When I was in a political theory class in college, we had to write papers about political theorists. Clinton had just been elected president, and the right wing was launching their campaign to "revolutionize" the Congress. Rush Limbaugh was the new talk radio hero. He unapologetically told his radio audience his view of government and how things should be done. He delivered his message with an air of superiority and dismissed any attacks with a wave of his hand and a quick quip. At the time, I thought he was a goof--and the people who listened to him were ditto-goofs.

I read his first book, The Way Things Ought To Be, and wrote a paper detailing many of the inaccuracies of his views and writing. It wasn't hard. All you had to do was read the thing and use common sense. My back-up, in most cases, was the constitution and historical record. He continually distorted or misinterpreted the constitution. And on historical facts, he was just plain wrong a lot of the time.

There's really nothing wrong with doing this. His books are published as opinion or political theory. They don't have to stand up to scrutiny. And 99% of the people who read or listen to him would never think to fact check him. Rush talks into a wind tunnel, and the only voice he hears is his own--or people repeating his own sentiments right back to him.

I got an A- on the paper. I think the minus part came because, other than Rush being totally wrong about many things, there was no real overarching theme to my paper. I did write it over a weekend.

When I heard Rush was hired to comment on football for ESPN on the NFL pre-game show, I was disappointed. Not because I watch the show and would have to sit through his crap (I don't watch it, I'm writing this column on Sunday mornings), but because I respect the opinions about sports from quite a few of the people who work at ESPN--they are the leaders of TV sports, even if they are owned by Disney. I guess I was disappointed they'd want someone like Rush to taint their own expert analysis. It also implied they liked this guy for some reason.

There's a They Might Be Giants song called "Your Racist Friend." It's about going to a party of a friend and realizing the blowhard spouting racial obscenities is a friend of a friend of yours. I'd say this is how I felt about Rush being on ESPN. "I know politics bore you/But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you and your racist friend."

Rush said there seemed to be a societal concern in the NFL and the media to have black quarterbacks do well. And that Eagle's quarterback Donovan McNabb was not the reason for the Eagle's success in previous seasons, he was benefiting (and getting unnecessary credit) from a great defense.

I heard about Rush's comments on McNabb on Tuesday. The Internet was overrun with stories about it, even though my local paper stayed away from the story almost entirely (it ran, in the C section--not the sports section, a story about him resigning and the whole pain pill thing on Thursday).

Rush's resignation statement offered no apology about what he said--which is typical because Rush never admits he's wrong about anything. This is really my biggest problem with Rush and people like him. They offer "opinions" and get mad when people call them on it. If you can't logically back up your shit, then don't say the shit. Of course, this would leave most right-wing pundits with nothing to say because they can't back up their shit most of the time--except with more of their own shit.

Rush said he must have been right about his comments about the NFL, the media and black quarterbacks because everyone got all bent out of shape about it. Conversely, this would mean if he was wrong, no one would have said a damn thing. Somehow, I don't think media coverage of bullshit racist theories automatically means you're right about being a bigot.

And Rush said his comments were not racially motivated. But if you take the racial statements out of what he said, there isn't really much of a point. Yes, the Eagle's have a good defense, but who scored those touchdowns? Who lead the Eagle's to the playoffs a few years in a row? Who was the commander in chief on the field? I'd say McNabb is a prominent reason for the Eagle's success--and so do his teammates and coaches, by the way. But, y'know, I don't necessarily follow Philadelphia sports. I'm not an expert on this.

Rush isn't really an expert on this either. Personally, I think ESPN should have fired him. Waiting a few days for him to resign is a pussy move on their part. But I've seen that happen in regular business situations as well. It's hard to admit, so publicly, you made a mistake about a hiring move.

Which is the problem I've always had with Rush and his ilk. They never admit they're wrong. They are always right. No matter what anyone (including history, the constitution, judicial precedent or the voters of America) says. And that, more than anything, is what makes them wrong.

Matt Worley isn't really right, he's mostly left.