Byron York: Rush Limbaugh’s enemies are eager to pounce

When the National Enquirer published its exposé of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s drug use, the part-time comedian and full-time conservative-basher Al Frank-en said that if the allegations led to Limbaugh’s arrest, “I’m looking forward to the perp walk.”

“I’ll be switching channels to get it from every angle,” Franken told the New York Daily News. “My favorite part is when they push their heads to get them down into the car.”

Now it turns out that the stories were true, that Limbaugh is indeed addicted to prescription drugs.

For the most part, liberal commentators have shown more self-control than Franken; as much as they dislike the conservative radio star, they don’t want to be seen as kicking him when he’s down.

“Phony Gucci-Shoed Populist Rush ‘Pigboy’ Limbaugh Admits He’s a Junkie,” read the headline of the popular left-wing website Buzzflash.com.

Part of the reason some on the left are delighted by Limbaugh’s troubles is that they’re still angry over his relentless criticism of Bill Clinton.

They believe Limbaugh’s problems have revealed him for the hypocrite he’s always been.

They can’t be convinced otherwise. But just to remind them of the record, these are some of the things that Limbaugh has not done:

• He has not attacked the former maid who sold her story to the National Enquirer.

• He has not claimed that prosecutors acted unethically or targeted him because of his politics.

• He has not formed an organized-crime-style joint defense agreement with his associates.

Whatever that says about Limbaugh, it certainly shows he has not taken the advice of anyone who served in the Clinton White House counsel’s office.

It is not clear what the legal consequences, if any, will be for Limbaugh. From what is publicly known, it appears unlikely he will go to jail; the criminal investigation in which he was entangled mostly focused on drug dealers, not users.

In addition, there are plenty of cases in which public figures who have engaged in extensive drug use did not go to jail.

Aaron Sorkin, the creator of television’s The West Wing, has long had a drug habit. Sorkin’s addiction, unlike Limbaugh’s, apparently began with recreational use.

But Sorkin has acknowledged his problem for years and in 1995 was treated at the Hazelden Institute in Minnesota.

In April 2001, Sorkin was arrested when authorities found crack cocaine in his luggage at the Burbank Airport. It was his first arrest for drugs.

In June of that year, he pleaded guilty to drug charges and was sentenced to treatment, not jail.

The actor Robert Downey Jr. messed up repeatedly — was caught several times with crack, heroin, other drugs, and, occasionally, a concealed gun — before being sent to jail. Once there, Downey won early release.

And then, out on parole, he was arrested again on drug charges and still didn’t have to go to jail.

So in Limbaugh’s case, Al Franken might well be disappointed. But Limbaugh is going to have to deal with a lot of criticism.

A couple of years ago, the New York Post’s John Podhoretz wrote of Sorkin’s preachy television show: “I don’t know about you, but I don’t need any lessons on theology, destiny, public service, job creation, pay equity or conservative ideology from a crack addict.”

And then there’s Franken, who made a good deal of money with his book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.

On the day Limbaugh announced his addiction, Franken appeared on CNN to discuss the news.

Franken argued that Limbaugh cannot possibly recover from his drug addiction and still do his radio show.

“If he’s going to go into recovery, he’s got to work on a 12-step program,” Franken said. “Those programs are based on rigorous honesty. Then, I don’t think he’ll have a show.”

“I don’t think he can do a show based on rigorous honesty, frankly,” Franken replied. “He won’t have anything to do.”

“You don’t think he can be, in his mind, honest, in his mind, and do the program that he’s been doing?”

That’s rough stuff, but on the other hand, Franken called Limbaugh a dishonest demagogue before the drug business, too.

And besides, none of it will matter if Limbaugh can (1) beat his addiction, and (2) tell his listeners the truth about his problems.

If Limbaugh’s fans sense that he is leveling with them, they’ll keep tuning in. But if they believe that he is being evasive or legalistic — in other words, Clintonian — they’ll leave.

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!

Keep Our Republic Free

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON!
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

I just read a gloater with a confused definition of conservative. Quoted from http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1065873787272280.xml

"If not destroyed, Limbaugh's life certainly seems to have been harmed, but not by the drugs. He is an otherwise upstanding citizen whose reputation is being ruined by the laws against drugs rather than the drugs themselves. At the moment, he looks like the poster boy for the legalization movement. Yet Limbaugh has specifically rejected that movement. Why? I suspect the explanation arises out of the central flaw in the thinking of all of these talk-show conservatives, their hatred for what they term 'elites' . . . Conservatism is by its very nature an elitist philosophy. A thinking conservative would be bothered not in the least by the idea that it's fine for a cultured and civilized citizen to indulge in an activity that might cause chaos when indulged in by his inferiors. If in fact these charges against Limbaugh are borne out, here's what I'd like to hear him say: 'Yeah, I do drugs. Mountains of them. But I don't bother anyone. I'm rich. I don't have to stick up 7-Elevens to pay for my habit. So it's none of the government's business.' " -- Paul Mulshine, Newhouse News Service

Can I do that, or does it need to be posted as a separate article?
Anyway, Mulshine is saying that Rush is a member of the class he (Rush) claims to detest and that this detestation is the central flaw in his thinking. Would Mulshine really gain any respect for Rush if Rush publicly embraced hypocrisy that way? What is he, a Nietzschean?

As a (now clean and sober) libertarian I understand being morally against drugs and their negative consequences, but I think the WOD is being done wrongly. I think people who are acting crazy, high or drunk AND endangering others (both) should be restrained until they sober up. If they actually harm someone, they should be prosecuted (emotional harm doesn't count as a reason to lock someone up; to reject them, yes). I don't believe this opinion is rare among conservatives. And nobody's saying you can't use evidence relating to drug abuse to find violent or property criminals.

But this "Conservatism is by its very nature an elitist philosophy"... It's like calling us Loyalists or something. That kind of conservative went out with the American Whig Party (whom I don't admire at all, I'm a Locke, Shaftesbury, Trenchard and Gordon guy).
It's true that there's a contradiction for a freedom fighter to support this war to keep people from getting high on some chemicals but not others. The ad hominem argument remains a fallacy; just because a guy is inconsistent or wrong in one area, does not prove he's wrong in others.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.