Radio Ad Seeks to Undermine Rush Limbaugh

CNSNews.com ^ | 5/14/04 | David Thibault

[smiley]

the rats are at least consistent in their hatred for conservatives....Rush will prevail and Mark Levin will squash these liberals like the bugs they are.

[Gefreiter]

It's not clear to me what this ad is supposed to accomplish. No one who listens to the show will now stop listening because of this group's ad, and people who can't stand Rush will continue feeling that way.

So what's the point?

[1Old Pro]

Talk about a tree falling in the forest with nobody around.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Brock's new website is described as a "not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

This of course would be based on the erroneous premise that there is conservative information in the U.S. media in the first place. Internet and (usually) FNC excepted, of course.

[rushmom]

Good. Let them waste their money on this instead of democrat politicians.

[adam_az]

Wanna bet this ends up actually increasing Rush's ratings with new listeners?

[FlipWilson]

Exactly. This is weird, Rush is not running for anything. I think more than anything, this is indicative of the Left's frustration over losing the media monopoly. For years the dismissed Rush and others as irrelevant. Now they can't do that anymore so they attack. I think it may backfire on them. If anything, more people will tune into Rush to hear for themselves.

This is also indicative of the Left's view of free speech, namely, that it is fine as long as they are doing the talking.

[MediaMole]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to discover that Rush Limbaugh has a conservative bias. If I had known that, I would never have listened to his program.

Back to the unbiased Dan Rather and Katie Couric for all my news.

[Cicero]

I assume Brock is doing it for the money. He gets paid to be a hatchet man for the left because of what they consider to be his symbolic value as a convert from conservatism.

As long as the money flows in from rich liberals with time on their hands, he will keep doing it, whether or not it actually works.

[skeeter]

It's not clear to me what this ad is supposed to accomplish.

Besides give Limbaugh yet MORE exposure? Nothing.

Good to know that its not only Republicans that are their own worst enemy.

[keysguy]

With an audience of 20 million Limbaugh will never stop being target # 1. Besides he understand the rats and knows how they think. They don't like that. Understand ting rat behavior is the beginning of the end of their lust for power.

[OldFriend]

What, you don't get your news from Jennings???????????

Only 'they' have the truth, you know!

[Gefreiter]

Well you're onto something there. I work in higher ed, where the free exchange of thought and expression is not only expetced, but required.

As long as they are the proper ideas and expressions.

I bet you're right about audience- more people may tune in to hear what all the hubbub is about. Same thing happens to others all the time. Look at Howard Stern, say.

[atomicpossum]

So the Left is now running 'campaign ads' against private citizens? Twisted.

[george wythe]

More free publicity for Rush Limbaugh.

As long as Rush stays away from those pills, he will do fine. Only one person can destroy Rush, and that's Rush himself.

[holden]

When Rush is no longer on (may it be no sooner than fifty years, Lord), if there will have been no contemporaneous discrediting of Rush, liberal attempts to rewrite history will be unable to find traction. They're trying to establish roots for such Rush bashing. They need to make a sacrifice here if they have any hopes for the future. (Too bad they still do, apparently.)

BTW, it should read: Brock, the alleged former conservative journalist.

HF

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

1. The US military took POWs at quite a high rate during the invasion, but in my understanding very few Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in uniform are in prison - I think most were released outright by now.

2. The Iraqis who are in prison are mostly, I presume, there because they were captured out of uniform attempting to murder Americans (in or out of uniform) or Iraqis - or to commit sabotage.

3. The POW protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to such criminals.

4. But to the extent that they do apply to any of the prisoners who were photographed in humiliating conditions, the publication of those photos would be a violation of the Geneva Convention to which the US a signatory.

5. The US Constitution provides that treaties ratified by the US are supreme law. It follows that US courts are obligated to enforce the Geneva Convention against the people of the United States as well as the government thereof.

In other words, if one of those Iraqis was in fact legally covered by the Geneva Convention and he sues newspapers and TV networks for publishing humiliating photos of him, it looks to me like he might just have won the lottery. But I'm not a lawyer - I don't even play one on TV . . .

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

I joined TWO fraternities at the University of Miami 1974-1979 and I agree with Rush. My hell week initiations weren't much different than the prison photos I saw. I wasn't shocked by the photos.

[pilgrim]

Should you not have also felt "SADDENED"?  ;^)