Skip to comments.(Vanity) Strength in Numbers: The REAL meaning of the Limbaugh Flap
Posted on 03/05/2012 9:05:03 PM PST by grey_whiskers
The saga of Sandra Fluke (Trojan Whorse) and Rush Limbaugh continues. Rush Limbaugh made a heartfelt apology on Saturday, apparently caving to pressure from advertisers who suspended or ceased advertising on his program. He continued on Monday, devoting approximately forty or forty-five minutes of his show, first to apologizing for using two derogatory words for Sandra Fluke -- because using them was sinking to the level of the left -- and the remainder of that time to providing timely background to her appearance before Pelosi.
As it turns out, the Democrats on Darrel Issa's committee considering mandatory provision of contraception / abortion by insurance companies on behalf of Catholic Institutions, wanted originally to provide Barry Lynn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) as a witness; at the last minute, the night before the hearing, Sandra Fluke was proposed as a substitute witness. The Republicans in charge of the committee declined; so Pelosi set up an opportunity for Fluke to parade her script as though it were testimony before the whole committee.
Since that point, and since Rush Limbaugh's apology, an number of interesting things have happened.
But the most interesting thing of all, is contained in this piece from ABC News attempting to gloat at what is fervently hoped to be a body blow to the Rush Limbaugh program (someone reading this article, please save the webpage for posterity in case they try to take it down the memory hole):
The companies' often short statements posted to Twitter, Facebook and corporate blogs have already received an outpouring of comments. More than 1,100 people "liked" AOL's decision within three hours of it being posted on Facebook. And while Carbonite has less than one-tenth as many Facebook fans as AOL, more than 4,600 people have "liked" or commented on its decision to withdraw their ads since it was posted on Saturday.
The progressive activist group Credo action collected more than 360,000 signatures in an online petition calling for all national advertisers to pull their support from Limbaugh's show.
What is the significance of this? This is the penultimate example: a set up of Rush Limbaugh, a *rare* case where he did not tread carefully, and legitimately issued a *real* apology for his words. Right in the middle of the astroturfing Axelrod and dictatorial wannabe Cass Sunstein's turf, on a topic *sacramental* to the left: abortion rights and funding!
And Glory be to Gaia, it appears it was coordinated in advance with the press (remember the Stephanopoulos questions?), the Dems in Congress (Pelosi), Media Matters, and for all we know, select liberal advertisers and pressure groups.
This was a hanging curveball, right in their wheelhouse.
And what do we find?
1,100 people "liking" a faceboook page on this topic from Carbonite.
3,600 people "liking" a similar facebook page from AOL.
And a liberal group, in a MASSIVE online campaign, captures 360,000 people in a petition to condemn Rush.
Sounds impressive, right?
Except for one...tiny...little...thing.
Rush has 20 MILLION listeners a week.
360,000 is less than 2% of that -- and all they had to do was click a couple times on their computer: not listen for three hours a day.
There is STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.
We are ALL Andrew Breitbart.
What I’d like to know is why a man that usually relies so heavily on facts didn’t bother to READ what was being touted as ‘testimony’ though it really wasn’t.
Why didn’t he read it first!?
BTW, posting past my bedtime, the obligatory typo: in the bottom section, I switched Carbonite and AOL, and substituted 3,600 for 4,600.
Obviously a right-wing conspiracy on my part.
I am Breitbart! Ride Sons of Eorl!
I admonish you to keep your hearth warm, and your powder dry;-)
If you think that Limabugh didn’t know what he was doing you are delusional.
“Sandra Fluke has invited people to look at “Media Matters” for more examples of over-the-top right-wing rhetoric. Oh, you mean like calling Sarah Palin a C*nt like Bill Maher did? Media Matters is the leftist-of-the-left: this is beginning to smell like an orchestrated campaign; not only to shore up Obama’s poll numbers with a reliably gullible demographic (they’ll swallow anything as Bill Clinton learned), but also to try to take out a powerful unifying voice for conservatism before the election.”
And who funds Media Matters ?
How does he fund it ?
Through the Open Society Institute.
Who else funds the Open Society ?
I do! You do! We all do! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the US government has given the OSI funding.
Thank you so much for your wonderful essays, dear grey-whiskers!
Yes, he deliberately set out to lose a dozen sponsors. /s
The line forms to the right for advertisers willing to take their place.
I’ve no doubt that he will replace them. I just wonder why he didn’t address the lies in the fake testimony instead of focusing on Fluke when she wasn’t even talking about herself. He could have accomplished so much more by exposing her lies.
Rush should never, ever have apologized.
The ONLY response the Left EVER has to an apology is to crow “it changes nothing”!
It’s merely an opportunity for them to rub your face into something THEY set up, and then declare what you did was so heinous that it would literally go against morality to forgive you - i.e. zero tolerance in the name of protecting tolerance.
The Left is VILE. That is Rule 1.
If they serve up global peace, universal happiness, and eternal life, just remember Rule 1, and you won’t be fooled.
They mean to destroy everyone - it’s their only goal.
And hijacking Every Good Thing is their number one modus operandi.
What do they want? What the Muslims want - that’s why they get along.
A dead planet.
Sure, Rush, especially when you do it with as much warmth and finesse as you and Sineater Santorum.
RUSH: - Republicans are say, “We’ve got to stop talking about this abortion stuff. We gotta stop talking about contraception.” It is the Democrats who are obsessed with this stuff! Why can’t our people go on offense? Why can’t our people say, “It’s the Democrats who are obsessed with all of these social issues”? Look: “Maryland Gay Marriage Bill to Governor’s Desk.” That’s not a social issue, gay marriage? We have a federal judge this week in San Francisco who ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional. He just took it upon himself to say that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional. Defending traditional values is not modern? It’s off topic? Attacking them is modern and good politics?
That’s what we’re to believe here? All we’re doing is defending traditional values. All we’re doing is defending the institutions and the traditions that have made this country great, and apparently that’s what you’re not supposed to do? “No, no, don’t do that! Mr. Limbaugh, you’re just gonna make people nervous. Women aren’t going to understand.” You wouldn’t believe the e-mails. “Rush, women’s brains can’t compute this way. You’re making a big mistake here just by bringing this up.” Oh, so we can’t defend all these great traditions, but the left can attack them? The left can attack them and rip them apart and tear them down, and that’s good politics? Is that what we’re to believe?
We’re supposed to sit by while great traditions and institutions like marriage are ripped to shreds. Obama just, as a dictator would, demands that contraception be free and paid for. He can’t do that! We’re supposed to not say a word because “Obama’s on the right side, here. That’s good politics” We conservatives are on defense on these matters. We’re not trying to change the world. We’re trying to preserve it! I’m just gonna tell you: For all of you friends and not who are telling me to leave this stuff alone, please take it somewhere else. If you don’t have the desire to defend this stuff, then don’t get mad at me, because I do. Because I am not gonna join the side of this that says, “The good politics, the smart politics, the side of this you want to be on politically is to tear down these traditions and institutions.”
I am not going there. I’m not gonna go there to attract a larger audience. I’m not gonna go there to avoid criticism. We’re not the ones that issued the rule violating the First Amendment. They did! We didn’t go to federal court to impose our will and to claim that the will of the people is unconstitutional. They did! We are not the ones doing social experiments with the US military. They are! And yet we’re divisive? We’re anti-modern? We’re unfocused? We’re old-fashioned? We’re racist, sexist, bigot homophobes? I’m sorry, I am not gutless. And, by the way, I discussed economic issues and every other aspect of Obama long before anybody else got to the table. While everybody else was afraid to be critical of Obama, I was not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.