Limbaugh already down one vote

Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into opposition within the NFL on Tuesday. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider.

Well pretty much everybody in and around the league thinks they won’t get a deal done by the deadline so there will be an uncapped year. Some folks think the PA will try at getting no cap in the next deal, some even think they’ll succeed, I don’t know how smart the new head of the PA is (Gene was smart enough to understand the cap helped parity and parity helped ratings and ratings helped salary so the cap actually made players richer, alas Gene is dead) so I’ve got no idea.

It’s all about getting somebody smart enough to know what to do with those low numbered draft picks. That’s what turned the Pats around, they finally got somebody in charge who knew why you should parlay a top 10 pick into 3 second day picks and hire some really smart scouts and pick up a Tom Brady while nobody is looking.

DG, meet FBD (@ #101).
FBD's the emoticon King. LOL!!
Pretty astute guy too, if I may be so bold saying.

FYI Dem Guard, FBD's my pal from OR I've spoken to you of.
Conversely FBD, this is the guy on the opposite coast (NC) who sends me the goofy Monty Python stuff I FWD to you & Julia.
Now that the introductions are finished, moving on... LOL

"I hate to see the campaign to keep Rush out of NFL ownership, but they might be doing him financial a favor in the end."

Perhaps, my friend.
But read what one of the forum's more valued contributors had to say to me on the subject yesterday, HERE, regarding this matter.

I was so bent outa shape yesterday had she not told me [that] I'd still be in a lather, today. LOL
One sharp mind, that one. ;^)

“You’re probably a good guy but you’re coming across as a snob.”

Not that coming off as a snob is high on the list of things I care about, I wish you would pay more attention to the point I’m making than the supposedly antiquated words I use to make it. Liberals can get away with calling Rush divisive, controversial, or whatever, because although people don’t listen to everything he says, they have this picture in their head of him shouting into a microphone and putting on a blowhardy, self-satisfied show. There is this sense that he says things to get attention, whether or not he fully believes them, and for good reason. It’s true. That’s exactly what he does.

This format, which we’ll call infotainment or whatever you want to call it, is not out of line. Not by any means. But it is emotional or—if you want to go along with the libs to get along for the sake of argument—perhaps angry enough to serve as foundation for their claim that he “stokes the flames of fear” and “plays on the prejudices of his uneducated and quick-tempered audience”. What would otherwise be hyperbole is granted a modicum of credibility by Rush’s own tongue-in-cheek pomposity.

Now, a modicum of credibility is not, in my opinion, legitimate grounds for ostracizing Rush from polite society, let alone the social universe of the NFL. Especially since said modicum fades into insignificance when you view Rush’s place in the media, or better yet pop-culture, universe as a whole. Herein lies the significance of my admission that Rush is vulgar. I don’t do it because comparing Rush with Shakespeare and Michelangelo is useful. It isn’t. I do so only to make the point that all of pop-culture is vulgar. And in that sense, Rush isn’t after all vulgar, at least not relative to his environment.

If he spends most of his time scrutinizing the trash turned out by the MSM news machine, and doesn’t so much throw stones from below or scowls down at it from above, but attacks it from the same intellectual plane, how can he be any worse? How can anyone say he’s worse than the commentary regularly broadcast on CNN? Indeed, I say he’s better, for at least he actually listens to his listeners from time to time. He gives them a chance to make their points. Whereas cable news talking heads spend their time interrupting and shouting down eachother.

Libs love to play this game, pretending conservatives are out of line. They’d be right, if only libs participated in Algonquin roundtables. But they don’t. They’re up to the same thing. If Rachel Maddow yells less than Bill O’Reilly, she just as reactively dismissive. Case in point, look at how sports media snobs like Bob Costas breezily characterize Fox Sports as vulgar. It’s almost an adjective these days, everyone knows what Fox-esque coverage means. To belabor the point, what does it mean? Lots of graphics, loud music, attractive chick sideline reporters? I don’t know, I’m not up on my broadcast sports knowledge. I think it means, in short, flash over substance. As if there’s a network out there, or a newpaper for that matter that’s any difference.

That’s what Costas relies on, that whoever’s listening to him forgets for a second that the rest of the sports world doesn’t operate exactly as does Fox News. All I intended to do by calling Rush vulgar is admit the obvious, that is that he’s not Beethoven. I admit this so that we can move on to another obvious point: no one else is, either. Not in radio, news, or football, at least.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.