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.

[laredo44]

LOL! Yes, the recreational use of drugs is a high principle to some.

The principle I argue is liberty. Some find that amusing. Others are simply confused believing liberty to be restricted to approved actions.

No word on whether you believe the Christians or the Romans were the source of the harm? Were runaway slaves the cause of the harm of the floggings administered to them?

[CWOJackson]

"The principle I argue is liberty. Some find that amusing."

LOL! I love liberty, it's your idea of liberty that I find amusing.

[garbanzo]

What do you think those 900 FBI files were for?

[Hacksaw]

Only after his "short-comings" were about to be exposed.

Wrong. He went to rehab twice before.

[k2blader]

Almost every Rush thread I happen across reminds me why I will never vote Libertarian.

[Lurking Libertarian]

When Rush has been convicted of something Illegal in a Court of Law, then I will make my judgement.

Last I heard, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton was ever convicted of anything in a court of law.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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."

Worth repeating.

[laredo44]

I love liberty

You hide it well.

Still no answer on the causes of harm? Still maintaining that the offenders of the law always bring it on themselves?

[Tax Government]

One of those liberal rantings about substance abuse being a disease.

Addiction is indeed a medical problem, i.e., a disease, and one with out a medical solution.

And, although you/we would jail or execute a mentally ill person under some circumstances, and jail a mentally impaired drug user, there needs to be a better way. Drug avoidance can be made a matter of morality; we can punish some in hopes of deterring others. But, once addiction sets in, the person's ability to choose effectively is compromised.

Consider the most physiologically addictive behavior of all: sex. How many people successfully avoid that in their youth? How many more claim to but in fact do not, and spend a lifetime addicted to non-normal sexual behavior and lifestyles? Plenty. There is the proof of how addiction can distort will and personality.

The brain is altered, possibly 'rewired' by addiction; what better word than 'disease' is there to describe that?

[CWOJackson]

"You hide it well."

That I find your ideas of liberty amusing? Sorry if I left you with the impression that I didn't consider your ideals and priorities asinine right up front.

"Still no answer on the causes of harm?"

Of course not. As I've already told you before, I have no intention of enabling your circular argument BS. Granted, it's entertaining but it's still a waste of time.

[B0rat]

Granted Rush Limbaugh is trully not on the moral high ground in terms of substance abuse any longer. However Rush is right that there are people who are trying to use his addiction to destroy him. Mr. Limbaugh remains a powerful man, with many loyal listeners who agree with his criticisms of Democrats. But the largest and probably most corrupt political party is not going to stand by without using this as an opportunity to destroy Limbaugh.

[bc2]

Thank you for once again pointing out the intellectual shortcomings of so-called conservatives who champion the War on Drugs because drugs are "illegal" and therefor must be bad.


If something is automatically "bad" because it's illegal, I guess these same FReepers champion gun control!

But we already know many do...

[Ben Bolt]

And what do you have to say about the violations of our State Constitution ? In your quest to take a cheap shot you might consider wiping the vaseline off of your lens .
Self serving jackass that you are .

[laredo44]

I love liberty, it's your idea of liberty that I find amusing.

Hold on CW, I think I see the problem. Let's say a guy goes out into his yard and picks a plant growing there, takes it into his house and consumes it. My (amusing) notion sees that as an exercise in liberty. Foolishly, I failed to comprehend that the guy's right to liberty requires the permission of his neighbors.

One thing's for sure. With "lovers" like you, liberty needs no enemies.

[CWOJackson]

You're problem is you are always trying to resort to tortured examples of libertarian logic. Entertaining at the best, but hardly meaningful.

[Leatherneck_MT]

And your point is?

I have not accused Bill Clinton of anything.

However it is a well known fact that he lied under oath and was convicted by the sitting judge of contempt of court.

Other than Bill being an unscrupulous SOB and the worst president in recent memory, that's all I can or will say about him.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[bc2]

Should Rush be "prosecuted to the same extent anyone else would be" because his actions are "illegal", or should we make only criminal acts illegal?

What Rush did hurt no one except himself and his family (and listeners to his show who expected better) but in no way were his actions "criminal", because force was not initiated against anyone or their property. He bought and paid for the drugs with his own money.

This, in my opinion, is the crux of the issue, and it is greatly overlooked. Sure, drugs are bad, but in and of itself drug use is not "criminal". Only acts such as theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc can be criminal.

Drug use is no more criminal than possesing a handgun in NYC or DC is "criminal". It's illegal, but that in itself should be "criminal"!

alas, only in a perfect world...

[Leatherneck_MT]

In the eyes of the Law, unfortunately he was.

[jmc813]

It's already cost us the 2nd, the right to privacy, and the right to property to name a few.

That's why the gun-grabbers are such big fans of the WOD.