Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh controversy

[bara]

I have to wonder... is he really that farking stupid? Or is he just giving lip service to the people who listen to him?

[Silverharp]

I have to wonder... is he really that farking stupid? Or is he just giving lip service to the people who listen to him?

I don't think it's stupidity, I thinks it's sheer arrogance.
People like Limbaugh and Beck spend so much time spouting off whatever they think will give them the most notoriety and make the most noise that when they do go over the line one too many times they can't wrap their egos around "Wait...I'm supposed to be accountable for what I say? when the hell did THAT happen!?"

[Anthony K. S.]

I have to wonder... is he really that farking stupid? Or is he just giving lip service to the people who listen to him?

The latter, I think.

Honestly, I would be very surprised if Rush Limbaugh actually believed even a quarter of the things he says.


I remember when people were talking up Sarah Palin as a Presidential contender for 2012, and I was talking to a friend of mine about how Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, et. al., were constantly saying that Palin was intelligent, capable, and a great leader who had been "smeared" by the biased news media.

I said that if Limbaugh and the rest of them actually believed even 10% of what they were saying about Sarah Palin, I would be astonished. My guess has always been that they know she's an idiot, but they won't say that because it's not what their target audience wants to hear.


That's pretty much my view on a lot of political commentators (on both sides of the fence, really). People like Rush Limbaugh have established themselves for their selected audience, and they will say whatever their audience wants to hear, whether it's true or not, whether they believe it or not. That's how they get to be so popular and successful.

It's unfortunate, but given the choice between listening to somebody who will tell you an unpleasant truth and somebody who will tell you comforting lies, people will all too often go with what they want to hear.

[Evandril]

What I love, is after listening to the interview where she talks about going to the pharmacy, and finding out her perscription isn't covered...she *must* be talking about condoms! After all, every college student requires a perscription to buy condoms!

That's where the 'soooo much sex!' comments came from, asking how she's going through that many condoms that she's spending $3k on them. That level of stupid HAS to be deliberate for my own peace of mind...

[Skunkle]

Have to agree with you, Andrew, on political pundits (from both sides, though especially, I think the extreme-right ones) saying what their audience wants to hear more than what they believe. But the current crap is just beyond the pale. Foster Friess claiming birth control used to entail "keeping an aspirin between her knees" was basically a ha-ha-funny way of saying, "Keep yer legs shut and we won't have this problem!" And now, Limbaugh claiming this girl's a slut, hinting that she must need the government to pay for birth control because she uses so much of it**, saying things about paying for mens' issues (the government DOES pay for Viagra, dumbass!), a half-asses apology containing some statements that counter the apology as well as an awful lot about himself (as usual), AND claims that if she's having that much sex, she should send him videos for him to watch (disgusting!)... The list goes on and on. These guys name me feel sick.

**In my opinion, his suggestion that if she wants government-funded birth control, she must be having a lot of sex indicates a failure to understand birth control beyond condoms, which is NOT the kind she's talking about. I think it indicates that Limbaugh thinks birth control for women is akin to condoms or Viagra: each time you fuck, you have to take a dose. It tells me that he knows zero about this subject. Especially considering she was discussing the use of birth control to treat a medical condition. He knows NOTHING about any of this. Not that I think he's ever had reason to learn.

[Rapscallion]

I'm just baffled he had that many sponsors to begin with.

Rapscallion

[jackfaire]

He knows NOTHING about any of this. Not that I think he's ever had reason to learn.

He is a political commentator deigning to have an opinion on it. That is the reason to learn. Any political commentator that blatantly omits information to make their point seem right or simply bathes in ignorance immediately loses all credibility with me.

[mikoyan29]

I guess my beef with all of this is that Fluke is a private citizen that wanted to address her concerns in front of the governing body. Yes, she sought the limelight for the time it took her to plead her case in front of the Congress. And as she wanted to do this, the chairman of that particular committee said no. Because, you know a woman's perspective on what is mostly a woman's issue wouldn't be needed.

Anyway, as such, I don't think she should be fair game. Obama, Clinton (either of them), Issa, etc. are all fair game.....

[Andara Bledin]

I'm just baffled he had that many sponsors to begin with.

It's likely not a matter so much of him having sponsors, as of sponsors buying ad slots and not restricting them from being aired during his program.

As for the man, himself, he's not nearly as bad as his persona, or as ignorant, but he's caught up in the far right echo chamber, and apparently has forgotten that there's a limit on just how nasty you can be while on the public airwaves.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

It's likely not a matter so much of him having sponsors, as of sponsors buying ad slots and not restricting them from being aired during his program.

Interesting. I always assumed that the cost of the slots depended on how many listeners there were. I would have expected more advertisers to have sought his programme specifically as he's known to attract a lot of people.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Interesting. I always assumed that the cost of the slots depended on how many listeners there were. I would have expected more advertisers to have sought his programme specifically as he's known to attract a lot of people.

Rapscallion

And so they do. There will, sadly, be no trouble replacing the ones who have left.

[jackfaire]

And so they do. There will, sadly, be no trouble replacing the ones who have left.

Like any other "controversial" commentator half of his listeners will be people who hate him and wait for him to dig holes like this

[DrFaroohk]

Anyone think Rush and those like him are just....trolling? I'm not saying he's not a conservative asshole, but sometimes I get the feeling he's trying to piss people off. Like this Fluke thing - just a way to get his name out there a little more. Maybe backfired this time.

[jackfaire]

Maybe backfired this time.

Or worked perfectly. It's a valid theory as it is how some of them do business. Unless they lose their shows entirely their ratings will go up because of the controversy.

[mikoyan29]

I'm a liberal but there are Conservative writers that I can read and appreciate their position. William F. Buckley was one of those. He was articulate and could express his opionion without denigriating the opposition. George Will is another. Then at some point, we got to the Conservative writers that just seem to insult their opponents without necessarily explaining why they think the way they do. I lump Coulter in this category. It seems that her only function is to say batshit crazy stuff in order to stir up book sales. But I would also say the same thing about Michael Moore. I enjoy his documentaries and I find them factual but those facts are cherry picked to prove his point....like just about everything else.

But I think where Rush crossed the line is by picking on what is basically a private citizen. Yes, she wanted to speak before Congress but I don't think she wanted to be in the cross hairs for the likes of Rush. And when people bring up Palin or Ingraham, both of those folks are public figures and expect the publicity (and probably relish it).