Rush could have asserted that Player X was better than McNabb. Right? And just left it at that?
No. The next question would be: Why do you think that, Rush? Rush could have trotted out scores to show how McNabb really was getting a promotional push by broadcasters, etc., but it still wouldn't have gotten fully to the real answer.
Point here is, if Rush had NOT answered the "next question" in his terms -- it *could* have turned into another "trent lott" scenario -- with his words not only being taken out of context -- but hammered in the negative through sheer "interpretation" by those with an axe to grind against Rush. In football, this "play" is called a "fumble", no?
Rush didn't fumble the ball. He delivered.
Ideologically, Rush was the "diversity" factor on that ESPN panel. And they, the fellow sportscasters and the usual dem racial-crats tried to steal the ball, and ended up chewing grass, instead. And why? Rush did not fumble, he delivered, and he hung onto the ball throughout. I'd call that a completed pass. His "coaches" (ESPN) were screamed at, railed at, threatened with protests, and lots of ugliness. Rush did the honorable thing -- he laid the ball down at the goal line, and honorably left the field. He didn't whine. He didn't threaten to sue or libel or smear anyone.
That's class.