[ArGee]

The company also noted solid support for Rush. Clear Channel radio chief John Hogan also was quoted by Inside Radio,: "We have maintained 100 percent of our affiliate base and we have maintained our advertiser base as well."

I am glad to hear this, but I certainly hope that ClearChannel's support for Rush isn't solely based on pragmatism. After all, if Rush had murdered somebody, but had kept 100% of his affiliate base and advertiser base, would they be solidly behind him?

The issue isn't whether Rush has maintained his base, but whether ClearChannel has evaluated how and why Rush became an addict and decided he deserves their support.

For the record, I support Rush, but based on the moral issues outlined above, not based on his ability to serve me or his market.

Shalom.

[stripes1776]

After all, if Rush had murdered somebody, but had kept 100% of his affiliate base and advertiser base, would they be solidly behind him?

Killing someone is not the moral equivalent of perscription drug addition, except to a mind incapable of making true moral distinctions.

Rush's audience still supports him because they are able to think critically about these matters, unlike those with less informed opinions about these subjects.

[garbanzo]

After all, if Rush had murdered somebody, but had kept 100% of his affiliate base and advertiser base, would they be solidly behind him?

Of course they would. You think ClearChannel is some paragon of ethics and virtue?

[JoeSchem]

After all, if Rush had murdered somebody

Get a CLUE, Rush did murder somebody: Larry King, in the Ratings, with a Golden Microphone!

[truthandjustice1]

"After all, if Rush had murdered somebody, but had kept 100% of his affiliate base and advertiser base, would they be solidly behind him?"

What? Your point being? You, IMHO, are not a Rush supporter, and this moral "what if" fantasy play is obsurd.

[truthandjustice1]

"Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)"

I believe you're in a hand basket. Is it deserved?

Shalom