Oh, what the hell, why not?

[Boz]

I realize there are many more important issues, but what the hell.

Here are two questions I have for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell:

Question 1. "Mr. Commissioner, how can you come out and say that Rush Limbaugh would be bad for the NFL when your second most prominent flagship program -- or maybe even your most prominent, since it is on network televsion -- features a 75-minute opening show hosted by someone who is also a very controversial political pundit and that many Americans consider equally offensive for referring to our last President as a traitor, criminal and fascist?"

Of course, some might respond that Roger Goodell doesn't have influence or control over who NBC puts on the air for NFL broadcasts. To this I would laugh and ask those people to run fast, because the turnip truck they just fell off of is pulling away quickly.

But for the sake of argument, OK....

Question 2: "Mr. Commissioner, you just approved minority ownership in the Miami Dolphins franchise by one Stacie Anne Ferguson. Were you aware that Ms. Ferguson's band has written and performed a song in which there are lyrics that call the United States Central Intelligence Agency a terrorist organization? Are you further aware that Ms. Ferguson, as a solo artist, has created music videos which depict having public sex in a gentleman's club? Haven't some of your players run into problems in these types of establishments, and don't you consider that to be an image problem?"

"And if I may, a follow-up question, Mr. Commissioner. Do you consider these instances more or less offensive than a comment Rush Limbaugh made about Donovan McNabb? And based on your judgment, can you provide us with a scale of ownership offensiveness, so that we can determine who may become an owner and who may not?"

I am not very hopeful that I will get an answer to these questions, but I am quite confident that I can call Roger Goodell a hypocrite.

Other people to whom I would ascribe either the label "hypocrite" or just flat-out "liar":
- Jason Whitlock
- Mark Cuban
- CNN's Rick Sanchez
- Al Sharpton
- NFL Players Union Chief DeMaurice Smith
- Players Bart Scott and Mathias Kiwanuka*
- Anyone else who posted or communicated completely false statements that they ascribed to Rush Limbaugh.

(* if anyone believes that these two players -- or any other player -- would actually refuse to play for a team because of a celebrity owner, particularly if that team offered them a higher contract...please wait where you are; the next turnip truck should be along shortly)

Interestingly -- and I do give credit where credit is due, regardless of the source -- one very prominent figure to call the NFL hypocrites in regards to Rush Limbaugh was none other than....Keith Olbermann!

I don't think there is anyone in the world who hates Rush Limbaugh more than Keith Olbermann, but even KO stood up to the ridiculousness of people conducting character evaluations of sports owners, saying if we did that, "there'd be only three left!"

(I have a small inkling that Olbermann was thinking primarily about keeping his own Sunday Night gig when he made this comment, but when he is right, he is right.)


As I said, not the most critical issue in the world. Despite the fact that I have written this long, I'm not really losing any sleep over this. Nor will Rush Limbaugh, I am sure. But it is a little disturbing, I have to say.

I'm sure people are enjoying seeing Limbaugh get a little comeuppance to his ego, just as Limbaugh was equally snarky about Obama's ego with the Olympics fiasco. Hey, that's fair. I don't have a problem with that in the least. (I'm not even a huge fan of his; I haven't actually listened to his radio show since Bill Clinton was president.) I'm just concerned with the seeming hypocrisy and double standards that have surrounded all of the public commentary over the last week or so.


And finally, you can say that it was the ownership group that dropped Limbaugh, not the commissioner who forced him out of the ownership group. In response to that, well, I'm simply afraid that there are not enough turnips in the entire world to support your naivete.

[TC]

So wait, we're blaming this all on Roger Goodell? There isn't a chance in hell he would have been voted in, because no one wants the headache.

[rosslynhoya]

This'll be much funnier when the Rams finish out the season 0-16. People are going to look back on this season and think, "there were people willing to pay a billion dollars for this franchise? Really?"

[kchoya]

Oct 15, 2009 14:05:24 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

This'll be much funnier when the Rams finish out the season 0-16. People are going to look back on this season and think, "there were people willing to pay a billion dollars for this franchise? Really?"

Well, Forbes does value them at $913 billion.

Now the stories are coming out that Checketts assured Limbaugh that his participation in the group had been vetted. So maybe Checketts lied to Limbaugh, or he got false assurances from someone in the league offices? Or maybe Godell changed his tune after Maurice Smith started complaining.

[Bando]

Boz, this is pretty weak sauce. Limbaugh has said a lot of racist stuff in his day, and the NFL is majority-black. (N.B. Please don't use the preceding sentence as an excuse to delve into quotes somebody made up, while of course ignoring the he did say). Is Limbaugh somehow magically entitled to own a NFL team? Do the NFL owners (or the members of this candidate group) not have the right to choose who they do business with?

I mean, your argument seems to be "the NFL has dealt with bad people in the past, therefore they should continue to deal with bad people". Is that really what you want to argue?

[Boz]

What I want to argue is that, unless they are dealing with criminal activity, it is really not the NFL's place to judge whether people are "bad" or not.

I am not saying they don't have the RIGHT to exclude him. Of course they do. They have every right. I am saying that they shouldn't. And, yes, I am saying that if someone like Fergie is considered OK to own a team, then there is no reason why someone like Rush Limbaugh should be considered "not OK."

Again, if the NFL wants to argue otherwise, then I'd really like to see the offensiveness scale and have someone show me where the Mendoza line is.

[SFHoya99]

I would like to point out that Fergie is a lot hotter than Rush Limbaugh.

Reality is, it pays for the NFL to keep the Players Union docile. So yeah, the stated reason is hypocritical, but like everything out there, the real reason may be perfectly logical.

[hoya95]

Major League Baseball didn't want Mark Cuban owning the Cubs because they didn't want the headache. The NFL is a machine, and if they can avoid controversy, they will. And Limbaugh's partners saw that he was a distraction and just dropped him. It's business. Not much to see here.

[Boz]

Oct 15, 2009 15:05:26 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I would like to point out that Fergie is a lot hotter than Rush Limbaugh.

Reality is, it pays for the NFL to keep the Players Union docile.

Well, I don't think Fergie and her lumps are that hot at all, but yes, there is no question she is a lot hotter than Rush. No argument there.

Personally, and this is pure speculation, (a) I don't think they player's union is going to be very docile regardless, with CBA negotiations coming up. This may be your point, SF, but my second bit of speculation is that (b) I think, for all their bluster, Rush being part owner of a team wouldn't have affected the docility of the union one way or the other.

[Elvado]

Just the usual collection of liberals who love free speech right up until you say something they don't like. Limbaugh is a windbag to be sure. However, he is an entertainer and certainly couldn't be any worse for the NFL than the routine employment of recidivist criminals, at least one of whom tortured and killed defenseless animals.

[TC]

Oct 15, 2009 15:12:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Just the usual collection of liberals who love free speech right up until you say something they don't like. Limbaugh is a windbag to be sure. However, he is an entertainer and certainly couldn't be any worse for the NFL than the routine employment of recidivist criminals, at least one of whom tortured and killed defenseless animals.

Post back when you understand the difference between First Amendment "free speech" and businesses wanting to avoid controversy, Francis.

And Boz - there's a giant difference between Fergie (0 controversy) and Rush Limbaugh (nonstop controversy).

[Boz]

But why zero controversy for Fergie?

She has performed songs that have said reprehensible things. She has made videos that are completely contrary to the image the NFL would like to have.

So, why no controversy? Because she is just an entertainer? Last time I checked, so was Rush Limbaugh. More intelligent and more outspoken to be sure, but still just an entertainer.

[SFHoya99]

Oct 15, 2009 15:12:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Just the usual collection of liberals who love free speech right up until you say something they don't like. Limbaugh is a windbag to be sure. However, he is an entertainer and certainly couldn't be any worse for the NFL than the routine employment of recidivist criminals, at least one of whom tortured and killed defenseless animals.

Rush has the right to not face legal consequences of his speech.

Like everyone else in life, he gets to face the consequences when he interacts with others.

You are 100% right to point out that the real piece of hypocrisy here is that players like Vick, Leonard Little, Brandon Marshall, etc. are still in the League.

----

Boz,

The rumors are that the players union won't docile, but they historically have been kittens. I don't think Rush matters one way or another, but it doesn't hurt the NFL one iota here, and on the other side, it could contribute to the general culture of the negotiations.

[Boz]

Well, it was just something to talk about. I don't think this is earth-shattering. I think he should have been given the opportunity to have the owners vote, as does Tony Dungy. I bet you Peyton Manning's salary they wouldn't have voted no when it came down to it (maybe one or two of them).

Ultimately it was the Checketts group that backed down, but I do place a lot of this on the commissioner's office. I think Goodell acted unfairly and hypocritically. Just my opinion.

[kchoya]

Oct 15, 2009 15:22:32 GMT -5 TC said:

Oct 15, 2009 15:12:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Just the usual collection of liberals who love free speech right up until you say something they don't like. Limbaugh is a windbag to be sure. However, he is an entertainer and certainly couldn't be any worse for the NFL than the routine employment of recidivist criminals, at least one of whom tortured and killed defenseless animals.

Post back when you understand the difference between First Amendment "free speech" and businesses wanting to avoid controversy, Francis.

And Boz - there's a giant difference between Fergie (0 controversy) and Rush Limbaugh (nonstop controversy).

Um, where did he bring up the First Amendment? He didn't say Rush has a constitutionally protected right to free speech that is being violated here.

And if anyone thinks the union is going to be "docile." they haven't been paying attention to the new union head. This guy is itching for a fight and the Limbaugh episode was his chance to show he can flex his muscles.

[rosslynhoya]

Oct 15, 2009 14:48:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

Boz, this is pretty weak sauce. Limbaugh has said a lot of racist stuff in his day, and the NFL is majority-black. (N.B. Please don't use the preceding sentence as an excuse to delve into quotes somebody made up, while of course ignoring the Edited he did say).

Okay, so, if Rush is so racist, why the reliance on the made-up quotes? Surely in twenty years of broadcasting, someone's heard him say or write something authentically racist and that would be damning in and of itself.

Just look at the weak sauce that was the best that TAP and mediamatters could come up with.... Rush called Ron Artest and four other players "thugs" for going into the stands and assaulting fans! Raaaaacist!!!! Rush called Sharpton a moron for demanding slavery reparations in the stimulus bill, claiming that the whole stimulus is a crazy wealth-redistribution scheme that's ultimately going to benefit Sharpton and company. Raaaaacist!!!!

Do better, please.

[Bando]

Oct 15, 2009 16:11:41 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Oct 15, 2009 14:48:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

Boz, this is pretty weak sauce. Limbaugh has said a lot of racist stuff in his day, and the NFL is majority-black. (N.B. Please don't use the preceding sentence as an excuse to delve into quotes somebody made up, while of course ignoring the Edited he did say).

Okay, so, if Rush is so racist, why the reliance on the made-up quotes? Surely in twenty years of broadcasting, someone's heard him say or write something authentically racist and that would be damning in and of itself.

Just look at the weak sauce that was the best that TAP and mediamatters could come up with.... Rush called Ron Artest and four other players "thugs" for going into the stands and assaulting fans! Raaaaacist!!!! Rush called Sharpton a moron for demanding slavery reparations in the stimulus bill, claiming that the whole stimulus is a crazy wealth-redistribution scheme that's ultimately going to benefit Sharpton and company. Raaaaacist!!!!

Do better, please.

Oh please. You can whitewash the quotes all you want, but the fact is that Rush has built an entire career implying that black people have everything in life handed to them, and that these gains come explicitly at the hands of white people. That an organization that is majority black would not want to deal with such a person isn't some giant travesty, it's just good business.

[TC]

Oct 15, 2009 15:40:07 GMT -5 Boz said:

But why zero controversy for Fergie?

She has performed songs that have said reprehensible things. She has made videos that are completely contrary to the image the NFL would like to have.

Because she's a singer in a band that performs corporate hip-hop that, that outside of this argument, no one really finds terribly offensive or controversial. She's tremendously tacky, but not a lightning bolt of controversy.

Also, I gotta believe that the scope of ownership is a factor here, and that Rush Limbaugh would have owned a great deal more of the St. Louis franchise than whatever stake Fergie is taking in the Dolphins. Who knows if she even has voting rights. Limbaugh has to have at least 10x Fergie's net worth.

[Cambridge]

You can't go around being intentionally provocative and then wonder why you have trouble getting deals done. It doesn't work that way. Rush would get blackballed from most clubs, let alone a highly scrutinized group like the NFL ownership who are already extremely sensitive to their perceived image as an old boys club (complete with allegations of latent prejudice). SFHoya is right. Why would the NFL want to create a brushfire with Rush right before they have to negotiate with the players? If I was a betting man, I'd say they set up Rush just so they could smack him down and earn some streetcred.

[Boz]

Oct 15, 2009 17:49:39 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

You can't go around being intentionally provocative and then wonder why you have trouble getting deals done. It doesn't work that way. Rush would get blackballed from most clubs, let alone a highly scrutinized group like the NFL ownership who are already extremely sensitive to their perceived image as an old boys club (complete with allegations of latent prejudice). SFHoya is right. Why would the NFL want to create a brushfire with Rush right before they have to negotiate with the players? If I was a betting man, I'd say they set up Rush just so they could smack him down and earn some streetcred.

Hey, I like a good NFL conspiracy as much as anyone. "You're not allowed to hit Tom Brady," "The Monday night games are fixed," "Kurt Warner is a human being,"......I like 'em all.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say they set Rush up. I'm pretty sure Checketts really wanted him (or at least his money). I doubt Goodell has that much foresight.

I also dispute that there are very many clubs at all that wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh (or, again, at least his money) as a member.

I'm not saying Rush doesn't ask for it. Not at all. But while his history is provocative, it is not prohibitive.