And he didn't murder his way to the top, like the clintons. He hasn't even pointed out the problems with Vince Foster's death explanation. Its time he did now.
Franken calling Rush a dishonest demagogue? Talk about the pot callling the kettle black...
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.
