Ken Hamblin comments on Rush Limbaugh

Fox News Channel ^ | 10-11-03 | Ken Hamblin on the Rita Cosby Show

[Matchett-PI]

Did anyone else hear the ludricrous statements that Ken Hamblin made on Rita's show just now?

Among other things, he said that "Rush was given the keys to the kingdom and let us down."

Then he proceeded to puff himself up, making a total jackass out of himself as far as I'm concerned.

I videotaped the whole segment and would replay it and transcribe it, but have to run out for a while right now.

[space cadet]

"Rush has generally been even handed and gracious, even to his enemies."

What drugs are you on?

[space cadet]

"WHY FOR CHRISSAKES ARE WE SO WILLING TO BEAT UP RUSH?!?! IF YOU ARE A SENTIENT BEING, YOU KNOW THIS IS WHAT THE LIBERALS WANT."

Nonsense. Liberals and libertarians want you to defend Rush, and show yourselves to be just as hypocritical as he is. We want you to make lame excuses like "it was only prescription drugs". Then we can ask "What about the people doing time now over prescription drugs? Do they get to walk?"

That's not my first choice, though. My first choice is that you imagine your hero in prison, and maybe get inspired to re-think the whole idea of prohibiton.

[space cadet]

"I note, however, that the Left is not held to the same standard."

Not so. It has often been suggested that both Bill Clinton and George W. should do a little jail time to pay society back for their "youthful indiscretions".

[space cadet]

"Don't you know that conservatives are not allowed to have any human failings at all?"

What about all the other poor slobs caught up in the drug war? Are they not human?

[space cadet]

'As far as "breaking the law," this concerns me very little. Perhaps 5% of the adult population has never broken some law. And I see no problem when those among the 95% who have make assertions that obeying the law is a good thing.'

These aren't just any laws. These are very important laws. These are the laws that are protecting our society from disintegration and barbarism and all manner of horrible things. At least, that is what Rush and his allies claim to believe.

[space cadet]

"Then Geraldo got his two cents worth in by suggesting thay Limbaugh go to jail like Tommy Chong!"

I've seen that suggestion on the web at a couple of places.

Why the exclamation mark?

Rush isn't a god to everbody. At this point, he's just another criminal suspect.

[Atchafalaya]

He effed up. I hope he is able to sublimate and throttle his demons. What this is about is to marginilize/taint the right prior to 2004. It will get a whole lot nastier. If Rush opens up, he wins and so does the red zone.

[space cadet]

"I enjoyed Ken Hamblin in the past, but he made out like Rush was a homeless crack addict and stealing to support a habit of getting high."

You don't think Rush would have stolen if he weren't rich enough to afford the pills? An addict will do nearly anything for his fix. That's close to being the definition of "addict".

[space cadet]

"'I don't question that it started out that was, but his dependency became psychological, not physical.'"

"And you know that how?"

I'm not the person to whom this question was put, but I have 2 cents to throw in.

We know this because Rush admitted to being "addicted", and that is what "addicted" normally means.

However, "psychological" may be a misleading term. I've been reading about the effect of these pills, and it seems to be very similar to cocaine. There is a change in the brain cells, in the density of neurotransmitter receptors. Thus, "neurochemical" might be a better term than "psychological".

The change affects mood, not will. The person will feel very bad - severely depressed - until he gets another fix. But he still has the power to choose, to seek help, or to start betraying the things he believes in to get his fix.

The question is, why does Rush get to use his addiction as an excuse to break the law, when nobody else does? It's just like the Clintonistas, who kept saying _Clinton_ shouldn't have had to talk about his sex life under oath, ignoring the fact that Clinton himself had signed the law that required sexual harassment defendants to do so.

Here's another question. If Rush is to be excused because he is an addict, what about the people who supplied him? Are they to be excused on the theory that they were alleviating his suffering? Or shall it be assumed that they were motivated by greed, so no one need cry if the book is thrown at them?

Writing this has reminded me of a side issue that I might as well comment on. A few people have asked how Rush could have done his show so well if he was high on large numbers of pills. The answer is that he probably wasn't high. Tolerance builds as the addiction progresses, so increasing doses are needed just for the sufferer to feel normal.

[space cadet]

I think Hamblin has had personal experience with junkies. He knows what he is talking about.

[saradippity]

Your number four is excellent,as was your first post on the subject on this thread. Thankyou.

[Badray]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

If Rush didn't have any money, we would never have heard of him. This is a story only because he is who he is.

[zook]

Look, if you're pissed off at Rush's "always obey the law" theme, then you've got a right to jab him about that. But if you're pissed off about all the people in jail for drug crimes, then you can't also jab Rush for breaking the law.

So, which is it?

[zook]

Frankly, I don't think that keeping pain killers away from people constitutes a law that is more important than keeping people from driving 95 mph on Interstate 80. Rush deserves to be jabbed a bit for having harped his "we must obey the law" them over the years. But I also have empathy for him--because, as I said before, there are few among us who have not been in his place.

[Sam Cree]

Good morning!

"I note, however, that the Left is not held to the same standard."

Not so. It has often been suggested that both Bill Clinton and George W. should do a little jail time to pay society back for their "youthful indiscretions".

Well, sure, it would be wrong to say that the Left is completely immune to criticism (Jimmy Carter especially comes to mind). But I don't think it is even arguable that the Left suffers much less criticism than the Right, at least by the national media, for similar behavior. For instance, do you actually imagine that a Republican president could have remained in office after it became public that he was having an affair with a 20 year old intern?

I understand that, to a Liberatarian, Republicans and Democrats look pretty much alike. But the fact remains that the press is very much a part of the Left, and thus an enemy of the Right, a fact which is reflected in their reporting.

BTW, I personally have strong libertarian leanings, and agree that our founding fathers did as well, although I believe it was called "liberalism" in those days.

[Sam Cree]

that the Left suffers much less criticism than the Right = does not suffer much less criticism.

I think I got it untwisted...

[exit82]

With a screen name like "space cadet", you should not be accusing anyone of being on drugs.

I stand by my statement. If you disagree, then educate me.I'll listen.

But don't accuse me of being on drugs when you obviously have some other drug-related agenda on your mind.

[SerpentDove]

>>America is full of Christians who, by definition, are nothing but a bunch of redeemed screw-ups. We tend not to get on our high horses because we are acutely aware of our own weaknesses.<<

Excellent post.

SerpentDove, who is a redeemed screw-up.

[SerpentDove]

Another distinction.

When confronted, rush did not shake his finger in the face of the public and deny the charges with a beligerent tone.

He owned up to the truth.

And he did not hire an army of lawyers at taxpayer expense, to lie to me.

[Sam Cree]

We tend not to get on our high horses because we are acutely aware of our own weaknesses.<<

Yes, I believe that is true for many. But this forum has more than a few Christians that are on very high horses, that go around verbally just blasting opponents, all the while quoting scripture.