Skip to main content

As the author of a book attacking Rush Limbaugh, I know how vile and stupid his ideas are. But I also believe that the effort of many on the left to silence Rush Limbaugh is deeply misguided, contrary to progressive principles, and doomed to failure.

In reposting the latest essay of StopRush's Richard Myers, Kos writes on the front page: “It's amazing that Rush may be undone by the very same vulture capitalistic system that he's been defending.” That would be amazing. So amazing that it's not going to happen. Here's what Myers is claiming: Bain Capital is sucking money out of Clear Channel, which will go bankrupt. Myers concludes, “what irony that the very cutthroat capitalism Rush Limbaugh so strenuously champions may pound the last few nails into the coffin of conservative talk radio.”

This is all complete nonsense, and fails to understand how capitalism works. Even if Bain Capital did suck the life out of Clear Channel and cause it to go bankrupt, the effect on conservative talk radio would be negligible. Radio stations don't disappear or shift format just because a parent corporation goes backrupt. Rush Limbaugh doesn't depend on Clear Channel stations for most of his listeners; Clear Channel owns his syndicator, but that doesn't mean much at all. Rush Limbaugh succeeds because he has massive numbers of loyal listeners, not because some evil corporation allegedly on the verge of bankruptcy is forcing his voice upon an unsuspecting public.

Myers argues, “Rush Limbaugh is extremely useful to the conservative cause, and is likely to survive (even while bleeding advertisers) through the next election, and possibly for many months beyond.” Months? Try, for as long as he wants to stay on the air and make boatloads of money.

There's certainly an argument to be made for organizing a boycott of Limbaugh and his advertisers. No  one on the left who said such offensive things could ever hope to get prominent advertisers on a radio show. And there's no doubt that the boycott against Limbaugh has hurt him and cost his syndicator and stations millions of dollars. When Limbaugh's contract is renewed, the boycott will probably cost him millions, too. But for a man who makes $55 million a year (with the corporations making even more), losing a few million dollars isn't going to drive him off the air.

But is the boycott against Limbaugh a good thing? First, it violates progressive ideas about freedom of speech. Yes, boycotts are perfectly legal and nobody is violating Rush's First Amendment rights with a boycott. But using economic threats to drive an offensive person off the airwaves is wrong. And, no, calling them the “public airwaves” doesn't make censorship any more palatable. When conservatives use boycotts to silence progressives, it's wrong on principle, not just because the other side is winning.

Second, Rush Limbaugh is the perfect anchor to wrap around the neck of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. If radio stations replace Rush with some less prominent right-winger (as is almost certain to happen if the boycotts succeed), the result will not be a more enlightened, educated world. Instead, progressives will simply lose an easy target for criticism. When Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” it did more to undermine the Republican Party and draw attention to the war on women than anything progressives have ever organized. If we didn't have Limbaugh around to say incredibly stupid things, how would we expose the real conservative agenda?

So what should progressives do in response to Rush Limbaugh? Criticize his ideas, and push his supporters to debate those beliefs. And ask questions of Republican officials who are scared to offend Limbaugh and his fans. Ask them if they agree with Limbaugh when he hoped for President Obama to fail and dreamed of economic disaster in America. Ask them if they agree with Limbaugh's conspiracy theories and bigoted remarks.

The problem with today's conservative movement is not that Rush Limbaugh has the freedom to speak out to a wide audience. The problem is that his ideas are taken seriously and rarely criticized. We need Rush to be critiqued, not silenced.

None of this is easy. It's far easier to imagine that Limbaugh doesn't really have a lot of listeners, to imagine that the loss of a few advertisers will bring him down, to imagine that his vast presence on radio is just the evil plot of right-wing corporations who will soon be destroyed by enormous greed. None of that is true, and wishing it were so won't make this fantasy come true.

Rush Limbaugh is not on a “downward spiral” to obscurity. He's not going to disappear because of any boycott, no matter how well organized. And when the Stop Rush movement inevitably falls short of its fantasy, and Rush continues spewing his hatred and misinformation on a daily basis, what will we have accomplished?

We need to use Rush Limbaugh as a symbol of the American conservative movement's destructive embrace of bigotry, anti-intellectualism, and irrationality.

Crossposted at limbaughbook.

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

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (www.limbaughbook.com).

    by JohnKWilson on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Well done (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glinda, belzaboo, Don midwest, exlrrp

    I am glad someone, you, have taken the time to offer a different perspective than the Richard Myers diary.

    You appear to have a better understanading of how the radio business actually works.

  •  False equivalency police are rushing to (0+ / 0-)

    the barricades even as we....oh, please excuse the "rushing"...

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:58:51 PM PDT

  •  if part of the arg is that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    matador

    there is no getting rid of limbaugh, or types like limbaugh, no, no contest.

    fact is that the rich oligarchy will keep him there.

    he'll just keep being the fat, ugly fucktard propping the other ugly, fatter, richer fucktards up over him. and all the ugly, fat, stupid fucktards like him, after him.

    and there will be fat, ugly fucktards that listen to him and believe him.

    all we can do is keep trying to reduce that amount as much as possible. manage them, and marginalize them.

    this is the very same fucking technique they've done with the left all these years. so, fair trade. do it to them.

    it's not illegal, it's not even inhumane.

    just manage them, enough that you can marginalize them.

    it is what they have done to the votes of women, of blacks, of hispanics, of gays, of asians, fuck everyone BUT FUCKING WHITE MEN FOR ALL THESE YEARS.

    manage them. then marginalize them.

    MILITARY MANU/NO-CHECKS ARMS SALES =ARE= AMERICAN JOBS! WHAT'S LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUPS ON THE HILL, THEIR PAID EMPLOYEES ON THE RADIO! OUR TAXES; THEIR MILITARY? NO EDUCATION? BEWARE ROMNEY PAID-TO-CLAP CROWDS! THEY WILL SCREW US ALL!

    by theChild on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:23:11 PM PDT

    •  AD MONEY (0+ / 0-)

      If advertisers dry up, then money has to come from somewhere else to "prop him up".  I'm fine with that money coming out of RWNJ pockets.

      •  it's endless folly to "re-suck" money from the bad (0+ / 0-)

        who first sucked that money from the good in the first place. it's a delaying tactic that will be deadly in our future "drought age."

        welcome to "blade runner" weather, folks. ha-ha, ho-ho... isn't it fun? watching once fertile farmlands turn into desert, within one's lifetime.

        have fun, future folks. have lots of fun relocating, adjusting to these "little changes" that only affect "little people."

        MILITARY MANU/NO-CHECKS ARMS SALES =ARE= AMERICAN JOBS! WHAT'S LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUPS ON THE HILL, THEIR PAID EMPLOYEES ON THE RADIO! OUR TAXES; THEIR MILITARY? NO EDUCATION? BEWARE ROMNEY PAID-TO-CLAP CROWDS! THEY WILL SCREW US ALL!

        by theChild on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:39:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Brilliant! (4+ / 0-)

    Perfectly stated and too true!

    Sadly this diary may bring on the locusts who love the romance of tilting at windmill

    "Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry."

    by Glinda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:25:38 PM PDT

  •  Rush Hates To Be Mocked...... (3+ / 0-)

    He just got mocked big time when he came out w/ his ridiculous comparison of Bain (Capital) w/ Bain the villain in The Dark Knight.  It was right before the shootings in Aurora, Colorado.  Bad timing, wouldn't you say?

    Rush tried to convince the rubes who listen to him that this was another conspiracy by the lefties to hurt Mitt Romney.
    Limbaugh was mocked for good measure.  He forgot to check that the comic book version of Bain was created over 20 years ago.  Rush came off looking sheepish & stupid.  

    Come on......this was a plot to hurt Mitt Romeny 20 years in the making?

    First Sandra Fluke now Bain/Bane has taken another little piece of Limbaugh's ample hide.  

  •  Boycott can put Limbaugh where he belongs (10+ / 0-)

    into a niche market. I don't expect to get him off the air, but he shouldn't be so ubiquitous being broadcast almost everywhere in the country.

    "We don't need someone who can think. We need someone with enough digits to hold a pen." ~ Grover Norquist

    by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:16:37 AM PDT

  •  Now that's an interesting diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Occam was an optimist

    You certainly make map questing your destination more appealing than roving in your car.

  •  boycott = censorship ? (5+ / 0-)

    "And, no, calling them the “public airwaves” doesn't make censorship any more palatable."

    A boycott is censorship?  Really? I boycott Rush's advertisers, I think of it more as exercising my right to free speech and free association.

    He's perfectly free to keep on talking, as he no doubt will.  That I tell the companies who buy Limbaugh's product,  is actually a favor to them.  I still won't buy Hot Pockets, even though the brand changed hands, because the initial incarnation was an early and heavy sponsor of Limbaugh.

    And if I join with like minded individuals to try to punish the asshole for his incessant over-the-top assholishness?  That's my, and their goddamn business, and it's certainly NOT censorship.

    And a boycott "violates progressive ideas about freedom of speech."?!!  I'm no expert,  don't consider myself a progressive (more of an old fashioned liberal Democrat) but I'm pretty certain that the very concept of "progressive" includes a whole lot of direct action... and one of the earliest tools and bestest tools in the progressive toolbox was a boycott. (i.e. see the story of the origin of the term, and more recently, The Montgomery Bus Boycott)

    I'll await correction on any and all of the above, if you care to offer it.

    /rant

    •  Yes, a Boycott = Censorship... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest

      ...when its aim is to silence a particular speaker. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (and similar tactics such as those directed at South Africa) were aimed at fixing a direct injustice where people were treated unequally. MLK, as far as I know, never demanded that bigots be silenced in any of his boycotts.

      Of course, you are perfectly free to exercise your free speech and engage in boycotts. But some exercises of free speech are unquestionably aimed at censoring views you dislike, and calling them "assholishness" (however accurately) doesn't change the fundamental goal of censorship.

      The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (www.limbaughbook.com).

      by JohnKWilson on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:55:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (5+ / 0-)

        I won't support certain kinds of speech, even indirectly and I can choose where to spend my money.  I won't give money to racist organizations either.  That's not censorship.

      •  We'll have to agree to disagree on that, meanwhile (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TBTM Julie, G Jones

        speaking of censorship and attempts to intimidate:

        Consider that Limbaugh used his NATIONAL PLATFORM to humiliate Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut among other vile implications, because she spoke out.

        Limbaugh's intentions were not solely directed at Fluke, his goal was to intimidate ANY woman who would speak out as she did, and to encourage his listeners to do the same.

        Your efforts on behalf of Rush's free speech rights are touching, but sadly misplaced.

        Even IF you are right (and to be clear, you are not, your position is indefensible) squelching Rush's right to free speech is the LEAST thing that should happen to him over his attempt to bully and intimidate what amounts to a private person speaking her mind in a public forum.

      •  No it isn't. Period. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G Jones

        The Rush Limbaugh Show is an entertainment product.

        It is not free speech. It is a thing that makes money for people and corporations.

        By this logic, we need to bring back every TV and radio show that got canceled because we're denying free speech.

        Rush Limbaugh's view will be out there - getting Glenn Beck off FOX didn't stop him. He made his own subscription service, which Limbaugh certainly could (and should) do.

        We don't allow obscene content on our broadcast networks. Why should we tolerate foul language that is hateful towards individuals and even promotes violence?

  •  I'm not sure what form of progressivism (0+ / 0-)

    you subscribe to, but most progressives I know do not believe the First Amendment means all speech, regardless of content, should be heard far and wide.  Nothing would make me or other progressives happier than for all dissenting voices to be squelched via any method besides direct coercion.      

    •  That's absurd. I doubt your claim to the title (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluedust

      "progressive."

      •  Clarification of my comment above (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluedust

        Perhaps a bit too harsh, and maybe I missed the nuance, sorry.  But what I mean to say is that I doubt  many deep thinking progressives would agree with the statement or even want "all dissenting voices to be squelched via any method besides direct coercion."

        Most progressives I know consider themselves to be dissenting voices.

    •  First ammendment supports free speech (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena

      Who decides what speech needs to be squelched?

      Look at the history of going after scapegoats. The current scapegoats are muslims.

      Right on the dock are OWS demonstrators. Their right to freely assemble in public places is under attack.

      The goal is to win in the market place of ideas and reason

      What can the Democrats do to bring back reason in the country?

      This is a very serious issue. Al Gore wrote a book "The Assault on Reason."

  •  Boycotts do not quash free speech. (15+ / 0-)

    Boycotts are free speech.

    Rush Limbaugh advocates policies that infringe on my rights as a human being, and, particularly, as a woman.  

    On an individual level, my opinions and his opinions are of equal value.  But his opinions are not broadcast on equal footing -- his opinions have boosted wattage because other parties contribute to turning up his volume. In short, it's not a system of one man, one opinion, one vote.  It's one man's opinions being promoted by monied interests.  That's not "free speech," it's paid publication.  Because you better believe that if he started claiming socialism was the greatest good, the money pyramid would crumble and he'd be down there on the street, drowned out... just like me.  So let's not pretend that talk show hosts are expressing "free speech."  

    In fact, that's why "equal time" used to be so important -- it promoted free speech by making sure that money didn't buy all the opinions on broadcast networks.

    So if I decide I don't want to contribute to paying Limbaugh for what he does, that's a reasonable option.  And if I want to organize a lot of other people into boycotting companies that pay Limbaugh to do what he does, that's reasonable as well.  We're telling companies that we won't support them if they persist in promoting views that contribute to our oppression.

    Of course it's a tactic that can cut both ways, but so can any effective organizing tactic.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't organize.

    Your big mistake is in framing this as a "free speech" issue for Rush, because it simply isn't.  Instead, it's a free speech issue for the boycotters, who aren't getting paid to express their views.

    "If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy Collins

    by hepshiba on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:18:21 AM PDT

    •  Agree: It's a b.s. argument the diarist is making. (7+ / 0-)

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:30:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Free Speech and the System (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, joe shikspack

      This is a strong argument for boycotts, one of the strongest I've come across. Here's why I think it's wrong. Yes, boycotts are free speech protected by the First Amendment, no doubt about that. But not every boycott is morally right or promotes free speech.

      Yes, Rush advocates policies that violate your rights. But taken to an extreme, wouldn't that justify anybody silencing anybody else they think advocates policies that violate their own rights? Surely we should be defending the right of people to speak, even when it includes supporting policies that might harm our rights.

      Yes, Rush is part of a system of corporate speech biased against progressives. But progressives will always be at a disadvantage when ideas are bought and sold, and advertisers (and listerners) effectively boycott progressive hosts. That doesn't mean supporting boycotts will change that system. It won't. It will only render progressive arguments against conservative boycotts meaningless. Instead, progressives need to develop a progressive alternative to the corporate media.

      Whether you regard this as a free speech issue for Rush or not, that's inevitably how it gets framed--that you're trying to silence Rush. And that breeds sympathy for Rush. Progressives are more likely to win when we're on the side of promoting free speech, not seeking to silence it.

      On a side note, when you say "equal time," I think you're referring to its close cousin, the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine never really accomplished anything, and it's a terrible idea for progressives to hope that government regulation of content on radio and TV would ever be used to promote progressive values.

      The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (www.limbaughbook.com).

      by JohnKWilson on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:08:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Loss of the Fairness Doctrine gave you Rush... (5+ / 0-)

        and Fox News and the entire Right Wing noise machine that drowns out debate and argument.

        You're concern for Rush's free speech rights - while touching - is also naive.

        Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

        by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:27:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We do have some progressive alternatives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hepshiba

        to Corporate Media. Pacifica Radio jumps to mind, for one.

        Wonder why advertisers don't jump to support those voices. Must be they feel they don't want to be appear to be sympathetic to the left? Or are they applying censorship? I wonder why Exxon supports NPR. Oh wait.

        I do agree that progressives need to be proactive.  It seems that a lot of noise goes into reacting to issues rather than framing them and deciding the agenda.  Of course it doesn't seem fair that so much money is on the other side; nevertheless,  we would benefit from something that parallels Christian Life Networks (did I get name right?) to counter the blatant lies.

      •  We disagree (0+ / 0-)

        on several vital points.

        Nobody is stripping Rush of his "right" to speak.  Being a right wing radio jock is a privilege, not a right. When we boycott Rush's sponsors, we're not "silencing" Rush (that's pretty loaded language, and it makes me suspicious of your motives). We're just taking away the megaphone that was on loan from the people who pay his salary. If the boycott were successful he'd be "reduced" to the same free speech rights as any private citizen, poor guy.

        Your second argument ("sauce for the gander") doesn't hold water either. I, personally, don't make arguments (progressive or otherwise) against alleged conservative boycotts.  This is because conservatives don't need to "boycott" progressive hosts -- they simply refuse to pay for them. There is less money out there funding progressive media than conservative media (mainstream media is conservative media, for the most part) and a progressive boycott of Rush's sponsors isn't going to affect that situation one bit.  The conservatives can't give progressive media less money than $0.

        If you want to buy the conservative frame and run around doing the right wing's work by accusing progressives of (seeming to?) "silence" Rush, that's your decision.  But, frankly, I don't think it's a smart one.  It's sort of like the Red Queen stabbing herself in advance of injury -- it's more damaging when the wound is self-inflicted, and it's quite possibly not even necessary. The right gains points every single time you frame this as a free speech issue for Rush. Period.

        And of course the Fairness Doctrine accomplished something.  If it hadn't, the right wouldn't have been so rabid about stripping it away.

        The fact we need a progressive alternative to corporate media is a totally separate issue.

        "If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy Collins

        by hepshiba on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:34:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Free Speech is a Limit on the Government (2+ / 0-)

      Many people make the mistake of raising the free speech argument when private individuals are trying to stop certain speech. But the First Amendment is only in play when it's the government trying to quash speech.

      With that said, I want Limbaugh off the air too but, realistically, it will only happen when he decides to retire or when his show is no longer profitable--whichever comes first. For years I've been reading pronouncements that Limbaugh "is spiraling downward" or "is about to implode," or words to that effect. It hasn't happened yet.

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:19:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ACLU works for free speech (0+ / 0-)

    They take cases for Nazi actions. We don't agree with them, but the first amendment says they have a right to free speech.

  •  Need Right Wing to Implode (3+ / 0-)

    Rush is a blathering idiot

    But what about his listeners?

    "The Conservative Brain" describes that the more that people know about the talking points, the less resistant they are to hearing anything against their talking points.

    In other words, they have internalized this stuff as part of their identity.

    Need to make the case of OWS about the 1% vs. 99%. Make it strongly.

    •  rush is a blithering idiot, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G Jones

      he is either instinctively or intellectually cunning.

      the reason for limbaugh's success is that he creates comfortable fictions for his listeners.  he knows his listeners, the way they think and their prejudices very well and he programs for them (or one could say that they allow him to program them).

      while i think that a boycott of limbaugh and his sponsors is just fine, in the sense that turnabout is fair play, the way to diminish his influence on society is to build a better mousetrap, so to speak.  we live with his audience, we know the way they are, we know their ideological weaknesses and their fears.  it's up to us to create better propaganda for them than rush does, to persuade them that our point of view is the correct one.

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:50:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. It's called marketing. No mystery how it (0+ / 0-)

      works.

  •  i'm not 100%, but... (4+ / 0-)
    This is all complete nonsense, and fails to understand how capitalism works..... Rush Limbaugh succeeds because he has massive numbers of loyal listeners, not because some evil corporation allegedly on the verge of bankruptcy is forcing his voice upon an unsuspecting public.
    i'm pretty sure rush doesn't have 'massive numbers of loyal listeners'....which is probably one of the reasons he's still losing sponsors....which is exactly how capitalism works....

    "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say"~Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by 73rd virgin on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:23:16 AM PDT

    •  And many of the ones he has are just like him. (2+ / 0-)

      Old, unhealthy and dying.

      Sure, radio's full of wingnut owners and you'll always get somebody to sponsor Rush.

      But it's a war of attrition, and time is no longer on his side.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:25:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rush's Listeners (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, 73rd virgin

      One of the progressive delusions in this argument against Rush (made by Cenk Uygur and others) is the belief that he really doesn't have many listeners. Let me assure you that Rush has a lot of listeners. If you take the Chicago-area listeners to Rush and extrapolate them nationwide, Rush would have 4 million unique daily listeners and almost 9 million unique weekly listeners. If you think Rush is much more popular in rural America than in a major liberal urban area (which he is), you could almost double that. If you don't think those are massive numbers, let me assure that they are. And losing a few sponsors has absolutely nothing to do with the number of his listeners.

      The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (www.limbaughbook.com).

      by JohnKWilson on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:18:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That won't work. (3+ / 0-)
    Criticize his ideas, and push his supporters to debate those beliefs.
    Ever "debate" with a ditto head?

    Rush just provides a useful sideshow to help conservatives push the Overton window as far right as possible.

    Fight battles on the margins and you lose the war.

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:23:16 AM PDT

  •  You abandon all strategy to focus on tactics, (5+ / 0-)

    which is a common mistake. I have to take exception to this:

    But is the boycott against Limbaugh a good thing? First, it violates progressive ideas about freedom of speech.
    No, it shows that actions have consequences, and if someone wants to advertise with Rush Limbaugh, giving tacit support to his hate-fueled rages, then we can choose to shop somewhere else. As Progressives, we're allowed to disagree and take our money elsewhere like anyone else. If I found out that a store I liked to shop at donated money to a cause I found reprehensible, I'd quit shopping there.

    Limbaugh or his supporting corporations have a right to free speech, sure; but free speech also means I have the right to say "I'm not participating in your game" especially when there are options. That is why there are options (competition) in capitalism, so you can make your market choices based on whatever criteria you feel best meets your need.

    Not all of us have the time to patiently sit down with a long line of Dittoheads and engage them in debate. I live in Idaho-- basically, I'd have an endless uphill battle having to re-engage thousands of people on a weekly basis in refuting lies. Sorry, I have better things to do with my time than have to explain the blindingly obvious to a pack of halfwits who think Rush's garbage is Gospel.

  •  ah (3+ / 0-)

    Would removing Rush from AFR be a violation of free speech? Is boycotting Chick-ful-up because of the hateful spew of it's owner violating his free speech?

    Rush felt he was immune from...well anything... our actions have demonstrated he is not immune..there can be repercussions from his words...just as there are repercussions for ours...

    The past 6 months(has it only been 6 months?) Has shown that there is a right to spew..but it should not be paid $50 million a year.

    Every goddamn day I think about Bradley Manning!

  •  I agree partly. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, Paulie200

    Rush will be around as long as he has an audience, and I see no sign of that audience disappearing. I looked at the other diary as similar to all the ones I've read here over the years telling us the Republican party was dead after some small defeat or other.
    However I do disagree with you opinion about the boycott. I have little hope it will be effective, but I see it as nothing more than progressives expressing their own free speech in asking like minded folks to join with them in not supporting his empire.

  •  Participating in a boycott of a radio host (6+ / 0-)

    is no different that boycotting Knott's Berry Farms or Coors or Koch.  It is an attempt to materially damage those who would harm us.  And it is nonsensical to say it is having no impact.  Limbaugh was driven off of mainstream radio in Philadelphia, and is now relegated, along with Hannity, to a weak-signalled former church radio station.  This was a direct consequence of concerted protest to mainstream radio management and Limbaugh's advertisers.

    Dr. Laura Schlesinger went from the 2nd ranking talk-show personality to completely off mainstream radio.  Again, that was the result of organized and vociferous reaction to her hate speech.

    I think you're too close to the issue.  Limbaugh has been a  primary focus for you.  But his power is waning.  Over time, he will become increasingly marginalized.  I have friends who were "Dot-heads" who now are embarrassed by having been deluded by his lies.  And a boycott is nothing more than a match struck to the gasoline he has been pouring on himself for years.

    Ancora Impara--Michelangelo

    by aravir on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:30:17 AM PDT

  •  Diarist would have us believe that reason ALONE... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lilith, G Jones

    ...ended Apartheid in South Africa.

  •  Diarist fails to recognize that many advertisers.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G Jones

    ... were UNAWARE that their products were being advertised during Rush's program.

    The diarist fails to recognize that the Rush boycott project has value in the capitalist system by exposing the deceptive marketing practices that have enabled Rush's owners to bait/switch vendors who buy advertising time.

  •  Who will buy the book? (0+ / 0-)

    When Rush is no longer "the most dangerous man" in America?

  •  We don't need to silence him, we need to RIDICULE (2+ / 0-)

    him, his BS, and his listeners

    "Kenyan-Muslim-Communistic-Expialidocious!"

    by chmood on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:55:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm not trying to stop RL because I disagree w/him (0+ / 0-)

    I vigorously support all points of view on the public airwaves. Every democracy must allow all views to be heard.

    If you listen to RL, you know his show sometimes has guest hosts. I enjoy the guest hosts because, though conservative, their views are of interest to me. I like hearing their arguments. I'm not opposed to them.

    What I'm opposed to is RL's habit of using dehumanizing language - ad hominem attacks - against the people he disagrees with. He doesn't offer a conservative point of view, he just calls people names.

    It is this, and only this, that has made me a soldier in the war to get him off the public airwaves.

  •  The problem with this post (0+ / 0-)

    "But using economic threats to drive an offensive person off the airwaves is wrong."

    Only when progressives do it, right? Because #stoprush is a modified version of the same right wing organizing tactics used against Howard Stern for decades. Once again, the "progressive" thing to do is tie one hand behind our backs and suck our thumbs. No thanks!

    And we're not driving anyone off the airwaves. Rush Limbaugh made himself toxic to any brand that will have him. He has no "right" to corporate sponsorship, either, whereas I do have the right to contact anyone who advertises on his show. Rush is free to bloviate for another century on whatever airwaves will have him -- just like Howard Stern.

    Rush is also not as popular as this post would have you believe. His media listener is a 55+ y.o. white male, his Arbitron ratings are transparently inflated, and he has to astroturf social media support. We have shaken the foundations of hate radio -- and we will not stop, ever.

    http://www.osborneink.com

    by Matt Osborne on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:32:24 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site