A reader dissents:

I can’t help but find this RW “outrage” about Mr. Limbaugh fascinating and amusing to the extreme. So it’s wrong to say some people may have a racial motive for the extreme things being said about Obama (that he’s Hitler and such). And to be clear, it certainly is wrong if it’s done as a generalization about all critics of Mr. Obama. But there seems to be a widespread idea that anyone objecting to Limbaugh’s divisive statements is doing so because they’re left-wing, liberal and/or have a political bias.
A bad label is a bad label, is it not? A wrong generalization should be a wrong generalization.
And related to this, if I may express a long held ”bug” of mine. In my experience, a lot of very faithful Republicans and conservatives don’t like Limbaugh’s style. It seems dishonest not to admit his critics can be from any political ideology.
And for the record, I feel a corresponding dismay and anger when LWers generalize about conservatives and Republicans in the way Limbaugh does about liberals and Democrats.
Maybe this is something you and your fellow “outraged” National Review crew should read before they charge into ill-considered charges about the motives of the NFL leadership And I might add – one might think the opinion of successful people who have no need to curry favor with Limbaugh would resonate a bit.. They see him as divisive and not serious. Maybe that’s a legitimate view, as well?
A clip:
First, as Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News & World Report spells out in impressive detail, NFL owners over the past two decades typically lean heavily to the right, like Rush. The majority of the league’s owners contribute heavily to Republican candidates over Democratic ones. For the Chargers, the split is 98 percent to two percent. The Texans’ political money goes to Republicans at a rate of 99 cents of every dollar given. In Cincinnati, the same ratio applies. The teams that have donated a greater percentage to Democratic candidates include the Raiders, Eagles, Steelers, Patriots, 49ers, Dolphins, Bills, Lions, Seahawks. The most money for Democratic candidates has come from, of all teams, the Rams. But it’s not Limbaugh’s politics that will impede his bid to own a large portion of the Rams. It’s his expression of them. And regardless of the debate over whether Limbaugh did or didn’t say things that have been attributed to him but that, as Limbaugh claims, don’t show up in the Limbaugh-generated tapes and transcripts of his show (in this regard, most lawyers know of at least one judge who is very adept at ensuring the official record of in-court statements never includes potentially embarrassing or controversial comments from the man or woman in black), it’s not what he has said in the past that should scare the owners — it’s what he might say in the future.
From my point of view, I wouldn’t want a guy like say..Howard Stern owning a team, if I were an owner in he NFL. It’s a business decision.
And here’s the bottom line – people who make a large deal about of being against victimization shouldn’t indulge in it. Poor excuses are poor excuses.