Roeper:Funny how this time there's no Rush to judgment (MOTHER OF ALL BARF ALERTS!!!!)

"It's easy for people to say that if they shoot up on heroin the only people they're hurting are themselves. But that's not true. ... Drug abusers destroy their families ... If we legalize these vices, we erode the societal support for prohibitions against crimes such as murder. The erosion of the moral fabric of society is a gradual, insidious process."

As I sifted through hundreds of comments from Rush Limbaugh fans over the last week, some interesting trends emerged.

About 50 percent just wanted to call me names. (Of course, nearly all of those e-mails were anonymous.) I'm not sure what that's all about. Maybe it's just a case of trying to feel better about yourself as you hunch over the keyboard in your bedroom while your mom yells, "You're 37 years old, when are you going to move out!"

Much of the feedback came in AFTER it was reported that Limbaugh allegedly purchased thousands of painkillers from an illegal drug ring in Florida, and after Limbaugh tip-toed through his radio show last Friday, saying things like, "Just trust me on this," and, "I'm going to come clean when I get all the facts and details," and, "I really don't know the full scope of what I'm dealing with ... rest assured, I will discuss this with you and tell you how it is ... maybe more than you really want to know about this."

But the man's entitled to a presumption of innocence until charged, let alone proven guilty. Still, I'm wondering why Limbaugh didn't say: "Folks, I've never illegally purchased any drug at any time in my life."

In any case, hardly any of the dittoheads who contacted me even mentioned the scandal. I guess they're waiting for all the facts to come in before passing judgment -- just as they'd do if Al Franken were the one who might have been popping OxyContins like Skittles.

Curiously, few of Limbaugh's defenders talked about his jelly-spined resignation from ESPN.

On Wednesday, Limbaugh told his radio audience, "All this is really oriented around the fact that I was right," and, "[T]he point is, I'm right about it. I'll say it again today. I'm dead right about it.... "

And then, hours later, Limbaugh quit. You'd think his position would have been: "If ESPN has a problem with me, they can fire me." But El Rushbo said he didn't want to make life difficult for the fine folks at ESPN, so he was stepping down.

About 60 percent of the Limbaugh supporters I heard from were fixated on one topic: my assertions that Limbaugh once told a caller, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back," and that on another occasion he said of blacks, "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

More than 100 e-mailers, many using strikingly similar language, asked me for my sources.

According to FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), Limbaugh made the first comment in the 1970s. The quote is on FAIR's Web site, and it was in the book The Way Things Aren't.

I also relied on an Oct. 8, 1990, story in Newsday, in which Limbaugh admits saying, "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" The article continues with a quote from Limbaugh: " 'You may interpret it as [racist], but, I, no honest to God, that's not how I intended it all ... I am the least racist host you'll ever find.' Recalling a stint as an 'insult-radio' DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for example, telling a black listener he could not understand to 'take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' "

One assumes Limbaugh wouldn't have conveyed feelings of guilt to the Newsday reporter if he never said it. Nor could I find any record of Limbaugh contacting Newsday after the article to deny the Pittsburgh anecdote.

The "12 percent" comment has been cited by FAIR, by dozens of other media sources and by the Flush Rush Quarterly. In October 2000, MSNBC's Lisa Myers said to Limbaugh, "You once told a caller ... '[Blacks] are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?' That's a little bit harsh."

Rush replied: "I really don't remember if I said, 'Who the hell cares?' The, this, but this is a salient point. Twelve, 14 percent of the population is what, is, is, my point, and if somebody says like on my radio, my TV show, said, 'Well, we don't see very many black people there,' 'Oh, what are you basing it on?' 'Well, there's a percentage of the population. Why aren't they represented?' "

However, I will say that if I erred, it was in not going with some of Limbaugh's equally appalling but more easily confirmed quotes about race. Lord knows they're out there.

But I am heartened to learn that so many of Limbaugh's fans are such sticklers for accuracy and accountability. I'm sure they hold their guy to the same standards, day in and day out.

But as for Rush, if he's going to sell books advocating a War on Drugs, then he had better be prepared to be hoisted by his own petard when his head is caught in a vice.

Yes, he should get the same deal he would get if he weren't Rush Limbaugh.

But it is pretty rare for employed consumers of illegal pills to go to jail or face any serious penalty. Dealers, yes, unemployed junkies who steal for their H, yes, people caught shoting up in public, yes; occasionally a middle-class person caught with a substantial stash. But no one gets busted because the gov't made a deal with their dealer. And in general, middle class people popping pills are more likely to get treatment and concern and understanding, especially from the press if they're celebrities (unless, of course, they're noted conservatives).

If we just got rid of all those inconvenient drug laws, we wouldn't have a drug problem anymore. The same could be said about prison rape, larceny and murder.

Absurd comparison. None of us wants to be victimized by rape, larceny or murder. Any legal system which didn't punish these crimes would result in brutal vigilantism and even blood-feds (with murder legal, any of us could kill a criminal, just as well as an innocent).

In contrast, none of us is victimized when one person sells drugs to another, with the possible exception of the second person's family if he's neglected them. But in general, the state punishes us for what we do (e.g., failing to support our children), not for why we do what we do. And that's generally as it should be.

History also shows that one can have all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, be legal (as in the U.S. before 1907), and still have a stable society, but one obviously can't ignore murder without seeing a huge increase in killings, revenge-killings, etc.

All that said, it is possible that legalizing all drugs would have net negative effects. But I'd rather have our hopeless junkies needing to steal $1 a day for their heroin rather than $100.

You offend a lot of people on this board, but you don't care.

Actually, I have (until now) been treated with the upmost respect and acceptance, and in fact, some of the most religous people have been the nicest towards me. The only people I hope to offend are lurking Frankenfans.

I agree, much better to dwell on Rush's pill problem than to seriously combat the $$$$billions that cross our borders like a sewage flood every year for substances like cocaine and heroin.

By supporting the War on Drugs, you and Rush are encouraging the "$$$$billions that cross our borders like a sewage flood every year for substances like cocaine and heroin."

If we just got rid of all those inconvenient drug laws, we wouldn't have a drug problem anymore. The same could be said about prison rape, larceny and murder.

The same could be said, but not accurately. Laws prohibiting real crimes like "rape, larceny, and murder" do not create a huge black market and result in "$$$$billions" flowing south to off-shore producers.

Rush becomes a flawed messenger because of his own failings, but that does not undermine the inherent truth of what the man said

The "inherent truth" of what Rush says about the War on Drugs was undermined by the real truth about the ridiculous War on Drugs long before Rush was exposed as a pill popping hypocrite, so you're half right.

From the article: "Gee, didn't Limbaugh rip Bill Clinton for talking like that?"

Presumably, he means, for dancing around the issue and not answering correctly.

Clinton didn't talk like that. He said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, and I never told anyone to lie, ever."

A much more definite statement. Too bad it was inaccurate.

Rush becomes a flawed messenger because of his own failings, but that does not undermine the inherent truth of what the man said.

I totally agree with this. He may well be a John the Baptist paving the way for the next Reagan.

Nonetheless, if we are to be true to our principles, I think we need not lower our expectations regarding Rush or anyone else. He owes his audience and sponsors the truth about this. He doesn't owe the public, and he doesn't owe the law, and he certainly doesn't owe Richard Roeper.

But he does owe a truthful explanation to the people who have invested their trust and resources in him. I expect no more of him than I would expect of myself in similar circumstances.

A while back, there was an article in a communications journal which "analyzed" Limbaugh's rhetoric. As it expected, it made the usual liberal assumptions, about Rush perpetuating racial and patriarchal hegemonies yadda, yadda, yadda. But what really made shake my head was that the people who wrote this article did not acutally listen to Rush's show or make use of offical transcripts or recordings. Instead they relied on the most biased of second hand sources-anti-Rush websites, newsletters, and newspaper columns-as the source of their citations. So much for peer review.

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.