Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 2

message: On Sept. 10th, Kuralyov edited the article to include a reference to a nickname Rush allegedly used for Mayor Nagin, "Nayger". He linked this to a racial slur. Can anyone independently confirm that Rush ever used this nickname?  I don't listen to his show more than once or twice a week, so I can't say with certainty that he didn't say it, but it sure seems out of character. A search of rushlimbaugh.com and news.google.com turns up nothing. The only mention I can find of this anywhere besides here is on a liberal message board. Gregmg 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today, Sept. 11th, there's a lot more information out there on this. It does appear that Rush actually said "Mayor Naygor". Gregmg 14:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A Google search turns up quite a bit. Here's a soundbite. I'd like to hear it in the context of the show, but if this audio clip hasn't been altered, it does seem deliberate. Gregmg 19:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is the audio file making the rounds a spoof? Gregmg 01:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since this is the only instance that has been presented of Rush referring to Mayor Nagin this way, I suggest leaving it included in the article, but remove the description of this as a nickname. Describe it instead as a one-time reference, possibly a flub. Gregmg 03:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've gone back and listened to that clip a bunch of times. Upon further consideration, it does sound more like an honest error than it does a deliberate slur. I've edited the article accordingly. Gregmg 22:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nayger nickname 

message: There have been several changes today of the adjective used to describe this group.  At present the group is described as a liberal American group.  I propose that word liberal be changed to progressive, linking the term to Progressivism in the United States. This change has two benefits over the current version.  First, the group describes itself as being a progressive group, allowing for verification of the term with a cited source.  Second, it removes confusion as to why others are claiming the group it liberal latter in the same paragraph.  I agree that the differences in the terms is subtle, but until a source can be provided to conclusively prove that this group is liberal instead of progressive we are probably better off using the term used by the group. --Allen3 talk 21:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the liberal adjective a while back to replace a more POV descriptor another contributor had used. It should be removed if it is a point of contention. Gregmg 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of the adjective works for me.  While I believe that WP:NPOV requires that any likely bias by the group against Limbaugh should be indicated, the last sentence in the paragraph accomplishes this by providing a documented claim that the group supports a rival political philosophy.  --Allen3 talk 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description used for [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR) 

message: LOL!  ROOOFL!
I can't stand it...this WHOLE thing is REDICULOUS!!
....Why don't you just leave that top paragraph and delete all the rest? This article is definately NOT neutral!!
Why?
...Please compare this article with the article on Bill Clinton. 
I ask you: which article is neutral?
The answer is...NEITHER!
Why? How many bad things can you find about Clinton? How many on Rush? Count 'em up....and figure it out. 
DING DING! 
Clinton is a champion, a hero of the human race. (Yeah, so what he had a FEW scandals.) He's great! (Look at it--how many bad things about Clinton?) Almost none! One TINY little section about SOME of His scandals--that's it!
You call that non-partisan?? I don't. 
Compare...Look at Rush. THREE PARAGRAPHS are neutral! What about the rest of them? "Oh...Rush did this bad thing, Rush did that bad thing, oh, OH, lookie here...Rush did THIS! He was the most scandalous man alive!!"
....But, when you get to Clinton...
"Oh...Clinton? Why, he he, he was the greatest man alive--only had a few scandals (you probably could count them on one hand) and when he was around, we were doing just great and everything was ok..."
...Fair and balanced? I don't think so....
Here's the deal...Edit out the majority of bad stuff on Rush--you can leave a little in. But...make these articles look fair. C'mon!
....And the Vince Foster case...was nowhere to be found. Nor the hundreds of people who vanished that were going to tattle on Clinton...remember all those suicides?????
Who can see this? Let's be honest, shall we? And let's ask ourselves one question...what IF Rush was a Democrat and Clinton was a Republican? I'll bet your bottom dollar that there would be some "happy" and "care-free" article on Rush's life and how "fair and balanced" he is.
...And Clinton? No...no, not Clinton. He's a R-r-republican--and just LOOK at all these scandals and look at all these HORRIBLE AUTROCITIES that happened just becaue he EXISTED!! He's not a role-model! He's a MEANACE!!!
...Guys...let's be fair, shall we?
--jfritzyb
:Not that your inane ramblings warrant a response, but I'll give you one anyway. Did you notice these separate articles: Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Pardongate (probably others too)? Come back when we have separate articles on every Limbaugh scandal. -R. fiend 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling on the floor--IN laughter! 

message: Oops, sorry! I didn't realize what I was reverting was a quote. I only looked at the diff and not the article. My apologies. android79 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sowell's quote was recently the topic of much discussion. Please see "Crazy, right-wing quote" above. Of course, nothing is ever really settled on Wikipedia, and everything is always open for discussion. I can't add much to what I've already said on this. I really think the quote is appropriate, all things considered. Some verbage could be added, though, to better tie it in with the earlier paragraphs.  Gregmg 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert by me 

message: does anyone where I can find the photo that was on Rush's site of kerry when he "flashed the bird"?
grazon 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  kerry photo 

message: Limbaugh has commented on-air about his peculiar self-image as an ubersexual, deserves inclusion in article, imho, as evidence of his drug-induced brain damage, and obtuse insistence on missing the fundamental point of every argument, to wit, that no one except Jeff Gannon or Karl Rove would consider him the least bit sexy.
::In an attempt to counter the rumors that he is a self-hating gay, Limbaugh declared on the broadcast of Oct 11 2005 that he is an ubersexual .
   Please tell me, what exactly is your point?The Scurvy Eye 20:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And?--Matt 09:31, 6 November 2
And what?The Scurvy Eye 02:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh's Self-proclaimed Ubersexuality 

message: Who has accused Limbaugh of hate speech? patsw 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I'm not sure. An anonymous contributor has repeatedly put a reference to it the "Balance and point of view" section. I reluctantly reworded this reference using the qualifier "some". Strictly speaking, I think "some" is one of those weasel words that is to be avoided. In any case, hate speech should not be linked twice in the article; only the first occurence should be linked. Gregmg 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hate speech]] 

message: Uhh.  How long has Arbitron's 20 million been an anonymous 13 million?71.193.3.242 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are seeing the normal pattern of changing audience sizes that Rush has experienced for years at play with these numbers.  I do not have a source available, but my memory is that the 20 million number is from the months just before the 2004 elections.  The 13 million number appears to be current ratings numbers and reflect the reduced level of political interest outside an election year.  If anyone can locate appropriate sources, we should probably list both the peak listener numbers along with the most recent Arbitron figures. --Allen3 talk 01:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm interested in knowing why there's such as big discrepency between what Premiere Radio and Talkers report as audience size.  I will try to find out.  If anyone knows please answer here. patsw 20:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience size 

message: Who awarded Morton Downey, Jr. the credit which the heading of the Rush Limbaugh article assigns to him largely responsible for the shift in AM broadcasting to a news-talk format?
I don't want to remove credit where credit is due, but any history of radio and television I seen (outside of the Wikipedia) puts Downey in the category of being outrageous simply for the sake of obtaining high ratings.  Perhaps today's version of him is Michael Savage (commentator)
The influences on Limbaugh I think would have been Joe Pyne, Jean Shepherd, and Bob Grant all of whom could have been heard by Limbaugh in the 60's through the 80's.  I wonder if Limbaugh ever heard Victor Riesel.  When I first heard Limbaugh, I thought his style of first person news narration was similar to Riesel's reporting.
What got AM talk radio going?  I pretty much agree with the Talk radio article, which, by the way, doesn't mention Downey. patsw 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morton Downey Jr. 

message: Sowell may have been referencing surveys such as those from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, but neglects to mention the dittohead phenomenon as being the stereotype of a Limbaugh listener.
The quote from Sowell makes sense but the above sentence which follows doesn't make sense.  I don't want to delete it without giving someone an opportunity to correct it or offer a better rebuttal to the point that Sowell makes (assuming the sentence was a rebuttal argument to Sowell) . patsw 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dittohead, as defined by Rush's fans, is simply another way of saying one is a fan of the show. When used by Rush's detractors, it is intended as an insult; it means that one is a mindless drone that blindly follows Rush's lead. As a phenomenon of the show (using the former definition), any discussion of dittohead really belongs on the show page. However, as an insult intended to slam Rush's fans and to discredit him, some discussion of it probably belongs here. The current wording is odd though. It should become a standalone paragraph. Gregmg 05:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'neglects to mention...' 

message: The claim is made in the article that these are the the subject's views on homosexuality
In 2003 Limbaugh suggested that the pro-choice movement could theoretically promote an anti-gay rights policy:	 
	 
Imagine we identify the gene — assuming that there is one, this is hypothetical — that will tell us prior to birth that a baby is going to be gay…. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don't know but let's say half of them said, "Oh, no, I don't wanna do that to a kid." [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you've ever seen. … They'd be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827830/posts]	 
	 
	 
Limbaugh opposed teaching grade school students about homosexuality in 1993 and wrote of gay rights as being special rights. He has made similar statements about transsexuals.
	 
*It is inaccurate to say these are his "views on homosexuality":  Having heard the original on-air version of this, I think he was giving this as a hypothetical and from this hypothetical it's not at all clear what position he has on real political issues such as anti-discrimination law, legal recognition of civil unions and gay marriage, etc.
* The above hypothetical is frankly a mess of generalizations and suppositions about the attitudes of parents (and the larger socierty) towards "perfection" in children by using abortion for trait selection, and the political will of the "gay community" to confront the pro-choice absolutists.  To pull from this that Limbaugh is actually talking about "an anti-gay rights policy" is nonsense.
* Perhaps the article could have a complete and accurate "views on homosexuality" section, but as written, this is not it. patsw 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you. This section is a bit of a mess, but since Rush has been repeatedly accused of being a self hating gay, some mention of his limited comments on homosexuality is probably in order. In other words, this section is better than nothing. Gregmg 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Homosexuality 

message: A quote was recently added stating that there's no evidence that Limbaugh ever played football.  This strikes me as being inappropriate.  Is there any controversy over this?  Somebody who claims to have proof he never played?  I mean, I've got a nagging knee injury from hockey, although I never played for my high school or in college.  I suggest that the line be removed unless there's some kind of controversy over the claim. Bjsiders 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — DLJessup (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Injury 

message: :I suggest that the Club gitmo article be merged in to this one? Perhaps under a new category entitled, Controversies or something? Thoughts? --Toddbloom7 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have change the Club gitmo article into a redirect to The Rush Limbaugh Show.  The article on the show already has a sizable list of show related jargon, including information on "Club Gitmo". --Allen3 talk 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, works for me - I always forget that talk show hosts usually have two pages. I should of checked there first. --Toddbloom7 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club Gitmo Article 

message: Where is the link to Chickenhawk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.55.248 (talk • contribs) .
*Not in the article. Don't add it. android79 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chickenhawk 

message: That Limbaugh used ghostwriters for his books is not in doubt.  Should this fact be mentioned in this article?  I think so.  Does anyone disagree?  --SpinyNorman 05:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia policy disagrees.  First, we assume good faith.  If Limbaugh says he's the author, then we accept that until proven otherwise.  If there's evidence that his books were ghostwritten, then describe it, identify the source, and cite. patsw 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that Limbaugh "says he's the author"?  Has he actually said that, or are you simply assuming it because his name is on the book?  Surely you know that celebrities use ghostwriters, don't you? --SpinyNorman 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There were references to Limbaugh's ghost writers at one point in this article, and they were removed per the above policy.  Barring some kind of reliable source and evidence, the issue is closed. Bjsiders 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll replace the reference since the New York Times is generally considered to be a reliable source.  --SpinyNorman 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By who?  Didn't they just fire their CEO last year for covering up reporters who were manufacturing quotes and stories? Bjsiders 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwriters 

message: Regarding this quote from the article: "His defenders claim that because Limbaugh talks unscripted for fifteen broadcast hours a week the number of alleged factual errors is, under the circumstances, very small."
I'd like to add a correction. Limbaugh's show is on 15 hours a week. But he doesn't actually talk on his show for anywhere near 15 hours a week. Limbaugh's show is constantly interrupted with loads of commercials, station breaks, news updates, and more. I'd say a more accurate figure for the amount of time Rush is actually speaking is around five hours a week (or an hour a day).
As a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and often hearing his total show archived, I know that each one lasts 2 hours, give or take 2-3 minutes,  making his total weekly air time to 10 hours.--Bedford 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush Doesn't Speak "15 Hours a Week" 

message: The use of an attributed quote from Colford's 1988 reporting on Rush in New York Newsday going national is not a copyright violation. patsw 14:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a copyright violation 

message: ::...rather than repeating their admiration for the host and statements of honor to be selected to be on-air, callers to the show often preface their comments with "Dittos from (insert location here)". The term has been embraced by Limbaugh's fans themselves as an honorative, many proudly asserting their dittohead status in public forums or when calling into the show.
Please keep it simple:  Fans use ditto to express they like the program in as few as possible words.
The Wikipedia ought to express the same without resort to a non-word like honorative. patsw 14:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Statements of honor" 

message: Anon added this as a link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560256141/104-8658315-9127161?v=glance&n=283155 when editing the info on Michelle Sixta's separation from Limbaugh.  This link does not any information on that point and it appears to be obvious link spam.
Colford's biography doesn't mention Christmas 1988 or December 1988 as the date when their separation started.  So if anyone has a verifiable citation, please provide one to the article. It isn't important to me, but if its in the article it should be verifiable.  patsw 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Separtion from Michelle Sixta 

message: The purportedly unbroken 54 week record on the new york times bestseller list seems unlikely to me, is there a citation for this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.224.236 (talk • contribs) .
:The record claim on Google points to John Switzer USENET summaries and nowhere else as far I could determine. patsw 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Bestseller List Record - citation needed 

message: The consensus that Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio is so broad that its mention in about.com isn't research on the part of Corey Deitz but an acknowledgement of fact and not merely "claimed by some".
The best indication that he saved AM radio is how the value of AM radio stations increased and their advertising rates increased after Rush and the other nationally syndicated radio hosts came on the AM radio scene.  Even people who despise Limbaugh's politics must appreciate that he saved AM radio from becoming irrelevent or worse, unprofitable, outside a handful of large markets.  If Limbaugh didn't save AM radio, what is the counter-claim?  That AM radio in 1988 was a healthy and profitable business, or that someone else such as Sally Jessy Raphaël saved AM radio? patsw 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Saved AM radio" 

message: One reference to this incident in the article is sufficient. patsw 01:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and even President Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, comparing her to a "dog." 

message: This incident was incorrectly entered as "funeral".  It can be corrected to "memorial service".  It was entered with the citation that I found in World Net Daily
This is the diff . So let it be corrected.
Funeral does not need to appear in the text. patsw 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Brown Memorial Service (It has been verified...) 

message: If there's a reason to doubt Limbaugh's statement as true, then it can be called a claim. Claim is a word which can carry a subtle POV.
Patsw said it snowed in New York City today.  Patsw claimed it snowed in New York City today.  These sentences have different meanings. patsw 02:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Limbaugh claimed..." 

message: This section is turning into a wikidebate on:
#What is conservativism?
#What is liberatarianism?
#What does Limbaugh believe?
I think the reference to Terry Mattingly is in part at fault.  If there's evidence that Mattingly knows what libertarians believe, or even knows what Limbaugh believes, please let us know here.  Mattingly is a religion reporter and author.
The original Mattingly article is off the net.  The link is to Jollyblogger who is apparently not sympathetic to either Mattingly, Limbaugh, or libertarians.  The way JB wrote the post up, it's very hard to tell when he's referencing Mattingly's opinion of Limbaugh's politics, or JB's opinion.  JB's post is mostly concerned with the end of Limbaugh's third marriage in any case and not identifying Limbaugh's libertarian sympathies.
Limbaugh frequently dismisses all third parties as being stupid and futile and from what I read on the net, card-carrying big-l Libertarians have a low opinion of him. 
If there's an existing verifiable source for the POV that Limbaugh is libertarian (or was ever liberatarian) (i.e. besides blogger Terry Mattingly via JollyBlogger), then please add it.  Otherwise, I'd strike this entire section as being unverifiable and an insignificant POV. Patsw 22:08, January 3, 2006 UTC
:I'll move it up a notch.  Who thinks thinks section is accurate and verifiable?  Accordingly, I have given the section the disputed section template. patsw 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, Gregmg, and rewrite it totally. patsw 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to put it in the article because I'm making a claim that something doesn't exist, but I make the claim here: Everyone knows Limbaugh is a conservative and not a libertarian. That explains why its not a topic among all the Limbaugh observers out there.  But if there's accurate and verifiable to the contrary that you can cite, please rewrite this section. patsw 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything, I'd say he is a constitutionalist. He has expressed often enough, that, while he may personally not agree with many agendas/policies, what actually pains him most is when they are implemented through unconstitutional/unlawful methods like courts overstepping their authorities, the mayor of San Francisco simply starting to hand out mariage certificates to samesexcouples, prosecutors going on fishingexpeditions, congress making laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press etc. Kgs 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism and libertarianism 

message: Late August 2005, Rush Limbaugh discussed a new reality show on BBC called Bring Your Husband to Heel. The host is dog trainer Annie Clayton. She teaches wives how to train their husbands. The show is obviously controversial and odd, but even more odd were the comments Rush made while discussing the reality program. "That Annie Clayton babe can go down to Gitmo, and she can bring her leesh with her". Rush has already gotten in trouble for belittling the abuse of Abu Grabib prisoners, but this time he sexualized it.
Okay, who here recalls Rush saying this? He said it right at the end of a show that I think it took place on a Friday, In August. Actually, august the 19th. 
Anyone here in favor of this being posted? I think its relevant. I cant go back and listen to the show on that day, but how many of you guys recall Rush saying this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob5005 (talk • contribs) .
:Something as specific as this requires proper citations. I believe a link to the transcripts would be required at a minimum. Also, are these your words framing his (alleged) quotes?  They reflect POV. If you're going to introduce something like this, it really needs to be an excerpt from a news article or editorial from a reputable source.  A citation would be required for that as well. Gregmg 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some concerns about this addition.  The first is that the statement itself from Limbaugh barely makes any sense.  Second, I don't understand how it's sexualization.  Third, what section does this need to go in, and why?  It seems like, at most, a silly and slightly stupid comment by Limbaugh.  The man makes dozens of such comments every day, why is this one noteworthy? Bjsiders 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would guess that Limbaugh has transcripts available somewhere, though it might be for a fee. However, that's a moot point, because, as I mentioned before on your talk page, the material you want to add would violate Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and original research. android79 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't titled "Rush Limbaugh's Opinions", so anything that we add ought to have some biographical value.  Bob5005's recalled story is neither typical nor truly outrageous and that's why it isn't memorable. patsw 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is also not "random Wikipedians' opinions of Rush Limbaugh". It doesn't matter if you think Limbaugh is a sexual deviant, unless you happen to have had that opinion published somewhere prominent. Limbaugh's sexual life is private, and therefore almost completely unverifiable; it is likely to stay that way. android79 02:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Ghrabib 

message: As evidence of Limbaugh's general level of pathological depravity and deviancy, ignoring for the moment his drug addiction, and his incoherent hate-filled ranting, is his announcing on his show that he represents the epitome of the Ubersexual type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk • contribs) .
:(yawn)...next! Lawyer2b 06:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He does seem to have problems, but I don't think there is at present, any evidence he is sexually deviant. Rob cowie 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh - Sexual Deviant 

message: Anon added an editng claiming Franken had the No. 1 bestseller  for his slam at the right.
The best number I found for this book was No. 3.  Can anyone verify when and on what list it was No. 1? patsw 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that.  The phrasing looked like cheerleading to me, I suggest rewriting it was "Al Franken's bestselling book 'Rush Limbaugh is a...'".  It scans better. Bjsiders 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franken's ranking on the bestseller list 

message: Changing "Limbaugh claims" to "Limbaugh says", changing "African American" to "black," etc.  I didn't review his edits one-by-one but they all appear to be of the same kind of rebellious anti-PC slant.  Reverted. Bjsiders 15:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the "claims" back to "says" for a more POV neutral sentence structure.  (for an explanation, see "Limbaugh Claimed"  from earlier talk sections) Bishounen 20:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  65.118.15.30's edits 

message: ::Not at all a stranger to controversy, Limbaugh has drawn fierce criticism over the years for remarks that he has made.
Is this new section a plot to let Media Matters and David Brock take over editing the article? patsw 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's called "Talk Radio" -- it wouldn't get ratings without controversy 

message: ::Vincent Bugliosi wrote of him: "when it comes to politics, his favorite topic, he has absolutely no credibility at all. On any matter on which there is a divergence between the Republican and Democrat positions, invariably, without exception, 100 percent fo the time, he takes the Republican side. You know what he's going to say before he says it. For Limbaugh to have any credibility, the Republicans would always have to be right and the Democrats always wrong; the Republicans always the good people, the Democrats always the bad people. Since we know, of course, that this can't true, he has no credibility ..." (No Island of Sanity, Ballantine, New York, 1998).
So which Democrats have supported the public policies that Limbaugh has advocated in election campaigns where Republicans have not?  Vincent, it's the Democratic party's alignment with the left that stops it from getting endorsements from Limbaugh.
I'll concede he'd have a point if Limbaugh were supporting liberal Republicans over conservative Democrats.
(Note it was after the publication of No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court on Trial that Clinton admitted to lying under oath, accepted disbarment, paid a fine, and settled with Jones out of court.)
patsw 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Bugliosi's comment was true in 2006 that Rush is Republican first and principled conservative second, then how does one explain Rush's criticism of Arlen Specter, John McCain, and all the RINO's?  He gave air time to Pat Toomey and his supporters to make the case against Specter in 2004.  Rush was candid in his criticism of No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription plans, Congressional pork, inaction on immigration reform.  I'm even thinking of expanding this list into a section on the things where Rush takes on the Republican party. patsw 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read what I wrote?  I said that the comment can't be fairly said to apply any more.  Who are you arguing with? Bjsiders 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm attempting to discuss it with the anonymous editor who added it -- to see if could be supported -- since I am advocating its deletion.  I read what you wrote, Bjsiders, and agree.  That's allowed, too. patsw 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this decade-old POV statement? 

message: Since this section of the article was edited again for the POV suggesting that the appearance of Millie (not Buddy) at the time Rush said "cute kid" in his television show was a deliberate act.
Obviously we're not going to insert this entire section into the article but for the benefit of editors, let's have the entire transcript where which has appeared in dozens of online web sites.  So going forward the article can be accurate and NPOV.
:Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
:RUSH LIMBAUGH
:SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
:November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM
:LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.
:David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.
:(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
:LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.
:(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)
:LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...
:(Applause)
:LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'
:(Laughter)
:LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'
:(Laughter)
:LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...
:(Applause)
:LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)
:I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.
:(Rush spanks himself, screaming and crying; written on screen, Ouch!!!')
:LIMBAUGH: There.
:(Applause)
:LIMBAUGH: We'll be back with the rest of our show in a moment.
:And here's the apology
:Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
:RUSH LIMBAUGH
:SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
:November 10, 1992, Tuesday 11:15 AM
:("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself)
:(Laughter)
:LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry. I don't--look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks. And we really--we do not--we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.
:(Photo shown of Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who is making a sour face)
:(Laughter and applause)
:LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.
patsw 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full background on the "Cute kid in the White House" remark from 2002 

message: An anonymous user has twice reworded the introduction to allege that Rush has a Hard Right spin. This clearly represents his POV, so I reverted this each time. In my opinion, Rush is a bit too far to the left. Yes, I'm that far to the right that Rush is to the left of me. But of course, that's my opinion, and while I might share it on a talk page, I would never interject my opinion into an article. Gregmg 23:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to labels like this, as a general rule, we let the article's subject define himself.  On the other hand, if a person with conservative credentials such as Patrick Buchanan or Robert Bork were to say that Rush is/was not a conservative, we'd take note of that.  On the other hand, as much as well like anonymous and non-anonymous Wikipedia editors, their personal observation that Rush is/was a conservative is not likely to reshape the editing consensus here.  It's also not helpful to use a term like hard right for which there isn't a common definition. patsw 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is possible to interject a comment into a textual article. Rob cowie 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous user's '''Hard Right''' assertion 

message: The cover shot of Stern and Limbaugh from the 90's was deleted.  I thought that the Wikipedia had explicit permission from Time to use its covers.  patsw 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Mag Cover 

message: Could someone who knows please add the correct pronunciation of Limbaugh's name?  Is it , [ˈlimbɑː], [ˈlimbaʊ], ...? --Macrakis 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add it to the article.  BTW,  [ˈlimbɑg] = limbog, [ˈlimbɑː] = limbaw, [ˈlimbaʊ] = limbow (rhymes with cow). --Macrakis 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show was spun off from this article.  The "Jargon" article is now the subject of an AfD which you can read about, vote, and comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show patsw 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show 

message: R-fiend, I wasn't talking about seperate articles--I was talking about articles linked within the section about Clinton...
Sure, there's some within the Clinton article--but compared to Rush, there's a big dif...
...And why does the article keep taking his quotes out of context? Whoever is doing this needs to listen to the show more in order to get them in perspective and in their proper context.
An encylopedia gives edifying bits of info about the person. It sets the basics of the person's life, activities and events (SOME bad things should be mentioned IF they ever happened), and finally, what the person is up to now (if they aren't dead.)
And just to be honest with you, at the rate the Rush article is going, it's getting super POVish. 
It should be Rush's birth, life in a nutshell, some of the jobs he worked at, a little bit about what he did, and what he's up to right now. 
That's all--and in conclusion, whoever made the article look and sound the way it does now (be it the author, somone else, or both), needs to kindly clean up their act or they won't be considered NPOV and will get in trouble for what they wrote. I'm only saying this because I don't want this person to get into trouble.
Kindly consider what I've said...
Thanks,
--JJ
:I agree with you in principle.  In practice, however, Wikipedia is essentially a political pamphlet over whose content people engage in verbal sparring in discussion pages.  Get used to articles like this.  Every controversy or perceived controversy is going to be probed and explored ad nasuem, regardless of the subject. Bjsiders 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: R-fiend 

message: So, the main purpose of Wikipedia is for its users write articles that may or may not incite arguments on the talk pages?
Ok...
--JJ
:That's not its stated purpose but that is why most people who get involved stay involved: to ensure that at best their POV is present and accounted for and looks better than anybody else's.  If you hate Republicans, you go around and find all the articles about Republicans and raise a stink if the article isn't derogatory enough.  If you love Republicans, you go around and raise a stink if they're not glowing enough with approbation.  I enjoy, like, and support Wikipedia, but I know what it is.  It's essentially a collection of links preceded by amatuer summaries.  For some topics, this is sufficient (e.g., math and sciency-stuff).  But for most topics, the article is an opportunity for POV wrangling.  Just look at the utterly non-encyclopedic stuff that people want to put into articles because they think it makes the topic of the article seem better (or worse, as the case may be).  So yes, the practical purpose of Wikipedia is the genesis of debate. Bjsiders 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: Maladroit79...How was this spam (just wondering)? I am a real little boy (despite these hinges) and had nothing to do with the crafting of the song I referenced, which I might add, is an extremely clever example of both parody and how Rush is a subject of criticism.  I know that you can not possibly list all the criticism leveled at Limbaugh (that would have to be its own subject and listing,I suppose), but there are three things listed...why have this section at all?  Nothing about my contribution was done with the slightest bit of malfeasance nor oppurtunity for personal gain, I just thought that you were trying to approach this subject from many angles.  Alas, it seems this is another strongarm tactic to keep dissenting opinions to a bare minimum.  If I did something wrong placing this information on this informational site, I apologize.  But could someone please explain why this information was erased, and better still why it was labeled "spam"?  --Waywardprophet 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is the edit being referred to here. I removed it because it tried to hijack my browser. android79 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at the External links guide. I can see several problems with this link and your edits. First, is this notable content?  A parady of Rush singing a song is not something one would expect to find detailed in an encyclopedia. Also, if this did, in fact, require Flash, then that is at odds with the External links guide. At least this type of link was discouraged last time I checked.  I don't believe I need to go any further. Gregmg 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. I'm glad we were able to straighten you out on this subject. Gregmg 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously though, in the days to come I suspect others will weigh in on this issue and a concensus will form. Based on past experience, I suspect your addition will remain excluded, but it might wind up back in the article. You never know. In any case, I hope you don't find this experience disheartening, and that you do chose to stick around. Gregmg 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Removed Spam? 

message: This section needs to more than a list of links to mediamatters.
The "remarks" need to have some context and at least be dated.  The text must stand alone and not require a visit to mediamatters to be understood by the reader. patsw 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial Remarks" doesn't actually contain remarks: 15 links to mediamatters 

message: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yADSdUasI9Q&search=%20Coretta%20King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 
:This is a clip from the low-rated Keith Olbermann MSNBC show introducing an interview with Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery who used the occasion of the funeral of Corretta Scott King and its global television audience.  Rather that using the pulpit to honor her memory, he repeated Democratic talking points including "No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq".  There's more detail in the Lowery article.  Rush Limbaugh calls these "Wellstone moments" where the Democratic party turns a solemn non-political event into a political rally. I've just added this to the jargon article.  patsw 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a no.  Rush was quoting Lowery to introduce his criticism of Lowery. patsw 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying, "we didn't find" something is different from saying that thing never existed.  I never did find the other remote for my garage door opener, but that doesn't mean it never existed.  Admitting that I was unable to locate it is not tantamout to asserting I never had it in the first place. Bjsiders 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Rush say in this recording that there were no WMD in Iraq? 

message: ::Although Limbaugh has claimed it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show.
I thought the television show was aired live in some markets. Can anyone verify if it was or wasn't? patsw 04:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the televison show on tape delay? 

message: Where in www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts is the appearance of the "Millie" with the audio of "Chelsea" stated as occuring three times? patsw 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the link and search for the word "third."  You'll see Limbaugh flatly stating it. Eleemosynary 05:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen it.  It's simply unproven assertion.  It wasn't worked out at all, and has all the appearance of frantic spinning.  "Assume Good Faith" does not mean "Suspend All Disbelief."  Eleemosynary 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Three times" 

message: As of March 2006 Limbaugh's ratings are apparently declining, and he was canceled at WBAL in Boston:
:"WBAL, fourth among adults in its market and fifth among listeners age 12 and older, has seen Limbaugh's ratings decline. According to Arbitron, which rates radio stations, Limbaugh's audience share on WBAL dropped 27 percent last fall compared to fall 2004."
*While I can not reply to the cancelation in a meaningful manor, the drop in ratings is as much an issue with selection bias as with overall audience share.  The fall 2004 data point used for comparison was during the leadup to the 2004 presidential elections, a period of extremely high political interest in the US.  A similiar drop off was seen after the 2000 elections, with Limbaugh making a comeback during the next election cycle.  As anyone who has ever read How to Lie with Statistics knows, care is needed with statements such as this one when determining what the statement actually means. --Allen3 talk 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings Decline 

message: There's a statement following one of Limbaugh's quotes in the article that says, "student loans are federally insured, banks take no risks."  This isn't actually true.  There are types of student loans that are federally insured, but uninsured private student lending is an enormous, multibillion dollar business.  Even in this case, some states will refund part of a defaulted uninsured loan to a creditor, but in general, billions of dollars of uninsured private student loans are issued each year.  I'd like to alter the phrasing of this statement to be more accurate.  Something like, "only private student loans are subject to risk, the federal government insures all loans issued through the Department of Education" or whatever.  Thoughts?  Bjsiders 18:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's fine witih mem, I think Media Matters speaks for itself.  I just don't want the article to contain factual inaccuracies.  I made a minor correction to that statement but left the original tone intact. Bjsiders 15:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad fact about student loans 

message: Anybody else think we're due for an archive on this beast? Bjsiders 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?