As NewsBusters previously reported, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa grilled NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Wednesday about conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh being denied ownership in the St. Louis Rams despite pop artists Fergie and Jennifer Lopez having minority interests in the Miami Dolphins.
In King's view, Fergie and J-Lo's offensive behavior in the past don't fit Goodell's own highly-publicized standards that "Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about."
Although Limbaugh has posted a response to this hearing at his own website, he has been kind enough to elaborate for our readers:
Of course, Goodell's a total weasel. He had no answer about the Dolphins' owners so he wouldn't even address the question, and he got on his high horse about how McNabb is a fine player and a fine person and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, when I (a) never said he was not a fine person; (b) never said he was a bad QB -- just that he was overrated (which no one should deny); and (c) said the MEDIA was obsessed with the color of his skin (which is also undeniable), not that I was.I RESPECT Donovan McNabb, as I do all the elite athletes qualified to play in the NFL. I'd love to have a beer with him and discuss football. My job on the ESPN pre-game show was to disagree with the panel when I did. The production meeting the day before the show featured two segments on McNabb and the Eagles. The focus of BOTH segments was "What's wrong with McNabb?" My thought was that not that much was wrong, that the Eagles defense was not getting sufficient credit, that I thought the media was hyping McNabb for my stated reasons...
It is going to be very interesting to see how Rush-hating media respond to today's hearing in the next 24 hours.
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sour grapes
October 28, 2009 - 21:20 ET by nwahsNothing says professional like a bowl of sour grapes. If Limbaugh thinks so little of the NFL, why did he want to be an owner? Goodell didn't fire Rush- Checketts did. Rush needs to go after Checketts- not Goodell. The owners don't need Goodell's sanction to vote on a potential owner. The owners employ Goodell. Goodell didn't prevent Rush from being an owner, he gave his opinion. But Rush is doing what he always does - you cross him, he tries to destroy you with his platform. Go for it Rush. You'll only con your 20 million dittoheads.
Nawhs...
October 28, 2009 - 21:25 ET by MightyMouth...you do realize that a group of potential owners came to HIM!?
(Limbaugh is "HIM" btw). He was told there would be no problems. THEY were wrong NOT HIM!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
shawn~~
October 28, 2009 - 21:27 ET by BKeyserPlease point to the part where Rush indicates he thinks little of the NFL.
Rush thinks so little of the NFL?
October 28, 2009 - 21:49 ET by averageschmoeRush only flies into Pittsburgh half a dozen times a year to watch the Steelers play on Sunday and Monday and talks NFL football regularly throughout the season. nwahs is a typical liberal whiner that does not need facts to prove a point. Just make an accusation and therefore it is true to you.
Facts never matter to the
October 28, 2009 - 22:02 ET by SmartypantsFacts never matter to the left. Whatever they believe to be true may as well be true, and that's it. Therefore, Rush is indeed a racist, even though everything the guy stands for on his show is exactly 180 degrees opposite of what a racist believes. Rush is also a "liar" because liberals don't like what he has to say (they regularly accuse anyone they don't like of being a "liar"--reference Al Franken's anti-conservative book that had "liar" in the title about 18 times).
The most successful war America has ever waged is quickly becoming President Obama's war on capitalism.
You could not misinterpret
October 28, 2009 - 21:50 ET by SmartypantsYou could not misinterpret a situation more than you have in this case. Limbaugh gave no indication of "thinking little of the NFL". In fact, he has stated on his show since this incident that he remains a huge fan of the league and its participants. Once Goodell issued his anti-Limbaugh proclamation the game was pretty much up. You said it yourself, the ownerS (plural) employ Goodell. No one owner tells Goodell, or the league, what to do. Finally, what does it mean to "destroy you with his platform"? This is a statement that has no meaning in reality. How can someone destroy anyone with their platform? You don't like Rush, so you come on here and post a bunch of nonsense designed to admonish him; you've failed miserably in this objective..
The most successful war America has ever waged is quickly becoming President Obama's war on capitalism.
"you've failed miserably in
October 29, 2009 - 04:30 ET by ckc1227"you've failed miserably in this objective.."
Much like the rest of his life I'd imagine.
The Obsessive Devotion
October 28, 2009 - 22:49 ET by UnsaneYep, like clockwork. As soon as I saw that Mr. Limbaugh was the subject of this thread, I knew you'd be here. The very first post, no less! Proving once again that your entire raison d'etre is to attack Limbaugh, constantly, and repeatedly.
Your sad obsessive devotion continues.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think a gallery is missing
October 28, 2009 - 23:10 ET by gmaniac1I think a gallery is missing a peanut. Seriously, everything you posted is complete nonsense. I mean, hate Rush all you want but at least be factual. I don't see where he thinks very little of anything related to the NFL. He's just calling it like he sees it as Congressman King did. And if you don't think the "Commissioner" of the NFL has any influence on who is part of the NFL or not, I'd say you need to go back inside the womb because that kind of thinking (for lack of a better word) is half baked.
You just don't get it.
October 29, 2009 - 03:34 ET by Lord ErondYou don't slander a man with false information and deny him privileges entitled to others. If you don't get this then you're hopeless and there's very little point in discussing it with you.
And I see nothing wrong with Rush informing us of the situation. MSNBC sure as hell isn't going to be doing a piece on this.
"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
Hey nwahs!
October 29, 2009 - 06:07 ET by GeneralAlJust as you spell your name backwards, you've got this backwards!
But Rush is doing what he always does - you cross him, he tries to destroy you with his platform. Go for it Rush. You'll only con your 20 million dittoheads.
Rush goes after those who libel him with false accusations, such as Sharpton and Jackass Jackson! I'm not nuts about Rush but you have taken this in the wrong direction, as usual, Mr. Troll!
I started reading this comment titled "Sour grapes"...
October 29, 2009 - 10:11 ET by jawebster1and right away I smelled a skunk. Sure 'nuff, I looked at the writer's name and saw the name "nwahs" aka "stinky". Jim Webster
As long as you read my posts
October 29, 2009 - 10:14 ET by nwahsYou're getting smarter :)
Excuse but....
October 28, 2009 - 21:34 ET by gailannrI think I just read some "sour grapes" by nwahs!
Gailannr
October 28, 2009 - 21:46 ET by HoosierEmAll I need to say is "DITTO" to your comment.
McCarthy?
October 28, 2009 - 21:57 ET by ptsonSo a "black list" for potential NFL owners is OK? Golly, liberals have really CHANGED!
Yeah, but there black list
October 28, 2009 - 23:12 ET by gmaniac1Yeah, but there black list is more like favoritism for under-qualified black coaches and the Adam Joneses/Michael Vicks of the world.
How is the rejection
October 29, 2009 - 10:17 ET by nwahsHow is the rejection of the most famous shock jock in America, a black list? Rush's fame is for being divisive. The NFL would like to be known as a unifier, something that encourages everything Rush hates - A BIG TENT. Its more of a mismatch than a black list.
Hmm, let's see using that,
October 29, 2009 - 12:10 ET by gmaniac1Hmm, let's see using that, ahem, logic:
Did the NFL reject one of the most famous athletes from playing, i.e. Michael Vick, for killing/torturing dogs for sport? Nope sure didn't.
Did the NFL reject two of the most famous female pop stars from being owners, i.e. Stacy Ferguson and Jennifer Lopez, who songs regularly have derogator/inflammatory lyrics to the point they need warning labels? Nope sure didn't... but the n-word is fine as long as liberals say it.
Did the NFL reject one of the most infamous left wing TV shock jocks from being a commentator for their games, i.e. Keith Olberman, who's such a great "unifier?" Nada, nunca, no... I'm sure Olberman will be the next keynote speaker at the RNC.
But hold on, you said in a previous post the NFL commissioner supposedly had nothing to do with this. Now you're validating the NFL doing it. Which one is it?
It depends on what "divisive" is.
October 29, 2009 - 12:41 ET by metaphorsbwithuAdd to that the fact that the public "outrage" was fed by two of the most divisive people in the country - the Reverands Al and Jesse.
Of course, we all know, according to Liberals who always demand to get their way or else, is that only people who speak against them are divisive.
Maybe someone should ask the Commish what his definition of "divisive" is?
metaphorsbwithu
"Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about."
October 28, 2009 - 21:36 ET by MightyMouthWhat a total crock! The NFL is about MONEY! PERIOD!
If they could get the same or more out of a group that didn't include Rush, why not?...plus they can be sanctimonious!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Yeah all those interviews
October 28, 2009 - 21:49 ET by SlyrrYeah all those interviews where the players and fans insult the other teams is in the spirit of togetherness and looooooooooooove....
Divisive comments?
October 28, 2009 - 21:50 ET by rebel_outlawMy guess is that Goodell doesn't have a problem with divisive comments from players. Divisive comments ooze out of player's mouths.
Also, it is apparent that the divisive comment only applies to Rush and people who think like him. Otherwise, why the silence, Roger?
Exactly! Who would want to watch "non-divissive" football?
October 28, 2009 - 21:52 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
REPLACE GOODELL
October 28, 2009 - 21:53 ET by ptsonObviously Goodell is not unable to read a quote and understand it. So his objection must be political. If the NFL is too good for a Conservative, then my money is too good for the NFL! Good Bye Green Bay Packers, Hello Wisconsin Badgers!
right on pt
October 28, 2009 - 23:13 ET by HogTideRebelCatsI refuse to watch the hypocrite NFL. I'm all about the Southeastern Conference. Go Hogs, Roll Tide, Ole Miss Rebs, and my Grandpa's KY Cats.
My moniker is from a long time ago. But my feelings about my personal boycott of the NFL is right now!!!
The NFL is a league that
October 28, 2009 - 21:57 ET by SmartypantsThe NFL is a league that allows Keith Olbermann to participate on air in one of its weekly primetime affairs. Olbermann, on his show, spews some of the most offensive, empty invective of anyone in broadcasting. It does not matter whether it comes from the right or the left politically, it is largely unsupported drivel and mean-spirited epithets. It goes far beyond anything Limbaugh has ever said or done on his show. Yet, there is no problem in Olbermann participating. And please don't tell me NBC is not the NFL. The NFL certainly has the right to rejct any announcers or media members that cover and broadcast its games. Also, Bryant Gumbel has been an announcer on The NFL Network. Gumbel is an outspoken political hack, who makes racist remarks (on air and off) on a regular basis. He regularly takes potshots at anything he deems to be Republican or conservative in nature, and he does so when it is not even slightly germane to the topic at hand. Yet, there is no problem in having this man associated with the NFL. Sour grapes, my butt.
The most successful war America has ever waged is quickly becoming President Obama's war on capitalism.
Gumbel
October 28, 2009 - 22:53 ET by UnsaneThe worst part about Bryant Gumbel being on the NFL Network was simple: he could not announce football games to save his life.
Pat Summerall, back in the day, would do such a horrible job at it that he put me to sleep and damn near in a coma. As bad as Summerall was, especially when paired with John Madden, I would prefer HIM over Gumbel because he was so poor at it.
The NFL Network got the wrong Gumbel. His brother Greg is infinitely better at calling football games. One of the best in the business, IMHO.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Has Rush EVER provided
October 28, 2009 - 23:17 ET by 24enakHas Rush EVER provided evidence to support his claim that the 'media over hyped McNabb because they want a black quarter back to succeed.' I have never heard him do that. If you are going to make a claim then back it up. I believe Rush has been the one to introduce the color of McNabb's skin to the debate.
If anything McNabb has been underrated as a quarterback in Philly. They wouldn't have went to all of the NFC championship games without McNabb or Andy Reid. The day those two men leave Philly then that will be the day Philly fans start to appreciate how good they were.
Rush had an opinion, he was paid to express it...
October 28, 2009 - 23:23 ET by MightyMouthYou got a problem with NFL announcers expressing their paid for opinion? Give up dude before you embarrass yourself!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Give up dude before you
October 28, 2009 - 23:27 ET by bigtimerGive up dude before you embarrass yourself!
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Too late..in fact, far too late.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Hey BT
October 28, 2009 - 23:41 ET by MightyMouthYou know I want to be civil with these guys...but it's like taking candy from a baby, and I love babies!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
All I am asking for is some
October 29, 2009 - 00:28 ET by 24enakAll I am asking for is some proof, or an example to back up his claim that the 'media' wanted McNabb to succeed because he is black. I know Rush just likes to say whatever idiotic thing comes out of his mouth without the slightest bit a proof or factual evidence to back it up. In fact I have never heard him back up his controversial, and idiotic statement that he made about McNabb. Is that to much to ask? I know it is asking a lot coming from the head of Rush Limbaugh.
All I am asking for is some
October 29, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Dan The Man 2All I am asking for is some proof, or an example to back up his claim
that the 'media' wanted McNabb to succeed because he is black
It was an opinion; can you not read that it was his opinion based on what he saw? And what kind of game does McNab play and has played and how mucgh was he hyped?
Have you EVER asked the same thing on anyother blogg
October 29, 2009 - 01:00 ET by MightyMouthor anywhere about any other NFL comentator? You are digging yourself deeper into a hole of dispair. Would you please give up on this hole you have yourself in? You have a big "L" on your forehead dude!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
You're a lib and therefore a disingenous liar
October 29, 2009 - 03:39 ET by Lord ErondAnything spouted by a lib automatically makes in factually incorrect. They are cockroaches who have proven they would screw their own sister to enforce their assinine agendas.
"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
"In fact I have never heard
October 29, 2009 - 04:21 ET by ckc1227"In fact I have never heard him back up his controversial, and idiotic
statement that he made about McNabb. Is that to much to ask?"
Well, yeah, in your case, it is too much to ask. What would be the point? You've already concluded that it is an idiotic statement, even if it is true.
You can't handle the truth, and the reality is you don't really care whether he's right or not. You're stuck on stupid withh a heapin' helpin' of white guilt on the side. Hell, I pay little attention to NFL football, yet even I have heard the media whining about the lack of black coaches, black quarterbacks, black owners, black executives, etc. Can't say I've ever heard one whimper about the lack of white players in a league dominated by black guys though....NFL or NBA.
Typical - "Do as I say... not as I post."
October 29, 2009 - 01:56 ET by Teamcheeser"They wouldn't have went to all of the NFC championship games without McNabb or Andy Reid."
Really? If you are going to make a claim then back it up.
What you were actually doing was not stating a FACT. You were stating an opinion.
You know, sorta like Rush.
"Has Rush EVER provided
October 29, 2009 - 04:04 ET by ckc1227"Has Rush EVER provided evidence to support his claim that the
'media over hyped McNabb because they want a black quarter back to
succeed.' I have never heard him do that."
Well, you'd actually have to listen to Rush to hear it if he did, and since you don't, it's no surprise you've never heard him do it.
By the way, you think that Rush might mingle with a few more sports media folks than you do? Think he might have 1 or 2 more conversations with team owners, coaches, executives, etc about what's happening in the NFL than you have? I'm guessing yeah, he probably has.
But if you really want a little evidence, give this piece a read. If McNabb was a great quarterback then, then Brad Johnson at the time was one of the greatest quaterbacks ever....something you'll never hear anyone say with a straight face.
"If anything McNabb has been underrated as a quarterback in Philly."
He's not even the best quarterback on his own team.
How Lazy Are You, 24enak?
October 29, 2009 - 07:33 ET by DutchHere ya go, Troll:
http://www.slate.com...
Don't get too confused, as the linked article uses like, stats and facts and things.
You assume other's opinion of McNabb, including your own, are factual, and therefore you require proof of somebody else's dissenting opinion? Where do you get off?
And some anecdotal evidence for good measure, I remember around the time of Rush's comments, it was not unusual to hear broadcasters refer to McNabb as being "one of the best NFL QB's in the game today, possibly ever". I remember, because they were still saying it even AFTER McNabb led the Eagles to defeat in the NFC title game against my Panthers. Once again, Rush was Right.
*Whoops, sorry ckc, didn't see that you linked the same article. Oh well, can't hurt for the troll to read it twice.
It was not about mcnabb
October 29, 2009 - 08:39 ET by gdonovanIt was about the media. If you want proof look at how the media covers Obama. Yes it is in part because he is a liberal (radical) Democrat but largely because he is black. Left wing media, including the sports media, tends to have 'white guilt' and because of that we have affirmative action, fawning media coverage of Obama and Mcnabb and accusations of racism if you say anything bad about someone who is black. Rush, like most conservatives, does not look at skin color, but the media does and so do you. If you make ANY decision based on skin color does that not make you a racist or at least particpatng in racism? If you make an observation that someone is acting, or in this case reporting, based on race is that racism? I have no doubt that you believe those who like Mcnabb because of his skin color are not racists, yet those who think he is simply overrated are? (as for me I do not know enough to have an opinion other than we share a name, but I do know Rush is a keen observer of that which interests him.) I also have no doubt that you probably believe those that voted FOR Obama because of his skin color are NOT racists and those who voted against him because of his radical extreme beliefs are.
Here are his words....
October 29, 2009 - 09:30 ET by JTP"I
RESPECT Donovan McNabb, as I do all the elite athletes qualified to
play in the NFL. I'd love to have a beer with him and discuss football.
My job on the ESPN pre-game show was to disagree with the panel when I
did. The production meeting the day before the show featured two
segments on McNabb and the Eagles. The focus of BOTH segments was,
"What's wrong with McNabb?" My thought was that not that much was
wrong, that the Eagles defense was not getting sufficient credit, and
that I thought the media was hyping McNabb for my stated reasons."
"Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
As some said it was opinion
October 29, 2009 - 09:56 ET by nwahsAs some other posts said its opinion so he really doesn't have to provide evidence, nor does he have to display any insight about the game while voicing it. Sports commentators say all types of ridiculous things with no evidence, usually in the form of over hype. The thing is Rush's opinion divided the NFL and the sports writers who cover it ( which is an enormous part of the game - no press no game), along racial lines. He affected black players get different treatment in the press than white players. Basically, divided the league with one statement.
Being from a city that's had both black and white quarterbacks, I think the assertion is ridiculous. When Aaron Brooks was hot in 2000 he got great treatment in the paper. When he started dropping the ball while passing, the press was all over him, even accusing Haslett of being blind to Brooks' deficiencies.
But being primarily a shock jock, I'm sure Rush had no qualms about being bombastic without backing up his divisive allegation with evidence. I'm sure the owners were more concerned that it was evident Rush would never be a team player, but a loose cannon using the NFL ( and their investments) as a publicity vehicle. I think Rush has demonstrated they were correct as he smears Goodell as a "weasel" in the aftermath. It doesn't matter what Goodell has done with the league, now that Rush has been spurned, Goodell is a "weasel." Why in the world did that sentiment not arise in the three years prior to Rush's rejection?
I wish the leadership in the GOP had the guts Goodell has in calling out Rush as the divisive force he is.
Good job Roger Goodell and GEAUX SAINTS!
What an ignorant and thoughtless statement you have just made..
October 29, 2009 - 10:14 ET by JTPYou are no longer relevent to respond to much less wasting the time
reading your comments. I would hate to live in the little closed world
you must live in. Unbelievable.
"Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
As long as you're reading
October 29, 2009 - 10:19 ET by nwahsThanks for reading :)
Yes
October 29, 2009 - 11:07 ET by pbanks7A black sports writer backed him up. I'm not sure if this is that same writer, but the Brad Johnson comparison is familiar:
As a quarterback I feel McNabb is overrated, his passing numbers were comparable to those of journeyman quarterback Brad Johnson, who is hardly considered great (and he has a ring). It is my belief that Donovan was given a lot of undue credit for success that was created by a dominating defense that carried a mediocre offense for years to NFC championships.
McNabb went on to have a career year after Rush said it.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
The Rooney Argument!
October 29, 2009 - 01:46 ET by TeamcheeserThe NFL adopted "The Rooney Rule" which mandates that teams looking to hire a new head coach MUST interview at least one minority (black) candidate.
I think we can reasonably assume that one purpose for "The Rooney Rule" is: The NFL wants to see black coaches succeed.
My question is...
If the NFL is so concerned about seeing black head coaches succeed that they deem it necessary to implement a RULE that forces owners of teams to act a certain way, why is it such a stretch -- such a racist stretch -- for someone (Rush) to assume that the NFL and the media would want to see a black QB succeed?
It's not a stretch. Facts
October 29, 2009 - 03:23 ET by rockyracoonIt's not a stretch.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
The "Rooney Rule" is a great
October 29, 2009 - 12:17 ET by 24enakThe "Rooney Rule" is a great rule. It wants teams to interview minority candidates to give them a fair chance to become head coaches in the NFL. It allows minority coaches to get their foot in the door, even if teams go through the motions in interviewing a minority candidate. The NFL doesn't care if you hire the minority or not as long as you interview one to give them a fair chance.
The NFL wants to see black coaches have an equal opportunity as white coaches to become head coaches in the NFL. The Rooney Rule is a great rule.
"It is going to be very
October 29, 2009 - 03:40 ET by ckc1227"It is going to be very interesting to see how Rush-hating media respond to today's hearing in the next 24 hours."
I can see it now:
The lib idiots are losing and they know it.
October 29, 2009 - 03:43 ET by Lord ErondWe have to start marginalizing the "mainstream media". They aren't mainstream anymore. Libs are losing the culture war because their ideas, philosophy are horrible and are more suited to concentration camps that kill babies. Oh wait, that's planned parenthood. We need to laugh out loud at these dolts and celebrate when the institutions of liberalism finally go under.
"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
Fringe Media
October 29, 2009 - 06:29 ET by HoosierEmI say we call it what Glenn Beck says - the MSM is now the fringe media. Their ratings and rantings prove it.
The fact that the Chicago thugs in the Big Brother White House went after Fox News for asking pertinent, serious, and relevant questions that many of the American people have themselves also prove it.
edit
October 29, 2009 - 10:12 ET by JTPedit
nwahs needs to go to some far leftist blog where his...
October 29, 2009 - 10:30 ET by jawebster1stupid comments would be appreciated. People here recognize him for what he is...just another garden variety Conservative hating Lib. Jim Webster
"The focus of BOTH segments
October 29, 2009 - 10:23 ET by balboa"The focus of BOTH segments was "What's wrong with McNabb?" My thought was..."
...how can I make this about my personal axe to grind with the media, and not in any way about McNabb?