We've already seen CNN's Paul Begala, affectionately referred to as "The Forehead" by Rush Limbaugh, and one ESPN personality, Fred Roggin, taking shots at Limbaugh on the heels of news of his interest in the National Football League's St. Louis Rams.
But it was just a matter of time before the usual culprits on the left would attempt to make an issue of it, in what seems to be an effort to gin up some reason for the talk show host not to have an ownership stake in an NFL team. And, MSNBC's Ed Schultz isn't waiting for pointers from the left-wing blogosphere to set the "Stop Rush's Bid for the Rams" agenda. He took it to Limbaugh on his Oct. 6 program immediately.
"There's also some comical football news out there," Schultz said. "The drugster's talking about buying the St. Louis Rams. That's right, the leader of the Republican Party is bidding for ownership of a team that's been giving more money to Democrats than any other team has over the last 10 years, at least that's what the survey says. He'll have to do something about that I'm sure."
Schultz revisited his 2003 remarks about the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, insisting they were "racially charged" despite Limbaugh arguing otherwise.
"Also, remember that Rush once got kicked off the club of ESPN because he said some very surprising racially charged comments about a quarterback," Schultz said. "But now he wants to be back in the game. Now, how's he going to do? Well - you know, he's got plenty of money. Heck maybe he could do the games. I do know what his team's going to look like - very white and very underpaid."
And earlier in the day, on CNBC's Oct. 6 "Street Signs," fill-in anchor Mark Haines wondered if the owners should accept Limbaugh's bid, in reference to those remarks.
"Have they ever turned anyone down?" Haines said. "Here's my question - this is kind of a club - these owners. Don't the other owners have to vote whether they accept - I mean this is a man who six years ago ticked off just about everybody with the Donovan McNabb comment about black quarterbacks."
CNBC sports reporter Darren Rovell said it could play a role, but ultimately it would come down to who was willing to pony-up the cash for the team.
"It's going to be money," Rovell said. "It is also according to how they vote. I would not entirely take that out of the equation. I will also say though that this Rams team, they've been trying to sell for a long time and if he comes through with the right number, there's a chance they will be able to forgive him for what he said, but I do think that's a factor. That will automatically not go in the garbage."
There are two other prominent ESPN personalities - "Pardon the Interruption" hosts Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon, that don't think this will be the issue that prevents Limbaugh from having an ownership stake in the Rams. Kornheiser asked Wilbon if the NFL owners would accept his bid.
"In a half second, Tony," Wilbon said on their October 7 ESPN program. "Yeah, money. It's about money and how much do you have to spend or buy this team or be in the group that can buy this team. I don't know that Rush Limbaugh's politics, in fact, I'm betting they aren't that much different than the politics of many of the owners in the NFL. Now they don't have his bombast. They don't publicly offend as many people as Rush Limbaugh does with glee. But, when it comes to buying the team, I don't see where there is anything that Rush Limbaugh has done is going to make that off-limits."
And Kornheiser agreed.
"He's not going to disqualify himself in that regard," Kornheiser said. "He's going to sit in that room and if they ask him particularly about the Donovan McNabb incident, which everybody remembers - he's going to say, ‘I'm an entertainer. If I erred, I erred on the wrong side of the entertainment. But I don't really mean that. In fact, I'll hire Donovan McNabb to be my quarterback if you let me own the Rams.'"
The NFL isn't completely devoid of political figures. MSNBC's "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann doubles as an anchor for NBC's Sunday night NFL broadcast for the pre-game and halftime shows and he certainly has said some very bad things about conservatives over the years.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hey there Fat Ed
October 7, 2009 - 08:27 ET by BlondeYou might want to take a page out of Rush's book before you have a heart attack there, Big Guy. Lose some weight.
Doncha just love the way they all jump on the bandwagon with the liberal lies and (for mb) canards?
Who is going to pile on next?
I hope he fails, too.
It's a knee-jerk, emphasis
October 7, 2009 - 08:30 ET by rockyracoonIt's a knee-jerk, emphasis on the word jerk, reaction to any and all things, Rush.
________________________________
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Don't these people ever get
October 7, 2009 - 08:36 ET by motherbeltDon't these people ever get tired of sticking their noses into everybody else's business?
What business is it of theirs if Rush owns a stake in an NFL team?
They think Rush would say:
In fact, I'll hire Donovan McNabb to be my quarterback if you let me own the Rams.'"
<Chris Matthews imitation> HA!!
I think Rush would say "I'll hire the best quarterback I can find!"
Liberals just can't help it
October 7, 2009 - 08:47 ET by rockyracoonLiberals just can't help it motherbelt. They can not mind their own business. I guess that is why they are looking into how much corp. CEOs make, and trying to put a cap on it, or tax the living daylights out of 'em.
________________________________
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Who gives a crud what
October 7, 2009 - 08:34 ET by mattmWho gives a crud what Schultz says? If Rush wants to by the Rams, no amount of liberal whining is going to stop him...
Don't put it past them to
October 7, 2009 - 08:39 ET by motherbeltDon't put it past them to try to influence the current owner, or owners, not to sell to any group that includes Limbaugh.
No one wants to be swamped with negative publicity.
And these jerks think they are the final arbiters of who "deserves" what in a capitalist society, since they can't always control who has the money.
Don't Worry!
October 7, 2009 - 11:34 ET by GeneralAlDon't worry! No one tells these owners what to do, least of all linguini spined liberals!
I see this in 2 ways. 1.
October 7, 2009 - 08:44 ET by ninerdogI see this in 2 ways. 1. Liberals are pissed because Rush moved out of New York and now they have to pay more in taxes. So they will call him names 2. They are jealous that he has enough money now to buy an NFL team because he does not have to pay New York state taxes.
a team that's been giving
October 7, 2009 - 08:47 ET by USA4freedoma team that's been giving more money to Democrats than any other team has over the last 10 years, at least that's what the survey says.
Well that explains why they under-perform..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
oooOOOOoooo, Boogeyman
October 7, 2009 - 08:46 ET by HockeyKidoooOOOOoooo, Boogeyman Alert! Rush said that sportswriters, on average, were interesting in seeing a black quarterback succeed in the NFL, so they tended to oversell McNabb. And that's supposed to be a racist comment? No, that's POINTING OUT racism, as the left loves to do so much they find it under every (painted white) rock. Guess what? Rush was right. To McNabb's credit, he stepped up and proved himself, so the point became moot.
As for Special Ed's "observation" about team political donations, Rush could care less about who the players support politically. I suspect, however, that given a chance to get to know Rush, a lot of them would rethink their positions. Only fingers-in-the-ears leftists remain so in the face of reason.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I couldn't care less if
October 7, 2009 - 20:32 ET by JerI couldn't care less if Rush were an NFL owner. If he has the resources and the desire, more power to him.
But you slightly understate the controversial aspects of Rush's remarks. His pointed disparagement of McNabb's ability, coupled with his accusation of social engineering by the League raised a legitimate issue of racial insensitivity.
Jer
→ Jer
October 7, 2009 - 21:00 ET by Cool ArrowI thought Limbaugh's remarks were with reference to the MEDIA's need to tout a black quarterback.
If I'm wrong, correct me, but I'm seeing a hit on the media.
And, Jer, how many regular seasons games did McNabb mis during the year the Eagles lost so badly in a Super Bowl that McNabb performed so poorly in?
And if greatness is measured in ability to rise to the occasion, McNabb threw three interceptions in the only big dance he attended.
There have been great black quarterbacks in the NFL for years. McNabb isn't one of them.
Cool...
October 7, 2009 - 21:12 ET by JerMy interpretation was that Rush was taking a slap at the League and the media--that both were invested in the success of McNabb because of his race and were promoting him for that reason, despite the fact McNabb, in Rush's view, had been no good from the get-go.
Jer
→ I hadn't thought
October 7, 2009 - 21:16 ET by Cool ArrowI thought Randall Cunningham was one of those great QBs. He did a lot with a lackluster supporting cast.
McNabb was a big bore.
I agree about Cunningham.
October 7, 2009 - 21:56 ET by JerI agree about Cunningham. Also Warren Moon. I've never placed McNabb on "one of the alltime greats" list or anywhere near it. But I certainly have more respect for his ability than does Rush [or do you, obviously].
Jer
He's really quite
October 7, 2009 - 22:10 ET by dvdaughtryHe's really quite average.
http://www.nfl.com/players/donovanmcnabb/careerstats?id=MCN017517
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Jumping in late on this...
October 7, 2009 - 22:14 ET by BKeyserbut the simple truth is, someone is invested in the success of black quarterbacks in the NFL, just as they are black head coaches and black front office guys.
Black quarterbacks' poor play has been excessively tolerated compared to white quarterbacks; see the aforementioned McNabb and even today- JaMarcus Russell. I don't know how many times I've heard commentators say that he just needs some more time to grow. This guy sucks, and it makes no difference if he's white, black, green, or purple- he's not an NFL quarterback but he's given extra consideration over others for some reason.
It is what it is and I really don't care that it is- (that should be a song lyric if its not) but it can't be denied and I think that's what Rush was saying. Had he said it about white defensive ends, nobody would be yelling racism, now would they?
QUARTERBACKS...
October 7, 2009 - 22:51 ET by danybhoyMcNabb has done well with less then great talent around him. A few NFC Championship games & a Super Bowl appearence ain't too bad. But his time is running low & the Eagles need to make the best of it before he retires.
As for JaMarcus Russell, he was the number 1 pick overall a couple of years ago, he went to a pityfull Raiders club, & he is being given time to develope. The Raiders are getting better, they will improve, & I'm not ready to trash him just yet.
That said, Rush was right about the NFL & McNabb. They want/need him to succeed. There is nothing wrong with that except that it was "politically incorrect" to say what Rush said. One thing that very few bring up it this, the NFL has policies on race. If you run a team, say the Rams. You are looking for a new head coach, you want one of 3 people, Jimmy Johnson, Brian Billick, or Bill Cowher. @ coaches that have coached Super Bowl winners. But the NFL will demand that you must interview a black coaching candidate during the proccess in finding a new coach. So you interview, say, Denny Green, even though you have no intent to hire him. How does that work? How would Denny, or any other minority coaching candidate feel to be just part of the proccess? That seems wrong to me, almost exploitive in my opinion.
Look, 1 thing about sports I love is that race, color, religion, or whatever mean nothing. It's about winning, nothing else matters. Just win, baby. Championship banners, & rings are what it's about. Create a legacy that creates a culture of winning. You know, like the Patriots, the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Yankees, the Canadians, the Lakers, the Celtics, the RedWings, & hell Manchester United, & the Brazil or Itatl natl soccer teams. Winning is not just expected, it's demanded. The subject of race in sports is really about who is winning the race, not about color.
Sorry about being as long winded as a Castro speech.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
I agree with 90% of your
October 7, 2009 - 23:13 ET by JerI agree with 90% of your post, danyhboy...and from its inception I have considered that NFL interviewing policy to be outrageous.
With regard to Rush's and your assessment of McNabb: Do you honestly believe the Eagles were not putting the best team on the field out of a concern for racial sensitivities, or to be patted on the back for their social progressiveness? That seems to be what Rush was suggesting.
Jer
MC NABB...
October 8, 2009 - 03:10 ET by danybhoyI don't agree, McNabb has never really had a great supporting cast on the offensive side of the ball, except for Westbrook & the short time they had good ole' TO(Owens). He now has a true superstar reciever in Deshawn Jackson, & he brings none of the drama that TO did. Philly has a very good club, & if McNabb stays somewhat healthy, they will be fine. That has been the only real problem with McNabb, he does get banged up from time to time & misses a few games because of that.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
As an Eagles fan, let me respond
October 8, 2009 - 08:19 ET by KC MulvilleIt's more complicated than you're presenting. You're casting the issue as to whether he's a good quarterback or not, and if we criticize him, you're taking that to mean that we think he's a bad quarterback. Not so fast.
Sportswriters rave about his talent, for good reason. He's especially talented. But that doesn't make him a great quarterback in that system. And what was happening then, and is still happening now, is that too many sportswriters see him as being talented, and so they look for failures elsewhere. And Rush's point was that the sportswriters refused to evaluate McNabb honestly because he was a black quarterback. I admit, I don't know that's entirely fair, but if nothing else, it was a fair criticism about why sportswriters were refusing to evaluate McNabb honestly.
It wasn't that the Eagles were putting out a bad quarterback because he was black. It was wondering why sportswriters would so often overlook McNabb's glaring inconsistency - and Rush argued it was because of the sportswriters' shallow attempt to promote a black sports star.
→ Thank you KC
October 8, 2009 - 08:41 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I agreed with Rush on that observation.
It wasn't the league, it was the Media.
The Warren Moon mistake had already been made, and after an amazing career in Canada, he took on the NFL with a vengeance.
The NFL had learned its lesson by the time McNabb came along. The huge Northeast Media Market was the entity trying to promote McNabb.
Winner, Winner, Chicken
October 8, 2009 - 08:44 ET by dvdaughtryWinner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Yep, I agree
October 8, 2009 - 08:57 ET by general companyI had often thought McNabb would be more suited to a stretch type offence like Gibbs runs. The wider field also helps with his escaping with his feet. All I can say, as a Redskins fan, is he has been driving us nuts for a long time, and I would swap Campbell for him
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The proof
October 8, 2009 - 09:27 ET by KC MulvilleHere's the proof, I think. McNabb has been hurt a few times throughout his career for stretches at a time. There was one stretch a couple years ago when the replacement was Mike McCoy, who wasn't very good, and the rest of the team was banged up also. But, during those other stretches, the offense did just fine ... and often better ... than when McNabb was in there.
Those guys aren't as talented as McNabb, but they had a lot of success. Why is that? It's because they were accurate. Not as spectacular, but much more efficient.
By the way, I feel bad for my Redskins friends. That team was supposed to be a great defense, but they're not that good. Campbell is like a lot of quarterbacks these days - he's just good enough to give you hope, but he's too slow reading defenses. It's a new ballgame, and the Bradys and the Mannings do well because they read things fast. Romo is the typical QB these days; he has all the tools except mental speed. He may be smart, but he's not smart fast enough.
Dany
October 7, 2009 - 23:23 ET by general companyDungy and Gruden, I would add them to your list of Coaches. Lovie Smith and Mike Tomlin both got there opertunity because of the interview rule. I would bet the Bears and Steelers are both thankful they particapated
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
GC...
October 8, 2009 - 03:04 ET by danybhoyI was just using the 3 coaches as easy examples, Gruden & Dungy would in any short list as well. I picked the Rams because that is the club in play here.
I never said that I disagreed with the idea of hiring black coaches, but REQUIRING teams to interview them, but even when you have no intention of hiring them. That's where I have an issue with that rule. The Lions did get fined $200,000 when they hired Steve Mariucci without really looking at any other candidates. It did'nt work out, but the Lions wanted ONLY 1 MAN for the job, & hired him. Maybe if they had looked into Mike Tomlin or Lovie Smith, things would have turned out different & better for the Lions...or maybe not, it is the Lions.
As a longtime Bears fan, I like Lovie, he's done a damn good job. He just needs to get a some real recievers for Cutler to throw to.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Black quarterbacks' poor
October 7, 2009 - 22:57 ET by JerBlack quarterbacks' poor play has been excessively tolerated compared to white quarterbacks; see the aforementioned McNabb and even today- JaMarcus Russell.
You'll need to come up with something more than Russell to convince me of that. Tell it to the lamentable Akili Smith. Check out the early career of Doug Williams or Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam. McNabb isn't top tier, but to say he sucks (but retained his position because he is black) is ridiculous. Owners, coaches, and fans only care about winning--not receiving kudos from the NAACP.
Jer
Mcnair was first team
October 7, 2009 - 23:15 ET by general companyLoved Williams, Cunningham was quite good, say what you want about McNabb but he goes to the pro bowl pretty often, and they win a lot of games. I think Russell is on a lousy team with lousy coaching. When he had good coaching he played great. I can also name dozons from college.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well said, general
October 7, 2009 - 23:20 ET by JerWell said, general company.
Jer
FLOPS...
October 8, 2009 - 03:16 ET by danybhoyLike David Klingler? How about Todd Marinovich? Or Robbie Bosco? Anyone for Ryan Leaf? So many others, only so much bandwidth.
Also keep in mind, a guy like Brad Johnson never started at Florida State, & was a good QB with a Super Bowl ring to his name.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Much like
October 8, 2009 - 08:59 ET by general companyTom Brady
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Pea Green...
October 7, 2009 - 08:51 ET by mizflame98One thing we can always count on is the progressives being envious of a Republican's success. Wait a minute. Maybe that's what the Green Movement is really about.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
Samuel Adams
I wish he would buy MSNBC
October 7, 2009 - 08:52 ET by ricklailI wish he would buy MSNBC and put all these idiots out of work.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
BSNBC...
October 7, 2009 - 10:10 ET by danybhoyWell, if he were to do that, he could simulcast his radio show on the channel & crush in the ratings. BSNBC gets what, about 50,000 viewers during the day when Rush is on? He could easily crack 3million by airing his radio show there.
But then again, why would anyone want to take over that turd & try to make it work? It's just as well that GE & the taxpayer absorbs the losses at MSNBC, it's not like anyone is watching them.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Shut it down
October 7, 2009 - 21:55 ET by nkviking75If Rush were to buy MSNBC, he should shut it down. Also, whatever he'd pay to get the network would be way too much compared to its real worth.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
Politicizing and partisanizing
October 7, 2009 - 09:06 ET by KC MulvilleWe have all been using the wrong term. This isn't a politicizing of sport, which would mean it's injecting politics. Please, Lord, free us from that as well, but that isn't as bad as what's going on here. No, what's happening here isn't an injection of politics, it's an injection of party.
What's the difference? Parties are necessarily zero-sum games. Politics don't have to be. Smart politics never are.
Partisans are determined to stop their opponents, on every issue, whether it's public affairs or not. In saner times, you could separate private life from public life, but not anymore. Everything is fair game. There is no private anymore. Everything is public. And if you're an opponent, God help you, we have to stop you, whether it's public affairs or not. Opposition is everything.
Childish.
Schulz?
October 7, 2009 - 09:07 ET by DingbatWho is he? Never heard of him. If he is someone important, why doesn't he buy them?
Who says it is a good
October 7, 2009 - 09:09 ET by jdhawkWho says it is a good investment? Is the current owner selling because he/she has taken up badmington - it's all the rage! Or is unloading a team that will take years to rebuild into a national campion the right move - for the present owner?
Rush certainly has the money to pour down a rat hole. With snipes like those in this article and the media, in general, hounding him should he purchase, it may not be such a good deal.
Meanwhile, Walter Williams - who pinch hits on Rush's program - and a host of other in politics and sports may be surprised at the racist charge. Of course, the above would happen to be black. Oh! Wait a minute. They also happen to be conservative. Never mind . . .
Dimocrats, the non-racist party of "Sheets" Byrd, senator and ex-KKK Kleagle and racist and Governor Wallace deceased ex-governor and racist and a cast of hundreds if not thousands across the south that maintained their racist way of life for over a 100 years. After the Civil War in the South a Republican was treated the same as a black person - beat up, incarcerated, and/or lynched. Lest we forget it was Republicans whose votes brought about the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act. Without them, these two bills wouldn't have become law. These two bills were each filibustered by - wait for it - the dimocrats.
"Meanwhile, Walter Williams
October 7, 2009 - 09:32 ET by Dingbat"Meanwhile, Walter Williams - who pinch hits on Rush's program - and a
host of other in politics and sports may be surprised at the racist
charge."
You left out Bo Snerdly and the ex-NFL player, now a Minister, that is on the program during Play-off and Super Bowl weeks debating the contenders...forgot his name but seems like a great guy. Always tickles me the great reaction Rush gets from players and fans when he is on the sidelines.
I think that's Reggie
October 7, 2009 - 11:30 ET by motherbeltI think that's Reggie White
Regrettably, Reggie is dead.
October 7, 2009 - 20:24 ET by JerRegrettably, Reggie is dead.
Jer
edit. Sorry, didn't see General's previous post below.
His Name Is..........
October 7, 2009 - 11:38 ET by GeneralAlHis name is the Hutch! Reggie White is dead! He died about four years ago! He was a minister!
OOPS! I stand
October 7, 2009 - 12:09 ET by motherbeltOOPS! I stand corrected!
White was the only football player/minister I could think of.
You can tell I don't follow football!
Who says it is a good investment?
October 7, 2009 - 11:07 ET by KC MulvilleOh, it's a good investment. That's an understatement. It's the ultimate loss leader. The team itself is just a fraction of the value. Think of the TV time (and every ad that shows during a football game). Think of the corporate skyboxes. Concessions. City tax breaks. And on and on ...
But most importantly, no matter what business you want to connect with, owning an NFL team means that you never have to worry about getting your foot in someone else's door. They come to you. They beg you to partner with them. You get first crack at all the deals. You're in on the "ground floor" whenever you want.
That's why they spend the billions -- it isn't for the team itself, they often barely break even there. It's what that ownership means to the rest of your business.
I will automatically become
October 7, 2009 - 09:12 ET by dvdaughtryI will automatically become a Rams fan, if Rush buys in.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Ed Schultz?
October 7, 2009 - 09:20 ET by theduck6He wants to be Limbaugh so badly he can taste it. He's a frothing liberal loudmouth who isn't fit to carry Rush's jock...and I am a tepid fan of Rush.
I don’t care who owns the
October 7, 2009 - 10:14 ET by ninerdogI don’t care who owns the Rams. I will always despise them because they are the F&*^)(* RAMS!!!!
Now niner...
October 7, 2009 - 17:01 ET by beauxdogIt's been years. Don't let the Ghost of Super Bowl Past get in the way of your future.
It is time to forgive and forget. I am a Titans fan, and I forgave them when Warner was ousted. I might even rout for them if Rush were their mascot.
Would it help if Rush renames the team to the "St. Louis Dittoheads"?
Beauxdog
"Listening to you, I get the music. Gazing at you, I get the heat. Following you, I climb the mountains. I get excitement at your feet." Tommy - The Who (or is it the MSM?)
This Schultz guy looks like he a heart attack waiting to happen
October 7, 2009 - 09:20 ET by averageschmoeAnd so does this other CNBC guy coughing and sounding like he smoked 10 packs of cigarettes before the show. "At least they could get a Rush out of this" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. That's funny. My 6-year old wouldn't even think that is a funny comment.
"Miserable" Ed Schultz and this other "disgruntled" CNBC guy should be in their basement sitting around playing cards and getting fat eating chicken wings. How ever these guys made it as hosts on TV is beyond me.
MSNBC. 'nuff
October 7, 2009 - 10:08 ET by HockeyKidMSNBC. 'nuff said.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
The way I see it
October 7, 2009 - 09:32 ET by Tom in NCRush has the money and if the Rams except his bid, so be it, he will be be the new owner. Erectile Dysfunction on the other hand may have enough moolah to buy jockstraps for the Rams if he cleans out his bank account.
Erectile Dysfunction even put up a very old picture of Rush so that his fat ass/face(no distinction between the two) would look small compared to Rush. Erectile Dysfunction is nothing more than a horses ass with a streak of envy because no matter what he does he will never be as popular or as successful as Rush and will remain a third rate radio talk show host and a forth rate cable news network hack.
So What?
October 7, 2009 - 09:35 ET by richb313If Rush has the money and he wants to make a bid for the Rams it is his own business and none of our own. If he does get the Rams then maybe thier will be an improvement from that franchise. Rush is a football fan and has the money to do something that might actually help the game. He is not one of those owners who would be in it strictly for the money.
I would think a lardass lib
October 7, 2009 - 09:56 ET by KevroyI would think a lardass lib like Fat Ed would be rejoicing at the misinformed notion that white players would be paid less than they are worth.
Back in the what?
October 7, 2009 - 09:57 ET by CobraMan"But now he wants to be back in the game."
Back in the what? Rush has a show whos fans number in the millions. Rush IS the game. If he wasn't, he couldn't afford to buy a team.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Just a little classic lib
October 7, 2009 - 10:11 ET by HockeyKidJust a little classic lib projection on the part of Special Ed there. He used to play football (if the CFL counts), but he's never been a star--somewhat notorious in Fargo, ND, yes, but never a star. And he SO wants to be.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Ed Played Football?
October 7, 2009 - 11:41 ET by GeneralAlSpecial Ed played football? Was he the kicking dummy? Or maybe, the goal post!
Sorry General
October 7, 2009 - 12:13 ET by BlondeSpecial Ed, as you so wonderfully called him, couldn't possibly have been the goal post. He's a liberal, ergo sum, moving goal posts. In the NFL, the goal posts are required to stay in the same place.....impossible for a lib.
I hope he fails, too.
Special Ed apparently went
October 7, 2009 - 12:37 ET by HockeyKidSpecial Ed apparently went to Minnesota State U. at Moorhead, where he played quarterback (at least, he held an NAIA passing record in 1977, so one assumes he played QB). He played A HALF A SEASON in the CFL, but left, complaining that he couldn't get used to the "rugby-shaped ball". Let's just say he's no Doug Flutie, eh?
Hilariously, MSUM's info says "Top Majors: Elementary Education, Mass Communications, Business
Administration, Art, Biology, Accounting, Psychology, Criminal Justice,
Special education, and Graphic Communications."
So Special Ed clearly fit right in there.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Ed's just chapped,
October 7, 2009 - 22:40 ET by general companyBecause he is already loaded up with Rams apparel
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
BLUE BOMBERS...
October 7, 2009 - 21:09 ET by danybhoyThere is nothing wrong with the CFL, but it is what it is, & it's not as good as the NFL. It's a different game, 3 downs instead of 4, a much bigger field, 12 aside instead of 11, goal posts on the goal line, 25 yard endzones, & so on. One thing Ed could deal with is a CFL football was bigger then footballs used in US college ball or the NFL. I don't know if they still are bigger, but Ed could not adjust.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Go Rush! The Rocky
October 7, 2009 - 10:14 ET by wiwfGo Rush!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
It's none of the media's, nor the left's, damn business...
October 7, 2009 - 10:18 ET by R D Helm...what Rush buys.
It's his money, not theirs, and he is free to do whatever he likes with it, and that includes buying the Rams, or any other NFL team.
If the crybaby looters and thieves on the left, and in the SCM don't like it, to Hell with them.
-Dave
Is there anyone, with a brain, that watches MSLSD ?
October 7, 2009 - 10:26 ET by hetookuazyIt occurs to me that this must be a part of a brilliant strategy to gain viewers or at least advertising dollars....
speaking financially
October 7, 2009 - 12:37 ET by jon_torlinI got a more financial question about MSNBC. If it's supposed to be part and parcel of being connected with MicroSoft, with the very low ratings that they are getting, why is MS still hanging on to it? A very wise decision to make financially speaking would be to drop them or do something with them. I don't see how they can be a money-maker (neither is Amtrak) with their ratings the way they are as a channel.
Or is it "too big to fail?"
-Jon
Or is it "too big to
October 7, 2009 - 13:44 ET by midnight cowboyOr is it "too big to fail?"
Nah! Bill Gates just needs a money losing investment for a tax write off.
Unfortunately, . . .
October 7, 2009 - 11:31 ET by KylerkUnfortunately, I see ESPN doing to sports in America what MTV did to our music over the past 15 years or so. I was watching ESPN's SportsCenter the other night and one of their Prada-eyeglass wearing, snarky, metrosexual hosts made the statement: "You probably know more people who have never been to a Starbucks than those who don't understand the importance of the Green Bay-Minnesota game Monday night." I felt like throwing something at my TV. Even FoxSports is so liberal it's almost unwatchable. I wish Roger Ailes would start a cable sports network.
In the culture wars, as in politics, the Left wants to have total control of every aspect of our lives - even what we do in our leisure time.
- Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its useful idiot.
!!!
October 7, 2009 - 12:04 ET by someloudthunderAre you kidding me? You're going to criticize the kind of glasses a man wears and you're calling HIM the metrosexual?????
There's a liberal bias in the news. Everyone who isn't up Obama's anus is willing to admit that. To say that FoxSports is SO liberal it's unwatchable is ridiculous. It's sports for damn sake. Man up and take things with a grain of salt. Good golly you've got me steamed.
Good. Oh . . . sorry I made
October 7, 2009 - 12:37 ET by KylerkGood. Oh . . . sorry I made fun of your glasses.
- Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its useful idiot.
BINGO...
October 7, 2009 - 21:17 ET by danybhoyESPN was better when it was'nt as big as it is today. They have become part of the noise problem, as opposed to when you turned it on years ago & you knew they were really different. They are tied in with Disney & all of the corperate synergies to hype everything they touch in all the wrong places.
One of the biggest problems I have with trying to watch them is that every person on SportCenter or ESPNnews has a couple of dozen catch phrases to use with the highlight packages. Too many try too hard to be hip, but without the needed talent to pull it off. It's all overkill now. Stuart Scott is the biggest offender of this. He can be really good, but his "schtick" has consumed him & he is now little more then "schtick".
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
You kidding me Schultz?
October 7, 2009 - 11:34 ET by Lord ErondThere's enough fat/blubber/baloney on your ass to feed Africa forever. And stop trying to set a record for most number of democrat talking points spewed in the first 5 minutes of a story intro.
"Timothy, guard what God has entrusted to you. Avoid godless, foolish discussions with those who oppose you with their so-called knowledge."
Timothy 6:20
ESPN
October 7, 2009 - 11:55 ET by someloudthunderI love how ESPN is smart enough to realize a man's politics doesn't and shouldn't matter with his ownership of a team.
PTI got it good. He has the money that's what the NFL wants.
Also be prepared for the 2011 Superbowl Rams with the most conservative defense out there.
The left is taking us down
October 7, 2009 - 12:38 ET by ForeverOnTheRightThe left is taking us down the wrong road again. If the left wants to fight against anyone they don't like from buying a sports team or newspaper etc. etc. this will polarize this country further. Does the left really understand what they are doing? I don’t think so, they just have to shoot there mouth off without thinking about what they are doing.
Everything else aside..
October 7, 2009 - 13:41 ET by sic721They're probably MOST upset about the fact if Rush owns the team, every Rams' game NBC broadcasts will HAVE to mention Rush on the air and show the obligatory shot of the owner's box. Will that frost NBC's balls or what? Heh heh heh
Freeze them hard and take it
October 7, 2009 - 13:51 ET by midnight cowboyFreeze them hard and take it one step further. NBC broadcasts the Superbowl and Rush's Rams are not just playing, but are the favorite. An on air live Olberman head explosion would be a great half time show.
Well the Rams are the 25th
October 7, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Another Dead KennedyWell the Rams are the 25th most valuable NFL franchise, and at 0-4, it does make for an interesting investment.
xoxo - Ted
Fat hED Schultz
October 7, 2009 - 14:05 ET by richardEd Schultz acts like Rush has to get his permission before he is allowed to buy the team. What's next Ed, does Rush have to get your permission to wipe his a**?
Tell you what Ed, you wipe it for him!
My dream and the Liberal's nightmare: Rush buys...
October 7, 2009 - 17:59 ET by jawebster1the Rams and moves them back to L.A. where they belong. As someone who remembers Bob Waterfield and Norm Van Brocklin as well as Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch, when they were playing, I'd die and go to heaven happy. Jim Webster
The Rams will never move
October 7, 2009 - 18:08 ET by Another Dead KennedyThe Rams will never move back to LA because LA fans suck, and the Rams know it. Remember, LA didn't just lose 1 NFL team - they've lost 2.
xoxo - Ted
Remind us
October 7, 2009 - 18:41 ET by general companyOf who those owners were, and there reason for moving? I am not a big fan of LA, but I would bet they would put more fannies in the seats then anywhere else. Remember, St Louise lost a team a while back.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
My comment has nothing to do
October 7, 2009 - 19:02 ET by Another Dead KennedyMy comment has nothing to do with who the owners were back then, though we all know how nuts Al Davis is. It comes down to money, and Al thought he could make more from being a 2nd bay area franchise than one from LA. Are you in LA? Have you ever been to a sporting event in LA? Even the Dodgers couldn't get fans to their games, until the team became a playoff hopeful. The fans are lousy here, and only care about the local team if the local team is winning.
xoxo - Ted
Sorry but it does have a lot to do with the owners
October 7, 2009 - 20:10 ET by general companyIf you remember at one time they had both the Raiders and Rams. My point was they both left for greener pastures, just like any other team does. Here is article that kinda sets the times again, at a time when the NFL was averaging 60k LA was averaging 80k+. No I am not from that LA, but I still find it hard to believe that after watching them support USC and UCLA recently that they wont sell out an NFL team. But of course they will need to be some what successful.
Baseball is a different animal, only a few teams have regular sellouts, Boston, NY maybe a Chicago team?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The Libtards gravitate
October 7, 2009 - 20:32 ET by RR GOPThe Libtards gravitate towards underdogs...surprised the Rams haven't received TARP money and ACORN community organizer volunteers to help them out.
Oh, that's right...they don't believe in winning/losing and competition (unless it's them, of course).
Hmmm....quite a quandary.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
OMG! the tertiary head of the Republican Party...
October 7, 2009 - 20:42 ET by MightyMouth..also the literal head of the Rams!? Imagine the possibilities!
This would be so great if Rush could pull this off!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"