America's Newest Billionaire.

Email Print posted by KenTX 07/03/2008 02:21:38 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
rush
Did somebody say "President Barack Obama"? Nobody is happier about those three words than Rush Limbaugh.

Rush just signed a new Contract With America, including a signing bonus greater than $100 million, and a salary greater than $400 million.

This 8,000 word profile on Rush Limbaugh will appear in the New York Times Magazine this weekend.

By the way, has anybody heard how Air America has been doing lately?

< What happened to Bensday? | Palestinian Bulldozer Killer >
 Display:
America's Newest Billionaire. | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)
Perseverance (none / 1)

man kloud over karl, your stick-to-it-iveness is quite respectable, even if profane.  

 In the end, as long as we all admit that Rush is an entertainer (and a good, one at that - I listened to him for years) not a reporter; we'll be fine.

 Also, um, considering that AM radio is the ONLY media that's not aimed at the 18-34 year old demographic, it's not surprising that air america doesn't do well.  However, so called "liberals"doing well.....

 PBS

 BLOGS

 Universities

 Satire (see Colbert, John Stewart)

 Politics (he he, no mo power for neocons)

 Magazines

 Schools

 Essentially everywhere except outmoded media technology (AM radio).  So all the troglodytes flock to one self assured ignorant.  Whoopty doo.

 The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

by gnomeklpto on 07/03/2008 07:34:55 PM EST

If anything disproves the capitalist dogma (none / 1)

that only the hardworking, and honest become rich...this is it, along with:

 http://www.theyoungtu rks.com/story/2008/7/2/2324 49/8509/Diary/Uber-corrupt- Televangelists

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 07/03/2008 07:35:06 PM EST

I don't know about the "if anything" (none / 1)
but it definitely IS a good example... I have that one posted on my facebook.

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 12:44:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WOW (none / 1)

He got that much for 13 million listeners a week?

Sounds like AM conservative talk is desperate to hold on to him even if it means breaking even on the deal. 

by z1p101 on 07/03/2008 11:33:24 PM EST

good investment (none / 1)
Industry analysts estimate Rush’s audience at 20 million listeners. He got the big payday, because a Barack Obama presidency would drive his audience to 40 million listeners.

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 12:28:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
President Obama (none / 1)
That is what Limbaugh wants. Isn't it?

by z1p101 on 07/04/2008 02:37:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't believe it! (none / 1)
"That is what Limbaugh wants. Isn't it?"

After posting for more than a year, zippy finally makes an accurate statement.

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 03:35:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
13 Million compared to... (none / 1)
The 2 or 3 hundred that are on this site at any given time... Or the million or so that Maddow and Air America gets... Or the 800,000 that Olbermann gets on TV? Which media is "desperate"? Please Zippy - do you really want to go there? Not to say that anyone is worth 400 Million, but the man knows how to get and maintain an audience - Drug abuse, child molesting and all - he's still more informative and entertaining than anything the Left offers!

by bobo1 on 07/04/2008 12:34:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
entertaining... (none / 1)
entertaining, yes... informative; well, if you consider Faux News informative then he's SUPER informative, and the National Inquirer is SUPER DUPER informative.  Although, admittedly, the Inquirer is not as entertaining as Rush, but much more "informative" by your standards.

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 12:47:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One more thing (none / 1)
there's these guys (and girls) who are much more informative (but maybe not as entertaining)... I mentioned them above.  They're called PROFESSORS of POLITICAL SCIENCE.  Generally considered "left wing" (but who isn't by Rush's standards - answer Mussolini [actually he might not even be fascist enough]) they are quite a bit more informative than AM radio, or Faux News, CNN, or the rest of the corporate controlled media (but I repeat myself).

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 12:51:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 1)

Drops in a bucket Bobo. Did I insult your hero?

Olberman has been competing with OReilly lately.

Still just drops in a bucket. We are talking about lunatic fringes of America.

Most people are at work while Limbaugh is bloviating.

Olberman comes on a cable news channel dead smack in prime time. Most of America is not listening to him either.

You keep telling everyone here about how out of touch they all are but you will argue how great Limbaugh is.

Even if we go by Ken's numbers (from a few years ago).  20 million divided by 5 for the days of the week = 4 million listeners a day. Divide 4 million by 600 radio stations and what do you get? A bunch of out of work and out of touch people. The same type of out of touch people you constantly complain about here are Limbaugh fans.

You want to keep going there Mr. School Teacher because I can tell you are not in the math or science department. 

by z1p101 on 07/04/2008 02:35:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
time for algebra (none / 1)
"You want to keep going there Mr. School Teacher because I can tell you are not in the math or science department."

I'm wondering the same about you.

If Rush Limbaugh draws 20 million individual, independent, different, discrete listeners per week, how many of these 20 million people listen more than one day per week?
 
How many listen every day?

How many listen three full hours per day?

How many people (like me) never listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show live (because we're working), but listen to every excellent broadcast minute on podcast replay?

If many of the 20 million people listen only on occasion, how many total listeners does Rush Limbaugh have? 200 million?

Let's say that Rush Limbaugh has only 20 million regular listeners. That means that roughly one in six American voters is a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh. And each of these voters has friends and family that can be influenced and proselytized by the primary dittohead. 

Now I understand that Fairness Doctrine thing a little better.

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 04:03:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... let's do some more math (none / 1)

71% (7 of 10) of Americans go to college... (25% [1 out of every 4] graduate) the VAST majority of those take a poli sci class.  Now, Nielsen and other ratings systems are finding out how many listen to advertisements.  But when anywhere between 4 to 7 in 10 Americans attend my class they have to learn what I tell them to.  So, even though Rush gets paid hundreds of times more $ than me, the effect he has on the population is minimal in comparison.... mostly preaching to the choir and giving marching orders.  

To be fair, we have a weakness: our concepts are not talking points but facts - which can be difficult to understand.  However, over the long term, demagogues like Rush are discredited, but my research lives forever.

 HA HA HA!  The acceptable may have tactical advantages, but Truth has the strategic advantage..... a view shared by both Thomas Jefferson and JK Galbraith (among others)

 All it takes is vision and time... we win in the end.

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 04:28:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
here's the good news (none / 1)
Democrats are aborting themselves into extinction, while Republican families are veritable baby factories.

So the cumulative effect of widespread abortion, gay marriage, long prison sentences, and welfare reform is a steady decline in the population of moochers, democrats and assorted socialists. 

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 05:25:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
[clapping] (none / 1)
You're quite an entertainer, Ken... I'm amused more than you know.  You should copy these posts as part of your resume and send them to Rush, Hannity, Bill-O, etc.  They'd really appreciate you.  Oh, BTW, they're called natalists, apparently.  Here's another pseudo-intellectual writer/article you'd appreciate...   http://www.nyti mes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/ 07brooks.html?_r=1&oref =slogin

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 05:45:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
thank you! (none / 1)
Someone in this forum finally understands me.

"You're quite an entertainer, Ken... I'm amused more than you know."

I've labored long and hard for that appreciation.

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 12:12:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republicans are genetic? (none / 1)

Two problems: (1) People often move out of cities and into "conservative" areas to have kids

 (2) People often move into cities when they're young to go to college and, later, make money

 Ergo, birth rates are bound to be lower in those areas... your little article only relates to fertility rates, not to the growth of particular ideologies or voting patterns.  You see, Ken, I come from one of those conservative places (KS)... it pops out babies like they're going out of style, spends $5,000 plus dollars a year educating them, and then they go to college and never come back.  Thanks!  ha ha ha

 A huge percentage of them become eeeevil libruls.  That's where I come in. he he he.  You see, there are these things called FACTS.  Someone can only be exposed to them for so long b/f they realize that their parents are ignorant, bigoted, jingoistic troglodytes.... then they come to the dark side [hand wringing] mwah ha ha ha.  Well, and Bush has helped a LOT.  Give a moron enough rope and he'll hang himself.

 Christ, I better stop... I'm getting a hardon. he he he

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 06:08:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mr. Frank, is that you? (none / 1)
“your little article only relates to fertility rates, not to the growth of particular ideologies or voting patterns.”
The important statistics in the General Social Survey compared the fertility rates between liberal voters and conservative voters, regardless of geography or origin.


“Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey -- a bible of data for social scientists -- the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent. Even adjusting for other variables like age and income, there is a gap of 19 percent. “
Pretty sobering. The writer should have stopped there, because  you became confused when the article started discussing geography.

“Now superimpose this on a map of the United States. The highest fertility rate is found in the most Republican state, Utah, home to the Mormon Church. The lowest fertility belongs to Vermont, a state liberal enough to be the first to sanction gay unions. The states with the next highest fertility rates, according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey, are Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as "red states." States with the next lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all "blue states."”
 
Geography is irrelevant to the aggregate liberal-conservative fertility gap. I recognize that you’re trying to make the case that people move from red states to blue states, and it (might) change their voting habits. The problem with your argument is that just the opposite is happening. People are moving from blue states to red states, and it is changing liberals to conservatives.

by KenTX on 07/04/2008 12:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
do you really believe this shit (none / 0)

Or do you just think you're scaring me? 

What I said is that kids from conservative families come to college and become liberals, then move to red states where things are cheaper and get their vote gets diluted.

 I'm also saying that the poll is flawed as:

 (1) older people tend to be more conservative and (since it takes time to pop out kids) they also tend to have more kids

 (2) people tend to BECOME more conservative after having kids

 (3) Since there is a large percentage of the young in cities and they tend to self identify as liberal, of course fertility rates are low among them. (kind of overlaps with points above)

 (4) If there's anything we know about Americans, it's that they're fickle.  And if you'd ask them what they are today, it might be different tomorrow.  For instance, party identification has changed greatly in the past couple years, yes?

All your article says is that people who have more kids more likely self identify as conservatives.  So what.  That doesn't mean the kids will grow up to be conservatives - as conservatism isn't genetic and they have a lot of life experience ahead of them.

 You apparently lack basic critical thinking skills, you should have learned in college.  (Did you even go?)  And I'm not going teach you - Ken I get paid to do that.  That gives me a great idea, do you need a tutor?  It would do you well, as I could back up your ideas (yes I WAS a neocon) better when I was 18 than you can now.  

by gnomeklpto on 07/04/2008 04:33:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow. I'm good at this. (none / 0)
“All your article says is that people who have more kids more likely self identify as conservatives.  So what.  That doesn't mean the kids will grow up to be conservatives - as conservatism isn't genetic and they have a lot of life experience ahead of them.”

That’s not all the article said. If you read a little further, it also said this:
“But wait, you may say: the attitudes of the parents don't determine what ideology or political party their offspring will adopt as their own. Yet they usually do.  Political scientists have long found that 4 out of 5 people with a party preference grow up to vote the way their parents voted. In fact, while many people experience a temporary rejection of their parents' politics in very early adulthood, virtually nothing is more predictive of your political ideology than that of your parents -- it's more of a determining factor than income, education or any other societal yardstick.”

Again, let’s compare the fertility rates of liberals and conservatives:
“Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey -- a bible of data for social scientists -- the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent. Even adjusting for other variables like age and income, there is a gap of 19 percent. “

Research indicates the primary reason liberals don’t have as many children is because they are busy fucking each other up ass. It’s difficult for a man’s seed to find purchase, when he’s inseminating the lower intestinal tract of another man.

Another problem is long prison sentences for would be Democrats. Who says federal prisons are costly for society to maintain? When each man-year behind bars prevents 2-3 future Democrats from being conceived, then we are definitely getting our monies worth. I used to be in favor of legalization of drugs, until I realized the positive benefits of locking up millions of people who smoke crack, just like Barack Obama.

Widespread and readily available abortion might be good for society, but it is bad for the propagation of future Democrats. For this reason alone, I am in favor of free, government-provided abortions. Who says I can’t find common ground with you socialists.

Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is another important factor in reducing the ranks of future Democrats. That angry woman who sold you the pack of Luckys tonight at the Quicky Mart was a former Welfare Queen. She used to be the lucky recipient of a big fat monthly check for every whelp she managed to squeeze through her pelvis. Those days are over.

“You apparently lack basic critical thinking skills, you should have learned in college.  (Did you even go?)  And I'm not going teach you - Ken I get paid to do that.  That gives me a great idea, do you need a tutor?  It would do you well, as I could back up your ideas (yes I WAS a neocon) better when I was 18 than you can now.”
This statement really hurt my feelings, because I can’t help it that you are so much wiser, and more educated than I am. It made me feel very badly, until I realized that I’ve been effortlessly kicking your arrogant ass in every exchange we’ve had so far. Then I got happy again! That made me bust out in my best James Brown rendition.

by KenTX on 07/05/2008 07:27:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The pudding for Ken's proof (none / 0)

Democratic party ID is at an all-time high.

Republican party ID is at an all-time low.

I rest my case.

by ProfRich on 07/07/2008 10:00:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Na na na (none / 0)

Rich. Don't worry. See I am an ex Republican Yankee who has lived in the south. I have lived in North Carolina and Florida and I can guarantee you Ken's Boolean, Binary brain is missing something here.

It is the difference between the northern democrat and the southern democrat..There is also a difference between a northern republican and a southern republican.

As an ex northern republican I can guarantee you that all these people people who are moving to the sun belt  will be as  repulsed by the southern republicans as I was.

That is what Ken and his articles do not understand because here is the new face of the southern democrat.

Hi Ken

 All that talk about the bible and rapture scares the crap out a northern republicans. Trust me on that one but give us a small government, gun toting, mind your own business style politician and the northern republicans will come running.

See, Ken sees it too. That is why he keeps insisting that a moderate democrat will agree to be McCain's running mate.

Sorry Ken, Jim Webb knows his place in history and is not going to throw it away. 

by z1p101 on 07/07/2008 11:47:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
time is on OUR side (none / 0)
"All it takes is vision and time... we win in the end."

You're wrong again.

After the next census and Congressional reapportionment, the GOP will pick up another eight electoral votes in 2012, before the election even begins.

This is the net effect of moving Oregon fro m the Democrat column to the Republican column forever. And Democrats can't afford to lose another blue state every ten years.map

by KenTX on 07/05/2008 07:38:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oregon go Republican? (none / 0)

Take it from an Oregonian.  It ain't gonna happen.

"Oregon, with seven electoral votes, has gone for Democratic candidates in every presidential election since 1988, although in three of those elections the winner had 47% of the vote or less. Sen. John Kerry carried the state with 51% of the vote in 2004 versus 47% who voted for President Bush and 1% for independent candidate Ralph Nader.  Rasmussen data gives the Democrats a 80.1% chance of carrying the state again." 

The more the urban population of Oregon grows, the more progressive it leans.  Even the rich are Democrats in Oregon.  Remember the Obama rally?  Hint--it wasn't just the sunny day that had people wait for hours in line.

 

by desertpear on 07/08/2008 12:58:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is it the math you're having problems with? (none / 0)
Or the concept of Democrats losing eight electoral votes with every new census reapportionment?

I can be as patient as necessary. Here it is again.

"After the next census and Congressional reapportionment, the GOP will pick up another eight electoral votes in 2012, before the election even begins. This is the net effect of moving Oregon fro m the Democrat column to the Republican column forever."

by KenTX on 07/08/2008 02:35:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry Ken (none / 0)

it doesn't work that way.

Like I said. His ratings have been around the 13 million a week mark for a while now and I read somewhere the average lister listens somewhere between 10 and 30 minutes a day.

"How many people (like me) never listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show live (because we're working), but listen to every excellent broadcast minute on podcast replay?"

Don't know how many people are stupid enough to subscribe to the 24/7 club and Limbaugh isn't saying. 

"Let's say that Rush Limbaugh has only 20 million regular listeners. That means that roughly one in six American voters is a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh. And each of these voters has friends and family that can be influenced and proselytized by the primary dittohead. "

How many are people like me who listen to him for about an hour or two a week just to see what bull shit he is spewing now?

by z1p101 on 07/04/2008 10:43:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Familiar (none / 0)
Minister of propaganda pays well doesn't it?

He is the typical Pub in every shape fashion and form.

They never practice what they preach. they hate homo's while they tickle each other's balls in private, they talk family values from under the sheets of their mistresses. They talk rule of law while allowing Bush to set fire to the constitution. Drugs? need i say more.

If you really want to be a criminal in our country become a Pub, they'll make it legal.

by LORD FOUL on 07/05/2008 12:07:17 PM EST

America's Newest Billionaire. | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: