Sports Now

Sports news from Los Angeles and beyond

« Previous Post | Sports Now Home | Next Post »

Thursday's question of the day: Would Rush Limbaugh buying the Rams be a good or bad thing?

October 8, 2009 | 12:04 pm

Reporters from the Tribune family tackle the question of the day, then you get a chance to chime on and tell them why they are wrong.

Sam Farmer, Los Angeles Times

Rush Limbaugh? The owner of an NFL team? Let me get this straight, you’re talking about an egotistical blowhard with mountains of money, somebody who thinks he’s the smartest guy in every room and isn’t afraid to act like it, who takes a my-way-or-the-highway to every problem, who wouldn’t be afraid to charge top dollar regardless of what type of product he puts on the field, who would threaten to uproot his team if his community doesn’t pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for a state-of-the-art stadium? Rush Limbaugh as an NFL owner? Should fit in fine.

Dave Hyde, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Rush Limbaugh would be a great NFL owner -- at least for me. He’d be a walking, talking lightning rod. He’d be worth a dozen columns a year with the stuff he says, just like left-hanging Michael Moore would if he bought a team. Limbaugh once said an NFL game was like watching a fight between the “Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.” He once said slavery wasn’t such a bad thing – “Quite the opposite: It built the south.” That’s the daily stuff beyond his ESPN line that the media propped up Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb because he was black. The NFL’s problem with Limbaugh is obvious: He comes with a cost. Many fans, sponsors -- and don’t forget players -- wouldn’t want to be associated with him. Can you blame them?

John Altavilla, Hartford Courant

As Rush Limbaugh would be the first to say, the foundation of the United States is based on principles laid out by our forefathers. Included in these unalienable rights, although not specifically spelled out in the pre-expansion days of the 18th century, is the right to buy a chunk of the St. Louis Rams. Therefore, why should our foremost ultra-conservative be prohibited, based solely on any objection to his viewpoint, from buying a piece of anything he wants. As Rush says, this a country whose growth is rooted in the initiative of capitalists. So let him in. But what happens if a liberal wants a beer, an Obama voter a hot dog, a supporter of health care reform a luxury suite? We know one thing. The offense will be conservative. And coaches, not known for running a democratic system, will be right at home.