No, it’s not because I support his views or because I am a devoted listener. In fact, I did listen to him many, many years ago because I thought he was so ridiculous that he amused me. But one day he said something about the extinction of a species that so upset me that I never listened to him again. By the way, I did try to locate what he said that day, but it was so many years ago that I couldn’t find an archive of it. But I did realize then that the word’s he spoke were very meaningful to some people. Do they still call themselves ditto heads? And, that his words could literally sway millions of people’s opinions in a way that I feel is, at times, dangerous to our nation.
So why don’t I celebrate his loss of advertisers and radio stations?
The answer is very simple. I live in a red state where many people listen to him and respect his opinions. Even people who don’t listen to him defend his right to say what he says on the radio. They see it as a free speech issue. “Come on, it’s just Rush being Rush.” They also see the current assault against Rush as confirming their view that the left is against free speech and wants to shut the voices of the right down on the radio and anywhere else they can.
But a backlash that might be a career-breaker for some commentators seemed unlikely to dent Limbaugh's considerable stature among his 15 million weekly listeners and conservative leaders.
The criticism delivered by most Republican officeholders was muted. One political action committee stepped up to buy even more advertising on his program. All of which suggested that "The Rush Limbaugh Show" might be too big to fail.
http://www.latimes.com/...
While I certainly do hope that the current uproar over Rush’s latest outrageous and despicable comments do have a lasting effect on his career, I still don’t celebrate the current victories.
I live in a fairly small city in a red State. I have been involved in several boards since I moved here to attend grad school. In fact, I became the member of a board for a national organization that has some policies that I despise. Why would I do that?
The answer is simple. The leader of that organization was spearheading the fight for a badly needed homeless shelter in the community. He was willing to find the location for a temporary shelter every winter and ensure the city council that it would be properly staffed. He was the one who was willing to be on site all winter long and deal with the drunks and the other issues that come up in a shelter that allows intoxicated people to find refuge from the elements in a harsh climate.
In my community, homeless people die every year from exposure. And, there is no permanent homeless shelter where an intoxicated person can find shelter for the night without meeting some type of religious requirement. In fact, there are not enough beds for the homeless in the community regardless of whether they are drunk, sober or willing to meet the religious demands of the shelter. And, we all know that many “street drunks” are self-medicating for behavioral health issues that are left untreated. Here in Arizona, recent decision by our State legislature will only exacerbate these conditions.
The point is that this one very religious, very right-wing man was willing to go to the mat for the neediest people in the community. Sure, I supported him. I went to city council meetings when he asked and spoke up from the audience for him. I also sat on his board and became an active member. He was successful in changing the dialogue from “Why should we support a Homeless Shelter” to “Where should we put a permanent Homeless Shelter"?
That’s not to say that I didn’t benefit from the relationship also. I have my pet issues that I’m very active with in the community—children’s issues, and I could always count on the full support of his organization. In fact, he personally sat out in the cold all day on many Saturdays in support of my issues.
But, that’s the issue for me. In the smaller communities, we have to work with people who have political views that are the total opposite to ours. The politics of mutual destruction are not useful in this community. In fact, by serving on the board, I was helped a moderate Republican change the culture of that organization. I became one of the chairs along with him and we brought woman on to the board for the very first time. Remarkably, the Chair and Vice Chair of that board are both women now.
There are other changes that I would like to have made in the organization; but the board is a far cry from the very conservative 70 and 80 year old men that ran the board when I joined. There were times when I first joined the board that I just wanted to tell them all off and walk away. But I stuck it out and helped to make the changes that were possible. I guess you can say that I was a pragmatist on that board.
We see that issue here on this site at times. We try to destroy those who have views that differ with ours. But we are supposed to be in the same political party. The politics of personal destruction limit the ability of Congress to do its work and they, in turn, affect us at the local level and in the communities we participate in. The problem, as I see it, is that it limits our ability make lasting change in our communities. And yes, Rush is part of the problem but the problem is even bigger than Rush.
Romney's careful response speaks to the sway Limbaugh holds with conservative voters, said Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. [Snip]
"This is more serious than what we have seen before," said Jeffrey Berry, a Tufts University political science professor who studies radio and TV commentators. "But my guess is that it will be short-lived and that other advertisers will come into the marketplace after a suitable interval to replace the ones that have gone away."
http://www.latimes.com/...
So, forgive me if I don’t celebrate the victories against Rush with you. I support these victories; but I also realize that these victories may be short-lived. I also know that these victories confirm the view held by some on the right that the left will do anything to take away their freedom of speech—that we will do anything to destroy them. This view may be misguided and wrong, but it is one I have already had to deal with.
So, how do we get the "99%" to work together on the real issues and how do we prevent some of the 99% from voting against their own interests?
Let's be honest, Rush is merely a symptom of the political problems we face as a nation.