This should not be surprising. Some years ago the Defense Science Board -- since we are speaking of these things as a "war" -- conducted a study of military strategic communication. I take its key findings to be these:
Information saturation means attention, not information, becomes a scarce resource.
Power flows to credible messengers.
Asymmetrical credibility matters.The first point is independent; the second two are related. Attention is the scarce resource: thus, the speaker who can command attention is the minter of the coin of the realm.
Now take the second and third points together. What this means is that credible voices are more likely to be powerful and effective, but that what makes someone credible isn't an even game. In the case of these bad actors, what makes them credible is that they are voicing deeply felt feelings that echo in many people's hearts. Thus, even when they make the most incredible statements as points of fact, they are asymmetrically quite highly credible. Thus, insofar as their message gains attention, they will gain power.
The current disruption of Mr. Limbaugh's revenue stream may be an exception to this general rule; but it also may not. He is quite wealthy enough to survive a temporary disruption of revenue stream, and appears to have settled on a strategy (and a very wise one) of using the opportunity to retrench his financial support among groups who will not be susceptible to future disruptions of this sort. He is punishing those who abandoned him, and helping those who are willing to stand by him: this will strengthen his position. It is the general approach of the USMC, when it advises, "No better friend; no worse enemy."
A strategy to defeat these messengers -- right or left -- must be based around denying them the attention that they command. Their credibility probably cannot be undermined, because it is not based on the factual accuracy of their remarks. It is asymmetric credibility.
What is needed is to forward the idea of a general principle of shunning anyone who speaks this way of women. It needs to be applied even-handedly, but it also needs to avoid the error of demanding that political allies of the speaker condemn their remarks after the fact. To condemn the remark is to rebroadcast it, which brings it to new attention among those whose hearts agree with it.
For those who happen to be actually present at the time, of course, it is proper to condemn the remarks and the man making them, if he does not apologize and reform himself. Any gentleman who happens to be present ought to insist upon such an apology with all appropriate force.