In a posting in August 2009, I strongly criticized Rush Limbaugh for comments in which he compared President Obama's health care reform logo to a Nazi emblem. Now, I am writing to defend him from a smear campaign.
Rush is back in the news, after his bid to become a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams American football club was ended, after concerns that his "divisive and incendiary" comments would be detrimental to the "image-conscious" National Football League (NFL). And who was the accuser? Why, Rev. Al Sharpton, the healer of racial wounds, and the builder of bridges of understanding himself. Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the 1987 Tawana Brawley non-rape-of-a-black-girl-by-a-white-cop scandal, in which he destroyed the reputation of an innocent man? Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the instinctive playing of the race card in the 2006 non-rape-of-a-black-woman-by-white-lacrosse-players scandal, in which he participated in the destruction of the reputations of innocent Duke students? Al Sharpton is one of the most vile race-baiters there is. He makes up racial tensions out of thin air, and the ones who really suffer are the real victims of racial hatred, whose concerns will not be taken as seriously, since Al Sharpton has cried "Wolf!," and smeared innocent people's reputations, too many times. Yet for some reason, he is still turned to as a representative voice of concerned citizens regarding racial issues.
And just what were these "divisive and incendiary comments"? Here's the choicest, a comment he made on ESPN in 2003, commenting on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." For offering his opinion, for suggesting that the media are (obviously!) desirous that a black quarterback do well, the left and the liberals have decided to destroy Mr. Limbaugh, and undermine his ability to purchase an NFL team. Why? Because if you state the obvious, and/or if you offer an opinion which does not comport to their understanding of reality, they do not engage you in debate, but rather seek to destroy you. It is a much easier (as well as disgraceful) way to go, but they know it will work. Mr. McNabb himself has emphasized the fact that he is black, but also accused his critics of being a bit harsher on him because he is black.
Where does he come up with this stuff? Why are we constantly told to look beyond race, that we are now in a "post-racial America" (whatever that means), yet are then told that there is immense importance in race? When Donovan McNabb throws a bad pass, do you think there is anyone in America who says, "Tom Brady would have completed that," or "Brett Favre would have completed that," or "[Gloriously-drafted-before-Dan-Marino-in-1983-what-the-heck-were-the-Jets-thinking?] Ken O'Brien would have completed that"? No, they're thinking, "Man, I wish Donovan would have completed that!" Mr. McNabb's comments are cowardly. They are an attempt to conceal feelings of inadequacy (though he is a very good quarterback), so that whenever he fails, he can always fall back on, "Well, there's much more pressure on me than on a Tom, Brett, Peyton, or Eli." It is a complete cop-out, but he knows the media will swallow it whole.
As we have all learned from Al Sharpton, accusations of racism go only one way. And even when you have been discredited on the issue numerous times (I only provided two examples), you will still be turned to for your "expert" opinions.
I suppose it takes one to know one.
Rush is back in the news, after his bid to become a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams American football club was ended, after concerns that his "divisive and incendiary" comments would be detrimental to the "image-conscious" National Football League (NFL). And who was the accuser? Why, Rev. Al Sharpton, the healer of racial wounds, and the builder of bridges of understanding himself. Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the 1987 Tawana Brawley non-rape-of-a-black-girl-by-a-white-cop scandal, in which he destroyed the reputation of an innocent man? Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the instinctive playing of the race card in the 2006 non-rape-of-a-black-woman-by-white-lacrosse-players scandal, in which he participated in the destruction of the reputations of innocent Duke students? Al Sharpton is one of the most vile race-baiters there is. He makes up racial tensions out of thin air, and the ones who really suffer are the real victims of racial hatred, whose concerns will not be taken as seriously, since Al Sharpton has cried "Wolf!," and smeared innocent people's reputations, too many times. Yet for some reason, he is still turned to as a representative voice of concerned citizens regarding racial issues.
And just what were these "divisive and incendiary comments"? Here's the choicest, a comment he made on ESPN in 2003, commenting on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." For offering his opinion, for suggesting that the media are (obviously!) desirous that a black quarterback do well, the left and the liberals have decided to destroy Mr. Limbaugh, and undermine his ability to purchase an NFL team. Why? Because if you state the obvious, and/or if you offer an opinion which does not comport to their understanding of reality, they do not engage you in debate, but rather seek to destroy you. It is a much easier (as well as disgraceful) way to go, but they know it will work. Mr. McNabb himself has emphasized the fact that he is black, but also accused his critics of being a bit harsher on him because he is black.
Where does he come up with this stuff? Why are we constantly told to look beyond race, that we are now in a "post-racial America" (whatever that means), yet are then told that there is immense importance in race? When Donovan McNabb throws a bad pass, do you think there is anyone in America who says, "Tom Brady would have completed that," or "Brett Favre would have completed that," or "[Gloriously-drafted-before-Dan-Marino-in-1983-what-the-heck-were-the-Jets-thinking?] Ken O'Brien would have completed that"? No, they're thinking, "Man, I wish Donovan would have completed that!" Mr. McNabb's comments are cowardly. They are an attempt to conceal feelings of inadequacy (though he is a very good quarterback), so that whenever he fails, he can always fall back on, "Well, there's much more pressure on me than on a Tom, Brett, Peyton, or Eli." It is a complete cop-out, but he knows the media will swallow it whole.
As we have all learned from Al Sharpton, accusations of racism go only one way. And even when you have been discredited on the issue numerous times (I only provided two examples), you will still be turned to for your "expert" opinions.
I suppose it takes one to know one.
I don't know, Aryeh, it seems like this is the free market at its best. Rich white guys have a club and of their own volition (because they think their average white guy thinks like Al Sharpton) they decide to exclude another rich white guy. What's the issue? Free markets and free speech work both ways as well.
ReplyDeleteCyberdov - I think you completely missed my main points. I made two in the posting:
ReplyDelete1) I never questioned the group's *legal* right to do what they did. Yes, the free market allows them to have whomever they choose in their group. I questioned *whether it was right*. Somehow I doubt that if they would have excluded a rich *black* guy (Michael Jordan, perhaps), you would be singing the same tune.
2) Al Sharpton has no business lecturing anyone about racism, race-baiter that he is. And where do the vast majority of race-baiters come from? Liberals. The side which tells us all the time to look past race......unless it is politically beneficial. The comparison to conservative equivalents is nearly nil.
I appreciate your comment, though, for the following reason: You give me and my readers great clarity about one particular issue: Liberals tends to see things in terms of "what are my rights?," while conservatives tend to view things in terms of "what *is* right?" We conservatives may not always come up with the right answer, but as any good liberal would say, our hearts, at least, are in the right place.