Representing The Left

Where do they get these guys? Where does the mainstream media find these "liberals," who, where it really counts, sound like Republicans?

Oh, yeah. In one case, it would be "a Clinton administration political appointee and an adviser to the Democratic National Committee and the Obama-Biden campaign in 2008," as Jamal Simmons' 3/30/09 article in Politico describes him. In this article, Simmons sympathetically recommends

banking executives should follow Obama’s lead by explaining the connection between the health of the banking system and the health of their employer. A Bank of America executive told me recently that the company’s leadership began creating in-house videos for associates in banking centers to explain the bank’s position and offer its perspective on the news. Put these videos on YouTube for the rest of us.

Finally, the financial sector as a whole has a lot of making up to do with its customers and its taxpaying investors, but not all executives behaved like Bernie Madoff. While avid readers of the business press may know that some bank CEOs — such as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and John Mack of Morgan Stanley — did not take bonuses this year, the rest of America does not. Highlighting responsible actions that contrast with the current narrative may not generate the kind of cheering that occurs in a Final Four game, but at least the crowd might stop throwing eggs at all the players on the court.

(By the way, how endearing to refer to the American people as a mob "throwing eggs at all the players on the court.")

The thrust of this Obama admirer seven months ago was a plea to the financial industry to manipulate its message more effectively. At least, though, Simmons does commend the executives in the financial industry who "did not take bonuses this year."

Apparently, not anymore. The Treasury Department next week will announce a plan to limit total compensation of top executives of the seven firms which received the amount of TARP money. In a characteristically brilliant post on Wednesday, Digby presents the transcript of tht day's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, in which Simmons and Repub strategist Mary Matalin warn against provoking the altruistic banking executives into leaving their current companies to work where they can make real money. Simmons claims

The thing is, I've talked to a lot of people in New York about this and people who are on Wall Street and what they will tell you is, if they can't work someplace and get rewarded, they'll go work someplace else.

Working on Wall Street in the financial service industry is neither brain surgery nor rocket science nor, for that matter, civil engineering. Memo to Simmons and Matalin: A lot of people can do the work they so admire, probably a few in your neighborhood or development alone. They, too, could drag the international banking stystem and world economy to virtual collapse. Or maybe not.

But if Simmons is nearly the most egregious example of the kind of liberal Democrat (chummy with people of wealth and power) the media brings on the air, the practice is fairly widespread.

Take Eugene Robinson. Please. Why, just last night Mr. Robinson and Mr. Matthews were on Hardball admiring the machismo demonstrated by President Reagan when he fired a bunch of middle class workers:

MATTHEWS: But presidents tend, if they are lucky, to get opportunities to show their strength and do it.

Ronald Reagan, whatever you think of union rights and collective bargaining, scored a big one when broke the PATCO strike, because it was a government employees union that broke its contract. It was a wildcat. And he fired them all.

ROBINSON: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: And, in the Soviet Union, I understood they said, this guy is different.

ROBINSON: Right.

MATTHEWS: So, the word went out, this guy is somebody to deal with.

ROBINSON: Mm-hmm. No, that's true. It was-and it happened early in Reagan's administration, right at the beginning. And it did set a certain tone, like, we don't know what this guy is going to do.

Breaking the back of a union and tossing workers onto the unemployment line, the move started the spiral of declining wages and decline of the middle class in the U.S.A. From that point on, employers were emboldened to resist union organizing and wage hikes and encouraged to cut health and other benefits. However, that history is neglected by two of Barack Obama's greatest admirers, often identified as "liberals," who ignore the crushing burden of totalitarianism, the favorable impact of the Solidarity labor movement and of the Polish Pope John Paul II, and the policies of nine postwar presidents (including Reagan) in bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the Cold war.

We have heard this before from Eugene Robinson, who on January 30 pretended "The point isn't to revisit the merits of the strike or the wisdom of Reagan's hard-line stance" and then went on to praise it:

The point is that the controllers' union failed to realize that the dawn of the Reagan administration represented a rare fundamental shift in American politics. Under Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford or even Richard Nixon, the controllers might well have won their strike. Under Reagan, they had no chance -- not only because of his stubborn resolve but also because American voters had given him a broad mandate for change.

But posing as a Democrat, allowing the media to feign balance, goes back even further for Mr. Robinson (and Mr. Matthews). As Bob Somerby repeatedly has noted, Robinson stood by for years as Bill Clinton and Al Gore were savaged by the mainstream media, including Robinson's own Washington Post and Chris Matthews.

The list of liberals, including Thomas Frank, Robert Reich, David Sirota, and Dean Baker, who are willing and able to support progressive economic ideals is long. Resorting to pundits who have gotten too cozy with the corporate elite is damaging. But maybe that's the idea.

Not Only Marriage

Honestly (though usually when someone says that, you ought to grab hold of your wallet): this is not intended to offend some liberals and most conservatives.

But it's not just interracial marriage. When news arose of the refusal of Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell in Louisiana's Tangihopa Parish to perform the wedding ceremony for an interracial couple, reaction was swift.

Governor Bobby Jindal asserted "This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. Mr. Bardwell’s actions should be fully reviewed by the Judiciary Commission and disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license.”

Senator Mary Landrieu, one of the two moderate-conservative Democrats representing the state in the U.S. Senate, declared “Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long.”

Posting on firedoglake.com, twolf1 quoted Bardwell and remarked sarcastically "Nope, no racism there. None at all. Just trying to protect future children."

Jindal correctly argues that the apparent legal violation committed by Bardwell should provoke consideration of disciplinary action, though his remark that "disciplinary action should be taken immediately" suggests that he already has his mind made up. Nevertheless, his comment and those of Landrieu and the bloger have something unfortunate in common- the Justice of the Peace should be punished because he is a bigot.

Oddly- because the issue is a little more personal for a civil rights organization- the local NAACP has it right, arguing "We recommend the most severe sanctions available be imposed against Mr. Bardwell in his continuing to disobey the law he is sworn to uphold.”

In this country, we don't- or shouldn't- punish individuals for their political views or sociological perspective, no matter how noxious. Nor should we carve out in law special exemptions based on one's political views or sociological perspective.

Except that we do. On October 15, Bardwell complained about his practice of refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for interracial couples

No one’s ever complained about it before. I do it to protect the children. The kids are innocent, and I worry about their futures.

(I know, I know. Others have quipped "yeah, they may grow up to be President." A good line, but.... no, just a good line).

I don't know whether children bred of interracial couples face obstacles children of same-race couples do not. But Bardwell claims that they do, might actually believe they do, and given continuing racial bigotry in this country (and elsewhere), it's hardly inconceivable.

Which shouldn't matter. Neither Bardwell's sociological perspective nor any observations he may have made about human behavior should determine the nature of his continuing employment as a Justice of the Peace. Rather, it should be his apparent refusal to perform the tasks required by someone in his position, "the law he is sworn to uphold."

But if this point is obscured in a rush to brand Bardwell a racist (or, more accurately, a bigot), it is understandable given that not everyone is required to perform the functions of a job that other individuals in the same line of employment are expected to discharge.

I speak, unavoidably, of the "conscience exception" in abortion law. As summarized by the Archdiocese of New Orleans

For decades, Congress has respected the right of health care providers to decline involvement in abortion or abortion referrals, without exception. Since 2004 the Weldon amendment, approved annually as part of the Labor/HHS appropriations act, has forbidden any federal agency or program (or state or local government receiving federal funds under the act) to discriminate against individual or institutional health care providers and insurers because they decline to perform, provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion. Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, which fund the rare “Hyde exception” abortions, respect the conscience rights of providers who decline to provide any abortions at all. Other laws respect conscience rights on sterilization and other procedures to which providers may have a moral or religious objection.

Notwithstanding the language of the Weldon Amendment, there is no issue of discrimination because there is no constitutional right to a government subsidy. If a medical procedure, normally performed by health care providers, is considered legal and a provider refuses to perform that function and still retains a government subsidy, a special exemption has been carved out to accomodate that individual's perspective. Performance of the duties of the job is, well, negotiable.

Preference is clearly given to an individual or institution with a determination not to perform abortions even if that act is said to "shock the conscience" of such provider. Make no mistake about it- interracial marriage, albeit unjustifiably, shocks the conscience of Justice of the Peace Bardwell, who maintains "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

This suggests another parallel with abortion. The emotional burden Bardwell believes the offspring of a mixed marriage carry would result not from an inherent disadvantage, but rather from the reactions of others who find mixed marriage disagreeable. Similarly, one pro-life website which welcomes the guilt many women are said to experience after having an abortion claims "For the woman who comes to believe, at some point after the abortion, that she has consented to the killing of her pre-born child, the burden of guilt is relentless." Difficult it is not to feel guilty if half the country believes you have murdered a child while half of that contingent will not let you forget it.

The professional choosing not to perform an abortion may, or may not, be on solid ethical footing. Bardwell is wrong, though his job security, barring resignation, presumably will be determined by the Judicial Commission to which Governor Jindal refers. And that is how it should be, a legal matter in which the individual's willingness to fulfill his job duties should be paramount. Elsewhere, however, other issues intervene.

Anderson, Open Thine Eyes

Back from an extended vacation on another planet, CNN's Anderson Cooper (10/16 on 360Degrees) says

Tonight: It is hard to believe this can still happen in America. An interracial couple tries to get married, but the justice of the peace says no.

As everyone knows now, it (video below) is

the story of Beth and Terence McKay, an interracial couple who just wanted to get married, and the justice of the peace in southeastern Louisiana who refused to perform the ceremony. He refused because merely Beth is white, and Terence, her former fiance, now her husband, is African-American.

And as almost everyone knows, the younger generation is more tolerant of races other than their own and are more likely to find relationships, romantic and otherwise, with individuals of other races reasonable, normal and ordinary than have the older (or previous) generations. For that and other reasons, such relationships are now more widely accepted in the U.S.A.

Up to a point. This shouldn't be necessary to point out, and- arguably- most Americans understand this, but the election of Barack Obama as President did not nullify human nature, or even radically alter the relationship of blacks to whites.

Admittedly, this is a surprise to some: 1) liberals (with the mainstream media sometimes getting into the act), who understandably implied during the presidential election campaign that election of the first black would bring about a whole new country ("Morning In America," anybody?- video way below), a minority of such progressives actually believing it; 2) conservatives, who have a vested interest since the inauguration of a black President to argue that, hey, all our problems now are solved and the need for government action abolished- "nothing to see here, just move on"; and 3) Independents, who generally not as ideologically motivated as liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, might have been looking around last fall for a reason to vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama- and found it in the opportunity to be part of "history." (Barack Obama's margin of victory slightly exceeded that suggested by pre-election polls.)

With society moving in a more tolerant direction, it may be "hard to imagine this could still happen in America." But whether in 1959, 1979, or 2000, there always have been Justices of the Peace like Louisiana's Keith Bardwell, which should have been as expected as it is unacceptable.



Watch CBS News Videos Online



Next: It's not just interracial marriage.

Health Care Fantasy

If the mainstream media were not dominated by a lust for superficial bipartisanship and dominated by corporate interests, the mainstream Republican position on health care would not be termed "conservative." But it is, clearly extremist, as indicated by the stance of South Dakota Senator Jon Thune, a major threat to be the GOP's next vice-presidential nominee.

Appearing yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Thune- without clarification, detail, or growth of nose to Pinocchio-size proportions- claimed

If you look at some of these other countries around the world -- and frankly, for that matter, a lot of the states that have tried to implement some sort of government-run health insurance plan -- it has been a disaster. And you can look at some examples of that here in our country.

This is the "disaster" that is France, which has a multi-tiered system comprised of both private and public insurance, in which

Patients can pick their own doctors, who can prescribe any treatment or drug without having to ask the health care authorities. That's more freedom for patients and doctors than most private insurance plans allow in this country (and which) closed down maternity wards that handled fewer than 300 births a year.

Moreover, "there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations" and "It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel.... who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment."

What a nightmare. And all while (2003 figures) spending $2663 less per capita on health care than does the United States. And 10.4% of gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S.A. spends 15.2%. Quite a disaster in France.

Closer to home, Canada also is living through a nightmare, with a single payer system in which the government pays for all core health services, though not for physician salaries. And all while spending $2913 less per capita on health care than does the United States. And 9.9% of gross domestic product on health care. The nation reels.

The United Kingdom, unlike Canada or France, has a socialist health care system. The National Health Service directly employs health care professionals and is the fifth largest employer in the world. All the while spending less than half as much per capita as does the United States. And 7.8% of gross domestic product on health care. A socialistic catastrophe, obviously.

Jon Thune says government-run health care is a disaster. Chris Wallace neglected to ask him how he came to that conclusion. But someone needs to challenge this disinformation so the public can determine whether ignorance or intentional deception is at work.

The Most Patriotic Person In America

Yes, it's true. As a Wall Street Journal blog recently reported, Sarah Palin soon will announce formation of a new organization, apparently distinct from SarahPAC. It will be called, oddly enough, "Stand Up For Our Nation."

On August 7 Sarah Palin stood up for our nation and demonstrated her patriotism by claiming on her Facebook page:

And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

After being criticized for making an obviously ludicrous charge, Palin on August 12, again on Facebook, contended

The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

Here is what factcheck.org had to say about this charge:

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans."

Politifact.com analyzed Palin's first statement:

We agree with Palin that such a system would be evil. But it's definitely not what President Barack Obama or any other Democrat has proposed.

We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care....

Palin also may have also jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others....

We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. Conservatives might make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day morph into such a board.

But that's not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!

The former Repub vice-presidential nominee is merely making things up, you say. Kind of like the "socialism" tag she so effectively hung around the neck of Senator Barack Obama that he won by only 7.2% of the popular vote and 192 votes in the Electoral College.

But it really is more than that. Back before then-Governor Palin had to watch what she said, back when she could be a little more free-wheeling and express her true sentiments- only three years ago- her video greeting (below) to the annual convention of the Alaska Independence Party contained this memorable wish:

Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.

Not only "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention" (upbeat and safely vague) and "God bless you," but also "keep up the good work." The work of the Alaska Independence Party was pushing a referendum which would have Alaskans vote on whether to secede from "our nation," as Governor Quitter would put it.

Mrs. Palin never was a member of the AIP, unlike husband Todd. And it is not illegal to run for vice-president of a nation which you've implied should consist of 49, rather than 50, states. Nor is it treasonous to try to inflame tensions with outlandish statements about a health care bill supported by your President, or to do so by using your disabled child as a political tactic. Still, it would demonstrate a little public integrity for the ex-Governor to refrain from inferring that she has a special claim on patriotism, that she especially will "Stand Up For Our Nation."

Those Liberal NFL Executives

Now it's not only Rush Limbaugh. The controversial talk show host on Thursday giddily quoted Tony Dungy, former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, about the interest of an ownership group including Limbaugh to bid for the St. Louis Rams:

You know, I guess it bothered a lot of people, it really didn't bother me. I think anybody should have the right to pursue whatever they want, they should go through the process just like anyone else and there would be 28 owners that would vote and I think the process should be able to go forth. I don't like it when people say "because of this he shouldn't be allowed to do that." We don't have any minority ownership in the NFL right now, and I think, you know, that just strikes me as the same thing, because of the way this guy looks, because of the way he sounds, because of his political bent, that he shouldn't be allowed to own a team, I think that's something that the 28 owners should decide and not the general public.

Rush was oh, so excited that a black man would come to his defense. Of course, Dungy (who is wrong about Michael Vick, too) was confused when he equated rejection of El Rushbo because of his controversial statements, past, present, and future, with that of minority ownership. Dungy's suggestion that Limbaugh was eliminated from consideration in part "because of the way this guy looks, because of the way he sounds" is passing strange, if not ignorant. Rush (yet again) has taken off a lot of weight- for which he deserves credit- and looks relatively good; and his voice is certainly entertaining, if not pleasing.

But if Dungy's remarks about Rush Limbaugh were surprising, or at least unexpected, not so the editorial comment of the Wall Street Journal. The unofficial, though nearly official, voice of unregulated corporate power in America wrote

We suspect Mr. Limbaugh during his broadcast yesterday put his finger exactly on what is going on here. He said that NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith was using Mr. Limbaugh's controversial status as leverage against the league owners in the union's difficult negotiations over a collective-bargaining agreement....

What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh's outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society.

It's those and narrow-minded and intimidating liberals again, the National Football League being, according to Limbaugh, "an outpost of racism and liberalism." It is, of course, the profit motive- never questioned by Limbaugh or The WSJ- at work. Still, let's look at those "liberals"- the NFL owners- who didn't want any part of Rush Limbaugh. No, not at their statements- but at their actions, as reflected by campaign contributions. (Note to U.S. Supreme Court- giving money is behavior, not speech. Please use a little common sense.) In this piece, which includes an interesting chart (but the Los Angeles Rams?), Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News and World Report reports the Center for Responsive Politics

combed through contributions to federal candidates and political committees from 1989through 2009, and tallied all contributions from NFL team owners, executives, players, coaches, and so forth (the teams themselves are of course legally forbidden from making contributions). According to the center's figures, NFLers contributed $6.9 million during that 20-year span, of which 78 percent ($5.45 million) went to Republicans and 21 percent to Democrats ($1.48 million).

The team most generous to Democrats was, ironically, the team- the St. Louis Rams- which Rush wanted to be a part of owning. However, most teams, including the five largest overall givers, contributed more to Republicans than to Democrats.

Liberals, indeed.

Limbaugh, Confused About The NFL

Sports Illustrated has reported that Rush Limbaugh, reportedly a minority (strange word, here) partner in a potential bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, is out:

In a statement released Wednesday evening by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts -- who is heading the group that hopes to buy the Rams -- he announced Limbaugh's official exit from the bid. It is believed that Limbaugh's controversial participation would have doomed the group's effort in the eyes of NFL owners. League sources told SI.com that Limbaugh's candidacy in any Rams bid had "zero chance'' of being approved by the league's owners. In his statement, Checketts said Limbaugh's participation had become "a complication and a distraction'' to the group's efforts.

According to league sources, Limbaugh comes with too much troubling baggage in terms of his outspoken views that often intersect the divisive issues of politics and race in America. In a time when the NFL is hoping to have complete uniformity among its team owners in anticipation of the tough collective bargaining negotiations to come with the players union, there was little interest within the league to associate with an owner who is paid to give his highly charged opinions on the radio for hours each week....

There was swift reaction to the idea of Limbaugh being involved in NFL ownership, and much of it was not favorable. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith last weekend sent a letter to the group's board urging players to voice their opinion of Limbaugh's participation. And on Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made it clear that Limbaugh would face a high bar regarding approval of his potential stake in the Rams.

"Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,'' Goodell said at a two-day NFL owners meeting in Boston. "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL -- absolutely not.''

Shortly before the apparent rejection of Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-show host on his radio program contended

This is not about the National Football League. It's not about the St. Louis Rams. That's just a subset. This is the latest in a long line of attempts by the left to discredit any of us who believe what we believe. Sarah Palin, the list is as long as I wanted to make it. And I wanted to make sure that I thank you all for your support, and I wanted to make sure you understood that I know exactly what this is all about, and I want you to also understand, I'm not even thinking of exiting. I'm not even thinking of caving. I am not a caver. None of us are. We have been betrayed by too many who have caved. Pioneers take the arrows. We are pioneers. It's a sad thing that our country over 200 years old now needs pioneers all over again, but we do.

The day before, Limbaugh singled out a particular group of "left-wing radical activists":

These are left-wing radical activists who are sports groupies so they become journalists, so they get to hang around with players and all that. And they're nothing but left-wing ideologues. So they try to make this racial stuff stick.

If an ownership group headed by principal Chip Rosenbloom and including his sister Lucia Rodriguez had decided definitively to sell the St. Louis Rams and had accepted a bid from the Checketts group, three-fourths of the NFL owners would have had to approve a sale.

They would not include CNN's Rick Sanchez, whom Limbaugh excoriated today. Nor MSNBC's David Shuster or Tamron Hall, criticized yesterday, along with James Carville. Nor would it include Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, with whom "the State-Controlled Media (has lost) its journalistic character to hop on board with."

It would include Indianapolis Colts' owner Jim Irsay, who stated definitively "I would not be in favor of voting for him.....Sometimes when there are comments made that are inappropriate, incendiary, insensitive ... it's bigger than football." And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said on Tuesday "Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about. I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL -- absolutely not.''

Notice Irsay did not charge that Limbaugh's statements about Donovan McNabb or about gangs in the NFL were racist- or even inaccurate. They were "inappropriate" (not sure what that means), "incendiary," and "insensitive." Nor did Supreme Leader Goodell, about whom one might recall this line from the legendary Animal Farm, accuse El Rushbo of bigotry- only being "divisive."

Which is not to suggest that Limbaugh's famous remarks, these and others, weren't racist. Or were racist. Rather, neither Goodell nor the owners care a whole lot whether Rush Limbaugh is a bigot. No, the concern was simple: Limbaugh would have been bad for business. The risk to the league's enormous profit would have been immense. The owners would have voted the Limbaugh group down because, ultimately, the bottom line of the National Football League would have suffered.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh would never admit this. It would be awfully tough for a guy to go on the radio three hours a day, five days a week, 40-50 weeks a year extolling the virtues of unregulated capitalism and concede that he was the victim of very wealthy individuals pursuing the profit motive he worships above all else. (Yes, worship.)

It's ironic that Rush Limbaugh would be tarred, justifiably or otherwise, by the implied accusation of racism. Aside from naked partisanship, the driving force behind the Limbaugh philosophy is furthering the hegemony of the wealthy. Everything pales in comparison to the evil of government involvement in the economy or regulation of business. Corporations are never too large; multimillion profits of chief economic officers, of health insurance companies or otherwise, are never excessive; whatever is done to labor unions or employees is always in the service of freedom and liberty.

We won't hear over the next two, or several, days that Limbaugh's bid to become part-owner of a professional football team was stymied by multi-millionaire owners or a league which has escaped government regulation by virtue of an anti-trust exemption. It will be the union, blacks, white liberals, the "state-controlled media," and all his other enemies, the ones who don't accept the Limbaugh dream of a nation completely controlled by those who have at the expense of those who haven't.