Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Second Look at Limbaugh's Travails
GOPUSA ^ | January 12, 2004 | Carol Devine-Molin

Posted on 01/12/2004 4:29:11 AM PST by tornado100

Several months have elapsed and I thought it might be interesting to re-examine the plight of radio megastar Rush Limbaugh. In my previous article on Limbaugh's troubles entitled "Limbaugh's Secret Life", I was initially criticized for accepting The National Enquirer's contention that he was addicted to prescription narcotics. Heck, I was also skewered for surmising that the conservative icon was likely to be subject to arrest, pursuant to his drug activities. In hindsight, I think my points were well taken. My article came out about five days before Limbaugh publicly acknowledged his addiction and need for rehabilitation. And now criminal charges against Rush might be unavoidable, if the Palm Beach prosecutor has his way. I have no crystal ball, just plenty of life experience. In fact, I'll be quite happy if I'm wrong about this situation. However, there's no need to fret -- even if Limbaugh takes some type of plea, he's looking at court supervision rather than jail time.

Now for some pertinent background information --The National Enquirer vets its front page exposés of celebrities with a phalanx of attorneys, certainly more thoroughly than anything that you would read on the front page of The New York Times. That's a sad commentary on our modern culture, isn't it? Common sense dictates that the tabloid was not going to place itself at the mercy of Limbaugh and a libel suit. The National Enquirer couldn't afford to be wrong. That said, I rightly judged that the essence of the story - Limbaugh's significant addiction to painkillers - had to be accurate otherwise the publication would not have gone to print with it. But what about those that categorically reject anything published in The National Enquirer, claiming that it's all pure drivel rife with abundant sensationalism? I'll readily concede there's a lot of innuendo and spinning that's intended for pure titillation purposes in The National Enquirer - But the lead stories (such as the Limbaugh piece) often contain significant morsels of truth, which is directly attributable to decent investigative reporting by journalists such as David Wright and oversight by attorneys. To some degree, The National Enquirer and its sister paper, The Star, get a bum rap. Many "junk paper" aficionados point out that the supermarket tabloids sell millions of copies each week precisely because they deliver genuine tidbits to their readership.

Since Limbaugh's return from residential treatment, he's verbally eviscerated the tabloid for relying on the statements of a couple who had "blackmailed" him. His anger toward the tabloid is totally understandable. However, it's important to note that although The National Enquirer didn't get everything right in their article on Limbaugh, it certainly got much of the story right - at least the key elements. As an aside, Limbaugh violated a fundamental precept in life that you should never, ever permit yourself to be blackmailed. And it demonstrates Limbaugh's depths of despair in his attempts to manage a dire, no-win situation. Ultimately, it was really Limbaugh's responsibility to have gone directly to law enforcement authorities if he was being blackmailed, but he chose not to do so. Clearly, he wanted to avoid scrutiny of his own drug involvement.

Despite Limbaugh's shortcomings, his fans have remained profoundly loyal. Rush's audience numbers are peaking at an all-time high due to his incisive political analysis that's the best around.

(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: addiction; junkie; limbaugh; prosecution; rush; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 next last
To: Dr. Scarpetta
Actually, I was just wondering what drugs you think Rush is currently taking to help him get through the crucial period after rehab.

Couldn't begin to speculate. I'll go ahead and tell you publicly after all: I have never used any anti-depressants, and used no drugs of any kind, prescribed or otherwise, during that crucial period.

I used prayer when urges hit. I called my NA support list people. I called my Sponsor. I went to meetings. After time, the urges got smaller and more managable.

121 posted on 01/12/2004 3:19:45 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Matchett-PI
I am not worried about Rush---HOWEVER----I am worried about you!
Psychobabble is not a useful "diagnosis"


Thanks, MatchettPI, for shedding the "light of truth" and relaying the "rest of the Story" in Rush's own words!
122 posted on 01/12/2004 3:21:04 PM PST by oldglory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"He has not yet admitted he is powerless over his addiction. He still thinks his life can be manageable with drugs. It's obvious to me."

You are obviously claiming to be able to read his mind.

Is your second statement a stand alone (independent of your first statement), or is that the 'mind-reading' conclusion you arrived at as a result of a false belief (the first statement)?

Since you claim to be able to read his mind, and have also said that his tone has changed (I, personally, haven't noticed any such change) since those first days when he got back, maybe you would be so kind as to show the rest of us how his thinking (and tone) has changed from what he said the bottom line is when he first got back, here:

"You can boil it down to one real simple essence: I can't be responsible for anybody's happiness but my own, and if I allow somebody else the power to determine my happiness, then...well...that's something I don't want to do. I can't do [it] any longer. I put myself first. Doesn't mean be rudely selfish. It just means I can't depend on other people to make me happy. I have to do that myself. I'm the only one who has control over that."

123 posted on 01/12/2004 3:33:04 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dell Dude
"Nobody cares anymore what skin color the ..."

Karl Marx laughed at the clueless and admitted how much he depended on them. Hahahaha

124 posted on 01/12/2004 3:42:02 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Your words are inspirational.
125 posted on 01/12/2004 3:43:12 PM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
"Your words are inspirational."

I'll bet you perceive these words as quite irritating, since they give no hope to those who want to use Rush to promote their agenda to his vast listening audience:

"You can boil it down to one real simple essence: I can't be responsible for anybody's happiness but my own, and if I allow somebody else the power to determine my happiness, then...well...that's something I don't want to do. I can't do [it] any longer. I put myself first. Doesn't mean be rudely selfish. It just means I can't depend on other people to make me happy. I have to do that myself. I'm the only one who has control over that."

Hahahaha

126 posted on 01/12/2004 3:57:52 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I respect you. You have experience here. Most of the others on this thread don't. I hope you are wrong about Rush. I hope. But you are worrying me. You see, my best friend was a junkie for years. This looks bad.
127 posted on 01/12/2004 4:50:42 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tornado100
Blow hard, Rush
128 posted on 01/12/2004 5:02:39 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
You are obviously claiming to be able to read his mind.

Golly, Matchett. I seem to really be pissing you off here. I don't mean to do that. I'm just drawing my experiences that I have had, in the rooms of NA (of which I just returned from one *just now*) to speculate -- and I do stress, speculate -- on Rush's present recovery.

The reason it seems obvious to me that he hasn't gotten the First Step1 yet, is he has not surrendered to his addiction. Oh, he paid a good deal of lip service to it at the beginning, and heck, we've all seen the addict that learns the "proper" thing to say -- who then goes out and uses. I have lost friends in this program who have done just that.

But when he begins blaming all sorts of people around him -- which you cannot deny he has been doing lately -- for various predicaments he finds himself in, he has not surrendered. It is axiomatic to an addict that part of surrender is a complete surrender into the consequences of his using.

Took me a long time to understand that. Rush is just doing typical textbook-addict behavior.

Now, I suspect, because you seem to have something invested in this, that this will send you into a paroxym of posting, and pinging strings of people (to serve as fellow hecklers?), but I don't care. I really don't. I'm going to call this disease as I see it, and since Rush matters to me, I'm going to apply my life-lessons to assess where I speculate he is at.

Enjoy or ignore, I really don't care.

1 The First Step of Narcotics Anonymous: "We admitted we were powerless over our addiction and that our lives had become unmanageable."

129 posted on 01/12/2004 6:06:40 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I respect you. You have experience here. Most of the others on this thread don't. I hope you are wrong about Rush. I hope. But you are worrying me.

Thank you, EveningStar. I think Matchett thinks I am attempting to denigrate Rush. How very opposite of my intent that it is. He is a fellow recovering addict. I wish he was in my Home Group. I just got a year clean, so I don't feel comfortable Sponsoring yet, but for him I'd make an exception. I want to see him succeed.

Plus, he is an icon for me. He turned my viewpoints around. He has done more good for Conservatism than any one other person, William Buckley included.

Matchett won't change my mind on my opinion of his progress. Ya can't bullshit a bullshitter, and I was one of the best. We in NA often see right through crap, cuz we been there, spouted that.

see, my best friend was a junkie for years.

Is he/she alive? Are they clean?

130 posted on 01/12/2004 6:11:05 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
Your words are inspirational.

Thank you sir. But, they are not my words. They were taught to me by other addicts who have decades clean. Since they have this success, and since I didn't, I decided to heed their advice. How incredibly lucky for me that I did -- I might be dead right now, otherwise.

131 posted on 01/12/2004 6:13:19 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
When the State Attorney's Office failed to develop any traction on "money laundering" charges against Limbaugh, it then seized his medical files from four doctors and opened them up for review.

This means they are on a witch hunt for sure.

132 posted on 01/12/2004 6:14:01 PM PST by ladyinred (W/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I'll bet you perceive these words as quite irritating, since they give no hope to those who want to use Rush to promote their agenda to his vast listening audience:

Hahahaha

Sir -- and I mean this in the most inoffensive way possible -- but you have anger issues.

Don't look to the darkest possible motive in every person. Not all of us will be able to measure up to the bar of "raw evil" you set for us.

133 posted on 01/12/2004 6:15:18 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: oldglory
I am not worried about Rush---HOWEVER----I am worried about you!

I appreciate your worry, and ask if you could include me in your prayers every now and again. Being clean from drugs is difficult, but wonderful. Thanks.

134 posted on 01/12/2004 6:17:34 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !

That's very catchy...reminds me of a conjugation!

135 posted on 01/12/2004 6:56:23 PM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
That's very catchy...reminds me of a conjugation!

Sure it wasn't a conjunction?

136 posted on 01/12/2004 7:01:26 PM PST by Lazamataz (I slam, you slam, we all slam, for Islam !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
In either case, Rush would wind up with some type of supervision within the criminal justice system. In New York, it's essentially an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of charges after a year. And during that year, the addict is expected to comply with treatment and supervision by the court. If the addict cooperates, charges are dropped. If the addict fails to cooperate, then the system moves forward with charges. With Rush, they could work out a plea up-front (probably with probation or some other alternative to incarceration), or they could go with the pre-trial drug court supervision. In either case, Rush would wind up with some type of supervision within the criminal justice system that involves the monitoring of drug treatment including urine testing. I'm familiar with the New York system, not so much with the Florida system. But again, in either case we're talking about supervision as an alternative to incarceration. He's not going to jail so forgetaboutit.
137 posted on 01/12/2004 8:04:52 PM PST by tornado100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
The last time I talked to him was a couple years ago. He was clean then - after nearly 30 years of addiction.
138 posted on 01/12/2004 8:35:51 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tornado100
I have run clients through the drug court system. It is pretty much as a I summarized it. It is very straight forward. Much like your New York system. The difference is no promises or final determinations made while in the program. The accused has to perform first.

It would be interesting to note. 100% of all people in the program were caught red handed trying to get drugs. No user case has ever been contructed into a drug court case using the resources which have been marshaled SPECIFICALLY for Rush's pedestrian case.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the exposure to danger of jail or prison. (there is a difference) The prosecutor is fishing for a non-drug court eligible charge like money laundering, or possession of dealer quantities of a controlled substance. Since entry into the drug court system is mechanically determined, an inelgible charge would be a political triumph for this political case.

The charge alone is enough. They don't need to win against Rush. Afterwards they can claim he "bought" justice with a high priced lawyer. Just sour grapes.
139 posted on 01/12/2004 8:46:24 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
And you're wrong about a trial -- Rush would take a plea, just like more than 95% of people facing charges, rather than go through a trial and risk jail time if found guilty. And Rush is not about to subject himself to the public scrutiny associated with trial.
140 posted on 01/12/2004 9:01:31 PM PST by tornado100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson