issues in terms of race, since he offers no verifiable scientific evidence to back them up.
"And no one is saying Rush is a racist." Well, Mr. Brandt referred to Limbaugh's "racist comments." I suppose a non-racist can utter racist comments, but in my experience, it's generally the racists who do so.
And: I am saying Rush is a racist.
Think about how bizarre that complaint is: I am upset that the media wants this guy to do well because a black guy has never been successful at this before. I am upset the media made a big deal about Jackie Robinson. I am uspet the media made a big deal about Thurgood Marshall. I am upset that the media made a big deal about America having its first black president.
What is so offensive about that excitement? Well, if you're a racist, and you believe that black people need to be put in their place and kept there, the idea of a black baseball player or a black quarterback or a black Supreme Court Justice or a black President is threatening.
Is there some other reason this would be bad? Is it somehow unfair to Pee Wee Reese that Jackie Robinson's number is retired? Is it unfair to Jaws that McNabb is celebrated more by Philadelphians? There IS a racist element to this "opinion."
And in America, you have the right to your opinion. If you hate black people, you have the right to be racist. You have the right to make racist statements all the time if you choose. Just don't expect everyone to like it, or for ESPN to put it on the air, or for the NFL players and coaches and owners to welcome you with open arms.
My opinion is that while Rush officially "resigned," he was actually fired by ESPN. My opinion is that I'm glad that the kids of Philadelphia look up to a black guy who leads the Eagles to victory, not just with "innate athletic ability," but with hard work and guts and smarts. And in my opinion, the success of black coaches and QBs in the NFL is good for everyone! Why wouldn't it be?
Scott M., then why not say street gangs? Why say Bloods and Crips, twp rival gangs with members who are mostly african american. I see your point, but I think if you poll america (or poll NFL players), and you ask them to describe a member of the crips or bloods, 99.9% of the people are going to answer a young black youth, not white or female. Somehow, Rush Limbaugh listeners see the higher truth in his meanings. During the offseason when Sirius radio is dull, I listen to him almost every day because he is entertainment and he presents a unique political angle that is not found anywhere else.
The problem is, whether you like it or not, Rush Limbaugh has alienated himself from the majority of NFL players, whether its right or wrong, the damage has been done.
Funny, that Sharpton is mentioned as somebody outraged about Rush's involvement. You want to hear racist comments, look up Sharpton's comments, involving the Jewish community and "White Interloopers". The media certainly has short memories. Also, why hasn't the liberal media made any mention of George Soros being part of this group to own the Rams? This guy started and funded moveon.org who outraged many Americans with the "General Betrayus" ad of a great American. The Rams don't need either of these guys in their ownership group.
Rush is a bloated, racist, hate-mongering, drug-addict. If the NHL won't let billionaire Balsillie play then why should the NFL let Rush in? It's a private club, with purchase at the discretion of the current members. If they don't like Rush too bad for him. Doesn't matter the reason. Though if I were a Rams fan I wouldn't want a drug addict running my team. Maybe David Crosby should put in a bid.
Jim, the notion that the media is more liberal than conservative is a Rush notion. He and Hannity and Beck repeat it every day, 10 times a day, from that bastion of liberalism, Fox News. But where is the factual verification of that claim? What study does Rush refer to to back up that claim? Or what study are you using? Look at the editorial boards of the Washington Post and NY Times -- the so-called liberal papers -- there are more conservatives than liberals penning opinion columns. Look at the weekend news shows -- same schtick, more conservatives given a voice than so-called liberals.
The great majority of the mass media in this country is owned by conservatives -- corporate owned chains. In fact independent journalism is dying because of the trend toward corporate owned media. Mother Jones, is that the liberal media you refer to? How often have you read that publication?
But this is what Rush and his ilk do. Puts lies into the mainstream via their radio and tv shows and repeat it on a daily basis, over and over and over until many interpret it as accepted truth. It's a method Goebbels mastered in Germany to lay the blame for Germany's economic and social condition at the hands of the Jews. And the repeated racists commentary of people like Rush and Goebbels serve the same purpose: to keep racial division alive.
We have an affirmative action President, don't you know? He wasn't born in this country, don't you know? He's forming death panels, don't you know? He is tilting everything to favor minorities, don't you know? Boy good thing that that liberal media kept those accurate and important stories within public earshot. And the George Soros owned media is not the only media that gives people like Al Sharpton a voice. Sharpton is always dished up to serve as the typical liberal wanting to make a victim of anyone. So the notion that Al Sharpton is proof of a liberal media is also a bogus claim.
And boy, here we have Rush, a victim of the liberal media. What a liberal notion -- a victimized Rush.
Thersht, I just questioned why Sharpton is the standard bearer for race when he has made as many inflammatory comments about race as Limbaugh has. Also, why didn't the media or Brandt point out Soros potential ownership of the team? (And you didn't answer any of those questions) Or is it because most in the media believe in Soros's agenda? Finally, I wonder how many haters actually listen to Rush or Hannity or Beck, or do they just spout the talking points of the left and the President? I actually listen to both sides (ie. Air America or MSNBC) and for the most part I see the hate from both side. At any rate, the only weekend shows I watch are on ESPN, CBS AND FOX since they are the Pregame shows. And after all this is site is about football.
Fair enough, Jim. And I agree with you on Sharpton. He has no credibility and why he is given the public forum he is given, is beyond me. But my question is why is he given that forum?
And that question is part of my argument that the meme of a "liberal media" is just a falsehood. The media in the U.S. is mostly about shoving non-issue soap operas -- like Sharpton -- into the public dialogue and less about reportage on the real issues at hand. The whole soap opera around the health care issue is typical. Universal health care means death panels and socialism, it is reported, and yet very little relevant to the need by many for affordable health care and tp the reasons why health care is so expensive.
I watch Fox news just to see what they say. I listen to Rush periodically as well. Mostly I read newspapers. I never watch abc, cbs, nbc or mainstream media.
How is that you know about George Soros? He doesn't have a daily tv show espousing his blatant liberalism. You learned about him because he is a conservative talking point -- maybe in the same way Rush is for the left. But at least Rush has a public record of his opinions and views. Soros does not. I guess because he gave money to moveOn, everything they say is his opinion. That seems to be the argument. As far as I k now, he is someone who made a tremendous amount of money in the stock market and donates some of it to causes that lean left.
Should that discount him as an NFL? If you feel it does, then speak out. Do Rush's views discount him. In and of themselves, no. For as meateater pointed out in a previous post, many people involved in the nfl, ownership and players both, have plenty of flaws on their own and are stilled allowed access to the business.
But many people are opposed to Rush's views -- and it was those people speaking out and the media's understanding that such news will be controversial and worthy of their exploitation that led to the media reportage of it. Not a decision by the so-called liberal media to go after Rush -- in my opinion. Doesn't make it true because I opine it.
it just smacks of hypocrasy that people who are being critical of Andrew for commenting on the issue and having an opinion and stating that they will not read the post again when all he is doing is excersising his right to free speech just like Rush excersises his right everyday..its free speech for all not just for a select few whether they be on the left or right..while I dont agree with much of what Meateater or Jim or Scott M are saying at least they are debating the issue with out getting into personal insults or having hissy fits and saying they wont read the post again..that goes for both sides of the argument
it just smacks of hypocrasy that people who are being critical of Andrew for commenting on the issue and having an opinion and stating that they will not read the post again when all he is doing is excersising his right to free speech just like Rush excersises his right everyday..its free speech for all not just for a select few whether they be on the left or right..while I dont agree with much of what Meateater or Jim or Scott M are saying at least they are debating the issue with out getting into personal insults or having hissy fits and saying they wont read the post again..that goes for both sides of the argument
Check your own facts, Rush is a racist and does not belong in the NFL. He made racist comments as an ESPN commentator about Donovan McNabb, indicating he was overrated because he was a black quarterback. This got him canned from that job.
cw-please admit then that Obama has made racist comments. he jumped to a conclusion that a white cop must have been racially profiling before he had all the fact. I'm not saying just saying.
How is Fergie an acceptable owner in the NFL by the standards cited in dropping Limbaugh? Have you listened to her lyrics? Heard her political statements? She is no less inflammatory than Limbaugh. How about David Letterman? Or Mark Cuban. Letterman owns half of Letterman-Green racing, and he is toxic, a really mean and nasty guy. Cuban is a Marxist who managed to get rich but wants to stop anyone else from getting rich. How about a little consistency?
CW, the quotes being attributed to Limbaugh have been checked and he did not say them. They are fabrications. There well may be lawsuits and there will be retractions and apologies. It is not okay to give credence to un-sourced secondhand remarks.
Do you honestly want to know what keeps race wars going? Ridiculous things like i have read here. People were piling onto the investment group for possibly bringing Rush on board. Now so many people are piling onto Brandt for one word, racist. Well, I remember I first listened to Rush around 1992. I along with millions of Americans listen to him out of hearing his shocking views, and for entertainment.
I have listened to Rush off and on for many years, and no, i do not agree with most of the things he believes in. I have heard him make what people would call sensitive remarks. Boo freeaking hoo. What pisses me off, is how everyone is so quick to point fingers and cast judgements on other people. Mainly because they simply have forgotten what it is like to stand on their own 2 feet. People would rather have someone tell them what to think then think on their own. So quick to blame others.
Rush or Sharpton do not perpetuate racism, I could care less if either actually do, it is individuals who do, namely parents. People want to have perfect children but their lives are too busy and want others to raise them for them, and then they come unglued when a figure like Rush makes some silly comment.
Thersitz-Your comment about a comparing Rush to Goebbels, dropped my IQ 3 points. what an asinine comment and most likely in some peoples mind, insensitive.
This political crap belongs elsewhere, clogs up some very good reading.
The Internet is serious business.
"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "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. 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."
| powered by TheSeats.com |
NFP's President was featured on...
Vikings and Dolphins probably...
Packers washout now starts for...
DeMaurice Smith lays out the stakes....
As uncapped year approaches, both...
Oct 14, 2009
02:19 PM
Andrew, usually I save my wrath for the nitpicking bloggers (see my response to Lombardi's use of Casey for Chad) but one statement above needs retracting. I am a fan of your and Rush; as I would raise issues on those who would denigrate you I must also of those who denigrate Rush. The "racist comments" you mention above have been shown to be a disinformation reference someone put into a Wikepedia entry on Limbaugh. As Rush said on his show yesterday, these "racist comments" were supposedly spoken during Clinton's last tem yet are just surfacing now. With as fine tooth a comb those on the left go over his show, do you think for just a nano-second that if he had made these comments the Clinton White House would have been on him like flies on ? I ask that you remove this reference; he and I are conservative and proud of it; we are not racist, homophobe, earth rapists!