Friday, October 16, 2009

My Morning Wooten

Jim is on a mostly fiscal conservative rant this morning and as is usual I find myself not necessarily agreeing but not disagreeing vehemently.

But there's one item which tickles my commentary bone.
It will be an outrage if National Football League owners reject a group’s bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team because commentator Rush Limbaugh is among those making the offer. “I, myself, couldn’t even consider voting for him,” said Baltimore Colts owner Jim Irsay. “When there are comments that are inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive … it’s something that we don’t need.” As with political endorsements, that declaration tells us more about Irsay’s politics than about Limbaugh.
Let's talk about the free market Jim so adores. In any market there are two critical factors - product and brand. The NFL arguably has the most successful product in sports. This product is supported by branding which is guarded with the zeal of a lioness tending her most beautiful cub. Pull a sharpie out and sign a ball after scoring a touchdown? Penalized. Wear your socks too low? Fined. Get caught acting the fool in a strip club? Suspended.

So, this exclusive club of billionaire elitists not wanting a jackass whose job requires him to stir the pot daily is due to politics? This is the cognitive dissonance of Jim's "so-called common sense conservatism".

And Jim, before we go trotting out the implication that anyone who dares criticize the Oxycotin Oz must mean they are a Democrat, it is wise to remember things are never usually the way they seem. Quietly ask a few Georgia Republicans what they really think about our own resident jackass. The one with the initials E.E.

11 comments:

TL said...

If these are Jim's views, I look forward to his column decrying private clubs that won't admit women, blacks, Jews, or gays.

Wendy said...

NFL owners, by the way, give a whole lot more money to GOP candidates than the Democrats. Dittoes -- no pun intended -- for the commissioner, who also donated to the McCain campaign:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574471140412107038.html

griftdrift said...

I suspected that was the case, Wendy (I certainly know Arthur Blank is a big time Republican). Thanks for providing the info that back it up. The argument that the rejection of Limbaugh was due to liberal leanings among the NFL elite is so detached from reality it is laughable.

nast said...

Did he really call Irsay the owner of the Baltimore Colts? That should be the only proof of his detachment from reality needed.

griftdrift said...

Wow. I didn't even catch that. More proof that there's little editorial process around Wooten's screeds?

TPA said...

Actually, Grift, Blank is mentioned in that article as a big-time Democratic donor (#2 in the NFL), not a Republican. What I didn't understand is that the WSJ could miss the Rooneys of Pittsburgh when discussing political affiliations of NFL owners... I mean, ole Dan was such an Obama hotshot that he is now the Ambassador to Ireland.

Sara said...

Blank gave way more to Democrats than Republicans in the last election cycle, though that is probably because he saw the writing on the wall and was anticipating having to lobby a Democratic administration against certain initiatives (such as card check, to which he is vehemently opposed.)

Link to Blank's 2008 campaign contributions

griftdrift said...

Fair enough. Perhaps I was thinking of Marcus. But to pretend the NFL is a hotbed of Democrats is laughable. Old business maxim - butter both sides of the bread.

jay said...

http://savannahnow.com/geveryl-robinson/2009-10-18/robinson-nfl-wrong-block-rush

a much beter criticism of the nl's decision...

Anonymous said...

Ahh...Keith Olberman?

Proudlee Henpeck said...

The MAIN POINT, IMO, is that the Rush story was a perfect example of the free market at work (and working much better than it usually does). The NFL is not the government. Rather, as you mention, it is a coveted brand that, SURPRISE, would like to maintain its current friendly and lucrative relationship with African-Americans, among other groups on which Rush has a fondness for pissing.

It's a business thang, dollars and cents--just one more thing Rush doesn't give a damn about if it happens not to serve his self-interests.

I wish the right would choose some idols that weren't primarily entertainers. First Rush, then Beck, now Sarah Palin--how can you believe so fervently in anyone whose propensity to stir up shit is directly tied to their paycheck?