March 20, 2012

“Beleaguered Rush advertiser: This is not a boycott, it’s an organized terrorist attack!”

But before we go screaming about the left’s speech-chilling tactics — which we already know about, and which we’ve learned to expect — we should probably look, too, at how some on the “sane” center-right are quietly being positioned to take advantage of what I believe is an orchestrated ruling class attempt to set the parameters of legitimate, as opposed to unhelpful, political talk.

And do something about it.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:38am
44 comments | Trackback

Comments (44)

  1. I’ve always found it useful when doing business- such as with DirecTv- to record all calls and document everything else.
    For companies such as this when dealing with such stunts, how about recording all calls, documenting all correspondence , and if they decide to pay you a visit in person, make sure you have it on audio and video. Then, when they try to muscle you, take the whole thing over to Fox and let them run with it, ending with contacting the DNC for comment.

  2. Going after Rush with Huckabee is like going after an F-18 with a hot air balloon.

    Good luck with that.

  3. Or like going after a Bugatti Veyron with a Yugo!

  4. “I can guarantee you that the minute Cumulus’ contract with Rush expires in New York, they will replace him with Huckabee.”

    Cumulus must not like money.

    Good luck with that.

  5. Ha ha ha … B Moe.

    It’s just such a ridiculous idea.

    These folks making these decisions don’t actually know any conservatives, do they? I mean, outside of – perhaps- David Brooks.

  6. It’s just such a ridiculous idea.

    I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly.

    Hollywood would make more money if they weren’t so anti-American in tone with so much of their movies and TV shows. More people would watch ABC/CBS/NBC if they weren’t so biased to the left. That doesn’t stop them from being biased or anti-American.

    This is more about power than money. These people believe they’re the chosen ones who will NOT be lined up and shot against the wall. They’ll be the ones who work for the politburo.

    Power, to the left, is way more attractive than money.

  7. These people believe they’re the chosen ones who will NOT be lined up and shot against the wall

    If it comes to that, then these people will be among the *first* up against the wall.

  8. Actually, it’s more about class-feeling among the new elite.

  9. ollywood would make more money if they weren’t so anti-American in tone with so much of their movies and TV shows. More people would watch ABC/CBS/NBC if they weren’t so biased to the left. That doesn’t stop them from being biased or anti-American.

    Eventually, they will either change their anti-american bullshit or go out of business. They coasted for a while, but people aren’t buying their bullshit anymore.

    This will be a colossal mistake for Cumulus. Huckebee? You couldn’t pay me to listen to him.

  10. And we’re talking “more money” – if they made less offensive movies, etc.

    But those libs who enjoy their endless troupe on the military, or middle Americans, etc – aren’t going to tune in to listen to Huckabee.

    Exactly who WILL tune in?

    anyone?

  11. Eventually, they will either change their anti-american bullshit or go out of business. They coasted for a while, but people aren’t buying their bullshit anymore.

    I wish I could believe that. They’re already losing money so they blame piracy, instead of the fact that they put out crap.

    If it comes to that, then these people will be among the *first* up against the wall.

    Don’t take this wrong, but I’ve seen this phrase so many times that I think it just comes naturally. Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?

    But those libs who enjoy their endless troupe on the military, or middle Americans, etc – aren’t going to tune in to listen to Huckabee.

    No, but they can always claim a scalp (Limbaugh’s). For the left, the seething hatred for Rush outweighs anything else. Of course they won’t listen to Huckabee. But the left doesn’t care about Cumulus any more than they care about Huckabee.

  12. These folks making these decisions don’t actually know any conservatives, do they? I mean, outside of – perhaps- David Brooks.

    I’m not sure now knowing David Brooks helps with their lack of depth in acquaintances.

  13. Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?

    For the same reason they’ve always done it: yesterday’s useful idiot is today’s potential rival. Once they’ve outlived their usefulness, off with their heads!

    As for me: I’m thinking now’s a good time to sell short on Cumulus…

  14. Besides what Squid said, who said it’d be the *left* lining these people up? Communist takeovers of countries generally aren’t pacifistic.

  15. Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?

    Squid beat me to it, but I was going to ask in return: Why did Lenin? Why did Mao? Why did Castro?

    See also, the story of the frog and the scorpion. It’s their nature.

  16. Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?

    Check with the unions that put Hitler in power.

    No, but they can always claim a scalp (Limbaugh’s).

    They can’t claim the market for Rush. Advertisers leave, more will come. Stations drop him, others in the same markets will pick him up, as it has always been.

  17. People how are all about power and revel in their lack of principles assume everyone else is the same as they are. Therefore, the others must be killed, lest they kill you first.

  18. how -> who

    Saw it right after I hit the “Post Comment” button.

  19. Related: The Astro-Turf tree.

    When you see a tree with a bunch of apples on it, the logical conclusion is that you are looking at an apple tree, right?

    But what if you are looking at a political movement that claims to represent “the people,” yet constantly gets caught manufacturing the appearance of popular support?

    That’s called an Astro-Turf tree and it’s found mainly – though not entirely – on the Left, from the grassroots all the way to the nation’s capital.

  20. Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?

    The SRs know but won’t say.

  21. “Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?”

    I believe the answer is found by searching “useful idiot”:

    it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). While Lenin and the Soviets held them in utter contempt they also viewed them as tools for dispensing communist propaganda to other countries, thus infecting foreign cultures with their totalitarian tripe. After their mission was complete, they were no longer “useful.”

    It’s a term the refers to brainwashed American marxists who blindly support any ideology that gets themselves out of real work and causes others to pay their way.

  22. “Why on earth would a left-wing administration (or a communist administration) shoot the very people who helped get them where they are?”

    As much as I dislike Obama and everything he stands for, I still think he’s a fabian socialist, not a full-fledged goose-stepping communist. I was just using a figure of speech when I mentioned being lined against a wall and shot.

    I think Obama is more of a Mussolini type – there’s no reason to take over the businesses directly, as long as the businesses know who the boss really is. The media, I believe, would be no different in that case.

  23. The metaphor stands just the same, Callahan. These networks back down and play nice because they’ve seen the treatment served upon their peers who step out of line. No more juicy leaks; no more access; no invites to whatever press ops the White House has planned. What do you think would happen if CBS went all-out on an offensive against Holder for F&F? You can be damn sure that every newsman over there will have to work 10 times harder for every story out of the Beltway, and that Their Royal Highnesses will no longer be appearing on Letterman.

    Sure, it’s a far cry from summary execution, but the component of being cast aside as an “unreliable partner” remains.

  24. Did Mussolini have a Fanon, and a race grudge to nurse? Mussolini was the colonizer.

  25. race grudge to nurse

    Roman (Empire) superiority?

  26. OT, but worth a read: Mark Steyn on the “weirdness” of Rick Santorum.

    http://www.steynonline.com/4867/weird-politics

  27. Thanks for linking that Dale. Good piece.

  28. OT: Apparently, Mister Newt is attacking Santorum for some damned reason or another. Presumably it’s just “something to do” before the inevitable “the voters have spoken, and I’m ending my campaign and pledging all my support to the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney!” press conference.

    You know it’s coming…

    Anyway, this prompted a lovely bit of snark from RSMcCain: (my emphasis)

    Could it be that Newt, knowing his own campaign is now hopelessly doomed, used this opportunity to damage Santorum’s chances as the last remaining viable alternative to Romney?

    He could support Dede Scozzafava, but not Rick Santorum.

    Newt is very good at seeming, but not so good at being what he seems. And he evidently thinks we’re too stupid to notice the difference.

  29. Newt is very good at seeming, but not so good at being what he seems.

    To quote Rush:

    “Living in the limelight the universal dream
    For those who wish to seem.

    Those who wish to be must put aside the alienation
    Get on with the fascination
    The real relation
    The underlying theme.”

    Okay, maybe not the Rush more often quoted.

  30. Newt is very good at seeming, but not so good at being what he seems.

    What? He doesn’t seem two-faced to you?

  31. So, hows Carbonite doing?

  32. hese folks making these decisions don’t actually know any conservatives, do they? I mean, outside of – perhaps- David Brooks.

    I’m not sure now knowing David Brooks helps with their lack of depth in acquaintances.

    I mean that anyone who thinks “Huckabee” will drive conservatives from Rush – don’t know many actual conservatives.

    I’ve been rather active engaging my liberal friends on facebook – and I SWEAR to God they simply have no clue what we believe. It seems trite to say it, but everything they know about us they learned from John Stewert and Bill Maher.

  33. Ernst: you are more than welcome.

    More OT: it appears Mitt Romney won yet another state he has no chance of carrying in the general election.

  34. The voters have spoken, Dale.

  35. You’re right Car in. The Democrats have spoken and Mitt is their choice for us. NRO declares “It’s Over“. Now the nightmare begins.

  36. So I’ve heard, Car.

    Or rather, have been told by Team Inevitable since Iowa. Ah, well.

  37. In fact, I slung some more cash Santorum’s way earlier this morning. I was feeling particularly unhelpful.

  38. You’re right Car in. The Democrats have spoken and Mitt is their choice for us. NRO declares “It’s Over“. Now the nightmare begins.

    But … he’s electable.

    And many democrats (who will most assuredly NOT be voting for Romney) have told me that Romney is the only republican they could vote for.

    So, there’s that.

  39. And many democrats (who will most assuredly NOT be voting for Romney) have told me that Romney is the only republican they could vote for.

    And anyway, we all know Democrats voting in open Republican primaries is Very, Very Bad, being always and everywhere a sign of mischief against the best interests of the party.

  40. Carin, I was trying to be funny, and failed.

  41. Dale, open primaries for either party are a bad thing, prone to trouble-making.

  42. I thought maybe. I just wanted to clarify – and add a bit.

  43. Leigh:

    Yeah, perhaps, but minor. There’s no evidence it has ever given a party a presidential candidate it really didn’t want, is there?

    More to the point, there’s no way to prove that the votes for Santorum in, say, Michigan were significantly Operation Chaos. According to the exits, fewer Dems voted in the 2012 primary than in the 2000, for example.

    Perhaps my biggest point was that Mitt was inviting Democrats to participate, anyway.

  44. And we all know how well that worked out for John McCain in ’08, don’t we?

Leave a Reply