Palm Beach Post - Limbaugh linked to painkillers

PalmBeachPost.com ^ | October 3, 2003 | John Pacenti and Mary McLachlin

[I_dmc]

Oh, I think the combatants are far more basic than Marxism vs Democracy.

[MattAMiller]

You have two people who approached a lawyer before going to the cops. That sounds legit. Then they finger Rush as the customer and the pharmacy as their supplier, and the pharmacy does turn out to be selling drugs illegally. You have confirmation of half the story there. Then you have no denial from Rush. That doesn't look good.

But a man of Rush's age to suddenly decide to take up perscription drug abuse is just bizzare. And, as everybody else has pointed out, so is the volume.

[MattAMiller]

I just love finding out the source of words.

Then you'll enjoy this.

Online Etymology Dictionary

I've spent many an hour just randomly exploring. He has some good essays in the "Sciolist" section too.

[LittleJoe]

Would you prosecute someone who broke the law?

Is there a victim? Is he a danger to others?

The law should be used to protect the peace, not to persecute harmless individuals.

We have too many people in prison for victimless crimes in this country. Do you believe that these people will leave prison a better person?

[wardaddy]

But how will you feel if you hear the tapes and they are incriminating whether admissable or not?

The political fallout from this has never hinged on criminal prosecution. It hinges on credibility that will be damaged if these claims are substantiated.

I did not find Rush's non-deniability today comforting.

"No, I did not buy nearly 12-24 jugs of illegal narcotic pills from my maid as she alleges" would have sounded a whole lot better than...."when I know what I'm up against I'll come clean or ...."you'll all know more than maybe you ever wanted to"....

It sounded to me like "I'll tell yall what I know when I know what they've got on me".

Not good to me.

Now , everybody is going to go and rationalize away whatever "it" may be. Unless "it" is a complete refutation of a fabrication by these clowns then Rush has a problem....and criminal charges are not the main worry. His image and credibility will be damaged to all but his diehards and the left will never let this go. Fair or not.

[snopercod]

Pizzi bump.

[I_dmc]

Awesome! Thank U.

[I_dmc]

Really, would you let that within 100 meters of anything YOU were gonna eat? ;-)

[I_dmc]

It is possible that the maid was a temp.

[snopercod]

Well...he did say, "Trust me", so I will. Guess that makes me a diehard.

It's a given that his lawyer instructed him not to say anything about the case on the air.

[I_dmc]

Oh, I dunno. In his shoes, I would say nothing at all that I didn't have to. I would be digging to find out who was behind all this, what they knew, and how best to obliterate them. If, of course, I had bought thousands of pills, I doubt I would've said that you (the public) will probably hear more than you want to. Or maybe I would have. My motto is, if John Law is involved, I say nothing that a lawyer doesn't tell me to say.

[Cacophonous]

Well, we're really talking about two different things. I agree that there are volumes of bad laws on the books, and I have, as I've gotten older and perhaps a little more cynical, come to take a libertarian view on drug laws. Understand, I've never used an illegal drug, and never will; it's just obvious to me that the current "War on Drugs" is a colossal and colossally expensive failure. I would like to see Washington, instead of throwing more money at a bad idea, try something different. It would be a terrific precedent if nothing else.

But the solution is to overturn the existing laws using the mechanisms in place to do so, not to ignore them.

As far as Rush is concerned, to go back to my original statement, if it turns out that he has a problem with subscription painkillers that drove him to the black market, and to threaten his housekeeper (and I emphasize the if because we don't know everything yet), then conservatives need to do two things. The first, and most overwhelmingly important, is to get him the treatment he needs to lick the problem. And I will add that conservatives need to stand by him when the liberals shoot their arrows; so far we have rallied around him admirably and need to continue to do so.

And the second is to see that the laws are enforced. To try to make an exception for Rush would amount to the same hypocrisy liberals practice, where their icons are "above the law". Conservatives need to be above the liberals in words and actions. Rush undoubtedly understands this and the rest of the conservative world needs to as well.

[wardaddy]

I would like (actually not really but you get my point) to see some decisive proof aside from allegations.

But, you both sound like you both feel prudent silence may be in his interest....and not just as an abstract notion.

Is that not unsettling to you guys? It is to me. I have generally given great weight to the majority of Rush's views since the late 80s and am very troubled by what I'm seeing so far. I would place him in the ranks with Reagan and Newt insofar as movement galvanizers and this is pretty ugly stuff even if only part true....and aside from him...it gives our foes inexhaustible ammo.

I do not feel good about this. If he is guilty of nothing and the whole thing is a fabrication by the Clines and Ed Shohat, he could have said so from the second it landed.

I hope you guys are right.

[A. Pole]

The next day in the laundry room of Limbaugh's $24 million mansion, he asked his $370-a-week housekeeper for more pills, Wilma Cline told the tabloid. Soon, she said, the couple was supplying Limbaugh with 80 pills a month.

If Rush were smart, his housekeeper would be making twice as much a week. But this would be against his free market ideology, I suppose.

[independentmind]

If Rush were smart, he would not have approached his housekeeper about access to painkillers. So let's see what he has to say about the matter.

[Cacophonous]

I don't know. Works out to $9.25 and hour, which sounds about right for unskilled labor. Is she a full-time housekeeper, i.e., forty hours a week, or does she supplement with other income?

[Cacophonous]

Also, if she's full-time, does she live there so that room and board are part of her compensation?

[A. Pole]

Works out to $9.25 and hour, which sounds about right for unskilled labor.

He, he. It must be exactly what Rush was thinking.

[Cacophonous]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but there is a lot that is not known. The $9.25 is based no a full week; maybe she keeps houses for two people, effectively doubling that (works out to about $36K annually). Maybe room and board are part of compensation.

I honestly don't know; I don't have a housekeeper, so I don't know how that is arranged.

[DoctorMichael]

My Conservative beliefs do not depend on one person.
 

They were already 'present and formed' before Rush.....

.....they will remain unchanged even if he passes.