Why Won't Someone Like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly Run For President?

Question

They constantly claim to have suge huge ratings and to be so much better connected to the American people. Why won't they run? Is it possibly that everyone thinks they are pieces of trash and listen to their political pornography as entertainment only?

Answer 1

They would only accept a position of King or Emperor. I'm sure they think President is below them. Plus, they wouldn't get 20% of the vote.

Answer 2

Using your program to stump for someone else is marginally ethical and acceptable, using that SAME podium to promote your OWN political ambitions is not.

Besides anyone who determines they want to be President in this Brave New World Order had better have a very thick skin, because EVERYTHING is coming out, even stuff they DIDN'T do. Rush Limbaugh, for one, simply has too many things which aren't too terrible for a radio talker to admit to, but which are HUGE liabilities for a Presidential candidate. Being a current or former prescribed-drug addict pretty much kills Limbaugh's chances immediately. Rush was convicted of prescription fraud, a felony, and being a convicted felon in the US used to PRECLUDE you from being President.

O'Reilly was also the subject of a sexual harrassment lawsuit, which he settled out of court for an undisclosed amount he had to pay the plaintiff, a younger female coworker. If Republicans are to be taken seriously for their alleged "Moral Superiority", nominating someone with Bill O'Reilly's past should be as inconceivable to the RNC as the RNC nominating Bill Clinton again would be.

Ratings in TV and Radio are like almost every other type of statisitc: It isn't what they TELL you, it's what they DON'T tell you, such as, Bill O'Reilly talks about how high the ratings are for his "show", the O'Reilly Factor" (the radio show), but what he and his camp WON'T tell you is how his producers (who also own and sell LImbaugh's show) would only sell certain markets the Limbaugh feed, IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO TAKE BILL O'REILLY'S RADIO SHOW AS WELL. This is no lie. In SOME markets, even that wasn't enough and Clear Channel Broadcasting had to answer questions about O'Reilly's producers actually PAYING markets to take Bill's show. Not illegal to do, but to then claim you have great ratings in all these markets across the country is just more smoke and mirrors.

Would it shock conservative America to be told the same people who typically listened to Rush Limbaugh, also listened to Howard Stern when HE was still on Free Radio? The King of All Media, tireless promoter of Hot Lesbians everywhere (don't worry, wer'e not talking Dick Cheney's daughter here), MORE popular than "Mounting Rush-More"?

That's right, Limbaugh came on after Stern in most markets (Stern getting the MUCH more lucrative morning hours, Limbaugh in the afternoons, which migth have accounted for Limbaugh's lower ratings compared to Stern's), and while I do feel Stern would make a viable candidate, these otehr two are so desperate to stay centered within the National Debate, they have reduced themselves to saying ANY vile thing they can think of, just to keep people talking about them. I, for one, have had enough of the antics of BOTH of those cowards, draped in the flag (neither had the guts to serve their country), those balding overweight almost-men who are so terrified of their own obsolesence, they will say or do anything.

The point being, just agreeing with someone with the means to get the message out, does not mean you should elect the messenger.

Limbaugh and O'Reilly qualify only as "Tabloid Entertainment", not even as worthwhile as a good Jerry Springer episode, and THAT is some tabloid TV there, let me tell ya.

Answer 3

For two key reasons. First, despite each host's large listener base, both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are far too polarizing of figures to even remotely entice potential voters from the other side of the aisle. Admittedly, I'd think O'Reilly would have the better shot because of his more centrist stance; however, as I said both are extremely polarizing. Second, neither has the desire to run or become President of the United States. Both firmly believe they wield more power from behind the microphone then they could ever hope to from behind the desk in the oval office. I mean, look at what O'Reilly has been able to accomplish regarding child abduction/molestation laws in states all across the country by making it the center point of his show.

Answer 4

They are entertainers, not politicians. Rush has said, many times, that he would have to take a huge pay cut if he were elected to office. Rush is not a "suckup." So he would not be too good at kissing peoples butts to get votes.

Answer 5

Neither of them want to take a pay cut.

Oprah likely has the same reason for not running. She would be far more popular than Hillary, and she would gain a considerable following from conservative women.

Answer 6

Darth Limbaugh will be the next emperor of the galactic federation. Presidents will bow to him.

Answer 7

When you are an entertainer, you are, at most, a moments amusement. When you are a candidate anything you have ever done will be spread out for the world to see and comment on. That's what we have come to. A talk show host is different.
Its so much easier to make up your facts than hire a researcher, its so much easier to find a blog somewhere that agrees with you so you can call the NY Times a liberal mouthpiece. Why worry about the truth when you can make it up?

Answer 8

They make way to much money where they are. Rush gets over $250 million on his contract. If he runs he will have to give it all up.

Answer 9

Loud mouths and know-it-alls rarely make good leaders. It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Answer 10

I'm conservative and a nationalist far as America's security is concerned, but I can think of better candidates.