Skip to main content

The business press seems uneasy. Late Friday, the Wall Street Journal admitted that "Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett kept [Wisconsin] Gov. Scott Walker on the defensive" in their Friday night debate. The National Review's Iain Murray has called for a counter-boycott of Amazon over that company's decision to stop supporting ALEC. And the International Business Times noted that the Limbaugh boycott has gotten results, even as it described them as "mixed".

All three of these news stories – the Wisconsin recall, the effort to pry corporations away from ALEC, and the campaign to drive Limbaugh off the public air waves – have been described as key political struggles of this era. If progressives and their allies embrace any of these three causes in sufficient numbers, and with sufficient passion, there is a significant possibility of victory.

ALEC, and the Scott Walkers now in control of numerous state governments, have been responsible for devastating attacks against working families, against women, and against minority rights. But easily the foremost propagandist on the right is Rush Limbaugh, who inveighs against perceived enemies of conservative old white men for fifteen to eighteen hours a week, on six hundred radio stations. Limbaugh has an audience estimated in the millions. On some weighty political issues (such as climate change), researchers have determined that Rush Limbaugh has impacted our nation's political dialog moreso than any other single entity.

Yet since his Fluke attack, Limbaugh has been under significant pressure. He has hired a crisis manager, has started using Twitter, has unsuccessfully pressured Youtube to remove videos of his rants, and has created "Rush Babes For America", all in response to that pressure. Beyond the jump, we'll explore why it is necessary for us to use our own free speech to get Rush Limbaugh off the public airwaves, and three ways to accomplish that task.

Limbaugh has always cultivated the ability to offend. Limbaugh thoroughly enjoys embellishing news stories with insinuations and absurdities, thereby offending multiple groups at once. "Farewell sex" is a typical example: Limbaugh reported as fact that "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Passes Law Allowing Husbands to Have Sex with Dead Wives Up to Six Hours After Death." The claim has been called a lie by the editors of Foreign Policy, and "Utter Hooey" by the Christian Science Monitor. Yet Limbaugh used it as a simultaneous salacious attack against Muslims, foreigners, and women's rights. "Who provides the contraceptives when an Egyptian guy has sex with his dead wife?" Limbaugh demanded to know.

Lies and ridicule are just two aspects of the Limbaugh formula. Agitation, scapegoating, vilification, and naked innuendo are also regularly employed. Limbaugh recently compared President Obama to Communists and Nazis. In another raunchy jab, Limbaugh noted that "Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister of Italia, [known] for his wild parties, would have a beautiful Dominican woman dress up like Barack Obama at some of his parties. I don't know what happened after that."

Limbaugh saw a simple story on demographic changes in the United States as another opportunity to stoke fear in his audience. He droned:

It is clear that this, and other similar stories like this, are meant to serve as a warning to Republicans and conservatives. And the warning is: You are on the wrong side of history. And you are on the wrong side of demographics. You better do what the coming majority wants right now, or you’re gonna suffer the consequences. There is an implied threat in this story. You’re getting older. You’re white and you’re dying off. Pretty soon you’re gonna find out what it’s been like to not be you.

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/...

By such relentless fear-mongering, Limbaugh makes it respectable for his audience of millions to fear, hate, and malign.

Rush is syndicated by Premiere Networks, a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital, which until recently was headed by, and continues to financially support, Mitt Romney. Another Clear Channel shock jock without Limbaugh's reach and political import momentarily advised a father in the listening audience to have his friends rape away his daughter's gayness, and was promptly removed from the air. Limbaugh's transgressions against Sandra Fluke were similarly grotesque, but were also sustained over days, yet he received accolades rather than discipline. Limbaugh is a protected commodity because he is a key part of a master plan for conservatives to dominate politics, and thereby control the country.

According to Limbaugh, eighteen thousand advertisers have made his incessant attacks possible. The StopRush movement is steadily reducing that number, with zero the eventual goal. Many of the activists amassing data on Limbaugh's advertisers and educating them about what their ad dollars purchase are new to activism. However, they're working alongside some of the same team who drove Glenn Beck off of Fox News. Fully aware that this struggle is a marathon and not a sprint, we can smile at headlines suggesting our results are "mixed" – the Beck campaign lasted for 20 months before bearing fruit. The Limbaugh campaign hasn't yet passed its third month.

We'd like to invite you to help this effort. Can you commit to one of the following?

1) Become A Part Of The Movement

The circumstance that makes this campaign possible is rather simple: most advertisers contract for radio time, but do not know when their ads will run. We repeatedly encounter surprised advertisers when we inform them that their ads are running on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Many vow immediately to rectify that situation.

All across the country, individuals listen to his show on the radio (streaming audio doesn't have the ads that we want to track), and write down the advertisers and contact information, also noting the time and date of each ad. This information is input into the StopRush database.

Others use the database to contact the advertisers by phone, email, web, Facebook page, or Twitter to let them know their ads are running on Limbaugh.

Limbaugh's list of radio stations is here.

You can determine whether his show is currently being monitored in your area by searching on your local station, here.

A few advertisers aren't aware of the controversy that stains their brand when they advertise on Rush. A number of sources – Media Matters for America, AddictingInfo, and Daily Kos to name a few – have put together videos and other materials that convey the essence of Rush, compiled on one web page, or compressed into a brief video. These advertisers may be interested to see Caught On Tape: Limbaugh's Seventy Sexist Smears, How Many Times Can Rush Slander Women in 1 Minute?, or 35 Hateful And Stupid Rush Limbaugh Quotes That Should Anger Everyone.

2) Help To Bring Others In

Blog. Share. Send emails. Link. Let friends, family, and associates know. Share with any organization or group of which you are a part. The more who join this effort, the sooner we can expect a significant result.

3) Contribute Directly

The StopRush effort is a volunteer effort. There is one small expense with which you might help, and that is for the hosting ("server and data storage"). The bandwidth usage grows daily. We, the volunteers contribute enormous amounts of time and we feel that effort is paying off for everyone. But the out of pocket costs are growing. We would really appreciate it if you could chip in a couple of bucks with the DONATE button at http://stoprush.net. Consider: the payoff for your small investment is the continuing diminution of the Limbaugh enterprise. Thank you!

Originally posted to Richard Myers on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:47 PM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Story on Angie's List 's GOP Operative turned CEO (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rashaverak, lcrp, splashy

      named William Oesterle and his team of top MANagers that needs to be shared widely. Oesterle left the  Hudson Institute for the private sector, but came back to GOP politics in 2004.

      Angie's List Has a Problem with Women

      By Krystal Ball

      In 2004, Oesterle managed Mitch Daniels' successful Indiana gubernatorial race. Daniels as you'll recall was considered a possible Republican presidential candidate and is now on Mitt Romney's possible VP list. Oesterle's political giving has also been prolific. Over the past 10 years, he has given more than $300,000 to Republican politicians in his home state of Indiana. Not a single dollar has gone to Democrats. Given his obvious partisan affiliations, it makes sense that Oesterle would be sympathetic to Limbaugh's "entertaining" right-wing messages, and his method actor's delivery of distortion, lies, and incendiary vitriol.

      Given the company's emphasis on women, I was pretty surprised to find that there is not even one woman on the Angie's List board of directors. Senior management is little better, with Angie herself being the sole female representative who made the cut. Couple the lack of female voices at senior levels within Angie's List's management with their current support of the practicing misogynist Rush Limbaugh, and Angie's stance becomes pretty clear: their actual support of women goes as far as taking their money.

      Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:47:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are having a good weekend. I'll try to send a (22+ / 0-)

    few bucks. Nothing would make me happier (well, except Scott Walker being recalled) than seeing Rush Flushed.

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Sat May 26, 2012 at 09:06:25 PM PDT

  •  #4 Round up all the bacon and cheese in Florida (9+ / 0-)

    That's a surefire way to stop him.

  •  can that database be google mapped? it was a (9+ / 0-)

    suggestion from someone else a while back - to put the sponsors on an interactive map so they can be seen location-wise. that could help with protests, for instance, or just to help realize the magnitude and increase pressure- maybe an app can be created for it!

    limbaugh activists are making the most efficient use of their volunteer time and money in my opinion, while so many other efforts and protests are negated merely because team limbaugh can scream over them without them knowing it- as has been the case for 20 years.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:34:13 PM PDT

  •  methinks (8+ / 0-)

    putting pressure on universities to find alts for sports broadcasting will not only help fire up students but do major damage to the monopoly. a lot of limbaugh stations would be seriously effected as local sponsors followed the unis. then more unis would follow. IMO they have no excuse for not pulling out of limbaugh radio.

    i'm hoping the documentary 'megadittoes, the tea party cult' , will help expose the importance of  RW talk radio -  i think it will be out soon.

    correction, it can be seen for $5 at http://teapartycult.com/...! i'll have to do it when i get back from a trip.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Something has to be done to address the damage (18+ / 0-)

    Hate-Radio is doing to the body politic.  It IS the public's airways; and most stations do not offer equal opportunities/air time for the other side of the political spectrum.  

    If legislation passed to require stations who only offer programming that promotes one side of the political divide to provide an equal amount of free airtime for the opposite party's political candidates, stations would start balancing conservative/liberal talk-radio programming that they could sell advertizing time for.

    "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?" Barry Goldwater

    by ranton on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:19:00 PM PDT

    •  We kicked one show off the air in S. Idaho (9+ / 0-)

      For years, a pair of sisters who were both so far right they spent most of their time attacking Republican moderates during their daily 2-hour show ruled the afternoons on KID AM.

      And, of course, they raised merry Hell with all Democrats.

      Their show was a cooking show initially, but it was going nowhere, so they slowly integrated far right rants into it, and it wasn't long before ranting was all they did. Very little of their stuff was factual; they relied heavily on rumors picked up in Boise, and much was totally conjecture.

      Eventually, a bi-partisan group, stated by a couple of Democrats, began a petition claiming that KID AM was no longer serving the public good. Since they were equal opportunity offenders, Republicans jumped on the bandwagon.

      After less than a year, the show went off the air. The station claimed that the show was only drawing about 300 people to it regularly, and it was replaced by the syndicated Laura Ingraham show before the petition ever went to court.

      KID AM still has a local talk show host, but he's very careful to avoid the extremes the sisters went to, and he only has an hour in the late morning.

      It can be done, but I doubt any of the Clear Channel/ Horizon Entertainment hosts, including Rush, would get the axe. Right wing talk radio rules AM stations here in the west, where there are many areas where FM reception is too sketchy to be constantly heard. Western backwater towns are usually the most conservative, and Rush is taken seriously in them out here.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:38:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One answer to the argument... (5+ / 0-)

        One answer to the argument that Rush will never be taken off the public airwaves is that a lot of folks felt that way about Glenn Beck as well, when he was on Fox News.

        Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

        by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:02:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The fall can be sudden (0+ / 0-)

          Walter Winchell was once very much like Rush; he ruled the airwaves at a time when radio ruled, period.
          After his loud and frequent support of Joe McCarthy, and after McCarthy's fall from grace, Winchell was promptly dumped and forgotten. He ended his days as a pitiful second-rate song and dance man in the seedier Vegas casinos.

          And back then, seedy meant Seedy.

          Conditions are as ripe now as back then, I think. Rush may be more wiley than Winchell, but his hubris is just as large.

          Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

          by Idaho07 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:32:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  My issue is that the airways belong to us...and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Myers, lcrp

        "us" is not 100% conservative.  I am long past fed us with this kind of political abuse of the bandwidth that the American people own.  

        Milwaukee liberals need to start a campaign against hate-radio in that city for sure; but I prefer federal legislation that addresses the issue across the country.  The problem is  what that legislation would be to avoid the public's perception-taint of the Fairness Doctrine.

        "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?" Barry Goldwater

        by ranton on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:00:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, indeed (0+ / 0-)

          And it doesn't take much of a group to send a letter to the FCC. The reasons have to have some validity, and a lawyer experienced in what constitutes public interest would be a great help.
          Since the FCC gets very few of these letters, anything at all spooks the radio stations. This is the very last thing they want to have in their records, as public service is an essential mandate to owning a given frequency, and new station licenses are hard to come by and expensive to obtain.
          If an individual or a corporation gets a black ball like this, it's bad news. If they continue to get them, it becomes increasingly bad.

          Picking out the right target is essential.
          In the case of the Twisted Sisters, there was such weak documentation of their outrageous statements, and the listenership had grown so small, dumping them was easy for the station. Once Ingraham replaced them, their ratings and sales for that segment went way up.

          Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

          by Idaho07 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:40:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Rush won't ever leave the air (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DuzT, Amber6541, wasatch, rubyr

    As much as I would like to see him disappear from our airwaves forever, I doubt very much that Rush will ever leave the air.

    He could very well abandon Clear Channel and Horizon and go off AM and/or FM radio, and I think he will, if his ratings continue to slump.
    But he will have a secure contract with a satellite service lined up well before he goes. Sirius or some other subscription service will be happy to sign him, and though he would lose numbers, he would retain his loyal ditto heads, and would no longer have to worry about ratings and sponsors.

    Rush's audience has been slowly shrinking for years as his core audience ages. All political talk radio is slowly fading. Satellite subscription can be downloaded to phones, tablets and the like, and is the only new territory in broadcasting. It is also the only medium that Rush hasn't tried yet, and it is less heavily censored than commercial radio. As he continues to lose sponsors, this can only grow more tempting for him.

    Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

    by Idaho07 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:24:03 AM PDT

    •  if it wasn't a well subsidized monopoly where (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Myers, wasatch, rubyr

      well-coordinated talkers reinforcing each other with material from the same few sources can hide behind screeners and be lullabied by paid talkers the 600 would be 100, mostly somewhere in the south.

      if he ends up on pay-to-listen media instead of dominating stations that are licensed to operate in the public interest but are operating as the main arm arm of GOP media ops he'll get what he deserves- a big raspberry.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:21:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All possibly true. (4+ / 0-)

      But Rush with a small, dedicated, isolated audience (such as what Glenn Beck has now – with his subscription services) is generally perceived as better than Rush on the public airwaves, where he is one of just a few voices available across the country on 600 radio stations.  Probably, millions of his listeners became infected with his brand of misogyny and bigotry simply because they didn't have any alternative voice to listen to when they were driving, or in a store where the radio was always tuned to a conservative station – or even in a family where the same was true.

      Can we isolate bigoted voices altogether? No, probably never. One might argue, nor should we. But we can add information to the mix by helping advertisers to see what their ads pay for, and that is working.

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:11:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  misogyny and bigotry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Myers, splashy

        I started working for a company in '92 and would walk in an Rush would be on the radio. I would always turn it off and tell them that I did not want to listen to his misogyny and bigotry.
        It took awhile explaining to them how wrong he was, but they finally saw thru him and they changed the channel.
        Now if I could get business to quit airing FOX.

        OBAMA'S GUIDING PRINCIPLES: HOLD NO ONE ACCOUNTABLE. LOOK FORWARD.

        by snoopydawg on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:45:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Losing Rush (0+ / 0-)

        would cause a retreat by the remainders, I think. Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, Savage and the others all have favorite goats they gouge daily, but none has ever been as racist or misogynist as Limbaugh. I think there would be more moderation on all the Horizon Entertainment shows.

        Pressure to moderate has probably already come down on them all, but only Rush has the clout to ignore the boss to some extent. I'm sure they put him on notice shortly after the 3 day rant blew up in their faces.

        Rush's pomposity appeals to a certain segment of male losers, I've noticed. His most loyal Dittoheads are those guys who are part of the He-Man Women Haters Club and would like to be as glib as he is. They admire how his ego and display, and wish they had those things.

        Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

        by Idaho07 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:54:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I WANT Rush to stay on the air! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rubyr

      I may offend many of you with this, and if so, I apologize.  But stay with me for a moment. . .

      I want Rush to stay broadcasting during an agonized self-destructive implosion, taking most of his malevolent listeners with him.  I'm not a zen practitioner, but I have a sense of how polarization compels pathology.  The more polarized Rush becomes in his tailspin traincrash, the more poisoned his followers will become.  They will be increasingly toxic in the process, and we will do well to stand clear of them, but powerful persons who regard themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means) will bail out, more frantically as Rush goes up in flames.  He will then become an iconic example of the wretched outcome of hate-driven ideology.

    •  If Rush goes to Satellite Radio (8+ / 0-)

      He's doomed.  Most of his listener demographic is the senior citizen set, who aren't as comfortable with newer technology.  More than that, they're also frequently either cheap or on a fixed income, and unlikely to pony up the dough for satellite radio just to listen to Rush.  I'd predict that his listenership would drop through the floor if he moved to satellite radio.  He might survive as a niche broadcaster there, but with a vastly reduced body of listeners -- and therefore, a much reduced influence, to the point of irrelevance.

      •  Yup. (0+ / 0-)

        But don't believe his core audience are cheapskates. They might not be all hip on the cutting edge of technology, but they are able to buy pickups with Sirius equipped radios.

        Once someone goes with Sirius, I've found they like to buy home radios that are capable of received Sirius.

        His audience will indeed be smaller, but much more devoted than it is now. Most of his ratings come from only 15-30 minutes of listening. Radio ratings are broken down into very short time periods.
        On satellite, Rush has the chance to build a very strong group of followers as he can re-broadcast shows from his huge vault, and can double his hours on air if he chooses.

        Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

        by Idaho07 on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:02:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  of course he'll leave (0+ / 0-)

      Everybody does eventually. He's not immortal.

      He's getting older, he's abused drugs (and may still be doing so), and he's obese. Not the prescription for a long life.

    •  But people have to pay for that (0+ / 0-)

      And many, if not most, of Rush listeners won't pay. They go with whatever is free to listen to.

      Women create the entire labor force.

      by splashy on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:29:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lib/Dem listening to hate radio (11+ / 0-)

    For that past four months I have been tuning in to hate radio programs while driving.  I plan to stop listening soon.

    Hate radio is just so sing-songy and absolutely appeals to people who are themselves simple minded and hateful; there's just no other way to represent the content provided by hate radio.

    I am convinced there is only one goal of hate radio, which is to encourage hateful people to vote against their own self interests.  These listeners continue to be victimized by the very people who instill in them a sense of patriotic conservatism.

    It is pitiful.  Even more pitiful is a state that sponsors a bust of a hate radio personality.  Does this bust represent a high point for the state – I hope not.

  •  June 1st (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Myers, kathny, Amber6541, wasatch

    I'll do step 3.
    I get paid monthly and I'm real close now  !

    Thanks for taking on Rush !

  •  Get rid of Bill Maher as well? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't like or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  But if you get Limbaugh off the air, doesn't it also put Bill Maher at risk?

    Maher has spoken publicly is support of Limbaugh.  Maher said he himself was previously removed from one of the corporate networks because of a coordinated conservative campaign to write letters of complaint to the network.  Maher has said that Limbaugh should be allowed to speak his mind on the airwaves, just as Maher wants to be free to speak his mind on the airwaves.

    Conservatives are trying to shut up Planned Parenthood and doctors who speak to their female patients about birth control.  Silencing "the other guy" is wrong, no matter who does it.

    If we believe in free speech, we have to give both Maher and Limbaugh the right to say even hateful things.  

    Because silence is NEVER the solution to problems that arise from free expression.  The correct solution to "hate speech" is to use YOUR FREEDOM to express yourself to say why hate sppech is wrong.    

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:58:36 AM PDT

    •  Bill Maher is on a paid subscription cable (14+ / 0-)

      channel late at night.  Limbaugh is on the public airwaves, our property.  I've never walked into a store and heard Bill Maher blaring over the speakers, or driven through parts of the country where all I can get on the radio is Bill Maher.

      I can see Canada from my house. No, really, I can.

      by DuzT on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:09:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And broadcast on our overseas radio (8+ / 0-)

        to our troops and friendly folks trying to improve their English language skills. It's a shame that he is part of our image.

        Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

        by DRo on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:52:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correct! Maher was censored from public airwaves (0+ / 0-)

        The reason you don't hear Maher on publicly-owned airwaves is because of a conservative campaign to censor Maher.

        Now you want to do the same thing.

        The proper solution to hearing opinions you don't like is to use your freedom of speech, not to deprive others of freedom of speech.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:43:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We are using freedom of speech (0+ / 0-)
          The proper solution to hearing opinions you don't like is to use your freedom of speech, not to deprive others of freedom of speech.
          Not sure exactly what you are saying here, Hugh Jim Bissell.

          If you are saying what i think you are saying, then i will respond that i exercise free speech when i contact advertisers, and offer them information.

          I am pretty astonished at how often we encounter either the outright accusation, or the implication that Rush Limbaugh should be allowed his free speech, but i am not allowed the same right. Especially considering how big his megaphone is, compared to mine.

          Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

          by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:55:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Limbaugh will always be free to spread his venom (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wasatch, means are the ends

      just as progressives are free to shed light on his lies and encourage advertisers not to sponsor it. Free speech is not at issue here.

      •  Yes, free speech IS the issue. (0+ / 0-)

        you are welcome to use your freedom of speech to speak out against Limbaugh.  You are also free to turn off the radio if you don't like what is on it.

        Censorship is the conservatives' solution to free speech.

        Free speech is the progressive answer to opinions you don't like.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  free speech includes (2+ / 0-)

          informing advertisers that their support for Limbaugh is driving away customers.  Maybe they didn't realize that.

          •  Again, Bill Maher does not support this (0+ / 0-)

            Again, Bill Maher does not support this kind of action against political speakers.

            Bill Maher was hounded off the airwaves when conservatives called up the stations and advertisers to complain about Bill Maher.  So today, the reason why Bill Maher is not on network TV is because of this kind of censorship.

            Censorship only gets more censorship.  It does not make hate speech go away.  

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:28:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clueless on the concept. nt. (0+ / 0-)

              Life is a school, love is the lesson.

              by means are the ends on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:05:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Free Speech and Censorship? You're confused... (0+ / 0-)

              The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
              Thus, the First Amendment is a limitation on the U.S. Congress. None of us are even discussing a role for the U.S. Congress in any of this conversation.

              We are, rather, exercising free speech in a free market of ideas as well as commerce.

              Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

              by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:14:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  WRONG. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Myers, Rashaverak

      And I wish you weren't.

      Maher was driven off the air.  Frankly, he deserved to be let go, because his style of humor is inappropriate to the venue:  i.e., late night broadcast.  

      His departure from ABC was involuntary, because of a conservative backlash (and ABC was and is owned by Disney, who as a corporation tends conservative).  It was not a violation of Maher's free speech rights.  Nobody has rights to the public airwaves.  This was a business decision by ABC, and a good one for them.  

      Maher was and remains wrong on this subject.  His free speech was not violated, just his wallet.

      His previous show, on Comedy Central, was frankly better because it was not on broadcast.  His current show, on HBO, is 'way better because it's on subscription cable and doesn't have to worry about advertisers.

      Rush Limbaugh is is the same boat as Maher; he has a demographic he appeals to, but he has to sell advertising.  If customers of an advertiser DO NOT WANT their money to go into paying for advertising on his show, that is not a violation of his rights.  That is just the "invisible hand" of the marketplace at work.  And the advertisers will make their advertising decisions based on their bottom lines.  Some will stay with Limbaugh, and others will go.  

      Please stop conflating business interests with free speech.

    •  I'd love to be rid of Bill Maher. (0+ / 0-)

      He's a misogynistic liberal mirror-image of Limbaugh. I don't want EITHER of them to have a pulpit. But I agree with others who have pointed out that one at least has to subscribe/pay to hear Maher.

  •  From what I read in your diary, it sounds like he (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch, DRo, means are the ends

    is getting worse, if that is possible.
    I will try to contribute, because it would be such a relief to see this very negative, harmful influence off the public airwaves.

    Mother Teresa: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

    by Amber6541 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:57:21 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Rush Limbaugh is getting worse... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541

      I think for a long time, no one except his supporters/listeners paid much attention to him, nor on the poison that he introduced into our societal dialog. Now, we have the means (and to motivation) to pay attention. And we see that he has been vile for a couple of decades, at least.

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So is it accurate to say (2+ / 0-)

    in that Rush Limbaugh  (through a couple of middlemen) is basically a subsidiary of Bain Capital? If so, I think that is an important connection for voters to make.  I had not heard that before (maybe I was just not paying enough attention).  It made me sit up and take notice.  I don't know what all the implications are, but they would seem to be numerous.

    Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

    by Rona on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:06:16 AM PDT

    •  pretty much accurate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rashaverak
      So is it accurate to say that Rush Limbaugh  (through a couple of middlemen) is basically a subsidiary of Bain Capital?
      Well, it is a business relationship.

      Technically, Rush Limbaugh works for himself, but he has a contract with Clear Channel for syndication/distribution of his program. Bain Capital took Clear Channel private (mostly) in 2008.

      The radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh's show are a mix of Clear Channel, Cumulus, CBS, and other networks.

      Does Rush Limbaugh work for Mitt Romney? Not directly. But Mitt Romney is still getting enormous financial support from Bain Capital, which just extracted a couple of billion dollars from that company in the middle of March. And, with Rush claiming 18,000 advertisers supporting his show (a claim which may be ballpark accurate), that is a lot of corporate dollars helping to fund conservative politics.

      But it gets more complicated. Clear Channel is in debt for more than 20 billion dollars, and is facing potential disaster in the next year or two. For more on that, please see the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "Premiere Networks signaled a level of infrastructure disruption when it suspended barter ads for two weeks," at the link.

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:42:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clear channel is in that much debt? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Myers

        I had no idea. What would happen if they went bankrupt? Would the stations they own go up for sale? If so, who would buy them?

        Clear channel bought them because they thought they'd be money makers. Maybe they were, and the audience for radio has dropped through the floor. That's my guess.

        And like every other CEO, they just kept buying stuff up, because radio has been around forever, it's not going anywhere. People will always listen, what else can they listen to in the car?

        So now theyre facing advertising cutbacks,  precipitous drop in listeners because of cars that come with satellite radio (which is worth it if you drive long distances or even have a long commute), iPods, streaming radio on cell phones, etc.

        But they've still got all that debt, and contracts for shows that are losing listeners...

  •  Please provide a list of sponsors we do support (2+ / 0-)

    Richard, StopRush.net is a great start, but there is a second side of the equation: showing advertisers that there is an upside to supporting the progressive movement.  If a former Rush advertiser has repudiated his message and removed their advertising from his show, then they should be designated somewhere in the database as "safe" for progressives to use - they should be rewarded.  Similar to Angie's List, where those of us who canceled told the company why we canceled, those who have pulled their ads should be told that we support them because they support us.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

    •  Sponsors we can support... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FlyingToaster, Rashaverak, Hey338Too

      Well, this is an important issue. But it is likewise complicated.

      For example, some Rush sponsors also advertise on progressive talk shows.

      Some are sponsors are supporting hate radio without knowing they are doing so.

      Some sponsors have their ads moved by the radio station into Rush show hours (to replace other advertisers who have vacated), in spite of giving instructions not to do so.

      And some companies have some divisions or franchisees who have left Rush, while others remain on his show.

      The database does try to keep track of all of these variables, but sometimes it is necessary to consider the status, and also the comments.

      I suggest also doing a search on "Rush Limbaugh advertisers". You will encounter articles listing those companies that have left his show. Be sure to note the date; companies that were advertising early on may have since dropped (and in the examples of Angie's List and Tax Resolution Services, vice versa.)

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Limpbaugh is Offensive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak

    only if you listen to him.

    Who exactly is listening? Millions of liberal or undecided voters?

    Not.

    Again, rush limpbaugh is not the problem; he is a symptom of larger problems we have-- one being that a few million people think his daily dose of propaganda/vitriol has value.

    Getting rid of Limpbaugh as an answer to what ails us is like thinking you're going to stop drug abuse by making drugs illegal. we see how well that is working.

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:44:12 AM PDT

    •  Limbaugh is offensive beyond his talk radio show (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demeter Rising
      Limpbaugh is Offensive only if you listen to him.
      I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh, pretty much every day since March 5. But i also monitor social media, newspapers, and blogs for any reference to Limbaugh, or his talking points.

      And here's what i've discovered. Within minutes of any provocative statement that Limbaugh makes (even before his show is over), right wing news media and blogs echo and amplify on his statements. This comments become a topic of conversation among Freepers and many other dittohead communities. Some of these listen, and comment, in their forums in real time.

      Then, two to five days later, letters/emails to the editor begin appearing in the mainstream media echoing the same statements.

      An interesting thing about this: i occasionally fact-check Limbaugh's statements, and i have some notion of how frequently he tells outright lies, or furnishes innuendo that is received by his followers as gospel. A depressing number of letters to the editor and other messages conveying Limbaugh's false statements assert to their audiences that they are absolutely true.

      Now consider: Limbaugh is on 600 radio stations, and claims 20 million listeners (probably somewhat exaggerated). If that number is even close -- and if we consider the ripples of his talking points throughout our society -- then i believe one can conclude that this lying, bigoted, woman-hating drug addicted multi-millionaire can, and does have a direct and an indirect impact upon who gets elected, what legislation is passed, and what becomes our national policy.

      Granted, there are competing voices. But i'm not sure any other single person's voice in the nation (including that of the president) has the same level of impact (for better or worse). The president speaks to the country for just minutes per week, on average. Limbaugh spreads his hate speech for 15 to 18 hours every week of the year.

      The meme that we should just turn off what offends us might make sense, if millions of our fellow Americans weren't simultaneously making up their minds based upon what Limbaugh asserts to be true (and often isn't).

      So once again:

      Limpbaugh is Offensive only if you listen to him.
      I consider that not just an utter falsehood, but also a dangerous notion.

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:30:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congratulations!! (0+ / 0-)
        And here's what i've discovered. Within minutes of any provocative statement that Limbaugh makes (even before his show is over), right wing news media and blogs echo and amplify on his statements. This comments become a topic of conversation among Freepers and many other dittohead communities. Some of these listen, and comment, in their forums in real time.

        Then, two to five days later, letters/emails to the editor begin appearing in the mainstream media echoing the same statements.

        Kudos and congrats! You just discovered what I've (and many others) have known for at least 15 years:

        Corporate owned mainstream media is engaged in a coordinated misinformation/propaganda campaign.

        Next lesson:

        Do you know the purpose of this propaganda?

        "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

        by Superpole on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:32:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not a consistent point of view... (0+ / 0-)

          You commented:

          Limpbaugh is Offensive only if you listen to him.
          And then you commented:
          Kudos and congrats! You just discovered what I've (and many others) have known for at least 15 years:
          Corporate owned mainstream media is engaged in a coordinated misinformation/propaganda campaign.
          Strange metamorphosis. Are you a real person?

          Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

          by Richard Myers on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:57:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why would you want this guy off the air? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak

    A few minutes dialed in to Rush will reinforce, to many sane folk, that this demographic does not include the brighter pennies in the bank. His rants actually turn off some sane conservatives, and I'd suspect, quite a few women, conservative or no. And, of course, the program galvanizes those on the left to resist the rhetoric... and to maybe take corrective action.
    He's a gift to the progressives, in that he serves as a bad example of all that's wrong with ultra right thinking. Why shut this down?

  •  Limbaugh reported as fact that Egypt's Muslim (0+ / 0-)
    Limbaugh reported as fact that "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Passes Law Allowing Husbands to Have Sex with Dead Wives Up to Six Hours After Death." The claim has been called a lie by the editors of Foreign Policy, and "Utter Hooey" by the Christian Science Monitor. Yet Limbaugh used it as a simultaneous salacious attack against Muslims, foreigners, and women's rights.
    For what it is worth, I heard a similar story on Mike Malloy's radio program.  The version Mike told said that the bill had been introduced, not passed.  He said that the report came from a usually reliable source.  He decried the morals and the sanity ofg anyone who would introduce such legislation.

    Mike Malloy is hardly Rush Limbaugh.

    •  I've read several of the sources (0+ / 0-)

      I never found any confirmation that a bill of this nature was even introduced. All the sources seem to indicate that such a bill has only been talked about, possibly as an intentional rumor attempting to discredit the Egyptian parliament.

      Given that circumstance, i'm inclined to agree with the editors of Foreign Policy, who consider much of the coverage of this subject to be "lies".

      Follow me on Twitter: @denverunionguy

      by Richard Myers on Sun May 27, 2012 at 12:36:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site