ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

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Some audiences feel w should do far more than boycott this purveyor of outdated, vitriolic venom.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
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 3 years ago from Planet Earth

    Well said, nicomp!

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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.

  • shea duane profile image

    shea duane 5 years ago from new jersey

    ryk, rush limbaugh said women who use insurance-paid birth control should POST VIDEOS OF THEMSELVES HAVING SEX ON THE INTERNET. He asserted that all women who use insurance-paid birth control are sluts... do you have any idea how many women in this country have used birth control? Further, who died and left you in charge of which hubs are credible and which hubbers have credibility? Who are you and what have you done in this lifetime? How many changes have you inspired in society? OK, so you wouldn't call for anyone to be removed... is this when I applaud?

  • profile image

    Sooner28 5 years ago

    @ryk,

    I apologize Marcy, but I feel like I need to respond. You won't call for anyone to be removed, even if they make racist comments on the air, such as Glenn Beck saying Obama had a deep seated hatred for white people, or when Limbaugh said the health care bill was about reparations, called Obama an "angry black man," and regularly calls all feminists "feminazis?" Are you so committed to freedom of speech that you would not call for a boycott of men who say such things? Would you be in favor of ABC airing a one hour show everyday where the leader of the Ku Klux Klan can say what he wants? Or are you just a Limbaugh listener (dittohead) that lets this man do your thinking for you? It's also strange you would use the argument that "other people do it too." Red herrings don't help your argument at all. Mom, he hit me first! It doesn't make your retaliation any better.

    No one is calling for him to be jailed, or attacked, or anything of that nature, at least no one with any moral decency. All that is being asked is that he lose his giant platform to spread his racist, sexist views. His ACTUAL apology was the second one issued, not the first. He is only backtracking because he is losing advertisers.

  • ryk profile image

    ryk 5 years ago

    Rush was wrong in his name calling of Ms. Fluke and right to apologize but that issue has passed. It's now up to the listeners and sponsors to determine if his apology was sincere or not and if they wish to listen to or sponsor his show.

    But your call to get Limbaugh off the air is too narrow. If you're going to call for the removal of Rush Limbaugh and for sponsors to dump him then I suppose you would also call for the same with regard to Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, and Ed Schulz. Schulz also apologized for his use of the same word against Laura Ingraham. Maher has used even more disgusting language against Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. It's too disgusting to mention here so you can google it if you want. Olberman also. As an aside, it's fitting that Al Gore's network (Current TV) picked up Olberman considering Gore's "experience" with those massage women. Maybe you should even call for removing Jon Stewart since he likes to call himself a comedian to hide behind his vile comments.

    I would also join the call for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association (also known as the media) to not show hypocrisy in action. They should dump Louis C.K. as host of their dinner scheduled for June 2012. They are calling for Rush Limbaugh's head. They shouldn't participate in their meeting with this type of person. Louis C.K. has said vile things about Sarah Palin and her children. You can google that also if you choose. But if they do allow him to emcee the dinner, then we know who these people really are. Hypocrites. So please be all encompassing in your call for the removal of those who use this type of language. If not, it leaves you with no credibility.

    I actually wouldn't call for anyone to be removed. We need to see these people for who they are and then dump them on our own. If we don't listen, they won't be on the air and won't have any sponsors.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for your comments, Alecia. Interestingly, in today's news there's a report about a business that wants to buy up all of Limbaugh's ad time. It's not a particularly savory business, from what little I know.

  • Alecia Murphy profile image

    Alecia Murphy 5 years ago from Wilmington, North Carolina

    Very few people make me as mad as him and it's not specific to the right wing. Howard Stern is a liberal and his views and comments on women are just as deplorable if not more. And I agree, we should send the sponsors a message by boycotting them.

    Also, I understand where the opposition is coming from but there is a far more eloquent way to say you disagree other than calling people deplorable names.

    And I'm glad she didn't accept is apology because he was only probably sorry he got publicly criticized as much as he did. Awesome hub!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, peanutroaster - I appreciate your comment!

  • peanutroaster profile image

    peanutroaster 5 years ago from New England

    There is a petition to get him off of Armed Forces Radio - your tax dollars pay to spread his vulgar mouth to our men and women in the military. See my hub for the link - http://peanutroaster.hubpages.com/hub/No-More-Tax-...

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I agree, Mark, that laws should be written to pick and choose where and to whom they apply. Let me know if you write hub on it; I look forward to reading it.

  • Mark Pitts profile image

    Mark Pitts 5 years ago from United States

    Maybe I will write that Hub, but to respond to your comment, the government should not be crafting laws that require some entities to be exempted. It is a sign of overreach by the government when such becomes necessary.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Mark, for your comments. The hub was about Limbaugh's actions and statements (your term oafish is very descriptive here) but not about birth control. I understand the religious freedom issue, but another side to consider is whether it is appropriate for our government to create laws or policies that exempt certain entities based on religious beliefs. If a law is designed to address insurance provided by employers, should it be crafted in a way that creates loopholes based on religion?

    Again, this hub was not intended to address that question; it was intended to point out the problem we have if outrageous attacks such as Limbaugh's are allowed to continue in media settings funded by advertisers.

    Thank you for commenting - maybe someone will do a hub discussing the points you raised here.

  • Mark Pitts profile image

    Mark Pitts 5 years ago from United States

    What Rush said was inexcusable. He does good analysis often, but has lost credibility due to his oafish and school-yard clownish comments. I am a conservative, but I can't support that.

    But Issa refused to allow Ms. Fluke to speak because the Dems did not present her as a witness in accord with the rules for testifying before congress. There is supposed to be a 72 hour vetting time to verify the validity of anyone testifying. Issa just would not allow the Dems to violate the rules to pull off another stage set piece intended to distract from the issue. That issue is the Obama administration and the lefts attempt to force religious organizations to ignore their teachings in favor of an unpopular piece of legislation. Ms. Fluke did not "testify before congress," she spoke at a press conference that the Dems set up to look more official than it was, so America would forget about the real issue.

    No one is telling anyone they can't have birth control. The Church is just refusing, rightly so, to pay for something that is for them a cardinal sin. Ms. Fluke enrolled in Georgetown knowing the rules. They were not forced on her. She is the one wishing to deny an entity its freedom. She could go someplace else and get the coverage she wants, or just buy her own if she chose to stay at Georgetown, but why should she be able to force a change in religious practice?

    The Catholic Church has said they will close the facilitis affected if they are forced into this action. 1 out of 6 hospitals, numerous charities, schools, and universities. Gone. But hey, at least the libs would win, the poor will pay, the libs will blame that on conservatives too, so there is no downside, right? Yay!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, American View - you make a very good point. First, since 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. That might be a great hub topic for you to do - I agree the entire trend toward outrageous commentary should be examined. Thanks for your comments.

  • American View profile image

    American View 5 years ago from Plano, Texas

    Marcy,

    First a well written hub that on a subject that has needed to be addressed for some time, and it is not Rush L.

    It is lack of civility period. I have written some articles on that subject. But conspicuous by its absence, are complaints that are much worse than what Rush said. If you want Rush to lose his sponsors or even be taken off the air, would you agree to take Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz off the air as well? I have seen many responses sticking up for those show hosts who spew worse language than Rush ever has on a consistent bases. I do not agree with what Rush said, but what's good for one is good for all.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thank you, fpherj48 - I appreciate your comments, and I agree, the trend toward controversial commentary has crossed the line into personal attacks and it's gone too far.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for reading and commenting, DIYmyOmy - I'm glad you enjoyed the hub.

  • fpherj48 profile image

    Paula 5 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

    Marcy....Poor, pathetic Rush. He really is such a silly, Baby Huey. However, he's by no means, The Lone Ranger. Every day, and especially during "campaign time" we are inundated with mud-slinging, dog & cat fights, insults and personal attacks....from those who have a love affair with our Freedom of Speech....and appoint themselves "Almighty, All-Knowing."

    I surely do not approve of him (his politics & crudeness) and I ignore him, just as I do anyone who is as offensive & out-of-control, as Rush apparently is.

    This sort of uncivil nonsense has gone on since the beginning of time, when "casting stones" was born.

    In all honesty, human beings DO THESE THINGS. I can "name-call" with the best of them.

    The big question remains. "What the hell does any of it solve or prove?" Rarely does it produce a positive result.

    You are a superb writer. Thank you.

  • DIYmyOmy profile image

    DIYmyOmy 5 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

    I agree. We have, in this society, allowed professional agitators such as Mr. Limbaugh a very long leash when it comes to their comments about those in public life. But in this case he attacked a private citizen expressing her opinion, and in the process slandered her. I think this is just like Don Imus' equally offensive 'joke' (also about women, by the way) and should be the point at which ever Mr. Lim,baugh's fans draw the line and tell him, bluntly, "You went too far. Now go very, very far away." Voted your hub up and 'awesomed' it--thanks for posting it!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I don't want to invite comments about Limbaugh's personal life here, but I appreciate your right to voice your thoughts, Shea. I feel his comments alone (and this is just one incident in a long series) are justification to examine his value as a commentator. Thanks for expressing your opinion.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    We can be the conscience for the advertisers, Sooner, if all else fails. There are very few things as distasteful as what Limbaugh said that would be tolerated on the air. There's no reason to tolerate this any longer.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, mkott - I appreciate your words of support!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Sally - I hope people do exactly that!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Jaye, for your great comments here - I think the thank-you notes are. A great idea. If enough people pressure sponsors about garbage of any sort on television or radio, they will listen.

    I loved Ann Richards, too - she was a great woman, and I met her a few times during her career (including once while shopping at a dress store!). She was fearless, and she did a lot for Trxas

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for commenting, Charles.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I disagree, Estella - I appreciate you voicing your opinion, though. My opinion is that free speech doesn't extend to the type of things he said in this instance. Thank you for sharing your comments - that's how a dialogue gets started.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I appreciate your comments, Audrey, and I think we need your point of view here. Many thanks for commenting!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, homesteadbound. I'm glad you liked the hub.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for commenting, uninvited writer.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I don't know about those details, WD, but thanks for reading the hub.

  • shea duane profile image

    shea duane 5 years ago from new jersey

    rush is the worst kind of scum... a drug addict who says all drug addicts should be in jail and a hypocrite who insists that all women who use birth control paid for by insurance are whores. are tax payers drug dealers because we paid for his oxy ???

  • profile image

    Sooner28 5 years ago

    Hey Marcy,

    I'm glad to see you calling for him to lose his public platform. Contrary to the right-wing delusional point of view, no one is calling for Limbaugh to be jailed for his opinions. All that is being asked is he lose his platform because he has abused it. With great power comes great responsibility. If an individual perpetually sells hate for a living, he does not deserve to have a platform for it.

    It's like if someone spewed hate about illegal immigrants (oh wait, that already happened in Arizona!). I'm not in favor of fining them or jailing the person, but the network or radio channel should drop the individual. I am hoping advertisers continue to have a conscience and they all pull out of his show.

  • mkott profile image

    Michele 5 years ago from Reno, Nevada

    As mentioned above claiming he is an "entertainer" is true for those of us that can distinguish between "shock jock" and someone making comments about the news/current events. Unfortunately many of my Republican friends believe what Rush is saying and agree with what he says.

    When has freedom of speech mean you can degrade and be disrespectful. This man makes millions throwing verbal garbage around and I find that rather revolting. Glad he lost some of his sponsors but would be even happier if people would turn him off.

    And for those that dismiss this with a slight shrug or none of my business attitude.... What would you do if he were saying these things about your mother, sister, daughter or granddaughter??

    For his apology. He did it because of the backlash and I don't really think he cares one bit about the words he chose to use. He has used distasteful language many, many times before.

    Glad someone wrote about this, Thanks Marcy

  • Sally's Trove profile image

    Sherri 5 years ago from Southeastern Pennsylvania

    Stellar commentary on an issue that doesn't belong just to today...this crap has been going on for a long time. Limbaugh is just the current big mouth horn. I think something's percolating. Let's all of us get out from under and say what we think.

  • JayeWisdom profile image

    Jaye Denman 5 years ago from Deep South, USA

    Terrific hub, Marcy, and right on the mark! Limbaugh's so-called "apology" was obviously an insincere attempt at damage control to staunch the bleeding of sponsors. Unfortunately, he will no doubt find others to replace them.

    Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are cut from the same cloth, and I once walked out of a doctor's waiting room because Beck was spewing garbage on the TV that was not allowed to be (1) turned off, (2) turned down in volume or (3) changed from "that" channel--you know the one I mean, I'm sure. (I changed doctors, also, for forcefeeding that (*expletive deleted) to a near-captive audience of waiting patients, and sent him a letter to explain my decision.)

    I'm very pleased with the sponsors who did the right thing and pulled their advertising from Limbaugh's show. Since I signed a petition asking ProFlowers to do that, I'll be sending them a "Thank You" email and remembering them in future when I need to order flowers.

    When potential customers complain in large numbers, their opinions are considered. Sponsors don't want to lose money, and the outcry about Limbaugh's nasty insult to Ms. Fluke and his obvious misogyny was loud and clear. It cheers me considerably that I've read so many remarks from MEN who think he's a sexist jerk.

    Voted UP, USEFUL and AWESOME.

    Note to robie2: I, too, adored Ann Richards, her sense of humor, political astuteness and strength. I was living in Dallas when she ran for governor and was proud to do some phone campaigning for her. Her remark at the Democratic Convention about George's "silver foot in his mouth" was priceless, and I've always remembered (and agreed with) it. BTW, I found your political blog and am now addicted to it!

  • profile image

    Charles Hilton 5 years ago

    @Bruce

    If that Catholic university wants exemption from having to provide birth control, then it can also relinquish its tax-exempt status. And the same goes for all religious institutions. They get preferential treatment from the government by virtue of their tax-exempt status, while at the same time being exempt from government mandated standards. Religion in America has been having its proverbial "cake-and-eating-it-to" for way too long.

    As for Limbaugh, this isn't his first major gaffe. And even if he were 100% right in his comments, he would still be a horse's ass.

  • EstellaGrace profile image

    EstellaGrace 5 years ago from New York

    Rush is right, and whether he's right or wrong he has a right to say what he says. That's Amendment One. He should not be BANISHED from the air, or any such nonsense. This is his life, his living, the way he takes care of himself, thus ensuring we don't have to pay for his birth control when his sex life sky-rockets. If you don't like him, don't listen!

  • AudreyHowitt profile image

    Audrey Howitt 5 years ago from California

    Thank you Marcy! Well-written and well-said. His vitriolic lashings border on hate speech. It is often said that "if you don't like it--then don't listen to it." The right to free speech under the First Amendment is often cited to justify the right to this type of diatribe. However, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. Speech meant to incite violence or promote hate or hate crimes is not protected speech.

    We can argue whether or not his speech rises to that level I suppose. I would argue zealously, that not only does it fall within unprotected speech, but that such speech is a crime punishable under the law.

    As an attorney, I feel strongly about both the law and how and when it is abused. This type of abuse of power must end.

  • homesteadbound profile image

    Cindy Murdoch 5 years ago from Texas

    It is hard to believe that anyone could believe in and spout such stupidity and rubbish, much less do so publicly. It is really sad that women are verbally and mentally attacked by remarks in this way. It is so belittling. Great hub!

  • Uninvited Writer profile image

    Susan Keeping 5 years ago from Kitchener, Ontario

    Thankfully not all conservatives support Limbaugh

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rus...

    Mr Price obviously did not listen to what Ms. Fluke said...

  • WD Curry 111 profile image

    WD Curry 111 5 years ago from Space Coast

    I have more important things to do than worry about Rush Limbaugh. He lives here in Florida because it is easier to get Oxycontin than it is in most places. Why stop with Rush? Lets get rid of Glen Beck and Amy Goodman while we are at it.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for your comments, phdast! And there's no need to cut comments short - that's what these threads are for. I don't agree with everything people have posted, but unless something is hugely inflammatory or libelous, I will allow it to be posted when moderating the thread.

    You summed it up well - he wants to be taken seriously (hence, his insistence that he had a valid point), and he also wants to be an entertainer. "Entertainment" of that ilk doesn't belong on national television.

    Thanks for reading and commenting!

  • phdast7 profile image

    Theresa Ast 5 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

    Excellent Hub Macy. I wholeheartedly support all the comments, except for the incredibly misguided and short-sighted comments made by CMerritt.

    I do agree that Limbaugh is an entertainer who deperately wants to be taken seriously as a real polical voice and force. What terrifies and angers me is how many people agree with his assessment of himself and also see him as a "serious" political figure.

    He is "seriously" bombastic, rude, self-righteous, manipulative, arrogant, spiteful...I could go on for quite a while here, so I guess I will stop.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Well, I don't have a dog in that fight, but I do object to women being talked about in that manner. Thanks for reading and commenting, Bruce!

  • profile image

    Bruce Deitrick Price 5 years ago

    Rush forgot to be funny. Have fun with this. But wouldn't it be comforting if somewhere in the reporting somebody told what went on. The woman said she had a hyper-active sex life and she was indignant that everyone else wasn't paying for her birth control. That's it. Rush said, hey, this is absurd. Even more central is that the woman's real purpose was to crush a Catholic university's right not to pay for BC. First, they came for the Catholics, etc.; eventually they'll come for you. You know the script. Maybe you should be worried.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, ytsenoh - Thank you for reading, and I appreciate your comments, as always!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Hi, Joachimartist - All I can suggest is to find out who Rush's sponsors are and if they have offices or distribution outlets where you live, let them know your thoughts. And you can share the ideas (or the hub, whatever) with anyone you know in the States. Thanks for reading and commenting!

  • ytsenoh profile image

    Cathy 5 years ago from Louisiana, Idaho, Kauai, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri

    Excellent and well-timed and I couldn't agree with you more.

  • joachimartist profile image

    joachimartist 5 years ago from Maastricht (Netherlands)

    I agree, but can't do to much from the Netherlands. Any idea's?

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    You said that so well, adjkp25! I agree - if an apology comes under pressure, it's not very sincere. There are some excellent stories written about his non-apology, if you do some searches.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Charles - I appreciate your comments. If people don't like what's being aired, the sponsors are the ones holding the purse strings. I hope people start speaking out.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    You paint an interesting idea, mjfarns! I think several people could benefit from the lessons to be learned that way. Thanks for the comments!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks, Robie2 - I appreciate your comments! I don't know anything about Rush's personal history, but I do feel his statements should not be tolerated any longer. He crossed too many lines this time.

    As for the reality show media trends, I agree completely. Suddenly, every bad quality humans can display is being aired as entertainment. No wonder cable companies are losing business.

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    LOL! Thanks, Sunshine!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I'm glad you liked the 'editorial,' ThoughtSandwiches. I'm not sure if the moderators will allow some of the words used here, but I do want your voice to be heard. If I have to edit or remove, I will let you know. Thanks for commenting.

  • adjkp25 profile image

    David 5 years ago from Northern California

    I have never liked Limbaugh so what I am about to type might be slightly slanted, but that should be OK since his words usually are anyway right?

    He has always been about walking the line between opinion and shock, kind of like a Howard Stern character but with a political spin.

    What I do not understand, in regards to his latest inappropriate comments, is how many people are just eating up his apology and that they are OK with his poor choice of words. This isn’t a single boo boo on his part, he has done this before once or twice or ten times by now; most people have probably lost count.

    How many times is he going to say something sexist, bigoted, or racist before people wake up and realize that is just who he is? The apology came out after all of the sponsors put heat on him, not because he felt sorry for what he said. He saw dollar signs leaving his program and then he pulled the apology card.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck…it is a duck!

  • profile image

    Charles Hilton 5 years ago

    Rush Limbaugh is a trash-talking, political shock-jock of the worst kind and he's paid very handsomely for it.

    But, there was a time when the FCC required all political talk shows to air opposing viewpoints. That is, until the airwaves were deregulated under Reagan and the corporate establishment was able to shovel tons of money into talk radio, so that their trash-talking mouthpieces can spew their propaganda unabated and unchallenged---that's the only context in which they can compete, because where opposing viewpoints are presented, the Conservative talking-heads are found wanting.

    It never occurs to those who listen to shock-jock-bullies, like the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and O'Reilly's, that they don't care one wit about them or about the truth. And it's unethical purveyors of snake-oil like them that have poisoned the political debate in this country and we're paying dearly it.

    Oh, by the way---excellent hub and very well written! lol

    Up across the board. :)

  • mjfarns profile image

    mjfarns 5 years ago from Bloomington, Illinois USA

    I got an even better idea. Let's force Rush Limbaugh to work at a job that pays just above the povery line, so that he's simultaneously unable to pay his bills and unable to qualify for federal assistance. I think his opinion of "the lazy poor" would change dramatically.

  • robie2 profile image

    Roberta Kyle 5 years ago from Central New Jersey

    Well done, Marcy. I am so on the same page about the excesses of Rush and have been ranting about him for years.

    I also adored Ann Richards the minute I heard her make that speech in which she said " Poor George, he can't help it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth" She was one terrific lady and her kind of down to earth vision is sorely missed.

    Rush is a pathetic drug addicted loser who lives in his own fantasy world and wouldn't know the truth if it walked across the street in front of him. I am delighted he finally stepped over the line and the sponsors are running for the hills. I only hope he is actually finished and off the air soon. Unfortunately, these things have a way of blowing over and his fans will return and so will the sponsors.

    The real problem is our news media which is all about the bottom line and not about journalism. 24 hr cable news is like one long reality TV show or celebrity wrestling event. Simple black and white story line with villains and heroes -- lots of entertainment value and very little political discourse, let alone reality. Rush's slut remark is typical of this mindset.

    The American people have been so manipulated that they expect gladitorial games instead of political debate and it is jerks like Rush Limbaugh who give it to them. Sadly, I don't think we've heard the lst of him.

    Fabulously written, well thought out article and a joy to read-- up up and up!

  • Sunshine625 profile image

    Linda Bilyeu 5 years ago from Orlando, FL

    Hi Marcy, Feel free to use it!:)

  • CMerritt profile image

    Chris Merritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

    and I believe Mr. Limbaugh has regrets with the words he used to battle this issue.

    I rarely listen to him, but I find myself agreeing with him many more times than not.....I also think too many take him too serious...he is an entertainer first and foremost....he is NOT the newsmedia.

    I apologize for getting off of your point, but felt compelled to answer the way I did.

    :)

  • ThoughtSandwiches profile image

    ThoughtSandwiches 5 years ago from Reno, Nevada

    Marcy!

    I could not agree more! I have always found Rush Limbaugh and his opinions to be putrid piles of rotting fish. In this latest episode...I am equally disgusted by the mainstream Republicans who are NOT condemning him for his actions.

    The presumptive front-runner for the Republican PRESIDENTIAL race, Mitch Romney, limited his complaint to, "I wouldn't have used those words." Wow...good for you Mitch! Would you have called her a whore instead of a prostitute?

    Rick Santorum says that it is none of his business? And yet Rick Santorum has made it his business to talk about every other outdated social issue that crosses his diseased mind? Please...show some balls Republicans!

    Alas...in this case you are speaking to the choir. The true recipient of this excellent opinion should be the legions of bigoted fans who have (I'm sure) been tittering inappropriately whenever they see and hear the words, "prostitute" and "slut".

    It's the hypocrisy that kills me...in 2006...Limbaugh was stopped after coming home from the Dominican Republic with a bottle of ANOTHER man's Viagra in his luggage.

    Can we assume that he was in the Dominican Republic to have gay love orgies with men who provided him with their Viagra? Under Rush's limited rules of what is humor...we can. I wonder how Rush would feel about that?

    If he gets upset...I will also offer a non-apology apology that doesn't apologize. In the meantime...I'm looking for local advertisers who support this trash and making my feeling known.

    Thanks,

    Thomas

    PS..sharing this one far and wide!

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    Thanks for leaving an honest and detailed comment, Chris - I respect everyone's right to differ in opinions. My points were not a discussion of 'free' birth control; I was outraged at the level of objectionable language used by a widely followed commentator.

    In my opinion, we should not tolerate this type of language about any group or gender. Limbaugh could have made his points about funding for contraception (whatever those points were - they've been lost in the midst of his rancor), without using the words he used, or directing his comments at an individual.

  • CMerritt profile image

    Chris Merritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

    If you don't like Limbaugh, don't listen to him.....It is really that simple. If people don't listen to him, then he loses sponsers and goes away....the way America is "SUPPOSES" to work.

    I on the other have FULLY support him and HIS point that was made concerning "FREE" birth control...though his words that he chose to discribe were not Sandra Fluke was not the words that I would have used. His point was well taken, and I concur with him... His apology was more than acceptable to those who knew what he meant, and did NOT actually believe that Sandra Fluke was indeed a slut or prostitute.

    This incident will only further my support for Limbaugh...had this been a liberal making a similar statement about a right winger....it would be a silent conflict.

    With all this said, I am no on my way to your profile, to become a follower and I give you props for a well written and a controversial hub.

    Chris

  • Marcy Goodfleisch profile image
    Author

    Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago from Planet Earth

    I think the only petition has been on social sites - it needs to go beyond that, though. I like your phrase - "kicked to the curb," btw - wish I'd thought of using it!! Thanks for reading and commenting, Sunshine!

  • Sunshine625 profile image

    Linda Bilyeu 5 years ago from Orlando, FL

    I agree! Where do I sign up? Where is the petition? I thought he should have been kicked to the curb awhile ago. I wonder if he's talking career advice from Glenn Beck!? Haha!

Click to Rate This Article