I have absolutely no interest in politics. And I go to Tufts. Figure that one out.
But I do have an interest in sports, and when these two mix — oh the possibilities. Such is the case with the recent hoopla over the possibility of famed political pundit Rush Limbaugh buying a stake in the NFL's St. Louis Rams.
What I know about Mr. Limbaugh boils down to three things: He is a right-wing advocate and a Republican; he once commented for ESPN and was quickly run out of Bristol, Conn. for his racially charged criticisms of the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb; and he is the basis for "The Simpsons" character Birch Barlow, who helped get the despicable and criminal Sideshow Bob elected as mayor of Springfield.
Oh, and he was also addicted to pills at some point or another. That would be four.
So I went back and did my research on the finer points of Limbaugh's career. Things did not stack up so well for Rush. A history of racially charged comments littered his resume, ranging from a remark claiming that all criminals look like Jesse Jackson to his recent spat with President Barack Obama.
Even conservatives will have to agree that the man who is labeled by many as the "voice of the GOP" takes things too far sometimes. But hey, he has to get people to listen to his radio show somehow.
Regardless of his political views, Limbaugh has every right to put in his bid to buy the Rams franchise. I don't think that part is up for debate, even if the Reverend Al Sharpton disagrees with me. But why would Limbaugh want to own an NFL team?
Owners in the NFL, for whatever reason, are the most visible of all professional sports leagues. You could probably rattle off as many NFL owners right now as MLB and NBA owners combined, and that might be partly because owning an NFL franchise is so lucrative.
This might be the method behind his madness, but does Limbaugh really need to be in the limelight any more than he already is? If anything, haven't his slip-ups proven what can happen when you put too much focus on someone who is so outspoken?
Like it or not, owners are just as representative in sports as players. In fact, they may even be more so.
When you think of the New York Yankees, you think of George Steinbrenner (or you did). Washington Redskins? Daniel Snyder. Dallas Mavericks? Mark Cuban. These people are all the faces of their franchises. Players can come and go on a whim, but ownership changes are a rarity.
How would a Rush Limbaugh-owned team ever recruit key players? Already New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott has called Limbaugh a "jerk" and the New York Giants' Mathias Kiwanuka has echoed similar sentiments, with both players saying they would not play for a team owned by Limbaugh.
Clearly the Rams need some kind of change; they have lost 15 straight games, after all. But this isn't the direction the team needs to be heading in. Owners are the ones who have to decide to open their pocket for the best players, but what if no one wants to play there? In a league where almost three-fourths of the players are African-American, why would players want to be associated with someone like Limbaugh?
St. Louis should be trying to sell players on joining the organization, not alienating them from the top down. Have you seen the team's defense? Go ahead and try to name one guy on their starting 11. Unless you knew that Leonard Little still had a pulse or you are a Rams fan, you probably couldn't.
And that is why Limbaugh shouldn't buy the Rams. If he wants to help bring a winning football team back to the "Gateway to the West," he should stay as far away as possible. Because if Rush is signing the paychecks, then you can bet a lot of players won't be interested in collecting them.
--
Ethan Landy is a senior majoring in English. He can be reached at Ethan.Landy@tufts.edu.
