Rush Limbaugh is cooked: The stunning fall of the right’s angriest bloviator

[Papageorgio]

Over 20 years of predicting his demise and they are still wrong. Many it will be any year now! Lol!

Actually, LImbaugh's been dead since Sandra Fluke forced him to apologize.

When was the last time he made news?

When was the last time anyone really cared what he said.

Sandra Fluke was the last time he made news. He lost that encounter. Now his advertisers are gone, Clearchannel is desperately trying to prop up his show.

Believe what you need to believe, one day you will be right. Dummy.

 

[PredFan]

Listened to his show today. His goose is SURE taking a long time to cook.

 

[GWV5903]

I know, I know - we've heard it before, but there's no denying the plain truth and the evidence. Sane people, I mean.

I predict he will quit his show in the next year when his contract expires. He will never get big money again, and his ego won't allow him to take any less.


Rush Limbaugh is cooked: The stunning fall of the right’s angriest bloviator
Indianapolis' WIBC is just the latest station to drop him like a bad habit. His days of relevance are numbered

The bad news just keeps coming for conservative talker Rush Limbaugh.

Which bulletin was worse, though? The news in April that he was being dropped by WIBC in Indianapolis, a booming talk powerhouse that played home to Limbaugh’s radio show for more than two decades, or the news this week that the talker’s new address on the Indianapolis dial is going to be WNDE, a ratings doormat AM sports station that has so few listeners it trails the commercial-free classical music outlet in town?

The humbling, red-state tumble is just the latest setback for the conservative talker who has seen his once-golden career suffer a steady series of losses recently.

Divorced from successful, longtime affiliates in places like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Indianapolis, Limbaugh’s professional trajectory is heading downward. That’s confirmed by the second and third-tier stations he now calls home in those important media markets, and the fact that when his show became available, general managers up and down the dial passed on it. Apparently turned off by the show’s hefty price tag, sagging ratings, and disappearing advertisers, Limbaugh continues to be a very hard sell.

It’s a precipitous fall from the glory days when the host posted huge ratings numbers, had affiliates clamoring to join his network, and dictated Republican politics. All of that seems increasingly distant now. With his comically inflated, $50 million-a-year syndication deal set to expire next year, Limbaugh’s future seems uncertain. “Who would even want someone whose audience is aging and is considered toxic to many advertisers,” askedRadioInsight last month.

For Limbaugh, the troubles were marked by key events from 2012 and 2013. The first came in the form of Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke implosion, where he castigated and insulted for days the graduate student who testified before Congress about health care and access to contraception, calling her a “slut” and suggesting she post videos of herself having sex on the Internet. The astonishing monologues sparked an unprecedented advertiser exodus.

The following year, as the host struggled to hang on to fleeing sponsors, radio industry giant Cumulus Media decided to negotiate its Limbaugh contract in public, making it clear through the press that the company was willing to cut ties with the pricey host in major cities where Cumulus owned talk radio stations. In the end, Limbaugh stayed with Cumulus stations, but the company sent a clear signal to the industry: Limbaugh was no longer an untouchable and general managers weren’t clamoring to hire him. Since then, the talker’s fortunes have only faded.

Another looming problem? Conservative talk radio is a “format fewer advertisers are interested in buying because of its aging audience,” noted radio consultant and self-identified Republican Darryl Parks. Limbaugh himself recently conceded a generational disconnect: “Now that I’ve outgrown the 25-54 demographic, I’m no longer confident that the way I see the world is the way everybody else does.”

That disconnect may be fueling Limbaugh’s waning political influence. Once a mighty player whose ring was constantly kissed by Republicans, this campaign season seems to be unfolding with Limbaugh on the sidelines, his clout and his ability to drive the conversation seemingly surpassed by other conservative media players.

I doubt he needs the money, sad you're so jealous of someone you hate, need couch time?

 

[The Professor]

Over 20 years of predicting his demise and they are still wrong. Many it will be any year now! Lol!

Actually, LImbaugh's been dead since Sandra Fluke forced him to apologize.

When was the last time he made news?

When was the last time anyone really cared what he said.

Sandra Fluke was the last time he made news. He lost that encounter. Now his advertisers are gone, Clearchannel is desperately trying to prop up his show.

Shirley you jest.

 

[edthecynic]

Listened to his show today. His goose is SURE taking a long time to cook.

He wasn't on today, he was sick of lying and needed to recover.

 

[shadow355]

I know, I know - we've heard it before, but there's no denying the plain truth and the evidence. Sane people, I mean.

I predict he will quit his show in the next year when his contract expires. He will never get big money again, and his ego won't allow him to take any less.


Rush Limbaugh is cooked: The stunning fall of the right’s angriest bloviator
Indianapolis' WIBC is just the latest station to drop him like a bad habit. His days of relevance are numbered

The bad news just keeps coming for conservative talker Rush Limbaugh.

Which bulletin was worse, though? The news in April that he was being dropped by WIBC in Indianapolis, a booming talk powerhouse that played home to Limbaugh’s radio show for more than two decades, or the news this week that the talker’s new address on the Indianapolis dial is going to be WNDE, a ratings doormat AM sports station that has so few listeners it trails the commercial-free classical music outlet in town?

The humbling, red-state tumble is just the latest setback for the conservative talker who has seen his once-golden career suffer a steady series of losses recently.

Divorced from successful, longtime affiliates in places like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Indianapolis, Limbaugh’s professional trajectory is heading downward. That’s confirmed by the second and third-tier stations he now calls home in those important media markets, and the fact that when his show became available, general managers up and down the dial passed on it. Apparently turned off by the show’s hefty price tag, sagging ratings, and disappearing advertisers, Limbaugh continues to be a very hard sell.

It’s a precipitous fall from the glory days when the host posted huge ratings numbers, had affiliates clamoring to join his network, and dictated Republican politics. All of that seems increasingly distant now. With his comically inflated, $50 million-a-year syndication deal set to expire next year, Limbaugh’s future seems uncertain. “Who would even want someone whose audience is aging and is considered toxic to many advertisers,” askedRadioInsight last month.

For Limbaugh, the troubles were marked by key events from 2012 and 2013. The first came in the form of Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke implosion, where he castigated and insulted for days the graduate student who testified before Congress about health care and access to contraception, calling her a “slut” and suggesting she post videos of herself having sex on the Internet. The astonishing monologues sparked an unprecedented advertiser exodus.

The following year, as the host struggled to hang on to fleeing sponsors, radio industry giant Cumulus Media decided to negotiate its Limbaugh contract in public, making it clear through the press that the company was willing to cut ties with the pricey host in major cities where Cumulus owned talk radio stations. In the end, Limbaugh stayed with Cumulus stations, but the company sent a clear signal to the industry: Limbaugh was no longer an untouchable and general managers weren’t clamoring to hire him. Since then, the talker’s fortunes have only faded.

Another looming problem? Conservative talk radio is a “format fewer advertisers are interested in buying because of its aging audience,” noted radio consultant and self-identified Republican Darryl Parks. Limbaugh himself recently conceded a generational disconnect: “Now that I’ve outgrown the 25-54 demographic, I’m no longer confident that the way I see the world is the way everybody else does.”

That disconnect may be fueling Limbaugh’s waning political influence. Once a mighty player whose ring was constantly kissed by Republicans, this campaign season seems to be unfolding with Limbaugh on the sidelines, his clout and his ability to drive the conversation seemingly surpassed by other conservative media players.

In the late 1980s and early to mid 1990's Rush Limbaugh was a huge thing in America. After my grandmother passed away, I returned home from the Military and moved in with my grandfather. I use to stay up of a night......listen to the Police Scanner - watch "LAPD - Life on the Streets" ; and the Rush Limbaugh show ( I can't remember which one I watched first ). I can still see Rush, leaning forward with his left hand up.....showing off his new wedding ring to the audience on one of his shows.

I always admired Rush for one thing, and that is.......or was, his analytical ability. He not only knew politics, but the politicans. Those whom hated Rush Limbaugh can say one thing about him - and that is he did make some astonishing political predictions that did come true ; which proves one thing and that is Rush Limbaugh knows his politics.

Rush Limbaugh is a TERRIFIC debater, and that causes some jealousy among Democrats in my belief. Rush knows how to argue. he knows how to debate. he knows how to throw the facts out.

What he does is getting old. It is the same old grind...day in and out. The Rush Limbaugh show - radio and TV is not new. Rush is getting bored, but I believe he feels that he has to put on a show and his number one priority is keeping his popularity. Rush has a kink in his armour, and that is that he desires to be popular. Nothing lasts forever.....nothing ; Sorry Rush.


Shadow 355

 

[Mac1958]

Limbaugh's relevance is almost irrelevant at this point.

He spawned a full industry of hardcore conservative radio talkers who make him look tame by comparison: Hannity, Levin, Beck, Jones, Savage, et al.

You can see their absolutist influence loud and clear, both in public discourse and in DC. As well as the resulting abject dysfunction of our political system.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Over 20 years of predicting his demise and they are still wrong. Many it will be any year now! Lol!

Actually, LImbaugh's been dead since Sandra Fluke forced him to apologize.

When was the last time he made news?

When was the last time anyone really cared what he said.

Sandra Fluke was the last time he made news. He lost that encounter. Now his advertisers are gone, Clearchannel is desperately trying to prop up his show.

Believe what you need to believe, one day you will be right. Dummy.

I asked a pretty simple question. When was the last time that Limbaugh said something that made news?

Used to be Republicans cowered in fear of this guy. Not so much anymore.

 

[Papageorgio]

Over 20 years of predicting his demise and they are still wrong. Many it will be any year now! Lol!

Actually, LImbaugh's been dead since Sandra Fluke forced him to apologize.

When was the last time he made news?

When was the last time anyone really cared what he said.

Sandra Fluke was the last time he made news. He lost that encounter. Now his advertisers are gone, Clearchannel is desperately trying to prop up his show.

Believe what you need to believe, one day you will be right. Dummy.

I asked a pretty simple question. When was the last time that Limbaugh said something that made news?

Used to be Republicans cowered in fear of this guy. Not so much anymore.

Ask your fellow nut jobs. They start threads about him all the time . I don't watch or listen to him.

The guy that revolutionized radio and set records that will never be broken will leave the air one day. And you dummies will go on about you idiots got him off the air by your boycotts. It just took you almost 30 years to do it. Lol! You and your ilk are nuts.

 

[NLT]

Rush Limbaugh Net Worth

$400 Million

 

[blastoff]

Where is Joe, these days. He stopped following me around.

Naw, you just haven't said anything mockworthy of late... But I'm sure you'll correct that.

Cool. If he does you've got an open invitation to lie about something again, Joey! Make it a real good one this time and for heaven's sake not something so easily disproved this go-round. Your reputation can't take much more of those.

 

[Ernie S.]

Over 20 years of predicting his demise and they are still wrong. Many it will be any year now! Lol!

Actually, LImbaugh's been dead since Sandra Fluke forced him to apologize.

When was the last time he made news?

When was the last time anyone really cared what he said.

Sandra Fluke was the last time he made news. He lost that encounter. Now his advertisers are gone, Clearchannel is desperately trying to prop up his show.

Believe what you need to believe, one day you will be right. Dummy.

Perhaps, but I doubt he'll ever best a stopped clock.

 

[Pogo]

I always admired Rush for one thing, and that is.......or was, his analytical ability. He not only knew politics, but the politicans.

That's the problem. Eliminationists like Limpbag personalize and polarize anything they don't like into Emmanual Goldstein figures that are nothing more than dehumanized two-dimensional figures who all fit some preconceived strawman mold. That demonization removes any discourse, indeed any incentive for discourse, because you can't debate with subhuman creatures. It's a coward's way of getting out of any threat of having one's points challenged.

This is how the Eliminationists work. Instead of politics, they talk about politicians. They make politics into a gossip show.

Rush Limbaugh is a TERRIFIC debater, and that causes some jealousy among Democrats in my belief.

No doubt that's why he doesn't have guests, rarely takes calls and when he does they're carefully screened to make sure only the sychophant Eliminationist line that agrees with his gets through. Courageous.

You wanna see somebody who actually DID know how to debate, look up William F. Buckley. There's a guy who wasn't afraid of inviting alternate points of view and taking them head-on. Lash Rimjob doesn't have anywhere NEAR the balls to do that.

Rush knows how to argue. he knows how to debate. he knows how to throw the facts out.

Riiiiight, "throw the facts out" in the trash and just spew bullshit strawmen, ad hom and mythology that no one gets through the wall to challenge. How courageous.

No, that's not "how to argue". Argument means you can defend your point against challenge. Doesn't mean you put up a wall to keep challenge away, brave brave Sir Robin.

 

[PredFan]

Listened to his show today. His goose is SURE taking a long time to cook.

He wasn't on today, he was sick of lying and needed to recover.

I didn't say he was. I said I listened to his show, just as I am doing right now.

 

[edthecynic]

Eliminationists like Limpbag personalize and polarize anything they don't like into Emmanual Goldstein figures that are nothing more than dehumanized two-dimensional figures who all fit some preconceived strawman mold.

October 16, 2008

RUSH: Like I said in the last hour, if I'd have heard one more time from the Fox All-Stars about how cool Obama was -- David Brooks said Obama is a mountain. He's a rain forest. You get up every morning and the mountain is just there. I didn't see cool. I don't see elegant. I see somebody not even really human.

October 9, 2008

RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.


Remember, the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats!

Dehumanization | Beyond Intractability

By

Michelle Maiese

July 2003

The Psychology of Dehumanization

Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.

Dangers of Dehumanization

While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.

Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

 

[Pogo]

Eliminationists like Limpbag personalize and polarize anything they don't like into Emmanual Goldstein figures that are nothing more than dehumanized two-dimensional figures who all fit some preconceived strawman mold.

October 16, 2008

RUSH: Like I said in the last hour, if I'd have heard one more time from the Fox All-Stars about how cool Obama was -- David Brooks said Obama is a mountain. He's a rain forest. You get up every morning and the mountain is just there. I didn't see cool. I don't see elegant. I see somebody not even really human.

October 9, 2008

RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.


Remember, the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats!

Dehumanization | Beyond Intractability

By

Michelle Maiese

July 2003

The Psychology of Dehumanization

Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.

Dangers of Dehumanization

While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.

Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.

With Limpbag it goes back to calling Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog" and telling that black caller "take that bone out of your nose and call me back", if not even earlier. Clearly it paves the way for an acrimonious atmosphere of completely polarizing pseudo-rhetoric that serves to shut down, rather than serve, any kind of discourse. And very arguably Limpblob has been the catalyst for that degradation of the American discourse that has evolved over the last 25 years.

All demonstrating once again the maxim that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". In Limpdick's own words, his job is "to make you mad" so that he can "charge confiscatory ad rates". Rare statements of candor.

 

[JoeB131]

Ask your fellow nut jobs. They start threads about him all the time . I don't watch or listen to him.

The guy that revolutionized radio and set records that will never be broken will leave the air one day. And you dummies will go on about you idiots got him off the air by your boycotts. It just took you almost 30 years to do it. Lol! You and your ilk are nuts.

Wow, more evasion. Here, I will try to make it simple for you. What influence has Rush had on the political scene since Fluke castrated him?

 

[JoeB131]

Cool. If he does you've got an open invitation to lie about something again, Joey! Make it a real good one this time and for heaven's sake not something so easily disproved this go-round. Your reputation can't take much more of those.

Right. Yet oddly I have 9370 ratings and you only have 2191 even though you've been here two years longer and agree with the general majority of the members.

Hmmmmm.....

 

[Indeependent]

The average election brings out under 25% of eligible voters.
Rush supposedly has 20 million people tuning in to hear his voice in the background.
Hannity and Levin supposedly have 10 million people tuning in to hear their voices in the background and those 10 million are a subset of Rush.
20 million isn't going to win a national election.

 

[Pogo]

The average election brings out under 25% of eligible voters.
Rush supposedly has 20 million people tuning in to hear his voice in the background.
Hannity and Levin supposedly have 10 million people tuning in to hear their voices in the background and those 10 million are a subset of Rush.
20 million isn't going to win a national election.

"20 million" is a made-up number anyway. He's never documented it.