Rush’s Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal

by Ryan on October 17, 2009

in Culture,Media Bias,Politics,Sports

Personally, I think that Rush Limbaugh has a legal case against many of those involved in the unfounded defamation of his character which resulted in real financial consequences, many of whom are in the MSM.  But, Rush has decided to take another route — battling back in the arena of ideas like he’s preached for decades on the radio.

In keeping with that tradition, he’s spoken about this issue regarding the St. Louis Rams all week on his radio show.  But, yesterday he also penned an opinion editorial for the Wall Street Journal making his case further.  He points out that the accusations of his “racism” are unfounded, unsourced, and pretty ridiculous.  We knew that.  Also, he mentions that Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren’t the best people to be accusing anyone of racism.  We knew that too. 

However, another aspect I liked about the op-ed was that Rush named names: Dave Checketts (asker and dumper), Roger Goodell (the inconsistent NFL Commissioner), DeMaurice Smith (union shill), Rick Sanchez and Michael Wilbon (MSM reporters trying to deflect responsibility for running with unsourced libelous rumors as hard news). 

Keep going Rush!  While I’d like too see you sue (or at least threaten it), I’m still satisfied that you’re not backing down either, taking it to the Obamabots and Rush-haters in the media alike.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Dee October 21, 2009 at 7:08 am

Limbaugh’s own WSJ article admits that he knew, and indeed warned Checketts there would be a firestorm of protest long before his involvement became public.
The NFL commisioner cited Limbaugh’s very well documented remarks about Eagles QB Donovan McNabb as the main reason for NFL reluctance at admitting Limbaugh.
Checketts opted to dropped Limbaugh and his relatively small financial participation (thought to be between 10% and 20%) rather than see the whole enterprise go down in flames.
IMHO, this is a tempest in a teapot, and the 2 unquestionably false quotes that were attributed to Limbaugh appear to have had little to do with his exclusion.


Dee October 26, 2009 at 1:21 am

Just as a post script to my comment of 10/21…The New York Post is reporting that Limbaugh was himself the victim of an unattributed, and ultimatly false story about Obama. After using the story as a reason to comment at some length about the Presidents made up opinions about the US Constitution, Limbaugh had to admit later in his show that the quotes that he had attributed to Obama had been taken from an internet hoax and were totally false. The Post also noted Limbaugh would not apologize because even though the quotes were false, he believed that they accurately reflected Obama’s beliefs. The irony (as well as the hypocrisy) abounds!


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: