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.

[fml]

Good point. I have always had a hard time trying distinguish between those who use illegal drugs for "recreational" purposes and those addicted to drugs for "medical" purposes.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Who in hell is Michael Graham?

Afternoon drivetime talk-show host here in Richmond, VA. I find his show unlistenable.

[sauropod]

Not necessarily.

[Guillermo]

There has been a bit of anti-Rush sentiment on here too.

[Mike4Freedom]

Let me ask you a question, in all seriousness. Do you not see a difference between those who use illegal drugs for "recreational" purposes (often getting hooked, then committing crimes to feed their habits) and those like Rush who inadvertently become addicted to legal narcotics dispensed by doctors for legitimate pain management?

There might be some subtle difference in your moral balancing but in the legal sense, there is no difference, at least as the law is currently. However, if we were ever to restore the full constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights, there would be no laws against either. We would be looking at drug users the same way we look at alcohol users. Some people are self medicating and some are just addicted. Neither goes to jail unless they involve others (say by driving under the influence).

I wonder about the hypocrisy of the drug warriors who probably drink themselves as they advocate long prison sentences for harmless MJ users.

[fml]

Not really, but you need thick skin if disagree with the masses on this one.

[ZChief]

I have two friends from my church who are addicted to pain killers. They have been receiving treatment now for one year and, the other, five or six years. I have seen anguish in both and the downward spiral of the one family. Back surgery for both! (remind me never to get back surgery) These two guys are deeply ashamed of themselves. With one it was extremely hard to understand how he got trapped. I was one to eagerly condemn such individuals until I found that I actually knew some of them. They are both blue collar workers without great resources and have relied on state programs to help. It is painful to watch them and hard to fiure out how to help. I go out of my way to be as friendly as I can.

[HankReardon]

Wrongs committed during active addiction are no less a wrong and no less the responsiblity of the perpatrator. Having said that, to question why Rush committed wrongs, such as submitting to blackmail, is difficult to know without knowing all the details. If NOT actively addicted at the time, I suspect he would have acted properly and turned the criminals over to the authorities. Of course, if he did not over medicate himself to an addictive state he would not have been engaged with criminals at all. But to compare Rush to Clinton? Has Rush enabled the enemy, the communist Chinese the abilty to kill Americans by the millions? How does anyone with logical reason begin to compare these two? Even American criminals should denounce a man who enables the potential mass murder of Americans by our enemies.

[snooker]

I much prefer the mean Dean Hate machine discussions about doing away with the Patriot act.

I mean violating all those peoples' privacy rights and examining what books they read is well you know, it's a crime. Terrorist, don't want to violate their rights either ... send in the ACLU.

Doctor/patient privilege, no problem with that. Go get those Limbaugh records and have a ball. He is a conservative so they have no rights. Of course if it is a Clinturd and the records might prove rape charges, well that's different now isn't it. Can't have that.

The mean Dean hate machine crowd needs to take a cold shower. The Soviet Union is dead and not coming back. So get over it.

[TigersEye]

"Your Silence About Rush Limbaugh Is Deafening."

Probably because most people who have thoughts like this don't want anyone to know that they're a bonehead.

[Woahhs]

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.

It's a little hard to hear when you have your fingers in your ears while humming Michael.

[AppyPappy]

that Rush Limbaugh is....? not the president of the United States.

[Wolfie]

Geez, turning to the Libertarians for a defense? Times must be rough indeed.

[patriot_wes]

Almost as sad as their silence about Dick Simkanin and Joseph Banister!

[Always Right]

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?

When you find a person whose only crime was doctor shopping and they put them in jail, contact me. This prosecution is a joke. They by-passed the real criminal, his maid, who alledgedly blackmailed Rush for millions and got drugs for him. Rush is a user and should be punished as such, which shouldn't involve jail time. Rush deserves probation, maybe subject him to random drug testing and some community service. But this prosecutor is approaching this case like Rush is the serious criminal, when his maid alledgedly committed much more serious crimes. This whole thing is a joke. No one has been subjected to such an overreaching investigation for such a crime, especially given Rush has admitted his problem and sought help. Rush is guilty, but let the punishment fit the crime.

[HankReardon]

If this is the same Michael Graham, he is a conservative talk radio host, sat in for Glen Beck at least one day this week, heard him before. I don't see anything he said here that would cause one to suspect him to be a liberal.

[Woahhs]

So why not choose to do the RIGHT thing?

Which would have been what? Quietly go away? Not defend himself from malicious prosecution?

That's the problem with liberals; they can't form a complete thought. Anything more than a soundbyte and they're scrunching their eyebrows in perplexity.

[TigersEye]

Of course, if he did not over medicate himself to an addictive state he would not have been engaged with criminals at all.

Over medicate? A lot of people become addicted to drugs while using them in the dosages that they are prescribed in. All it takes is a little trust in your doctor and a bit more pain than you can handle.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I make distinctions between the President of the United States breaking the law, and a private citizen who entertains for a living. Forgive my lack of outrage.

If Limbaugh turned out to be an armed robber, it still would not warrant comparisons to what Clinton did while in office.

On the available information, anyone who votes for a Democratic senator who voted to acquit Clinton's impeachment tarnishes their own reputation as much Rush as has tarnished his.

[Lord_Baltar]

"Rush who has admitted to being an addict of legal PRESCRIPTION!!! drugs for a legitimate, extremely painful medical problem?"

Which he purchased Illegally, thereby BREAKING THE LAW.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you don't like the Law, change the Law, but as it stands, Rush either had a Legal Prescription for his Drugs, or he didn't. If he didn't, his obtaining them, and taking them was a violation of law.

Period.