Peter Gabriel Withdraws Music From Rush Limbaugh Show Following Sandra Fluke Controversy

hollywoodreporter.com ^ | March 5, 2012 | Sophie A. Schillaci

[drypowder]

oops, dyslexia moment, I meant SNL

[Chode]

feh...

[dforest]

I thought as long as you pay the fees you can use the music.

Rush can’t hear it anyway.

I won’t miss it. Gabriel is a has been who is lucky someone still plays his moosic.

[mardi59]

Get it free and send them all to him. I don’t know anyone who would want one. I want to keep my friends. :)

[Yardstick]

The song has already courted controversy and its hard hitting lyrics...

*yawn*

Another bleat from the herd of the edgy and controversial.

[DoughtyOne]

The followers of Rush could make a very large statement of support by purchasing a couple hundred dollars of product in the next few days.

Screw Leftists and their poor egos that they can’t control every voice in the media.

[onemiddleamerican]

The absurdity continues. Any minute now, I expect to see a news alert that Suzie’s Lemonade Stand has announced that although they don’t now advertise on Rush’s show, now for sure they won’t even consider it.

Thank the Good Lord that Rush hasn’t lost the Spatula City account!

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Who’s Peter Gabriel and why should we care?

[srmorton]

Manheim Steamroller knows that they are a household name just because of Rush!

[srmorton]

Manheim Steamroller knows that they are a household name just because of Rush!

[aruanan]

"Peter was appalled to learn that his music was linked to Rush Limbaugh's extraordinary attack on Sandra Fluke. It is obvious from anyone that knows Peter's work that he would never approve such a use. He has asked his representatives to make sure his music is withdrawn and especially from these unfair aggressive and ignorant comments."

Hey, Peter! Why don't you actually discover what really transpired instead of believing what others tell you? You could avoid making a fool out of yourself. Wait, that already happened. That Rush's rather low-key 10 or so seconds of remarks are called an "extraordinary attack" and "unfair aggressive and ignorant comments" shows you've already been had. Do some thinking on your own, Peter, so we'll know you're not just another worn-out MTV musician from the 1980s.

[funfan]

Around the 1st of the year they took him off of ksfo 560
and switched him to 910 he comes on after 2 idiots who I can not stand. So I listen to Rush only and then I switch off the radio.

[Revolting cat!]

Both, Peter and Gabriel are withdrawing? How about Chad & Jeremy?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I guess Mr Gabriel prefers his music is linked to abortion on demand, “free” condoms, and rabid sex.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You probably don’t even know who Pink or who Floyd is either. That and Jethro Tull.........Sheesh!

[Kickass Conservative]

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a condom that Peter said much worse things about Conservatives. Just a hunch...

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Well, if you have ever seen Peter Gabriel lately, you would know that outside of paying for it, he would have trouble hooking up with Helen Thomas.

[Revolting cat!]

I know Homer and Jethro!

M

[aruanan]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see how filled with inaccuracies Sophie's piece is. For instance:

Limbaugh’s rant
It was about 10 seconds of low key talk with Bo Snerdly.

in which he called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,”
Rush asked whether someone who asked to have others pay for her to have sex was a slut or a prostitute and if so, what did that make those of us who, through tax dollars, would be forced to finance that. Pimps? Bo Snerdly commented and Rush asked, That makes us the johns? No, we're not johns. Okay, so she's not a slut. I take it back, she's round-heeled. A retraction right there that everyone overlooks since it doesn't aid their polemics. But hardly a rant on Rush's part.

"Rush Limbaugh's extraordinary attack on Sandra Fluke."
There was no extraordinary attack but a pointed focus on Sandra's extraordinary claim that third parties should have to finance someone's need for contraceptives

The conservative firebrand sparked outrage when he said that Fluke, a college student who was denied the right to speak at a contraception hearing
She wasn't "denied a right" because she had no right to speak. It wasn't a contraception hearing but a hearing about unconstitutional presidential overreach. The Democrats had already selected their speaker and had had him vetted and scheduled to speak the next day. The guy was an expert on the matter at hand. The night before, the Democrats on the committee told Issa that they wanted him to uninvite their selected speaker and substitute Fluke at the last minute. Issa turned them down, saying that there was no time to vet her before the session the next day. That didn't stop the Democrats from staging a photo op and walking out.

"women who want insurance plans to cover their birth control should post videos of themselves having sex online.
What he said was that if public money in the form of our tax dollars were going to subsidize this activity, there should be some accountability to see how the money's being spent and that this could be done by posting videos. His remarks had nothing to do with "insurance plans" providing contraception but with tax dollars being taken from A to be given to B for B's own private activity that was properly their own responsibility.

[Tau Food]

Who are the sponsors who are sticking with Rush? We should remember to let them know of our support for them.