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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

He was a perjurer and obstructer of justice who blamed others for his own lack of character and its consequences.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

Did Rush claim somewhere that he didn't inhale?

[laredo44]

Themselves as a starter.

What's the criteria for harm?

[MizRiz9]

Who is this Michael Graham and why should I care what he thinks?

[CWOJackson]

Here we go with the circular arguments again. No thanks. If you can't see how they've harmed themselves that would be your own issue, not mine.

[alnick]

News flash: Rush Limbaugh is fallible.

[TexasCajun]

I might say more if I actually knew something about it.

That doesn't stop Michael Graham and others like him.

[Swampmarine]

Rush stepped in his own mess kit. Freep me when he cleans it off.

[HankReardon]

Over at DU the are saying things like, "Hang him!".

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Yup. Paying blackmail is an admission of guilt. His stock is plummeting.

[HankReardon]

If you become addicted while abiding to a prescribed usage and dose, I would suggest that it would be a case of overmedication, regardless.

[cpst12]

>>Paying blackmail is an admission of guilt.

It certainly is an admission that you are doing something wrong and you don't want anyone to find out about it isn't it? How do you blackmail someone that isn't doing something wrong in the first place?

[laredo44]

Here we go with the circular arguments again. No thanks. If you can't see how they've harmed themselves that would be your own issue, not mine.

Nothing circular at all. You made a statement, I asked for your rationale. Given your reluctance to defend a position, I can understand your preference for preaching to the choir.

[HankReardon]

How about anyone who votes for a Republican Senator who voted against conviction during the impeachment? Why exclude them? They put their put their finger in the air and chose "how would the people react to us over this" to their duty and the rule of law.

[arthurus]

self-medicating an underlying emotion or mental disorder.

To a liberal everything is emotional or a sickness and nothing derives from reason.

[CWOJackson]

LOL! You asked a question and didn't like the answer...it's as simple as that.

[rhombus]

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.

Perhaps so, what I heard when I read the article was the usual pattern of attacking someone else as a defense for Clinton's actions. Despite his admission that Clinton did wrong, for me it sounded as familiar as the "of course his behavior is reprehensible but it doesn't rise to the level" arguments we used to hear during the time of impeachment. Perhaps I was in error in hearing the "politics of personal destruction" being dragged out once again.

[Woahhs]

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.

So they give imunity to a blackmailer to prosecute?!?!?

[Rightly Biased]

Over Here

[Thom Pain]

"2)Unlike Clinton, Rush admitted his short-comings and sought help."

Unlike Clinton, Rush is an ENTERTAINER, and NOT the President of the United States!

[Woahhs]

Rush stepped in his own mess kit. Freep me when he cleans it off.

Consider yourself FReeped.