I will say openly that opposition not only to Limbaugh personally but to conservatism is indeed a problem.

Has there been conservative public liability before? Yes. I was waiting for someone else to take the opportunity to say it first, but so far, after days, nobody has, so I'll note: What about the example of Major League Baseball and Holly's home, Cincinnati, and the Reds' owner Marge Schott? And cheap PC people now attack Limbaugh?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/07/loc…

However, when a radio host knowingly makes inflammatory statements for ratings, it naturally leads to criticism of the host, and makes him a hot potato for a business venture like the NFL. Their job is to sell tickets to games and make sure the rules are followed. Period.

Why do they need to take on someone whose political bias is so well known, and who has offended a majority of their players?

Actually, there are so many who hate him, as well as liberals engaging in excess of all kinds, who are the truly divisive ones, and providing material for Rush's show. His show had gotten old and stale, and leave it to the lib Dems in Washington this year to give him all kinds of new legitimate material for good, strong criticism and the entertainment that provides.

It really makes what you wrote earlier,

“this is business – plain and simple”

the last word, for the “mainstream” liberal media continues also to leave a hole (be it through omission or commission of suppressive decision-making) in the “news” that continues to be a market that righties on the airwaves can easily move to fill. Limbaugh signed an enormous contract several months ago when there was little of note happening and the show was stale, and I thought the people giving Limbaugh that contract were taking a big risk giving him all that money trying to lock him up (as he would be risking if he were a team owner, in paying heavily to “lock up” a “franchise” player over a long period, incidentally). Now that we're seeing lib Dem follies galore this year, his show is doing well (attacks on him by the angry, resentful crowd about the Rams only added marginally to this, temporarily), and it is looking as though the risky move by the sponsors those many months ago is becoming a good decision.

Whether you agree with him or not, you cannot dispute that Rush is a divisive figure who would have distracted from and diluted the the NFL and Rams brand. I highly doubt George Soros or anyone divisive from the left would have any better luck. Checketts understand this. Goodell understands this.

There's a reason Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, and Tiger Woods avoid taking grand political or social stands. It's good business. It's good for their brand.

Oh, and Rush got a lot out of this. A lot of attention, another reason to complain about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, a chance to play the conservative as victims line, mainstream media attention (which he mocks, but loves when they talk about him and his show), etc. … all this for proposed minority ownership in a team that is not even officially for sale.

PC viewpoints, at that. [scowl]

The group that buys the team should sell a stake to Limbaugh afterward, or have Limbaugh participate anyway using a “front” agent or company now. Heh, heh.

The low-lifes and scumbag politics wins, and Limbaugh, logic, and morality are losers.

Hopefully the prospect for the Rams staying alive, and in St. Louis, are not losers, too.

“Needless to say, the next vocal liberal who tries to buy a sports franchise is going to have a hell of a time.”

Mark Cuban couldn't buy the Cubs:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=368…

If Mark Cuban sidles up to fellow Cubs fans at future Wrigley Field games, apparently he'll have to do so as a ticket buyer.

Cuban's bid to buy the team from owner Sam Zell? According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the Internet billionaire and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks won't even make the final cut if commissioner Bud Selig and Major League Baseball owners have their way.

“There's no way Bud and the owners are going to let that happen,” a baseball source told the Chicago Sun-Times earlier this week. “Zero chance.”

Sp[orts owners are a select fraternity…

I suspect there would be a lot of outrage.

It is the free market so they can choose to sell to whom they wish but I don't like doing this based on viewpoints.

Next thing you know they will open restricted country clubs…. (Oh wait, they did, and we passed laws to make it illegal because it was immoral)

I think I do understand the difference between killing people and animals and being a perennial blowhard. I don't particularly like Rush (I'm an NPR man myself), but to me this is more about political opposition than anything else.

I've listened to Limbaugh on and off since his weak little signal was coming off KSEV in Houston in the late 1980's. He's said many many things that are not only racist, but also sexist. He's even gone back and changed his supposed broadcasts when he reruns them. It's obvious if you listen of any amount of time.

And that Limbaugh “took down” Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Big woop. He's been comparing them to criminals for years. At least both of them had the balls to run for office. Limbaugh, not so much.

In the end, Limbaugh is all about himself. Just listen in and count how many times he says his own name on the air in a three hour time slot. It's all who said what about him. Every day. For more than 20 years.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012…

I can't find any proof of some of the comments that have been attributed to Rush. I think he has a number of very nice lawsuits on his hands.