Limbaugh lurches to the left

St Peterburg's Times ^ | December 29, 2003

[Alissa]

Didn't Rush Limbaugh used to be pro-law and order?

Now that the once conservative commentator finds himself on the wrong side of a police investigation, he and his lawyers are accusing prosecutors and other members of the law enforcement community of concocting a vast, politically motivated conspiracy against him.

Not even the most linguini-spined liberal would have the gall to spew such irresponsible nonsense.

Limbaugh recently completed treatment for an acknowledged addiction to prescription drugs, and Florida prosecutors are investigating evidence that he may have broken the law by going "doctor shopping" to acquire his massive supplies of OxyContin and other painkillers.

A West Palm Beach judge ruled last week that prosecutors had established sufficient cause to examine Limbaugh's medical records, but Limbaugh's lawyers succeeded in getting the records resealed while they appeal the decision.

Either way, the judge and prosecutors have agreed that Limbaugh's medical records will not be made public. By all accounts, police, prosecutors and the courts have have taken great pains to protect Limbaugh's civil rights.

But Limbaugh claims that his problems stem from a massive conspiracy on the part of his political enemies in law enforcement.

"The Democrats still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas," Limbaugh said on his Tuesday radio show. "And so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system."

Limbaugh used to defend the legal system - and he used to ridicule citizens who claimed that their constitutional rights had been violated by police and prosecutors. But now Limbaugh, who is fortunate enough to be able to afford the representation of celebrity attorney Roy Black and a team of defense lawyers, has joined the conspiracy nuts.

The people who have been hunting for someone to host a new left-wing radio talk show may have found their man.

[TigersEye]

So far he seems to me to have some burr under his saddle ...

Read this transcript and see if you wouldn't have a burr under your saddle.

[Denver Ditdat]

But no conservative would ever say something like it's ok to give up your rights is you don't have anything to hide.

I wish that I could agree with you, but that exact response litters many of the terrorism/Patriot Act threads right here on FR.

[GigaDittos]

It really pays to fill in the comment section when posting articles. Take the time, it's worth it.

[GigaDittos]

Isn't Rush protected by Roe vs Wade's right to [medical] privacy?

[RightWhale]

I would bet money that this is politically motivated

This paper is way Left. They might as well be in St. Petersburg, Russia during the height of the commie dominated USSR. Political? More than that, it is political philosophy dominated.

[deport]

Time will tell..... Hopefully he'll come out okay. My guess is rushie was responsible for his actions not anyone else. Thus the addiction and the consequences that come with it.....

[Denver Ditdat]

Isn't Rush protected by Roe vs Wade's right to [medical] privacy?

I'd love to see Rush's defense team use this angle. Talk about the law of unintended consequences on the part of the libs - the pro-aborts would be stroking out if this became part of his successful defense.

In honest response to your question, I don't know.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[GigaDittos]

Doctor Shopping is defined as: Doctor shopping was defined as visiting three or more different care sites (ERs, outpatient clinics or private offices) for a single illness episode, including all visits occurring within successive 72h periods up to a maximum of 15 days before and after an ER visit.

Did he do this, I don't know.

[deport]

Doctor Shopping is defined as:

---

Where did you get that definition? Link?

[Publius6961]

Not even the most linguini-spined liberal would have the gall to spew such irresponsible nonsense.

This is as far as I could read this crap.
I have not nor do I intend to defend or excuse Limbaugh for his current travails, but this moron seems to have a reality filter in his universe.

Irresponsible nonsense as described, is daily fare in my universe, starting with most of the Democrat president wannabes...

[Publius6961]

Exactly my point. I've seen that several times on FR recently. Someone posts an outrageous article and the poster is villified as holding the view of the author, if not being the author him/herself.

All right all right. There might have been a mistake in this case, but...

I wish I had a nickel for ever time a troll or a sleeper posts an outrageously bad bit of propaganda or "progressive" drivel, under the pretext of "educating" us or criticizing it. I don't need to immerse myself in crap to know I would rather not.

[Publius6961]

and of course that means all his loyal listeners adjust their principles as well, since he is on our side.

This is almost as smelly a pile of dung as the original article.
It takes a truly remarkable delusion to adopt such an outrageous presumption. I can only conclude that it is the product of a drug-addled mind. But that is simply inference and I am prepared to be proven wrong.

[GigaDittos]

http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/06_06/macp_ed.htm

[Eva]

I think that it is called, "selective prosecution."

[rbessenger]

What hypocritical mindless whinning drivel from the left....if it is a LIBERAL who is the addict, they praise the "courage" of the addict as he enters rehab for the 15th time...if it is a conservative who ADMITTS to being addicted and blames NO ONE BUT HIMSELF, and THEN points out that there IS some politcal motivation behind HOW the authorities are handling his case (EVEN THE ACLU ACKNOWLEDGES that RUSH's privacy rights are being trampled on), then the left begins to HOWL and point fingers.... The left is the home of HATE and hypocrisy.

In all fairness, however, I don't know any liberals who supported the Zero Tolerance War on Drugs-this was our doing. We all of the sudden abandon one of Ronald Reagan's key domestic policies because the offending party is Rush Limbaugh????

I have not seen anything concerning the ACLU coming to Rush's defense- do you have a link or citation?

The ACLU, Rush is using William KENNEDY Smith's criminal attorney and all of the sudden he's asking for tolerance in the face of zero tolerance policies. It stinks no matter how you slice it.

[deport]

So what does Canadian Law have to do with Palm Beach County Florida? Nothing...... Here's the Appropriate FL Statute:

2003->Ch0893->Section%2013>
(7)(a) It is unlawful for any person:

..........
8. To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days.

9. To acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge. .........

(c) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraphs (a)8.-11. commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[RS]

"Please tell me how often it is that drug dealers and extortionists are given complete immunity in order to incarcerate the "common folk" drug users and extortion victims."

You are obviously not up to speed on this - Information that the Clines gave was used to close down a ring that was pushing hundreds of thousands of pills.

... and the extortion allegations never appeared until Blacks statements last week.

... and if Rush is telling the truth, then they are NOT drug dealers and do not need immunity... HHmmmmm ???

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beshara1.html

[LucyJo]

How quickly they forget the Clintons, James Carville and Ken Star.

This may be only an attempt to destroy Rush in the court of public opinion, but I've got a feeling this Liberal prosecutor wouldn't be as lax about prosecuting Rush as Ken Starr was about Bill and Hillary Clinton, if he thought the "evidence" provided half a chance to do it.

[Qwinn]

Um, you don't understand. I haven't read your link (sorry, no time at the moment) but my understanding (from people -other- than Rush himself) is that all of the immunity given to the Clines was given -before- they revealed any complicity on their part. Basically, they said "we got the goods on Rush", were granted immunity, and they THEN went to the Enquirer and told their story.

If that original immunity was given for busting up a different and higher level ring, how does that justify their still having immunity for extorting millions from Rush? That is a serious, serious crime, and I for one can't think of a single reason why any revelations they may have given about drug lords above -them- would warrant being granted immunity for extortion. Their own drug dealing, sure, if what you say is true, I'll grant you that. But the extortion? No freaking way. They've had that immunity for a long while, regardless of when it became public in the papers.

Qwinn