[wingman1]

"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?"

And you think this is not another Trent Lott scenario? Of course his words have already been "hammered in the negative".

It's not just a presumption on my part about politics and ESPN. Rush, himself, mentioned on his show and on the ESPN show that he was not to inject politics.

When he announced that he had taken the job he said he would be there to challenge the other commentators. Twice I heard him tell Steve Young and one of the others that they should not bring up politics.

I'm fully aware of the left wing agenda, but Rush's words gave his political opponents an opening to smear all conservatives with the "racist" label.

I have heard Rush many times talk about racial issues. He does make a lot of sense. I already mentioned his comments about the Lions and Mariucci. But he is smart enough to do these in a time frame of his choosing. The format of the ESPN show did not allow for a long monologue, debate, etc.

And, for what must be the fifth time I have said this in this forum, it was a sports show.

[Alia]

Dear Wingman1 -- I DO understand what you are saying!! If all the panelists are saying "oh yeah McNabb" is the best, how is Rush saying "no he is not" and "I think it's because you guys WANT him to succeed because he is black"? Injecting a "race" or "political issue" into something that is ALREADY A RACE OR POLITICAL ISSUE?

When it ALREADY IS this way; how or why is his commenting upon it being "BLAMED" upon him?

Let me give you another example: A teacher in a classroom teaching math -- suddenly injects a "newism" into her lecture as to how stupid the Bush Administration is for not doing the math correct in projecting what this war would cost. Student replies -- Projections are necessary and because we are at war, there are so many variables, and the constants are upon which the hard stats reside, Ergo, Bush is doing the right thing. Teacher then says: I don't appreciate you injecting politics into my math class.

Let me give you another -- Preferential Affirmative Action. In the early days of Prop 209 -- 209 people were massively accused of trying to politicize "affirmative action".

The very process of what became affirmative action -- the very deed of what is now preferential discrimination, had been politicized LONG before 209 arrived on the scene. It had become a political "football". But then, folks begin commenting upon it -- and so many people were upset that 209 was "politicizing" preferential affirmative action. When in fact, 209 not only was disagreeing with politicized affirmative action, it was daring to make it clear how off track of original intent it had become.How "political" it already was!

Rush called the kettle and the pot black, and he is not to be blamed for it, in my books. He addressed a political "hidden" assumption. Hidden only in that the "diversity/tolerance" crowds demand that what they believe, what they promote "politically" never be questioned, commented upon, or addressed. And nor do I think he in any way was casting aspersions upon McNabb -- Rush was addressing a "lowered standard" sportscasters are carrying (and we already know what those lowered standards do to everything it touches (education, for one)). And he called them on it.