as well as to enterprises that, though not left-leaning per se, behave like leftists in order to maintain market share.

ROFL!

And of course, “behaving like a leftist” means anything that harshes Paul Mirengoff’s mellow.  I can’t wait for the boycott of Dunkin Donuts the next time they run out of eclairs when Paul Mirengoff happens to want one.  Burger King is clearly engaging in leftist behavior when I get onions on my Quarter Pounder even though I specifically asked that they not be put on.

“I’m suggesting that organized, punitive behavior may be the right response in some cases to left-leaning enterprises that seek our business, as well as to enterprises that, though not left-leaning per se, behave like leftists in order to maintain market share.”

Hoo Rah!  I’m a big believer in this kind of thing.

Just this morning, I kicked the Starbucks guy who handed me my latte right in the balls, just to make sure Starbucks got the message.  They’re not going to get away with acting like SocioFascistLibruls without repercussions.

I’m thinking I’ll take a steaming dump right on the floor at my local WalMart to send another powerful message in support of Conservative American values.  But I’ll pick up my new HD TV first.  I don’t want to miss any of the good games this weekend…

“Conservatives (including me) are at least as addicted as the rest of the country to sports, and professional football is the narcotic of choice for the American sports fan.”

Why do I get the feeling that by “conservatives” he means “men” and would flip out if <gasp> a woman happened to be included in the “rest of the country” that is addicted to sports, especially oh-so-manly football?

Personally, baseball is my drug of choice

If all the nutbags stop supporting “lefty” MSM, does that mean the rest of us sane folk can start demanding real news?

I’m suggesting that organized, punitive behavior may be the right response in some cases to left-leaning enterprises that seek our business, as well as to enterprises that, though not left-leaning per se, behave like leftists in order to maintain market share.

Pssstt ... those enterprises that are truly left-leaning either don’t want your business in the first place, or are very adept at convincing those with hamster-wheels for brains that they aren’t left-leaning at all.

An enterprise that is not left-leaning but behaves like leftists? Let us know about them, because we’ll be glad to join in that particular boycott.

And of course, “behaving like a leftist” means anything that harshes Paul Mirengoff’s mellow.

He’ll probably want to boycott Converse, then, because I’m thinking this guy still has trouble tying his shoelaces in the morning.

“He’ll probably want to boycott Converse, then, because I’m thinking this guy still has trouble tying his shoelaces in the morning.”

...goddam liberal laces…

I notice this guy doesn’t mention any specific businesses he wants boycotted.

Ben & Jerry’s? Wait, they’re owned by Unilever, which means no more Hellman’s mayo or Dreyer’s ice cream or Wisk laundry detergent…

NBC Universal? No more “Law & Order,” no more “Austin Powers” or “American Pie.”

Nike? Which has a deal with, um, the NFL?

Oh, well, I’m sure he’ll let us know when he has it figured out.

Why do I get the feeling that by “conservatives” he means “men” and would flip out if <gasp> a woman happened to be included in the “rest of the country” that is addicted to sports, especially oh-so-manly football?

That “narcotic of choice for the American sports fan” is the part where he’s trying too hard to show he’s not just someone who enjoys football, but a properly conforming red-blooded American male who’s well aware that his penis would fall off if he stopped watching football or suggested that any of his peers do so.

Just when you think they can’t get stupider. . . Is his argument “we can’t boycott the NFL because football is awesome?” Did the NCAA stop existing this past week?  Because my TV was showing non-NFL football all day last Saturday.

“Those who celebrate Limbaugh’s exclusion like to call it a marketplace decision. Since most of these folks aren’t exactly free marketeers, it’s tempting to roll one’s eyes, or worse. But it’s difficult to deny that, at some level, this was the marketplace at work.”

What he really means is, “Limbaugh tried to blame liberals for his failure to buy a sporting franchise. Liberals said the decision had nothing to do with them. Liberals are right.”

But he can’t write that. So we get the irrelevant aside about eyerolling and free marketeers. Only the proponents of a thing can note when that thing causes something to happen that the proponents don’t like. Huh?

Only war proponents can say the war is failing. People who are against war can’t say so… well, because, shut up.

So only feminists can say that feminism is failing? Oh wait…

There’s an excellent piece by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters that really breaks down what precisely happened with Limbaugh’s failure to remain a part of the Checketts’ partnership bidding to buy the Rams.

This wasn’t really so much a left vs. right thing as it was a fringe vs. mainstream thing.  The NFL, by and large, is a fairly apolitical entity that is controversy-averse.  It is very much a mainstream brand in American popular cutlure.  It has a very broad demographic audience that crosses most cultural and political lines.  The majority of NFL owners are Republicans, but generally low-profile pro-business Republicans who don’t like getting caught up in the cultural vitriol spewed by Rush et al.  They don’t tend to be outspoken on much of anything, and particularly on issues regarding race, women’s rights, LGBT rights, immigration issues, gun-rights issues, or other cultural hotbutton issues that drive people like Limbaugh batshit insane.  All they really care about is making money, bottom line.

Limbaugh, as much as he tries to present himself as a voice of mainstream conservativism, really isn’t a mainstream conservative.  He’s a batshit insane far-right conservative intent on completely demonizing not just the left, but every class of people that isn’t old, white, rich, and male.

Limbaugh’s brand is great for AM radio and the batshit crazy audience that it attracts… an audience which represents less than 5% of American citizens.  His brand is not so great among a more mainstream audience.  The National Football League is a mainstream brand.  It’s one of the most successful sports brands in America, if not the most successful.  People who watch the NFL come in all shapes and sizes.  Though the audience may lean white, suburbanite, and male, it isn’t entirely devoid of other demographics, and it isn’t an exclusively conservative audience.  Plenty of left-leaning folks enjoy American football as much as conservatives… perhaps not as large a percentage, but certainly not an insignificant percentage, either.  If one were to conduct a party identification poll among NFL watchers, it would likely lean slightly Republican, but not by a massive margin, the way Limbaugh’s audience does.

And above and beyond that, a good number of moderate Republicans can’t stand Rush Limbaugh, either… mainly because they see him as being toxic to their own party.  The fact is, the man is a toxic asset for any brand that has an audience which reaches beyond his extremely fringe group of radio sycophants.

And the NFL very wisely saw that reality a mile away, and knew that at the end of the day, he would cost them more money than he could ever make for them.  It’s pure business.

The problem for these Limbaugh defenders is that they truly, genuinely believe that their voice represents the mainstream opinion of America.  They honestly think that Limbaugh speaks for the everyman in America, that what Limbaugh believes is what most people believe.  They don’t see him as fringe at all.  But he is, and every poll taken on every issue out there shows that the opinions he espouses represent only the views of the furthest right portion of American citizens.

And he just doesn’t get it.  He does not speak for most of us.  He doesn’t even speak for most self-identified conservatives.  And as long as he fails to see what a fringe whacko he is, he will continue to fail everytime he tries to step out of the safe bubble world of AM radio that he has built for himself.

Eric Boehlert said it best… Rush Limbaugh does more damage to the Republican Party than any liberal group could ever hope to do.

Well, this is destined to be a successful strategy! After all, as I learned in history class, when Rosa Parks was arrested for not getting on the bus, she boycotted not by refusing to use the bus (because it was convenient) but by taking a shit on George Wallace’s front yard!

Incidentally, my history teacher drank a lot…

“Why do I get the feeling that by “conservatives” he means “men”...”

Because he does. And my wife would beat the shit out of him at any sports trivia game and probably throw the football and/or baseball farther than him.

Also, isn’t the NFL a cartel? My understanding is that no matter how much money you have, or how badly someone wants to sell you their team, if the other owners don’t want you in, you ain’t getting in.

Amiright?

I’m suggesting that organized, punitive behavior may be the right response in some cases to left-leaning enterprises that seek our business, as well as to enterprises that, though not left-leaning per se, behave like leftists in order to maintain market share.

I look forward to their boycotting Whole Foods.  That should be good for some laughs.

But it’s difficult to deny that, at some level, this was the marketplace at work.

The invisible hand of the market doesn’t seem so great when it slaps you in the face.  These people could learn a lot from this by identifying more with people who have been screwed by almighty free market, but that would require too much thinking and insightful self-reflection, which they don’t have time for what with all their football watching and tantrum throwing.

Also, isn’t the NFL a cartel? My understanding is that no matter how much money you have, or how badly someone wants to sell you their team, if the other owners don’t want you in, you ain’t getting in.

Amiright?

You are correct.

Any person, persons, or entities wishing to purchase any stake in an NFL team - no matter how small - must obtain the approval of 75% of the majority shareholders of all NFL teams.  Meaning, you must get 24 out of 32 people on your side if you want to buy in, even if you are only buying a 0.5% share of a team.

Now, while some on the right have made the dubious contention that we don’t know whether or not the bid would have gone through because a vote had never been taken, I think it’s fair to say that Dave Checketts - the lead investor in the bid - got some behind-the-scenes indications that his bid was going to be rejected if he had let Rush remain in his investment group.  And that’s precisely why he dropped him.  The fact is, Limbaugh was never going to be and will never be an owner of an NFL team.  If he attempts to join a future bid or to make his own independent bid, he will most certainly fail to get 75% of NFL owners willing to approve his bid.  And not because of his conservative leanings, but because he’s a fringe whackjob that’s so far out of the mainstream that even most moderate conservatives don’t want anything to do with him in their busines ventures.

Wait. They’re trying to pretend they’ve just heard of this crazy thing called a boycott?

The same right wing that had perfected the “threaten boycott” as a cudgel against those who support groups you don’t like?

Yeah, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

I’ve got an idea.  Why don’t they wear a big red letter “W” for “Wingnut” on their clothing, and the leftists can do the boycotting for them?

So, if I’m reading that correctly, I can punish organizations that piss me off by not patronizing businesses or services that I already don’t like, as long as I can imagine some way in which they might be sort of connected.  Awesome!  I already avoid Walmart, Burger King, American Apparel and Nike for reasons ranging from noble to petty.  I shall retroactively declare myself to be boycotting them as soon as someone pisses me off.  Perhaps I can boycott Burger King to protest Rush himself?  I haven’t had a Whopper in a decade - take that, Rush Limbaugh!

Makes perfect sense to me.  We attacked Iraq b/c a bunch of Saudi Arabians flew their planes into a few buildings.  Al Qaeda, who claimed responsibility was hiding out in Afghanistan, but since the Soviets had already bombed them back to the stone age, there were lots more targets in Iraq, so, we “boycotted” there.

Never inconvenience yourself over the facts.

So does he actually want to punish the NFL, or just punish leftists for not leaping to Rush’s defense? I’m not sure I get the coherence here…

It was not a matter of right vs. left—Rush’s problem was that he had made a series of racist remarks,  and including more than one racist remark specifically about the NFL.  The NFL is 65% nonwhite, so of course he can’t buy a team.  But no doubt someone as crazy as Rush in terms of right vs. left, but less willing to express open racism, would be accepted by the other owners with open arms.  I know baseball better than football, so my examples would be George Steinbrenner and Tom Monaghan, not to mention George W. Bush, but I’m sure you could find equivalent examples among the football owners.

I think, very regretfully, that the publicity and attention Limbaugh got for this will translate into far more money in his pocket than he would ever have received from a share of the Rams. And it didn’t cost him a dime.

The man is a suppurating pustule, but he’s not dumb.

the Right isn’t very good at boycotts.
this is because they are used to labor. Boycotts, by definition, are inconvenient. There is this thing you would normally do without hesitation, but refuse to do as protest.
You can’t say “I won’t do this thing which I wasn’t going to do anyway” which is their typical reaction.
Similarly, “I will make a fuss, but not change my behavior because it’s really irritating” is ineffective.

Boycotts are a tool of the weak fighting against the strong. It’s mechanically similar to striking. The oppressors can’t use this tool, as it requires strength of numbers and strength of conviction to actually be willing to be inconvenienced.

People who whine when traffic gets backed up don’t have the turpitude.

Hey DTG, you sound up on this.  HOw does the Gb packers ownership work?  Aren’t they owned by the citizens of Greenbay or something?

You know, the odd thing is, I think the chances of a lockout in 2011 are very good.  Limbaugh’s fan can do their strike then…

Packers are grandfathered in.

It’s a community owned asset, but in practice, there are people with a very proprietary relationship with the Packers.  It’s even more about non-finance mediated power than NFL proper.

Hey DTG, you sound up on this.  HOw does the Gb packers ownership work?  Aren’t they owned by the citizens of Greenbay or something?

The Green Bay Packers have a very unique situation, which technically violates every ownership rule the NFL currently has.  The team has been a publicly-owned corporation since 1923, so they were grandfathered in when the AFL and NFL merged in the 1960s.  The current NFL ownership rules dictate that no more than 32 individual people can collectively own any one team, and at least one of the owners must own at least 30% of the team.

Basically, the Packers are the only professional sports team in America that exists as a publicly-owned, non-profit corporation - they are literally owned by their fans.  They have over 110,000 individual shareholders spread throughout the United States who share a combined 4.75 Million shares of stock.  The stock is esentially worthless in redemption value… it earns no dividends, it cannot be resold to anyone but the team, and the buy-back value of the stock is a fraction of what was paid for it.  It doesn’t give you season tickets.  What a shareholder does get for their stock is voting rights in the annual shareholder meeting, which is held in July at Lambeau Field.  So for example, if there was ever a proposal to sell the team, they would need to get a majority of the shareholders on board, since no one shareholder can have more than 200,000 shares of stock, to prevent any one person from having too much control.

The shareholders elect a board of directors, and from that board of directors, a 7 member Executive Committee is appointed to oversee the team’s day-to-day operations.  Only one member of the Executive Committee receives a paycheck for their work - the team president.  All 6 others (Treasurer, Secretary, etc.) contribute their work on a voluntary basis.  The elected president represents the team in all NFL owners meetings, and casts votes on behalf of the team.

There is no personal financial incentive to the shareholders to ever sell the team… 100% of the profits generated from a sale would be given to the team’s charitable arm, the Green Bay Packers Foundation.

Basically, the team was set up this way to ensure that it would never leave Green Bay, Wisconsin, a city of barely more than 100,000 people.  It is by far the smallest market city in the entire NFL.  No city that size could ever possibly secure an NFL expansion franchise today.  But because of the way the team is incorporated, there is no real danger of them ever being moved.

karpad-

I would argue that they are very good at boycotts because they understand the mind of middle managers and “top brass” who are usually mostly very stupid people who believe they are “good at business” to make up for their lack of other skills. Combine that with the quarter by quarter principle of live or die and the right-wing boycott pays huge dividends.

What they do is circulate in the churches a blast email or old fashioned letter or calling campaign to swamp corporate headquarters with the voices of “real america” not some filthy hippies saying they will never buy the product again. The fact that they either already did not buy from them or have no intentions of actually following through on the boycott is immaterial, because what they want changed is usually support for something not fundamental business practices.

This puts the middle managers under pressure to “do something” in response, because you have to respond with something active or else the top brass thinks you are worthless and this could be a great time to shine while they are briefly paying attention to the middle ranks. So one will invariably decide to “do something” by backing out of the charity contribution or whatever promotion caused the wingnut attack. No one notices that sales that quarter were not actually hampered, because by the time anyone knows those numbers, its next quarter and it’s easy for the “go-getter” to claim that it was their quick thinking that saved the day.

You’re right though that they suck at long-term boycotts. Lefties and the like actually remove genuine business in regards to more systemic problems which causes lower income over multiple quarters, which can cause a hubaloo which usually doesn’t change much, oddly enough. Since the right-wing attacks are smoke and mirrors boycotts, they can’t do anything longer than a quarter or it becomes clear that nothing actually is occurring.

I’ve got an idea.  Why don’t they wear a big red letter “W” for “Wingnut” on their clothing, and the leftists can do the boycotting for them?

I still see lots of cars with “W” bumper stickers, which lets me know I should simply avoid the people associated with those cars.

And as to how to perform a boycott:

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/activist-bears-sustain-boycott-of-prop-8supporting-cinema-chain.html

I’d feel so much less torn about being a sports fan if all teams were run like the Packers. Or if at least one baseball and one hockey team were, perhaps I could be convinced to change allegiances. I’m not so much of a (pro) basketball or football fan. As it stands now, I have to reconcile my enjoyment of watching baseball and hockey games with disgust of so much of the politics surrounding pro sports, and be happy with the smallest gains like the (SF) Giants switching to non-toxic laundry detergent for their uniforms and an reduced-water irrigation system for the field. I don’t foresee teams in other sports being sold to become non-profits though.

I’m not talking about trying to boycott the NFL. Let’s not be ridiculous

Let me get this right: He’s mad at liberals but will not boycott the NFL, even thought the owners were the ones who decided not to allow Rush in? And he’s going to boycott some other enterprise to make a point about Rush and the NFL? That makes no sense.