Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Bias page

I feel a quote in the 'drug abuse heading would be a fairer way of showing this mans views. The source of the content in that section is very gentle and doesn't do justice to his opinions... it basically plays down his position.

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country.

this is the first line of text in the referenced article and i think it should be on his wiki.

this website is not here to act as abio in which everyone has to look a nice guy... this man has been spouting this stuff to his audiences and has since been proven to be a hypocrite - you wouldn't get this from his wiki page regarding drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.225.6 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is an uneducated, white-trash hypocrite. Who cares about what he thinks? 88.115.220.120 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

chelsea clinton controversy

The following is inaccurate:

"During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown. When questioned about it, Limbaugh claimed that it was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea"

This incident never happened. It is a long, old urban myth about Limbaugh. There was indeed a mistake regarding Chelsea and a pic of a dog, but that isnt it.

The articles cited that refers to this incident are equally misguided. Let them come up with a transcript or video of this incident. So far they have not.

Here is what really happened:

http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

24.190.67.39 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right about this, but you'll need to find a more reliable source to subtantiate it.--Cjv110ma (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a rather extensive Google search and could find nothing to substantiate the anon's claims other than the website she posted so I am inclined to agree with Cjv110ma that the section should stay as is until further information is offerred up.

On the other hand, almost all the sources that talk (extensively and with wringing hands) about the incident are left-leaning sites (such as Daily Kos, Huffington, Media Matters, etc) or are newspapers directly quoting Ms. Clinton herself from the last 5-10 yrs. I'm not saying that either the lefties that support/supported Clinton and/or Chelsea herself are lying or are making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted, but they definitely would have an axe to grind against Limbaugh. My opinion, which doesn't matter, is that as this show was broadcast very early in Limbaugh's television career (some sites I found point to it being recorded in his first week), it MIGHT HAVE BEEN an honest mistake - as Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed.

That being said, I don't have a problem with the sentence as curently shown on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Obama Policy Comments as "Controversy"

As I don't watch this site closely, I'm curious as to why Limbaugh's comments about President Obama's policies are listed in the "Controversies" section (or are even listed on this page at all). Why is it a suprise that a "right wing hack" like Limbaugh would disagree with Obama and want to see his presidency fail? Volumes of books could be filled with politicians and political commentators of both parties disagreeing with their political adversaries and calling them every name in the book - why is this particular incident noteworthy? Simply because he spoke out against President Obama early in his presidency when everything was still peaches and cream? I was just going to delete it, but I thought I'd forestall the firestorm by at least posting the question on Talk. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The question is whether the content has undue weight or whether the event is notable and has receive continuing coverage to be considered notable within the context of the subject, which this is a biography article. The content is referenced to reliable sources, and is a short paragraph, but a debate can still be made that it has undue weight within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Theorem

News outlets have picked up on what Rush Limbaugh coins as, "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." But, of course, media outlets do not credit Limbaugh for thinking of this first. His Theorem is that Obama policies (including Obamacare) are very unpopular in America, but not associated with President Barack Obama, himself. Rather, he is seen as fighting the problems his policies cause. Today, Limbaugh modified his Theorem to apply to the elite leadership of the Republican Party, as he puts it. He says they run the party but blame Conservatives and anybody but themselves for their losses in elections. I searched the article here and find nothing on "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can CES provide reliable sources for this? It may have enough coverage for weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh may have learned from Larry King

I don't have a source but I remember this from when I used to listen to Larry King's nighttime radio program, probably in the mid to late 1980s. When he took phone calls, he said they were not screened. King said on several days that he had never met Rush Limbaugh. One day King had just told someone that they were off-topic (I forgot the topic). Right after that, a new caller said that this is off-topic too but that he (the caller) is Rush Limbaugh and that he and King had met long ago when Limbaugh was known by another name (maybe his birth name but I don't remember what it was) and was just learning radio and King had given him some valuable advice. In subsequent shows that I heard, when King mentioned Limbaugh King stopped saying that they had never met, and may have acknowledged meeting (I'm not certain of the acknowledgment) although he continued to state his disagreement with Limbaugh. Maybe one of them put this into verifiable print somewhere, either in something for a general audience or in a periodical for the radio industry, or may have mentioned it in a verifiable interview. I only found one hint in Wikipedia that might either relate to or contradict this: Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 10#Mutual. I did not Google this or check literature databases. I posted this, virtually identically, at the other host's talk page, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two questions, can the above be verified to a (or multiple) reliable sources. And if it can, how much weight should it be given in the article, and where?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source, as I noted, but my hope that someone would recognize this information and know of a source is why I posted this in the talk page. As to weight, depending on what the source says, the appropriate amount would probably be some weight but only a little, i.e., a mention in the context of his learning his profession. That King disagreed with Limbaugh is useful for its irony of from whom Limbaugh learned but if we were to list every notable person who disagreed with Limbaugh we might need another article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to find a source for the statement above as well, and did not come up with anything. Perhaps my google-fu was not strong when I attempted to use it the other day. If we can find a source, I am more than happy to revisit this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)