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
Tell that to all the Freepers who were giving a cyber pat on the back to the Enquirer when they were breaking stories (which turned out to be absolutely true) about Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton.
I was being sarcastic; you are being confabulatious. ;^)
But your point is well-taken - the fundamental reason people support gubmint schools, welfare, and other popular socialist doodads, is the unloading of responsibility onto the gubmint.
Of course, no one in gubmint ever takes any responsibility unless forced to plea-bargain, or to testify as an 'unindicted co-conspirator'.
Moral responsibility is as avoided in our times by all parties as the Queen of Spades in a game of Old Maid.
If the reported story turns out to be approximately factual, Rush will have to make a large ethical decision at some point.
I pray he chooses wisely when that moment comes.
I pray he chooses wisely when that moment comes.
Me too, but I'm not optimistic. Socialists (left and "right") don't have a good track record for repudiating socialism when they are busted for blatantly not contributing their share to the collective.
Do you remember that pro-gun control liberal D.C. newpaper columnist Carl Rowan who got caught using an "illegal" gun defending his home in "gun-free" D.C.? Or look at Feinstein and all those other anti-gun liberals who have body guards armed to the teeth. Does any of that stop them from demanding that the rest of us forego our rights to self defense, while they traipse around with their armed guards?
What strikes me the most about this Limbaugh/drug story (if it is true) is that the times I have been most turned off by Rush have been those times when he showed no empathy toward people suffering from diseases about which he has little or no knowledge. One (of many) example(s) that comes to mind was his belittling, several years ago, of those suffering from Tourette Syndrome.
The brother of a dear college friend of mine suffers from that disease, and I have seen, firsthand, its devastating results -- on both the victim, and those who love him. Yet Rush carried on for a large part of several programs, proclaiming the disease inauthentic, and declaring that its victims do not suffer from a disease at all, but rather from a type of character deficiency. I remember being livid when I heard his arrogant, uninformed, myopic take – and I can only imagine how angry those who are personally involved with the tragic effects of the disease might have reacted to his harsh, biting, unfair, uninformed words.
There have been other such examples of his arrogance, finger-pointing, and accusations of 'weakness of character' toward others, regarding subjects, and illnesses, about which he is personally ignorant.
Yet I do listen to Rush, from time to time, because I agree with ninety percent of his political views. And because human compassion is not a prerequisite for success in hosting a political talk show (as a matter of fact, it appears to be in very short general supply in such people).
But, if the rumors about his drug use are true, then his accusations of 'character weakness' in people suffering from actual physical diseases about which they had no choice, are an example of hypocrisy at its worst. And the 'people in glass houses' admonition ought to be tacked to the wall of his broadcast studio.
With that said, and with the understanding that I am not particularly a Limbaugh fan, I would hate to see this man tarred and feathered, or his influence diminished. Although I believe him to be incredibly arrogant (even more so than his playful attempts make him appear to be) and self-absorbed, he has awakened many an American mind to the deadly dangers of creeping socialism, one-world-ism, and to the anti-American, anti-liberty, elitist agenda that is hard at work in Washington.
Is this attack coming from "small fry" trying to get out from under some D.A.'s microscope, by casting about? Or is the attack coming from his political enemies? .... First_Salute
This kind of attack on Limbaugh has probably been in the works for a very long time (with the likes of the L.A. Times and the National Enquirer serving as official sleuths and preparers of pre-evidence groundwork). If, indeed, Limbaugh is guilty as rumored, he simply offered them a helping hand.
I have said, for a very long time, that Rush’s past and present must be as white as snow. He has two ex-wives, neither of whom has ever divulged anything negative about the man. His political enemies are many, and they have been digging for dirt with which to discredit him for more than a decade. If Rush has indeed been purchasing prescription drugs from his housekeeper (beyond stupid, under the circumstances), an Achilles heel has finally been divulged, and his enemies (in large part, also the enemies of our republic) will peck away at it until he is no longer able to function as an effective mouthpiece for the conservative right. But, had he not divulged that heel, they would have eventually invented one – either out of whole cloth, or by magnifying all out of proportion some minor infraction or character flaw. I’m just surprised it hasn’t happened before this.
As much as I dislike the man himself, his power reaches into every corner of this country, and his media demise would hasten the demise of America. So I’m pullin’ for him in this one.
On another side of this issue, how many politicians and celebrities do you suppose regularly use drugs just as dangerous as OxyContin, Lorcet and Hydrocodone? Once upon a (grotesque) time, we even had a president who didn’t inhale, but whose nose was consistently inflamed, and who steadfastly refused to release his medical records.
Not saying that Rush (again, if this is true) hasn’t caused possibly irreparable long-term harm to himself (both physically and reputation-wise). Simply saying that the outrage and sanctimonious criticism is, as usual, coming from sources whose closets probably contain many more skeletons than Limbaugh’s – with some of those bony creatures probably packed in there in sardine-like fashion. Hollywood celebrities, and left-leaning, agenda-driven politicians love to feign personal purity and point a double-standard finger at their ideological enemies. It’s a prerequisite for membership in their club, whose motto is: Anything goes, so long as the accumulation of power is enhanced .... and fairness and truth be damned.
~ joanie
So you believe the allegations and ridiculous claims of thousands of pills against Rush?
I don't.
But I do believe that he used painkillers during that time span.
I think someone is chump charging him to get off on a charge or get a lighter sentence plus make some bucks on the side from the Enquirer and the DNC.
Other than some satire, a news hound found little during several searches of numerous data bases.
I think what was found were a few comments dating back some 12 years or so. One comment was dated 1986.
This stuff is all DNC planted crap in the media. They are trying to do to him what they did to the gambling republican who wrote the book of virtues......[can't recall his name] Trying to create a morals argument where one does not exist.
Rush is certainly not beating the WOD drum and it is foolish to criticize him for that.
How could anyone with an ounce of sense find anything credible in the National Enquirer? That statement jumped out at me too.
Cultural warrior Bill Bennett.
Trying to create a morals argument where one does not exist
From a libertarian or old conservative point of view its not a "morals" issue, its a criminal matter. And I'm talking about Limbaugh and Bennett's crimes against our bills of rights by waging socialistic cultural wars, not their hypocrital violation of unconstitutional drug and gambling statutes.
But you are right concerning the liberals' criticism's of Bennett and Limbaugh. They are only concerned with Bennett and Limbaugh's hypocritical morality. When it comes to their Wars (guns, poverty, etc.), the liberals have no more concern for our bills of rights than the new "conservatives."
I've got an idea. Why don't you all on the left and new "right" make a deal like you usually do. You can take pot shots at Carl Rowan and Feinstein's hypocritical violations of the gun laws and the left can take pot shots at Bennett and Limbaugh's gambling and drug usage, and meanwhile the Soccer Mom's gun laws and the Church Lady's cultural laws are left in full force and there will be SWAT teams for everybody and everybody will be happy.
I've learned to be more optimistic, or at least not fatalistic or pessimistic - open to a new turn-of-events.
'Each day is an Age that is dying, or one that is coming to birth'.
You're right. Sometimes I slip into Libertarian Old Testament Prophet mode and get on a "Woe unto you criminals" kick and forget about preaching the good news that we can repent for our crimes and ask our victims to forgive us. And wirestripper seems to imply that a statistical analysis of Rush's shows would prove that Rush's calling for sending white "maggot infested" potheads "up the river" has decreased greatly in recent years. So, accepting wirestripper's data, that's progress and who knows what lies ahead.
It amazes me that the author claims no personal knowledge of Rush Limbaugh, but proceeds to analyze his "secret life", and his "addiction" as if it was a ten-year old case study. She obviously believes her "BA in psychology from McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and an MA in forensic psychology (social psychology) from John Jay College" coupled with a copy of the National Enquirer, qualify her as a eminent medical authority.
I have better things to do than read psychobabble by pompous Clymers, whatever the facts of this case, and I have no intention of ending my support of Rush -- whatever the outcome.
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.