Limbaugh not racist at all, no sirree bob.


You fucking asshole. You were hired to talk about sports. But God forbid you should just do that without injecting your wingnut brand of “commentary” into what should be a politically neutral public discussion. Jimmy the Greek wasn’t half the turd you are, and he lost his job. Here’s hoping ESPN takes a page from CBS’s book and tosses you in the shitcan where you belong.

He was hired to do exactly what he did. Create some controversy. Spark some interest.

In that, he came through in spades.

Jesus Christ dude. Get a hobby.

Ranting about Limbaugh is not only a waste of time, but of bandwidth.

I’m failing to see the point. He mentioned that the media wants to see a black quarterback succeed, but a particular QB isn’t the best athlete he’s ever seen. So?

What am I missing here?

This is not to say that I think of Rush as anything but a loudmouthed wingnut fucknose. But one couldn’t prove it with that story.

That does seem a bit over the top. The man has been to 3 pro-bowls and 2 NCF championship games, and Rush claims he’s only there, basically, because the NFL wants some black quarterback to do well?

Seems like he’s saying that he’s there because of affirmative action, and without it, he’d be deemed unfit for the NFL.

So if McNabb were white, the fact that he’s overrated and ineffective so far would be a non-issue, right?

Kurt Warner (media darling and NFL poster-boy for living the dream) was ineffective this year and lost his job. Sure, he got replaced by someone just as white, but he wasn’t winning. Mark Brunell wasn’t winning either, and he was replaced by a melanin-enriched Byron Leftwich. We’ll see how that works out. Will there be this sort of outrage when Kordell Stewart is replaced by Chris Chandler or Rex Grossman? Probably not.

A.J. Feely got the Eagles to the playoffs last year. When McNabb came back from injury, he imediately started, and the Eagles made their exit.

If a QB isn’t doing his job, he needs to sit. Black, white, yellow, green, or striped.

Who cares about that lump of lard.

Wait a second.

Is it off-limits for a commentator to draw a distinction between media hype of a player and the player’s actual ability? I don’t think it is.

Is it off limits for a commentator to offer an opinion on the reasons for media hype, especially when the hype isn’t matched by performance?

I don’t think it is.

As I understand it, Limbaugh’s assertion is that McNabb got hype in the press because the press was eager to see a black quarterback succeed. I don’t know that I buy that. But I also don’t know that it’s racist. If anything, it’s Limbaugh calling the reporters racist. Limbaugh doesn’t suggest that all black quarterbacks are inferior. Certainly in a season that includes Michael Vick and Dante Culpepper, in a league that’s seen Warren Moon’s stardom, that would be a foolish and unsupportable statement.

But what Limbaugh does suggest is:

A) McNabb doesn’t have the talent that the hype suggests.
B) The hype was motivated by reporters eager to advance the cause of black quarterbacks.

I buy (A). I don’t buy (B). Neither assertion is racist itself; (B) suggests that certain reporters are racist.

  • Rick

It’s a fair criticism. He said something controversial and inflammatory, and people across the country are talking about it. It’s not on par with Jimmy the Greek by any stretch, but it’s still worth discussing.

BTW, ESPN is actually happy about Rush. By your own cite, the ratings are up, and this is what they were hoping for, otherwise they wouldn’t have hired a political commentator to do football games.

Airman, he was not hired to create controversy. He was hired because he has high name recognition, a good voice, and he loves football. I don’t see how introducing political controversy into sports coverage could possibly do anything for ESPN’s viewership. At the very least it will alienate viewers who watch sports precisely because it’s a diversion from complicated social issues like racism and media bias.

And why am I not surprised that bandanaman has a problem with this thread?

And I come in to see that Bricker said just what I had in mind.

Peter King of Sports Illustrated has a column on precisely this.

You don’t think that there were football fans all over America that weren’t saying what Limbaugh said, do you? All he did was throw down the gauntlet. He’s definitely passionate, he always expresses his opinion, and with this he definitely sparked debate. He is living up to everything ESPN wanted from him. Everyone knew what was coming except for you, apparently.

tdn and Bricker, apparently Limbaugh thinks there’s a conspiracy in the eeevil liberal media to give black quarterbacks more attention than they deserve (as opposed to all other professional athletes, who get only the praise and reward to which they’re duly entitled, right?), which is fine, he’s free to hold that opinion. My point is that he was hired to talk about football, so who the fuck cares what he thinks about anything other than football? “Reverse” racism? Media bias? Shove that up your ass, Rush!

Suppose he was covering the Redskins vs. the Patriots, and every time the referee made a call in favor of the Redskins he said “It’s obvious the NFL really wants Washington to win this game, because of all the pressure they’re under from PC liberals who can’t bear to see the American Indians vanquished by the White Man.” That’s a nice crackpot opinion too, and again, he’s free to hold it. Does that mean NFL audiences want to hear it?

As evidenced by the 10% increase in ratings overall, and the 26% increase among 18 to 34 year old males, I think the answer to your question is yes.

Ask anyone who’s played fantasy football in the past few years if they think McNabb is overrated and they’ll laugh at you. I don’t care how good your defense is, that has little bearing on your passing yards (avg’s approx. 3,000 a season on a team with no real “big name” receivers) or the fact that he rushed for 460 yards and 6 touchdowns last year. The fact that McNabb isn’t playing well and the Eagles are sucking is evidence against Rush’s blathering that it was all the defense- if the defense is so good, then they should be able to win with a mediocre QB a la the Ravens of a few years back, no?

Airman Doors, controversy may get you ratings in the short term, but in the long term it means nothing if it impugns your credibility. I think this does. There may have been some fans who echoed Rush’s sentiments. There were also some people who claimed that the Steelers were going to win it all this year. I think they’re both just as right.:slight_smile:

Okay, Airman, obviously we don’t agree on this. To me, to “spark debate as a football fan” means to spark debate about football, not to use your football pulpit to preach the doctrine of Us Poor White People.

Let me backtrack just a smidge. Maybe some members of the NFL audience do want to hear Limbaugh’s pseudo-intellectual brain-vomit, and that’s fine. What I should have said was “Does that mean I can’t point out his dumbassery when it manifests itself?” (the answer being “no”, of course).

Of course not, and I admitted as such when I defended your right to say so in the 9th post of this thread. But, since you threw it out, I’m just debating the other side. Notice I didn’t give my opinion on what I think about what he said? Well, here you go: Rush was wrong. There is no vast liberal conspracy to prop up black quarterbacks. Does that mean that his opinion isn’t widely held? No. Does it mean that he shouldn’t be allowed to say it? No, not any more than you’re not allowed to call him an asshole over it. I’m not stifling debate at all, I’m using the statistics to say that your opinion isn’t the prevailing opinion amongst the NFL viewers as a whole. I think that’s reasonable.

Mojo, the Steelers are still going to win the Super Bowl. I stand by that 100%, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a poopyhead. :wink:

Airman, this just happened. We don’t know what effect this kind of controversy will have on ESPN’s ratings. If they keep letting Limbaugh run his mouth about things other than football, I suspect it won’t be a good one…

Although the African-American McNabb hasn’t delivered for Philadelphia thus far, you really have to lay some of the blame at the feet of Caucasian Offensive Coordinator Brad Childress, who is rumored to have voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, one of the Eagles’ worst years for rushing touchdowns since Republican Dick Vermeil took them to their only Super Bowl. Ron Jaworski’s liberal Polish-American passing strategy proved insufficient against the heavily-minority Raiders that day, and the front office has been practicing affirmative action ever since…

On the other hand, maybe they should let him make an idiot of himself just a little while longer, for the comedy value alone.

McNabb has yet to throw a touchdown pass or make a scoring run this season.

Labelling the opinion that he is over-hyped, or that the NFL front offices are sensitive about how few black quarterbacks there have historically been, as “racist”, is more than slightly silly.

Not, however, unexpected.


If your objection is merely that the comment was misplaced in football commentary, I agree. He should have left it as, “The mdeia hype exceeds McNabb’s actual talent.”

But that interpretation of your OP is belied by the sarcastic title “Limbaugh not racist at all, no sirree bob,” which seems to suggest that you found Limbaugh’s comments racist. It is that contention I am disputing.

If you are now saying merely that his commentary exceeds the fair area of football and strays impermissibly into politics, and that NFL audiences are not interested, I agree.

  • Rick