Sunday, October 18, 2009

Rush Limbaugh : 'The Race Card, Football and Me '

Rush Limbaugh has a superb piecein the Wall Street Journal telling his side of what happened to his participation in a bid to but the NFL"s St. Louis Rams:

David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "

Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. 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. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

I recommend you read it all. And here are some interesting bits that don't appear in the piece.

The phony wikipedia quotes that were used to smear Limbaugh can actually be traced.

From Flopping Aces:

A blogger named Trapdoc sent the following to Mark Steyn:

As I am sure you are aware, the fake Limbaugh quotes have been traced to the Rush Limbaugh Wikiquote page, dating from July of 2005 (see the following link to see when the quotes were added). The Jack Huberman book that most people source for these quotes did not come out until the following year.

The quotes were added by a user with the IP address of This address has been used mostly to make changes to the article about Rush, but also Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rush, James Dobson and Sara Palin from 2005 until earlier this year.

While others have noted this in various forums, no one seems to have made the connection that this IP address is used as a gateway by the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (see here, for example) that all users from that IP address come from the… domain.)

Given the likelihood that Limbaugh will sue over this, I find it interesting that the source of these bogus quotes is probably a lawyer…

As a matter of fact, the Wiki edits appear to come from to come from an attorney named Peter Thomlinson who seems to work for that firm.


(Here's the cached link since this wasn’t coming up)

An interesting coincidence, no?

Another interesting bit is that lefty GawdFather George Soros has been a business partner of Dave Checkett in the past and may now be a part of the Rush-less group.

And finally, one of the major voices opposing Limbaugh was DeMaurice Smith, the Executive Director of the Player's Association. He was a major Obama supporter and contributor, and was part of the Obama transition team.

It's interesting how all these details come together. And I have a feeling that a number of interesting details are going to surface in the near future on this matter.

Especially if Al Sharpton follows through on his ridiculous threat to sue Rush Limbaugh for libel over the remarks Limbaugh made about Sharpton's interesting history on racial matters.

Aside from being pure comedy gold, discovery in the case could prove highly interesting.


Montana said...

For so many years Limbaugh has spent his time on the radio mis-labeling or mis-characterizing others . Finally he had his judgment day.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Montana,
From your first sentence, I can almost guarantee you haven't spent any significant time listening to Limbaugh.

I suggest, in the interest of fairness that you do so with an open mind before you make statements like that.While both of us might might disagree with some of his conclusions from time to time, you'll find that his facts are impeccable and that's he's correct in his judgments most of the time. You're simply wrong about the matter.

Your second point about 'judgment day' not only strikes me as something ten year olds say when caught in a misdeed ( 'well, he did it too!')but logically indefensible.

If someone lies, cheats or steals, does that make it accepted practice for others?

You seem to acknowledge that Limbaugh was libeled. Isn't it inconsistent on your part to applaud what you claim to criticize in Limbaugh?

More importantly, are you OK with denying someone employment or business opportunities because you don't like their political beliefs?

I have a feeling that if Keith Olbermann was fired from MSNBC or prohibited from doing NFL commentary because of his views, you'd have something to say about it.

Justice and fairness have no political, racial or class bias. To the degree that they do,they cease to be justice and fairness.

Think about it.



louielouie said...

there was a country i remember reading about when i was in high school.
when the people who founded that country were laying the foundation of the laws of that country a debate about basic liberties came about.
i remember one person said something to the effect of “i do not agree with a thing you say, but i shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it”.
i wonder what ever happened to that country.