Don’t kill the goose that lays golden eggs!

This is not the first time somebody has tried to get Rush Limbaugh fired.

Nevada's own Rep. Shelley Berkley has signed a petition urging Clear Channel Communications Inc. to get rid of Limbaugh's syndicated radio show. She's encouraging others -- including her rival for the U.S. Senate, Dean Heller -- to sign it as well.

Berkley has already forced Heller to denounce Limbaugh's comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke (Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" before apologizing amid an advertiser exodus).

My question for Berkley: Why?

Aside from the incongruous image of a U.S. congresswoman working to silence a citizen, I don't get why would Berkley or any Democrat want to silence Rush Limbaugh.

Have the Democrats not used Limbaugh to castigate every Republican in the land, from Heller all the way up to Mitt Romney -- whose weak-tea reaction was to say he'd not have chosen the same words as Limbaugh's, thus allowing for the possibility that he shared the sentiment if not its expression? Have Democrats not forced Republicans to stop talking about the economy, jobs, immigration and other issues to focus on Limbaugh's verbal assault on Fluke?

A word about that, by the way: Fluke was undoubtedly the victim of a churlish and ungallant assault from Limbaugh, but was she or any of her Democratic defenders really surprised? What about his advertisers? Did AOL, Sleep Number or LegalZoom just now discover that Limbaugh is given to caustic, over-the-top remarks? Did none of these people have access to radio before last week?

Take it from somebody who knows: If you're going to put yourself forward to comment on politics, you will be subject to retaliation. That's just how it is.

Berkley was traveling Thursday and unavailable for an interview, but I suspect she'd defend her petition signing by saying it's her job as a leader to stand up against hateful speech.

And this brings us to the real reason Berkley should rethink her stance on getting rid of Limbaugh: Silencing hate does not erase hate; it simply drives it underground. That's one reason I want Limbaugh on the air. I'm a frequent listener to his show. (I even agree with him, from time to time.) I find his show somewhat entertaining, which is precisely the point. Believe Limbaugh when he says his primary purpose is not to lead a political movement or be the de facto leader of the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement. His job is to build and hold the largest audience possible, so as to make money.

That's it. That's all there is. And in order to do that, he will say or do pretty much anything. And he's hardly alone in the world of entertainment, either. (Republicans are demanding to know where the Democratic outrage was when HBO host Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin with a particularly nasty word.)

But instead of loathing Limbaugh, Berkley and the Democrats should love him. The more outrageous he is, the more the movement he speaks for (inadvertently, if nothing else) shows itself for what it is: Uncaring. Insensate. Divorced from reality. Driven by paranoia, fear, unreason and yes, hatred.

There's an unfortunate tendency among people on both sides of the aisle to want to silence their opponents, as if silencing contrary views is the same thing as winning a debate. It's not. It's the same thing as quitting a debate. And that's not what we're about in America.

Democrats, leave Limbaugh alone. The man who describes himself as a harmless little fuzzball is one of your party's greatest assets.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.