Friends of Talk - Commentary - Live Feed      Breaking News - Hot Picks Today - Live Feed

From the category archives:

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh: Media’s $ 1 Billion Man

by Featured Columnist on December 7, 2009

by Garrett W. McIntyre

As a media man, Rush Limbaugh is a veritable Midas. He has at least five easily discernable revenue streams. In all, Limbaugh likely brings in close to $60 million each year. It’s a good thing the man lives in Florida where taxes are favorable. Limbaugh will likely earn more than $1 billion from 2000 to 2016. Get a look at where the dollars come from after the jump.

Limbaugh’s big breadwinner is “The Rush Limbaugh Show”. From 2000 through the year Limbaugh’s contract with Clear Channel’s Primere Radio Networks paid $285 million. In 2008 he entered into a new contract, this one paying him $400 million over an eight-year period. That amounts to $50 million dollars a year, or about $136,986 a day. Limbaugh’s is the biggest contract the radio business has seen since Howard Stern’s $500 million contract with Sirius Satellite Radio. It’s pretty fair if you consider that Limbaugh’s weekly audience of 20 million represents a bit shy of 10% of overall radio listeners.

For those that don’t get enough Limbaugh on the radio, visitors to his site can become members of Rush 24/7. Members get to listen to recorded broadcasts on the show whenever they like, and they pay for the privilege. Membership cost $6.95 per month. Assuming that 5% of visitors to Limbaugh’s website become members (maybe a conservative estimate given the loyalty of his following) this program pulls in around $417,000 per month, and a little over $5 million per year. Given all the members get is a free t-shirt and a screen saver, its safe to say that Limbaugh & Co keep most of that money.

Limbaugh put out two best-selling books in the early 90’s. In The Way Things Ought To Be, Limbaugh put down his thoughts on just about any subject he felt like, and over 2 million people wanted to read it. As a big- name author, Limbaugh might have kept around a third of the cover price. At that rate he brought in about $9.6 million. His second book, See I Told You So, sold 2.5 million copies. Assuming the same rate, Limbaugh brought in about $11.6 million from the books. Overall, Limbaugh’s foray into the literary world added over $20 million to his bank account.

Picking up on his success in authoring books, Limbaugh puts out a monthly letter. The letter is devoted to political commentary, and covers just about whatever is getting his goat in a given month. A subscription costs $34.95 a year. Based on the information we can find, the letter has 135,631 subscribers. That puts revenue from the newsletter at a little over $4.7 million. Given the number of subscribers postage for the year costs no more than $100,000. Even after paying and artist and editor this business conservatively keeps $4 million a year. Not bad for a little stream of consciousness.

RushLimbaugh.com gets roughly 1.2 million page views per month. Based on the ads that Limbaugh runs on the site, we estimate the site brings in about $500 in advertising revenue each day. That amounts to $182,500. It’s impossible to know what it costs to operate the site.

If the site take two people to run, Rush might bring in about $100,000 a year from the its operation.

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

The theater of the absurd continues:

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

Rush Limbaugh Polled To Be Most Influential Conervative In America

by Center Right News on November 30, 2009

In a poll conducted by the CBS show “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair magazine that was conducted November 6-8, respondents said that the conservative talking head Rush Limbaugh, was the most influential conservative voice in America.

Read More…

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

California’s Suicidal Economic Policies Continue Unabated

by Center Right News on November 25, 2009

California unveils draft cap-and-trade rules
via CNET News

California on Tuesday released draft rules for its landmark greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan that will be the most ambitious U.S. effort to use the market to address global warming.

State law requires California to cut its carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Measures will range from clean vehicle and building rules to the cap-and-trade system that lets factories and power companies trade credits to emit gases that heat up the earth.

Federal rules under debate by Congress could eclipse and preempt regional plans, but California and other local governments see themselves as the vanguard of addressing climate change, especially in light of slow national action and setbacks for international talks scheduled in Copenhagen next month.

The draft released on Tuesday shows California, seen as an environmental trend-setter, may take on even more than expected in its first round of cap-and-trade, which will start in 2012.

Gasoline and residential heating fuel suppliers could be included in the first cap-and-trade phase, which had been expected to focus on big pollution sources like power plants and refineries.

“California is the first out of the box,” state Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols told reporters on a conference call. The draft rules kick off a comment period that will lead to final regulation next fall.

A less comprehensive northeastern U.S. regional trading system is already under way, focusing on carbon dioxide emissions by big emitters. California by contrast plans to include nearly every source of emissions to reach its goal.

California businesses regularly criticize the plan as going too far too fast–and costing too much. Whether the net effect of the plan will be a new green economy or disaster for overburdened businesses is still hotly debated.

New estimates of plan costs, including suggestions on how much support to give industry, won’t be available until an independent advisory group issues a report next year.

The draft avoids what may be the toughest issue–how much to rely on auctions of credits, which would require power companies and the like to buy permission to pollute. The emitters want allowances given to them, especially early on.

But Nichols said California had shown a strong preference for moving to auction as quickly as possible and that its 2006 global warming law provided clear guidance while politicians in the U.S. Congress were still raising support for a bill.

“Congress started this, you know, as a political exercise to see how many allowances you had to give out to which groups to get them to buy into the program. They didn’t have a climate bill,” she said.

“We know how many emissions we have to reduce. The question is how do we do it in a way that costs less,” added Nichols, whose Air Resources Board was appointed by state law as the main regulator deciding on how to cut greenhouse gases.

The cost of a ton of carbon dioxide initially could be around $10, based on how other programs operated, she said. That is about half the current European price. The average American has carbon production of about 20 tons per year, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The cap-and-trade system will account for only about a fifth of California reductions but it draws outsize attention, in part because the state, with the largest U.S. economy and population, is part of the 11 member Western Climate Initiative, which includes U.S. states and Canadian provinces.

China, too, will watch California’s action, partly by virtue of the state’s partnerships with Chinese provinces, said Environmental Defense Fund California Climate Change Director Derek Walker.

“In many ways this is similar to what you are hearing from international circles now. Everybody is coming to the table with their opening bets,” he said. But unlike most, California has committed to cuts and now is working out the details.

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

by Center Right News on November 9, 2009

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.

In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).

Hoekstra said he is “absolutely furious” that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.

“This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agenciesnot the CIAhave the lead,” CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. ” Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect.”

Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

In a blog posting early Monday titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing,” Awlaki calls Hasan a “hero” and a “man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.

The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.

The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.

He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI , Awlaki moved to Yemen.

People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.

“If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance,” Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

Army Chief of Staff

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.”

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office&be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, raised concerns over the weekend that innocent Muslim soldiers could suffer as a result of the shooting at Fort Hood.

“I think the speculation (on Hasan’s Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

via ABC News

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

Matt Latimer took a lot of heat for his “tell all” book, Speech-less, prior to its publication.  The non-establishment right has now had a chance to read the book and has met the author.  They were surprisingly impressed. Latimer’s criticism of Bush was that he was not conservative enough.  He was right!

Running Away From Rush

by Matt Latimer

Rush Limbaugh George Gojkovich / Getty Images Lately, GOP leaders are anxiously distancing themselves from Limbaugh and Beck. Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer reports his boss ignored the talk radio Rush Limbaughtitans—and why that was a mistake.

Like viewers learning about a mysterious civilization on the Discovery Channel, those in the know in New York and Hollywood continue to observe the inner workings of the Republican Party with fascination. I really think it is important to help those who haven’t had much experience with conservatives try to understand some of their tribal rituals and enthusiasms. Recently, in fact, I continued my modest instructional work in Hollywood as I spoke with screenwriters and producers interested in my book, Speech*less, a conservative’s coming-of-age tale in Washington, D.C. This time, the pressing issue among Those Who Want to Know was the mystifying appeal of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others like them who are now “running” the Republican Party.

For all those worried about the undue influence of these folks—some of you may want to sit down for this—their hold on the GOP is greatly exaggerated. And—as I said recently to startled folks in Hollywood—that’s not necessarily a good thing.

As an eyewitness to the final days of the Bush administration, I can report with assurance that the absolutely last people the powers that be listened to were conservative activists on radio and TV.

Washington remains such a hot topic to movie folk that time and again, producers seem compelled to greenlight an endless series of politically oriented movies—most of which, they cheerfully confess, are earnest, dull money-losers. Still, they are determined to decode our political system. So from the well-appointed garden of Spago to the sun-soaked patio of Le Petit Fours, as word quickly spread that someone with knowledge of the nation’s capital was venturing through, I soon found myself asked to explain the great curiosities of my strange city. None, as I mentioned, weightier than those about the “angry” radio and TV hosts of the right. Don’t misunderstand. Movie people like opinionated talk-show hosts fine. But just the low-key, noncontroversial ones. You know, like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann.

• Lee Siegel: Why Liberals Should Be Worried About Rush

• Conor Friedersdorf: Rush the Race-Baiter I was given a glimpse of the vision folks in the entertainment world have conjured—senators, congressmen, and Republican operatives sitting eagerly by their radios, pad and pencil in hand, as Rush dictates their next steps in global domination. I’m not sure folks in Hollywood believed me—in fact, I caught more than one polite but skeptical glance—when I told them that that’s not how things actually worked.

When I was a congressional aide, most members of the House and Senate were usually too busy passing money for bridges to nowhere to pay much heed to talk-show hosts. Sure, every once in a while, constituents would call about something they heard on Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham. Members of Congress scrambled to mollify them—by holding a hearing or issuing a press release—so they could go back to the far more important work of having taxpayer-subsidized chauffeurs take them to gas stations in their SUVs to complain about global warming.

Time and again during the Bush administration, folks on talk radio warned the White House and Congress about grassroots discontent over a divisive immigration bill, would-be Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, and the administration’s spending sprees. GOP leaders didn’t listen. They should have. Conservatives abandoned the party in droves. (Of course, there are limits to talk radio’s influence on the grassroots. Just last year, Rush advised listeners that John McCain would be a disaster for the Republican Party if he was the nominee. He came just short of endorsing practically anyone else—Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, none of the above. Listeners decided differently. That didn’t mean Rush was wrong.

As an eyewitness to the final days of the Bush administration, I can report with assurance that the absolutely last people the powers that be listened to were conservative activists on radio and TV. If Chief of Staff Josh Bolten happened to catch Rush or Laura, it likely was only on his way to finding NPR. And Condi Rice wouldn’t take her marching orders from Glenn Beck if he renamed his program The Glenn and Condi Variety Hour and let her play piano concertos between segments. Meanwhile, talk radio’s remaining White House hero, Vice President Dick Cheney, was all but gagged and tied to railroad tracks while Bolten, Rice, and others did their impersonations of Snidley Whiplash waiting for a train to arrive.

It is true that White House communicators, led by clever sorts such as Karl Rove, cared about their relationships with talk radio and cable news. But as the controllers, not the controlled. Like savvy publicists stuck pitching a mediocre movie, Team Rove furnished select talkers with extravagant perks (tickets to special events, invitations to exclusive dinners, close-hold meetings with the president) to get favorable reviews. When that didn’t work, they’d use another old publicist trick of threatening to deny access to Bush, Cheney, or various other administration “stars.”

Some of the more popular talkers, like Rush, were too powerful for them to intimidate. (Rush being our equivalent of Tom Hanks.) But the approach worked on others. One well-known face at a cable network recently told me that the Bush-Rove infiltration is so extensive at their news channel that “95 percent of the building” will not to this day entertain the slightest criticism of the GOP’s inner circle—from either the left or the right—and they’d keep people off the air who offered any.

Nonetheless, top Republican strategists in Washington are now testing out the “Rush is the problem” line. Fresh from managing two mammoth back-to-back election losses for their party, these gurus recently postulated in the influential D.C. publication Politico—our version of Variety—that “angry” conservatives riled up by Rush and Glenn and other “flamboyant” talk-show hosts were the true source of the party’s woes. Ed Gillespie, one of President Bush’s top aides, bemoans the very same talk-radio crowd his White House massaged and threatened for espousing “the kind of harsh rhetoric that the left used against former President Bush.” Pete Wehner, another Bushie, blasts Glenn Beck as “a rolling mix of fear, resentment, and anger.” Yet Beck and Rush (and Savage and Levin and Laura) had virtually nothing to do with the party’s collapse. It’s like a producer blaming the disaster that was The Astronaut’s Wife on Roger Ebert and Michael Medved (although that tactic may, in fact, have been tried).

As Republican candidates look for a resurgence in 2010 and 2012, they ought to keep the talk-show world in perspective. At their best, these hosts are self-described entertainers, occasional provocateurs, and early-warning systems. They cannot guarantee anyone’s election to office. Nor are they responsible for a party’s communications failures. Sadly, it seems, candidates still have to earn support the old-fashioned way—by developing a coherent and consistent message on their own. That sort of storyline may be too much to hope for, even in Hollywood.

Matt Latimer is the author of the New York Times bestseller, SPEECH-LESS: Tales of a White House Survivor. He was deputy director of speechwriting for George W. Bush and chief speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld.

Running Away From Rush – The Daily Beast

Sphere: Related Content

Leave a Comment

Rush to judge Limbaugh; thankfully he didn’t cave

October 28, 2009

San Jose Mercury News When it became public that radio host Rush Limbaugh was involved in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams NFL football franchise, his detractors began waging an attack on him of immense proportions. Armed with un-sourced Rush “quotes” lauding slavery and Martin Luther King assassin James Earl Ray, Mr. Limbaugh’s [...]

Read the full article →

Obama a tough guy, at least with Fox News – Mark Steyn

October 24, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli’s most famous advice to aspiring politicians was: “Never complain and never explain.” For the greatest orator of our time, a man who makes Churchill, Lincoln and Henry V at Agincourt look like first-round rejects on “Orating With The Stars,” Barack Obama seems to have pretty much given up on the explaining side. He [...]

Read the full article →

Rush Limbaugh Takes On Obama and Unaccountable Pay Czar

October 23, 2009

Each day with this administration comes a new outrage. Fox News, President Obama’s favorite whipping boy, has spent considerable time questioning the appropriateness, and the constitutionality of Obama’s liberal use of “Czars.” The obvious concern is that the appointments are not subject to legislative oversight. We are now told that Obama did not know about [...]

Read the full article →

Rush to be Dropped From Bidding Group For St. Louis Rams

October 14, 2009

It is a sad day in the United States when someone like Rush Limbaugh is prohibited from owning a minority interest in a NFL team.  Rush asked his listeners today to imagine any liberal being subject to the same treatment.  Rush has been subject to slander throughout the media with virtually no fact checking. The [...]

Read the full article →