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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last
To: Lazamataz
Why do you always say, "G-D?"

Is it the "he who must not be named thing" or what?

Just curious, if you don't mind answering.
41 posted on 01/12/2004 6:38:58 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newcats
How many Hollywood celebrities have nationally syndicated show where they would continually talk about the evils of drug abuse, and run done people addicted to prescription drugs?
It's called hypocrisy.

Whoever you think you are referring to, it is not Rush Limbaugh, who never talked about the evils of drug abuse, let alone "continually".

I am concerned for him as I read on this thread from those with experience, that they are hearing signs that do not bode well for his recovery. It'd be nice if you and others who harbor ill will toward Rush summoned up a little compassion. He would if it were you.

And spare me how "mean" he is to the clintons and dems. They deserve everything they get and more, and the criticism aimed their way is of a different sort than the lies such as you have alleged against him.

42 posted on 01/12/2004 6:40:47 AM PST by cyncooper ("We call evil by its name")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain
There has been so much stuff written, I don't remember where I read/heard this, but I heard that Limbaugh wanted to go to the authorities about the blackmail, but his associates (EIB) etcetera advised him to stay quiet and avoid the publicity.

Hindsight is 20-20. (you may use that)
43 posted on 01/12/2004 6:43:36 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain
Anyone over 30 with a brain knows you should get a lawyer immediately if you are in legal trouble of any kind.

People who assume guilt because someone gets a lawyer are very naive.
44 posted on 01/12/2004 6:45:13 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: altura
Why do you always say, "G-D?"

Deut. 12:3-4. We Jews believe that we may not cause the name of G-d to be destroyed. A Rabbi may cause the name of G-d to be destroyed during a special ceremony. Scrolling off the screen constitutes such destruction, in rabbinical eyes. I was unaware of this until I spoke to a rabbi in about 2000 or so about it.

45 posted on 01/12/2004 6:48:49 AM PST by Lazamataz (Watch it, pal.....if you keep it up, I'll steal your tagline next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.
Bump!!
46 posted on 01/12/2004 6:48:56 AM PST by ConservativeMan55 (You know how those liberals are. Two's Company but three is a fundraiser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
Bump for Truth, Justice and The American Way!
47 posted on 01/12/2004 6:49:55 AM PST by ConservativeMan55 (You know how those liberals are. Two's Company but three is a fundraiser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We had a drug awareness program at church yesterday. The
stuff that's out there now is lethal. Thankful you stopped.
- I was pretty naive, although I had seen my cousins with
the dead brain cells & the destroyed livers barely able to
function. After that, I decided not to even start smoking
regular cigarettes much less marijuana and my Coke was
going to be ice cold Coca Cola. Clean feels darn good.
48 posted on 01/12/2004 6:53:03 AM PST by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Thanks.
49 posted on 01/12/2004 6:55:43 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
My brother died 6 years ago due to the abuse of drugs. He was a straigh a student studying at Johns Hopkins to one day become a neurosurgeon. Somewhere along the way he discovered cocaine. Then dropped out of school and moved out west for 2 years. He went to live with a friend who eventually threw him out and he came back here with 2 beautiful daughters and a wife. Started working at a Pizza Hut as a manager and got fired for stealing money. Tried to sell my dads 1 year old Mercedes for $500 to some drug dealer. Father had to ask him to leave and then he moved to Canada to live with an Aunt and 3 months after after that he overdosed by huffing household cleaning products. From a promising future at Johns Hopkins to Death within a 3 years. Wish he did have a true desire to quit because his children will never know what a wonderful father they could have had.
50 posted on 01/12/2004 7:01:19 AM PST by Independentamerican (Independent Freshman at the University of MD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Independentamerican
DAMMIT man. What a testimony to the evils of cocaine! Well, any narcotic, actually....

I went from married in a nice house gearing up for getting a new professional job, to divorced, then arrested (for possession) inside of 5 weeks, so yeah, you can come down quick.

51 posted on 01/12/2004 7:04:23 AM PST by Lazamataz (Watch it, pal.....if you keep it up, I'll steal your tagline next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"What forces most people to get with the program is not THREATS, but a geniune desire to leave the lifestyle."

Thank God I've never had an addiction to anything stronger than coffee, but I've had some friends struggle with it.

Your statement is so true. You can't force someone to want to change. And wanting to change is the only thing that works, not promising that bad stuff will happen.
52 posted on 01/12/2004 7:09:15 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"He really needs to
concentrate on step one: Surrender. I sense he is still thinking he can control his disease. He can't. "

Can you please explain this? I thought you had to learn to control it in order to stay away from the substance.
53 posted on 01/12/2004 7:10:46 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
I will 'splain when I return. I have to run to my Sponsors for a minute or 90.
54 posted on 01/12/2004 7:17:47 AM PST by Lazamataz (Watch it, pal.....if you keep it up, I'll steal your tagline next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The only way addicts get and stay clean is when they are subject to random pee tests and the threat of incarceration.

That's what "hitting bottom" means.

There is nothing wrong with his addiction. He is in pain and he is taking the medication for pain. The rest is for the pure sake of humiliating him.

55 posted on 01/12/2004 7:22:39 AM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
know they had search warrents for four doctor offices, but I thought they only use two of the warrents, but then again I think the two other doctors share offices with the other two. Because these two doctors were dealing with two different ailments, it is not even clear whether doctor shopping laws applies.

There was only two warrents because there was only two doctors offices. Several doctors were in the same office and shared the same records. One of the reasons that the doctor shopping rational is bogus. They just want to find something to use later, either as an arrest or leak to the Enquirer. Things such as having VD in the past, or he's a Homo, whatever they can use against him.

56 posted on 01/12/2004 7:26:08 AM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Scrolling off the screen constitutes such destruction, in rabbinical eyes. I was unaware of this until I spoke to a rabbi in about 2000 or so about it.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting my daily "I learned that on FR" fact.

57 posted on 01/12/2004 7:34:32 AM PST by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We Jews believe that we may not cause the name of G-d to be destroyed.

Maybe so, but you need to read the Bibl , God is not even close to the name of God. His name begins with a J or Y depending on the Hebrew translation.

58 posted on 01/12/2004 7:35:37 AM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Are you implying that Rush "continually talked about the evils of drug abuse"? Care to provide a quote or two to back that up, out of about 10,000 hours of broadcasting, aside from his much-celebrated "white people" comment in 1995?

The summary of this call is pretty much how I remember Rush's pre-95 discourse regarding illegal drug use:

Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
for Monday, December 13, 1993
by John Switzer
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1993 by John Switzer. All Rights Reserved.

Phone Quinn from Ft. Collins, CO

Quinn would like to say "ditto" but he has to disagree with Rush over drug legalization. First, he doesn't think everyone who advocates drug legalization is "totally selfish" because he for one doesn't use drugs of any form, yet he supports their legalization. He does think, though, that by Rush's own logic, Rush is being selfish by not wanting to ban the drugs he uses: tobacco and alcohol.

Rush says that prohibition didn't work before with alcohol and it wouldn't work now; alcohol has been a legal drug for generations upon generations. However, the experience the nation has with alcohol should show that legalizing drugs would be a bad idea, compounding the damages that alcohol bring to society.

However, alcohol is not the same as crack and cocaine, as alcohol can be used in moderation, without it destroying your life. Other, more addictive drugs, however, can't be used in such a manner, and Rush points out that nobody talks about snorting a couple of lines of cocaine before dinner.

Quinn says that alcohol has ruined people's lives, and Rush agrees, which is his point - why legalize these other, more dangerous drugs and make a bad situation worse? Quinn says that Colorado does have a prohibition party on its state ballot every year, and cocaine was legal at one point, so Rush's points about alcohol being okay because of its legality seem to be without merit.

Rush, though, notes that cocaine in the 1800's was used far differently than it's being used today, and he is amazed that anyone could be making a case for the "benefits" of drugs. Quinn, however, says that this is not one of his arguments; rather, he agrees with Milton Friedman who, noting that 10,000 people are killed a year because of the drug trade, believes that legalizing drugs would reduce these crimes and their accompanying deaths.

Rush says that this is another argument altogether, but while drug legalization may stop certain crimes, the result of legalization would be far more devastating to society at large than anything that's happening today. The destruction of the population that would occur should drugs be legalized would be tragic and would far outshadow what's going on now.

People don't live in a vacuum; they can't do drugs without their habit affecting someone else. People on drugs become worthless, useless, and unproductive human beings, and the rest of society will have to take up the slack for these people; as it is now, there are already far too many people who are becoming a burden on the law-abiding and responsible in society. The country doesn't need more people like this.

Quinn, though, thinks that the legalization of drug distributors would help reduce drug use, especially as the black market is far more effective in distributing these drugs than any legal industry could be. Rush says regardless of whether the black market is "more efficient," the answer is not to make government bigger and let it tax these substances.

There will always be a black market for drugs, no matter what, and even those who support legalization would ban its use by minors. And nobody is saying that legalization would reduce the number of addicts. There is also evidence from those countries that have legalized drugs that their experiments are failing.

Rush notes that he says those who advocate drug legalization are selfish because most of these people are drug users who are angry and jealous that their habit is illegal, while those who imbibe alcohol have a legal habit. Human beings, though, by virtue of their birth have a responsibility to help make the world a better place, both now and in the long term. If everyone lived just for the day and for their own pleasure, society would crumble, and there would be nothing left for those generations that would follow.

People cannot dismiss their obligations in this. It is irresponsible to have the government sanction a crime and a destructive habit by legalizing drugs; doing so contributes to the wanton destruction of society. Rush admits that this is a long-term view, but those who disagree with it on the basis of "I want to do my drugs" are being selfish and are thinking of nothing more than their own life. If everyone did this, then what kind of life would be the result? Had modern-day Americans' lived like this, the current generations would have a far different America than now exists.

<end of transcript excerpt>

59 posted on 01/12/2004 7:48:27 AM PST by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ItsTheMediaStupid
I believe the people in this forum who have spoken ill of Rush have never truly experienced the depth of pain that blots out all existence except that agonizing HURTING. With a pain that horrible, a person would do anything to get relief. Some even commit suicide.

In cases like this, the problem lies not with the sufferer, but with the way the government prosecutes doctors for treating their patients with adequate medication.
60 posted on 01/12/2004 7:58:11 AM PST by JudyB1938 (God has such a sense of humor. He moved me to CLINTON, Arkansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 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