Posted on 10/07/2003 5:37:58 AM PDT by jimmccleod
Limbaugh's Secret Life By Carol Devine-Molin October 6, 2003
We conservatives are all saddened by the news that Rush Limbaugh is being investigated by law enforcement authorities for illegal buys of prescription painkillers. If accounts being bandied about the media are accurate, then Limbaugh: a) has procured tremendous amounts of highly addictive narcotic medications from his pill-pushing housekeeper Wilma Cline, and, b) is likely to be subjected to arrest. Oh, by the way, dear Wilma sold her hot celebrity story to The National Enquirer for about four hundred thousand dollars. Am I surprised by the overall situation? Yes and no.
Given Limbaugh's outstanding analytical mind and sharp wit, it's difficult to believe that he's constantly in a drug induced state. Who is more articulate and funny than Limbaugh in the world of political commentary? Nobody. However, the hard truth is this: Among entertainers, media personalities and politicos, substance abuse exists in epidemic proportions. For that reason, many conservatives have quickly moved beyond denial and are prepared to hear the worst of it. And I think the majority of conservatives will continue to be compassionate and supportive toward El Rushbo as long as he embraces rehabilitative efforts.
Limbaugh is clearly the most influential conservative of our era, with a radio audience of up to thirty million listeners each week. He's probably converted more Americans to the conservative persuasion than any individual except Ronald Reagan. Understandably, Limbaugh's myriad political foes rejoice in his current troubles. Al Franken and the radical Left are ecstatic. If the tabloid piece largely pans out, Limbaugh has provided his enemies with significant ammunition in efforts to discredit and silence him. But will those hostile to Limbaugh ultimately succeed in ruining him? I doubt it. His current woes are definitely a setback, but not insurmountable. I would state one pivotal caveat. The only individual who can really bring down Limbaugh is Limbaugh himself. Conservatives will maintain solidarity with Limbaugh if, and only if, he dedicates himself to being clean and sober. However, if Limbaugh continues to dabble in drugs, his legion of fans and listeners will slowly drift away.
Although most people are focused upon Limbaugh's legal circumstances, much more is at stake. Drug addiction is a life-threatening condition, which requires proper intervention. Reports indicate that Limbaugh had been rapidly detoxed twice, but returned to drugs both times. Of course he has to undergo another detoxification, and not of the dubious "ultra-rapid" variety that is completed in 24 hours. But what about follow-up care? I'm referring to a program of drug treatment to prevent relapse. Importantly, with relapse there's always the specter of overdose and further physical deterioration. And Limbaugh will have to fight his addictive inclinations for the rest of his life - that is the nature of the beast. It's encouraging to note that many radio and television personalities, such as Don Imus and Larry Kudlow, are succeeding in their day-by-day recovery efforts.
The drugs taken by Limbaugh - OxyContin, Lorcet and Hydrocone - are terribly dangerous by all accounts. Never mind that they cause a host of emotional side effects including paranoia and mood swings. Now, it's coming to light that at least two of these powerful painkillers are linked to sudden hearing loss. In other words, it's conceivable that Limbaugh's deafness was caused by his own addictive behaviors. If that turns out to be the case, it's not only tragic but speaks to the incredible grip of dependency created by these drugs. On some level Rush Limbaugh, like all substance abusers, has self-destructive tendencies. That's his private business, and his responsibility to explore through counseling. For addicts, arrest is often a good thing since the Court system forces them into essential treatment. Roy Black is a very adept criminal attorney who understands these issues. If Limbaugh is charged with a crime, certainly mandatory drug rehabilitation would be part of the plea bargain. I doubt that Limbaugh would be made to serve any jail time.
As to The National Enquirer article, I read it. And I found it to be credible, rife with details that demonstrate the severity of Limbaugh's substance abuse problem. Limbaugh had at least one other drug supplier besides Wilma Cline, referred to as his "FedEx" connection. Apparently OxyContin is Limbaugh's drug of choice. And law enforcement authorities are in possession of a couple of tapes, and a bunch of emails, that substantiate the claims made by Wilma Cline and her husband regarding Limbaugh. The Cline couple cut themselves a very nice deal with the people at The National Enquirer that are experts at marketing
So you buy your drugs illegally to keep your usage secret from the doctor? If not, it's apples and oranges.
Dear Rush,
I rarely listen to your show anymore because most of what you talk about is football and golf, neither of which you know crap about. But I do listen from time to time just to see if there is anything important being talked about. If you are guilty of the things you are being accused of but refuse to deny, I will never listen again. It's because you stopped "seeking the truth" and your support of the WOD doesn't square with what you are accused of doing.
If you are innocent of the accusations against you, I hope you are totally exonorated and your accusers are made to pay big time.
I'm sure you will concider this to be hate mail, but it's not.
Good luck, Protagoras
Typical Liberal! You hate Rush, so you eagerly latch on to the latest attempt to "hush Rush" in hopes that this will be the one that succeeds. Then you LABEL anyone that points out the absurdity of the accusations made against him a "Kool-Aid drinker."
Don't think you're going to get a pass from me when this all shakes out, and these bogus charges are dismissed. I will remind you of your foolhardiness in believing these lies. I will remind you at every opportunity!
This is factually incorrect, and puts a spin on the story. Rush Limbaugh is not the target of the investigation. The tone of expressing "sadness" over the investigation implies guilt. It is a "statement of fact" accompanied by an implication of guilt.
Personally, I'm not saddened by the fact that Rush is involved in a Police investigation, because I know that Rush will be cleared in the course of the investigation. This is the Dimocrat mentality that surfaced during the investigation of Clarence Thomas based soley on "the seriousness of the charges" made by Anita Hill. The accusations agains Rush have to be true due to the seriousness of the charges right, RAT-boy?
While I can understand how you're interpreting those words, with all due respect, that's a very nuanced and cynical interpretation, and probably not an interpretation that many people share. It's hardly a good basis for making charges like you did against the author.
There is, at the joints of the tiny mechanical mechanisms of the human ear, lubrication that eventually deteriorates with age and by other causes.
For a long time, hearing specialists have "written that off," not realizing how sensitive the whole of the machine actually is, to not being properly lubricated.
Sounds funny, and simple; but the particular medical center is now particularly attentive to this.
Nerves are a funny thing. They rely upon input to justify their existence and growth.
A lubrication problem of the hearing machinery of the human ear, can apparently cause the nerves to lose the evidence they need to justify their livelihood.
Deprive a sensory nerve of what is listed in its table of expectations, and it may be surprised to find that it does not get fed.
Re-introduce input, and sooner than you may expect, the nerve is launching flares to the brain, Hey! How 'bout some respect!
The thought that drugs might cause hearing loss, is accompanied by the thought that drugs might cause hearing recovery, and vice versa.
As well as "experts" do not know why some drugs cause hearing loss, they also do not know what drugs will cause hearing recovery.
But because they are "experts" who need money for further research, they tend to take a position; and because they have egos "and reputations," they tend to defend their "reputations" long past the evidence to the contrary.
"Professional" obstinence all too often wins over what works, such as thoughtful abstinence.
If you know that a drug causes hearing loss, then you know the mechanism, and you know much the tools you need, such as another drug, to reverse the problem.
Prednisone is not a specific drug; it's a shotgun drug.
There are a lot of shotguns out there. Some may arguably be specific. That is the subject of much statistics taking that may show correlations.
However, it's a stretch to write that the A to B to C causes are known.
In fact, for now, they are not known.
The clinic that Rush went to, tried to use drugs that would establish a climate for healing. Most probably, because Rush is in a profession demanding day to day attention by him. Most back sufferers who opt for surgery, are in a similar boat. They "do not have the time" and will opt for quick cures.
Surgery to correct drug-caused damage to nerves, is the claim by Rush's prosecutors.
The prosecution will have to show that the drugs targeted the nerves mostly between where the surgeons cut to cure and the ear, because the remainder of the nerves back to the brain, would have to be proven well enough to justify the surgery.
Granted, there are ambitious D.A.'s out there who will prosecute a fire hydrant and a large boulder in your front yard, but it is very difficult to make a case for drugs causing the "bad leg" of Rush's ear nerve harness, and then making the case for cutting off that leg because drugs are the source.
The doctors at the House Institute, would not, and did not, make that case.
They suspected a "bad leg."
They stretched a little, to take a position that the cause was AIED ("autoimmune inner ear disease").
They took that position because the patient presented, as far as they could tell, a "bad leg," as distinguished from a bad branch or trunk.
"Now the alleged drugs; what is their nature that they would attack the leg but not the branch nor trunk? The drugs are everywhere. What's so special about the branch and trunk nerves?" will say Rush's attorneys.
And the prosecution will say ...
There is no case on this approach.
That Rush had some hearing loss, whether permanent or temporary, cannot be used as proof that he "took drugs."
Incorrect. "I rarely listen to your show anymore"
You only demonstrate you are an ephemeral opportunist who is bashing Rush not on the merits of the case
There is no "case". Only an allegation and silence.
but on the preconceptions for whatever bizare philosophy you espouse.
So if you don't know what my philosophy is, how do you know it's bizzare? In anycase, it's off topic.
Good luck with your therapy.
Thanks, my knee feels better.
(Personal attacks never take the place of logical commentary on pertinient facts)
It's kind of ironic. When the decision to let go of the fairness doctrine was being discussed, know who raised the biggest fuss? Religous organizations. That's where the Madelyn Murray O'Hare "no more gospel on radio" urban legend came from. They were sure that without time set aside for "public affairs" where most rebuttals of the culture were being made, they feared there would be a culture gone wild an no one to counter it. Maybe the hand wringing about the fairness doctrine now is just as baseless.
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.