It's the 15 million plus listeners he talks to every week they fear. It is the effect of what he says that they fear. I guess you can only imagine what it's like having an influence like that. Even that crazy nutcase Michael Savage (8.25 million listeners per week) has numbers that Salon will never see, and it is quite likely that many of his listeners are not Rush fans. Even the obnoxious, repetitive Sean Hannity has 13.25 million listeners, so we know it does not take much to garner an audience these days. It does, however, take something, which is why Air America et al have failed so miserably. They got absolutely nothin'.

Here's a funny thought D.L. Hughley with a serious "journalistic" opinion (or one that anyone would take seriously). He's a comedian, a clown, like Franken.

Here's something else to consider while throwing stones at those who are several orders of magnitude more successful than yourself (in the same line of business): The combined opinion of you and all the staff at Salon is worth, oh, about 35 cents a share, volume of zero.

You might be wise to slam people who do something other than what you do. I have a feeling that in the not-too-distant future you will find yourself saying "Limbaugh's audience was right. Obama is a monster".

P.S. You do realize why Salon experiences whatever success it does, don't you? It's what I am doing right now. As I have seen numerous times, many people prefer the reader responses to the articles (I certainly do). You may wish to thank your reader-contributors for your success.

Do you suppose that easy to grow weed will be worth, once it is legal? Make cigarettes illegal and suddenly, people will spend $40.00 a pack for them. Pot is cheaper and easier to grow than tobacco. Legalize it, and that $1 billion tax will more likely be a few mil at best.

Also - Have you ever noticed how well someone drives when they are on pot?

You approve of your president heading up an attack on a private citizen? You better watch your back, lest you criticize his excellency, and he turn his jaundiced eye to you. I am quite amused how a liberal, a person who's core philosophy is the freedom of speech and expression would tolerate, much less promote the abuse of power that we see Obama pouring out on Limbaugh. Whether you like his politics or not is immaterial, and if he were a liberal, and Bush were the president, you would be shouting that from the housetops.

Once again the sheer duplicity of the liberal movement is clear for all to see. Mark my words, his abuse of power will not stop with Limbaugh. It will, however blow up in his face.

Once again a liberal exposes her blatant bias and prejudice. I never said in this instance or any other that I am a supporter of Rush Limbaugh, or the republican party. Leave it to you let your hatred of all things that do not agree with your opinions drive your conclusions. By not just suggesting, rather boldly stating your conclusion that I support Limbaugh, when you have absolutely no basis for that conclusion, you reveal the fact that vitriol drives your decisions more than reason. You are a starter of wars.

Indeed, I did not say I supported Limbaugh, what I did say is that when someone who holds the office of President uses that office to attack a private citizen, that person reveals a dangerous and likely pervasive character flaw. Any lackey that promotes his smear campaign had better watch it, because she may find herself on the downside of a "let's clean up the president's image" campaign. Anyone who denies this possibility is simply an uneducated fool. Despots show no loyalty to their henchmen (or women, as the case may be).

Watch your back, Joan. You are useful to the messiah. For now.

As an aside, do you recall the other "leader" who constantly cocked his head for dramatic effect when he walked into a room? His name was Mussolini. He, along with his mistress, suffered a most unique end.

"What abuse would that be?"

A Presidential smear campaign. Any other questions?

"I don't believe the "office of the President" is actually attacking Rush."

How many times will Obama and his flunkies have to use the man's name negatively in public before you do believe? If the President of the United States used your name publicly, wouldn't you find that significant?

How many headlines like "Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles" --Telegraph.co.uk

do you have to read before you believe? What, are you just ignoring the obvious?

"What is your opinion of the attacks alleged to have come out of the office of Carl Rove that in at least one case resulted in a political enemy in Alabama (I think) going to jail? Do you not believe those claims?"

Please find a single instance in any of my hundreds of posts in this forum where I support any politician. Please, do that so that you are not a lying hypocrite, falsely accusing me of exactly what it is that you are doing (blindly supporting a politician).

I am not supporting anyone here. I am denouncing an obvious abuse of power.

Poco

P.S. Joan, what color jumpsuit does an Obama henchwoman wear these days?