A Message To Conservatives: "Your Silence About Rush Limbaugh Is Deafening."

MichaelGraham.com ^ | 12/24/03 | Michael Graham

[suspects]

A NOTE TO MY FELLOW CONSERVATIVES:

Your silence regarding Rush Limbaugh is excruciating.

I like Rush, too, and given that he and I have the same employer, I'm not exactly improving my career prospects by being consistent. It's a bad habit I picked up after years of listening to, and admiring, Rush Limbaugh.

And if we learned the lessons of Limbaugh (individual responsibility and the rule of law), how can we now agree to "Clintonize" ourselves defending him? A drug addiction is one thing, but blackmail? He's allowed himself to be blackmailed for years--the same years he was rightly pounding the stuffing out of the Clintons? And now he claims he's the victim of a politically-motivated prosecution?

What's next: "The b**** set me up?"

Of all the disappointing decisions Rush has made, these last two are the most disheartening. Consider for a moment what blackmail is: An admission that you know what you're doing is wrong.

The decision to fork over the cash is just that--a decision. It can't be any less difficult to make that decision than to decide to, say, go to your lawyer, spill your guts and spend a month in detox at Charter. So why not choose to do the RIGHT thing?

But that's not what Rush chose to do. He chose instead to continue, for years, to do the wrong thing and then--after he was caught--blame the consequences on the vast, left-wing conspiracy. As Rush himself said very wisely and correctly when Jim Carville made the same argument defending President O.J., "It doesn't matter what Ken Starr's politics are if you're innocent."

Bill Clinton wasn't an innocent victim of political vendettas. He was a perjurer and obstructer of justice who blamed others for his own lack of character and its consequences.

Which means, my fellow conservatives, that Rush Limbaugh is....?

I'm sorry, I can't seem to hear you. It must be that deafening silence again.

[Bluntpoint]

Now lets get back to "speculating" about all the people Clinton "probably" killed!

[brownie]

That is fine. He may or may not have broken the law, although the evidence seems to support that he did. It would also be appropriate to prosecute those involved in blackmail. What I am against, is defending someone simply b/c he or she is conservative. That way lies the path of liberals.

[unixfox]

The question was who have they harmed?

The only one harmed was Rush himself. In the mean time he made his housekeeper/maid wealthy.

IMHO, laws against morality should be abolished. It's nobody's business but mine.

[A2J]

Right, whereas when Clinton's "short-comings" were about to be exposed, he merely quibbled over the definitions of the words "sexual relations" and "is".

I agree that Clinton is a filthy piece of human debris and Rush is far from that, however, what bothers me is the incessant hypocrisy of conservatives to quickly (and correctly) attack liberals for unethical, immoral, or illegal activities, alleged or real, and yet give a free pass to one of their own when he/she dances to the same tune.

[Bluntpoint]

What are you wearing?

[CWOJackson]

I'm not as convinced as most people that his records will be leaked. As long as his records remain "sealed" the prosecutor is libel for the release of any of it's contents and we're talking serious law suit here.

[saminfl]

This, "he is an entertainer" is a leftwing myth. He is a political commentator. If he happens to entertain someone, okay.

He entertains me because I know his self-agrandizement is meant to yank liberals around. People who do not listen to him regularly are often fooled by the myth that he is in it to entertain.

[A2J]

Huh, I surmise you think pointing your finger and outright lying(Clinton's intial remarks about Lewinsky) is "conservative".

Dane, while you and I have been on the same side in fighting the libertarian mantra of pro-everything, I find it surprising that you would defend a drug user who has admitted to becoming addicted to drugs much in the same way the casual, recreational drug user becomes addicted.

Rush has enjoyed the pleasure of these pills, apparently for years, and has claimed that pain was the seducer that led him astray. How can you differentiate one from the other?

[RWG]

does not invalidate the points Rush makes

For all the years he was a disc junkie nobody ever suspected he was in a drug stupor most of the time. When we tell the children that here is your brain on welfare and here is your brain at eib the comparison runs contrary to the official anti-drug industry message. The titles by which people called rush, like Mr. Conservative, means that the social and political elite cannot identify a junkie and more to the point the whole country had no clue. Obviously, telling kids how poorly a junkie functions has got to be re-thought.

[Dane]

I am not saying the Rush is Clinton. I'm saying, we should not fall into the trap of defending someone simply b/c he/she is conservative. I do not know, and neither do you, the facts in this case. I do know Rush is accused of breaking the law. If this is true, he should be prosecuted the same as anyone else. Now, if others committing the same crime do not usually get prosecuted, that is fine, but I don't think we should jump to his defense simply b/c he is conservative. At best, it is hypocritical. At worst, it is a sell-out of beliefs and values.

Well take a look for yourself at the prosecution of a non-violent, non-trafficking, first time offender, who has agreed to treatment. The prosecution is almost nil. But what the hey, that fact doen't make for good copy in the liberal media or by those with an agenda on FR, IMO.

[Pablo64]

He,he! I don't have a problem with anybody speculating about things. Let's just be sure we acknowledge that it is just that; speculation. I get bugged when people, how shall I say it, "assume facts not in evidence".

Like I said, nothing wrong with good old speculation. It's the start of many a healthy debate. Let's just call it what it is.

[Dane]

For all the years he was a disc junkie nobody ever suspected he was in a drug stupor most of the time

As the liberal envy just oozes.

[beezdotcom]

I agree that Clinton is a filthy piece of human debris and Rush is far from that, however, what bothers me is the incessant hypocrisy of conservatives to quickly (and correctly) attack liberals for unethical, immoral, or illegal activities, alleged or real, and yet give a free pass to one of their own when he/she dances to the same tune.

I'm not willing to give *anyone* a free pass, including the original poster who set up the strawman comparison between Limbaugh and Clinton.

Besides, it's a little unfair to complain about the conservatives not "policing their own", when to do so, they'll have to claw their way to the bottom of the big liberal pile-on, over an issue that most liberals have publicly claimed NOT to be an issue in other cases. If I saw my kid being swarmed by cops with billy-clubs for stealing a piece of candy, you can bet my first reaction wouldn't be "how DARE you steal candy?" (though it might be be second).

[blackie]

"Until that time he is innocent" ~ Bump!

Today the judge granted Rush a stay on his medical records being opened and they have been resealed ~ after the democrat prosecutor rifled through them. :)

[uncbob]

When Rush has been convicted of something Illegal in a Court of Law, then I will make my judgement. Until that time he is innocent.

Yeah and I guess since the Senate acquitted Clinton he was innocent

[Denver Ditdat]

From what I have read, a large percentage of homeless people are vets

A lot of them claim to be vets, and homeless advocates seem to accept that with little or no follow up. To leftists, those claims don't bear much critical scrutiny if they can make it appear that military service can drive a person to ruin. Read Stolen Valor for an illuminating look at the claims of false vets.

[brownie]

Yes, I disagree with you, therefore I must have an agenda. I stated (very clearly) that I do not know what the typical prosecution of this type of crime is. I also stated that I don't know all the facts in this case (as I'm pretty sure you do not). But a reflexive defense of someone who had 2000 pills is hardly sticking to the values we allegedly have. But, I forget, he is conservative and therefore can do no wrong. It must all be a liberal conspiracy. We learned that defense from Hillary, did we?

[Dane]

But, I forget, he is conservative and therefore can do no wrong.

Where I have stated that Rush's addiction was "right". What I did basically state is that Rush admitted his addiction, and if he was Joe Average, as a first time non-violent, non- trafficking offender, he would get probation.

Please point to me the prosecution against Matthew Perry(Chandler on the TV show "Friends"), who admitted on Larry King that he also had an addiction to prescription pain killers.

You can't.

[RightWhale]

What's to say about Rush Limbaugh? He had a good run, probably still has a ways to go. He's not running for public office, so who cares.

[beezdotcom]

If I saw my kid being swarmed by cops with billy-clubs for stealing a piece of candy,

Ach...'stealing a doughnut' would have made a better overall analogy regarding libs screaming over a drug complaint...