I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.

BlogRoll

Just what’s happening to Limbaugh?

With all the talk, I was wondering exactly what was happening to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, and whether it really mattered that, at the last count I saw, he’d lost 45 advertisers.  That BoingBoing link points to a Media Matters page, where they’re logging commercials on Limbaugh’s show, and whether the advertisers still there have made public announcements they are quitting.  It’s pretty amazing.  For today’s log, I count seven remaining advertisers who have not made commitments to quit, along with a number who have. That’s seven advertisers.  Along with a whole mountain of public service announcements that don’t pay a dime, and seem clearly about filling that empty time those 45 advertisers left.

It does appear that Limbaugh is finally paying for his assholishness.  Pretty amazing.

40 comments to Just what’s happening to Limbaugh?

  • Steve Eugster

    Despite what is happening with Limbaugh’s advertisers it still seems he is getting the benefit of a pass by Clear Channel. Recall what happened to Don Imus. I wonder what the difference is. And, George Will’s comment yesterday was interesting — Republicans threaten war right and left but they are afraid of Limbaugh.

  • pam

    I don’t understand people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, he’s so angry and mean. Why would anyone want to listen to that all day?

  • Observer

    ADVERTISERS may have to re-think their decision to pull their ads.

    One of the things Limbaugh said on his show was “these companies don’t want your business anymore.” I loved it!

    Carbonite’s stock dropped 12 percent overnight.

  • Bob W.

    That’s just 45 advertisers (some national, others regional) who have made public statements that they were pulling their spots from the program. You have to wonder how many advertisers will pull out quietly without announcing anything publicly.

  • P.B. Pike

    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, right Observer? What happened to the stock of the other 44 advertisers?

  • Anderson

    Angry + mean = GOP base, Pam.

  • Floyd Pink

    I’m going to try and listen to him a few times this week since I know these are his final days. This will surely be it for him. Once a credible watchdog group like Media Matters targets you the writing is on the wall.

    Limbaugh is gone and Obama’s reelection is inevitable. This is a sad time to be a conservative.

  • NMC

    So you don’t think he’s being squeezed, Floyd?

  • Floyd Pink

    I really don’t. It is already starting to backfire. For every crass and stupid comment on the right, you can find ten from the left. (Just goggle any MSNBC employee and the majority of mainstream comedian/entertainers). So now the right is counterpunching with this fact and there is new media and Fox to get the word out. Even ABC has been moving toward the center this last year or so.

    The whole controversy, all the birth control nonsense, is all about not talking about the economy. It has worked for a few weeks but it’s a long way until November.

    Rush apologized and he seemed sincere. He knows he was wrong to go there. No one is still raising hell except for those who never listen to him. The left has been trying to destroy him for years and this is just a speed bump.

  • Ignatius

    Rush said yesterday that the advertisers lost are among about 18,000 advertisers of his show. He compared the ones leaving to a few french fries being lost at the drive-through. Still, he apologized so he must be privately crying over those few spilled french fries, otherwise, I think he would have taken the opportunity to double-down.

  • pam

    yes, lol, but why is he so angry and mean? He’s got all the happiness money can buy. I’m cornfused.

  • Anderson

    I don’t know enough about Limbaugh to guess how much is an act and how much is sincere. He may not know, for that matter.

    I offer this doggerel:

    A dumb ass will gladly pay
    To hear a smart ass bray.

  • Floyd Pink

    I agree, Anderson. That explains all the people who get their news from the likes of Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. Present company excluded, of course.

  • Ben

    Never misunderestimate the crudity and tastelessness of the American buying public … including the radio-listening public. People go to the bank pandering to the least.

  • Silence DoGood

    Well, at least he will always have “Spatula City” as an advertiser.

  • Observer

    My thought about a lot of the advertisers who pulled their advertising from Limbaugh was that it was a stunt within a stunt — these companies got national news media coverage and these companies were then discussed by people who didn’t know the companies existed because they never listened to Limbaugh.

    Limbaugh said today that the number of 45 advertisers is false, and that at least three of the companies who publicly quit his show are now asking to come back.

    BTW, Media Matters is the least credible source of information around. Anyone who cites Media Matters as a source is not worth listening to.

    Meanwhile, do people even know exactly what Rush said?

    What he said is, “What do you call a woman who wants to be paid for having sex?”

    Well, what would you call her?

    See: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439355/caught-on-tape-limbaughs-70-sexist-smears/

  • I rarely listen to Rush, but he is entertaining precisely because he dances on the edge. When he goes overboard, it does make for a nasty situation.

    A majority of the “advertisers” which have pulled their ads weren’t Limbaugh sponsors to begin with. They are advertisers who just placed through agencies and some of these ads were placed with Limbaugh.

    I’m sure he’d rather not lose the business, but assuming he weathers this storm, and I think he will, there will be a demand for advertising. But the people who jumped ship may have a hard time getting back on. Carbonite stock is down but Sears is up. Meanwhile, no one seems to be drinking Snapple these days.

  • Lee

    Anybody thinking Rush’s apology befitted the crime should watch this video.

    http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/video-compilation-of-limbaugh-attacking.html

    (Sorry, don’t know how to do the html link.)

    He degraded the woman over seventy times. And made comments about her being sexually active in grade school etc. It’s one of the most disgusting performances ever aired. Even that asshole Bill Maher is saying Rush has suffered enough. Yeah? Watch the video and decide. Most people, I think, are under the impression this was a one or two time hatchet job. No, this was a tirelessly pornographic assault on a woman.

    And sorry but there is no comparison to anybody on the liberal side treating women like this. If you argue otherwise then please post the video backing up your argument.

  • pam

    Not only does Rush Limbaugh hate women, poor kids, blacks, gays and liberal, he hates the world:

    “The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.”
    ~Rush Limbaugh, advocating for blowing up the world.

  • Lee

    My bad. Apparently Bill Maher is a much bigger jerk than even I thought he was. So I retract my statement about no liberal talking head being as big a woman hater as Rush. The things Maher said about Palin were awful. I hate his show and had no idea.

    I wonder if Maher has been in damage control mode ever since the Rush To Judgement began. Might explain his forgiving attitude toward Rush as well as his one million donation to Obama.

  • Observer

    LIMBAUGH. In the FWIW department, having listened a little bit this morning, at least one of the advertisers who made a big deal about quitting the Limbaugh show is again advertising today.

    Note to Lee: I’m sorry, but any person who attends a $45K per year law school and wants other people to pay for their birth control deserves every scintilla of derision that can be dribbled onto their head.

  • P.B. Pike

    “[E]very scintilla of derision…”

    So Observer, she deserved to be called a “slut” and a “prostitute”? You approve?

    You do know, don’t you, that Ms. Fluke intended to testify about the necessity of the pill in treating polcystic ovary syndrome? And that she intended to speak about the benefits of covering contraception generally, not just at expensive law schools? And that most students in law school, regardless of the cost, pay for tuition through student loans? And that the cost of contraception over a year is around $3,000 — considerably less than the cost of an unwanted pregnancy, and therefore in everybody’s interest to cover as an ordinary insurance benefit?

  • Observer

    P.B. Pike, you do realize that Fluke, a long-time Democrat activist, voluntarily chose to attend a CATHOLIC law school, and that birth control violates the conscience of the Catholic church (whether you agree with it or not)?

    If she didn’t want to follow their rules, she should have chosen another school. And for what it is worth, I thought everything Rush said was hysterically funny.

  • Anderson

    Observer, I presume you are aware that most American Catholics reject their church’s highly-contrived teaching on that point?

    Garry Wills will refresh your memory if necessary.

    If this issue arose because a Muslim college were refusing to cover some procedure frowned upon by Islam, those yelping about “religious liberty” in the present instance would instead be howling about Sharia law’s imposition on innocent Americans.

    On this issue, I see no material difference between Sharia law and the teachings of the RCC.

  • P.B. Pike

    So calling a woman who speaks her mind a “slut” and a “prostitute” and saying that the price for having contraception covered by insurance should be posting on the internet videos of her engaged in sexual intercourse is “hysterically funny” to at least one commenter here, who calls himself “Observer” with no apparent irony.

    QED, I think.

    The Catholic Church’s supposedly principled stand on contraception and its institutions’ coverage for it is a total lie. The largest Catholic university in America, DePaul University, provides insurance that covers birth control. Lots of other Catholic schools, hospitals, etc., do the same and have done so for years before this absurd, damning controversy arose. And while contraception may violate the conscience of the elderly male virgins who rule the Catholic Church, it does not violate the consciences of the overwhelming majority of their female parishoners. It is beyond dispute that ordinary Catholics wholly ignore that recently minted “teaching” of their Church, as well they should.

    I’m not aware of any incident in which Sandra Fluke violated one of Georgetown’s rules. The law school faculty and administration has wholeheartedly defended her right to speak her mind on this issue, calling her a model of civility. They are right. She sees a school policy that she believes disadvantages women without justification and speaks out against it. People like Observer see her do that and seethe with resentment until somebody calls her a “slut” — whereupon they howl in laughter. The president, ever the pol, calls her and tells her that her parents should be proud. And people wonder why women favor the president over the likes of Gingrich, Santorum, Romney and Observer.

    Observer’s gross support for the former drug addict Limbaugh’s lockerroom misogyny is further proof that the defining characteristics of the blowhard right are its innate meanness and staggering gullibility.

  • P.B. Pike

    I agree with Anderson 100% on this. The comparison between the Church’s dogma and Sharia law is apt.

  • WantedToBeALawyer

    Anderson, to me, the difference is between the meaning of the words “law” and “teachings”. One is voluntary, one is not.

    Dr X discussed this previously:

    “Fluke discussed denial of coverage for use of birth control pills to prevent cysts. I know for a fact that such use is not prohibited by the Catholic Church. As long as the medication is genuinely being used for treatment of a medical condition, its use is permitted.

    From Humanae Vitae: “Lawful Therapeutic Means”

    On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from-provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

    Even nuns can take birth control pills for management and treatment of medical conditions.

    I’m personally familiar with church-paid coverage offered by two major providers. They both distinguish coverage for these medications based on coding. I know that one policy requires preauthorization, but it is definitely covered. Been there, done that.”

    Dr X also posted an update that Georgetown’s insurance covers such uses.

  • P.B. Pike

    WTBAL, I fail to see any anti-Catholic sentiments expressed here. Anti-dogma, yes. Anti-Catholic, no. In fact, I think Anderson and I clearly align ourselves with the vast majority of Catholics who have sense enough to ignore such stupid and transparently areligious teaching from the craven hierarchy clinging to power in the Vatican. So anti-Vatican, yes there too.

  • WantedToBeALawyer

    PB, you monitor this blog way too closely, man.

    For those that don’t monitor it, right after my initial submission where I had written something along the line of “This thread has taken an anti-Catholic turn. Not pretty.” as my second paragraph. I immediately read my post, didn’t like that line, and took it out.

  • P.B. Pike

    To the contrary, I didn’t monitor it closely enough.

  • Anderson

    I don’t consider myself anti-Catholic, but I call shenanigans on stuff like Humanae Vitae, where the Pope deliberately chose an obscurantist path against the advice of his own council of advisers.

    The uninformed musings of (putatively) celibate men on human reproduction should be of little more than psychological interest.

    I mean, what next? Pregnancy covered only if one’s married?

  • NMC

    “I call shenanigans” would be a good name for a blog.

  • P.B. Pike

    Wills, linked by Anderson above, does a nice job of putting the lie to the Humanae Vitae shenanigan. After the introduction of the pill, Pope Paul VI decided he should review Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical forbidding the use of contraception. The outcome had absolutely nothing to do with God or morality or anything other than the self-image of the papcy itself:

    “There was broad disagreement with Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on the matter. Pope Paul VI set up a study group of loyal and devout Catholics, lay and clerical, to make recommendations. The group overwhelmingly voted to change the teaching of Pius XI. But cardinals in the Roman Curia convinced Paul that any change would suggest that the church’s teachings are not eternal (though Casti Connubii had not been declared infallible, by the papacy’s own standards).

    When Paul reaffirmed the ban on birth control in Humanae Vitae (1968) there was massive rejection of it. Some left the church. Some just ignored it. Paradoxically, the document formed to convey the idea that papal teaching is inerrant just convinced most people that it can be loony. The priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley said that Humanae Vitae did more damage to the papacy than any of the so-called “liberal” movements in Catholicism. When Pius IX condemned democracy and modern science in his Syllabus of Errors (1864), the Catholic historian Lord Acton said that Catholics were too sensible to go crazy every time a pope does. The reaction to Humanae Vitae proves that.”

    It looks to me like Catholics have lived up again to Acton’s observation. The Evangelicals and Republicans, led by Limbaugh, have fallen short, again.

    Here’s the link to the whole article, cogently argued as Wills always does: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/feb/15/contraception-con-men/

  • Anderson

    Re: “shenanigans” I was thinking of this classic blog post, discussing Dubya’s alarmist vision of “a fundamentalist terrorist state stretching from Spain to Indonesia”:

    John: (calling up map on laptop) You know, I guess if you start in Spain, swing hard south through northern Africa, you got Algeria, Libya there, Egypt, cross the Red Sea and you’re in the Middle East …

    Tyrone: From there, if you spot him the Indian Ocean and India, you’re in Indonesia.

    John: I am not spotting him eight hundred million Hindus. I call shenanigans.

    That’s the “Crazification Factor” post, one of those moments that justifies the whole internet, so if you haven’t read it (or not for a while), do click through.

  • WantedToBeALawyer

    I intend for this to be a provocative statement. Also, I am curious.

    Should we mandate that a Catholic priest/obgyn doctor perform abortions if his clinic/hospital which receives federal money? Or should there be a waiver?

  • Steve Eugster

    I live in Spokane, Washington. I am Methodist. In Spokane, The Sisters of Providence decided about a century ago to provide, as an expression of their religious faith, hospital services to all those who needed such services.

    I do not see how the Government Party (we really only have one party) can tell the Sisters their hospital has to perform abortions if it is against the Sisters’ religion to perform abortions. The Sisters are quite serious about their faith — and they are calm about it, they are not judgmental. And, it is not that their hospital is the only show in town.

  • Observer

    @Anderson
    March 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    I mean, what next? Pregnancy covered only if one’s married?

    DAMN GOOD idea!!!! Maybe there would be fewer unwed mothers. Once upon a time, there weren’t many unwed mothers, but our government has adopted policies that actually promote unwed pregnancies.

    Where that ultimately leads to is a situation like exists in Russia today where abortions outnumber live births. That is the mark of a society in serious decline.

  • Observer

    RE-VISITING LIMBAUGH. At least two of the sponsors who made splashy public statements about withdrawing their sponsorship of Limbaugh’s radio show are again advertising on his show. Gotta love it.

  • P.B. Pike

    Still chortling over a young woman being called a “slut” in front of the whole country, huh Observer? So much for chivalry.

  • Floyd Pink

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/limbaugh-sees-heat-over-comments-turn-down-to-a-simmer/2012/03/28/gIQAspEKhS_story.html?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop

    The war on Rush…The War on Women….The Traylon Martin “white hispanic” Controversy….It appears that nothing is working out as planned for the Democrats and State Run Media. In fact, in all of the False Controversies listed above, the liberal elite, while trying to exploit the uninformed, took a beating by way of a massive backlash and educated many of those in the middle to their tactics.

    The Martin thing is just now starting to turn around and it is making it apparent to more people than ever just what the Race Hucksters are all about. (Many of us have known for years) Thanks to Fox News and the Internet, the voters of the country are seeing through the spin and moving right.

    2012 is shaping up to be even more of a Shellacking than 2010. Thank you President Obama! The greatest thing for the conservative movement since William F. Buckley.

Leave a Reply