Redstate

and with anyone who similarly suffers from addiction.  They deserve compassionate treatment as the first, second and third measure.  The issue I had with Rush, similar to the Secretary Bennett gambling issue, was with public hypocrisy, not with their personal challenges.

Yes, I know that hypocrisy knows no party affiliation!

The case was transparently political and has collapsed accodingly.

Let the Kos Koolaid Kids enjoy their fun as they continue to sail into unimportance.

There is not a person walking the planet that nas not been hypocritical about one thing or another at some point in their life. But there is a difference between Conservatives and Liberals in terms of Hypocrisy.

Conservatives hold up ideals to strive for, standards, morals and ethical codes. We fail sometimes, as do all people. But just because you fail at something, doesn't mean you can no longer be an advocate for it. In fact, most of the time, because of your failure, you are more aware than before just how important that ideal is. Conservatives know that the ideals they strive for  apply to them, even if they are currently failing to meet them.

Liberals do not feel the ideals they espouse apply to them. They apply to everyone else but them. There is a huge difference. They always want taxes raised, but they want someone else to pay them.

Since liberals lack morals, they rarely fail morally because there is no standard by which to hold them accountable. If they do drugs... well, they never said you should not do them. When Bill Clinton was exposed for cheating on Hillary, all my liberal friends ran to their defense saying that we don't know what kind of arrangement Bill and Hillary have. The suggested that they probably have extra marital encounters as part of their 'arrangement'. No morals.... no problem.

but the Limbaugh story has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Limbaugh's previous admonitions of drug use was clearly in regards to recreational drugs.  Becoming addicited to painkillers as a result of chronic pain is a completely different issue.  This AP story tries to stick Limbaugh with the hypocrite moniker. This prosecution has been a politically motivated fishing expedition from the get-go.

I am a great admirer of Rush, his dealing with this issue in a classy and forthright manner has only increased my respect for him.

We are living in strange times.  For all the whining by the likes of The Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins about censorship here is a case of a man being put through a 3 year ordeal solely as a result of his political views.

He has handled this perfectly, with class and humility. I was only addressing the hypocrisy issue because of how tired I am of hearing it from the left. I agree that it has nothing to do with Rush's case. But, when you have morals, you can always expect to be criticised if you do anything short of perfect.

The interesting thing about this story is how it's being spun on the various blogs and internet news outlets. Legally, it was clearly a victory for Limbaugh and his legal team. The only charge against him will be dropped, and the fees he has to pay are (for him) negligible. But when I got an MSNBC headline news e-mail (yes, I signed up for that ... for some reason) alterting me to the story the headline was "Limbaugh arrested ..." Well, technically that was true, but it leaves out a rather important point, no? A more accurate headline would have been "Limbaugh cuts deal" or something like that.

Moreover, the lefty rant that Leon cited was tagged "Rush Limbaugh: Criminal." Again, the nuance here is that something legally devastating happened to Rush, and once again, that is not accurate.

BTW, doesn't this just illustrate the power of headlines? That's something I've been thinking about for some time. Headlines condition how we read and process everything that follows. Furthermore, a lot of people only read the headlines, or else don't read much further than that. A news article that is, on the face of things, objective, can in fact be very slanted based on how the headline is worded.

"Rush Limbaugh Arrested" was even the lead used by Fox News.  Perhaps it's just because that's the way it came over the AP wire.

But I think you've hit the nail on the head in each of your observations.

How about these headlines---

Prosecutor Extorts $30,000 from Limbaugh, Will Not Pursue Conviction

or

Limbaugh Goes Scot Free, Will Reimburse State With Change Found in Sofa

or

Limbaugh Overcoming Addiction, Continues Treatment, Will Not Be Prosecuted

or

Limbaugh Pleads Not Guilty, Prosecutor Declines Opportunity to Prove Case in Court

Silly, maybe, but each of them contains a more important aspect of the event than that Rush was "arrested."  You would think the Palm Beach police stormed the EIB network with a SWAT team, took Rush down with tear gas and Tasers, and dragged him off to jail in handcuffs.

and maybe not.  If I were in his shoes, with his resources, I do believe I'd have a private detective agency under retainer to be on that prosecutor's tail 24/7, and another looking into his past.  

Anything compromising I found would be publicly released just before his next election.

Note that there are two different crimes here. Limbaugh was arrested and booked on a charge of fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions. He has pleaded "not guilty" to that charge. At the same time, he plea-bargained the charge of "doctor shopping" and was given 18 months probation and fined $30,000. He is still in line to be tried, convicted, and sent to jail on the fraud charge. And, of course, if he fails to continue his treatment for drug addiction or goes back to using drugs, his probation could be revoked.

His lawyer did a pretty good job of spinning and confusing these two different things, and Fox News did all they could to help.

Misleading headlines could be the topic of an extended entry. Right off the top of my head I can recall Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury and an approximately two month older variant  Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks. Each headline was specifically written to get casual readers to believe that Cheney or Bush authorized the release of Vaerie Plames identity even though the very articles disclaimed the notion. Since CNN often has time only to read the headlines, the April 6 story caused them to make that very assertion during a broadcast according to Newsmax

Other examples include "Bush was warned about levee failure", and "9/11 Commission Debunks Al-Qaida-Iraq ties"  In each case the articles themsleves contradicted the headline. These are from memory but I think these were from the NYTimes and AP.

Patterico has coined the phrase Power of The Jump™ to describe a similar tactic often used by the LA Times (Dog Trainer to Patterico) to make the more salacious assertion on the front page and then bury contrary evidence or other info the editors don't want noticed on the back pages.

I think you make a good point in that even if you do read beyond the headline or in the LA Times case the entire article, it is difficult not to fall for the tone or spin that has been established.  

For me its not that hard because with all the sources mentioned above I start with the premise that I'm wading through pig slop for the occasional pearl.  We must however be ever vigilant not to fall for these tricks.

 

 He is still in line to be tried, convicted, and sent to jail on the fraud charge.

It'll never happen.  The one he has plead is not guilty.  Do you think Limbaugh would have settled one if he and Black thought the other had a snowball chance of going anywhere.  Dream on.

Justice would be served by Barry Krischer being disbarred and being sent to jail. Too bad they are in different states and he can't share a cell with Ronnie Earl.

First, I join in wishing Rush good luck in his treatment and fighting his addiction.  Anyone who's had this sort of problem in their family will understand this is a serious personal issue that is not subject to political party lines.

However, I believe Rush did open himself to charges of hypocricy when broke the law to obtain and perhaps abuse these drugs while decrying the effects of drugs on the country and critiquing authorities for not putting enough people involved in their trade away.

E.g. "There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up. What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

for a while last night.  She had four lawyers on and did they have a merry old time.  Many guffaws over rich man's justice, how Limbaugh's lawyer did a great job[ considering the case], how a poor guy would be shackled to a ball and chain.  Funny but van Sustern repeatedly asked of all four " was it not also an indication of a weak case by the prosecutor" and never got an answer.  The lawyers were too busy laughing and making merry.

     The rich man's justice crack was interesting though, couldn't help thinking of Michael Milkin and Martha Stewart.

what was the hypocrisy in gambling?

source, that isn't from "Media Matters" for that transcript.

Rush Needs Help

As a retired physician once specilializing in the treatment of chronic pain disorders and someone who has first hand knowledge and experience working with drug addicts, its important to remember that they, drug addicts, frequently do not know what they are saying and doing.  I guess you could say, in a way, they are not in their right mind.

We do not know today whether he was abusing drugs when he said, "if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

His opinion on whether drug use should even be considered disease, or a condition worthy of professional attention, was expressed here when he said he didn't "buy into the disease part of it". He said people are "making a personal choice" to do drugs and they should be held responsible for it.

It's the hypocrisy that undermines his message.

I don't see the hypocrisy in this. Has he since claimed drug abuse was a disease? Don't think so.

Then are we to assume that you agree with Rush's earlier statement that drug addicts should be accused, convicted and sent-up and that such beliefs should also be applied to himself?

The definition of hypocrisy, as I understand it, means the practice of professing to hold beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold.  

Its his daily professing of holding specific beliefs that he clearly does not believe apply to himself that undercuts his messages.

Its the same sort of hypocrisy that is expressed when someone professes "Support Our Troops" and then slashes financial support.  Its the same hypocrisy expressed when soldiers are prohibited by their CO's from wearing proper body armour, i.e., Dragon Skin (in fact doing so the soldier risk losing life insurance) yet the same CO' choose to wear it.

Hypocrisy

If their had been one iota of evidence in Rush's medical records, the pharmacy records, or anywhere else the prosecutor was able to unlawfully sieze -- there would have been charges.

Unlike other high profile people with drug problems, Rush was hounded by a political prosecutor and finally just settled. Compare Rush to how others with similar problems are treated by the press and you will see the problem. The fact that the press monopoly is near dead, this is just one more reason -- And who had the biggest hand in that, why that would be Rush.

Just because a person is a political foe doesn't make them any less human. We are told the politics of personal destruction isn't alive and well in the Democrat party, when in fact that is all they have left. Moonbats wouldn't know compassion if it bit their heads off.

what I assume from reading your post is that reading  comprehension is not one of your stronger areas.

He has never said his actions were right or not deserving of punishment.

I do appreciate your contempt of John Kerry but that election has been over for a while.

As to the body armor statement, 1) SGLI can't be voided like that, the law doesn't work that way and 2) the military has every reason in the world to forbid that particular armor as it has yet to pass ballistics tests, and 3) yes, that would be hypocrisy and dumb because if your point 1) was true then that person would lose their own benefits.

Look, this relationship just isn't working out. You are trolling and you are not amusing and neither are you particular smart. So its not you its us, we need some space, keep in touch, etc etc you know the drill, you've probably heard it thousands of times.

what Rush has to say about all this on Monday.  He has said all along that there would come a time when he would be free to talk about the details.  Maybe that time is now, maybe it will be in 18 months.  End of an ordeal indeed.

I could really give a rip about "hypocrisy" or any other garbage people want to talk about.  This is just a headline that allows them to sing the same old song.  As long as he keeps putting on the best show in radio I'll be listening.

One hand behing his back and he still takes a lib down.

Just a matter of time before Ronny Earl hits bottom. I have payed close attention too Rushes case. The prosecutor said too the judge last year that there was not evidence that Rush was 'doctor shoping'. Let remember this whole ordeal started with two people who worked for him that happened to get busted and dropped a dime on ol' Rush'bo, and sure enough some Hack prosecutor gobbles up whatever these slugs spill.

All the crap about finding bags of pain killers and his doped up rampages, good'ol media hype. I can speak from personal experience. Some pain killers are easy too start taking perscribed and before you know it your body wants it all the time. To this day I would suffer with the pain than take one half any pain killer.

I think Rush has handled this like a champ, and that has made me a bigger fan knowing that all the hitmen in the Drive-by media have been chewing on the bone just waiting for an inditment. I'm just waiting too see how the Big media is going too twist this one.

Rush was the lone voice and today, more than ever the left wants to silence  him. I'm amazed at how may times I hear Rush Limbaughs name mentioned on the floor of the house and senate.

You can take this too the bank, if the Left regains power you will not only see us "yanked" from the war on terror, BUT, the 'Fairness Act' will be slipped into some obscure eleventh hour bill. We owe a debt too Rush. He may rub some the worng way,BUT, he is spot on when it come to the loony left, and he has introduced me to many Great conservatives. Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Herman Cain, etc.

Interesting, the frist three names off the top of my head were Americans of African ancestry. Funny,isn't he considered a Right wing racist. One last point. When the Department of Defence gave the ladies and gentelmen of our armed forces a list of whom they most want too hear on Armed Forces Radio, Rush won by a landslide by "Write in Ballot".

Duce4/7 megga Dittos Rush.  

You didn't even give me time to call for a HazMat Cleanup Team™ to the area!

In any other country in the world -- this wouldn't even be an issue. Because painkillers are sold OVER THE COUNTER.

But, then citizens of other countries are judged competent to figure out their own medical needs.

Actually, in the USA, the "greatest generation" could buy whatever they wanted over the counter, but I guess Americans in chronic pain need to consider "drug addiction" before needs to control pain.

Think about it.

.. but I believe the context was marijuana and heroin.

I also think you need to put his whole whopping addiction problem in context with the problems chronic pain sufferers go through every day of the week, at least in this country. In other countries, people can buy pain meds over the counter, and nobody really cares.

But, the libs/progs have been just salivating for this moment, haven't they?

But, the gambling hypocrisy refers to Bill Bennett, a couple of years ago, there was this breathless story about how much money he lost in Los Vegas.

Didn't get much traction, though. Gambling addiction interferes with the gambler's life, they'll use the grocery money to gamble, etc., and make their family destitute.

Benett apparently didn't even dip into the household petty cash fund, and he gambled when he felt like it -- not because he had to.

to go after prosecutors.  It's unwise both personally and politically.

Rush has fashioned himself a small fortress in a Democratic county! He could prove that the Democratic prosecutor was buggering small children and animals, and he would still be reelected!

I wish that both liberals and conservatives would agree to change our nation's unjust, wasteful and ineffective drug policy.

One can disagree on the specifics, but surely spending billions of dollars to attempt to prevent young adults from smoking pot is not an efficient use of treasure. Surely the fact that billions are spent to prosecute meth labs - while millions of people are legally proscribed amphetamines - is, at the very least, worth questioning. Surely the imprisonment of those who possess small amounts of illegal drugs should be reconsidered.

To me, along with William Buckley and other prominent men and women of the right, insisting on a rational national drug policy is a profoundly conservative issue.    

> I just can't wait to hear what Rush has to say about all this on Monday.

If I know Rush, he'll spend a whole two or three minutes on it.  Then he'll continue ranting about the issues and leading the country to the right.

Which is what he is "guilty" of, after all.

It's good to expect sources, but the "Media Matters" comment implies that the quote appears false?  I think that's a sign that some of us are going a little overboard in trying to defend Rush.  There's nothing in that statement that isn't consistent with what we know of Rush's views.

And I'm sure (refering to below) that Rush was thinking primarily of what we all think of primarily when discussing general drug abuse (meth, crack, pot, etc.).  But it wouldn't be fair to infer that Rush meant to exclude sale and abuse of any particular drugs.

Rush told us that he had an addiction that needed treatement.  We should take him at his word, and wish him, and everyone else with a serious addiction, godspeed in finding recovery.

This game of gotcha that the left likes to play is beyond pathetic. You have one quote from over a decade ago... From a guy who has spent several hours a day for almost 2 decades on the air spewing an endless stream of quotes. That hardly makes him an anti-drug use crusader and hypocrite.

There is also a huge difference between getting hooked on and abusing a legal prescription drug (which could happen to anybody) and using drugs that are illegal under any circumstances (which could only happen to people who decide to use recreational drugs).

As his show didn't produce transcripts in 95 there is a substantial chance that it is one of the many fake quotes attributed to Rush.

There is no defense of Rush here, just a defense of the truth. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable.

I just don't see the hypocrisy.

Gambling is recreation to a lot of people, it is only a vice when you gamble beyond your means. Bennett didn't gamble beyond his means and he never stated or insinuated that he didn't gamble.

opens themself up to hypocrisy..

a much over-rated vice

I was just speaking viscerally.

But I also saw the election for Governor of Michigan turn several years ago on an overblown charge, one or two days before the election, that the Republican candidate had groped a waitress several years before.

I can't even remember if it turned out to be true or not.  But it sure worked.

But you may be right about the Dems re-electing a Dem no matter what.

"I believe Rush did open himself to charges of hypocricy when [he] broke the law to obtain and perhaps abuse these drugs"

So far, there has been no proof that he 'broke the law.'  Obviously, the prosecutor didn't think he had enough of a case to pursue it any further than to simply extort a few thousand dollars our of Rush, just to save face.  And I'm not sure that the overuse of painkillers to alleviate pain is what most people would call 'abuse.'

Rush hasn't been convicted of breaking the law, and it really isn't clear that he did.  He has admitted he was addicted to pain killing drugs.  Heck, so was my 80-year-old aunt.  Back pain is a terrible thing to contend with, and getting hooked on prescription pain killers can happen easily.  That's a lot different from selling or using heroin or cocaine, which is what the quote you included is referring to.  In fact, it's a lot closer to the folks, mostly libs, who want to allow the use of marijuana for relief from cancer chemo symptoms.

IMHO, there is nothing hypocritical about Rush's statements or his position.  To claim it is, is to assert that it would be hypocritical for Lyle Alzado to counsel kids against using steroids.  

Failing to live up to your own standards isn't hypocritical, it's a fact of the human condition.

Hypocritical is to claim to support alternative energy sources, yet to fight their development when it happens to be within the sight of your own home.

Violence uproots 100,000 families in Iraq

Wanna bet on the accuracy of that number?

I have one question: Can you be sure you'd act differently in his situation? Can you be sure that when experiencing excruciating pain you wouldn't do what was neccesary to alleviate it, be it illegal or not? I hope never to be put to the test, but I'm afraid that I would.

The only hypocracy here is from the critics. They have no problem with illegal immigration, are constantly full of excuses for every type of violent criminal, support anarchy and rioting as "expressions of rage", but are full of righteous indignation on a suffering man for violating an arcane law to bring himself some relief. For shame.

I always thought this was a case of far too much blowing out of proportion, but your post did hit on something that I've felt about the case for a while.

The idea of pitying a man for breaking a silly law doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, break the law.  And since he did knowingly break the law, he must be held accountable for that action.

Note, I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, not specifics of this case.

If you deem a law to be irrelevant, protest the law, but obey it until your protest is duly noted.

Your concept hints to me of the old saying, "it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

I have similar feelings about the issue of allowing illegal immigrants to remain in this nation.  I oppose ANY plan that legalizes ANY illegal immigrants in America.  Do I pity their situation?  Certainly.  However, they broke the law by coming here, and as such they must be duly punished.  And that means they must leave our nation, and try to return by LEGAL methods.

laws ought not to be broken. Period. But when a man is in excruciating pain (as back pain can be), it's reasonable to do what it takes to stop it. Do you think you'd act differently?

It's sort of like torture, in a way. We don't hold people accountable for what they say under torture, and I don't think we can hold them accountable in this type of scenario either.

Well, the obvious hypocrisy, as usual, is on the part of libs.

With this the left in this country is screaming VICTORY!

Which if you stop and think about it explains much about politics in our nation and the current state of the left.

If one mug shot...3,000 bail...one hour in the can and charges dropped after six months of continued therapy...therapy he's already doing and has done for 2 years...if this is somehow victory, that tells us why the left isn't winning elections.

This is it?

The well-known ability of grand juries to indict virtual ham sandwiches like Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay did not extend to Rush. The inability of the anti-Republican prosecutor to convince his grand jury to indict Rush entitles him to be publicly recognized by the Republican National Committee as "No Ham Sandwich".  It should similarly begin to publicly characterize Tom DeLay and Scooter Libby as the grand jury "Ham Sandwiches" that they are.

ping

the Prosecutor.  He says the whole thing has ended satisfactorily for all concerned.