Interesting Comment Section; Ethics; Health Care Bill Passes

I pulled this from The Hill. It's about Rush Limbaugh and his contention of how Obama is negatively impacting race relations domestically.

One thing is for sure, the mention of Limbaugh's name leads to quite a debate.

A comment in particular caught my eye:

As an Independent that "regrettably" voted for Obama, I totally agree with Limbaugh. It's not Obama's skin color,"mulatto", it is his left leaning policies. His policies has brought out conservative thinking I didn't realized I have, and I voted for the guy!!!

Many independents may share her view. Only a devoted devotee of Obama (and his idealism - whatever it may be. Has he come up with a new way to govern the international community? Not as far as I can see) would deny this trend.

But the bigger message made by the poster in bold is just how highly transient political leanings, motives and ideologies really are. It also points to the power of perception. To this person, who possibly considered herself centrist has been turned off (transient) by Obama's leftist leanings (perception). It "pushed" her to the right.

I often thought and wondered to myself, if I would be in a right-wing mileu every day of my life I'd probably be a liberal and vice-versa.

***

With Limbaugh linked to buying the St. Louis Rams, people are rehashing his comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb (Philly's favorite wipping boy) a few years back.

At the time, Slate.com wrote this in defense of the comment and many pundits, if I remember right, in the football community agreed with Limbaugh.

The author concluded:

Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right.

Does this make him a racist? Of course not. But The Nation believes it does and quite frankly I think they're way off base here. Limbaugh, let it be known right here and now, is not a racist. The author has pulled all quotes out of context. But hey, this is all par for the course these days. After seeing an award be given to someone who was in office for two fricken weeks at the deadline, I've lost all hope on the principle of merit. I'm gonna run with the bulls and go all "hope" loopy like everyone else.

The questionable part of the article is the use of a quote attributed to Limbaugh that he claims he never said:

We didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Limbaugh said he traced this fabrication back to a blogger. If Limbaugh didn't say it, then why are people in the media using it? Do they not fact check?

Anyway.

As an Eagles fan, I don't agree. Yes, the Eagles haven't been an effective offensive team in the past (trying to score from inside the 20 yard line has never been their strong point) indeed led by a ferocious defense. But in recent years, the offense has been much stronger under McNabb's guidance. I think, and this gets overlooked, the main reason why the Eagles offense stuttered in the past is because McNabb never really had a world class receiver to throw the ball to; to say nothing of a suspect running game.

It's not a coincidence the Eagles had one of the best offenses when Terrell Owens was catching the ball and Brian Westbrook running with the ball - both outstanding players in their own right. McNabb got too much of the blame for when the offense was ineffective.

But that wasn't Limbaugh's point.

***

Hm. I said Hm.

***

The healthcare bill passes. Save money in the long run? I doubt it.