Diversionary Tactics Aside, It's Clear Rush Limbaugh Is A Racist

by: David Sirota

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:15


Note: I'm going to play a number of Limbaugh's most racist comments on my AM760 radio show this morning. Tune in at www.am760.net. - D

"Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other...I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/17/09

Forget the double standard of Rush Limbaugh, a free marketeer, now decrying as outrageous the NFL corporation's logical business decision to protect its brand from his taint. In all the hullaballoo about whether or not the NFL should have allowed Limbaugh to invest in the St. Louis Rams, the most telling narrative is the radio host's victimization narrative.

In the Sunday Wall Street Journal (and on his radio show), Limbaugh insists that there is no concrete proof that he uttered two quotes about race - one trumpeting Martin Luther King's assassin, another trumpeting the virtues of slavery -  that a book attributed to him and that the media then echoed. Limbaugh is correct - there is no proof, and Nate Silver is also correct in suggesting that anyone who has publicly attributed those to him should correct their mistake (BTW - I corrected the recordabout 5 minutes after I made the mistake on my radio show on Thursday).

However, Limbaugh is now using this misattribution as supposed proof that he is not a racist, that he is, in fact, being unduly persecuted for his conservative beliefs and that actually, he is one of America's leading voices espousing a "belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race." You can't make this shit up.

This is part of the broader conservative grievance ideology - no matter how much power conservatives have, they will constantly insist they are the ones under attack and under persecution, particularly by black people who supposedly mislabel all conservatives as "racist."

But this time, the diversionary tactic really insults everyone's intelligence. Not only have the majority of NFL owners' political contributions gone to the Republican Party Limbaugh so strongly supports, but more importantly, Limbaugh has made a whole series of racist comments that he does not and cannot deny - comments that prove he is a pretty blatant racist not the enlightened voice for "a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race."

David Sirota :: Diversionary Tactics Aside, It's Clear Rush Limbaugh Is A Racist
Here's the Huffington Post's Matt Osborne recounting just some of the most disgusting ones:

The wingnutosphere insists: Rush has never, ever made a racist comment! Ever!...Except for this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one and this one, and this one, and this one and this one.

Sure, Limbaugh didn't make two racist comments attributed to him, but he made a bunch of others that we can verify. That doesn't mean those who attributed the two comments to him shouldn't correct the record, but it also doesn't mean Limbaugh and his dittoheads should be able to get away with citing the mistaken attribution as wholesale proof that Limbaugh isn't a racist. If you listen to those clips linked above, it's clear that he is - and frankly, if you can listen to those clips and still insist that he's not a racist, then you probably are a racist yourself.

Indeed, there was a good reason so many people believed Limbaugh might have made those two statements misattributed to him. As St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell says:

The quote was so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn't verify it beyond the book...Let's play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book. Heck, let's go along for the full ride and believe that it was all a horrible "fabrication." So what are we left with? Well, essentially, I think we just threw a deck chair off the Titanic.

There is still a huge pile of polarizing, bigoted debris stacked up on the deck of the good ship Limbaugh that he can't deny or even remotely distance himself from.

Limbaugh, of course, is within his First Amendment rights to have made these comments. However, as Digby notes, the First Amendment guarantees one only the right to free speech - it doesn't grant anyone the right to evade the consequences of one's speech. In this case, the consequences are a private corporation - the NFL - saying it wants nothing to do with Limbaugh.

Certainly, you can certainly disagree with that business decision for various reasons, some of which have nothing to do with political ideology or Rush worship at all (one argument I've heard is that if the NFL is going to let Michael Vick play, they should also let Limbaugh invest). However, the decision has nothing to do with the First Amendment or political persecution and everything to do with a private corporation wanting to steer clear of branding itself to an overt racist - a billing that even the dittoheads shouldn't be able to deny.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
i think (0.00 / 0)
your assessment is dead on!!  however, we should not be fooled into believing that the NFL and its owners are the all mighty righteous just doing whats right.  The NFL will do what is financially sound for the NFL period.  Bringing Michael Vick back in spite of the atrocities he committed was good for businees.

It shows their compassionate side and it will make them money.  The only money that Rush brought to the table was his own money as a part owner of a large group (not enough to make a difference)an not enough to overcome public outcry.  I guarantee you that if Rush brougt anything else to the table he would have been in like Flynn as they say.


Non issue (0.00 / 0)
Honestly, it's really a non issue to me.  I think we need to focus time and energy on issues that are of the upmost importance right now.  Rush and whatever football teams he might own one day, is about the least of our real concerns now.  

Basically, we have bigger fish to fry.  


"the First Amendment guarantees one only the right to free speech" (4.00 / 1)
And that is the right to go into a public park, step on a box, and to educate the public about one's opinions. It doesn't include the right to misuse the limited resources of the airwaves to spread hate speech. About time Dems reimplement the fairness doctrine again. The rethugs already expect that, so, why disappoint them?

This is a very unorthodox position (0.00 / 0)
on free speech. I also think it's dead wrong.  Nothing in the First Amendment says anything about it being limited to soapbox speeches.  The Supreme Court has held (rightly, in my opinion) that free speech extends to broadcast and protects hate speech (unless that speech is an actual threat to someone specific.)  What that protection entails may be contested, but it is pretty much consensus that these things are protected.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
Nothing in the first ammendment says you can press others... (0.00 / 0)
...to publish or transmit your opinions, either. And in the case of the airwaves, this is a rare good that doesn't belong to anyone special, but to the people of the US. It goes without saying that there aren't enough frequencies to transmit everybody's rants. So, who's going to decide who gets that privilege? The people, through their democratic institutions, in this case the FCC, of course! And in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. FCC, the Supremes ruled that the fairness doctrine is constitutional, and that the FCC can apply such rules to its allocation of limited channels. That the fairness doctrine was demolished during the Reagan years severely distorted the media landscape, giving right wing voices a disproportionate advantage, and imho it would be a good idea to get back to a more representative allocation. And this is totally in line with precedents set by the Supreme Court.

[ Parent ]
Red Lion says that (0.00 / 0)
broadcast is covered by the first amendment. (And it's application to cable is not obvious.)  The fairness doctrine was based on the idea that the free speech rights of broadcasters were no greater than the free speech rights of those excluded from the airwaves (which was why it was appropriate to require access to alternate viewpoints in certain circumstances.)

For the record, I think Red Lion was correct, but I'm not certain the Court would uphold it if Congress imposed the fairness doctrine again. I also doubt that the fairness doctrine will be imposed again - and I suspect there are plenty of ways to ensure that many viewpoints are heard that have a better chance of finding support from the political branches and the Supreme Court.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search