Why Rush Limbaugh started a conteraversy?

[Homer12]

It's pretty easy to figure out:

- He made these remarks to get plublicity, he is a showman and an egotist, and of course he beleives it.

First of all he knew that by bringing up issues of race in sports that it would inflame and make people angery. He's obviously wrong that black quarter-backs and coaches have their abilites over-hyped by the sports media (he forgot to add sports in his diatribe). Any person even half-way-versed in the NFL knows that black quarter-backs both have good days (Dante Culpeper, MN, first 3 games), and bad days (Cordell Stewart, Chicago vs. Green Bay, etc...).

Black NFL coaches as well (Tony Dungy and the Colts, must be the liberal media making him good by all the good press, never mind the fact he couldn't get Tampa to teh Super Bowl).

The sports media reflects how bad they are doing, it's pretty obvious.

No, Rush made these statements for the sake of conterversy, not statments of facts becuase if you really watch the NFL, all races of players have bad and good days. Seasons were they suck, and seasons where they excel, Just ask Kurt Warner, or even Deny Green whom was never able to get to the Super-Bowl.


Rush, my liberallll(ha,ha,ha) friends is doing what he does best, as Eric Altman would say, "He's playing the refs."
He's getting publicity for himself on ESPN so people will check him out. He wants to be important to ESPN to keep his job. But, will the publicity garnered by ESPN that they have a closeted racist (this can be argued) on board. The more Rush pushes it, the more people in the NFL will push back.

He started it, now lets see how good he is at playing the game (miserable since he does not give interviews and rarly appears on shows that would actually question him.)

So does that mean that white players whom get hype and good press are not that good as well? There's a question I'd like to see him answer.

Or, does Rush understand the nature of sports media?

[Bluzmann57]

1. You make some valid points

but if people just quit watching because he turns them off, or better yet, if Irvin or Jackson confront him and make him look like the sniveling coward he is, then wouldn't ESPN have no choice but to drop him?

[Homer12]

3. Not if it makes for higher ratings...

...with no viewer out-cry against his racist remarks.

Having antagonsitic hosts was a trick used by fox nfl sunday morning with Jimmy Kimmel.

[liberalnurse]

2. Not all brats who

go out of their way to get attention are rendered positive reinforcements. Some folks know the difference. I do!

There are consequnces for negative behavior. Lets hope that ESPN gives Rush his walking papers.

[carpediem]

4. also a good distraction from the Plame story

a win-win for Rush he gets to get attention and take some media time away from the Plame story for the admin.

[linazelle]

5. This is Rush's fall on the sword for BushCo

It really isn't that hard to figure out. I've posted in GD the same thing earlier and to confirm my suspcions, I've been listening to ABCNewsRadio all day (a serious torture for me). Rush and Shanty are two of the higher profile hosts on this network which, two months ago broadcast all day long that JFK had an affair 40 years and a week ago, fawned all day long over Regan's 10,000 letter book.

And yet today, they are totally, I repeat totally, silent about TreasonGate.

It's absolute appalling. Even Rush's show today was about--guess who--him. It was probably easier to defend himself than it was to defend Bush. Basically, he's walked away from the heap dusting off his hands while everybody else is still caught up in the fray he created.