comments_image -

Limbaugh's New Low: A Final Word On Racist Rush's NFL Debacle

Rush: "This is the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom."
October 16, 2009  |  
 
Advertisement
 

Over the last eight years, even though it often made me break out into hives, I've listened to a lot of Rush Limbaugh. I've heard him express the full gamut of his emotional range: from hateful to very hateful. But over all this time, I've never known him to be pathetic until yesterday.

As the media has now endlessly dissected. Rush was thwarted this week in his efforts to buy the National Football League's St. Louis Rams. His ownership group, led by St. Louis Blues boss Dave Checketts, dumped Rush without ceremony or pity. Checketts issued a statement saying, "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion."

His comments came the day after Rush insisted on his show that they would fight this to the bitter end. But Checketts, like most owners a long time donor to right wing causes, had no desire to link arms with Limbaugh for a public crusade. You might think Rush would have gone on the air to slam Checketts's absence of a spine. You might think he would have called out the hypocrisy of NFL owners who give prodigiously to right wing candidates and causes, but insist on doing it in the shadows. You might think he would rail against those who see their conservative support as something sordid and best done behind closed doors. You might think Rush would howl at the moon at those who think that being an open, unreconstructed right winger, actually hurts the almighty bottom line. You might think he would say that the right wing has failed a major test by refusing to back him. Or maybe you might think he would take a different tack and accept personal responsibility for why a group of billionaires wouldn't want his presence affecting their bottom line.

But no. Rush instead had this to say about why his defeat occurred:

"This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have. ... This is the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom who threaten the whole notion of state control tyranny and central authority which is typified by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party."

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
Republicans Block NY Minimum Wage Increase That Would Give 880,000 Workers a Raise

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Why Don't TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?

By Katherine Bagley, | Inside Climate News

 
 
New Book Says Teenage Obama Was a Huge Pot Head -- So Why Won't He Legalize It for the Rest of Us?!

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Pew Poll Finds Clean Energy Is A Political Wedge Issue for Republicans

By Stephen Lacey | Climate Progress

 
 
Mitt 'Not Concerned with the Very Poor' Romney Visits West Philly, Gets Lesson in Keeping it Real

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Corporate Media Stokes Racial Angst in Election Coverage

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
5 Things to Know About the Paycheck Fairness Act (The Next Big Legislative Battle for Women)

By Annie-Rose Strasser | Think Progress

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]