Image 01 Image 03

Rush: Boycott failing

Rush: Boycott failing

I’ll post the audio when available, but Rush Limbaugh just stated that the advertiser boycott of his show is vastly overstated and based on inflated numbers.

(audio added, via Common Cents)

As I have pointed out in response to concerned commenters, many of those listed by Media Matters and Think Progress as having “dropped” Rush never actually advertised on his show.  A stray ad may have shown up on a local radio station through a media buyer, but they never intended to advertise in that time slot.  Yet when such an advertiser says they don’t want their ads run during Rush’s time slot, that’s counted as a “drop” in the numbers.  Rush also pointed out that these local ad buys do not represent sponsors of his nationally syndicated show, and he received no revenue.

Rush said there are three new national sponsors who will be unveiled soon, and that two of those who dropped him want to come back.  One of these sponsors, he said, is “begging” to come back.

Rush then mentioned that he appreciates all the online support he has been getting, and in what must have been a deliberate dig, mentioned “just look at what the stock price” and then he stopped himself, an obvious reference to Carbonite.

Update: Exclusive: Dems Incite Death Threats Against Limbaugh


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Industry analysts pointed out that nobody is going to dent Rush’s hull with this hate-based tantrum.

But it is instructive of how the Collective works, and their vacant claims of “tolerance”.


I hope Carbonite is the one begging to return. I think it’s possible it is because of his veiled reference to Carbonite’s stock.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Kitty. | March 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    My guess would be you’re right, Kitty.

      It would likely be either Carbonite or Proflowers. Both of those are cash-flow intensive businesses where any significant drop-off in current orders basically spells doom.

      Carbonite specifically, as they’ve business model currently bleeds money anyway, and the double whammy of their stock dropping precipitously and alienating a huge part of their customer base will hurt any expansion plans or any ability to get debt to expand the business.

      Although to be fair, the stock price has recovered about 35 cents today, likely on some pattern traders thinking there would be at least a brief bounce to profit off of or some previously locked in orders to fulfill based on stock price dropping to a certain point.

    Tamminator in reply to Kitty. | March 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    I hope he doesn’t even CONSIDER re-instating Carbonite.
    The CEO gives to Move

    That’s enough to tell the guy to take a flying leap.

Great news! I looked at the list at Maggie’s Notebook, and thought “Really? John Deere? 1-800-flowers? Sears/K-Mart?” Where are they going to go? Who will buy their tractors? Here in blue states our flowers are locally grown and bought at boutiques. And Sears is heading into bankruptcy.

THE POLITICS OF HATE: Dems Incite Death Threats Against Limbaugh. And Limbaugh’s already had to call the bomb squad to his house. That’s their approach. Marginalize, then brutalize.

When will President Obama speak out against this hatred and extremism? Probably never. But ince it’s been established that this sort of thing happens via close coordination between the White House and Media Matters, etc., there’s no denying responsibility now. I call upon the President to denounce his supporters’ hateful violent rhetoric, to promise not to engage in or encourage it again, and to apologize to Limbaugh for stirring up this cesspit of hatred among his followers. A President is supposed to lead, not incite violence

Maybe we should start posting Obamicons with “HATE” instead of “HOPE” until he does. . .

Really, is there any reasonable person who doubts Obama’s malice here?


    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Ragspierre. | March 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Really, is there any reasonable person who doubts Obama’s malice here?

    Who said this?:

    I’m not going to attack them personally. I mean, I know that’s fun, but it’s just not productive. And we need, as a nation, to come together to recognize that even though we have differing views about the country and about where we should go, we all love the country. And I recognize that among Democrats and among Republicans.

    and this:

    Mitt Romney on Wednesday said that President Obama shouldn’t be held directly responsible for rising gas prices.

    “I think people recognize that the president can’t precisely set the price at the pump,” Romney told CNBC on Wednesday.

    Boldfaced question above asked and answered. However, that assumes that you can define Romney as “reasonable”.

    I assume that Romney supporters will claim that it is “outrageous” and “hair on fire” to quote what he, himself, said on television over the last couple of days.

    John McCain is overjoyed. If the Institutionals succeed in forcing Romney as the Republican nominee, McCain will no longer hold the title of running the most Vichy-ite campaign in history.

    Subotai Bahadur

      Jack Long in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      “I think people recognize that the president can’t precisely set the price at the pump,”

      Here’s a link to the video and discussion at Hot Air.

      I don’t like Romney so I could only make it through the first 5 minutes of the video. The exchange you quoted is in those 5 minutes.

      Your quote is a generic lead in, i.e. any president can’t snap his fingers and set a gas price.

      After that Romney unloaded on Obama’s energy policies and how he was destroying the energy industry in the US.

      Sounded just like Newt.

      If you haven’t seen the video and just went by the headline I would suggest viewing the relevant parts and reassessing your quote.

      If you have seen it, I’ll disagree with you. Romney opened up a can of good old fashioned whoop a$$ on Obama.

        Xymbaline in reply to Jack Long. | March 7, 2012 at 10:38 pm

        “Romney” and “whoop ass” have about the same connection as “fish” and “bicycle”.

          Jack Long in reply to Xymbaline. | March 8, 2012 at 1:04 am

          “same connection as “fish” and “bicycle”.”

          A fluke, maybe?

          I’ve got to give the devil his due on this one, Romney hit Obama pretty hard in that video.

          The real issue is that the text and the context have zero relationship to each other in this case. This one is so blatant it’s worth watching as a case study.

          It has nothing to do with Romney, per se.

        Hope Change in reply to Jack Long. | March 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Hi Jack Long. You can’t go by what the consultants train them to say.

        This is the game played by Clinton and James Carville where they pretend to be conservative in order to get elected. Obama & Axelrod did it even more so. The MSM are acolytes to the Left and cover up for them.

        You know all this, Jack Long, I’m sure.

        So what difference does it make what Romney says. It makes no difference.

        Romney doesn’t understand how the twisting of the law by OUR CONGRESS and our federal bureaucracy has ruined our economy. So it doesn’t matter if someone handed him a “THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY” can of whuppass.

        He doesn’t know how to fix the economy, or oil. He doesn’t even really understand the problem.

        Furthermore, Newt has mentioned three things Obama could sign TOMORROW that would alleviate some of the pressure on the price of gasoline: the Keystone Pipeline 700,00 barrels a day, the Texas – Louisiana part of the Gulf of Mexico where the big rigs are and the POSTAGE STAMP-Sized SPOT IN ANWAR THAT WOULD YIELD SOME MILLION barrels of oil per day.

        So it IS Obama’s fault that the price of gasoline is so high, and Obama’s Secretary of anti-energy, Secretary Chu, has said they aren’t even trying to reduce the price of gasoline, because they want people to use other sources of energy.

        Like Algae.

        Romney doesn’t mean it. He’s politics as usual, business as usual.

          Jack Long in reply to Hope Change. | March 8, 2012 at 12:42 am

          I don’t disagree with you about Romney.

          I couldn’t listen to him for more than 5 minutes because I have doubts about his sincerity.

          I watched the video because of the very heated discussion at Hot Air. The headline is a complete mischaracterization of what transpired.

          I know of Subotai from other blogs and wanted to make sure he knew of the controversy surrounding the sound bite.

          That Romney can’t avoid such situations is another matter…

Leftism thrives, in part, by trying to make conservatives feel isolated, alone. The Dinosaur media relied on the tactic; new media such as Google and Yahoo are simply taking up the mantle.

But conservatives are the majority and need to remember that. We see this playing out in the simple economics of Rush’s situation.

While the “Moral Majority” may have been poorly orchestrated and fronted by people (shall we say) less than ideal, the essence of the term is correct.

We should revive the concept under a new heading….and with better management;)

    Squires in reply to Will. | March 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Collectivism thrives on making individuals feel alone and isolated if they do not adhere to orthodoxy, period.

    They try to do it to us, and they do it to each other as well. Any of us who used to lean left can tell you that. Those who’ve actually lived in and dissented from collectivist societies can do that more than anyone. It is the stratagem of peer pressure as exercised by malevolent children.

    The question is how much an individual will permit that to sway them into prostrating their individuality or their principles to avoid being cast from the collective’s approval.

    Whether or not a majority or a minority hold a thing to be true is a distraction from its truth.

      Ragspierre in reply to Squires. | March 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      The essence of ThoughtPolicing and GroupThink. Orwell saw all this stuff so clearly.

      One of the greatest ironies of the Collective is their conceit that they represent free thinking or free speech. The opposite is true.

      Andy in reply to Squires. | March 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      Those are the 4 most brillian paragraphs I have read all week.

I R A Darth Aggie | March 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Begging to come back? gee, I can’t imagine why.

Oh, you mean they’re getting enough “You dropped Rush, I’m dropping you” loss of business? heh. Heh-heh. Heh-heh-heh.

I was in the market for on-line backup for my Mom, but I’ve decided to go with a new external hard drive and not Carbonite. I maybe in the market for legal documents, but not from LegalZoom. I’m sad about ProFlowers, as they provide a quality product – my Mom generally gets between 2 and 3 weeks from their flowers. Hopefully 1800Flowers is as good, or at least close.

    Before you opt for an external hard drive, you might want to consider one of the other cloud back-up services. There are others besides Carbonite. Mozy comes to mind. Hard drives can be stolen and destroyed. Plus with a cloud back-up, you can access your files from any computer anywhere.

      markinsandyeggo in reply to Kitty. | March 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

      I did some checking, and iDrive seems like a better fit than Mozy for people that had been doing Carbonite. That is what I was going to use. I tried to cancel Carbonite, but it have 2 years left on a 3 year subscription. They will not refund anything.

      If they hate having me as a customer due to my politics, my goal is to make them pay for the privilege.

      iconotastic in reply to Kitty. | March 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      One advantage of cloud-based backups is that this issue of drive failure/backup failure is dramatically reduced. And, for people who are not technologically inclined, a cloud backup system is simpler to use than to remember to plug a USB/Firewire device into your laptop periodically.

      I still think that trusting any company whose executive believes in the progressive ideology (such as it is) is risky. Progressives have no ethics other than whatever is best for the current situation–basically will rationalize anything in order to defeat the real enemy–conservatives (really classical liberals). What do you want to bet that anything Limbaugh has backed up at Carbonite has already been hacked and evaluated for embarrassing content?

One of the best products that could advertise with Rush would be some company that makes radios that have an on and off switch or, at least, a way to change stations. It is obvious that liberals do not have access to such a radio.

2nd Ammendment Mother | March 7, 2012 at 1:30 pm

For PR people – the Rush kerfuffle is nearly textbook.

1st advertising (especially at the national level) is driven by 2 things: audience and results, both of which are tracked with an amazing degree of minutiae.
2nd Conservatives are more likely to be your customers and own your publicly traded stock than liberals.

And my own interest in the topic, is that Libs seem to feel that the way to shut up a commentator is to try to ban and attack third parties (sort of the same way they go after our candidates – “nice family you have there, be a shame for something to happen to them”. When Conservatives don’t like a commentator, we use the off button and deny them an audience.

    “When Conservatives don’t like a commentator, we use the off button and deny them an audience.”

    Or we listen or read, and expose them for the laughable loons they are, along with their fatuous BS.

    See Wasser-Name Schultz, Ditzy. See also Rhodes, Randi.

    markinsandyeggo in reply to 2nd Ammendment Mother. | March 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    This “blame the third party” is so common on the left.

    Islamists fly airplanes into WTC/Pentagon – Its Israels fault.

    Cockroach kills innocent person – Its the school’s (or society’s) fault.

    President Obama explodes the US debt (victims are our children and grandchildren) – Its Bush’s (or evil rich’s) fault.

CARB is recovering today, up 30 cents, but Tuesday’s drop was was 70 cents and Monday dropped 30 cents – so the stock remains under the 52 week low of $9.11 that was the strike point on Monday.

Then again – the market is up today and a rising tide raises all boats. And the market is a long way from closing, so anything is possible.

[…] example, Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, is challenging Carbonite on their hypocrisy of dropping Rush Limbaugh after the host’s […]

Uhmmm yeah, part of rally for Rush is kinda avoiding the obvious…
Turn on the dang program, cuz increased listeners represents a stations ratings and value to the advertiser.

-Basic concepts of economic value.

2nd Ammendment Mother | March 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Several of those companies have one important thing – a published phone number to a sophisticated, commissioned sales force….. how many people picked up the phone, called a sales person and said “uhhmm, not interested anymore”.

I saw netflix was on the list over at Weasel Zippers. My subscription was cancelled in 2 minutes.

I do wish there were links to the actual statements from the corporations pulling ads.

It was good to hear Rush put everything in context today.

I had a smile on my face when he said “one was begging to come back.”

Love Elrushbo!

    Hope Change in reply to Scorpio51. | March 7, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Hi Scorpio51 —

    I just thought of something. I wrote you tonigh about finding courage within.

    But I didn’t realize you are listening to Rush.

    I love Rush’s love for our country and freedom and a lot about what Rush teaches us every day about self-reliance and the meaning of freedom.

    But Rush does not get Newt. I don’t know why not. It seems to me it should be a natural.
    Listening to Rush changed for me ONCE I DECIDED TO SUPPORT NEWT.

    Rush doesn’t know about Newt’s PLAN. I think it’s Rush’s job to know. So Rush is not the unerring Maha RushieI was hoping he would be.

    I’m not saying Rush needs to support NEwtl. I’m saying Rush needs to know what NEwt is proposing and report it fairly.

    I think a person’s support for NEwt could be undermined by listening to Rush. JUST IMO. YMMV.

Do you think people will want to advertise with Rush given what he did to these advertisers? If I were an advertiser, I would be very leery of ever dealing with Rush. If an advertiser decided not to renew with Rush, Rush has demonstrated that he’s not above blackmailing advertisers.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to jimbo3. | March 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    It was the advertisers who did it to him. He just responded in kind.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to jimbo3. | March 7, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    When all parties are free, behavior has manageable, predictable consequences. Rush has a huge radio audience, plus a certain cachet among conservatives. That has value. This is hardly the first or worst occasion of social upset over Rush – he’s a master at provoking and playing it, even in an open, watch me rile these clowns up, obvious way. Rush Derangement Syndrome is such that he can announce he’s going to run a game on libs, explain exactly how and when he’ll do it, go ahead and do it, and it’ll still work. This Flark thing is an example of a Rush bit that went just as he intended, only farther than he thought it might going in. He’s played it masterfully and once again roadrunner Rush is thumbing his nose at the coyote left.

    He has waiting lists for spots on his show. At least two advertisers have asked to come back – one reportedly begging to come back. The free publicity for Rush has been tremendous. He can only gain from this in terms of business and ratings. He’s lost no fans, just a few who say they’d have chosen different words.

    So yeah, given all that, Rush is clearly on the downside now, in deep doo-doo. (Eyes rolling)….

      G Joubert in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      I personally like Rush, and have been periodically listening to him since his show first went on the air in 1988. I say periodically instead of regularly because the time his show is on the air directly conflicts with work time.

      That said, the fact is if you go outside of those who say they like him or who are regular listeners and you’ll find that his negatives are astronomical. I suspect the leftards actually could drive Rush off the air if they undertook a concerted and sustained effort to do so.

        iconotastic in reply to G Joubert. | March 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm

        Drive him off the air? As long as Rush has millions of listeners, how could anyone do that except by trumping up some silly scandal like this? And someone would pick him up in a heartbeat–money talks and that many listeners is a lot of money.

        As for negatives, I am sure the same is true for Maher, Schulz and others–their negatives outside their listeners must be astronomical. But as long as they have their audience and make money for their networks and sponsors they will remain short of eating a live kitten on the air (and I am not certain that even that would drive Ed Schulz off the air).

Robert Janicki | March 7, 2012 at 7:28 pm

Rush should have called Fluke exactly what she is, a political prostitute, as she sold her soul with her political prevarications for purely partisan purposes.

Okay, I’m on an alliteration kick here, but you all get the point.

Just calling Fluke a slut, opened the door a crack too wide to overcome with liberals and their moral relativism and equivalency. You would think Rush was a woman beater from all the hysteria from the left. BTW, a couple of dictionary synonyms for slut include immoral and dissolute, which pretty much describes a 30 year college coed engaging in serial sexual escapades outside or marriage and expecting someone else to pay the bill for those acts of immorality.

Okay, I’m off my soapbox.

    G Joubert in reply to Robert Janicki. | March 7, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    If I understand her correctly, what Flake said is that she expected to spend $3,000 on sex while in law school (measured in birth control expenses), and she wanted someone else to pay for it. Rush called her a slut. Now, calling people names and using that term is not my interpersonal style, but objectively I can understand why he used that particular terminology. There is a level on which it makes sense.

    Unfortunately, Fluke never said what you claimed, if you read the transcript. She said people could pay $3000 for birth control over three years of law school. She also never asked for it for free–she’s paying insurance premiums–just without a co-pay. And she never said she was having sex, much less sex with multiple partners.

    And if you think a woman is a prostitute because insurance pays for birth control, then more than half of US women are prostitutes because most employer health insurance covers birth control.

    Rush was just wrong on so many levels. Supposedly from a guy who prides himself on knowing and stating the facts.

      iconotastic in reply to jimbo3. | March 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      What trash. Of course she was asking for it for free-she wanted it added to her benefits. If the premiums rose for others to pay for that benefit, she would get at least a significant part of that benefit for free.

      If the school doesn’t wish to pay for birth control then she can either use an aspirin (between the knees), find other insurance, find another school, or pay for it herself. Demanding that the school pay for protecting her sexual proclivities is what got called her a slut in the first place.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to jimbo3. | March 7, 2012 at 11:37 pm

      Jimbo -please tell us exactly who she is insured with & then we could actually read the fine print.

      Of course most students are under 26 & are therefore covered under their parents insurance.

      Fkluke is flukkin 30 & still at school.

      Also I challenge the notion that the script for hormone suppression (oestrogen ) is not covered as a medical need.

      Then of course we must see this person’s health insurance agreement & ALL her medical files.

      Give it to me Jimbo.

        I don’t have access to her health files, as you well know. In our country, that’s private information. (It also is in your country, which I assume is the UK if you were banned by the Guardian paper).

        In the US, enrolled full time students generally are able to get their own health insurance from the school regardless of age.

          Voluble in reply to jimbo3. | March 8, 2012 at 4:12 pm

          I am not in the habit of paying for the sexual accessories of women I am not having sex with personally. I doubt the Catholic Church would appreciate being put in that position either which is what this is all about.

          Insurance is useless as a means of paying for small, out of pocket expenses like birth control anyway. It is meant as a way of pooling risk for catastrophic expenses. If it pays for birth control every month then you are just giving them $10 for premiums and they are giving you back $9 in birth control. $3 if it is a government plan because the overhead is more. In the end you haven’t saved yourself anything unless you can force others to pay higher premiums.

          But if Ms. Fluke wants us to pay for it she had damn well better come across with the details of what she needs it for. That is what happens when you beg for things. People need to know the details so they can determine if you need it and if they want to give you the money for it. The way to keep such things private is to not beg for things. I would think this would all be obvious to anyone over the age of six.

Uncle Samuel | March 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm

The Irony of the whole deal is that the woman is probably deeply involved in this little affair: