Rush DID have a point, but it was one completely irrelevant to McNabb's success or failure on the field. It was a socio-political comment, not one defined by performance during the games.

Again, I'm not arguing that Rush might have been correct. The place and point weren't proper on an NFL Countdown Show that wasn't discussing racial views of commentators or the media. If Rush wanted to introduce the topic, he should have gone through his producers and allowed his colleagues to know that the topic was open for discussion. He dropped a bomb in which most people would agree that SOME do favor McNabb because of his race. No revelation there. The revelation should be that the majority has never stopped doing the same thing as they control the levers of power unlike those whom look-like or favor McNabb.

And you'll note a reference to the fact that ESPN chose to delete Michael Irvin's "Rush has a point" comment that Irvin made twice toward the end of that segment.

Delete it from what? It was live tv, wasn't it?

ESPN did not want a conversation about race intruding into whether a QB was over-rated or not. Its irrelevant to what occurs on the field, isn't it? That's why ESPN pulled the plug.

And I agree its irrelevant to any substantive discussion. Commentators express their OPINIONS, not objective fact. It matters not their reasons for their views. If Rush's point was to criticize others for injecting race into their views, why did he inject race into his opinion?

All he needed to say was "Why do so many continue to label McNabb as a "black quarterback"? Aren't we past that point today? Personally, I think he's over-rated based on his record, not his race, but I believe certain commentators are basing their positive assessments more upon his race than on his play and here are concrete examples why I've concluded this: "

There would have been no controversy whatsoever.

Its password protected Oohrah.

Your analogy would be sound...if there wasn't both the spoken and unspoken belief that until Doug Williams won a Super Bowl, black quarterbacks didn't have "what it takes" to be successful in the NFL. Warren Moon had to go to Canada for 5 seasons before he could play the position for which he'd spent his life preparing for. Now he sits in the Hall of Fame with statistics in the upper strata of league greats even with his truncated career. The only white QB who I can recall that went to Canada first before the NFL, and returned to be successful was Doug Flutie.

The history of the NFL cannot be discounted when assessing Rush's comments. I recall many commentators regaling in Craig James' success as a speedback with Eric Dickerson at SMU because even nearly 30 years ago there weren't many white running backs with breakaway speed. The Pony Express became famous.

Again, Rush may have been completely correct, but his comments pale when compared to the history involved. To my knowledge, there were never racially-based impediments or expectations placed upon white QB's. They sank or swam on their ability to succeed or fail. The same cannot be said for black QB's at the NFL level up until about 25 years ago.

I've never seen it surmised that Ryan Leaf failed because of his race, nor Akili Smith, Andre Ware, Tim Couch, or currently JaMarcus Russell. The bottom line is that McNabb will be judged on what he accomplishes on the field, not by the color of his skin.

And the fact that ALL OF US may like or dislike particular athletes nominally for a myriad of reasons including race doesn't mean that pointing out this fact toward the direction of those championing a black QB means that there aren't likely as many commentators cheering on the successes of other QB's because they're not black, but in today's context only the most extreme racialist would ever bother to point this out in a conversation which had ZERO to do with race on its face. Rush decided that the like of McNabb had to be racially motivated on his own and warranted a comment, and so it was, and is what it is.

BTW...

Just re-read O's comments. Sorry, I thought that Rush was naming Irvin and Jackson as part of those him implied as racially supporting McNabb.

Likely the reason neither commented on Rush's assertion was that they were in shock he would openly bring race into the discussion where it didn't belong.

What do you think would happen if Jackson openly speculated that the media furor over Favre was based on race instead of his play on the field?

It was really an insensitive comment because many of us MAY base our choices upon leanings other than complete objective factors. But how about all the documented cases where black athletes were denied opportunity and openly mocked by the media merely because they were black?

Rush has repeatedly tried to victimize the accusers and demonize the victims. Playing QB in Philly has never been easy without race being thought of at all. I guess Rush can find racism where others just want a nice law-abiding young man to succeed at a very difficult job while he just happens to be black at the same time.

I heard Dungy on the DP Show myself, and I'm aware there are no black owners in the NFL. As yet, none have stepped forward wanting to own a team or those who've tried haven't had the financial clout to do so. I don't believe the existing owners are trying to exclude any qualified minorities at this point in time.

If Rush pointed to Irvin and Jackson, that hardly implies a groundswell of racially based support for McNabb throughout the media, which I thought Limbaugh implied. Both Jackson and Irvin share a commonality with McNabb and this happens to be they're all black men who played in the NFL, though neither Irvin nor Jackson played quarterback. They also know that the QB is the lightning rod for criticism far outpacing the fact it takes 22 to win, not just one.

To me the fact that Jackson and Irvin supported McNabb's success against his detractors certainly contains a racial element, but Rush is still far afield to assign it ALL to race. Its denigrating to those who've sacrificed their bodies and time to reach the pinnacle of the sport to assign a propensity to cheer the prospects of a fellow traveler soley or mainly to race.

I don't think certain commentators who passionately want Brett Favre to succeed as a Viking want him to because he's white. Most of us have multiple reasons for wishing success or the lack thereof toward selective targets. For a person with Rush's background of pointing out preceptions of bias in racial hues, his defense is as weak as his probably substantially correct assertion. But it needn't been talked about in the terms he chose to use.

That CBS writer's problem was that a myriad of really bad players (no pun intended) have been welcomed back into the fold. From Vick to Pacman, take your pick.

Did you know some teams have minority owners in the entertainment business... the Dolphins, for instance, have a singer with Black Eye Peas. Would those lyrics be considered family friendly?

Is it that Rush is so large a public figure that he can't hide? Or is it the type of controversy involved?

I guess there are always lines to be drawn. The question(s) become where to draw them, the rationale behind it, and who gets to make that decision.

You cannot compare ownership to employees. If the employees you mentioned were not making the NFL money or helping the teams involved play to a higher level do you really think they'd be in the league? Is the NFL donating all the money they're making on Vick's Eagle jerseys to charity? Hell no they aren't, they're just doing business as usual.

You also cannot compare artists and actors to political commentators, and more importantly artists do one record or one movie over extended periods of time. Rush is on every weekday for hours at a time. Most of the things he states would draw fines and suspensions because his views would be aligned to the League's because of their relationship if he were an owner. The NFL would not let Larry Flynt own a team nor Steve Wynn either. Neither decision would be based on politics, it would be based on the image these men would bring to the league.

Checkett's rightly figured out Rush's presence harmed his syndicate's chances of buying the Rams, so he made a business decision, not a politically motivated one, but a financially motivated one.

Its always been about money and what's good for business in this context, and the owners always will make the final decision, not the public.

So Rush called the commentators on that. Hey, in a supposedly color blind society is it relevant for commentators to keep bringing up a man's race? Well, they did... and Rush pointed that out.

No Oohrah, you can't get there from here. Rush, according to you, was calling out "commentators" he believed wanted to see McNabb succeed "because of his race."

Who are these commentators, and why didn't Rush name them so we'd all be able to judge their words to see if Rush was right? Rush started the conversation, based it on race, and then decried anyone who pointed out the fact that Rush was the one making racial accusations, not those unnamed he pointed to.

Good grief, Philly sports fans almost always want to see their local stars succeed before they inevitably turn on them if they don't live up to expectations. Could it be people wanted McNabb to succeed because it meant that the Eagles would also succeed? Did it have to be based on race as Rush surmised?

Again, until I see quotes and stories about those Rush deemed to be racial cheerleaders, its incumbent upon HIM to live with the fact that HE brought up this issue in racial terms, not those whom he left unnamed. Name names and throw the evidence on the table, that's what Rush should have done then, and perhaps there'd have been no controversy if the evidence fit Rush's accusations.

Not allowing Limbaugh to own the Rams because people disagree with his politics, or because they disagree with the hyperbolic way he expresses his politics, is frightening. Not today, of course. Today it's fine because our capitalistic free market is closing its doors on the "divisive" Limbaugh -- but tomorrow it could close its doors on me. Or on you.

Good grief...so many people conflating issues not even remotely at play. Rush is BAD for the business of the NFL, case closed. It doesn't matter what his politics are, it doesn't matter what his views are. It matters that he has a national forum he uses on a daily basis to DIVIDE people against each other! HE is the anthithesis of what the NFL exists to do as a business construct.

The owners in the NFL have a symbiotic relationship with myriad governments that control or manage the stadiums they use to ply their business in. It is not good business to piss-off ANYONE who pays taxes, because all it will take is a taxpayer revolt to upset their apple cart and reduce the value of their franchises/brand across the board.

NFL owners are an extremely closed group of businesspeople who have 100% control over whom they allow into their club. Controversy harms their business, while controversy IS Rush's business. The two cannot coexist in this reality or any other one without potentially damaging the brand and image nutured by the people who started in this club with single or double digit millions invested and now find their club's worth in the hundreds of millions if not around the billion dollar mark.

The NFL is about unifying people around their product. Rush's income is based on just the opposite and would undermine the foundation the NFL shows to the world regardless of how the individual owners choose to privately practice their politics. The key word is privately, and little about Rush's views are private, are they?

Again, the same would be true if Keith Olbermann, Al Franken (Air America days), or anyone else with a public platform from which they daily expressed political views tried to join the NFL. Its not ideology, nor is it about 1st Amendment rights and tolerance. Its about Business 101. Its never good business to piss-off a large swath of your customers by publically and overtly espousing controversial views on a daily basis.

Thanks BLT for relating that story. My dad passed away 4 years ago Christmas, but the last 10 years of his life were remarkable as Americans rediscovered the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen and bestowed so much love and respect to these aging heroes.

Obama's committee invited and paid for all living Airmen to attend the inauguration in January and my mom was disappointed she wasn't able to go. Those men never could have dreamed of the day the country they loved would elect someone who looked like them President because the man earned the right just like they did.

As it regards Rush, I just read the story from last week's SI about the NFL's Jackie Robinson, Kenny Washington and another man who's name now escapes me. The Limbaugh comments about McNabb look so shallow when faced with the reality that a black man both quarterbacked and coached a successful professional football team in a league that preceeded the NFL back in the 1920's, yet for decades ALL blacks were denied any opportunity to play professionally in the NFL, while the neo-nazis marched in DC with comical signs saying "Keep our Redskins White(!)" during the early 60's before they were forced to integrate because the stadium was a part of the public parks system, hence paid for by ALL tax-paying citizens and the local government demanded it so they could play at (later named) RFK. Wanting to see a black quarterback succeed only called for learning the history of American professional football. Pretty much after Doug Williams won the Super Bowl, color became mostly irrelevant except for those trafficking in differences instead of W's and L's.

Rush is what he is and he's unabashedly proud of what he says and does. But he's also intelligent enough to realize that he's polarizing, which is something owners don't want and cannot tolerate when business is based on entertaining people, not having them choose political sides and battling to the bitter, ideological end. Although Rush has the money, I don't think Augusta National will be calling anytime soon either, and no one would say that their reticence would be based on liberal leanings, would they? Same thing would go for any liberal with too-public views deemed divisive across the board. Thats just the way it is. Money talks and REAL MONEY screams. Thats why it pays to be quiet on controversy when everyone's money pays your way.

Have Sharpton or Jackson complained over being denied an opportunity to join one of the most elite business cliques on the planet?

Of course not, BLT, but you already know this. There is no conspiracy to deny Rush a seat at the table. His own JOB is the prima facia reason he'd never be allowed into NFL ownership regardless of his political bent. Imagine George Soros trying to become a pro sports owner or Larry Flynt or Al Franken during his Air America days. Having very public, divisive, controversial views is NOT the way to join one of the most profitable brands seeking to gain money from EVERYONE regardless of their political bent.

Our owner here in Indy, Jim Irsay is a prominent contributer to the REPUBLICAN PARTY and openly supportive of GOP candidates both locally, statewide and nationally, yet he was the first owner to say Rush was bad for his business and he's absolutely correct on that fact. Every NFL team outside of DC calls either fully-publically-funded stadiums home or at least partially funded ones. So taxpayer money subsidizes the owner's ability to ply their trade. Its not good business to have one of the loudest, most divisive voices on the planet inside your club, ostrasizing the majority of the public which funds your business model.

Not to mention the fact that in the course of doing his job Rush would subject himself to never-ending fines for denigrating much of the paying public which doesn't agree with his views on politics and American society, because anything he says that hurts the NFL brand (and dividing the public into "us's and them's" certainly does) would bring him under Goddell's disciplinary discretion which likely would make Mark Cuban's multi-million dollar fines look like vending machine money by the time Goddell was done.

Ask yourself, is it good business for a minority owner to publically state that HE'S more patriotic, more AMERICAN, and more ELITE, hence more CORRECT than those who disagee with his views? Of course it isn't good business. The NFL owners privately AGREE more with Rush more than likely, but they know the poison of his visage and verbosity will dilute the very brand they've grown over the last 75 years and that simply is intolerable to men who've got billions invested in bringing people together in UNITY, not dividing them out of fear.

Well, well, well, what have we here? The rightwing furor over ACORN might have just accomplished what a true Republican hero tried to warn about over half a century ago.

Wouldn't it be rich if the political machinations of the GOP actually turned off the spigot of taxpayer funding going to the military-industrial complex? How are the members going to be able to demonize ACORN for fraud yet excuse Lockheed, KBR, Grumman, and every other contractor that's ripped-off taxpayers for far more money than ACORN would see in hundreds of years?

Personally, I think its great, fraud SHOULD be eliminated and those perpetrating fraud turned away from the taxpayer's largess. But it looks like Tom DeLay won't be the only Republican dancing before tv cameras if this legislation does what it appears it might do.

First off, I like for someone, anyone to post a speech, a quote, or even a thought cloud coming from Grand Ayatollah Khomeni stating that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons or to stockpile same. I'll save you the time. He never has. Infact he issued an fatwa years ago stating that Iran would NEVER seek nuclear weapons and that possessing same was against the teachings in the Quoran. Google it if you don't believe it.

Ahmedinejad IS NOT the leader of Iran, Khomeni is and the Supreme Council. No matter what blather comes from Ahmedinejad's piehole, he has zero to do with Iran's nuclear industry nor its defenses, so it matters not his views on Israel, the Holocaust or anything outside of making internal Iran work.

For the person who asked why Iran needs nuclear energy for electricity, its quite simple. Iran IMPORTS gasoline to keep their growing youth population placated and we've seen how well that efforts going post election, haven't we? Iran has huge deposits of yellowcake and is seeking to become a global supplier of nuclear fuel for reactors in other countries. This is the reason they're enriching uranium and trying to perfect their process.

Do I trust them? Moreso than I do the pollyanna neo-cons itching for any reason to strike Iran. As mentioned before, Iran's MILITARY hasn't attacked another country in centuries. Obviously we can't say the same.

As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percentdespite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policiesfiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slippingcontributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.

Funny how we never saw the right bitching about Bush exploding the deficits and actually doing something to stop him when they controlled Congress, wasn't it?

But Obama trying to clean up the mess is a communist. Isn't that rich?

Of course, hard numbers won't jibe with the rhetoric coming from the very crew who let W steward our economy over the cliff from which Obama's now trying to salvage it. Everyone should own up to their role in what's happened over the last 8, going on 9 years. There are no easy fixes, just painful ones and no one's immune from the hurting.

Shares of contribution to fiscal deterioration 2009 and 2010

Cause Percent of total---

President Bush's policies 40%

Current economic downturn 20%

President Obama's policies 16%

Financial rescues begun by President Bush 12%

All other 12%

"5. The lie: The United States has the best health care in the world.... "

So you think that is a lie? Never thought I would say this seriously, tony, but "Love it or leave it you pinko creep."

#3 | Posted by Diablo

What an ignorant thing to say in a supposed rational conversation! The US ranks in the 30's among industrialized nation in healthcare "outcomes", which is the ultimate goal, not how great our catastrophic care system works, which btw 3000 people per day go bankrupt due to crushing healthcare costs and the burden of keeping our flawed system afloat.

If you must criticize at least know the facts and not the spin and hyperbole!

Each lie is sourced and debunked within the article, and for those seeking to singularly blame the right, Number 3 was propagated by Howard Dean. True-facts don't seem to matter when the hyperbole of fear-inducing lies sell so much easier in the public-square, where ignorant (meaning uninformed, not "stupid")citizens go for their education.

The bottom line remains what is the chief goal of every private-run company in a free market economy? To make money.

What is the goal of the US government as stated within our founding documents? To ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while providing for our common defense.

Which one of these two is closer to likely facilitating the improvement of the physical and mental health of the populace, our elected politicians and our governmental institutions or the megalithic corporations beholden to profits and shareholders?

It really is that simple at the core. We need both working in concert with the other, but each on its own is disfunctional by nature because their goals oppose each other by definition.