About us Login Get email updates
Eric Boehlert
Print

Why the NFL and corporate America reject Limbaugh and Beck

October 19, 2009 5:07 pm ET

So much for being "impotent and powerless."

That's how Rush Limbaugh taunted his critics early last week during an interview on NBC's Today. By the end of the week, after his attempt to purchase the NFL's St. Louis Rams had crashed and burned in spectacular fashion -- after Limbaugh had been thrown under the bus by his fellow investors -- the talker was railing that his critics, no longer so impotent, had morphed into all-powerful players who tricked the gullible NFL into opposing the talk show host's ownership bid.

Of course it wasn't liberals or Democrats or preachers who derailed Limbaugh. It was Limbaugh himself, and his well-documented history of divisive, hateful, and often race-baiting commentary. (e.g. "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.")

Limbaugh last week learned the overdue lesson that there are real-world consequences for trafficking in hate speech. That there are free-market penalties, including the fact that the NFL decided for itself that it can't, and won't, be connected with Limbaugh.

It's the same lesson Glenn Beck learned this year when he discovered that his niche, on-air rants (Obama is a communist-racist-fascist-Nazi) don't speak to the masses. Instead, they freaked out nearly 100 former Glenn Beck advertisers who have gone on record as refusing to be associated with his show. These are blue-chip, small-"c" conservative advertisers who've dropped Beck quicker than a wobbly JaMarcus Russell pass.

For both Limbaugh and Beck, the awkward realization in recent weeks and months is that viewed outside of the dark, paranoid confines of right-wing talk, both men are seen as toxic by the business elite they likely admire the most. It's like at a teen party in the basement when the lights suddenly get turned back on. Nobody in corporate America, and certainly nobody within the mighty NFL, wants to be seen holding hands with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Of course, a hysterical right-wing media treated the Limbaugh rejection as some kind of clarion call to action, trumpeting his failed NFL vanity deal as a turning point in American history and being "dangerous to the property and free speech rights of all Americans." Limbaugh, of course, was in heated agreement, exclaiming, "This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

In truth, Limbaugh's humiliating face plant was entirely predictable, because every few years Rush Limbaugh tries to leave the protected bubble of right-wing radio and venture out into everyday American culture ("tiptoeing into the mainstream," Limbaugh calls it), and every few years the reaction is swift and unambiguous -- get lost!

A Wall Street Journal editorial last week whined that "the left" had tried "to drive Rush Limbaugh and others out of American political life." Not true. This was the NFL's doing, not "the left." The billion-dollar league couldn't care less about Limbaugh's role in America's "political life" and did nothing to try to impede it. All the NFL owners did (i.e. those super-exclusive Republican, country club multi-millionaires) was reject Limbaugh's attempted entry into their mainstream entertainment and pop culture pursuit. The NFL owners know branding better than perhaps any other group of sports professionals, and they knew instinctively that Limbaugh's presence would be poisonous for the sport and for their business.

Of course, this isn't the first time the NFL sent Limbaugh that message. The talker tried to sidle up to pro football as a pre-game analyst with ESPN in 2003. It took the talker just a few weeks before he said something insulting about black athletes (as well as the press) and was summarily fired.

The ESPN fiasco represented a classic case of Limbaugh trying to export his race-baiting commentary from the ugly confines of AM talk radio and dump it into the American mainstream; in this case into the sports world. To this day, I doubt Limbaugh thinks there was anything wrong with his claim that the press was giving Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb too much credit for the team's success simply because they wanted to see a black quarterback do well. Limbaugh thought it was a perfectly reasonable comment, and Dittoheads nationwide likely nodded their heads in agreement. (The liberal media love to root for blacks!) But the sports world's collective jaws hit the ground, and once again the gaping divide between the world of the radical right and the rest of us opened up for everyone to see.

Same with last week's humiliation, which represented a full-throated rejection of Limbaugh, his career, and the hate movement he leads. The NFL's unambiguous bottom line? Limbaugh's bad for business.

The fact that it was the NFL, the quintessential all-American, hard-hitting macho game, that summarily rejected Rush is what probably caused such an unhinged, foot-stomping response from the talker and his legion of Dittoheads. Being rejected by the urban-centered NBA could have easily been explained away by the right wing. But the heartland-loving NFL? Only losing out to NASCAR would have stung Limbaugh more.

His apostles just didn't want to believe that their radical hate politics was being rejected out of hand. They didn't want to believe that outside their cloistered world of partisan politics virtually nobody came to Limbaugh's side in the NFL debate.

Instead, the far right -- and certainly the GOP media -- remains under some grand illusion that they speak for the masses; that corporate America is quietly down with their all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome antics. The right-wing pretends the 1 percent of Americans who watch Fox News somehow reflect Main Street America. But the NFL fiasco and the sweeping Glenn Beck ad boycott tell us a very different story.

Why the disconnect? Because the far-right media and their partisan followers have a completely twisted sense of reality and their own self-importance. They think they have juice because they spend their days and nights locked inside a right-wing echo chamber listening to Limbaugh, watching Beck, and reading Michelle Malkin online. (They're the same people who saw 2 million people marching in the streets against Obama in Washington, D.C., on September 12, and were off by 1.9 million people.)

They're hermetically sealed. But when they're forced out into the daylight that is American society, the rest of us send them a pretty clear message: Go away!

For the NFL, the rejection of Limbaugh was a no-brainer. As former ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith noted while appearing on CNN last week:

And at the end of the day, the NFL is a multibillion dollar business. And [Limbaugh's] clearly a polarizing figure. And there's nothing broke about the NFL. They have replaced baseball as America's pasttime and you don't want to upset the apple cart and he was definitely going to do that.

The NFL leadership was keenly aware that the next time Limbaugh suggested that Americans were being encouraged to bend over and grab their ankles and root for Obama to succeed because his father was black (or something equally demented), that a few hundred, if not thousand, protesters would be marching outside the home of the Rams in St. Louis the next day. That was just a given. And there was simply no way that the controversy-adverse NFL suits, who pride themselves on longstanding commitments to the community, would want that kind of constant political firefight surrounding the team or the league. (Ironically, by turning his failed ownership bid into a partisan pie fight, Limbaugh precisely proved the point of owners who didn't want Limbaugh's incessant, and divisive, self-promotion around.)

From a pop culture marketing and public relations perspective, Limbaugh is positively toxic. Of course, Limbaugh's free to push his AM brand of loathing, and within that world he sells lots of ads. But why on earth would sane businessmen who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a mainstream entertainment franchise want to be associated with Limbaugh's paranoia and divisiveness? Guess what? They don't want anything to do with the guy.

The same is true with Beck, who unleashes his own type of hateful insanity on Fox News. Beck's show has become as unappealing as a virus, and more than 80 advertisers have fled since Beck called Obama a "racist."

The stunningly successful ad boycott, led by ColorofChange.org, is reportedly costing the Glenn Beck show $600,000 in lost revenue each week, as Madison Avenue's who's who of clients bolt the show: Applebee's, AT&T, Bank of America, Best Buy, Campbell's Soup, Capital One, ConAgra, Clorox, ConAgra, CVS, Ditech, Farmers Insurance Group, GEICO, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Lowe's, Men's Wearhouse, Mercedes-Benz, NutriSystem, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Sprint, State Farm Insurance, Traveler's Insurance, Subaru, Toyota-Lexus ,Travelocity, The UPS Store, Travelers Insurance, Verizon Wireless, Verizon, Vonage, and Wal-Mart, among others.

And by the way, what does getting rejected from corporate America sound like? It sounds like this:

  • "We will not be airing on that show [Glenn Beck] any longer." [Subaru of America]
  • "Lexus ads are not appearing on the Glenn Beck show."
  • "You will not see our ads on the Glenn Beck TV program." [UPS Store]
  • "You will not see Flexitol commercials on the Glenn Beck show. Period."
  • "We hear your concerns and are no longer advertising on the Glenn Beck show." [Ditech]
  • "Ashley Furniture HomeStore pulled its advertising from Glenn Beck."
  • "We have taken steps to make sure that [Sprint] will not be advertising on the Glenn Beck show."

As part of his elaborate on-air pity party last week, Limbaugh whined that criticism of his NFL bid was "all about smearing mainstream, traditional conservatism." In truth, Limbaugh and Beck have done more to smear "mainstream, traditional conservatism" this year than any liberal ever could have dreamed of.

Both the NFL, which violently stiff-armed Limbaugh, and the nearly 100 big-time advertisers that have run away form Glenn Beck, helped illustrate that point.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by abynorml294930 (October 19, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
      4  
      These, so-called, news people, (I don't even know what you would refer to them as) like Rush and all of those from FOX, have to learn there are repercussions to what they say and encourage. Just like what happened the Dixie Chicks back when Bush started the Iraq War. Right?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (October 19, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
      12 2
      I'd say that covers the truth of the matter rather exhaustively. And the point about Rush and company doing more harm to the ideals of conservatism than any liberal conspiracy possibly could, is exactly right.

      BTW, my copy of Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," which I bought used at a Salvation Army thrift store, was bookmarked with a clipping from the Atlanta Constitution editorial page that pointed out Goldwater's statement that he was personally pro-integration. It was the paper's Southern Democrat basis for endorsing Johnson.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 19, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
        9  
        Any idea who pushed through the Voting Rights Act, and who voted against it?
        Those Southern Democrats, known as "Dixicrats," were all Republicans within a couple of years.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (October 20, 2009 7:40 am ET)
          4  
          Indeed, the Voting Rights Act was the last straw for many southern democrats (Dixiecrats), who were essentially only democrats, because Lincoln was a republican, and we know who took down the South during the Civil war right?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
      15 1
      Darn, you're good Eric.

      Limbaugh whined that criticism of his NFL bid was "all about smearing mainstream, traditional conservatism." In truth, Limbaugh and Beck have done more to smear "mainstream, traditional conservatism" this year than any liberal ever could have dreamed of.

      Smearing, Rush? Smears are untrue or misleading criticisms about someone. You weren't smeared.

      As is so often seen, Rush has tried to portray himself as a victim. But he's not. He's guilty as charged, just like a criminal convicted of a crime, and that convicted criminal is not a "victim" of the criminal justice system. He's being punished by his own behavior, his own choices, and so is Rush.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (October 19, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
      13 1
      America should reject them because they are dispicable racist idiots.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SonnyEdwards (October 19, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
      6  
      Limbaugh and Beck represent everything that was wrong with America in the last two centuries. The difference is while most Americans evolved into fair minded, tolerant human beings with a desire to live with their neighbors, some like Limbaugh and Beck have clung passionately to their Neanderthal points of view. They become more alone each day.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (October 19, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
      14  
      Good article. This makes sense because for years we've been told about America being a center right country and how the heartland echo the values of the country. Now in reality the vast majority of us live in urban areas that are diverse and our views are just as important as those in the rural areas. I like Eric's description of them stepping out of their rightwing bubble. Exactly.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ny2nc (October 19, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
      11 1
      "I Hope He Fails" - Rush Limbaugh (2009)

      Isn't it terrible how some people blame racism for their personal failures or for their inability to get ahead in today's world?

      Dammit, this is AMERICA and if you fail at something it is because YOU are a failure; a TOTAL LOSER, if you will. This is a POST-RACIST society and only whiny, bleeding heart, LAZY, race-baiting liberals would try to blame so-called racism for their personal failures.

      Yet, El Rushbo claims that the NFL has been infiltrated with "Rascism" and "Liberalism" and THAT is why he was denied his inalienable right to be a minority owner of the Rams.

      "Cry Me A River" - Julie London (1955)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 20, 2009 7:41 am ET)
        5  
        Except, this isn't a post racist society. Never has been, and still has a long way to go to become so.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Buddog25 (October 20, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
        1 7
        America is full of people that hope others fail. Nothing wrong with that. We all fail at many things ... does that make every American a failure; a total loser? I think not.

        The NFL made the right choice for its business and Rush uses his platform to express his opinions; he has never claimed to be a news show, he is a talk show. Run that by MSNBC and see if they think the same about Olberman or Matthews or Maddow.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ny2nc (October 21, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
          7  
          The NFL made the right choice for its business and Rush uses his platform to express his opinions; he has never claimed to be a news show, he is a talk show.


          Taks for taking the time to reply.

          It was, indeed, his opinions that earned him the "bum's Rush" from the NFL deal.

          This has nothing to do about whether his show is a "news" show or a "talk" show. That is, the NFL protests weren't about Rush being a bad reporter; again, it was his opinions that got him booted.

          How does this have anything to do with MSNBC, Olberman or Matthews?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (October 19, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
      10  
      Eric, "GREAT" read and thank you. You are so right with Rush and Beck hurting the Republican Party, and why oh why don't they get this too?

      Money is fine, but making it on the backs of hatred and divisiveness is pure "sleaze". Rush getting kicked out of the bidding team for an NFL team sounds like the guy selling porn and then wanting to buy a girls team in sports, LOL.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Welfare-Warfare State (October 19, 2009 8:06 pm ET)
      3 20
      And here I thought that Beck and Limbaugh were shills for 'corporate America.' Thank goodness we have this doubleplusgood site to set me straight.

      I was wondering if one of you could answer a couple of questions before I go? How many people have died at the hands of Mrs. Dunn's favorite philosopher, Mao? Or maybe a better question is: how many people have to have lives destroyed or ended by the immoral philosophy of collectivism for leftists to disavow it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (October 19, 2009 8:20 pm ET)
        18 2
        How many times are you wingnuts going to make crap up and fling it?

        When are you going to admit that you things 100% your way under the Bush-Cheney junta for 6 years, and in that short space of time you managed to set this country back for decades?

        Mrs. Dunn hasn't killed anyone. This can't be said for the liars and chickenhawks you voted for, twice.
        ~
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dandelion (October 19, 2009 8:50 pm ET)
        18 1
        And how many times are right-wingers going to deflect criticism of their heroes by pointing it at someone affiliated with Obama? How many witch hunts can we expect? Let's see, we've had Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Acorn, Cass Sunstein, that guy who advised the 16-year-old, Sonya Sotomayor, SEIU. Assorted czars. And these are just off the top of my head. Dunn is just the latest. A little research probably would turn up dozens more.
        But my question to Beck and Limbaugh cultists: Isn't just a tad embarrassing to be so cynically manipulated? Isn't the "scandal of the day" a bit transparent by now, even to you?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
        15 2
        If you promise to go away, I'll be happy to answer your questions.

        Anita Dunn doesn't really think that Mao is her favorite political philosopher. She was being facetious.

        Liberals don't think in black and white terms like you do, so we don't think that we need to throw out the baby with the bath water like your side does.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sleepy joe (October 20, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
        2  
        Way to stay on topic.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (October 20, 2009 1:07 am ET)
      8 1
      Limbaugh last week learned the overdue lesson that there are real-world consequences for trafficking in hate speech.


      UNfortunately, there is precious little evidence to support this statement. Limbaugh never learns.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tiredog (October 21, 2009 10:09 am ET)
        4 1
        Is he capable of learning?

        Nothing that he's done or said leads me to believe that he can learn.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (October 20, 2009 2:50 am ET)
      4  
      As I read the article and totally agree with it, the thought came into my mind it's very similar to what Carrie Prejean said--essentially--I told the truth and now I'm being punished for it. This is not a problem with me, this shows the prejudices and hatred of everyone else who is trying to squelch my first amendment right to free speech. Everybody else has a problem but me.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Buddog25 (October 20, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
          6
        Doesn't the NAACP say the same thing?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 20, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
        4  
        Unless "everyone else" is petitioning Congress to make law abridging your free speech, you're okie-dokie. The First Amendment simply prohibits Congress from "squelching" your free speech. I can tell you to shut up any time I want.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Meremark (October 20, 2009 4:04 am ET)
      4  
      ... as in the beginning, so in the end .... (So when you see the beginning being repeated, you can know the end is nigh.)

      Rash Lamebrain was NowhereMan drive time deejay Sacramento, Cali 1984 and he hit his beginning schtick as 'hating Ugly people. You know who you are. Stay home, Ugly people should not be allowed to go out in public. We all know Ugly people, call me at the station if you have your personal Ugly people story.' And the phones rang off the hook and so it began.

      Always, all along, 1965-84, Lamebrain was looking for __code_word__ 'group/class of people' he could BullyBully pick on and vent his seething racism since his Missouri mouth had been shut up by the Civil Rights Act, and after it, he suddenly couldn't say anything derogatory about anybody -- which is all he'd ever learned to say growing up ... the n-word, (not meaning 'Nixon', no, Lamebrain's daddy loved Nixon) -- he couldn't elicit listeners consanguineous guffaws by naming his bigotry at blacks, minorities, Hispanics, Asians, aboriginals, women, disabled people, obesity, religious sects, tradesmen, politicos (until 'equal time' clause lapsed in 1988 and presto! Lamebrain syndicated), he couldn't insult NObody to hear him tell it ... until he hit paydirt stirring bigotry against Ugly people.

      And the Lamebrain 'message' all along is the 'model' -- it's not who you bigot against, it is that it is okay to bigot.

      Hey news: it's not. Capitalism said so. Bigotry is bad for profits, it repels half the prospective market.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dandelion (October 20, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        5  
        Then he changed the code word to "the government," until McVeigh blew up the federal building. So he had to change it to "liberals." By his definition -- unrecognizable to actual liberals -- they embodied all the ills of society: they were weak, vicious, ugly, stupid, they smelled, they looked funny, they weren't "like us," everything was all their fault, they needed to be eliminated.

        Classic, bigoted scapegoating. And nobody seemed to recognize it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Meremark (October 21, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
        4  
        In short:

        [http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/3876532615_2a909767ac300.jpg]
        . period

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (October 20, 2009 9:50 am ET)
      1 8
      stephen a smith also said that he believes rush has as much right as anyone to pursue nfl ownership, and doesn't believe for a minute that black players would not play for him...

      and if roger goodell is so informed about the branding of his league then he must be ok with the ownership in miami, which includes partners who are more ignorgant, racist and profane than rush could ever be...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (October 20, 2009 11:11 am ET)
        7  
        Stephen A. Smith? Yeah, he's an authority on the subject.

        And about the "racist" Miami owners, are they the same "profane" owners that brought in the Williams sisters and Gloria Estefan into their ownership group?

        Fail. Try again.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (October 21, 2009 11:14 pm ET)
            5
          stephen a. smith is an authority in the eyes of media matters by virtue of his quote cited in the article posted above...

          the racist profane owners i refer to are serena williams, j-lo and fergie, who bought shares in the dolphins...

          great success! high five!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 20, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
        3  
        more ignorgant

        Et tu, Kooky?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sleepy joe (October 20, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
        3  
        Which of the Miami owners is racist? I must have missed that one.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (October 21, 2009 11:18 pm ET)
          1 6
          j-lo and fergie... since media matters' criteria for being a racist is simply discussing any aspect of race, then these gals more than qualify by their profuse dropping of "n-bombs"...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 1:57 am ET)
            5  
            If that were truly their criteria, you'd have a point.

            But you don't, because that's not part of their criteria at all.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by pilotx (October 21, 2009 2:12 am ET)
        4  
        Who exactly are these ignorant racists in Miami you speak of. And actually Steven A. Smith said he wanted Rush to get the team so he can see which athletes would stand by their principles. Sure there would be some Black players that would play for a Rush owned team but there would be some who would not. Especially high profile players who would use their notoriety to make known their desire to not play in STL. The NFL did not want this so they took a pass. Think about it, who is more respected among the players Rush or Donovan?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (October 21, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
          1 6
          one can only speculate who is more respected, but if you want to believe it's mcnabb based on a few players' remarks that's your prerogative... your "actually" smith quote references what he said on cnn, i referenced what he said on hannity...

          the profane i speak of is serena williams... the racially insensitive, and therefore racist per media matters' standards, are fergie and j-lo... but i guess it's ok that they drop n-bombs in their music, since they are artists... all 3 are ignorant... maybe if rush had cut a record dropping n-bombs commissioner goodell and the other owners would welcome him...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by sleepy joe (October 22, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
            4  
            You are forgetting. It wasn't the commish that booted him. It was his partners.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by emcfarla1 (October 20, 2009 11:07 am ET)
      2 2
      "That there are free-market penalties, including the fact that the NFL decided for itself that it can't, and won't, be connected with Limbaugh."


      Actually bud, the NFL never decided that it wanted nothing to do with Rush because the owners never got to vote on it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by waltb31 (October 21, 2009 9:55 am ET)
        4 1
        Wrong. Roger Goodell's statement was the NFL denying Rush.
        There is no owner who wanted to be in the public position of having to vote for Rush; it is a no-win situation. They would have voted no in any event.
        If Dave Checkettes would have thought he would gather enough votes from the owners to have Rush approved, he would have kept Rush and his money.
        The fact is, except to the very extreme right wing like Tim McVey, and the people who killed the census worker and the obstetrician, Rush is extremely toxic. He would never be accepted by any normal rational business or person.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tiredog (October 21, 2009 10:12 am ET)
          4  
          However, Dave Checkettes is the one that threw rush under the bus (that must have been a helluva bump!), not the NFL.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by afitzgerald1532 (October 20, 2009 11:40 am ET)
      3  
      Let me be frank: Rush and Glenn have tried for ages to be accepted by mainstream America, to no avail. (Glenn in music radio, since high school & Rush since is ill-advised short stent with ESPN). Their popularity has grown on two facets of American culture. 1st, the population size. A part of the American ethnic majority, they both have the convenience of riding the coat-tails of the fringe. Every culture has a fringe element, America being no different. Now, because their ethnicity makes up the majority of Americans, they automatically have a certain pool of high school educated blue collar followers, who see them as demi-gods. Their limited education and long work week makes them easily moldable to these vile serpents. This populous is in the low millions but have disposable income to have the basic media necessities of American culture. ( AM radio & basic cable). Fueling their anger is American diversity. The good ole boy system of America is slowly deteriorating and the older white power structure has little to know heirs to pass on their ill-gotten control of America too. In addition, they are fads in American Culture because most people have to deal with diversity on a daily basis: while they do not. Either in the workforce, consumer industries, etc. traditional America has to come into contact with other ethnic groups @ some point in their day, week, moth, year. Not those two: Rush, Glenn & even Mark Levin live, work and play in their bunkers. Spewing out this hate and twisting the ways of America around like leaves in the fall wind. This fad of rush & glenn & faux news will slowly dissipate America will continue to move into the 21st century: complete with a improving American landscape that keeps Us at the top of the Global economic pyramid. Within the next 6-12 months, faux news, glenn & rush will slowly close the door on their temporary success. If you wanna call what they have now success.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Buddog25 (October 20, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
          7
        By 2012 their ethnicity will no longer be majority, so drop that argument. I find it funny that one role of the media is to challenge our leadership as a country. Fox is the only one pounding the drum of transparency that this administrations has promised but has not delivered. Not too different from what CNBC has done (and continues to do) to the former President. Wehre was the CNBC bashing? Oh yeah, they knew not to pick that fight.

        Rush is no more a threat now than he has been. The difference is that the more liberal media (broadcast, online and print) are giving him more press than ever before - backfiring galliantly ont hem. Glen Beck is sick and he will fade fast. However, if you leave out the personality and BS comments, he does have some interesting points and relationships to ponder in a much more civil manner.

        Also keep in mind that the current administration is finding that it is easier to make promises than it is to keep them. I voted Dem for the first time in my life and had a lot of hope going into this year. After looking at the facts (or lack of the WH providing them) I am deeply disappointed in the character being displayed. My shining light of hope is that he certainly has had a larger overseas impact than I ever expected. It is the homeland that I am most concerned he may be slowly destroying with his ideaology.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by waltb31 (October 21, 2009 10:04 am ET)
          4  
          You lost your credibility when you listed Fox as a point of reference for truth. Fox is an opinion network, that makes up its "facts" as they go along:
          http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910200009
          After the lack of character, ethics, and morals displayed by Bush, Cheney, et al., you really think this White House lacks character?
          You can't be serious.
          Destroying the homeland with his ideology? How?
          By fighting for health care reform? Saving the domestic auto industry? Ending the recession?
          Unfortunately, when you receive your "facts" from Fox, then you can't be expected to know or understand the truth.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by craig98607271 (October 22, 2009 10:21 am ET)
          4
        since fox, rush and glenn have the highest ratings in there field i doubt they will be going anywhere but richer and richer. rush has been a huge success for 20 years, i wouldn' call that temporary.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bob139 (October 20, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
        3
      The Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-O'Reilly-Malkin-Savage's of the world actually do the country a favor. While they rant and rave over things like Jeremiah Wright and Acorn, real issues get ignored - to the Democrats advantage.

      For over a year leading up to Bill Clinton's 2nd term, Limbaugh's program was three hours of Hillary-Hate. The day after the election (Clinton's re-election), Limbaugh then attacked his audience, saying, don't blame him... he tried his best... not enough conservatives (including listeners) turned out to vote.

      While Limbaugh was demonizing Hillary each day, the public was generally loving Bill - enough to re-elect him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Buddog25 (October 20, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
      1 5
      I like most of your comments, although not very neutral in its tone. The NFL did right for their business. Glen Beck is off the chart. Rush is the same he has always been, he just gets more press today than he did during the Clinton years.

      Interestingly, if a Latino or Asian made the same comments - word for word - and in the same context as Rush, racism would have never been mentioned. Ironic, don't you think? Only whites can be racist? Hmmmmmmmm Ironic, the NFL has never had a black owner or commissioner? Hmmmmmmm Ironic how most of the TV political shows are hosted and produced by whites? And MOST ironic is how the whites are the first to scream racism. Hmmmmmmm
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 20, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
        4 1
        You don't think a latino or an asian would be cited for being racist if they said the same things Rush did? I think you're way off base there.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pilotx (October 21, 2009 2:04 am ET)
        2  
        Most people don't make racial slurs especially if they are an ethnic minority themself because they have what Rush and others of his ilk do not, empathy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by libertycop (October 21, 2009 9:55 am ET)
          1 7
          "Most people don't make racial slurs especially if they are an ethnic minority themself because they have what Rush and others of his ilk do not, empathy."

          That statement comes from not having been out in the real world much. I have heard at least as many ethnic slurs and racial comments from folks of color, especially urban black youth. Don't kid yourself, racism is a knife that cuts both ways and is often used as a tool of the "Us against them" crowd.

          Recently Warren Ballentine told Juan Williams: "You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK."

          Ballentine claims it wasn't racial but later said this when (white) people expressed outrage:"...How dare you get on our negro who is defending us!"

          Really? No, Mr. Ballentine how dare a black man say something that doesn't fit your racist view? Terms like "Race traitor", "Uncle Tom", "House negro", "Porch Negro" or the other "N" word are bantered about like confetti on New Years if a black man doesn't act "black enough" or stand with those of his own race in a debate. That type of thinking in itself is "racist".

          And if you think it's only about color, you haven't been around much either. Ever heard of Bosnia? Racial and ethnic tensions come from pride in the things that separate us as human beings rather than pride in the things that connect us. It's one of the reasons that I try to think of myself as simply "American" and not some ethnic pre-title American.

          As far as the bloviating Limbaugh is concerned, it's not that he hasn't made racially provocative comments, it's that the ones that were being cited were completely fictitious. If the truth counts, if accuracy counts, then it counts on both sides of the argument, not just on the side you are on.

          I still think that we have larger problems in this country than conservative commentary and that there is a disingenuous tone to those who only concern themselves with the wrong being done by "the other side". I think both sides need to clean up their houses.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by pilotx (October 21, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
            5  
            As a Black man I am extremely aware of racial matters and very sensitive to such. When one refers to a member of their own race who defends people who oppress them then they are sell-out. Nothing racist about that. Juan Williams defending Rush is an example of that. Tell you what Mr. Real World, talk to a few older Black people who have experienced REAL racism like my parents and grand parents and then we can discuss racism. To us being lynched for no good reason or having dogs sicced on you or fire hoses being turned on children is racism not expressing one's views on a tv show. Only two quotes I have seen have been falsely attributed to Rush but the others are real. I have heard him make some of them myself so if you defend him I think you should look closely at your beliefs instead of this trying to paint "our" side as racists. Rush has been trying this trick for years but tell me how Black racism affects you. We have a long history of racism affecting us what's your side of the story? I'd love to hear.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by libertycop (October 22, 2009 1:26 am ET)
              1 6
              My comment about the other side wasn't about black and white but about opposing political views.
              But since you ask:
              My father and my uncles used to get beaten by Irish Cops just because they were Italian, the KKK actually burned a cross on my Grandfather's lawn when they moved to the country in the 1930s (my fathers family was Catholic). Most of my Mother's family was killed by American and British Bombs in Germany. When she was a kid starving in the streets of post war Germany, American soldiers used to throw food in the dirt and watch her and the other kids scramble for it. My fathers family didn't come to this country until the early 1900's, my mother until 1958. Granted no slavery and nobody got lynched, true, but my uncle lost an eye in one of those beatings. Oh by the way, I don't hate Americans of Irish decent or Americans. In fact I love America. Served as a Marine, a police officer, and now own my own business.

              Mikeskew, with all due respect, is Rush Limbaugh oppressing you? The point Juan Williams was making was that people were using made up quotes to attack him to further an agenda. For that he's a "Porch Negro"? I have been called "honkey" and "cracker" by blacks, had a pair black youths pull a knife on me in Memphis, and have had a home broken into and burglarized by two black men. Yet somehow I manage to set that all aside and not judge the entire black race based on those experiences. If you justify black on white racism based on past experiences or history then that would justify if I were racist against blacks wouldn't it? I don't accept that. I don't accept that blacks can call each other the "N" word, any more than I would use an ethnic slur used against my mother or father. How about Jesse Jackson calling Obama the "N" word? Was that acceptable? I think not. I'm not trying to paint your side as racist, but the hard truth is that there are black racists and white racists both born of fear and ignorance and I find neither acceptable. But even if you're a black racist and you come to buy a car from my dealership or get a loan from my bank should I turn you away because of your ignorant prejudice; or should I treat you like a fellow American and look past the tension to possibly foster a better realtionship? You can create all of the equivocation you want, hatred based on race or ethnicity is hatred based on race or ethnicity; racism, period. As it turns out, Limbaugh and Doctor Rev. Ken (The Hutch) Hutcherson are pretty close friends. Since most racists have a hard time looking past race I wonder how this could be?
              I'm certain that I'll get the myriad of negative rates for stating this case and my tag because most of the Libs in here just assume I'm a Republican, right-wing wacko, birther, teabagging, whatever it is that they hate, but I've got broad shoulders and a pretty good sense of humor, so I'll take it in stride. - Peace.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (October 22, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                5 1
                If Rush is no racist he certainly plays a good one on his show. So you had crosses burned on your family lawn by the KKK and you were beaten by cops for being Italian. Yet somehow you only point to your experiences with black people that you proudly claim didn't make you hate black people although you allege you have enough reason to. I'am confused, because it seems you had just enough reason to hate "white" people by your logic yet you only point to blacks. Is it because you identify yourself as "white"? How many black car dealerships turn away "white" customers? Do you really think that Rush because he has a few "black" friends is not playing to the stereotypes and fears "whites" have of "black" people. How is he furthering the understanding you seem to have by telling "black" callers to take the bone out of their nose, or that Jessie Jackson looks like the composite of every "black" criminal, or that America is being asked to bend over and grab their ankles because the presidents father is "black"? It seems he is playing on those fears and stereotypes and whether or not he actually believes them or has "black" friends is beside the point,his actions are clouding the waters and playing to racial fears. The NFL and his ownership group had every right to reject him or reward his behavior.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by craig98607271 (October 22, 2009 10:35 am ET)
              4
            well said liberty. i hate the way people use the term racist. they throw it around like a elitist frisbee.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by ny2nc (October 21, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
        6  
        Interestingly, if a Latino or Asian made the same comments - word for word - and in the same context as Rush, racism would have never been mentioned. Ironic, don't you think?


        Interesting statement.

        And you know this because there is a portal to another dimension where an Asain Rush Limbaugh was able to make the same comments and not be thrown under the bus?

        Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, indeed.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny1979 (October 20, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
      2 7
      So I guess in NFL's America only theives, crackheads, rapists, and dog killers(Vick) deserve a second chance and continue to be role models to the youth of America? Yeah, the NFL priorities are in the right place when they continue holding hands with Michael "Dog Killer" Vick.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by waltb31 (October 21, 2009 10:08 am ET)
        5  
        If your assumption is that Rush is perfect, not a racist, not a bad person, etc. then why would he need a second chance? Just asking.
        So I guess you are saying that Rush is a bad guy, racist, etc. and would change his ways if he were allowed to be an NFL owner? Riight.
        Wow. Pathetic.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by benjr (October 21, 2009 11:24 am ET)
        6  
        I hate this false analogy. Yes, Vick and company did commit crimes, but they paid their time. I don't believe that the NFL really cares all that much either way, either about Vick or Rush. This is a business. Vick sells tickets and jerseys; Rush would not. I think that most NFL owners lean more towards the right than the left, but the bottom line is that they want to make money. Rush has a history of hurting the NFL brand, while Vick does not. And don't try to bring up financial negatives associated with the Philadelphia Eagles signing Michael Vick; I live in Philly and have been an Eagles fan for my entire life, and I can tell you he hasn't hurt the marketability of the team in any way.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NowApologize (October 21, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
        3
      Oh my only 1% watch Fox ?

      Then why do we waste our time treating the like their important ?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MoCrash (October 21, 2009 8:44 pm ET)
      2  
      It's instructive that Limbaugh and Beck, both entertainers rather than journalists, are not commercial spokesmen (Beck has an ad for a small regional tire store, so is certainly not averse to it). If they were popular with mainstream America, there would be plenty of money from Madison Avenue thrown their way. As it is, they are persona non grata to advertisers.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (October 22, 2009 12:09 am ET)
        1 3
        you need a new instructor... if rush is persona non grata among advertisers, he would not be able to sell his show to 600 stations, who in turn must also sell ads... 20 million listeners per week sounds pretty popular and mainstream to me... if anyone else in radio rivals those numbers i'd like to know who... and finally, rush is indeed a spokesman for many of his advertisers...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by stevea66 (October 22, 2009 4:39 am ET)
          2  
          Howard Stern may have rivaled those numbers. Perhaps one thing those two audiences have in common would be that they're less evolved than many of the rest of us are. And, frankly, many Stern fans are white men who drink beer and chew tobacco. Many of the same folk you'd find at an extreme right march or at a townhall sportin' a firearm. Just sayin.'

          On FOX - I have been playing around with a concept. I'll turn on FOX for 10 minutes. During that time, I look for some lie or distortion. Without fail, I have yet to watch 10 minutes without seeing something. On one occassion, there were nearly 20 in 10 minutes. Yikes!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by libertycop (October 22, 2009 9:30 am ET)
              4
            WOW!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by craig98607271 (October 22, 2009 10:41 am ET)
              4
            gee steve i do the same thing, only with MSNBC...same result as you.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (October 22, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
              3  
              Then I suggest you adjust your tin-foil hat you are picking up the wrong signals. MSNBC is no where near as bad as Faux. Anyway I don't get my news from cable TV. Just sayin'...
              Report Abuse
    • Author by edduval (October 22, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
      1 1
      You might remember the car dealer who made International new for his promotion giving away AK47s with the purchase of a Truck.

      He’s back in the news again and this time it doesn’t involve guns, but there’s definitely a political statement being made.

      This same car guy is now protesting against the NFL because of the whole Rush Limbaugh/St. Louis Rams ordeal.

      Saw this on CNSNews. You can find more information on the story there.

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55746

      Just wanted to pass it on, I thought it was interesting.

      Thanks,
      -ed
      Report Abuse