Posted on 12/05/2003 1:42:39 AM PST by j.cam
Funny how the partisan Democratic, liberal journalists in the AP and the rest of the liberal media are not pointing out that the man who is going after Rush Limbaugh, Barry Krischer, the Florida State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (which includes Palm Beach County), is a Democrat. The liberal media are letting people assume that because the Florida Attorney General, Charlie Crist, is a Republican, and because Governor Jeb Bush is a Republican, the Florida State Attorney for Palm Beach, who is going after Limbaugh, is also a Republican.
We saw the liberal media do the same thing during the Democrat Gary Condits scandal. Before the liberal media were exposed by conservative media like Rush and the Media Research Center, the liberal journalists were leaving out Condits political affiliation and implying he was a conservative Republican. According to the MRC:
"Normally, a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' label is presented nearly every time a member of Congress is cited, as in 'Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA).' But since May, the three broadcast networks have practically erased the 'D' from Condits political identity, detaching the scandal-plagued politician from the rest of his party.
"From May 14, when Chandras mother, Susan, appeared on Good Morning America to plead for her daughters safe return, through July 11, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs aired a total of 179 stories about Gary Condit 121 full-length reports or interviews, plus 58 brief anchor-read items. MRC researchers reviewed each story, and found that Condit was labeled a 'Democrat' only 14 times, or in fewer than eight percent of stories. Six of those labels, or almost half, came paired with adjectives such as 'conservative' or 'right-wing' which distinguished Condit from other members of his party." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/reality/2001/fax20010712.html
There is no sign of Krischer's political affiliation when the liberal media discuss his persecution of Rush.
Even ultra-liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz states that people are not prosecuted for what Limbaugh did. On October 10, 2003 on CNNs Wolf Blitzer Report, Dershowitz told the liberal Wolf: generally people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted where as people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/wbr.00.html
Dershowtiz added that Rush should not be singled out: don't single him [Rush] out. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/wbr.00.html
The persecution of Rush Limbaugh is another Democratic witch hunt, just like when the Democrats put Linda Tripp on trial after the Clinton scandal even though they had no case against her: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/12/14/51514
They indicted Tripp on July 30, 1999 persecuted her for about 10 months, and then dropped the case on May 24, 2000 because they had no case.
12/5/2003
You obviously have me confused with someone else who replied to you with the above.
You say: As far as the unjustness of the law - if there even is a violation (I know little about Florida drug laws and less about Rush's case), it would be hypocritical to pretend it doesn't apply because of who the defendant is; we would both, I think, insist on the same treatment for a Kennedy.
I clearly stated that if the law is bad, and if it is normally unenforced, it is wrong to enforce the law on Rush simply because of his politics, even if the law is on the books. That is called political persecution since the law is only being enforced because of the politics of the person. What part of that do you have trouble understanding? Would you like me to repeat it again? And you are wrong about my opinion on the Kennedys. It would be wrong to politically persecute a Kennedy simply because he is a liberal Democrat. If one of the Kennedys in California had uncle Teddy from Massachusetts over for dinner, it would be wrong to arrest that Californian Kennedy for harboring a weasel. Even though harboring weasels is illegal on the books in California, it is law that is never enforced, and it would be wrong to enforce that law on a Kennedy simply because he is a liberal Democrat with a weasel for an uncle.
You say: If it is bad law, any prosecutions will be overturned anyway. And if it is bad law, it can be repealed. If it is NOT bad law, than those guilty of violating it - and I emphasize I'm not saying Rush did violate any laws - should suffer the consequences.
Even if it is enforced against no one else??? Arent you being silly?
He might want to know if the Palm Beach County and Florida state prosecutors have been doing this case using hush money from the Democratic National Committee. If it is, this could result in a number of prosecutors wondering why they're a target of both state AND Federal investigations on why they are going after Rush.
We are in a state, I think, of violent agreement. Regarding the Kennedys, I would want the same law applied to them as to Rush and to Joe Sixpack irrespective of other considerations. Obviously if it is being selectively applied, then the problem is not necessarily with the law but with the prosecutors. And yes, that does qualify as political persecution. But selective application of a law doesn't make it a bad law in and of itself.
As to the specifics of the law in Florida - and how it is (un)enforced - I am no expert. But nothing erodes trust faster than hypocrisy, so we have to make sure we don't give media enough ammo to start screaming "hypocrisy", and we know they will, given the smallest opening.
Personally, I think the prosecution will, within a few weeks, quietly drop the case. Rush is not stupid, and has a backbone, has an enormous popular following, and has the ability to hire top-drawer legal counsel. It's a no-win situation for the prosecution.
What planet do you come from??
What about littering?? Driving while using a cell phone or without a seat belt?
Protection from abuse statutes?? Code violations? Business license infractions??
In reality, law enforcement ignores lawbreakers every day, depending on the prosecutor's own particular take on what should and shouldn't be enforced.
Some prosecutors are against the death penalty, and therefore will not bring a capital case to court. Some prosecutors are big anti drug enforcers - and usually people know whose those particular prosecutors are.
If this thing with Rush is what it sounds, this is the biggest bogus waste of time going, and this coming from someone who is sort of anti-illegal drugs.
In addition, the "War on Drugs" has made it a living hell for doctors to manage pain in this country.
Whether the law is good or bad, selectively applying the law on someone because of his politics is wrong.
Well, of course the media doesn't ever impute any partisan motives to prosecutors. Why, think back to Ken Starr -- you'd have to delve deep into his background to discover he's a Republican -- the media scrupulously refrained from reporting that fact.
< /sarcasm >
Good catch.
Yeah really. Here she is with Marxist W. Palm congressman Wexler cbg dug up.
She is one nasty ho.
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.