Rush Limbaugh

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

This Limbaugh stuff has nothing at all to do with free speech. Yes, he's free to say whaever he wants to, and advertisers and networks are free to pull the plug when they no longer want to support it. If that were to happen, then Rush would still be free to stand on a street corner and spew his vile horseshit out to anyone who wanted to listen. That's the free speech we're all entitled to. We are not "entitled" to have a broadcast forum that is supported by advertisers or public funds.

 

Be careful what you wish for. (Public Funds? What Public funds)

 

Our world is coarse and people aren't nice. Might want to be something we want to recognize..

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Yep and I read the transcript of her testimony. I wasn't sure why she was chosen specifically.

Interesting point. Maybe because she is a student studying law at the nation's oldest Jesuit Catholic Univesity. I hope it isn't because she's pretty, young and white.

She was local and had a point of view, well spoken and had an affliation with a Catholic school...

[Magnetized]

 

Be careful what you wish for. (Public Funds? What Public funds)

 

Our world is coarse and people aren't nice. Might want to be something we want to recognize..

 

I could have phrased that better. I was trying to cover too many bases in one pithy post. No, Limbaugh isn't supported by public funds, but if he were on PBS or NPR it would be the same principle. If advertisers OR public funds are paying for your forum, they can withdraw that support when you cross a line. It isn't a bright, immutable line, either--it's subject to an evolving standard of what's considered socially acceptable.

[calvino]

He's so hilarious I can only stand to listen to him for a few minutes at a time.

LouieB

 

Same here. Right before the Fluke incident, I turned him on for a quick second and he was astounded that women had a dislike for Newt - he was asking what did Newt do to women that would turn them off so much. He then went on and said that the only women Newt "hurt" were his ex-wives. I couldn't stop laughing. (Of course he was being serious and I am sure his listeners agree with him, but I find the absurdity, funny.) Also he was astounded that women had issues with Santorum, since he has been married for the same women for such a long time and has lots of children.

 

His deadpan delivery is right on, too.

 

Also, I did not find the Fluke incident funny, at all.

[KevinG]

And that is essentially what Rush is...a shock jock.

 

Shock Jock or not, Rush commands a lot of clout with the Republican Party. You see this by the number of top tier Republicans that come and kiss his ring on his show, and the sheer numbers of "ditto-heads" that do his bidding. Again not one republican candidate, nor prominent Republican admonished him publicly. As George Will stated Republicans are afraid of him. No one can deny that he has a great deal of power within the Republican Party.

 

So the question then comes to this, what kind of political party allows a shock jock to control their party?

 

Last I checked, Stewart, Letterman, Colbert, et al. do not have nearly the power in Liberal circles that Rush does. Rush's comments and the lack of outrage on the republican side tell volumes, not of Rush, but of the Republican party as a whole.

[Magnetized]

Jon Stewart was typically brilliant on this issue on his March 5 show. After dismissing Rush Limbaugh as "Extremely Loud and Incrediby Gross", he then skewered the Republican candidates for their trivializing his comments, implying that Limbaugh's only mistake was semantics, not reasoning. He said "Why do they not think his reasoning was wrong? Because they think the same thing!" He then went on to show a series of damning clips from various Fox news contributors all saying essentially the same thing as Limbaugh. It might be funny if it weren't so sadly, predictably stupid.

[bleedorange]

Shock Jock or not, Rush commands a lot of clout with the Republican Party. You see this by the number of top tier Republicans that come and kiss his ring on his show, and the sheer numbers of "ditto-heads" that do his bidding. Again not one republican candidate, nor prominent Republican admonished him publicly. As George Will stated Republicans are afraid of him. No one can deny that he has a great deal of power within the Republican Party.

 

So the question then comes to this, what kind of political party allows a shock jock to control their party?

 

Last I checked, Stewart, Letterman, Colbert, et al. do not have nearly the power in Liberal circles that Rush does. Rush's comments and the lack of outrage on the republican side tell volumes, not of Rush, but of the Republican party as a whole.

 

I think his "influence" on the Republican party is overblown. If it were as great as some people claim, John McCain would have never won the nomination in 2008. Who is he supporting in this primary? I doubt it's Romney, and he'll most likely win the nomination. So I'm not really sure where this influence is showing itself.

[Moss]

I am actually less pissed as I have heard the broad

 

Did you just call Fluke a Broad?

[KevinG]

I think his "influence" on the Republican party is overblown.

...So I'm not really sure where this influence is showing itself.

 

Then why hasn't a single candidate denounced what he had said? Why hasn't a single member of Republican Leadership come out against Rush? According to statements on this board he has 15 million people eating out of his hand and believing every single word he says. They do not want to piss off a large majority of the Republican base. Simple as that. I am not saying he is the puppet master and the Republicans do his bidding, but anytime you have that many people listening to you you have power. It is the same with Fox News. You control the message, you control the power, you have the influence.

[bleedorange]

Then why hasn't a single candidate denounced what he had said? Why hasn't a single member of Republican Leadership come out against Rush? According to statements on this board he has 15 million people eating out of his hand and believing every single word he says. They do not want to piss off a large majority of the Republican base. Simple as that. I am not saying he is the puppet master and the Republicans do his bidding, but anytime you have that many people listening to you you have power. It is the same with Fox News. You control the message, you control the power, you have the influence.

 

He already apologized. What is there to denounce? Why is it necessary? Why lend Rush more legitimacy than he deserves by continually bringing it up? Politics have really become absurd when you consider how "important" it is to some people that politicians must condemn every single controversial thing that is said by someone.

 

Furthermore, he might have a lot of listeners, but I don't think that means that every single one of them is believing every word he says. Again, if he had a lot of power and influence, you would see far different results in the last two primaries than you are actually seeing.

[jakobnicholas]

Rush said, "What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute…She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

 

Using the word "slut" is a bit harsh of course, but his point is DEAD-ON. Fluke goes to a Jesuit school and expects the school to have her birth control paid for?!....something that the Catholic Church has been against for 2000 years?! If she's truly poor (how many poor people go to Georgetown?), and she REALLY needs birth control, Walmart offers it for about $9 a month.

 

Being Catholic, it really bothers me that Obama can issue a mandate that forces the Church to go against a core belief. The "compromise" is a crock, as it still will mean other people at a private institution getting covered by the insurance company will end up footing the bill.

 

It's not a contraceptive issue....though Obama, the brilliant politician he is...is spinning it that way to make him more popular to women. It's a constitutional issue.

 

Back to Rush. Everyone is supposedly SO freaking "upset" by his comments. I don't buy that at all. Democrats know the economy and rising gas prices are a HUGE threat to their Wonder Boy winning a re-election, so painting Republicans as women-haters is a desparate move. Sadly, I think it's working and will greatly help Obama in November.

 

You know what's offensive to me? Louis CK's comments on Sarah Palin. Oh I forgot, he's a comedian, so he can say whatever he wants. Aren't Rush and CK one and the same?....ENTERTAINERS?

 

For those who don't know, here's a snippet of CK's "humor":

 

Talking about Palin coming to the Republican convention, he said, "holding a baby that just came out of her f-ing, disgusting [C-word], her f-ing retard-making [C-word]. I hate her more than anybody…"

 

Last year, CK called Palin a "f—ing jackoff [C-word]-face jazzy wondergirl’ who ‘has a family of Chinese poor people living in her [C-word] hole."

 

Then there's Bill Maher, another entertainer, who has referred to Palin as a tw*t and a cu*t. This is the same Maher who donated $1 million to help Obama's campaign. Obama apologized and consoled the poor, poor, Sandra Fluke, but I've never heard Obama apologize for any comments made by Maher or other offensive entertainers who sing Obama's praises.

 

Politics suck.

[Guest Jules]

Then why hasn't a single candidate denounced what he had said? Why hasn't a single member of Republican Leadership come out against Rush?

Cantor did.

 

Then there's Bill Maher, another entertainer, who has referred to Palin as a tw*t and a cu*t. This is the same Maher who donated $1 million to help Obama's campaign. Obama apologized and consoled the poor, poor, Sandra Fluke, but I've never heard Obama apologize for any comments made by Maher or other offensive entertainers who sing Obama's praises.

Yep, Limbaugh's comments were no worse than this.

[jff]

Using the word "slut" is a bit harsh of course, but his point is DEAD-ON. Fluke goes to a Jesuit school and expects the school to have her birth control paid for?!....something that the Catholic Church has been against for 2000 years?! If she's truly poor (how many poor people go to Georgetown?), and she REALLY needs birth control, Walmart offers it for about $9 a month.

 

 

I'll say it again. I was not aware that it is free to attend Georgetown.

[KevinG]

He already apologized. What is there to denounce? Why is it necessary? Why lend Rush more legitimacy than he deserves by continually bringing it up? Politics have really become absurd when you consider how "important" it is to some people that politicians must condemn every single controversial thing that is said by someone.

 

Furthermore, he might have a lot of listeners, but I don't think that means that every single one of them is believing every word he says. Again, if he had a lot of power and influence, you would see far different results in the last two primaries than you are actually seeing.

 

His apology was a joke. He apologized for the words he used not what he said. Did he apology for asking her to put up sex tapes? Did he apologize for inferring she has sex when she was in the six grade?

 

The importance of denouncing his comments, is show the American people that this level of discourse in politics is not acceptable. A candidate can say this is how I feel about this subject and that he agrees with Rush on the issue. But when he said these things it was hurtful things about not only Fluke but women as a whole. It would have shown that a candidate had real morals. By not denouncing it I feel it actually legitimatized his comments.

 

It is not like the candidates have to comment on what Jeff and "Bear" said on their Z100 morning Zoo. Rush is a nationally syndicated host with millions of listeners, talking about the major political story of the day. The were asked a question by the media, and when given an opportunity to denounce his comments they did not.

 

I think the his perceived level of influence comes down to what side of the political spectrum you are. Left sees him as the GOP puppet master the Right see him has a shock jock entertainer who discusses issues important to them. If we were to step back we would see him somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

[jakobnicholas]

Rush is a nationally syndicated host with millions of listeners, talking about the major political story of the day.

 

Rush is a very hard-working, successful radio ENTERTAINER. He just happens to have Conservative opinions, and tries to illustrate them in humorous, sometimes controversial ways. He's no different than Howard Stern or Don Imus or Jim Rome. Nothing he's said EVER is as offensive as many of the Left-leaning comics and entertainers who spout off regularly.

[jff]

Rush is a very hard-working, successful radio ENTERTAINER. He just happens to have Conservative opinions, and tries to illustrate them in humorous, sometimes controversial ways. He's no different than Howard Stern or Don Imus or Jim Rome. Nothing he's said EVER is as offensive as many of the Left-leaning comics and entertainers who spout off regularly.

 

False.

[calvino]

Rush is a very hard-working, successful radio ENTERTAINER. He just happens to have Conservative opinions, and tries to illustrate them in humorous, sometimes controversial ways. He's no different than Howard Stern or Don Imus or Jim Rome. Nothing he's said EVER is as offensive as many of the Left-leaning comics and entertainers who spout off regularly.

 

I bet Rush would be extremely upset to read that. Perhaps, he would even take offense.

[jakobnicholas]

False.

 

Name something Rush has said that's more offensive than Louis CK's comments about Pallin.

[ih8music]

Being Catholic, it really bothers me that Obama can issue a mandate that forces the Church to go against a core belief. The "compromise" is a crock, as it still will mean other people at a private institution getting covered by the insurance company will end up footing the bill.

 

I'm also a Catholic & it doesn't bother me one bit. If the Church wants to hire non-Catholics for their schools, hospitals & various charities, they cannot impose upon them the views of their religion, no matter how sacred they believe them to be.

 

It's as if a Muslim-owned business tried to force its non-Muslim employees to observe Ramadan and denied lunch breaks, water, etc. during sunlight hours & forced them to pray to Mecca on their breaks. That would be absurd. Just because it's what the business owner thinks is the right thing to do according to their religion doesn't mean that they have the right to impose those beliefs on their employees.

 

You know what's offensive to me? Louis CK's comments on Sarah Palin. Oh I forgot, he's a comedian, so he can say whatever he wants. Aren't Rush and CK one and the same?....ENTERTAINERS?

...

Then there's Bill Maher, another entertainer, who has referred to Palin as a tw*t and a cu*t.

First of all, CK is nothing like Rush or Maher. He's a comedian who's job is to make you laugh -- often uncomfortably. He rarely ventures into politics... and when he does, it's just used as a vehicle for his vulgarity. Nobody takes his political opinions seriously - his show is more about him being an aging, self-hating, vulgar slob than anything else.

 

Regardless, both CK and Maher received negative national feedback when they said those things. Sure, not as much as Rush is getting now -- but it's not like they were ignored. NOW came out very strongly against Maher when he said those things about Palin, I do recall that.

 

But the difference between them & Rush is, a) their audiences are a fraction of Rush's so not as many people are aware of what they say, and b ) they don't have sponsors who have to answer to the public. Rush is only "suffering" here because his sponsors are being pressured into leaving his show -- that's what's making this story go on. Neither Maher or CK have to deal with that.

 

Maher got booted off of ABC because of his (innocuous, IMO) statements post-9/11, for chrissakes... if he said those things about Palin while still on ABC, he would have certainly lost his job. Instead Rush is losing a handful of sponsors (temporarily, I'm sure) and will proabably skate free of this controversy soon enough.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ih8music

[ih8music]

Name something Rush has said that's more offensive than Louis CK's comments about Pallin.

Again, apples & oranges. Rush is a radio broadcaster - he's not allowed to use profanity or else he'll face stiff FCC fines. People go to see CK because it's a vulgar show.

[bleedorange]

I'm also a Catholic & it doesn't bother me one bit. If the Church wants to hire non-Catholics for their schools, hospitals & various charities, they cannot impose upon them the views of their religion, no matter how sacred they believe them to be.

 

It's as if a Muslim-owned business tried to force its non-Muslim employees to observe Ramadan and denied lunch breaks, water, etc. during sunlight hours & forced them to pray to Mecca on their breaks. That would be absurd. Just because it's what the business owner thinks is the right thing to do according to their religion doesn't mean that they have the right to impose those beliefs on their employees.

 

That anaolgy doesn't work, though. The law school is not preventing someone from using birth control. There is no stipulation that to attend a Catholic school, you must refrain from using it. There's no infringement of basic rights. It's simply a matter of whether the private school should be forced by the government to fund something it believes to be repugnant.

[ih8music]

That anaolgy doesn't work, though. The law school is not preventing someone from using birth control. There is no stipulation that to attend a Catholic school, you must refrain from using it. There's no infringement of basic rights. It's simply a matter of whether the private school should be forced by the government to fund something it believes to be repugnant.

And the compromise was they don't have to fund it - they just cannot exclude it from their insurance plans.

[jff]

Name something Rush has said that's more offensive than Louis CK's comments about Pallin.

 

Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.

[KevinG]

Name something Rush has said that's more offensive than Louis CK's comments about Pallin.

 

Also remember Fluke is not a public figure, Palin is. That combined with the shear misogyny of his comments put this one over the edge.

 

BTW Rush has also called Michelle Obama fat, uppity, etc. Whereas, not as bad as calling Palin a c*nt, it came pretty close. Did people get upset, sure, did he lose sponsors, no.

 

Rush is provocative and that his his job, but if you begin calling him an entertainer on par with Louis CK, you either a. are fooling yourself b. or don't understand the current nature of politics and the public.

 

Cantor did.

 

Good for him, thank you for pointing that out. I now have more respect for him.

[bleedorange]

And the compromise was they don't have to fund it - they just cannot exclude it from their insurance plans.

 

Doesn't really seem like much of a compromise.