Perhaps Rush knew the drug shit was just about to hit the fan and decided to get out while the getting was good.
Just a thought.
Bing-bing.
If Clinton can throw off some missiles at a baby factory to take attention away from impeachment, perhaps Rush can lay down a quasi-racist bomb to take attention from an imminent criminal investigation? (With the side benefit of making him appear a martyr, with the baddy libs out to get him . . ) Like you said, just a thought.
There is also a broader context of fairly offensive racial statements that Rush has made in the past:
“Take the bone out of your nose and call me back.”
“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”
Just to name a few of the more popular ones. Combined with his trademark habit of jumping on libruls for stepping even slighly outside the conservative line, he pretty much invited this on himself.
So, in a sense, Rush was probably shafted (to respond to the OP). It’s not by far the most offensive thing he’s ever said. But this is a sports program, not a political soapbox for railing against the so-called liberal media, and his previous actions and statements really made this backlash pretty inevitable.
Who had a factory that made babies? Was this some kind of ‘Brave New World’ type of thing? 
Shawn Kemp. I liked making babies so much, I bought the company. 
I really have no opinion on this since I’m not familiar with McNabb or his league or media attention to it, but this MSN article basically says he’s right and he’s just being honest about it.
I don’t always agree with Slate, but I usually find their articles to be pretty good and pretty politically moderate.
This is my absolute favorite article on this subject.
Rush should have been fired for the remark simply on the basis of its sheer stupidity. I mean, when football fans are telling you that you said something really really stupid and ill informed, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I disagree with you about Calvin Peete, David Simmons. Way back when I was on my high school golf team and I had to line up 90 degrees to the hole to hit the fairway, I started looking at pro golfers’ swings for tips. I learned that although Peete was by far the most accurate pro off the tee, it was almost impossible to duplicate his swing because of his inability to fully extend one arm as a result of a broken elbow. I also learned that Peete never golfed before he was in his 20s–coincidentally or not, just after the PGA lifted its caucasians-only rule. Within five years of taking up the sport, he went pro. Peete has more PGA tour wins than Fuzzy Zoeller, Nick Faldo, or Chi-chi Rodriguez.
Think about that: this high-school dropout picks up a set of clubs at age 23, invents his own swing to account for a physical disability, establishes a solid reputation for being one of the most accurate drivers in the history of the sport, and gets himself on the all-time money-winning list. And he was a black man breaking into a traditionally racially exclusive sport. That’s why the press loved the guy–he was exceptional in addition to having a unique story.
My big problem with Rush’s statement is that it is, in my opinion, just wrong. This is his statement as borrowed from here:
Black quarterbacks have been doing just fine in the NFL since Marlin Briscoe in 1968, who was followed by legends such as Doug Williams, Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham. They’re not a particularly big deal nowdays.
I think the press likes Donovan McNabb for the same reason I like him: he is a running quarterback, the most exciting kind of quarterback in football and a comparative rarity in the NFL. And McNabb isn’t the first running quarterback with a modest quarterback rating. Was Randall Cunningham overrated? Running quarterbacks are also sometimes worth more than their quarterback ratings suggest because at least one defensive backfielder has to cover the quarterback himself.
Did the press love Fran Tarkenton because he was a white guy from Richmond? Hell, no! They loved him because he was the most elusive scrambler in the sport. Did the press love Steve Young because they wanted a Mormon to do well? Hell, no! They loved him because he was an exciting double-threat quarterback who could either throw or burn your ass on the ground. Does the press love Mike Vick because he’s black? Hell, no! They love him because he’s one of those rare players who can win games through superlative athleticism and field presence.
What the press wants is what the people want, and the people want awesome highlights and great plays. Donovan McNabb provided America a steady stream of those great plays for four years, and the press is interested–as I am interested–to know why he’s not doing so well this year. It’s a story, not an attempt to puff up a poor black man trying to make it in a white man’s sport.
And I’ll say something else, too. Limbaugh just might be guilty of thinking that the sports media delivers the news with the same journalistic integrity for which he himself is renowned. I think it’s easy to argue that the press doesn’t have an ulterior motive in the McNabb story. But I defy anyone to argue that Limbaugh’s own “journalism” is not delivered with ulterior–and overt–personal motives.
If I may mangle a cliche, Limbaugh may be the pot accusing the kettle of… being black.
If anything, perhaps a little underrated. Cunningham had a reputation for note “winning the big games” (i.e., not doing well in the playoffs). I don’t think many people at the time also sufficiently acknowledged that, aside from an aging, aging, Herschel Walker, Cunningham was never given a decent tailback.
Also, somewhat remarkably, he broke in two rookie wide receivers the year he was MVP, IIRC.
I’m glad you agree, HumanStromboli. You know, I screwed up what could have been an all-time groaner. What I meant to say is:
“If I may mangle a cliche, Limbaugh may be a dirty pot accusing a clean kettle of… being black.”
Makes ya cringe, doesn’t it?
I commented earlier on Rush’s theory and decided that it is not necessarily ridiculous racist nonsense. It is plausible that the media could overrate a black quarterback simply because he is black. Whether it’s actually true, and whether McNabb is even overrated, is debatable. Now I’ll say a little bit more about Rush’s statement on ESPN.
I think there should be a forum where people can discuss theories about sports and race like Rush’s. It’s possible that Donovan McNabb is overrated because he’s black. It’s possible that Larry Bird was as popular as he was in part because he was white. It’s possible that the worst few players on an NBA roster tend to be white because of prejudice in favor of whites. It’s possible that the media tend to compare players with other players of the same race, even when a comparison with someone of a different race would be more apt. These are issues that are worth discussing, somewhere.
That somewhere, though, is usually not the ESPN sports desk. As much as possible, sports should not be about race. There’s no reason to single a player out based on race on that kind of show. Rush’s theory had very little to do with what they were talking about. They were talking about why McNabb and the Eagles had been doing worse than before. Rush’s answer was that McNabb was never that good - he was overrated. But that doesn’t explain why the team has gone from winning games to losing games. Also, it’s pretty clear that McNabb is one of the better quarterbacks in the game (even if he is overrated). He’s been about 7th in the NFL in QB rating the past two years, and that’s even before adding in his running ability. To suggest that McNabb isn’t that good, and to connect this to his race, is not an appropriate thing to say on ESPN.
Further, these comments came from a man who has said other racially insensitive things in the past and who many suspect to be racist (or at least to have a skewed, politicized view of the role of race in America). His statement was more political or social than it was about sports, yet it singled out one player whose accomplishments he wanted to put in doubt.
Rush raised the issue as part of his partisan agenda, not to examine the role of race in sports in America. He showed too much confidence and insensitivity in his views, and it would be hard to imagine him endorsing any of the other theories about race and sports that I mentioned near the beginning of this post. Rush deserves the flak he’s getting. Was his statement bad enough for him to deserve to lose his job at ESPN over it? Maybe. It was about time for ESPN’s little experiment of using a political extremist as a sports pundit to come to an end.