Advertiser: we won't reinstate our ads with Rush Limbaugh, even though he's apologized

David Friend, CEO of the company Carbonite (which makes backup software), explains why his company won't be reinstating its advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show. Carbonite was one of the advertisers that pulled its Limbaugh dollars after the radio host described a law student a "slut" and a "prostitute" for testifying on the cost of contraception for students whose Catholic university wouldn't extend insurance coverage to reproductive control.

“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

A Message from Carbonite CEO, David Friend Regarding Ads on Limbaugh (via Reddit)



  1. Why did Carbonite, a perfectly reasonable company, advertise in the first place? Limbaugh’s demographics are pretty terrible for a product like theirs, and his partisan politics should have kept them off Limbaugh (as well as off Dave Ross or Keith Olbermann).

      1. And if they see a ad for something computer related, they may ask their grandkids about it.

        1. Because of this, if any of my elders ask about data-backups I will not hesitate to recommend Carbonite(unless it’s crazy expensive).

      2. I’ve met a ton of young-to-middle-age IT and dev types who were ardent dittoheads and were solidly in lockstep with Limbaugh’s rantings.
        Sadly, Limbaugh is also very popular among the 20-30-something “entrepreneur” crowd, at least here in the midwest US.

    1. What is the cost of running an ad there? And who has seen what demographics they claim to serve? I agree: I don’t know why anyone would want to count an audience of drooling hatriots as customers, let alone be seen advertising there. 

    2. because limbaugh’s listeners are most likely not tech-savvy, and receive pension checks

    3. Carbonite are not an advertising company. They probably engage some sort of PR/ad agency, who sells them packages including a variety of channels and slots. Most companies don’t really check what is what, as long as audience numbers look good and there are a couple of leading programs; I bet Limbaugh’s name will often go “unmentioned”… Selling advertising space is like any other selling: somebody will always get a few rotten apples in their weekly grocery bag.

      In this case, Carbonite were probably so outraged for one reason or another, they went through their lists, and bingo. I bet somebody at the ad agency got an earful.

  2. I realize it’s beyond the capacity of Limbaugh and his gibbering followers to understand but these products have other uses beyond simple birth control. By regulating the cycle or otherwise managing hormones etc, there is a more broad range of benefits that were addressed (Ms Fluke testified that on behalf of a friend who had lost an ovary). Of course, it’s easy to skip over all that and make it look like someone is looking to party on the taxpayer dime. 

    As someone said on the Twitter machine, there are obviously a lot of men who don’t understand how it is they don’t have more children. Trust Limbaugh to equate birth control medication with hawt underwear or something that you use when you want to score vs maintain your health. 

    Didn’t Maggie have an explainer on how these meds work a week or so back? Maybe we should send it to El Rushbo’s producers…

    1. Not of all of his listeners gibber.  Some of us actually discuss things and try not to stereotype opposing viewpoints reflexively.  

      Some of us took time out of our day to express the very issue of female contraceptive as medicine sometimes needed to function on a daily basis (not by me obviously.)  

      Some of us even took this opportunity to express our displeasure at the innapropriate allegation he made to the 23 year old student… err…30 year old activist.    

      Well no matter who she was he was in the wrong, and it’s incorrect to assume that his listeners slavishly follow him and lack the critical thinking skills to make up our own mind.

      1. So, what you are implying is that once you pass…say… 25 years and/or are no longer enrolled in higher education, it’s okay to have 52 different slurs aimed at you on a nationally syndicated program?

        Not that you would outright SAY that, of course, but why bring it up otherwise?

        I mean I could, offhandedly of course, bring up his trip to the Dominican Republic which, by the way, is a well-know child sex tourism destination, armed with an illegal bottle of Viagra. One has to wonder, were those kids sluts or just regular sex slaves?

        1. Did you read the part where I said I was angry at Mr. Limbaugh for his inappropriate language?  Where I expressed my anger at his behavior?  Where I said there was no excuse for his language?  Or were you just trolling?

        2. I’m sorry, I failed to address the age thing.  And clearly I didn’t express myself clearly the above post.

          I am sensitive to and dislike spin, particularly when I perceive something as being misrepresented to achieve an agenda.    

          I there is a substantive being a difference between a 23 year old student trying to make ends meet and explaining it to congress (who clearly don’t have that problem) and a 30 year old activist who chooses a school specifically to oppose their reproductive policy.

          That is not a comdenamtion of Ms. Fluke actions, but of the talking heads who’s initial coverage was inaccurate, and it is their job to be timely and accurate.

          1. I’m sorry, I failed to address the age thing.

            You’ve succeeded admirably in repeating yourself. Please peruse the Comment Policy.

          2. I addressed some of this above, specifically the use of her age and the code word “activist”, but I wondered what evidence there was for the claim that she chose “a school specifically to oppose their reproductive policy.” 

          3. I am sensitive to and dislike spin, particularly when I perceive something as being misrepresented to achieve an agenda.

            But you quite like sitting down with a cuppa and listening to Rush Limbaugh.

          4. “I am sensitive to and dislike spin,”

            Uh.  This does not compute.  You listen to Limbaugh, who is nothing but inflammatory, spinning troll.  Man-oh-man you are either a troll, or you lack any kind of self-awareness and common sense. I can’t decide.  Neither are something to be proud of.

      2. Excellent for you; you seem like a perfectly reasonable person with whom someone who disagrees could have a conversation. However, I do have to point out that the majority of his fan base self-identify as “ditto heads”.

        1. Thank you.  I’ve never been completely clear on the whole “ditto-head” thing and whether that meant the were reflexively following him or they were trying to state “great minds think alike… and so do ours.”

          1. Really? The admittedly few times I have heard it used, it could only be interpreted as “me, too, Rush!” by someone who was obviously happy to let someone say what he was unable to. And his hero could only say it because he doesn’t have to live with the consequences of his words (until now, perhaps). He can bloviate into a microphone and no one will call him on it in any meaningful way. 

          2. Many critical thinkers can only kibitz on the -effect- of Limbaugh and his ditto-heads. 

            This is because his content is for the most part sensational and often inane. The sort of content that only a few would bother to critique as a matter of record and not engagement, because Limbaugh and many of his followers pride themselves on being immovable and absolutely contemptuous of any divergent or opposing viewpoint. The example you discuss serves well, and the apology was not a deviation, that was about advertisers.

          3. Wikipedia: 

            The listeners to the show are affectionately referred to as “Ditto-heads.” Early in the show’s run, listeners began to use the variations on the expression “ditto” to speed up the beginnings of the calls, which typically (as on most popular call-in shows) tend to open with the listener excitedly expressing his or her gratitude to the host and his or her appreciation of the show.

            It doesn’t mean someone who agrees with everything Limbaugh says.

        2. Learethak,  

          I don’t get how anyone could be both a regular listener of Limbaugh and a reasonable person.

          Unless maybe you’re doing some kind of research on the ways that many on the Right use lizard-brain flame-baiting to earn themselves millions of dollars . . .

          1. I used to listen specifically to hear what outrageous things he was going to say.  He’s gotten too outrageous, and too many people take him too seriously, for me to see it as entertainment these days, though.

          2. People at work here say the listen to him because he is funny.   It boggles my mind to think people listen to him for the comedy.   I don’t think they meant it as “lulz” but more in the stand up comedy way.

            I do think I work with idiots.

      3. Well, given his history and reputation for making these kinds of statements (how did his stint with the NFL work out?), it seems unlikely all that many of his audience are critical thinkers. His followers are known as “ditto heads,” no? You may be an exception, but from my experience, his audience members are rage-filled authoritarians who lap up his attacks without a critical thought in their heads. 

        How someone on their fourth marriage who has been in rehab three times can be rewarded for their ability to comment on the perceived moral failings in others, by his audience and advertisers, is a mystery. If you are as angry or disappointed as you seem to be professing, I would expect you to tune him out. But that’s your call, obviously. 

        I don’t see how her age makes any difference at all or why the code word “activist” is being used here. Is there a professional association on whose rolls she appears? Or is it that she spoke out on an issue that matters to her, on behalf of a friend who suffered from a medical condition? She worked for a domestic violence non-profit: does having been a paid employee of an organization like that mean you are labeled as an “activist” regardless of how you currently spend your days? 

        This is what Limbaugh does: a code word or a reference to someone’s age, small details that mean nothing by themselves, but trigger a reaction or conjure an association from his audience. They can fill in the rest. She is 30 and unmarried. She’s almost certainly a Democrat, has probably canvassed for Obama or some other candidate. She may even drive a Prius or ride her bike everywhere. What else? Vegetarian/vegan, perhaps? Yoga? Tattoos, preferably cryptic or in non-Roman characters…just a lot of circumstantial red meat for his thoughtful listeners to analyze. 

      4. I have watched my father, who used to be a real conservative, literally lose brain cells because he started being in a situation where other people were playing Limbaugh/Beck/O’Reilly etc. within his hearing on a daily basis.

        There’s no civil discussion of issues on Limbaugh.  The man lies and commits slander in every single broadcast.

        If you honestly think that most of the time you are getting a thoughtful presentation of factual ideas and reasonable opinions, and that this one particular episode was merely an aberration, then your critical thinking skills are not as finely tuned as you suppose.

      5. One is known by the company he keeps. I don’t view a bully’s friends any more favorably than I view the bully. Saying that you don’t do what he does, but you like watching him do it? Lame, and equally culpable.

      6. Anyone who wastes their time listening to someone as … disgusting and plain idiotic as Limbaugh (he only exists to anger and mobilize a very specific subset of the population, none of whom are very bright) and … honestly, at this time, I am going to choose not to say anything at all, since nothing I have to say is even a little nice.

        But seriously?  You waste your time with that crap?  WHY?

    2. What do taxpayers have to do with it? The issue is health insurance coverage which is purchased by customers. It’s amazing to me that people keep forgetting we don’t have universal health care.

      1. Don’t ask me, ask Rusty, the Pride of Cape Girardeau, Mo., or Bill “Can’t Explain That” O’Reilly. They are the ones making the claim that someone else is paying for her lifestyle. I suspect they are conflating the idea of an insurance pool with the Obamacare bogeyman. 

      2. The irony is he is a user of Viagra that gets covered by medical insurance.   He was caught was a lot of the stuff when he went to the Dominican Republic.   So where is HIS sex tape?  Oh wait… don’t think anybody wants to see that.

        But in this case of the argument is the idea that in an edge case of a religious owned institution that refuses to cover it for their employees  the government will. 

    3. I agree Paul, and to add to that I say there are good off-label uses for prophylactics as well. 

      Last week I put one over the shower head at my friends house and secured it with a pre tied bit of rolled electrical tape.

      When I saw her today she had few kind words for me but admitted that the effect was surprising and, to say the least, unexpected.

    4. This.

      It’s appalling to me, looking at the Facebook wall of friends, people I thought I knew well, who suffer from the same delusion.  It’s a big “gotcha” to them that she’s discussing birth control.  I mean…really?
      Ah, and there’s a chance she was an activist, and was there to shake things up.  So, seriously, that makes it okay to insinuate that a woman who takes birth control is a prostitute?  Really?

      1. “Off air” reads differently from “off the air.” The article also says “the radio host described a law student a slut,” if you are looking for places to nitpick.

    1. Sometimes I wonder if right wing radio will eventually implode on itself.

      Such a vile, evil, “system” based upon corporatist half-truths, twisted agendas, racism, ignorance, sexism, bigotry, homophobic angst, propaganda, fear, self-righteousness, hatred and lies, lies and more stinking lies… is rotten at its core.

      Maybe we should just let it run its evil course and its core will melt down all on its own down the road.

      Evil hearts like Breitbart can’t keep running as the toxins course through their ever-decaying veins… Rush will be next.

      These poison merchants that send toxins though our airwaves are so vile that they are even infecting themselves.  They didn’t think it was possible…

      Then again, hastening the death of right wing radio might be the best for society as well.

      [cow lets out evil laugh that rings out and fills the halls with a sinister cacophony of deathly delight]

      1. Honestly I’d like to see the whole of this bullying culture changed, but I don’t think it will happen. Hate pays because it feeds on people’s insecurity. The more hate, the more insecurity, the more hate… 

  3. Was Mr. Limbaugh inappropriate at his remarks? Absolutely.  I was actually listening to his show when he said it and turned off the radio in anger.  Was writing to him to express how reprehensible his remarks were when his apology came out.  Which I think would be inadequate… if she was what the media had been presenting her as…

    “For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

    While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.”

    More (with links and citations) at the following link 

    It doesn’t excuse Limbaugh’s remarks.  

    *Edit* I finally got a chance to watch her testimony, not just out-of context clips snippets. She clearly states her organization affiliation right at the beginning. I would like to retract my shenannigan statement and shake my fist at media (both sides) and their editing clips to suit them.

    1.  The fact that she has been active in women’s reproductive rights movements makes her testimony shenanigans? waaa? Isn’t the entire reason she was testifying that she is active in the movement? Does having prior involvement in something make one ineligible to testify about it? Did I miss something here? That the media got her particulars wrong is a media failure, not a conspiracy to slip in a ringer.

      1. Her activity as an advocate does not make her testimony shenanigans. The false premise that she was a simple law student victimized be the system is.  She picked the school specifically so that she could challenge their policies, and be an advocate for change.  I’m a big fan of that.

        I am not a fan of misrepresenting why she was at the school and her role there.

        1. If you were even vaguely paying attention to what she said, and not just looking for an excuse to call her names (or defend Rush’s name calling), you’d know that her testimony was in large part about another student and not herself.  

          Keep trying though.

          1. If you had bothered to read my posts you would see at no point have I defended his name calling , quite the contrary.  Nor have I called her any name other the “activist” which I have also stated is a *good thing.*

          2. You don’t actually think anyone here is that foolish do you?
            “Oh sure, the name he used was rude, but let me slander her another way while agreeing with Rush.”

        2. I don’t think you understand why she was asking to testify. If you think we are “shocked” that she is a women’s rights activist then you, I’m afraid, are the naive one here. Also, words aside nothing excuses the complete ignorance about how birth control even works. I can take mean, but stupid… stupid is very very annoying,

          1.  I swear, that bothers me the most about it.  He keeps saying “she has so much sex she can’t afford the pills” and at no point does he seem to realize that you take the same amount of pills whether you have sex 12 times a day or never.

            He’s clearly confused the Pill with Viagra.  Hm, I wonder why?

        3. I understand that, but there are a lot of fans of the dittohead variety that are using this to excuse everything Rush has done, including insinuating that women who take birth control are sluts. For that reason, it’s unlikely that you’ll get very far with this argument. I understand what you’re saying, but the bulk of her testimony wasn’t about her. I have no idea why she felt the need to lie about her own situation.

      1. Prior to Limbaugh’s remarks (which I have already agreed were wrong) all the reporting I saw of her was as the so called “common student” oppressed by the system.    It’s only since then that I have seen the reports of her activism, and just recently the full text of her comments instead of snippets taken out of context (by both sides.)

        1.  So the news media did it’s usual bang up job of researching… that puts the blame where? On Ms. Fluke? On the Democrats? On…. the media possibly?

          1. On the media certainly.  On this case I feel pretty strongly that each side is representing her and her testimony in the light that best suits their individual interest.  

          2. This changes everything.  This testimony is bogus, so we can ignore any argument that women who take birth control do so for any reason other than be promiscuous.

            Let’s remember that the reason Rush is embroiled in controversy is because he chose to characterize someone as a slut and a prostitute because she testified in front of Congress in favor of making it a requirement to cover birth control.

            I mean, really, is this what the revisionist history is going to be?  Are we going to absolve Rush of blame, and shame his advertisers into advertising with him again, based on the notion that MSM had no idea who she was and took her word on it?  Are we going to retroactively allow Mr. Limbaugh to claim that he knew all along?

      2. Not everyone agrees with the concept of reproductive rights or women’s health issues (ooh, icky, too many moving parts…). I think you can see that in any attempt to marginalize someone like Ms Fluke based on code words and lizard brain bait. 

    2. But makes her testimony strike me as shenanigans.

      The only shenanigans going on here is the shenaniganishistic accusations contained in your post.

      She’s an activist student?! OMG1!

      Like, who cares, man? Pretty much any student that gets media time is an activist. Students don’t just get roped into national birth control debates randomly, you know.

      1. I didn’t make accusations.  I expressed that her testimony (that which I had seen up to that point) in my mind was tempered by her role as and activist vs. her portrayal by the media as common student who just wanted to do right and tell congress what was going on.

        Which (as I have stated since) was incorrect, and is not how *she* portrayed herself but instead was spin by the reporters I had seen reporting on the issue.  

        Your point about media time is well taken.  I guess I just have a somewhat naive expectations regarding the subject.

          1. Well said.

               I just wish my friends were a little more in the “informed activists” vs “Reflexive activist” stage.  I perfectly okay with people disagreeing with me as long as they have good reasons.  It’s the reflexive idiology that I find frustrating.  

          2. not so – the idea is to “act”  in order to promote change, and I assure you that the bulk of people in a democracy are NOT activists. I live in Canada, where much of the populace is in shock at the corrupt actions of the present government, and yet not much changes, since there is very little “action” against it. Just frustrated chit chat. One woman in Quebec wrote to the queen recently and asked her to remove him, but ‘the nanny’ wouldn’t step up.

    3. While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.”

      In a nutshell — so fucking what? Should people be randomly pulled out of supermarket check-out lines and sent to testify in Congress?

      1. I think you’re missing a bit here.  For American conservatives, the word “activist” is an insult.  For them to go from calling her a “slut” to an “activist” isn’t some sort of an improvement, and they’ve not stopped attacking her.  

        In fact they haven’t even changed their line, just how blatant it is.  Note that they’re pointing out that she’s a reproductive rights activist of some sort.  She’s still a slut in their mind, and their brethren can read that between the lines.  They’re just coding the attack now so your average person isn’t offended, but it’s still the same damned insult.  

    4. Based on this argument, the Freedom Riders were just a bunch of agitators for researching places that were going to deny their rights for the express purpose of challenging them. Likewise the one who insisted on equal service at lunch counters, even Rosa Parks. Rabble rousers, everyone. If Sandra Fluke ends up on the pantheon with those folks, you can thank Limbaugh for it.

      Interesting that there is no outrage at the all-male panel of experts, no curiosity that Rep Issa didn’t pay lip service to the idea of female representation by finding his own ringer.

    5. I’m curious about the ‘citations’. That jammiewf states /without citations/ that she was portrayed as a 23 year old, and this is a large part of the accusation being made. Yet I can’t find a single instance of that description anywhere, except on right wing sites that link back to…that same jammiewf article. I have to wonder if he (or she, I’ve no idea who runs that site) just misread the date of the testimony (ie 23) as her age?

      The second accusation I keep seeing made is this: “In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.”. Except that’s not what she said. The interview in question is this one:

      (again, oddly, not cited by jammiewf, but it was easy enough to find), where she says: “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care” – ie she chose Georgetown for the quality of its education, but was aware of its policies, not the other way around.

      To me, it looks like that jammiewf article is the source of the smears rather than reliable journalism.

      1. You mean one of the best-known citizen journalists got it wrong? I suppose, given the credibility deficit of the establishment media, that puts the pajamas crew on an equal footing. But they claim to be better, to be ideology-free and opposed to spin or cherry-picking. Imagine my disappointment…

    6. Funny how you’re so concerned with her ever-evolving status while it’s apparently OK for Rush to repeatedly evolve back into a respectable person every time he does this. Don’t things add up in your world?

      1. I don’t see how you can possibly infer that statement from my saying his speech was undefendable.  

        Are you sure you are reading the same posts as I wrote?

        I said his actions could not be excused and were reprehensible, where do you get that I think his actions were OK from that statement?

        1. Because they apparently keep being OK, don’t they? This isn’t Rush’s first dance at the rodeo, you know. So, Rush isn’t even evolving into anything, he just keeps evolving into himself with indefensible acts. But no, the coed story changes so that’s super meaningful, right?

    7.  So it was wrong for black people to use sit ins at white establishments to change segragation laws? Because they certainly knew what they were getting into. Were they any less victims? Just because someone puts themselves in harms way to draw attention to an issue, does not make them any less harmed.

      1. Actually certain portions of the right have always pointed out that many of the best known figures in the Civil Rights Movement were… wait for it… activists rather than “normal” people.  

        Rosa Parks wasn’t just some poor woman with tired feet, she was a specially trained NAACP member planted on the bus to stir up trouble and give the NAACP a test case.  This is apparently a bad thing in the right wing mind, and diminishes what folks did back then.

    8. The only people depicting her as a 23 year old rather than a 30 year-old third-year law student, or just a random “coed” (horray for gendered terms intended to minimize the status of women in higher education!) have been the right-wing media amid their efforts to smear her and silence her testimony.  It isn’t remotely a “both sides do it” situation.

      The media I consume (which is quite a bit left of center) consistently posted and linked her full comments, which include not only her introduction as a former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, but her statement of the same in her introductory remarks and numerous references to the same throughout her testimony.  Why?  Because the whole initial controversy lay in the fact that her voice had been silenced in the first place.  It was the right-wing media that suddenly decided it was such a Shocking! Development! that Ms. Fluke was an activist, because they had been echoing each others’ attacks, instead of viewing and responding to the readily available testimony itself.

      Sorry, but ‘both sides do it’ isn’t really going to fly here. Especially if you’re citing a blatantly right-wing source as your “evidence”.

  4. “makes her testimony strike me as shenanigans”

    Which has what to do with what?  The victims age and occupation are immaterial.  This story is about Rush and his pig-headed sexism.  Since he is often taken as a mouth piece for the right-wing, the story is also about how Republicans have shifted their attacks on the left into attacks on women, their health and their rights as citizens.

    Thanks for pointing that out though.

    1. I was trying to express my frustration at Mr.  Limbaugh as a listener.  And some disconcerting information I discovered while composing a letter to him. I have edited my above post to reflect the fact that her testimony clearly states her organization, and the clips I had previously watched skipped over that.

      1. I’m guessing the clips didn’t affect your sense of credibility for those sources as your assumptions based on them did to your initial sense of the coed’s. In other words, Rush’s words did their job even on people who are trying to be the smart ones.

        1. Poor Learthak is attempting cognitive subterfuge of a sort, possibly in the belief that a statement that seems reasonable for containing less contentious language than the statement being defended. 

          Thankfully you all busted Learthak down on all points.

  5. I work with a guy who’s a fan of Rush and has a daughter of that age.  I’ll have to ask him about this.

    1. Oh please.  Virtually every Rush listener has a daughter her age at one point, will eventually, or has cheerfully enjoyed the company of various women using birth control.  Including Rush, who is 60 years old, and on his fourth marriage.  This time to a young woman just a year older than the law school student he’s spent the last week insulting.  

      It would be nice to think that changed how they perceived the issue, but it doesn’t.

        1. Yes, the unspoken irony is that Rush’s hobbies probably necessitate more use of contraceptives by under-30s than any of us.

    2. They probably will say something like “my daughter is not a slut c**t feminazi so why would I care?”

  6. Actually I’d like a list of people who still advertise with Rush Limbaugh so I can send them letters telling them I am going to avoid them.

  7. Enjoying watching Learthak hog the mic here.  Time’s a-wastin’, Learthak.  You can keep up the trollish hairsplitting in defense of the indefensible, or you can redeem yourself.  (Of course the former takes a lot less work, so we know which it will most likely be.)

    1. Yes, I’m not sure what the deal is.  Apparently MSM has flat out misrepresented what Ms. Fluke is, even though she didn’t, which makes some aspect of the debate different, but certainly doesn’t change the debate over whether what Rush said was wrong.

      1.  Maybe re-evaluate the palette of what are reliable news sources. 
        None of Limbaugh’s poop flinging has changed the debate on coverage of contraceptives. 
        It doesn’t have anything to do with it.  It’s meant to be a diversion from it. 

    2. I hadn’t intended to hog the mic.  I have tried to limit myself to replying when people have apparently misrepresented what I did say versus what they are inferring from my statements.    

      It bothers me when I say:  “RUSH SAY BAD THINGS” and people interpret it to mean “RUSH A-OK!”  

      I really can’t even comprehend how that could happen except people feel the need to assume I am Rush apologist simply because I am (or was) a Rush listener.I would perfectly happy to see people continue with the discussion as they see fit.  

      1. And yet, you keep saying the same things despite being warned. I’ve removed several of your comments. If you have anything new to say, feel free.

  8. Huh. So now advertiser dollars decide what constiutes civilized discourse? As much as I agree with their decision, that kind of implication worries me.

    And why would any company want to be associated with this kind of crap anyway? In my experience, advertisers are desperate not to get any of that icky controversial politics stuff on them. That’s part of how they can get away with doing so much politics themselves.

    1. Advertisers are corporations.
      Corporations are people (or at least in the US they are).
      People get insulted.

    2.  No, but advertiser dollars decide what goes on air. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you to find that commercial enterprises couldn’t give a toss about what attracts the eyes and ears – provided it doesn’t hit their bottom line.

    3.  Yes, advertisers have influenced the content – and been used to influence the content – of content they sponsor since, well, the very beginning of advertisement-supported broadcast media.  This influence has often been for personal and, largely, political reasons.  It is a very, very regular part of the content-approval process (“the sponsors would never go for this.”  “Our largest sponsor just pulled out after that abortion joke on this week’s show, you’re fired”).

      And this isn’t unique to broadcast media.

      This isn’t new by a long shot.

      Although I guess your initial concern – that sponsor decisions influence “discourse”, wouldn’t really apply here.  Nothing Rush does is “discourse”, it’s purely Hate Entertainment.

    4. > Huh. So now advertiser dollars decide what constiutes civilized discourse? As much as I agree with their decision, that kind of implication worries me.

      They’re businesses, doing business with someone else.  If doing business with someone else becomes a liability in the public eye, it is within their rights to stop doing business with that other party.

      The alternative would be, oh, I don’t know.  I suppose you could appeal to those advertisers in the hopes that they’ll continue to advertise.  Might not, might not.  The only way to ensure that advertisers would continue to advertise, even when they see it as a liability, would be for the Federal government to force advertisers to continue to advertise.  If that happened, why on Earth would anyone want to advertise? 

      Why are people so quick to call on Big Government as soon as they imagine their rights are being taken away?  As we’re told about universal healthcare, life ain’t fair.

      1. “Why are people so quick to call on Big Government as soon as they imagine their rights are being taken away?”

        Nice strawman, no-one said that but you.

  9. Thank you Carbonite! Now if there are other sponsors with a sense of deceny would follow your example. There’s a difference between entertainment and downright spite. Rush is the latter disguising himself as the former.

  10. He’s sorry about the sponsors he’s lost.  I’m sure he’s crying heartfelt tears about the money that’ll be going to his rivals.

    But he’s not sorry that he sees women as either virgins or whores.  He’s also not sorry he suggested that they make porn for him.  I mean,  the man was soliciting porn from a stranger, and implying he’d be glad to use it, this supposed bastion of family values and morality.  And yet, it’s her morals and her credibility (“ooooh, she’s an activist!  She actually knows what she’s talking about, so it’s all a trick of the liberal media!”) that gets called into question. 

    His apology is a very common one in the mouth of a misogynist.   “Gee, can’t you take a joke?  Obviously I was joking.” 

    Yeah,  ha ha.  Hilarious.  Know any wife-beating jokes, Rush?

    1. Well, consider that the few legitimate companies like Carbonite and ProFlowers that advertise on wingnut radio are outnumbered by gold pumpers, penny stock scams and other get-rich-quick schemes.

      It’s all about targeted marketing, and if you want pigeons you go to the park.

  11. So what actually happened was Carbonite at first DID NOT pull ads from his show, and the CEO put out a craptastic letter basically saying “People ask us to pull ads from NPR and we don’t so shhhh..”, at which the internet exploded onto their Facebook and people started posting alternatives to Carbonite. THEN he changed his toon. Just saying’  the original Carbonite response was not this. They flopped because of pressure.

    1. Of course, there is the fact that Carbonite advertises on both NPR and Limbaugh’s show.   What’s worse – that they hedged their bets, or that they “believe” in one, but not the other?  Or maybe that they don’t care.

      1.  Most businesses, and Carbonite may well be one, are pointedly neutral about politics to try to avoid alienating a large part of their potential customer base. It looks like Carbonite was trying to walk a tightrope. Unfortunately for them, Rush had already cut one end and they had no real choice but to bail to minimize the damage of being associated with such a hate filled asshat. There is considerable irony here that it may well be the marketplace that takes ol’ Rush off the air. These are, after all, the people who believe in “the invisible hand of the marketplace”. Too bad Faux news isn’t as vulnerable.

  12. The problem with boycotting advertisers who like Carbonite, advertise in venues that cater to different political viewpoints is that, in the end, advertising in political arenas is seen as bad business.  Net result is that political forums as a whole suffer because their value declines.

    Rush may have lost Carbonite and ProFlowers but don’t be surprised when the right retaliates against Carbonite…

    1. It seems wildly incorrect to call Rush’s shows a “political forum”.  He spouts out Hate Entertainment that seems to appeal to certain people under the guise of “telling the truth”.

      1. Yes please.  He himself said he was just making a (misguided) attempt at humor.  He’s a comedian!

    2. I think all “political forums” that don’t make creepy personal sexual attacks on folks they oppose will be OK.  Not so concerned about the ones that do.

    3. Nice link.  Please God, let it have been offered critically.

      This glistening gobbet of philosophical excrement that suggests that civilization is in danger from advertisers not wanting to be associated with hate speech has a decidedly totalitarian ring to it.  True patriots must give their advertising dollars without considering the consequences, comrade.

      1.  My point was that some other advertisers who sell goods to both sides of the political spectrum will notice the grief that’s landed in Carbonite’s and ProFlower’s  laps. A prudent business decision would be to avoid political venues because potential advertisers wouldn’t wish to be caught in any ensuing political crossfire.

        Not a lot of philosophy there – just an observation.

        1. Marketing analysts don’t make those kinds of broad assumptions.  Pulling advertising from all political venues would not be prudent at all. That would be a gross over reaction that no analyst worth their salt would have. Analysts are as specific as possible about where they advertise and why. They collect and mine data, including consumer feedback, and base their decisions on that. That’s why they’re analysts and not guessers.

    4. Capitalism is supposedly more democratic because you vote with your money. If political forums suffer as a whole, well that’s the free market. Maybe hate speech is just an economic bubble that needs to burst. What do you have against the free market?

  13. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there’s a Rush Limbaugh apologist amongst the Boingers. Oh well, always good to sharpen the blades.

    1.  Do we really know there is a Limbaugh apologist among the Boingers? There’s no way we can easily track post counts and post history here. We could have a genuine troll here. But he may indeed be a regular Boinnger. There’s a lot going on here that could appeal to  conservatives. But I still lean toward a one thread troll here.

      BTW, I just want to point out that if you as a guy find yourself in a longer term relationship with a woman on the pill, you ought to offer to kick in for a pack. Just makes sense.

  14. Being mad that a Catholic institution won’t help someone pay for birth control is like being mad that Starbucks doesn’t sell the McRib.

    Rush is a dick, but whatever.

    1. Disclosure: I support universal health care, period.  That being said, if the gov’t says medication that can be used as a contraceptive is something that should be provided for people, then the gov’t needs to pay for it, rather than stepping on the (outmoded) religious rights of a(n outmoded) religious  institution that (for various, personal, and often spiritual reasons) a whole bunch of people still respect/adhere to/etc (no hate, and please don’t smite me, Catholic Jesus).

    2. Being mad that a Catholic institution won’t help someone pay for birth control is like being mad that Starbucks doesn’t sell the McRib.

      Conflating institutions of higher learning with Starbucks would go a long way toward explaining why we’re headed back into the Dark Ages.

  15. Rush Limbaugh was caught with illegal Viagra, coming back from the Dominican Republic, a known hub of child prostitution, alone. Those are all facts.

  16. Did Mr. Friend hold his nose when he bought ad time on the Limbaugh show because needed the business from its listener base?  Or is he, despite his protestations, a fellow traveler with Limbaugh? (For that matter, was it his personal or personally-OK’d decision to advertise his company on Limbaugh’s show, or did that decision fall to a department head at Carbonite?)

    No matter. He seems to have learned from his firm’s mistake.

    As for Rush, if he had any pride at all, he’d get off the air.

  17. Do as I say, not as I do!

    Is it sad the National Enquirer was the outlet breaking the story on it?

    And finally who says that “God” doesn’t have a sense of humor?

    In defense of his ears, I’d consider pulling the plug too if I had to listen to this blowhard day in and day out.

    While there might be some real issues in what he says, his manner and behavior highlight the reason nothing ever changes.  I would much rather have a civil debate on an subject, even agree to disagree than to have the howling banshee scream the “debate” has become.  It is disgusting and ripping the country apart, and it profits certain talking heads to keep the debate rhetoric going further and further to the outermost limits.

    Here is the poster child moment for that is wrong in “politics” today.  It is more important to complain about “issues” designed to press buttons than to look at why things are they way they are and try to find a middle ground to solve the “problem”.

  18. Well Learethak none of your contentions or defenses held up under scrutiny.

    Let me just hammer a final nail in that coffin.

    One other thing that the Right wants you to ignore so that they can change the laws by getting people like yourself to seem to agree, is that at this time being a slut in the United States of America is perfectly legal.

    Anyone supporting the arguments of any right-wing mouthpiece attempting to restrict contraception (oddly and tellingly usually related to women’s access) is essentially acquiescing to government control of your own genitalia no matter how you intend to use said genitalia. 

    For a GOP that has always given lip service and sometimes more to libertarian movements, there is no greater hypocrisy, no greater betrayal.

    Being a slut is legal and a choice that should remain beyond the auspice of government. If that’s what people want contraception for then they should be able to get it.

    Further, the argument of who pays for it is entirely facetious and a smokescreen. Employers operate in the public domain, that comes with realities that if they wish not to face they should withdraw from. Be the religious institution you want to be and refuse employment and service based upon religious orientation. 

    But they won’t do that, because the number of Americans that will seek service based solely on religious interpretation is a demographic that service providers find too restrictive, there is no profit. They think exclusion from laws are the answer, but such exclusion shall come with exclusion from markets.

    Providing public service is the evangelical tool of choice for today’s religious organizations. I commend them, but would brook no interference with laws intended to safeguard the rights of the general populace on the basis of that service provision. 

    So I do not agree with Limbaugh’s characterizations of the woman and would go further to say that if she were a slut his complaints remain quite baseless.

    1. Think about that 8th paragraph. 

      If only “real” Catholics as defined by the vatican were prerequisite for a service market pool, that’d be what, maybe 50-100 available customers in the continental United States?

      “Tha’s not a market, now, failed Catholics, THA’S a market”

  19.  I can understand that, and applaud it. However the vast majority of Rush’s fans call themselves “dittoheads” for a reason. Those that you describe, like yourself, are a minority.

  20. Wasn’t his apology on his website, instead of the radio show where he originally made those comments, not once, but at least twice?

    Yeah, he’s a narcissistic asshole who is enjoying this shit storm.  Like Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  They are one and the same.

    Someone I grew up with, who is now a deputy for a small county in Arizona, tried to defend Sheriff Joe and his recent racist bullshit regarding Obama’s birth certificate.  Ugh.

  21. Just so we’re clear, here:  there is NO DIFFERENCE between an angry listener, an enthusiastic listener, an ironic listener or a ‘sometimes wish he wouldn’t say that’ listener, as far as the ratings go.

    Advertisers don’t pay by the happiness index: they only pay by the media exposure.  If you listen to Rush or any of his ilk, for whatever reason, you are giving them literally the only validation that matters to their careers and pocketbooks…your attention.  YOU are the product that the broadcasters are selling to advertisers.  Learethak can be disappointed, angry or anything else he wants to be…but if he continues to listen, he shouldn’t expect any sort of change.

  22. Just an FYI – on Carbonite’s facebook page there are a ton of Rush sockpuppet accounts that have been posting on their wall. They must have hired an agency or something. I think they honestly believe that people are stupid enough not to catch them at it. On one of them, the photo has been identified as that of an actor. – – is really James Roday –
    I have been tracking all the sockpuppets and have a good idea who the puppet master is. If anyone knows a journalist I’d love to give them my info.

  23. That’s great, but…why were they advertising on his show in the first damn place if they don’t like people who say crazy, misogynistic shit?

    Dude’s been calling women “feminazis” for, what, 20 years at this point?  Once referred to Chelsea Clinton as “the White House dog”?

    Anyhow.  I like to think he just handed the House back to the Democrats.  Just like he tipped the Senate to them in ’06 by mocking Michael J Fox’s Parkinson’s.

Comments are closed.