The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Mark Stevens: A Profile in Courage

By on 4.5.12 @ 6:08AM

Threatened for sticking with Rush, defiant advertiser declares “Battle for America.”

(Page 4 of 5)

The battle for American values is beginning and we will win.

Mark Stevens
CEO
MSCO | The Art and Science of Growing Businesses 

www.MSCO.com
www.YourMarketingSucks.com
www.twitter.com/mark_msco
www.linkedin.com/in/markstevensmsco

All his life Mark said he had been taught that a “healthy debate ” was “how you learned.” But he had come to wonder: “Why debate with these people?” he asked rhetorically, “these people” meaning those who had threatened his employees and himself. He compared the task to a line he had once heard — “turning the tide back with a hammer.” The people who had set their sights on intimidating him were “a small number of people” — of that he was certain — but they were intent on “throwing jello.”

All those thousands of e-mails he had received in the days after going on the Varney and Kelly shows were overwhelmingly positive in his support. Not one of his clients, he said — not one — had objected to his speaking out.

Talking over the phone, Mark was still overwhelmed at the response, and the nature of it. “In the USA,” he mused, here were “ordinary people concerned about my being hurt physically” for the simple act of advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show. It was almost, he said, as if they feared he were a target of a “Mafia protection” racket. Either he did what his critics demanded — or else.

“More than that,” he added, was the sense that all of his supporters in this outpouring were frightened that he “has violated the rules of a totalitarian society.” Some e-mails came from professionals, accompanied by photos of badges or official ID with police forces as far away as Los Angeles. Mark understood. He too had developed this uneasy feeling that standing up in today’s America was “like being an outspoken critic of the government under a totalitarian regime.” He paused. “We don’t have it yet,” he mused, “but it’s too much like that.”

I thanked him for his time. And wondered.

Only this week the President of the United States — the man who led the charge for mandated health care — had attacked the Supreme Court of the United States, a co-equal branch of government, as nothing more than an “unelected group of people.” An attack many saw as an attempt to intimidate the Justices themselves.

The Attorney General of the United States had earlier this year dismissed the idea of prosecuting Black Panthers armed with nightsticks at a Philadelphia polling place as an attack on “my people.”

This came not long after former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams came out with a book called Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department in which Adams details the transformation of DOJ from the citadel of American justice into “a base used by leftwing radicals to impose a fringe agenda on the American people.”

These being but a handful of the latest incidents in an ongoing surge of political correctness that, as we have previously noted, has focused on attacking the free speech rights of radio or television personalities and commentators Don Imus, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan and now Rush Limbaugh. With Sean Hannity and former Alaska Governor and Fox commentator Sarah Palin next in line.

And guess where the startling story of Mark Stevens has not appeared? You got it. He hasn’t heard boo from the Mainstream Media. Meanwhile, over there at NBC News, the network has finally been forced to own up to the fact that it doctored a 911 call from the Trayvon Martin killing suspect George Zimmerman, an “edit” that cast Latino Zimmerman as a racist when in fact his identification of Martin as black was in response to a specific question from the 911 operator.

Taken together, is it any wonder Mark Stevens picks up the urgent sense from his admirers that America is slowly descending into totalitarian depths.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) makes a point of tracking free-speech issues on college campuses. What they have found is not a pretty picture, as detailed in this interview with Fire’s senior vice president Robert Shibley when the group released a report citing the top 12 colleges or “Censor-U” institutions in the country. From Ivy League institutions (Harvard and Yale) to places like the University of Cincinnati, Syracuse, and Michigan State, FIRE illustrates in chapter and verse just where and how the American Left schools its budding followers on just how to go about shutting down the First Amendment.

Page: ‹ First   2 34 5  

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (143) |

Thomas Byron| 4.5.12 @ 7:29AM

Great article! Thanks.

Timothy L. Pennell| 4.5.12 @ 9:57AM

What's the big deal? He kept Advertising on Rush. Who wouldn't? Only a Limp Wrist, or a Fool, would drop his Advertising from the #1 Radio Show in the History of the World.

What was the name of that Iced Tea Company that USED TO Advertise on Rush's Show? I honestly can't remember, and I've listening since the 1st Day he was on ABC. That's what I'm talking about.

What kind of a MAN (especially one who pulled himself up from nothing) would cave to pressure from people of the Mental Disorder Persuasion?

A Boycott threat from the Left? A Boycott threat from people who don't wash their hair, don't brush their teeth, and their Women don't shave their legs, their underarms, or use Deodorant?

Really?

"Mr. Johnson. I have received a note from a Gentleman, who wants you to know that he will no longer do business at your 4 Star Establishments if you continue to advertise on Rush Limbaugh's Show."
"Is that so? Which Gentleman are you referring to?"
"The gentleman taking the Sh*t on the Police Car, sir. He's got, I think it's a Dog's Rabies Tag, pierced to his upper lip, and he just ate that doughnut from the Dumpster where he sleeps."

I think it's all right to give this guy a High five, but I think it's even MORE IMPORTANT to get out a LIST of Companies that Advertise on all of the ANTI-RUSH Shows. CNN, every NBC Obama Talking Points Show. What's good for these Ccksckrs is good for the Gander. We outnumber them 2 to 1. It's time we made ourselves HEARD.

BOYCOTT EVERYBODY that supports the Marxist Muslim, and his ILK.

You've got a 3 Day Weekend. I know that someone out there can get this LIST made up. Let's get it done and Posted, and the rest of us will COPY IT, and distribute it by the THOUSANDS!

It's time these people were reminded of one of the few Constants in the Universe.

Payback's a BITCH!

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:29PM

I think of the Liberals like Bogie thought about Ugarte; unfortunately, I do have to think about them. Liberals are vermin.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.12 @ 12:09PM

Rush is an entertainer, not a statesman.
Rush is great for yuks- nothing more.

Mike Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 12:32PM

You are irrelevant. Nothing more.

Steve H| 4.5.12 @ 2:20PM

FIFY: Rush is an entertainer, not a state-ist.

Dale left coast| 4.5.12 @ 3:01PM

You sound like a sl ut Alan . . . lol

Alan Brooks| 4.5.12 @ 5:09PM

"Dale left coast"? you are lib? or do you just live on the w. coast?

AhiaGuy| 4.5.12 @ 5:48PM

Rush has far more influence than you, Mr. Brooks.

Too bad he isn't a Black person---you could go into one of your bigoted Amos 'n Andy routines.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.12 @ 7:31PM

"Rush has far more influence than you, Mr. Brooks."

That's not saying much!

Vern Crisler| 4.5.12 @ 12:21PM

I still think Jeffrey is ascribing too much importance to Media Matters. These people are filled with their own self-importance, and writing stories about them is what they live for. People advertise on Rush because they can make money doing so; as long as that's the case, there's no need to fear the left wing crybabies and their "campaigns" against conservatives.

Mike Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 12:32PM

Media Matters is and agent of the Oborg collective and the DNC's thugocracy. They are potentially dangerous.

beebop2| 4.5.12 @ 8:28PM

I concur. They are the vicious Doberman's of the current dangerous occupants of the executive branch.

Several days after Stevens appeared on Varney's program, Rush addressed this on his show. He was definitely moved by the bravery of one person.

Limburger| 4.5.12 @ 3:44PM

Rush showed himself to be a misogynist...I used to be a fan, but asking to see videos of Fluke's sexcapades? Rush has been married 4 times with no kids. Tellling women to hold an aspirin between their knees as a form of birth control ? How insulting to women is that? Rush hangs out with high-priced prostitutes on his yacht. He's also anti-Romney, who is the Republican candidate for President against Obama.

AhiaGuy| 4.5.12 @ 5:52PM

Nice try, Libgurl. Those of us who actually listen to Rush know you're peddling the usual propaganda. Works for mainstream dupes, but not here.

Roy N.| 4.5.12 @ 7:50PM

How many calls did you make for Media Matters last week?

beebop2| 4.5.12 @ 8:30PM

As a female just under 60 who was part of the crowd that demonstrated so that we could be taken seriously? I think this "law student" is a waste of breath.

Jim| 4.5.12 @ 7:41AM

Mark Stevens, thank you from real Americans. It's about time we all stand up and support men like this, not noodles like Obama and Holder.

George Collins| 4.5.12 @ 6:32PM

Not to mention the cross-dressing David Brock, the noted Tea Bagger, who at this moment most probably has a scrotum dangling on his chin.

Kitty | 4.5.12 @ 7:45AM

I pray that the Republican nominee has the steely spine Mark Stevens has.

MikeBee| 4.5.12 @ 8:44AM

Kitty,
Perhaps Mark Stevens can be hired by the Republican nominee to help run his marketing campaign. Stevens will assist in providing the spine that most politicians lack.

Appleby| 4.5.12 @ 8:10AM

Time for those who know the Emperor is Nekkid to start speaking up and quietly stepping forward to stand behind everybody who believes in testing his or her beliefs in the Marketplace of Ideas, and bring back the old fashioned idea of argument and debate that doesn't stop with chanting of focus-group slogans (especially those beginning with "Hey Hey! Ho Ho!") and the waving of pre-printed signs they can't actually understand.

And could we have a rule that any person to use the Two Inevitable Words is automatically out of the dialogue?

Lawrence D. Cannon| 4.5.12 @ 8:52AM

Remember, like all Bullies, once you stand up to them they back down like the little prissy cowards they are.

DN| 4.5.12 @ 9:18AM

The walk of life that I have known for years and years (even as a kid) is the U.S. military. It is a PC infested world to the hilt, Mr. Lord. Not really all that different from academia. Truth-telling? Honesty? Integrity? Selfless-service versus self-service?

Do you or Mark Stevens know the price I paid because a snitch informed my commander and deputy commander that I was listening all alone in my own vehicle during lunch (with the volume down, by the way -- I wasn't stupid) to Rush Limbaugh?

You think this silly and trivial and perhaps a made up story, but it is true -- that was my death knell. From that one incident, being known and assumed a faithful Rush listener. Year 1998.

All an officer needs is his rater or senior rater to turn against him once. That is why all leadership in the military walks on eggshells ALL THE TIME. Now we have PC wording on efficiency reports. I got dinged mightily then; there was no discussion, nothing. My crime: Listening to Rush on my own radio.

Had I dared to speak to anyone in my unit about Rush or one of his books? No way. As I say, I wasn't then and am not now stupid.

None of these things are openly discussed in the military. Even among peers.

Ask an active duty person with about 10 or 12 years in the service if he can stand up and say, "Hey, everybody, let's let the law enforcement people in Sanford, Florida do the job. We don't know what really went down, but they have the much better picture. Everybody lay off Zimmerman and don't believe everything you hear about Martin. Zimmerman is probably not a biased and hateful prejudiced person...."

Or try saying, "That Fluke woman really has gall. Openly admitting that she is having so much sex in law school that she wants others to fund the resources so she can have more....."

Try that in a room with about 15 - 18% female military personnel.

Try saying either in a room full of about 200 - 300 military personnel. Not that this would come up, but, if it did, and you said it, you'd be history.

Does our U.S. military bear resemblance at times to a totalitarian society? Yes, it does. Oftentimes. And over much larger issues than this.

And that is truth that no one wants to hear. You certainly do not wish to hear it.

Where has Mark Stevens been living these past 25 years? Glad he's waking up, but he's been a bit slow on the mark and a bit late to the dance. Now, that said, good for him that he's waking up. He'll perhaps make for a good warrior for the good cause -- one hopes.

Or is he just now joining the fight because this has personally impacted him?

Bruce| 4.5.12 @ 9:55AM

My how things have changed. I retired in 1993 and still work with the military. You are correct with about the PC line officers have to tread. It is now trickling down to the enlisted ranks. Speak plainly and bluntly on any non-PC topic and you don't know what will happen. As the military starts its drawdown, it won't be the best and brightest that are left behind. It will be those who know how to kiss rearend and avoid controversy at all costs.

SGT tony| 4.5.12 @ 10:22AM

It is not as bad as you would think. My shop has many political discussions and the peeps i talk to (officers, NCOs, and junior enlisted) are willing to listen to other points of view.
We are currently following the zimmerman case, and while some of us think it was a racist killing, they are willing to listen to those that think it was not. Most of us want there to be an actual investigation, and think that the media hysteria will more than likely result in the inability of finding an un-biased jury.
Political correctness is rampant in the military, true, but it is beginning to be pushed back by those of us that are sick of the demoralizing, weakening, and social engineering thrust upon us. ( don't ask, don't tell repeal for example)
Mind you, the ones that are open and willing to think tend to be your junior sergeants, junior warrants, and junior officers. The junior enlisted are too young, and the senior leaders are too ingrained in the system. But the junior leaders will eventually be in those senior positions. It is all a matter of time, and i think our military will be better.

DN| 4.5.12 @ 11:34AM

When you hit E-8 you will clam up real fast. Right? Give it to us straight.

Just try the issue of single parenting in the military, deployments. How about all those single women now with their third or fourth child? If you ever utter a peep about how this Soldier? does not shore up her own weight, look out for the ton of bricks that will hit your cranium.

Or the English language skills of 15-year and more active military who are Hispanic but still unintelligible in spoken and written word?

See, the junior enlisted and junior officers don't run the show. Being mouthy while still under the age of 24 or 25 is mostly acceptable. But they are not the one's that steer the course.

Let me know how far you get as an E-7 openly stating that gays have no place in our military.

You won't be talking about Zimmerman if you are the brigade S-3 NCOIC, in a high profile 1SG slot, or in line for the CSM track, right?

Could you, as a sitting Command Sergeant Major, have a Rush book prominently displayed in your office, have Rush 24/7 on your PC, or be known as a twice-weekly Rush listener? How about a Palin, or Levin bumper sticker on your POV? (not the POV that you drive, the one your wife drives)

Please correct me if I am wrong.

A. Fox| 4.5.12 @ 5:42PM

Here I sit and read the troubles you military are having with PC and I am glad after 10+yrs as a E-7
in combat arms (60's-70's) we did not have to go
through that crap!

Herb| 4.5.12 @ 11:08AM

First of all, kudos to Mark Stevens. His defiant response "Bring on the buses!" is right up there with the Marine officer who declared from surrounded Wake Island, "Send us more Japs!"

As for PC in the military, two comments. My experience was that the senior rater usually just concurred with the rater's comments and yes, one bad @ss rater can sink a career. The other concerns my near-fatal brush with PC. Along the hallway to the orderly room in my unit were all kinds of posted signs about EO, safety, water intake, etc. I surreptitiously posted one that proclaimed "Official DA Policy: No soldier shall be denied equal rights because of the shape of her skin."

Talk about a witch hunt! The commander was on it like white on rice, people were questioned, key personnel received sensitivity training, female soldiers were breathing fire about what they'd like to do to the poster. Fortunately I was already a middle aged warrant officer so no one suspected I was the culprit. Whew!

DG in GA| 4.5.12 @ 11:12AM

DN, it sounds like the military is pretty much like every other area of American life these days. Bow down to the gods of liberal policies and political correctness or watch your livelihood go down the drain. I spent my career in Corporate America and saw how, beginning in the Clinton Administration, speaking your mind - unless you were in favor of whatever liberal nonsense was popular at that moment - was career suicide. If you weren't sued by your co-workers or employees for "discrimination" or "harassment" then you'd be drawn and quartered by your boss - even when the boss agreed with you - because of the fear of a lawsuit. We were sent to indoctrination classes called "Diversity" or "Sensitivity" training, mandated by the Federal government.

Most of the people I know who served in the military tend to be pretty conservative - especially because THEY know how much the liberals hate the military. I'm a little surprised and very disappointed to hear that the PC police even thrive in that environment.

ipsofacto| 4.5.12 @ 12:07PM

DA in GA, I grasp what you are saying and also believe that the end of the 1980's was the advent of full scale PC in America.

The military is just as liberal and daffy liberal as every other aspect of American society today. However, our military is not supposed to be a livelihood. It is not to be an occupation or place to fatten one's future or bank account.

It should not be like a lawsuit environment workplace, but it is.

Liberals might hate the military, but they also know how to force shape it into something more to their liking. And that is just what is occurring daily. That has been a primary mission for several decades now.

Google the story about the Navy helicopter pilot who expressed reservations about having women as crew aboard his copter. Story circa 1997. Learn what his fate was.

One of the best items I ever read in Reader's Digest (easily 12 or 14 years ago) was inserted as a joke in the Life in America section. But it was a true statement, it was no joke.

A reenlistment NCO is standing in front of a host of soldiers assembled in a theater, soldiers who had decided not to reenlist.

The senior Army NCO is offering a last pitch to get them to reconsider. He pulls out all the stops. He states all these merits of the top quality leadership that one could have, top leadership, principled leadership, and excellent management unequaled in any other segment of American life. This senior NCO was befuddled as his inspiring words (in his own opinion) left the faces in front of him unmoved, unfazed.

Except for one man whose hand went up for recognition. Thrilled that just one soldier was listening, the NCO indicated that the young man could speak.

The young soldier sitting in the third row clearly then stated, "Sergeant, show me where I can find this army you speak of, and I will sign up."

DG in GA, you need to get with the times. The blacks, Hispanics, women, chaplains with zero faith (correction -- anti-faith), and now gays. The military is not conservative. Don't you remember the U.S. Army General named George "Diversity at Fort Hood" Casey?

Abortion is encouraged in our military ranks because of the chances that the sperm donor would (or should) come down on UCMJ charges for fraternization.

Try telling anyone that black and Hispanic officers and senior NCOs are often promoted far beyond their true merits due to ironclad quotas, and see how far you get. Or the same for enlistment and new officer commissioning quotas, service academy admissions.

RCV| 4.5.12 @ 10:49PM

OMG! They're allowing Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and Gays in the military now! Soon we'll have to treat them like real human beings! Oh for the days when it was just good ole white guys!

rm| 4.6.12 @ 3:48AM

I think you miss the focal point, RCV. Promotions, assignments, more responsibilities, better opportunities, leadership roles are squarely to be based upon proven merit.

Merit.

Merit is not gender or skin color defined.

But you knew that you were missing the point -- intentionally -- and posted anyway.

MXLord327| 4.6.12 @ 10:07AM

Yes, and it appears they may no longer even have to EARN their promotions or PROVE they are qualified, they just have to prove they can fill racial quota slots!!!! The best qualified PERSON should get the promotion regardless of what YOU think of their skin color.

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:37PM

RCV:

Unless I had been offered my current job, I would have been working at Darnell Medical Center, IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, when the bloodthirsty murderous Hassan started his rampage. I would be, let's be honest, dead. And Casey would not be mourning my death; no, he would be worried about his precious diversity program. I had that job offer in my hand and I was able to turn it down for a better one, thank G-d.

Military PC could have killed me. I find it no laughing matter; not at all. I like you, but the concern is that this crap is destroying the process of appropriate audit in the military. The power of appropriate audit is one of the major reasons our military outperforms our enemies, so we can win when outnumbered. It is no laughing matter.

Richard H. Davis| 4.5.12 @ 1:57PM

Or try saying, "That Fluke woman really has gall. Openly admitting that she is having so much sex in law school that she wants others to fund the resources so she can have more....."

That's what Rush said, not what she said.

Toni| 4.6.12 @ 4:14AM

Mr. Davis, what Fluke said:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxoff.....fluke-48z2

Lots of holes to punch in this oral thinking by a 30 year old. Oh, and have you checked out Fluke's public statements in the weeks since?

Even if Rush mischaracterized what Fluke stated and the purpose of that D.C. gathering, the point seems to be that one cannot utter or allude to having listened to conservative radio, to enjoy it or find time to do so, to listen to one such as Rush. Or probably Ingrahm, Savage, Borz. How about admitting to reading a Mark Steyn book or having it in your briefcase?

Mark Stevens is being hailed in this article as a new figure standing against the political correctness in today's America. I think that the emphasis above is that PC is rampant throughout the land, in all walks of life. Fighting this battle are not just those who contribute financially to conservative media.

Indy| 4.5.12 @ 9:38AM

Mark Stevens is being Breitbart, we must join him and speak out against the Chicago style politics the Left embraces.

Sandra | 4.5.12 @ 10:31AM

And the battle cry begins on Nov 2....We MUST get out and vote that poseur out and get new thinking...AMERICAN THINKING.

W Krebs| 4.5.12 @ 4:38PM

Not wishing to quibble, but I don't think the Obama's administration's preferred political mode is Big Chicago; it's Caracas del Norte.

Anthony| 4.5.12 @ 9:45AM

Thank you Mr. Stevens, your courage is a welcomed example for all Americans, politicians especially, to follow.
As I said yesterday, it only takes a few brave souls to get the meek and scared motivated, and once a bully is confronted the bully runs like hell.
Things are falling apart for Obozo by the day. The zombies at MSLSD are running a crawl about keeping the dream alive.
They had Van Jones on this morning with a leftist moral equilivance argument that the Tea Party and OWS were equal. The two bobble heads, Mika and Joe just bobbled along.
What ever you're selling Mr. Stevens, I'm buying. Thanks again.

Nite| 4.5.12 @ 10:24PM

I agree with you. Mr. Stevens is certainly an inspiration. Media Matters is nothing but a George Soros vicious pond scum bunch of bottom feeders. Their behavior says it all. I can not begin to know what Mr. Stevens and his staff endured.

Bruce| 4.5.12 @ 9:57AM

How long before Mr. Stevens and his company are subjected to the type of investigations carried out against the opponents of the Clintons?

Indy| 4.5.12 @ 10:19AM

Coca Cola caves to boycott threat

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....oter-Fraud

Sandra | 4.5.12 @ 10:30AM

Well then, Coke is out....there are plenty of other drinks including water and juice.

A. Fox| 4.5.12 @ 5:50PM

I saw that too and sold my 2500 shares of CO.

Bill| 4.5.12 @ 10:21AM

Rush Limbaugh is a legend. I'lle be glad to wash his feet, and Mark Stevens is doing the nobel deed.

Nick| 4.5.12 @ 8:49PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

RCV| 4.5.12 @ 10:51PM

Instead of washing Rush's feet, Bill, why don't you wash your mouth out with soap?

Sandra | 4.5.12 @ 10:29AM

The tide is turning....but this will not be an easy fight...OUR FIRST TASK IS TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER...Unite and VOTE....THEN the battles begins for real.

WillyP | 4.5.12 @ 2:28PM

If you wait till November to do anything it will be too late.

Paul from SA| 4.5.12 @ 10:49AM

Great story. I had not heard of Mark Stevens before this. The country needs more Mark Stevens'.

Carolann| 4.5.12 @ 11:05AM

I agree...Regardless of how he got here,he has the strength of character to push back and say "HELL NO"...The first step to getting this country back on track is getting Obama out and all the other leftist politicians we have leading us..That's where it starts,we have to hold our elected leaders in check...They work for us,not the other way around..VOTE come November and let your voices be heard loud and clear...

Kent| 4.5.12 @ 11:16AM

Internet Terrorist, Mark knew the barage of threats where empty, most people cave because of the fear, thousands of empty threats, they won't actuallu go throught with them because legally they can't get away with it. these threats should be treated as assault just like if you verbally assault your neighbor.

Kent| 4.5.12 @ 11:19AM

that would be, were empty and actually go through with it ....stubby fingers :)

Rowdy Boots| 4.5.12 @ 12:14PM

The fact that the Left continuously manufactures lies, impersonate others in voting and this attack on a successful businessman should encourage us.

One does not have to lie when one is right.

Congratulations on your courage.

Because Coke just lost my whole family's business--Pepsi is sounding a lot better

how consumer dollars are used| 4.5.12 @ 12:55PM

Um, not to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but if you are going to apply this standard to Coca Cola Bottling Company, please, go ahead. But to be consistent, you will need to look into what Pepsicola has been doing steadily for the last two decades.

Mainiac| 4.5.12 @ 2:01PM

Guess its back to Moxie !

Steve H| 4.5.12 @ 2:24PM

RC has always been better than Coke and Pepsi.

A. Fox| 4.5.12 @ 5:56PM

Except RC's dividends aren't even close to CO's.
To bad Coke had to nuckle under. I will miss them.

idalily| 4.5.12 @ 12:19PM

Andrew Jackson's quote is appropriate, but I think another fits better when describing Mr. Stevens:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Mr. Stevens, you are a true American hero. I pray the rest of us have your courage. I fear we will need it.

randyinrocklin| 4.5.12 @ 12:39PM

f**k u Timothy you know nothing!

TURK| 4.5.12 @ 12:50PM

The left/husseinO bunch currently resemble the brown shirt thugs that elevated the 'little corporal with the silly mustache to a position where he could plunge the world into a war that killed millions, many of them young American men. The war happened because the nazi beast had to be opposed.

Now we have a leader surrounded by marxist/stalinists as he grew to adulthood. They are still there and their tactics are reminiscent of the not so good ol days. For a great look at the thugs in Germany in the '30s that led to the holocaust and all of the death and destruction of WW II, read: Bonhoffer, by Eric Metaxas, published 2010.

Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 12:58PM

So apparently this is a company for Conservatives who have NO respect for women, got it.

Always Question| 4.5.12 @ 1:41PM

What an empty, pointless response. Typical - why engage with a logical rebuttal when you can attempt to ignore the argument through exaggeration and hyperbole.

MXLord327| 4.6.12 @ 10:16AM

I don't think this brownshirt even read the article, if he had he would have noticed that the company employs more women than men. Also that the people doing the threatening and spouting insults much worse than what Rush said are all from his side of the aisle. What a good little mediadoesntmatter troll....

Skippy| 4.6.12 @ 2:47PM

That's right.
I will always agree with a troll re: my racism, sexism and homophobia.
It may not shut them up but the looks on their hairy faces are priceless!

Vic| 4.5.12 @ 1:37PM

Thanks for this wonderful story, a true story of America! Shows how determination to suceed and personal responsibility makes a difference. All the people fleecing the system on welfare/medicaid/tax credits or even social security/medicare ponzi schemes, and going forward Obozocare (unless Scalia and the conservatives on the court throw it out - God bless the 5 of you) should look inside themselves!

Jack London| 4.5.12 @ 1:43PM

Wow - Mark Stevens is certainly up there with the very bravest. Move over, Davy Crockett.

Mike Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 4:17PM

Far more that you gutless, cheap shot, two-faced Liberals.

Ajax| 4.5.12 @ 2:10PM

Respectfully, I don't think that what Mr. Stevens is doing is particularly heroic or exceptional.

Advertisers on national radio and television routinely receive ill-conceived (or offense, or rude) letters, emails, and phone calls from people looking for an opportunity to express their disagreement with programming through a perceived threat of boycotting the advertisers' products and services. And the advertisers choose to capitulate or "stand their ground", usually because they can figure out which option is in their best interest business-wise ... they are, after all, in a relationship with the programming and the consumers to do business.

It *is* remarkable to me when a business makes a decision that hurts its bottom line, taking a chance on losing customers on the basis of principle. But that is not what is happening in this story. If you advertise on Rush, you target Rush listeners, and they tend to respond favorably (for better or worse) when Rush gets caught up in these kinds of controversies. The people who are calling and threatening Mr. Stevens are extremely unlikely to be Rush listeners, are unlikely to be customers for Mr. Stevens, and their boycott threats are therefore empty ones ... and Mr. Stevens knows this.

So he has shrewdly taken this as an opportunity to generate more publicity for his company both on Rush's show and in the national media ... and the publicity in the national media (and 'Spectator) is free. Mr. Stevens is making an astute business and publicity move, which is commendable, but it hardly heroic ... or perhaps even worthy of this degree of attention and consideration.

Rush calling a graduate student a "slut" and then saying it was a mistake, and the American Left over-reacting in response? This is news? Don't we have other larger problems with which to concern ourselves?

Steve H| 4.5.12 @ 2:27PM

I doubt the boycott threats are taken seriously, but the threats to their persons should not be minimized.

rm| 4.6.12 @ 4:03AM

I also wonder what part of the Northeast of the U.S.A. Mark Stevens has been living in. Where's Stevens been the last decade? Did he miss the failed governors of New York and New Jersey? I mean, we're talking in very recent history here of Corzine....The laughingstock legislatures in these states?

Most of us have never heard the Stevens company ads on national radio because, I am guessing, they are only aired in the small, focused markets near his company's location.

I am just a bit doubtful.

Okay, maybe he's finally been burned a bit too closely by the ueber-liberalism of American today, so this past month was his personal tipping point.

But, really? It's March/April 2012? Where's he been living, doing business, driving his car, raising his kids, following how his property taxes are really used, watching public schools hit demented levels, listening to radio and watching TV news?

Stevens just seems too old to have not already understood what is going on in this country over the past half of his lifetime.

Nonetheless, if Stevens is sincere in his awakening, good. It is good to be awake.

Susan Benton| 4.5.12 @ 2:11PM

Another fan of Mark Stevens here - wish I had a need to do business with this great American hero.
And thanks to the author of another great article.

TexasMom43| 4.5.12 @ 2:12PM

This is how liberal/progressive/democrats work.
Always have, always will, world without end, Amen! (And they justify by "feeling" they're always on the side of goodness and light); anything negative is projected onto the enemy.

Steve H| 4.5.12 @ 2:19PM

Can anybody cite actual data that shows the effectiveness of boycotts in general?
I would guess the Threat of a boycott is more powerful than the Boycott itself.

A. Fox| 4.5.12 @ 6:00PM

I have lived for 66yrs and have never, never seen a boycott that worked.

Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 8:31PM

Montgomery Bus boycott?

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 2:22PM

OK, so now terrorism can be a boycott. The term that used to describe violent military-style attacks against civilian targets to intimidate the populace for political ends, now describes the free market's rejection of certain individuals and ideas. Did someone forget to change this guy's diaper? Oh, and the guy who claimed this is featured in a "profile of courage."

This is modern republicanism in a nutshell. Orwell foresaw the whole thing.

Jack London| 4.5.12 @ 3:29PM

How dare you sir. They called and said the company supported a woman hater. We love women and defend the right to call them sluts at all times.

Mike Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 4:20PM

Rush is not a woman hater and Fluck is a slut. If you don't like that word then how about trollop, doxie or hussy.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 5:32PM

Yep! And threatening to stop buying your sponsors' products is terrorism, no different from blowing up a building full of kids.

Hooray newspeak!

AhiaGuy| 4.5.12 @ 5:59PM

Well, Jack, what exactly would YOU call a woman who cries to Congress that she's doing the deed so much she can't cover the cost of birth control? That's a lot of boinking in my book. Maybe she should do like they did in the old days and take some cold showers.

"A rose by any other name..."

Jack London| 4.5.12 @ 6:42PM

We've been through all this - all she was asking for was coverage under a private plan, which is paid for by the plan holder, like many other private plans, including some posters on AmSpec whose partners have the same provision. Does that make them sluts?

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 6:46PM

I think republicans are generally resentful against anyone who has more sex than they do. That explains the comments from both AhiaGuy and Limbaugh (Rush having become recently celibate since his Viagra-fueled trips to the Dominican Republic started receiving extra scrutiny).

Jack London| 4.5.12 @ 7:25PM

I discussed this with a poster here called Con Chef, who called Fluke an 'ass-up slut' etc. Turns out his own wife has contraception under a private plan, and so is subsidized by others under group coverage. He was reduced to retreating to a position that because his wife is married and Fluke isn't that's the difference in what you can expect to be paid for in a private plan...

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 9:54PM

Yeah, and "Con Chef" might have a point, except that in Fluke's comments, she specifically brought up married women who were also denied contraception from their insurance.

Basically, Con Chef's comment amounts to "git yer govmint hands off my Medicare!"

Nite| 4.5.12 @ 10:19PM

Flukes problem was that it was a Catholic University, who does not provide that because it is against Church teachings. She knew this before going there for school. This was a political ploy and nothing more. She quoted about $3000 which is ridiculous. She could go to Target for 9 bucks.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 10:27PM

Yep! I've read that rationale before. Rosa Parks' problem was that it was mainly a white bus in which she needed to sit in the back. She knew that before getting on the bus. Her sitting in the front of the bus was just a political ploy, nothing more.

Same argument, similar issue: institutionalized injustice. You guys never change.

Nick| 4.6.12 @ 2:11AM

You can't even get simple historic facts straight, Paul!

Rosa Parks was sitting in the black section of the bus. She refused to give up her seat to a white man, because all of the seats were full. Not because she refused to go to the back of the bus.

What kind of race baiter/hustler are you?

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 2:50AM

Let me rephrase. Rosa Parks knew that she lived in the era of Jim Crow, and that a white person could lawfully ask her to give up her seat. Just like Fluke went to a Catholic university, knowing their thoughts on contraception. But despite what Rosa knew, she refused to get out of her seat when lawfully asked. Just like Fluke objects to being deprived coverage based on the religious beliefs of her employer, beliefs she does not share. Beliefs that most people do not share.

Let me know if any of this is starting to sink in.

Nick| 4.6.12 @ 3:36AM

"Let me rephrase."

LiberalSpeak for, "Boy, did I mess that one up! But, I don't dare admit it, and look like the complete historical illiterate that I am. I'll try to distract again."

Besides, Sandy the Slut has absolutely no right to force (or have the government force) Catholics, who form Catholic organizations, violate their religious consciences. This is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution of United States of America.

Sandy the Slut has no right to attend Georgetown U. She had to be accepted. Once accepted, she had no right to demand that her medical insurance coverage be expanded to cover something that Catholics find morally objectionable.

Sandy the Slut has no right to that health insurance coverage. It is a service provided by the university. They don't have to offer it. And, just because they do, doesn't mean they lose the right to say what it will, and will not, cover.

Finally, it doesn't matter how many people think that using contraceptives are okay, even if they are Catholics. You are making an argumentum ad populum, i.e., an appeal to the people, which is a logical fallacy. You lose.

I'm sure that this is all over your head. Do you have someone who can explain it all to you?

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 11:54AM

OK, I see it was too much to hope for any sort of intelligent response from you. Don't worry. Though you've lost the battle of ideas, I suspect you all will be shooting at us soon enough at which point you can finally get back at all those liberals who made you feel so stupid.

My point about who supports the view of the Catholic leadership, I brought that up to show that these views aren't even shared by Catholics. In fact, those anti-contraception views are probably not shared by the leadership either. They only pretend to have those views so as to make a stand against Obama. You were too thick to understand that, but perhaps some of the other readers here will not be.

Nick| 4.7.12 @ 4:33PM

If you had displayed any signs of intelligence, Pauly, I would have been happy to oblige. But, your paranoia, and your liberalism, have destroyed your ability to think coherently.

And, you know nothing about the Catholic Church.

Were you able to find someone to explain what argumentum ad populum means?

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:45PM

Fluke entered freely into a contract to go to an elite lawschool that has certain rules in its insurance coverage that do not cover contraception due to religious beliefs of the underwriting institution. She could have gone to University of Michigan law school, instead, or U of Chicago.

When I took a Chancellor's Scholarship at Texas Christian I did not immediately start a lawsuit to build a synagogue on campus. This is because even at the age of 17 (I turned 18 shortly after arriving), I understood the nature of a Contract, and how not to behave like an asshole.

My purpose at TCU was to get an education and get into Medical School. I graduated Magna Cum Laude in Biology, and got accepted into two US Medical schools, UTMB and University of Illinois (where I should have gone, I think). Contract fulfilled, mission accomplished. I suppose I will donate $12,000 to TCU one of these days to pay off the scholarship.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 1:16PM

Rosa Parks got on that bus, enlisting the services of the bus company, although she knew the rules that she would have to give up her seat if a white person asked. She got on the bus freely; she could have walked. But once tacitly accepting the terms of the bus company contract (and local ordinances), she flouted them by refusing to get up out of her seat.

This analogy gets closer and closer with each explanation. Your fabricated backstory notwithstanding.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 6:42PM

===============================
Well, Jack, what exactly would YOU call a woman who cries to Congress that she's doing the deed so much she can't cover the cost of birth control?
===============================

I'm guessing that you're probably happy to be as stupid as you are, but for the benefit of more intelligent readers, you should all know that Fluke said nothing of the sort.

There's absolutely no excuse for your ignorance given that real information is only a click away. Here, read the actual comments by Fluke and stop spreading the stupid.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxoff.....fluke-48z2

AhiaGuy| 4.5.12 @ 11:05PM

Most of us are not a stupid as you think we are, Pauly, or a stupid as the people who believe liberal talking points, because we don't drink the Kool-Aid you try to pass off as truth.

Re the link you provided, I find Ms. Fluke said, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."

Excuse me if I assumed that she was talking about herself, since she cited the cost of using birth control and then said "for a lot of students, who, like me..." But then, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not familiar with parsing phrases to duck & dodge or defining what the definition of is is.

In fact, she said she's a 3rd year law school student. She also said it can cost $3K over the course of law school. That's $1K per year or roughly $2.75 per day, less that the cost of a lattefrappuchmacchino with soy milk she & her friends drink while bemoaning the fate of women in the dark country that is America.

So, Paul, is that what we've come to in the US? Whining before Congress to get taxpayers to cover us for a voluntary activity that costs what a trip to Starbucks would?

And oh by the way, I'm sure you've probably heard that one can get birth control at the Wal-Mart or Target locations near Georgetoen for less than $10 per month. Remind me to never hire a lawyer that overpays to the tune of 10 times the normal cost for a readily available product. I hope Ms. Fluke isn't as clueless when she researches cases for clients.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 12:03AM

Since you followed the link I provided, were you or were you not able to understand that Ms Fluke was relating all manner of cases, including married women, women with health issues, and yes, women like her (important word there being "like")? If you were able to read all that and still come away thinking "Fluke is a slut who has so much sex she can't afford birth control," then really there's no helping you.

Also, still assuming you're able to read (which might be my problem right there), I'm really wondering how you thought that Ms Fluke wants taxpayers to pay her birth control. That has nothing to do with this. Ms Fluke will be receiving government-mandated health coverage that will be paid for by her employer, not taxpayers. If you have a job (again, I may be reaching here), and if that job provides health care benefits, then contraception is probably included in that. Requiring all healthcare to include contraception is something that is very beneficial to society (consider the vast majority of adult women have at some point used contraception). Ms Fluke is objecting to the Catholic Church demanding they be exempt from a detail that every other employer has to follow. Note that the Catholic Church is not doing this on behalf of the world of Catholics, the overwhelming majority of whom have used contraception. No, they're doing it as a political cudgel against Obama. And people like Ms Fluke are simply collateral damage.

So I ask you this: if you had a job that provided benefits, and if one of those benefits (say, prostate exam) was not provided because your employer was using that as a way to get back at the political establishment, how would you feel about it? (No, I'm not expecting an honest answer from you.)

Nick| 4.6.12 @ 2:05AM

Why are you liberals still defending Sandy the Slut, Paul?

It is not the fault of conservatives that Sandy the Slut's little speech was so poorly worded. A future lawyer should know how to write more coherently.

My bet is that it takes her several tries to pass the bar, a la all of the Kennedys! Stupid tramp!

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 2:38AM

What a brilliant critique. Here's this young woman who is infinitely smarter than you and who will go much further than you, who gets the honor to address congress on an urgent matter, where she makes many valid points — points so valid, that republicans have no recourse but to ignore them entirely and write her off oddly as a "slut" — and all you can do is criticize her wording and make weird allusions to her sex life about which you know absolutely nothing (except that she apparently has one, which I suspect is the thing that gets your goat).

Face it: you guys lost the battle of ideas long ago, and are left sniping with schoolyard tactics. Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.

Nick| 4.6.12 @ 3:13AM

You are unable to get simple facts straight, yet, again, Paul.

Sandy the Slut did not "address" Congress. She made a sophomoric speech in front of a phony press conference held by San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi. It was not an official hearing of any sort.
The democrat party is no longer in charge of the House, remember?

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 11:55AM

Distinctions without difference, and the point remains. Fluke is a capable young woman, you are a loser, and here we are.

Nick| 4.7.12 @ 4:37PM

"Distinctions without difference, and the point remains."

Umm, no, they are facts. Something alien to you bleeding heart liberals, Pauly Walnuts.

And, what was the point, exactly? How stupid liberals can display their ignorance in comment threads?

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:51PM

Paul--- I am INFINITELY smarter than Ms. Fluke, sorry. She's 30, in law school. At the age of 25, I had my MD. At the age of 30, I was in private practice. At the age of 32, I was boarded in psychiatry, and teaching medical students at U of Alabama.

Please, spare me from the stories of "brilliant" lawyers. I know of exactly "Two" Brilliant lawyers. Both are Conservatives, one taught Rule of Law at the Army War College, another teaches History now because he got tired of being a Harvard trained assassin.

The vast majority of lawyers I know I can trounce intellectually, and have boring, pedestrian minds.

By the way, she appears to be a slut. Which goes to show---men will screw anything in a skirt.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 1:00PM

Ok, so what you're saying is, if your argument is completely lacking, you can simply offer a spurious backstory to make up for it. Yes, you're a regular Doogie Howser. Below, you claim to be a union member. No doubt elsewhere you've portrayed yourself as a member of the Navy Seals. However, with all your claims of intellectual superiority, you undermined it yourself with your comment "she appears to be a slut," which is not reflected in any sort of reality outside the mind of a slackjawed partisan hack.

john dubose| 4.5.12 @ 3:04PM

I seem to remember that there are some laws against secondary boycots. There have to be laws about threatening phone calls. How about a little law enforcement >

jfl| 4.5.12 @ 3:32PM

Mr. Lord, you forgot to mention Juan Williams and NPR's bullying of him for not sticking to the PC script. He didn't back-down, either. And he still pushes the left-liberal POV on FOX. But he won't be bullied into corner.

Sallyann Fama| 4.5.12 @ 5:31PM

We are proud of Mark Stevens for standing up to these terrorists. That's just what they are: terrorists.
If we cave in to their threats and demands, we will soon lose all our Constitutional rights and our freedom which we value above all else. Never before in the history of the U.S. have I seen such mafia-like tactics from our citizenry. It's shameful!

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 6:44PM

Either you're claiming that the Limbaugh boycotters launched a violent attack against civilian targets, or you don't know what "terrorists" means. Which is it?

Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 8:34PM

Republicans HATE two things a well paid union member, and the Constitution, unless the latter lets them buy more guns without a wait.

Mike Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 9:37PM

Dementia got you for sure.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 10:03PM

Kingofthenet, I fully agree with you. By their actions, republicans have demonstrated a respect for only 2 aspects of the Constitution: the 2nd and 10th amendments. As for the rest, as George Bush so famously said, "it's just a goddamn piece of paper!!"

Nick| 4.6.12 @ 1:57AM

Mr. Bush said no such thing, Paul.
Why must you stinking liberals lie all the time?

Steve H| 4.6.12 @ 12:27PM

Liberals don't lie all the time. Sometimes they are silent.

James Solbakken | 4.8.12 @ 6:46PM

Ah yes, the 2nd and 10th Amendments! Everyone knows how much those liberty loving liberals support them...NOT!!!
Nice try; no cigar; please *spin* again, dummy.

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:52PM

I'm a VERY well paid Union member, and love the US Constitution.

uneducated white guy| 4.5.12 @ 8:47PM

terrorist
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

Pretty sure using a phone in the manner it was including stating the goal of going to the target's house (putting someone's home under siege ) clearly falls within the definition.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 10:07PM

I blame your comment on your lack of education. The only definition that slightly applies is #2: a person who terrorizes or frightens others. (Of course, if getting a nasty anonymous phone call is something you find "terrorizing," that's pretty sad for you.) If that makes a terrorist, then what do you make of someone like our government's leaders, who daily threaten destruction on the Iranians? Do you not think that frightens others? Are you calling the US government a terrorist organization?

You might wanna sit down and think about this some more before holding forth any further.

Scott| 4.6.12 @ 2:44AM

Are you calling the US government a terrorist organization? Why yes, Paul, as it concerns Zero, his wife, and the rest of his administration, that's exactly what I'm calling it.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 2:54AM

OK...but you do know that our government's practice of threatening violence against its enemies did not start with Obama, right? So is your definition of "terrorist organization" consistent and mature enough for you to say the same thing about Bush?

I'm assuming not.

pottfullofpith| 4.5.12 @ 9:38PM

Paul!

Sally is correct and you are wrong as well as rude. Violent attack against civilian targets is certainly a terrorist tactic, but threats of violence are certainly another, and such threats from nameless sources are certainly implied in the Stevens matter.
In future, please be more careful about your attitude and the accurate use of language, lest your comments become a net negative for the site.

Paul| 4.5.12 @ 10:02PM

A few things:

Nobody has offered a sliver of proof that Stevens' company actually received phone calls calling the receptionist a slut. If that actually happened, then it's awful and those people suck. However, Stevens had plenty of reason to make something like that up. It would hardly be the first time a republican fabricated a story to make themselves out to be a victim. To believe it hook-line-sinker doesn't portray you as a critical thinker.

If calling someone a slut on the phone makes them a terrorist, then that word has lost its meaning entirely. If you're saying that threatening violence is terrorism, then you're calling the US government a terrorist organization since it frequently threatens violence. You haven't thought this out very well I can see.

As for my attitude in my posts, I primarily value truth and accuracy and become a bit irked when those values are violated to the degree that appears on this page. Crank caller = terrorist. Had you ever read 1984, you'd understand how dangerous such twisting of definitions can be, especially once you get the public to accept that terrorists should all be killed without due process. It's a very short walk from there to tyranny. However, if truth and accuracy have no value to you, then sure, I can see that simply pretending to be polite would be preferable. You and I are different in that way.

uneducated white guy| 4.5.12 @ 10:43PM

Today's liberally accepted atmosphere of righteous mob thuggery defined as protected political, and of course correct, speech has made mention of potential dark motives a crime in itself. What you deride as my assumption of crank call = terrorist is for the people on the receiving end a warning, a terror(izing) warning of the potential and, possibly worse, the promise of things to come. Mark Stevens may indeed have nothing more to worry about than the actual calls. Methinks Mr Zimmerman of recent infamy might have a different take on crank calls headed his way. But whether the actuality of violence happens or not, the goal of fear is instilled. Do as we say, or else. My feeling on Orwell is that he was warning me of those who rewrite plain meaning. Seems to me then that the definition of terrorist still stands.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 12:08AM

Stop dancing. It makes you look silly.

All this nonsense about terrorizing, but did you read the actual article? Here's the bit about those "terrorizing" phone calls:

=====================
Stevens arrived at work to learn the startling news that his office was "getting actual phone calls" from people using (he eventually realized) phony names and leaving phony numbers. What were the callers saying? They called his female executive assistant a "slut." Another employee, also a woman -- a lawyer and like Stevens an up-by-her-bootstraps professional -- was taking calls from hostile strangers telling her she was "anti-woman."
=====================

Wow! They gave fake names!! He claims (which no one has in any way substantiated) that they called the receptionist a slut and anti-woman. Damn, I'm so scared just typing those words, I hardly know what to do!! You must be absolutely terrified from reading them!!

Thus ends today's lesson of why republicans are both cowardly and mendacious, forever trying to portray themselves as victims though the dishonest manipulation of language and facts.

karla| 4.5.12 @ 11:40PM

Always fun to hear the right scream at the top of their lungs when the left uses long established right wing techniques to accomplish something.

As for Rush being the most successful radio host in history, he has never verified his numbers claim so his claims are worthless.

America is speaking, Rushbo, and they don't like you.

Steve H| 4.6.12 @ 12:34PM

Rush's ratings numbers have been verified repeatedly by an industry that would enjoy underreporting them - but the numbers don't lie. Rush is the most successful radio host in history, period. HE doesn't have to verify anything, the radio industry does so independently.
And based on his easily verifiable listenership, America loves him. None of the radio libs have EVER come close.
Get over it.

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 12:53PM

Um...yeah. While his radio show may be wildly popular among the idiots, in fact America does not love him. Here's one of those pesky facts that you hate:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....03544.html

Dipesto| 4.6.12 @ 1:17AM

Mary Margaret McBride once had filled Yankee Stadium with about 40,ooo people to celebrate her birthday. Could Rush do that?

Occam's Tool| 4.6.12 @ 12:53PM

Yup. If he wanted to.

BackToBasics| 4.6.12 @ 2:15AM

Mr. Lord's article DOES capture the fact that a tipping point has been reached in that, at the "street-level," the right is now fighting back against the lies and dirty tactics of the left. The only ones not fighting back against the left are the RINO's. They are still too busy fighting the street-level people on the right.

Trent1280| 4.6.12 @ 3:47AM

Rush provided the rope with which others have hung him.

When he demanded that a co-ed release her "sex tapes" so that he could watch them, Rush went way, way over the top. He gave his opponents all the ammo they needed, painting him as a leering voyeur.

His repeated references to "sluts" was not merely coarse and adolescent. It was stupid. It was more ammo.

No decent conservative supports what Rush said, and the multiple times he said it.

He has been married four times, and fathered zero children. Apparently he knows more about contraception than he admits. Or...

Admit it, friends. Rush made a cascading series of mistakes, and made himself look the leering fool. No decent American talks about "sluts" with such panting enthusiasm.

Steve H| 4.6.12 @ 12:54PM

1. If mentioning the term "sluts" is all it takes to label one a "leering voyeur," then many of us (yourself included) are guilty. If you review the recent transcripts of his shows you will note the term used ONCE. Even in subsequent discussions he referred to "that term" and "that word".
2. Calling someone a name does not make them a "leering" anything - it makes them a name-caller.
3. Yes, the whole episode was stupid. BFD. I've listened to his show for most of 17 years now and have yet to see him demonstrate a fraction of the non-civility routinely shown by Maddow, Matthews, Schultz, or Mahr (sp?). Libs can beat up conservatives with abandon, but they are the second-most thinned-skinned people in the world when the pea-shooters are aimed their way.
4. You obviously wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what "no decent conservative" would or would not support. Your statement of "multiple times he said it" shows the exceptional depth of your idiocity.
5. Nice personal attack of his decision to not have kids, which you would be aware of if you listened to him.
6. You and your gang have shown NO evidence of a "cascading series of mistakes" or "panting enthusiasm" concerning the S word. Just assertions –all we can expect, right?

If Rush has provided rope to hang himself, then all radio hosts should wish for a similar rope. Trolls like you never supported him or his sponsors, so he has lost nothing in losing you.

PS - The trolls have become dangerously ill-equiped. Can someone check into this?

Paul| 4.6.12 @ 1:13PM

Unpacking your stupidness point by point:

=============================
If mentioning the term "sluts" is all it takes to label one a "leering voyeur," then many of us (yourself included) are guilty.
=============================

While nearly all republicans are sexually repressed, you misunderstood Trent's point: Limbaugh demanded to see tapes of Fluke having sex. That's what makes him a leering perv. That and traveling to the DR with a ton of Viagra, but that's another story.

=============================
Calling someone a name does not make them a "leering" anything - it makes them a name-caller.
=============================

Do try and follow along. According to Stevens in this article, if a liberal does this, it makes them a terrorist.

=============================
I've listened to his show for most of 17 years now and have yet to see him demonstrate a fraction of the non-civility routinely shown by Maddow, Matthews, Schultz, or Mahr (sp?).
=============================

Please provide examples of Maddow or Matthews calling anyone a slut, or making fun of anyone because they have a medical ailment. Or anything along those lines.

If you even attempt this, you will quickly realize no such examples exist. Which you should have known, but didn't. I blame that on the mentally deleterious effects of listening to Rush for 17 years.

=============================
You obviously wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what "no decent conservative" would or would not support.
=============================

Good point. These days in this country, there is no such thing as a decent conservative. Trick question!

=============================
Nice personal attack of his decision to not have kids, which you would be aware of if you listened to him.
=============================

Wait. Rush calling some woman a slut simply because she makes the case that employers should provide birth control without religious exemption is okay, but pointing out that Rush has no kids is somehow beyond the pale? Do you ever try to make any of this sound consistent internally?

=============================
The trolls have become dangerously ill-equiped. Can someone check into this?
=============================

As I've demonstrated, one doesn't need to be a genius to tear your arguments to shreds.

Have a nice day.

Trent1280| 4.6.12 @ 3:33PM

Ahh, Steve... embarrassed by Limbaugh's tasteless remarks, you omit to mention others he made.

He also called this co-ed a "prostitute". How exactly did he do this?

Your courageous hero has scrubbed his website of all of these vile remarks but, unluckily for him, others keep track. Here's what he said on one of the THREE DAYS he was obsessing over the sex life of a co-ed. Ready?

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute,” Limbaugh said. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

You may not be disgusted by his comments. Decent Americans find them appalling.

CONSIDER: what would you do if he addressed your daughter this way?

For THREE DAYS, the obsessive Limbaugh gave his opponents yards and yards of rope. Today, they are reeling him in.

His endless conjectures about the co-ed's sex life makes one wonder if Limbaugh Wife No. 5 is on the way... and sooner than Wife No. 4 realizes.

Susan Piercy | 4.6.12 @ 9:57AM

Considering our current fiscal disaster, Mark Steyn sums up the Fluke diatribe perfectly, "Free condoms on the Titanic."

pete b| 4.6.12 @ 7:35PM

"Rush, Mark was aware, had generated controversy with a joking description of the leftist Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke as a 'slut' -- following a Limbaugh tradition of illustrating the absurd by being absurd."

"AT MSCO, Mark Steven's employees were being assailed as sluts."

So when a radio talk-show host with one of the biggest ... audiences ... on the planet does it, it's "absurdism"; when anonymous callers (allegedly) do it, it's "assault".

Double-standard much?

JohnB| 4.6.12 @ 7:54PM

The plural of Nazi is Nazis, not Nazi's.

JohnB| 4.6.12 @ 7:57PM

The plural of dissident, is dissidents, not dissident's. Surely journalists should know the difference.

CK| 4.6.12 @ 10:59PM

God Bless You, Mark Stevens
We are with you 1000%. What the MediaMorons don't understand is that when they start a boycott, we start a buycott. And we are more than they.

Chef Schnauzer| 4.7.12 @ 4:10PM

I second CK comments. That was my first reaction. My company is growing and someday I will have the honor of hiring Mr. Stevens company.
THANK GOD for Mark Stevens and Rush Limabugh

More Articles by Jeffrey Lord

More Articles From Special Report

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want

May 14, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)

May 13, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/05/mark-stevens-a-profile-in-cour

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|63 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|37 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|46 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|13 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|6 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|11 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|21 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|11 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer | 11:29AM

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky | 11:11AM

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Lerner Says She Did Nothing Wrong, Then Pleads the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 10:50AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.