So what if he is? Do you, or I, or anyone have the right to interfere with someone trying to conduct business just because we think they're "divisive"?
If Randi Rhodes wanted to participate in an owner's group that's trying to buy the Phoenix Coyotes, do conservatives now have the right to make erroneous statements about what she might have said on the radio, in an attempt to block her participation? If Alan Colmes wanted to buy into the group that owns the New York Knicks, should the right now make blog entries somewhere on the Internet about how Alan once said that "Mothers should sacrifice their children to Satan on Halloween" and that "Charles Manson is a political prisoner"? I remember reading somewhere that turnabout is fair play - is it?
Personally, I think they should have let Rush continue in the ownership group. If the comments he made are that "divisive", then I'd imagine that there'd be players who wouldn't want to play for the Rams - irregardless of how financially lucrative it might be. Instead of stopping him from owning the Rams, let him own them, and see just how deep his pockets are - how much money the Rams would have to spend to counteract the negative publicity if a player like Terrell Owens or Donovan McNabb refused to play for the Rams because of what Rush said.
Here's a little something to consider -- Before he was elected Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was managing general partner of the Texas Rangers MLB team from 1989-1994. There is talk that when Bug Selig resigns as Commissioner of Major League Baseball, that President Bush will be asked to be the next Commissioner. Whether or not he will accept the position remains to be seen. But, if he does, what will the left do?