ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Celebrities

Rush Limbaugh: The Man You Love to Hate

Updated on January 13, 2017
Marcy Goodfleisch profile image

Marcy writes about American life, holidays, politics and other topics. She has written hundreds of articles for online & print publications.

Limbaugh infuriates viewers and the public

That comment was more than just blowing smoke, Rush
That comment was more than just blowing smoke, Rush
Sandra Fluke finally got to have her say, after Limbaugh's scathing remarks.
Sandra Fluke finally got to have her say, after Limbaugh's scathing remarks.

Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke

Boycott Rush Limbaugh? Yes, many people called for that action after his stunningly sexist (and self-described 'humorous') attacks on Sandra Fluke?

Why should we do that, when it implies that he should remain on the air?

Some audiences feel w should do far more than boycott this purveyor of outdated, vitriolic venom. When Limbaugh attacked young Ms. Fluke, they launched a campaign to insist he be dropped from every station and network line-up in the country. Switching channels when his show comes on is not enough. Get him off the air completely.

For those who have been asleep or out of the country in few years, the fury over Ms. Fluke occurred when Limbaugh launched a vulgar, on-air attack against the young woman, who had sought to testify before Congress in a hearing about religious freedom, health insurance and contraception.

Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, hoped to testify at a Congressional hearing in support of including contraception in health plans, but the chair of the all-male panel, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California, originally denied her request, saying the hearing was about religious freedom rather than contraception. The hearing was held to discuss President Obama’s mandate that employers in settings that have religious affiliations must offer birth control coverage in their employee health plans.

The entire context of the controversy surrounding Sandra Fluke’s testimony (which was finally given in an unofficially convened hearing, scheduled only after a national outcry) underscores the fact that women have yet to gain equality, or even dignity, in certain settings. It also points to the fact that much of what happens to women and their bodies is still controlled by men.

But enough of that, for the moment, let’s get back to Rush and his annoying mouth.

What Limbaugh Said: The remarks that caused an outrage are, indeed, outrageous. Limbaugh twisted Sandra Fluke’s support of insurance coverage for birth control into a claim that she wanted to be ‘paid to have sex.’

In case any listeners missed his point, Limbaugh clarified it for the audience by saying her request that ‘taxpayers’ pay for birth control made her a prostitute and a slut. How nice.

Limbaugh later went on to echo the recently repeated ‘bad joke’ of decades ago by issuing a generous offer to provide coeds with aspirin to put between their knees.

What a guy.

Sorry, Rush - that doesn't cut it!

Did Limbaugh apologize to Sandra Fluke? Apparently not

In the days since his last insertion of both feet in his mouth, and in the wake of a few sponsors leaving his show, Limbaugh made a token ‘apology,’ presumably to keep more money from flying out his window now that LegalZoom, Citrix Systems, ProFlowers, Sleep Train, Carbonite, Sleep Number, and Quicken Loans have bailed on him. Kudos to those firms, by the way, for doing what every advertiser in his stable should do.

Limbaugh’s alleged apology, though, was laughable. Or infuriating. Take your pick. As Forbes and other media outlets are terming it, it was a non-apology. Limbaugh, forced into a corner like a rabid skunk, made a statement to appease his criticizers.

Interspersed amongst a rambling dialogue that attempts to imply he was right all along, he says his ‘choice of words wasn’t the best,’ regarding Ms. Fluke’s testimony. He also tries to put his original comments in the category of a political joke; part of his history of verbally attacking ‘the absurd.’ He was trying to be ‘humorous.’

Sorry, Rush, that doesn’t cut it.

The absurdity in this entire incident is that sponsors pay high fees to subject the public to your comments over airwaves. The absurdity is that an all-male panel was charged with reviewing an issue that pivoted around the reproductive organs of women.

Smart sponsors have jumped ship to avoid being associated with Limbaugh

Kudos to the sponsors that have left Limbaugh's show

To their credit, those sponsors that have fled the scene haven’t let him off the hook. In addition to yanking sponsorship funds, each has issued a brief statement to let their clients and customers know how they feel.

Quicken Loans points out that Limbaugh has make ‘continued inflammatory comments’ in its statement about suspending ads. ProFlowers and Sleep Number point out that Limbaugh’s statements are contradictory to their corporate values (ProFlowers added the astute comment that his words ‘went beyond political discourse to a personal attack.’).

Carbonite’s position echoes the opinion that Limbaugh make a personal attack, stating that his remarks were ‘highly personal attacks on Ms. Fluke, overstepping any reasonable bounds of decency.’ The company then acknowledges the Limbaugh ‘apology’ (quotes added here), but apparently that wasn’t enough; ‘we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show.’

Sleep Train mentioned a thank you for community feedback as they dropped Limbaugh from their ad budget. Similarly, Citrix Systems said they ‘listened to’ their customers in deciding to cease advertising immediately.

LegalZoom went a step further, by clearly stating it does not endorse or support Limbaugh’s comments and has terminated all ‘current and future’ advertising.

Go team!

A similar gaffe helped get Ann RIchards elected as Governor of Texas

Richards' opponent, Clayton Williams, cracked a crude joke that led to his political demise
Richards' opponent, Clayton Williams, cracked a crude joke that led to his political demise

Limbaugh isn't alone in his stupidity

Comments and crude jokes such as Limbaugh made have, appropriately, put nails in a few other public and political coffins in the past. In 1990, Texas businessman Clayton Williams, considered the front-runner in that year’s race for governor, damaged his campaign beyond repair by famously saying that a woman facing rape, if it was inevitable, should ‘relax and enjoy it.’ Williams apparently came from the same generation that suggested holding aspirin between the knees was effective and supportive guidance for young women trying to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Ann Richards, to quote a headline the day after the election, "Whupped him" and became governor of Texas.

Although separated by more than 20 years, the common theme in Willams’ and Limbaugh’s quotes is that it is appropriate to joke about women, their intimate lives, and intimacy in general. One wonders how a ‘conservative’ pundit or political candidate can wear the shoes of a gender bigot while claiming to walk the path of righteous indignation?

Boycott sponsors, not just a person or corporation

Those who want to make a statement encourage people to boycott sponsors in addition to the offending person or company.
Those who want to make a statement encourage people to boycott sponsors in addition to the offending person or company.

How to complain to sponsors

If you really want to effect change, consider hitting where it hurts. Twitter and other social networks are fine if you want to attend a group shouting-match. But why go through extra steps? Go to the sponsors!

Food maven Paula Deen lost her program due to sponsors bowing out after a recent scandal.

Find out who carries Limbaugh’s program in your area. Then complain directly to the station, network and, most especially, the sponsors.

Companies don’t pay to sponsor a program just for the fun of it; they expect clients and customers for their effort.

Several major firms have pulled their support from Limbaugh’s show as a result of the outcry. Here are some examples (and a brief plug to support them):

If you want online backup for your data, contact Carbonite. Need a good mattress? I’m recommending Sleep Train and Sleep Number (might go use them myself sometime soon). How about some software? Head to Citrix Systems and see if they can help you.

LegalZoom can assist you with any legal documentation you're wanting. Are you planning to send a bouquet anytime soon? Try ProFlowers. And don’t forget to check out Quicken Loans if you’re looking for a mortgage lender.

Companies that show integrity by pulling sponsorship from offensive programing deserve our support.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    Well said, nicomp!

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @Marcy Goodfleisch : The Left feeds on anger and jealousy and control issues, but The Right just wants to hear what they already agree with, I think. Rush certainly provides that.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    On a personal level, I definitely agree, nicomp. From a Popular Culture and audience share standpoint, though, it appears there is indeed a solid market niche that feeds on anger. Sad, isn't it?

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @Marcy Goodfleisch : angering people is generally not conducive to getting and keeping the largest audience possible.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    Such a good point, Sanxuary - the main goal is revenue from ads, which is driven by viewer ratio. And the more these people can anger people, the more they succeed at all of that. Thanks for your comments!

  • profile image

    Sanxuary 4 years ago

    I do not listen to any of them, after all they stand behind agendas but Air America is more likely to attempt an actual debate. Rush is just a protagonist with claims of how great and wise he is. He never allows any real debate or facts to be told on his program. He is a one way conversation of endless drivel. A useless conversation in severe need of a good beat down, in order to even allow a real conversation of mutual interest to even exist. He is like a Store Manager telling you what to do in order to get his stock up and clueless that his product is simply crap. He is probably thinking he should have went Democrat, because he would have made more money. Sometimes I wonder what he could have really done if he thought for himself and was less concerned about how rich he could get by being a propagandist. This guy is only concerned about the money and he gets paid to tell you what to think. Like all rich arrogant people who think they are untouchable, they eventually go to far, just like the Republican Party has. Republican or Democrat both do not Represent me, so I am still waiting for some average person to come along that does. If these people do not represent any of us, why are we bothering to listen?

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    Okay - ill stay out of this one, Marquis!

  • Marquis profile image

    Marquis 4 years ago from Ann Arbor, MI

    Sanxuary is upset because no one is listening to the losers at Air America anymore.

    Democrats suck, nuff said.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

    ...still not clear why Rush's remarks were 'stunningly sexist.' Remarking about the behavior of one individual or even a class of individuals who might think the same way is not to be taken as a generalization of an entire sex.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for commenting, Sanxuary - I just felt Rush needed to be discussed, so I wrote this. People have strong feelings about him!

  • profile image

    Sanxuary 4 years ago

    You only have to ask yourself, who does this person represent? If he does not represent you why do you listen to this pig? He like so many others does not represent the people who listen to him. He does not represent Christians or even Conservatives. How can you be Conservative with millions of dollars you got by backing a no tax for the rich program of entitlements for the wealthy. I could hardly tell you what that represents in Christian values. Rush Limbaugh is not Christian or Conservative and if you like listening to him twist and play propaganda all day you can at least determine the true meanings of words. He is a propaganda machine for the Republican party but mostly he is just greedy and will say anything to make a buck. The truth is seldom ever on television or the radio. The people who give you all this dumb advertising are the same people who own them. Rush Limbaugh will probably never be in Heaven and hypocrisy has no value there.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Marquis - Thanks for commenting here. I know Rush has some strong thoughts and positions that many agree with (including me, in many cases). I just thought he went a bit too far in the incident mentioned here, especially since it was a private citizen, not a politician (who are more open-season for such attacks). I truly appreciate your adding to the discussion!

  • Marquis profile image

    Marquis 4 years ago from Ann Arbor, MI

    Rush Limbaugh is the most popular talk show host on the radio waves. He states the truth about the filthy dishonest and hypocritical Left and they don't like it.

    We need more voices like Limbaugh and Beck. Better than the Young Turks and Air America trash any time.

    Too bad.

    Lots of Liberals here seem to agree with you. Not sad, just not really surprised either.

  • SweetiePie profile image

    SweetiePie 5 years ago from Southern California, USA

    The moderators are aware of it I believe. It was from one of those signed out commentators. It was long ago, and mostly stay away from the more controversial issues now because I am too busy with other projects to constantly moderate all my comments.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I'm sorry that happened to you, because you are indeed a SweetiePie. I've seen harsh things on the Forum, too, and at first I stayed away. But then I decided that's just letting the hecklers win. So I participate now and I try not to let it bother me.

    It's good that you figured out the poor treatment was from one source - I hope you let the moderators know there was a bit of masquerading going on?

  • SweetiePie profile image

    SweetiePie 5 years ago from Southern California, USA

    I just learned this from being on the forums. Some people upset about what you have to say about Limbaugh certainly do not mince words when it comes to criticizing Obama, and for things that are way far off. Oh well, I just stay off the forums now. I got some really nasty comments from some guy pretending to be other people, but I figured out who he was because of the IP address.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, SweetiePie - I don't have the history you have on this site, so I appreciate the insight here! I have tried to explain that being critical of RL doesn't mean I support behavior that was equally as bad by liberal commentators. Oh well, my bruises have healed!

  • SweetiePie profile image

    SweetiePie 5 years ago from Southern California, USA

    Marcy I agree with your sentiment about Rush Limbaugh, but I am not going to say boycott him because I like to see this conservatives lulus let everyone know who they are. Also, I know exactly why some were scolding of you in this piece, long ago I discovered their was a conservative element that is very active on Hubpages and they love to skewer anyone they do not agree with, but will panic if you question one of their heroes like Rush. He is basically an old man who wanted some attention, and what he said about women in general is deplorable. Good on you for pointing it out.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    As a 30-year professional in media (newspapers and television), I think I indeed understand the rules of libel and slander. I stand by my decisions to approve certain comments and not to approve others. As you said, it's my sandbox.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @Marcy : As a 2-year member, I can say with confidence you don't understand the rules, but that's OK. It's still your sandbox.

    Again, you permitted MizBejabbers to refer to commenters on the other side of the argument as part of an 'idiotfest'. You refused to allow to refer to someone as uninformed. It's obvious to me that you're biased toward people that agree with you, but that's OK. It would be nice if you'd admit it, but either way it's all good.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Nicomp - there are different 'rules' for verbal attacks on public figures (such as commentators on the airwaves) and private citizens. The site has rules, too, that are similar. I am trying to follow the standard guidelines (as I understand them) for what can be said about public figures and where the lines are drawn for private individuals. Sorry if that appears to be censorship.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @ryk : Thanks for the clarification. Marcy is indeed biased, but that's her prerogative. She has every right to allow one commenter to refer to other commenters in general as idiots while censuring me for characterizing a commenter specifically as uninformed and academically lazy. I disagree with her decision, but she is within her rights to do so.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for clarifying, ryk - and no offense taken!

    I personally didn't think MizBejabbers was referring to regulatory issues; I was thinking of the changes over the past few decades toward the free-for-all we now have.

    Miz-B - can you clarify what you were discussing? Thanks!

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    nicomp.... I wasn't referring to Marcy when commenting on the 1st amendment. I was actually commenting that if we didn't have deregulation (as MizBejabbers wishes) and if MizBejabbers or some like her would be on that FCC board then they might want to regulate free speech according to their biases. Marcy has every right to regulate this hub and its comments. But I also take back my accusation of bias as she explained why she didn't allow certain "attacks". Sorry for the assumption on my part.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for making that distinction, nicomp - and for the record, I greatly respect your writing as well as ryk's. You are both very intellectual, you express yourselves well, and you're not afraid of jumping in and contributing a good argument to a controversial topic. I appreciate both of you for commenting here!

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @ryk : please, please don't try to apply the First Amendment here. That concept actually ensures Marcy the right to moderate her comments as she wishes, which is a very good thing.

    The First Amendment prohibits *government* interference in speech. It does not guarantee us the right to have our comments posted on a blog if the blog owner demurs.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    ryk and nicomp - the reason I did not approve some comments was that they clearly singled out specific individuals who commented, and they went beyond disagreeing to personally attacking the commenters. It is my understanding that this violates the site's policy.

    In contrast, the comment made by MizBejabbers addressed a type of behavior that most find offensive here.

    I am happy to approve dissenting comments - but I prefer to stay on topic (this hub discusses only one incident and does not address other news or entertainment commentary). I also will not approve comments that mention specific (please note - specific) individuals and include language that attacks.

  • profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    nicomp....I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. If that is all you said when you were censored then maybe Marcy has a bias. And I would also add that it is a good thing we have deregulation since MizBejabbers or some like her would be on the board and regulate free speech...I think that is mentioned in the 1st amendment...possibly in the fine print if you read it all. :^)

  • MizBejabbers profile image

    MizBejabbers 5 years ago

    @nicomp: I'm not referring to bona fide contributors no matter which side they are on. I'm referring to the people who make personal attacks and call contributors names for the sake of causing trouble. There are several that I have noticed who hop hubs and do that. That is not the purpose of Hub Pages. I did not refer to any contributor as an idiot. I have seen several hubs that turned into total chaos. That is what I meant. And I did notice that Marcy said that she didn't approve several of your comments because they were personal attacks.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    Interesting that MizBejabbers may refer to contributors as idiots, but I am censured for suggesting someone might be unformed or academically lazy. Hmmm....

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Many thanks, MizBejabbers - I would love to know more about your experience; I imagine you saw many incredible things during your career. Thank you for reading and commenting!

  • MizBejabbers profile image

    MizBejabbers 5 years ago

    I read your awesome hub and knew exactly what I was going to comment, but then I discovered that everything had already been covered in the comments. I commend you for the way you kept everything on track and didn't allow this to become a free-for-all idiotfest although a couple did sneak in. There are slander laws that a private citizen can invoke, but they are so difficult to enforce that in something like this, it would be too time consuming, emotionally exhausting, and expensive to pursue. What does it say about about our citizens when they eat up such garbage? I spent 20 years in broadcasting before deregulation, and although we lived in mortal fear of the FCC, we did understand why it was regulated. We also predicted that deregulation would send broadcasting into chaos, and Rush Limbaugh and others who slander on the airways are a good example of why. I voted you up and awesome.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I appreciate your thoughts here, madmachio - and I agree with you that we have far too much trash on television and radio. I hope to write about this topic again and address some of the other offenders, since this hub focused on only one incident. Many thanks for reading and commenting!

  • madmachio profile image

    Nathan K 5 years ago from Kansas

    Look, freedom of speech makes it ok for Rush to say what he said. If people want him off air for that, then other shows or other offensive things should be kicked off air or tv. Personally crap like Jersy Shore, Jerry Springer, Jackass, Real World, Real Housewives, and TONS of insensative substance lacking crap should be taken off. They promote selfish irresponibility and harsh lack of respect too.. So I guess if Rush is so bad for expressing his thoughts, then these other shows need to be held responible too. Just saying

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I definitely agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights we have as humans (from God). They're codified in the Constitution, but even without that, we are endowed with those rights.

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    I will think about it and maybe post something soon. I think a lot of what I said already with regard to healthcare is in the context of freedom but I will think about it and maybe come from a more practical angle.

    I should correct one thing. In the last paragraph I said right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with regard to US citizens and those legally here. These rights are actually given to all men by God. Not just us here in the USA. So I wanted to correct how I stated it before.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Ryk - It would be interesting for you to do a hub on the subject of our freedoms (in the context of the healthcare debate, or however you'd want to frame it). I like the way you express your points, and they're deserving of their own hub. What would you think about that?

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Marcy...I love your "examples", especially the second one. In the first example, I don't have a problem with any company not providing healthcare for their employees. This goes for any company, religious or not. My employer doesn't provide any health insurance and I am fine with it. Until ObamaCare I don't know of any federal laws mandating that employers must provide health insurance for employees. Don't forget that there is much overreach of government today compared to what is in the Constitution.

    The first amendment is about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. In the days after the Constitution was signed there were still states that had an official religion. This wasn't prohibited by the Constitution. But each state eventually saw that this was not a good thing so they dropped it. The Constitution is for the federal government. It was written to limit the federal government. Whatever powers were not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states. But the principles of limited government in the federal Constitution are good for all forms of government. Limited government at any level equals more freedom for people.

    So Mitt Romney is correct when he says the state of MA could mandate RomneyCare but the federal government cannot mandate ObamaCare. My question to him would be, "Why would you want any government to dictate anyone's health care, rather than trusting the free market?"

    As for your second question, I think there are already situations like this here in the USA. Have you heard of these "honor killings" by some Muslims? A few Muslims want to justify their killing of someone who they say has violated their religion. But common sense and human decency in everyone's conscience given to us by God lets us know that this is absolutely wrong and must not be tolerated.

    This country has a Constitution as its foundation. Every US citizen and anyone allowed here by us legally has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country. There's a reason life is listed first. Without it all the others are irrelevant. So life must be protected if we want to have liberty and liberty must be protected to pursue happiness.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    You make some interesting points, and there are parallels in healthcare - if someone chooses to smoke, insurance firms can raise the premium, as one example.

    Okay - here's another scenario: There is one religious belief that you should not use doctors or take medications when you're sick. Suppose there's a company owned by that religion. Bearing in mind we have a separation of church and state (laws apply to people, regardless of their religion), should that company be exempted from providing healthcare (assuming their size and other criteria falls under those laws), strictly based on religion?

    Can our government pick and choose who a law applies to based on religion? They're not requiring people to actually go to the doctor (although cases of child abuse and neglect have been filed in some such instances)? Does that not inject religion into what is basically a government issue?

    That example relates to healthcare (whereas cable service does not). Here's a non-healthcare example. Suppose a group enters the United States and it happens that this group has a strong belief in human sacrifice as a mandate of their religion. Suppose, to this group, they believe they are seriously in jeopardy with whatever higher power they think mandated sacrifice if they fail to act on that 'belief.'

    Does this mean they can be exempted from laws against killing people because it violates their religion? I know that's an extreme example - I just wanted to throw it out as a hypothesis for debate. And I like the debate we have going in here.

    Thanks - let me know your thoughts!

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Marcy... I have no problem if the employer chooses to provide a policy to her/his employees with that provision. My problem is when someone wants to use the force of government to mandate that employers have this policy, even if some employers would have to go against their own conscience to provide that provision. These things are never free. Someone somewhere is paying for them. In this case it might be the employer or even partially the employer and the employee. Ultimately it is the consumer in the price we pay for products.

    The question is not really about who opposes contraception and who doesn't. This is a distraction. I would never give in to the premise that because I oppose Ms. Fluke getting free contraception by having Georgetown provide her with something that is against their conscience that this means I oppose contraception. I oppose using the force of government to impose your wishes on someone else. I would ask, "Is this real freedom?" If you say yes, then you must also allow the force of government to dictate others wishes at the expense of your freedom. I doubt a person that wants the first scenario would just shut up and allow the second scenario to also happen.

    A person knows (or should, if they do their homework) prior to taking a job what kind of benefits are available to them. If a person takes the job knowing this and then complains the employer should just laugh at them (and we should also). This is similar to those people who move into a neighborhood with an airport and then go to the city council and complain about the noise. I would even say that if the employer chooses to drop benefits after a person takes the job, that's okay (unless there is a contract). If I were the employee I would not have high regard for an employer who did this, but it's not against the law. The employee still has a choice. Stay at the job, find another job or pay for their own benefits.

    Here's another example of the same principle at work. I once heard a person on the radio speaking to a tech guy and complaining that out in her rural area they had to pay a higher cost for their high-speed internet. That person chose to live in a rural area. There are consequences to that decision. Companies have higher costs per person in those areas so they have to charge higher fees. Very simple. But this person wanted the government to step in and by regulation force others to subsidize her internet by having customers in more densely populated areas paying higher fees.

    I would ask, "Is this how we want government to work?" Do we want the force of government used for our benefit? If you say yes then by choice you also want the force of government used against you. This is called tyranny and it is already at work with many politicians legislating things for their buddies at taxpayer expense. Some call it crony capitalism. But I don't like that term since real capitalism begets more freedom, not less. This is underhanded tyranny and we are the schlubs who are paying the price for this corruption. They use the force of government to benefit themselves (more power) and their buddies (redistribute our hard-earned money). It's sad but it's what is happening.

    Sorry for the long post but I am passionate about freedom and hate to see it taken away through ignorance. Once you understand the freedom given to us by those who founded this country there is an appreciation and you want to see it increase, not decrease.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, ryk - here's a question for you - if contraception is paid for through employer-provided health insurance (which often includes a premium employees have to pay), does that still qualify as being free? It also wouldn't be paid by taxpayers (the employer provides that benefit).

    If that were the scenario, what would be your take on it? Just wanted to ask, because I respect the way you answer things, etc.

    Thanks for commenting here - and for letting me jump in and ask about this!

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    LHwritings...Don't you mean Don Imus and not Howard Stern? In retrospect, I think Don Imus and even Limbaugh should have said "I was just joking, I was just being a comedian". That would have got them off the hook with the libs since apparently it's not ok, but understandable if you are a comedian, according to David Axelrod.

    It's also funny that you must think that contraception has been "outlawed" for women. NEWS FLASH.....In fact it's more available than ever but not always free and paid for by someone else.....YET. Maybe if you wait a few years, you can get that vasectomy or at least that condom paid for by someone else.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Mark - I will check out your hub! Can I link it here? I've not yet read the article you mentioned; I'll look for it. Thanks for the uodate!

  • Mark Pitts profile image

    Mark Pitts 5 years ago from United States

    I did write that Hub you suggested after my first comment, but since then, I was reading the Daily Beast and saw the article by Kirsten Powers, and she articulated my feelings about Rush and the double standard very well. I was wondering if you had read it also?

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, wba - I will be interested to see what comes of this. I think he indeed has a following. But then, decency has a following, too. I appreciate your comments!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks so much for the links, Shea - I think I may have read a few, and I look forward to reading the rest.

  • wba108@yahoo.com profile image

    wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

    I doubt there there will be many stations that drop Rush because there's a reason he gets more listeners than anyone else in talk radio- "He's Good" and people are tired of hearing the leftist propaganda from the main stream media.

  • shea duane profile image

    shea duane 5 years ago from new jersey

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    LOL! Thanks for the commercial break, CMerritt! I will be interested in seeing what happens with Rush. I am not sure we've seen the last of it.

  • CMerritt profile image

    Chris Merritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

    Just to jump back in here, and excuse me if this has already been addressed, but Limbaugh was not even remotely harmed by his advertisers. True a couple left him, but he has a list several, several long of advertisers just waiting to do his show....this incident did not even come close to harming him...he has extremely loyal followers, who completely understand his intent of his statement and accepted his apology.

    One thing I will add, at least Limbaugh had enough class to realize he crossed the line, and went and made a formal apology directly to Fluke. Maher has never had any intentions of apologizing for any remarks he has made, and they was very, very untasteful to women.

    with that said,

    I return you back to your regular scheduled hubbers....lol

    Chris

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Onusonus - Sorry if I sounded like I'd already written a hub on Maher (or others). My intention is to do so, as soon as I can adequately research incidents enough to comment on them in a timely way. So sorry!

    My guess is that Maher may not have been threatened with sponsors dropping off to an extent that would prompt an apology. I have to say I agree with those who feel many such apologies are financially driven.

    Thanks so much for your comments, and for reading the hub!

  • Onusonus profile image

    Onusonus 5 years ago from washington

    It was absolutely despicable for Limbaugh to say what he said about that woman and he should without a doubt be reprimanded for it.

    I didn't see your hub about the things Bill Maher said about Palin, nor did I see anybody call to have him removed from his job after the vial language he used to describe Palin and Bachman.

    I also didn't see any liberals stand up against the President's super pac which accepted a one million dollar donation from Maher.

    What I did see was an apology from Limbaugh, where I guarantee Maher will never apologize.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Tirelesstraveler - nothing in my hub says anything about Maher - either positive or negative. He has also gotten considerable criticism about his attacks on people, and I feel those criticisms are appropriate. Thanks for posting your comment, and for reading the hub.

  • tirelesstraveler profile image

    Judy Specht 5 years ago from California

    Why is Rush Limbaugh wrong and Bill Marr totally fine when he verbally abuses women routinely?

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Shea - I'm glad we have access to several sources of commentary. I appreciate your reading and commenting here.

  • shea duane profile image

    shea duane 5 years ago from new jersey

    Hi Marcy,

    Ryk is misinformed. The following is just one of the many, many articles on both liberal and conservative websites discussing advertisers leaving Limbaugh's program. They are leaving not because they think he is awful, but because they know their customers and potential customers think he is awful.

    http://www.futuretalk.co/?p=540

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for sharing this link, nicomp - I appreciate having varying viewpoints for people to consider.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    "Her freedom cannot invalidate others' freedom that is guaranteed in the constitution."

    Hopefully The Supreme Court will agree : http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/12/031...

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Ryk - thanks for your continued dialogue here. It sounds like we both feel the public or viewers/listeners should call the shots with their off buttons. I agree with that, but (in my opinion), the public should also voice opinions to stations and sponsors. This goes for trash reality shows, bad-mouthing entertainers and pundits, whomever crosses the line by putting junk in our faces, through a vehicle we generally now have to pay for (cable).

    I do plan to research Letterman, Schultz, Maher and anyone else who may have make objectionable statements, so I can either write a follow-up hub or otherwise comment on it with facts available. I know they've crossed the line as well, and I don't care for that, either.

    Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion, but we all are additionally entitled to airwaves that don't slander or abuse people. It's one thing to pay money to see a nightclub comedy act, where you know the person talks a certain way. It's another to have to constantly flip channels to avoid such language.

    We used to have an on-air personality here in Austin who was much like Limbaugh - his career was based on offensive comments, and he had a following. But the station also knew of many complaints. Still, sponsors would pay for his airtime. They even hired a co-host whose job was to rein him in and temper his remarks. Finally, one day he crossed one too many lines, and he was out. But in the meantime, he had become so arrogant and out-of-control that everyone wondered long before his demise why something wasn't done about it.

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Marcy, You exactly make my point. The market determines or will determine the fate of these people. You say, "comments by a politician had repercussions, so why not Limbaugh". Williams did suffer as the people chose to elect his opponent and thought his comments were way out of line for a candidate for governor. Listeners of Rush will determine his fate. If they think he is this type of person he will suffer. If they think he stepped over the line this time but that is not what's in his heart, then he will continue on the radio.

    I know this about him. He saved the AM band of the radio. Back in the late 80's AM was dying. His program really saved it and opened doors for many others to come through the door and be successful. He does live on the edge and goes over the edge once in a while, but I don't think he's this (hates women) type of person. I think he was so ticked off at this woman that he went too far. This doesn't excuse his words, but does explain them. He thought not only does she not have enough self-control and want someone else to pay for her contraception but she also wanted to invalidate Georgetown's own freedom of conscience health policy to further her agenda. She was stepping on their religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution to further her own freedom that is not mentioned in the constitution. And her freedom ends at that point. Her freedom cannot invalidate others' freedom that is guaranteed in the constitution.

    My point also is that when an event like this occurs, it should be covered by the media no matter who is involved. They shouldn't consider who is involved in deciding how much coverage it gets. Real journalism just covers the story, without bias. For example, I wonder if those who want Rush off the air would say the same for David Letterman or Ed Schulz who both used the same exact term in referring to other women. I don't want any of them off the air. In my opinion the market (listeners and viewers) will eventually speak in all of these cases.

    Americans are very forgiving people and they like to give people second and third chances. But at some point when a person crosses the line too much, they boot him or her off. Very simple.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for the update, Ryk - Just to clarify, Clayton Williams was a politician, not a news/entertainment commentator. The comparison was drawn to show thar he similarly bad-mouthed women and that it resulted in him losing the election. In other words, comments by a politician had repercussions, so why not Limbaugh.

    I will try to track down the references you mentioned so I can see what's happened lately. Also, for your information, I dint care for abusive behaviors from Maher or others - when I have a chancem I'd like to research and tackle those issues, too.

    Thanks for your latest comment!

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Marcy, An Update:

    I have heard Rush and a couple of other talk shows comment on how the media has it wrong with regard to advertisers leaving him. Apparently they do. According to Talkers magazine, he has refused to take back one of them that wanted to come back. I also have heard here on a local station from a local host that one of the sponsors (the local host knows him personally) is just waiting a few weeks until it all dies down and then will go back. I suspect this is the case with most of them.

    Most companies don't like controversy. They want to sell their product and the best way is to reach as many people as possible. So they go where the people are. On the radio it happens to be with conservative talk.

    Also, I would like to correct one thing you keep saying in your hub. You keep saying that this was about one specific incident. But in your hub you brought in the example of Texas businessman Clayton Williams under the subtitle, "Limbaugh's isn't alone in his stupidity". So, contrary to your statements, I think that other commenters who have pointed out incidents of "stupidity" by many media people should not be dismissed by "this was about one incident". If you are going to bring in other incidents I think it is fair game for others to also do the same. I sense a bias here that you don't want to comment about other media "stupidity" if you like them to some degree.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    The actual term was 'mind-bogglingly uninformed,' as well as 'academically lazy.' Sorry, but I can't approve those types of comments when they were directed at a specific person.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    @Marcy Goodfleisch: I don't name-call. I don't engage in personal attacks.

    Characterizing a commenter as uninformed is hardly name-calling or a personal attack. As I wrote earlier, it's your sandbox and you get to make the rules. Have a good time with it and we'll both move on.

    I just need to figure out a way to stop this hub from popping up on my updates when I open HubPages. I've commented on so many Rush Limbaugh hubs that I lose track of which threads I still care about.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    KF Raizor - I have not said I am not outraged over other inappropriate on-air behaviors. As for bringing up an issue from the past, first, the comparison was about bad language causing a downfall (if it caused it then, why not now). I would agree that if Maher, Letterman, Schultz or anyone else uses language as crude as Limbaugh's, they should be castigated.

    The words from the 22-year-old incident were from a politician, not an on-air personality.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    nicomp - I have not approved your last few comments because there are personal attacks against at least one other person who has commented here. I haven't yet had a chance to send you a message asking if you'd like to edit them out, but that was my intention. I am happy to print dissenting opinions, but not personal statements directed at specific individuals.

    If you'd like to resubmit your comments and argue the issues (rather than calling names here). Many thanks!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Dolores - I had not heard about Limbaugh's statements regarding Kony. Just another nail in his box. I've seen first-hand the pregnancies that come from not providing birth control. And as another person commented here, sometimes the pill is prescribed for other reasons. Regardless of anyone's view on birth control, or who pays for it, my criticism here was about Limbaugh's inexcusable verbal assault and disgusting words.

  • LHwritings profile image

    Lyndon Henry 5 years ago from Central Texas

    ..

    Marcy — Well-done article, and I've voted this Up and Useful (useful info and arguments).

    I'm outraged that there's not even more outrage against Limbaugh. When Howard Stern made that misogynist/racist comment about black women's basketball team "hos" he got the boot out the door. Limbaugh has been taking flak, but figures he can hunker down through the storm.

    The status of women is a highly determinant indicator of the advancement of all society. Slimy, antediluvian, misogynist slurs like Limbaugh's cannot be tolerated. It's uplifting to see so many women fighting back over this. Also see:

    Centrist Women Tell of Disenchantment With G.O.P.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/cent...

    Men (a persuasion in which I can definitely be counted) have a huge stake in this too (if guys can't figure out how they've benefited from the Sexual Revolution, they're living in the Santorum Nebula or someplace).

    First, they came for the women ... then, the men. Outlawing vasectomies? Condoms? Rosy Palm?

  • Dolores Monet profile image

    Dolores Monet 5 years ago from East Coast, United States

    It's funny how the right wingers don't want to pay for the pill. They don't want to pay for families and kids either. My husbands job offers health insurance for families, but those extra people cost a bundle. And it also seems funny how the right wingers don't mind their health insurance money going to pay for big pharma's expensive TV and magazine ads. They are so afraid of a public option, they attack anything to do with health insurance.

    Remember that Rush also defended the Ugandan child enslaver Kony, holding him up as a hero on his radio show because he is a Christian.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    I see that my comments are being censored, so I'm out. It's your sandbox and you get to make the rules.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    That was by no means directed at you, Amymarie - so sorry if it seemed that way! As you can see, several people have felt this hub was a partisan issue, rather than a discussion of a specific incident. Thanks for letting me clarify that - and again, I'm sorry if my response sounded that way.

  • amymarie_5 profile image

    amymarie_5 5 years ago from Chicago IL

    Thank you for your kind words Marcy. I apologize for getting political, I understand that it was not the intention of this hub. I am a bit passionate about this issue so please excuse me for it.

    I did rate this hub up, interesting and useful.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Amymarie - I'm sorry you've had such frightening health issues. It is indeed scary to think where things would leave you, if you weren't able to get coverage. I don't know that this type of objectionable commentary is limited to one political party or the other. Both parties could stand to exercise more restraint, perhaps. As several have pointed out here, other commentators have been upsetting, too. This particular hub was not intended to discuss specific political parties or the entire scope of commentators, though, so I'll leave that for someone else to write about. Or for another hub.

    Thanks so much for reading and commenting. I hope your health stays strong, and that cures are found soon for such horrible diseases.

  • amymarie_5 profile image

    amymarie_5 5 years ago from Chicago IL

    Limbaugh's comments have left me frustrated and angry. We still live in a misogynist world. Men do not understand women's health and the complications of our bodies. This chauvinist's comments were directed at all women and girls. I for one have to take birth control pills for medical reasons. Without it, I am at a high risk for uterine cancer. I wonder if he'd still be on the air if he called cancer patients prostitutes.

    I truly do not understand republicans these days. They seem to be more primitive in their thinking today than ever. So much for evolution. Oh wait,they don't believe in that either. Lol

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for your comments, Bobbi - I agree; something needs to be done to curb this type of abuse.

  • PurvisBobbi44 profile image

    PurvisBobbi44 5 years ago from Florida

    Hi Marcy,

    I believe any man who is uncouth to a lady regardless of differences of opinion is too unprofessional to be on radio or television in any position.

    He is rude, crude and foul-mouth, and needs his mouth washed out with soap.

    And the only thing he entertains is his fat ego.

    Thank for writing this hub.

    Bobbi

  • KF Raizor profile image

    KF Raizor 5 years ago

    In a reply to a question about the lack of outrage over Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "c**t" you said, "This hub was about a specific incident, a specific commentator and a verbal slam against a specific person. It didn't address the bigger question you pose." Yet in the original hub you have three paragraphs devoted to a completely unrelated comment from 22 years ago. So despite what you claim you ARE NOT looking at "one specific incident," because in the original hub you brought up someone else's gaffe from over two decades ago.

    That brings us back to the question that someone else asked: where is your outrage over Bill Maher, David Letterman, Ed Schultz, etc. and their terrible degradation of women such as Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Bachmann? When this ceases to be about the politics of the person saying the word and becomes solely about the insult against a woman I'll jump on board. But not until the liberal-leaning people with microphones are held to the exact same cries of outrage -- calling for boycotts and removal from the airwaves -- that a conservative is.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    That should be an interesting and entertaining program to see, Charles. Let us know what he comes up with. I agree there are many pundits who attack the politics of things more so than individual people. I'd much prefer to hear debates about issues than listen to slams against people.

  • profile image

    Charles Hilton 5 years ago

    I first started watching Maher many years ago when I was a Conservative and he used to make me angry with his liberal viewpoints, which is why I'm stunned when people compare him to Rush. Bill Maher levels most of his criticism at the establishment and the status quo---and sure, he pokes fun at individual gaffes---but, he's also a comedian and poking fun is what comedians do and Maher has been a professional comedian for a long time, whereas Limbaugh is just a perpetual joke.

    Bill Maher would also be the first in line to protect the rights of those same individuals he criticizes from the encroachments of bigotry and discrimination. And like I alluded to in my last comment, Rush is exactly the opposite. He would take away the rights of those he doesn't approve of, i.e. anyone not like him.

    As an aside, I'm going to see Bill Maher live at the end of the month---can't wait!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for your observations, Charles - I haven't researched Maher's comments, but I know he angers people and upsets them, too. I agree that there's a difference between those commentators who blast people based on issues and those who take personal potshots. I do plan to research it more before voicing opinions on Maher. I appreciate your comments here.

  • profile image

    Charles Hilton 5 years ago

    Equating Bill Maher with Rush Limbaugh is a logical fallacy by those who don't know any better or just want to justify Rush's bigotry. I for one, have never heard Bill Maher degrade women or minorities. Yes, he's very critical of America in general---and rightfully so, as am I. But, unlike Limbaugh, Bill Maher is an advocate of women's rights and the rights of minorities and defends them against the onslaughts of the conservatives who would send America back to the Stone Age.

    Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh don't belong in the same breath together.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I've said in earlier posts that I don't approve of any such behavior, and that would include any similar statements by Maher or any number of others. This hub is meant to address only one incident, not all such incidents. Perhaps others will write hubs on those examples, or perhaps I will at another time. To construe the absence of those examples in this article as meaning that I agree with them or am not morally outraged about them is putting words in my mouth.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    "Thanks for the comments, nicomp - my concern is a question of the poor taste he exhibited here and in other instances"

    'Poor taste' is not the same as slander and/or defamation of character, of which Limbaugh is not guilty.

    I'm unclear as to your concern for Mr Limbaugh when you don't express the same level of concern over comments made by Mr Maher. Certainly his misogynistic comments could also be construed as slanderous and defamatory and obviously warrant an expression of moral outrage.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for the comments, nicomp - my concern is a question of the poor taste he exhibited here and in other instances. The same concerns can be raised about other commentators who sling poison on their shows.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    "Slander and defamation of character are criminal acts NOT protected by the constitution. "

    Fortunately, Limbaugh did neither.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for reading and commenting, Ivona - as you can see, not everyone agrees here! But that's why we are in an open forum - so we can hear all opinions.

  • Ivona Poyntz profile image

    Ivona Poyntz 5 years ago from UK

    Excellent hub, totally agree with you

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Cristin - I agree that we should not put up with abusive commentary from anyone in the media, regardless of who their target is. There wasn't space here to talk about the general issue that raises, but it should be addressed. Thank you for reading and commenting.

  • ChristinS profile image

    Christin Sander 5 years ago from Midwest

    Hi Marcy,

    This is an excellent and most credible hub on a subject that is much further reaching than Limbaugh's choice of a certain 2 words. This gets to the matter of what is acceptable public discourse and what crosses the line and becomes an abuse of free speech.

    Slander and defamation of character are criminal acts NOT protected by the constitution. There are certain lines that should not be crossed. People have been fired (rightfully so) for less. This is not Rush's first time spreading hate and misinformation and I believe we are at a place in history where we have to be willing to say enough is enough.

    Our tax dollars pay for this ignorance to be broadcast on military radio. He doesn't want his tax dollars going to birth control (and that wasn't even the case) well I certainly don't want mine going to broadcast his hate speech.

    As for the comments about Maher and the rest - I don't care what your political affiliation is, when you are a misogynist or racist and cross that line you deserve whatever backlash comes your way. Despite being liberal, I would in no way ever support Bill Maher or his attacks on Sarah Palin no matter how much I dislike and disagree with her.

    People should take a stand against this moronic behavior wherever it occurs - if it's Maher, Limbaugh, Stern or whoever. (To my knowledge Jon Stewart and Olberman have never resorted to Misogynistic slurs or blatant slander so not sure why they were brought up in the comments)

    Thanks for a very well-written and incredibly timely hub.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Rolly - as others have pointed out here, it's time to address the entire mud-slinging industry. I'm not sure how or why people construed my objections to Limbaugh's trash talk as an endorsement of those who have trashed others in different venues. But just to clarify (yet again), all talk of nature is disgusting.

    I appreciate your comments - and the hug!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for commenting, nicomp. I'm not certain why people assume that addressing an issue in one area somehow means the author does not object to other, similar incidents. As I've mentioned here, this hub is about one particular incident. It also addresses abusive comments made about a private citizen, not political figures. The fact that the hub does not give a list of every person who may have been vilified in commentary does not mean the writer agrees with those incidents.

  • Rolly A Chabot profile image

    Rolly A Chabot 5 years ago from Alberta Canada

    Morning Marcy... I do agree with you. The man or shall I say mouth with legs has really stepped beyond his normally outlandish remarks. We the public are guilty of listening to this stuff and as consumers have a voice which can be heard loudly by advertisers.

    We have much the same here in Canada with a few of these talk show hosts who keep pushing the limits in their attempts to draw the attention they so love. I say keep up the fight and bring some civility back. Great hub...

    Hugs

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

    Let me know when your moral outrage extends to Bill Maher, who has said much worse about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. I'll be waiting...

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, ryk - I think that's a great idea, since your points go beyond this topic. I will read your hub and perhaps offer comments. Thanks for continuing the dialogue!

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Marcy, I don't want to defend myself in your space so I started a new hub with my comments here (http://ryk.hubpages.com/hub/Fluke-Limbaugh-Issue). Thank you.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Oh, goodness - I hadn't heard that piece of history, Charles. So, Limbaugh is supposed to be an improvement over Downey? We are really in trouble, aren't we? Thanks for filling in that piece of information, and thanks for commenting.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for commenting, Shea, and for supporting the credibility of this hub. I agree with you that coverage for birth control is a much broader issue than the discussions about this incident have allowed. There are probably dozens of pieces that could be written about various issues here, and about policies and laws being discussed. I hope others on the site write some hubs about some of the things being debated here. Or maybe I will, when I get a chance!

    Thanks again for your comments.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Ryk, I did not say I would not call for the removal of other people. I simply said the scope of this hub did not address other issues outside of the current one brewing over Limbaugh.

  • profile image

    Charles Hilton 5 years ago

    Political debate was much more civilized and balanced before they deregulated political radio and television.

    The conservative loudmouth, Morton Downey, Jr. was the one who put trash-talk on the map with his shock-reality, in-your-face, scream-fest TV show not long thereafter, back in the '80's.

    And in an ultimate irony, Downey was fired from his radio show for making an ethnic slur and replaced in his time slot by Rush Limbaugh's radio show. lol

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for reading and commenting, ryk. You have a point about other commentators saying offending things. This hub was meant only to address a specific incident, but perhaps other hubs could be written to discuss what you bring up.

    One point people are overlooking is that the 'rules' are different about comments made regarding public figures (a politician, for example) and a private citizen. Even if an individual has stepped forward to give testimony, or volunteers for a cause, they are not considered a public figure the way someone would be if they hold office, etc. The comments under scrutiny were, therefore, made by a private citizen.

    This doesn't mean I disagree with what you're saying, it just means that comments against Palin might be treated differently by a review panel (if one were convened). I agree there are far too many personal slams made about politicians in the name of commentary. That means everyone suffers, because the commentary capitalizes on trash talk and inflammatory content rather than on substance related to whatever issue is at stake.

    Sadly, the general public now eats this stuff up whenever they hear it. We've become Jerry Springerized in the name of political commentary. It's time to move away from that, regardless of who the target is. As I said, this hub wasn't designed to go into those issues. Each writing piece needs to have a defined focal point that can be written in a relatively short space.

    Thanks, again, for commenting.