As James Taranto notes in his Best of the Web column in today’s Wall Street Journal, the left is crowing today about putting Rush Limbaugh on the run. As Taranto writes, “The kerfuffle was no fluke but a left-liberal set piece” in which a concerted effort was made by liberal members of Congress to spin the Obama administration’s attack on the Catholic Church as a defense of women’s rights. But liberals aren’t satisfied with just their success in changing the conversation from one about religious freedom to one centered on the mythical attack on the right to contraception by the church and conservative opponents of ObamaCare. The real prize in this controversy is not the way the left has enabled the president to avoid taking responsibility for the way his signature health care bill will subvert liberty but the chance to take down the most popular conservative talk show host for the last 20 years.
The flight of Limbaugh’s advertisers under the storm of pressure orchestrated against the radio personality is significant. Since Limbaugh’s tasteless comments about Sandra Fluke’s testimony in which the Georgetown University Law student complained about the cost of birth control, nine of his sponsors have pulled their ads from his show. Limbaugh’s belated apology to Fluke was not enough to stop the bleeding because some of those who dumped him did so after his attempt to walk back his foolish and vulgar jibes. But by pushing so hard to knock off the king of talk radio, the liberal chorus of outrage may have gone a bit too far.
Most Americans, even those who agreed with Limbaugh about the issue, thought his over-the-top remarks about Fluke being a “slut” because she thought her Jesuit-run law school ought to pay for her birth control costs were way out of line. He’s been publicly spanked for this and rightly so. But the moment the effort to punish him becomes a campaign to destroy him, the nature of the narrative of this issue can change just as quickly as it did last week.
The fact that the outrage over Limbaugh was hypocritical didn’t buy him much slack as he was forced to face the music about his comments. But as soon as this outrage morphed into a crusade to force him off the air, that hypocrisy becomes relevant again. Those who think Limbaugh’s insensitivity to women is such that he ought not to be allowed to broadcast need to be asked why they haven’t signed on to similar efforts to force someone like HBO’s Bill Maher off his well-paid cable perch? He has said far worse about conservative women than Limbaugh’s faux pas.
Of course, the difference here is not that what Limbaugh said was worse, because it wasn’t. It is that he is a conservative who trashes liberals rather than a liberal who trashes conservatives.
In the New York Times Media Decoder feature about Limbaugh’s woes, columnist Brian Stelter points out one of those advertisers who have left his show, Tax Resolution Services, was “put on the map” by their sponsorship of “The Howard Stern Show.” The company’s chief executive Michael Rozbruch says the reason why he bowed to pressure to leave Limbaugh after loyally sticking with a vulgar creature like Stern is due to the increased pressure from “social media.”
It’s true that Facebook and Twitter have given such campaigns a boost, but anyone who thinks political hypocrisy is not at work here is not paying attention. The effort to destroy Limbaugh will fail because the shift from righteous indignation at him to an effort to suppress his voice only serves to remind his huge fan base the reason why Limbaugh and the whole genre of conservative radio had to be created was the liberal monopoly on traditional broadcast outlets. Shutting him down has been a liberal dream for two decades, but his Fluke gaffe won’t serve as an excuse for silencing the movement he has come to exemplify. As Limbaugh promised his listeners today, any advertiser who bolts from his show will be replaced.
Liberals are overplaying their hand on Limbaugh and, as Taranto rightly points out, sooner or later the debate will switch back to the ObamaCare mandate and the way it threatens to dangerously expand government power.
The loss of sponsors is significant and maybe he would have apologized without the 7 or 8 that pulled their support, but I'm thinking probably not. And the apology, while commendable, can't really change his going after her person as Sullivan went after Palin's. n nSullivan survived because he's not as big as Rush and no one expected something superior from him to begin with. n nIt's a crash I'm not sure he'll survive, but I hope he does. I don't listen to him anymore, but I don't hate him either. n nHe may have 20,000,000 listeners, but we're a much larger nation than that. And if he doesn't get some of those sponsors back, it seems to me that he becomes a general of 20M surveying nothing but an expanse of salted fields.
He had to admit he became what he hated because there was no escaping it. The first sign that he was capable of a terrible ugliness was when he picked on Chelsea Clinton, then a young lady. What would possess a person to do that? n nBut, you know, his audience, by and large, is a decent audience. One of his regular listeners called in after the comment on Chelsea's looks and said, "hey fatso!" He was taken aback by the comment but let her make her point and even seemed chastened. n nHe's been through a lot too. I do wish him well.
Lastly and repetitively, I don't think the individual American is going to supply religious authorities outraged with an assault on their liberty the weapon for her own categorical beat-down. n nThat's not going to happen. Depend on it!
She did what she did TO GET THE KIND of Attention she got. It may have been smarter to NOT give it to her, but nonetheless, she deserved no less, and even more considering what she is up to. nRush is getting lazy at his job for not thinking it through. nI think it is because he is too happy to be as alert for trouble. This new wife of his has him feeling a bit too contended and off guard. Not as alert.
We have experienced the Double Standard before.
I've been listening to Rush forever and heard all the remarks live and at the time it didn't raise an eyebrow because I knew he was being satirical. When I saw the reaction I was annoyed at Rush for putting us in this spot. Now my annoyance is with whom it should be rightly placed. I for one will be placing an order for Two If By Tea. I heard it's good.
I have listened to him too and satire is satire. Everyone is either too stupid to have got it or too lazy to re-listen. Sick of the averagicity of the world today.
I cannot believe this is soooooo offensive to people. does nobody understand satire or metaphor? Rush was making a point, not insulting anyone. you may disagree with him, but come on… n nI think GB Shaw once made a similar point, which is now a bon mot. maybe in 100 years Rush's completely appropriate dissing of the pretentious Ms. Fluke will be one too. n nseriously… I don't know why this law student is suddenly the poster child for women's rights. she's self-righteous and self-important. frankly, I'm glad she's not on our side.
You are a slut and a whore. Oops, just a bit a satire, there.
As long as Rush has millions and millions of listeners, he will be on the radio. I bet that virtually all of his listeners will continue to tune into his program. He may have to lower the price of his commercials and his syndicator will squeeze him for lowering hs price, but he will lcontinue.
Ms Fluke is just another pawn to to advance the Democrat party–to where I suspect over the edge of a cliff if this non-sense continues.
Hang in there, Rush. Help is on the way. VOTE all dem commies OUT of office. ABO 2012.
Rush's toadies are in denial. In addition to his calling the young lady names, he also demanded she make sex videos for him to watch. That ain't satire, my friends. That ain't makin' a point. That's creepy and vile. And Limbaugh stoops to this level with alarming regularity. Normally he is clever enought to build in some 'plausible deniability'. But in this case, he went beyond the pale. If you do what you decry you are a hypocrite. And that label sticks to him now.
nDid you ever condemn Bill Mahar?
bjr118…progressives like Ulbrich above have no clue. None. It is impossible for them to see, hear or understand truth, reason, satire. Oh well…we have lived for nearly 100 years with this repressive group of nincompops…we can and will continue!!!!
Fluke it. Let's move on.
Wonder what manufactured nonsense the left will think up next.
I just wanted to point out that Rush is on AM radio and any kid can stumble on him saying these things where Maher is on HBO, a subscription service that is PAID for by a limited audience. Howard Stern was kicked off of the public airwaves and is now ONLY available on a PAID subscription service. It seems the best thing to do for our children is to make sure that adult content is kept to adult stations, put Rush on a PAID channel. Then nobody would be able to complain about his vulgar language.
I believe the point in bringing in Maher's "c-word" and other lefty's comments is not that Rush's program is free and theirs is paid, but the double standard that comes with what a righty says and what a lefty says. n nRighties get slammed; lefties get a pass, i.e., Rush is the talk for the weekend and beyond; Ed Schultz called Laura Ingram a slut and it's not a big deal. Ask Michelle Malkin what consequences have been suffered by those who have gone after her. Much worse than whatever Rush said…and without a shred of satire attached to it. n nAnd your kids listen to Rush? How old?
Yes, with all the ipads, iphones, Play Stations and Guitar Hero consoles around, not to mention the internet with porn a few clicks away, we have to worry about kids stumbling upon AM radios which just happened to be tuned into Rush Limbaugh who is usually on the when they are in school.
Excuse me, what about our tv shows, movies and rap???
Ms Fluke advocates "gender-reassignment" surgery on demand; Liberal craziness run amok. Way back in my past I used to think I was Napolean Bonaparte. Then a psychiatrist helped me to heal. But damn! According to Ms. Fluke maybe I really am Napolean Bonaparte! (laughter)
Miss Fluke thinks it is terrible that a woman would have to spend $1000.00 a year in order to avoid becoming pregnant. She seems to be ignorant of the fact that it costs nothing to say,"No." She deserves the attacks on her by Rush Limbaugh.
As you must know, this is not about money. It's about religion.
Did you hear the Fluke woman offer a barrage of lies before the Harpies on the "View" and to their hysterical audience. She stated that the birth control pills involved were being denied to women with various pathologies that required them for actually surviving. Georgetown's medical plans DO offer such prescriptions when medically warranted, as do all Catholic medical institutions. Ms Fluke did not use these pills for medical purposes, but for recreational sex. The cost with generic pills in the Washington area is about $9.00 per month. My physician prescribed running as a health improvement exercise, but my insurance will not pay for my running shoes. Why should they pay for recreational sex?
". . . she thought her Jesuit-run law school ought to pay for her birth control costs . . . " n n A total misstatement of the facts. The insurance company will pay, not the school.
Who pays the premiums for the insurance, the school. Please, get serious!!
The federal government pays the premiums. And no, taxes do not pay for federal spending. The government creates dollars ad hoc, by spending. n nLearn Monetary Sovereignty. n nI am serious.
Rodger, the "government" is us first and foremost….the only "money" or "dollars" are either gotten via the imposition of taxes in one form or another. Second, if the "government creates n dollars…it is because they print those dollars out of paper…but, in the end, we the people have to pay for any thing the government does. To believe otherwise is naive in the biggest way imaginable. If, we the people, refused to hand over one cent for ten years, the "government" would (if they didn't take all from us) or could print money, but it would be worthless…much as has been happening in the EU. n "To be sovereign, a government must have the ability to control the amount of money in existence at no cost and must owe its obligations in that currency. A country can still be monetarily sovereign if it chooses to adhere to certain kinds of domestic rules, for example a Debt Ceiling. " ht wikki But, again, where does the ability to even choose what currency to use come from? The people paying in in taxes
Mr Limbaugh made a terrible series of blunders. Not once. Many times. Over a period of days. Unable to admit error, he magnified it through repetition and exaggeration. n nThis was not "a gaffe", Mr Tobin. It was a cascade of multiple mistakes, compounded by hubris. n nThe greater problem is this: the issue has been revised. It has now become an issue of Mr Limbaugh's vile language. No decent conservative can possibly support such public discourse. It is offensive and disgusting. n nRush made himself look like a voyeur and a pervert by insisting that Ms Fluke "post the video so we can watch it". What sort of mentality is this? n nSome people are rightly attacked for watching porn. n nMr Limbaugh begged that such a video be posted "so we can watch it". There is no humor in this. It is the spectacle of an old man wanting to leer at a young woman. n nDecent conservatives will repudiate such behavior. I trust Mr Limbaugh will get the message. He cannot repeat these multiple "gaffes". Many, many people are revolted by his weird obsession. He owes his listeners another apology, too.
That's being a bit precious. "Post the video so we can watch it" is taken out of context, to wit: "so the taxpayers can at least get their money's worth". Obviously this was meant to be over-the-top.
Can we ask the uberprogressives like Maher, Robt Kennedy, Schumer or Wasserman-Schultz to adhere to that also? Or is it just the middle and right side of the equation?
We liberals love Limbaugh. He is vulgar, boorish, malicious, rude and arrogant. He gets away with it, but the unintended consequence is the people who listen to him all day long take on his affectations. When they go to work or out in public they bring Rush with them.When I am at a restaurant with my family in our rather conservative city. I am guaranteed good service if there are ditto heads sitting around me, because the server will ignore them and their rude arrogance and pamper my family. It is like that more and more every where. The fear parents once had that their children would act like the rappers they listen to is now the fear the children have about their idiot parents acting dumber and dumber because they listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Yeah, he's a lot like your hero Obama, right?
I was kidding about being a liberal. I was not kidding about the rest. Conservatives used to have class. We are a dying breed and we are dying out fast. Limbaugh did not help us near as much as he hurts our cause.
In actual fact, jack, he behaves like all uber-progressives, extreme leftwingers, Democrats and you…there are no longer any moderates there so we are left with hatemongers from the left of the worst sort! We are used to it n
Gee, just like the majority of extreme leftwing bloggers, actors, actresses, directors, producers, union leaders and their thuggish followers, priests and reverends preaching politics in their houses of worship", every newspaper, magazine and television station (except FoxNews) and yes that includes all the PBS gov't supported channels. But, you won't talk about the congresspeople and senators who use the same identical language, will you? Talk to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Schumer, Pelosi or Reid…then talk to me..
Sheriff Joe has dug up all these felonies committed by Obama and the media are angry with Joe.
Here's a big talk show bully abusing a poor co-ed. THAT'S what the public sees — the harshness not the accuracy of words that describe someone who wants money for sex, which can reasonably be construed as what she was doing.
Not just money to have sex, but money to have lots and lots of sex for her and her classmates…when do they find the time to study? Oh, oh…forgot, they'll get their degrees whether they know anything or not.
Ah, but didn't you know? Sex is part of the "learning experience" at our fine institutions of higher education. n nYou're right, they'll get their degrees because handing out diplomas is what colleges are supposed to do these days. Teaching is just a formality. And of course all those group studies courses — Gay Studies, Chicano Studies, Native American Studies, Women's Studies, African American (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) Studies, etc. — will gird graduates with the victimhood excuse if things don't work out.
One question: if you create nothing out of nothing..it is nothing….that we agree, as citizens, to accept this notion, then why do we need to pay taxes at all.? I understand about pluses and minuses but 0 out of 0 equals 0 no matter how you play that game.