Wednesday, March 14, 2012

As Advertisers Come Crawling Back, Rush Not Interested In Restoring Ties

Apparently Rush Limbaugh meant what he said when he told his listeners, "Those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine, we'll replace them."

He was also apparently telling the truth when he said that a number of advertisers who pulled their ads in response to Leftist pressure were begging to come back.

One of them was Sleep Train, the first advertiser to pull its ads from Limbaugh's show and someone who had been advertising on Limbaugh's show for 25 years. When they asked to return and tried to book a voiced endorsement, the highest priced kind of radio ad where the host endorses the product, they were turned down cold.

The Blaze managed to obtain the email that a Limbaugh representative sent to Sleep Train President Dale Carlsen:

Thank you for your requests last week and this week to restart your voiced endorsement in local markets of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush received your requests personally.

Unfortunately, your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh’s character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the future.

Rush appreciates your long friendship and your past support, and we wish you good luck in the future.

What's that old saying again? Screw me once, shame on thee. Screw me twice...

Kudos to El Rushbo for being a man of principle and showing these weasels the door.


Anonymous said...


Sara Noble said...

I just linked this to my article - it made my day! It's justice. I'm not saying I agree with Rush's comments, I don't. But he apologized twice and frankly, did people hear what Ms. Fluke said??? I would never call her a "s..." but she sure knows a lot of them. My main problem with her is this nonsense about making us all pay for everyone's birth control no matter what. Even people who find it unconscionable are supposed to pay because why??

Rob said...

Hi Sara,

Because they say so, and because they needed an issue to distract people from President Obama's abysmal record of failure.

At least that's how I see it. Thanks for the link luv!

Rob said...

Hello Anonymous,
Actually, I didn't say anything about advertisers. Rush Limbaugh did.

As usual, he appears to know what he's talking about.

Anonymous said...

Sara Noble: My main problem with her is this nonsense about making us all pay for everyone's birth control no matter what. Even people who find it unconscionable are supposed to pay because why??

Argh. No one is making you pay for this. The debate is about private insurance companies paying for this. I wish I knew why the right doesn't seem to grasp this simple fact.

And, even if the government was paying for this, welcome to real life. I pay for things every day that I don't like. That's taxes for you. I had to chip in for the Iraq War. I'm sure you can afford this.

And if you're so worked up about contraception, should I assume that you also don't want insurance to pay for lung cancer treatment because people choose to smoke? I suppose you might argue that there are people who get lung cancer without smoking a day in their life. Well, there are people who use birth control to treat and prevent ovarian cysts. Are you morally opposed to that as well?

Rob said...

Hello Anonymous,
The reason you don't understand why people are worked up about it is because you appear not to understand the Constitution. This directly violates the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the first Amendment.

Another thing you apparently seem not to understand is how business and the free market work. This is unfortunately endemic when it comes to the Left.

Businesses don't pay for taxes, fees, or government mandated 'free stuff'. They simply roll them into the prices they charge their customers for goods and services.

If Notre Dame or Catholic Charities buys insurance from a company that is forced to provide 'free' abortions and contraception to them because the government forces the insurance company to pick up the tab, the company is simply going to roll those costs into the premiums.

So these Catholic institutions are going to end up paying for something they are morally opposed to. It's exactly the same as if pork was deemed a health necessity by Government and the Obama Administration demanded by HHS diktat that Muslim and Jewish institutions pay to provide it to their employees.

I doubt you'll respond, but in your heart of hearts don't you find it creepy that there would be a government mandate to FORCE people to violate their beliefs in this way? And don't you find it worrying that a government in a free country would compel a business in a free country to provide something at a company's expense that their customers don't even want?

And BTW,no one was ever 'worked up about contraception' but the Democrats, because they were desperate for an issue to take the spotlight off President Obama's abysmal performance in an election year.

Rep. Issa's original hearing was on the constitutionality of the HHS diktat. It was the Democrats who wanted to bring in a long time Leftist activist with no expert background to make the argument about 'contraception'.

When Issa and the adults on the committee refused to hear her 'testimony', the Dems staged an obviously prearranged temper tantrum and walked out.

Their lackeys in the media did the rest.

Considering the very real issues this country faces, I find it frankly disgusting that a manufactured 'crisis' like this was used to deceive the American people.

Anonymous said...

Rob -

I doubt you'll respond

And I doubly doubt that you'll post.

That's partly because I notice that you didn't address my comment about lung cancer. You see, if any and all businesses have a right to opt out of any procedure that they find morally wrong, then it would be CHAOS. Got diabetes? Sorry, but you chose to eat all those sweets. I'm morally opposed and I choose not to allow it. Got chlamydia? Tough toenails. Shouldn't have slept with that loose woman. I choose not to allow it. God forbid if your boss is a christian scientist! I'm guessing they're morally opposed to pretty much every medical procedure.

I'm guessing that these logical steps have never really crossed your mind.

For all the insults that you throw around about people who dare to disagree with you 'not understanding the free market,' you apparently don't understand how this would cause havoc nationwide.

Notice you also didn't address the fact that contraception is not used solely for birth control. It is also a life-saving drug that supposedly 'altruistic' and 'caring' churches don't care for. I suppose they'd rather see people die. I'm beginning to understand why they tend to vote republican.

I doubt you'll respond

And I triply doubt that you'll post. But even if you do, there's not a chance in hell that you'll ever address my points. Just more of the childish 'you hate capitalism' tripe that excuses you from actually doing any serious thinking.

PS. It's a nice trick by the way. You say 'I doubt you'll respond'. I do. You don't post, leading your readers to think I didn't. Cute.

Rob said...

I didn't respond to the lung cancer remark out of simple politeness because frankly, it seems so obvious I figured you'd get it on your own.

This is a constitutional issue, not a healthcare issue.

No religions I'm aware of except the Church of the Latter Day Saints and the Seventh Day Adventists have made a smoking ban part of religious practice, and even that isn't as big a deal as abortion is to the Catholic Church. Same with eating sweets. It doesn't interface with Free Practice, which IS the issue. Not contraception, much as the Left would like to convince people it is.

B-A-D analogies,and ones that, once again doesn't address the central issue of a violation of the First Amendment.These are religious institutions with certain constitutional rights, not just private businesses.

As for your feelings about capitalism and business, I think they're pretty obvious from what you've written, i.e. your earlier remark about how 'the insurance companies are paying for it.'

Oh, and BTW, you frequently don't respond which is fine by me, as talking past each other is a major waste of time.

Unfortunately, your response here is a pretty good example.

That's also why you continue to hide behind 'Anonymous' perhaps.

Old School said...

Another thing you could have mentioned but did not, Rob. Diabetes and lung cancer may be exacerbated by certain lifestyle choices, but there is a genetic component to diabetes,(it runs in my family and my younger sister contracted it as a child) and there are non-smokers whom have contracted lung cancer.No one chooses it.

Using birth control or having an abortion, on the other hand,is a matter of choice as well as a matter of religious practice for Catholics.

And for that matter, contraception and abortion are far more affordable for the average person than treatment for either of the two diseases mentioned.

It was indeed a ridiculous analogy.

Anonymous said...

Rob, I'm kind of stunned that you let that comment through. Did you want to make him look stupid or just demonstrate the dangers of simply skimming a post? That was cruel.

Old School: Using birth control or having an abortion, on the other hand,is a matter of choice

This brainiac obviously missed the quite obvious point I made above that many women are given birth control as a life-saving measure and not as a contraceptive device. I think I mentioned it twice. Would three times maybe have driven the point home?

One of my best friends was put on birth control at 12 years of age to treat a medical condition that would have prevented her from ever having children. She wasn't a 'slut' (as some people would refer to her), she was a child. She wasn't making a choice, she had to take the pill.

I know you guys aren't really into taking care of people after they're born, but I'm really glad that my friend is around today.

Rob, I know it's your M.O. to claim that I haven't responded when I have, but you might want to let this one through if for no other reason than to teach Old School a thing or two about reading comprehension. His second paragraph shows that he needs a little work here. But I also know that it's your M.O. to keep your readers from any sort of critical thinking, especially when their logic is so clearly destroyed as it is here.

Rob's brain: can'

Old School said...

As with many of those on the Left, your idea of debate appear to be simply repeating your talking points and ignoring all arguments to the contrary, hoping they will vanish.

The dispute is about a blatant violation of the American Constitution, not contraception. Apparently that hasn't sunk in at your end after numerous repetitions, meaning either you're quite thick or simply trying to steer things your way regardless.

But on the topic of these Catholic institutions, abortion and contraception, did it ever perhaps occur to you that if one doesn't like what's offered in terms of benefits, one is quite able to find employment elsewhere?

As a final note,I actually live in a country with national health. It's an unmitigated disaster, with severe shortages of physicians and months long waits to see a doctor.

You frankly have no idea of what you're talking about in my opinion.

Anonymous said...


Saying 'it's unconstitutional' over and over again does not make it unconstitutional, unless you've suddenly been appointed to the supreme court. In fact the only real argument I've seen on this thread so far is that it is a 'constitutional' argument. Well, of course it is. No one is denying that. But that cuts both ways, and I think you'll be unhappy with the final result.

You're on shaky ground with the constitutional argument. Read Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Employment Division v. Smith (1990), et al. These are cases in which even the conservative judges disagree with you. I understand that legal writ is difficult to parse if you're not familiar with the terminology, but it will serve you better to understand the precedents for and against your argument before wishfully spouting that it is 'unconstitutional' without even knowing if it is or not. I'm afraid that both the constitution and precedent are against you here, but feel free to 'repeat your talking points' ad nauseum. Only one of us will be surprised when the courts rule against you here, as they most assuredly will do. No one will have to go through the economic hardship of quitting their job (as you seem to want them to do).

Guys, even Scalia's not with you on this one (he must be a communist!). I'd find something else to complain about it. How long has it been since you called Obama a muslim? That's always a good one...

Rob said...

Anonymous, this is exactly why debates with people like you are a waste of time and space.

Unfortunately for you, I'm familiar with both cases as part of my research on sharia here in America.Neither case is comparable to what we're discussing here.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah had to do with Santeria and what amounted to felony animal torture as part of there rites. The SCOTUS ruled, quite correctly that when religious doctrine clashes with long established U.S. law and community standards, religion loses. If NAMBLA, an organization that promotes pedophile behavior formed a 'church' they would likewise not be protected for the same reason.

Ditto on Employment Division v. Smith, which concerned, believe it or not, two men employed counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic who came to work high on peyote which they claimed were part of their religious rites and later tried to collect unemployment.

The SCOTUS ruled that these clowns weren't going to get their unemployment because Oregon law prohibited the possession of peyote. While this technically (very technically)danced on the limits of the Free Exercise clause, SCOTUS ruled that Oregon was within in rights because of the context in which the peyote use occurred,and the firing was for cause. I mean, a religious ceremony's one thing, but getting buzzed at work when you're employed by a private drug counselor???

Key words in the decision: "justifiably prohibited by law".

Just like a Muslim beating his wife - legal under sharia, but not under our laws or community standards.

You want to seriously tell me that you're going to compare these choice items to a Catholic Institution's refusal to pay for items specifically prohibited by Church doctrine ?

Yeah, I guess you are, but I'm amazed the cognitive dissonance doesn't fry your synapses.

Also, Old School made an excellent point. If you don't like the benefit package that comes with working somewhere, don't take the job.

Or if you want something your insurance doesn't cover, buy private coverage for your self.

I realize that the idea of someone actually exercising some responsibility for their choices is an absolute horror to Statists, but not to the rest of us. It's what the country was built on.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion every argument you've put out on this thread is frankly not even worth the time it took to rebut them.

Another illustration on why debating with a lot of folks on the Left is a waste of time and space. It's like debating someone's religion.