Replies

My 2 bits:

1. Don't judge this story until you hear Rush's reaction. If he comes out and says its completely false--it probably is completely false.

2. There are a lot of details about this story that do not jive with what people know about Rush, how he sounds, how he has been acting, etc. Even if the story is not completely false, it is almost certainly embellished.

3. I don't buy the "the Enquirer couldn't print it unless it were true because it would be sued" line of reasoning. Rush is a public figure. To sue the Enquirer and win, he would have to show actual malice. Actual malice means proof that the Enquirer published the story knowing that it was false. Which means the Enquirer can publish any story somebody comes to it with, unless the Enquirer learns to a near certainty that the story is not true.

4. The "something" to this story, if there is a "something," could easily be that Rush for a short time, several years ago, while he was having his ear problems, did get hooked on some pain killer. In other words, something Rush won't be proud of, and makes him look bad, but is not a catastrophe.