Carl Cannon on Rush Limbaugh not being allowed to own a part of the St. Louis Rams:
Conservatives suggested this week, not unreasonably, that if one of their own is ever to be awarded a peace prize, an organization other than the Nobel committee is going to have to hand it out. Considering the onslaught against Rush Limbaugh over his effort to purchase the St. Louis Rams, a related question arises: Will conservatives soon need their own professional sports leagues, too?
Millions of Americans tune into football games each autumn weekend precisely so they can block out the humdrum of everyday life, including the pettiness of party politics and even the pressing national problems that can never be cured with a Hail Mary pass. But sport mirrors society, and when the king of right-wing talk radio let it be known that he is part of a consortium seeking to purchase the St. Louis Rams, the partisan slings flew through the air as hard and speedily as a Brett Favre pass. . . .
Nothing is wrong with any of this, but it puts DeMaurice Smith’s very public crusade against Rush Limbaugh’s ownership bid in a somewhat different light. And it raises new kinds of issues for athletes. Should they refuse to play for an owner whose political views are not in sync with their own? On what issues? Abortion? Global warming? (And will their agents dare tell the players that, before the next collective bargaining agreement is signed between the NFL players and the owners, Obama and the Democratic Congress is likely to raise their taxes?) . . . .
Jesse Jackson made a sage observation this week. He noted that owning a pro football team is a “privilege” and not a right. He’s right, and it’s worth reiterating that Limbaugh’s looming freeze-out is not censorship: He still has a right to say what he wants on the radio and if that makes him rich or costs him opportunities outside his chosen field – and clearly, it’s done both for Limbaugh – that’s part of life.
On the other hand, if outspoken liberal MSNBC host (and frequent Limbaugh basher) Keith Olbermann is appalled by the groupthink attack on Limbaugh, that ought to give DeMaurice Smith and Limbaugh’s other critics pause. “There’re now gonna be character tests for sports owners?” Olbermann asked incredulously on the air this week. “There’ll only be three of them left.”
I understand why Rush was excluded, but The Washington Post reports that the NFL is allowing other controversial folks to own a share in a pro football team:
“According to reports, the NFL’s team owners this week approved singer Fergie of the musical group the Black Eyed Peas as a partial owner of the Miami Dolphins.” Aren’t the Peas notoriously obscene in their lyrics? But Fergie is all right, and Rush is not? Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is arguably a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh on the left, but he is an NFL announcer. Why is he not considered controversial?
Have we gone too far in scrutinizing the political correctness not only of an enterprise but of the INVESTORS in the enterprise? Should I not buy a product because someone I disagree with owns stock in the manufacturers of that product? How far are we going to take this?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In