Rush Limbaugh’s screener at Calling All Wingnuts

Rush Limbaugh’s screener

Published by Mike Stark June 20th, 2006 in Rush Limbaugh

I just wanted to prove to everyone that I’m not hiding from these guys. I recorded this conversation with Rush’s screener from my speakerphone.

And the truth is, I don’t want to get anyone fired. I get that people have families and have to put food in their kids mouths - I just wish they could do it without lying so much. If they could stop the lying, I could close up the website. It’d be a sad day - I’d for sure miss laughing at loofah-boy and his daddy, oxycontin-man - but hell, the world would be a much better place.

13 Responses to “Rush Limbaugh’s screener”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Blue Patriot Jun 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

Rush’s screener is a weeny-in-training. I do feel for someone who has to be the babysitter for a drug-addled whackjob with a god complex, but still, this guy couldn’t wrap his head around the fact that you called to help relations, and that speaks volumes. Why can’t they find a person to be the full time screener? Because anyone who would want that job can’t figure out how to use the fancy multi-line phone.

Rush is afraid of you, Mike. You can hear it in his voice, and I LOVE it when he accuses hapless callers of being you, as he did a couple weeks ago. PRICELESS. He actually lost his shit. On air, no less.
2 john x Jun 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pm

“….I don’t want to get anyone fired. ”
This will probably one of the very rare times i use this type of language but…

Fuck ‘em.
3 Sean Jun 20th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

Ask the screener to reply honestly to the following query: Did Rush Limbaugh require you to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a prerequisite to employment?

In other words, would the call screener be subject to legal action by Rush Limbaugh if he ever disclosed any of the day-to-day goings on that have to do with the production of his radio program?

I doubt he will answer truthfully. I bet every one of Limbaugh’s employees are forbidden — forever — from revealing what an empty suit this guy really is.

Rush is a frightened man. His fear is that the general nullity ditto-head population will one day discover that his daily existence is an utter fantasy. Speaking prosaically, he is a rhetorical onanist.

The following Limbaugh quote is absolutely accurate: “I am not an ideologue. I do not want to be the leader of a movement. I am an entertainer and I just want to attract and hold as large a listening audience as I can.” (New American Magazine, 1992)

The only question is, was he lying when he said that, or is he lying now when he says that he is an ideological conservative (who finally figured out how to make it pay hiding behind the skirts of his call screener).

The only thing not in question is that Limbaugh is most assuredly an awful, awful liar and coward.

Go Mike.
4 odanny Jun 20th, 2006 at 4:50 pm

I dont think that call to the screener accomplished anything. I wouldn’t be upfront with these people (they certainly are less than honest themselves in their continual torrent of lies) so your argument on “coming to an agreement” , knowing how business is done there, was already going nowhere before it got started, cause the screener is there to do Rush’s bidding. If you already knew they dont like repeat callers more than twice a year (according to this screener) then I would keep the subterfuge and nom de plume as part of your M.O., and if the screener gets fired, so be it.

That call only made him more aware of you and your intent, and honest and open debate is not what these people are after, regardless of the screener saying otherwise.

They want to fan the flames and spoonfeed their mindless listners agitprop.
5 markovits Jun 20th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

I think its as simple as the program does not want one person liberal or conservative to get on the air every few weeks. The program does not seem to have a problem with letting liberals on, but they do not want the same one calling every week or two. That’s the policy of the show, I think at least. So Mike is trying to break this policy and that’s partly why he is having a hard time trying to come to some agreement with these people.
6 Ezsuds81 Jun 20th, 2006 at 5:05 pm

Thanks for taping this. The screener does have a tough job. It appears you’ll still have to hide your true identity to get on though.

Game on!!
7 Scott Jun 20th, 2006 at 5:30 pm

Thanks for letting us peek into what it’s like talking to screeners.
By the way, I don’t think Republicans can be killed with kindness they just absorb it into their inky black evilness. Heh… kiddin’ kinda..

Thanks for your work, Mike
8 bacci40 Jun 21st, 2006 at 3:56 am

rush is an honest guy?

drug addicts are liars

rush is a liar

today he impuned all liberal bloggers, saying that they rejoiced in the deaths of the two service men

audio is on c&l

rush is an ahole…and anyone who works for him is a whore

let them all go on the unemployment line
9 orihd Jun 21st, 2006 at 9:54 am

the screener seemed dishonest. its hard to know for sure, but it seemed as though he only said your calling in hurt him after you mentioned that you wanted to make a compromise or something (so admitting it helped him). before that he even made the pretense of not knowing who you were. i dunno which one is true.
10 nikto Jun 22nd, 2006 at 11:47 am

I’m lovin’ what you do, man.

I just wish there were 5,000 more of you doing it!

Keep up the great work–The righties need
as much truth serum as we can force-feed ‘em.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s an antidote for the Kool-Aid?
11 dragonfly Jun 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 am

I felt sorry for the guy, though, as I think you did. I have a feeling Rush can be pretty scary when he’s mad- it’s not a good feeling getting reemed by your boss anyway-and people that work for him are not required to think like him. I thought it was decent and upstanding of you to interact with his screener, and he seemed to actually be trying to be decent with you as well. Like you said, he’s in a tough position. I’ll bet that is a good-paying job, maybe the best-paying one he’s had, and he doesn’t want to put his future at risk.
12 R. Stanton Scott Jun 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Rush Limbaugh’s screeners get paid to screen calls and enforce policies. If they cannot effectively do this, they deserve to be canned. You are under no obligation to protect the incompetent.

This is especially true for those who earn their living polluting public discourse with lies, name calling, and the dehumanization of their ideological opponents. These people would not hesitate to put your blog to an end, whether or not you earn your living by it. Destroying reputations is part of their ideological repertoire–see Kennedy, Kerry, and now Murtha.

The man you spoke to apparently sleeps at night after listening to Limbaugh’s diatribes, knowing what they are. It makes no difference whether Limbaugh means to entertain or advance an ideological agenda–he and the people who help him to distribute his bile deserve no quarter, and you should show them none.
13 cjb Jul 2nd, 2006 at 5:41 am

You really messed up on this one. This guy was doing his job and appeared courteous to you. You made out that you were worried that he might get into trouble- and then you publish the tape- without his permission- on your website.

Your argument with him that you have to break the show’s calling rules- in order for your web-site to get more hits was also pretty dumb. You’re admitting that you have to exploit their show for your personal gain. Why not just call when you have something you think is worth saying?

Using an assumed name to get past the screener is fine by me, but it’s not so clever that you have to boast about it on your website and potentially get the screener into trouble. If he had gotten fired over this- what would you have thought or done?

Calling All Wingnuts