Now Rush jumps on the fund-raising bandwagon

[mwebster]

Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Now El Rushbo is asking for donations - on-air - and with a new twist.

Rather than selling over-priced bumper stickers like you-know-who, Rush is asking people to buy subscriptions to his newsletter and premium access to his website to send to GI's.

Clear Channel doesn't need the extra money. But maybe Rush's lawyers are getting expensive.

From RadioDailyNews.com
<blockquote>Rush Limbaugh is coming under pressure for his "Adopt a Soldier Program" -- On Friday, Limbaugh announced his "Adopt a Soldier Program". This involves soliciting money from listeners to pay for subscriptions to the Limbaugh letter and Rush 24/7 that will be "given" to the soldiers. Each listener can "adopt" as many soldiers as they wish who will each get a subscription. The donor pays the discounted price of $49.95 for each soldier.
The description is on Rush's web site ... </blockquote>

Radio Daily News' article adds this is "a tasteless marketing ploy." I agree. In that department, Rush IMHO trumps AAR's "associates" program. AAR says (in effect) support us, send us money. Rush says (in effect) "support our troops, send me money." Or maybe he's worried about the troops being exposed to the evil teachings of Ed Schultz. Of course, if Rush were really the great patriot he claims to be, he could have offered free premium access to his website to GI's serving overseas. While it might be too expensive for him to do a mass mailing of newsletters overseas, additional web access for troops would not cost him much (if anything).

Rush, have you no shame?

 

[ajhenderson]

> Now El Rushbo is asking for donations - on-air - and with a
> new twist.
>
> Rather than selling over-priced bumper stickers like
> you-know-who, Rush is asking people to buy subscriptions to
> his newsletter and premium access to his website to send to
> GI's.
>
> Clear Channel doesn't need the extra money. But maybe
> Rush's lawyers are getting expensive.
>
> From RadioDailyNews.com
> Rush Limbaugh is coming under pressure for his "Adopt a
> Soldier Program" -- On Friday, Limbaugh announced his
> "Adopt a Soldier Program". This involves soliciting money
> from listeners to pay for subscriptions to the Limbaugh
> letter and Rush 24/7 that will be "given" to the soldiers.
> Each listener can "adopt" as many soldiers as they wish who
> will each get a subscription. The donor pays the discounted
> price of $49.95 for each soldier.
> The description is on Rush's web site ...
>
> Radio Daily News' article adds this is "a tasteless
> marketing ploy." I agree. In that department, Rush IMHO
> trumps AAR's "associates" program. AAR says (in effect)
> support us, send us money. Rush says (in effect) "support
> our troops, send me money." Or maybe he's worried about the
> troops being exposed to the evil teachings of Ed Schultz.
> Of course, if Rush were really the great patriot he claims
> to be, he could have offered free premium access to his
> website to GI's serving overseas. While it might be too
> expensive for him to do a mass mailing of newsletters
> overseas, additional web access for troops would not cost
> him much (if anything).
>
> Rush, have you no shame?

I agree. Let those of us who come here to discuss radio make it known to the liberals who spend their days blogging and picketing that we are/were not against AAR's tacky public radio fundraising campaign because of their political stance. While this doesn't have the PBS feel to it, it's rather tasteless as well, and I would now lump Rush in the same category in terms of low standards. As much as I don't think Michael Savage cares about anyone but himself (not a knock on his show, just him), he was supposedly sending one copy of his book to a soldier for every one sold. Sure, you had to buy a copy for yourself, but the publisher picked up the tab for the book. And unlike Rush 24/7, it actually costs something to make a book (OK, bandwidth).

If Rush is so pro-troops, he should offer something donated by a sponsor or CC/Premiere, or paid for out of his sizable pockets, and preferably something much less vainglorious. Now the conservatives will hate me.

 

[gr8oldies]

I don't know that a suggestion that listeners buy gift subscriptions to his website as a marketing thing is neccesarily bad, I'm sure there are other businesses which do that. It may partly be a reaction to the hearings last week in which an effort was made to "balance" the one hour he recieves on AFRTS with liberal programming. Wouldn't doubt that if you polled the troops they'd vote for the other two hours of Rush over two hours of liberalism.

 

[FightingIrish]

> I don't know that a suggestion that listeners buy gift
> subscriptions to his website as a marketing thing is
> neccesarily bad, I'm sure there are other businesses which
> do that. It may partly be a reaction to the hearings last
> week in which an effort was made to "balance" the one hour
> he recieves on AFRTS with liberal programming. Wouldn't
> doubt that if you polled the troops they'd vote for the
> other two hours of Rush over two hours of liberalism.
>

So, you find no problem with Rush trying to sucker people into 'buying' subscriptions to 'support the troops'.

Uhh... who gets the $50 subscription fee?

If Rush really gave a rat's you-know-what about the troops, he'd spring for the memberships for the troops himself. Not like he's broke or anything.

Is Oxycontin really getting that expensive that he has to scam the money out of his dittoheads? Personally, I think what Rush is doing is crass and tasteless, and shows just how out of touch he is with everyday life.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[Nate Wesley]

> So, you find no problem with Rush trying to sucker people
> into 'buying' subscriptions to 'support the troops'.
>
> Uhh... who gets the $50 subscription fee?
>
> If Rush really gave a rat's you-know-what about the troops,
> he'd spring for the memberships for the troops himself. Not
> like he's broke or anything.
>
> Is Oxycontin really getting that expensive that he has to
> scam the money out of his dittoheads? Personally, I think
> what Rush is doing is crass and tasteless, and shows just
> how out of touch he is with everyday life.
>
<sarcasm>
Don't you get it? It's for the troops. And since you don't like Rush's 'generosity', you clearly must be against the troops.

Where do you live, Irish? If al-Qaida attacks your town, I hope the U.S. doesn't help.
</sarcasm><P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>

 

[FightingIrish]

> > So, you find no problem with Rush trying to sucker people
> > into 'buying' subscriptions to 'support the troops'.
> >
> > Uhh... who gets the $50 subscription fee?
> >
> > If Rush really gave a rat's you-know-what about the
> troops,
> > he'd spring for the memberships for the troops himself.
> Not
> > like he's broke or anything.
> >
> > Is Oxycontin really getting that expensive that he has to
> > scam the money out of his dittoheads? Personally, I think
>
> > what Rush is doing is crass and tasteless, and shows just
> > how out of touch he is with everyday life.
> >
>
> Don't you get it? It's for the troops. And since you don't
> like Rush's 'generosity', you clearly must be against the
> troops.
>
> Where do you live, Irish? If al-Qaida attacks your town, I
> hope the U.S. doesn't help.
>

I certainly hope you're being sarcastic. I have no problem with anything being 'for the troops'. I'm all for it (but aren't the soldiers suffering enough before we force Limbaugh on 'em?). It just seems sleazy how Rush is trying to profit from it, all while wrapping his fat a$$ in the American flag. Add to that the way Rush himself avoided the Vietnam draft (he had a cyst on his butt). He should be ashamed of himself.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

It's called "marketing". Unless you're rready to condemn any publisher or website that suggests that people buy gift subscriptions, sorry,I don't see a problem. The money goes into the business..just like if someone bought a gift subscription to Playboy for a troop.

The way you liberals talk, AFRTS is force-feeeding Rush 24/7. Only one hour of his show is carried, and largely because the troops want to hear him, and would like to hear all three hours instead of an hour or two of forced liberal programming.

 

[FightingIrish]

> It's called "marketing". Unless you're rready to condemn any
> publisher or website that suggests that people buy gift
> subscriptions, sorry,I don't see a problem. The money goes
> into the business..just like if someone bought a gift
> subscription to Playboy for a troop.
>
> The way you liberals talk, AFRTS is force-feeeding Rush
> 24/7. Only one hour of his show is carried, and largely
> because the troops want to hear him, and would like to hear
> all three hours instead of an hour or two of forced liberal
> programming.
>

So it's perfectly okay to be a parasite and leech of the dead bodies of our soldiers?

Is that what's called 'compassionate conservatism'?

We are not talking about AFRTS (and we all know how you never miss an opportunity to bash dem evil libruls). We are talking about Limbaugh trying to get people to donate money (at regular membership rates) to send memberships to overseas troops. So, where does the money go? Evidentally, right into Rush's pockets. See a problem with this?

Likely not, since ethics and conservatism is not something that goes hand-in-hand these days.

Keith Olberman had a feature on this the other night on his MSNBC show, in his 'Worst Person In The World' segment. Howard Stern picked it up the next day, praising Olberman.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[mwebster]

Troops Don't Want Political Talk

I was wondering when the old double-standard would kick in and people who criticize AAR would Rush to excuse Rush.

Oldies, the you way you talk, the troops actually care. On what basis do you claim troops want to hear Rush? I know the Bloggers are circulating the lie that AFRTS polls service personnel and makes programming decisions based on those polls. Total kaka. Programming decisions are made based on (1) What's available. and (2) What the brass prefer. Part of number two is the stated purpose of AFRTS, which is to advance the mission.

But mostly, GI's don't want to listen to talk radio, at all (unless it's Sports Talk, Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony or some other "Hot Talk," which AFRTS won't ever - ever - carry). GI's want music. Most GI's are young. As a group they are disproportionately working class and Southern. They mostly listen to CHR, Country and Urban formats. Look at the demos: Middle aged, White guys are mostly who listens to talk (which describes most lifer NCO's and brass).

PS: I was in the service, and I worked for AFRTS. I say again, on what do you base your claim that GI's WANT Rush (and don't want Big Ed)?

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

> I was wondering when the old double-standard would kick in
> and people who criticize AAR would Rush to excuse Rush.
>
> Oldies, the you way you talk, the troops actually care. On
> what basis do you claim troops want to hear Rush? I know
> the Bloggers are circulating the lie that AFRTS polls
> service personnel and makes programming decisions based on
> those polls. Total kaka. Programming decisions are made
> based on (1) What's available. and (2) What the brass
> prefer. Part of number two is the stated purpose of AFRTS,
> which is to advance the mission.
>
> But mostly, GI's don't want to listen to talk radio, at all
> (unless it's Sports Talk, Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony or
> some other "Hot Talk," which AFRTS won't ever - ever -
> carry). GI's want music. Most GI's are young. As a group
> they are disproportionately working class and Southern.
> They mostly listen to CHR, Country and Urban formats. Look
> at the demos: Middle aged, White guys are mostly who listens
> to talk (which describes most lifer NCO's and brass).
>
> PS: I was in the service, and I worked for AFRTS. I say
> again, on what do you base your claim that GI's WANT Rush
> (and don't want Big Ed)?
>

I was going to say the same thing, but I wanted to keep the thread on topic. This thread had nothing to do with AFRTS.

I always assumed the troops would rather listen to music programming or sports than to political talk (on either side).<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[Nate Wesley]

> I certainly hope you're being sarcastic. I have no problem
> with anything being 'for the troops'. I'm all for it (but
> aren't the soldiers suffering enough before we force
> Limbaugh on 'em?). It just seems sleazy how Rush is trying
> to profit from it, all while wrapping his fat a$$ in the
> American flag. Add to that the way Rush himself avoided the
> Vietnam draft (he had a cyst on his butt). He should be
> ashamed of himself.
>

Yes, it was sarcasm...I hoped you'd recognize the indirect reference to Bill O'Reilly's moronic comments about San Francisco.

As much as we keep hearing about 'support the troops' (and we certainly should, regardless of whether we like the current overseas conflict or not)-- methinks they have A LOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO than waste braincells on conservative websites in the first place--but that's just me. <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

OK. You guys win,. I heareby condemn anyone and everyone who offers a gift subscription to anything for our troops.

 

[dampier]

> Rush Limbaugh is coming under pressure for his "Adopt a
> Soldier Program" -- On Friday, Limbaugh announced his
> "Adopt a Soldier Program". This involves soliciting money
> from listeners to pay for subscriptions to the Limbaugh
> letter and Rush 24/7 that will be "given" to the soldiers.

...which Rush will then pocket as proceeds. How magnanimous considering the limited amount of time, access and interest a soldier is going to have wandering aimlessly about Limbaugh's site.

 

[dampier]

> Don't you get it? It's for the troops. And since you don't
> like Rush's 'generosity', you clearly must be against the
> troops.

I know I am totally against the troops.

Only a few actual wingnuts actually equate disagreeing with the current administration's policies as being against the troops. Most Americans are far too smart to fall for that BS any longer.

 

[mwebster]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

No, not anyone. Just those who do so for profit and self-promotion. Early on, some talk show hosts were encouraging people to send blankets to the troops. Those hosts were also promoting themselves but at least they weren't selling blankets at a profit.

And a subscription to Rush's website or a copy of Savage's book is probably the last thing anybody over there wants for Christmas. As a one-time serviceman, I'd recommend a subscription to Playboy. (Guys would put up a centerfold each month. 12 Centerfolds and you got to go home; sort of like Green Stamps.)

Notice in "Good Morning, Viet Nam" the general who was thinking of his troops did not bring in a talk show host.

> OK. You guys win,. I heareby condemn anyone and everyone who
> offers a gift subscription to anything for our troops.
>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

Does it help at all that no one will recieve a subscription who doesn't want one? The service prsonnel in question have to register or have their name submitted by a friend or relative. No one is being forced against their will to recieve a gift subscription to Limbaugh's website or newsletter. Seems like the problem solves itself.

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

> Does it help at all that no one will recieve a subscription
> who doesn't want one? The service prsonnel in question have
> to register or have their name submitted by a friend or
> relative. No one is being forced against their will to
> recieve a gift subscription to Limbaugh's website or
> newsletter. Seems like the problem solves itself.
>

Well, here's an easy solution:

<s>Drugboy</s>, er... Rush makes an over-the-air offer. Any active duty soldier anywhere in the world who wants a free subscription can notify Rush;s webmaster with the vital info. Then, after the three or four soldiers contact the EIB gang, they get a free subscription. End result? Good P.R. for Rush, and virtually nothing out of pocket as far as expenses go. Not that it would bite into his fortune in the very least. Yet he still looks generous.

The way he went about it was a big, big mistake.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[kaufcom]

For this self-serving ruse, Rush has received the dubious distinction of being named the "Worst Person in the World" on Wednesday's edition of Keith Obermann's "Countdown".

> > Don't you get it? It's for the troops. And since you
> don't
> > like Rush's 'generosity', you clearly must be against the
> > troops.
>
> I know I am totally against the troops.
>
> Only a few actual wingnuts actually equate disagreeing with
> the current administration's policies as being against the
> troops. Most Americans are far too smart to fall for that
> BS any longer.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by barooosk on 11/18/05 07:20 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[mwebster]

Re: Troops Don't Want Political Talk

"Or have their name submitted by a friend or relative:"
I knew a guy in the service whose grandmother put him on a list to get all kinds of Jesus spam. He wasn't the only one; they kept a big waste-basket in the mail room for stuff some friend or relative thought a guy SHOULD have. If somebody puts a GI's name on list that does not mean the GI wants Rush's newsletter (or whatever). A lot of people give gifts they think somebody SHOULD want, not what they do want - gifts they think will improve the recipient.

But the basic issue is Rush's sleaze-ball pitch to sell subscriptions. The secondary issue is whether GI's really care about political talk radio (and talk show hosts' books or websites) in the field.

 

[dampier]

> For this self-serving ruse, Rush has received the dubious
> distinction of being named the "Worst Person in the World"
> on Wednesday's edition of Keith Obermann's "Countdown" on
> Tuesday night.

Which means O'Reilly can breathe easy that it wasn't him... again.