Liberals are dreaming if they think they can bring down Limbaugh

The excitement on the left over 30 advertisers dropping Rush Limbaugh has reached idiotic heights. Many are openly predicting the end of the Rush Limbaugh show - as if simply saying it out loud would make it true.

This isn't going to happen. As Howard Kurtz points out, Rush may be losing some advertisers, but he hasn't lost any listeners. And that's the bottom line for radio stations carrying his show:

On Monday, Limbaugh remarked to his audience, "They've decided they don't want you or your business anymore. So be it."

The backlash has been driven by social media, such as a Facebook campaign urging a boycott of Limbaugh's sponsors.

Limbaugh has faced backlashes and boycotts before. But not like this.

The question is whether his show can survive the firestorm.

"By using this kind of insulting language against a young woman who no one had heard of," observes Howard Kurtz of Newsweek and CNN, "in a lot of people's eyes, he crossed the line, and that's why you see this huge backlash, including the advertisers who are now deserting his program."

Last year, liberal commentator Ed Schultz used language identical to Limbaugh's referring to a conservative female commentator when he said, "Like this rightwing slut, what's her name - Laura Ingraham. She's a talk-slut." Schultz apologized the next night on his show on MSNBC, saying, "On my radio show yesterday, I used vile and inappropriate language."

But no other pundit has the audience -- or the power -- of Limbaugh.

"Limbaugh is such a big moneymaker for so many radio stations," Kurtz points out, "that I don't think he's gonna be brought down by this, by any means."

And if his audience of self-described "ditto-heads" continues tuning in, Limbaugh should survive this latest controversy.

The controversy will eventually die down. Other advertisers will eagerly take the place of those who have dropped the show. And Rush Limbaugh will continue to broadcast - and get into more controversies - until he himself decides to hang it up.

Liberals who think otherwise are deluding themselves.

Russ Vaughn adds:

Yes, he admittedly put himself out there as a ripe target by referring to a Democrat stalking horse as a slut and a prostitute, forbidden language for a conservative pundit while a matter of acceptable routine for liberal commentators. And so a few of his advertisers buckled in the face of a threatened liberal boycott, pulling their advertising from his broadcasts. As is so frequently demonstrated by knee-jerk, feel-good,  liberal actions, this one may have the same unintended negative consequences that we see all too frequently in liberalism.

The first question that leaped immediately to my mind when I heard of these advertiser defections from Rush, was, "Wait a minute don't these fools know how many companies may be waiting and drooling at the opportunity to reach more than twenty million, well-informed, reasonably affluent listeners on a daily basis?" Can't you just picture those potential advertisers queuing up  with lucrative contracts in hand? All anyone who doubts that reality needs to do is tune in and listen to a confident Rush as he merrily occupies the epicenter of this brouhaha. 

The second, and most important question has to be, why would anyone invest in companies so impulsively led? If they can react in such a kneejerk fashion without regard to the consequences to their investors in a minor political blip like this, what kind of leadership will be there in a real crisis? Not much I suspect.

Others must be sharing my thoughts. Yesterday it was revealed that the stock of one of the defectors, online file storage company, Carbonite, had dropped 12% in the past three trading days. Savvy investors aren't quite as dimwitted as Carbonite's leadership; they have quickly recognized that without the sublime selling skills of Limbaugh, this is a ship that has likely torpedoed itself. And angered conservative stockholders see Carbonite leadership as hostile to their own political views and therefore unworthy of their investment dollars. That's always the problem with companies responding to boycott threats: boycotts cut both ways. And it would be my suspicion that conservative investors tend to have longer memories than angry liberal protestors attempting to seize temporary political advantage.