While it is fine for Rush to be who ever he is -
he bought his drugs in an illegal way.
Made his housekeeper do the deed for him.
I believe we all make really poor mistakes and we learn from them and hopefully grow.
Need I mention Clinton here -
John McCain is divorced and as Karl Rove reminded us during his run his wife also liked Vicodin and has some dust in her closet.
It works both ways and we're all human and thanks very much I prefer to just be an American, not a democrat or republican.
btw, RWS
I left a lengthier response at my site, but I'd thought I'd add here for anyone that thinks Rush got a "deal"
his plea agreement is quite standard fare...bet it street or prescription drugs
In CA we have THREE different court-approved programs for addicts to keep out of jail plus have their cases dismissed after recovery. PC1000 (diversion) PC1210.1 (Prop 36) and Drug Court. And it doesn't matter how often the person falls off the wagon, unless they have some disqualifying non-drug charge (like Robert Downey Jr's weapon's charge), they can keep trying the programs until they get clean. Though some turn it down, they'd rather do jail then get out then go through rehab.
weird
Rush because he had bashed drug abusers on his show.
I've heard this claim before but I've never seen attribution.
The only thing I thought was funny was how the MSM reported that he was "arrested".
Dave
It's one of those technicalities... Rush wasn't really arrested even though there was a warrant.
This is how it goes...when an issuing DA files charges based on an out-of-custody police report s/he has several options -- send an arraignment letter with a court appearance date or issue a warrant (so the person has to either show up in court to have the warrant withdrawn and a date assigned, or person is picked up by cops). Rush was obviously not a flight risk so I'm cynical about a DA issuing a warrant in lieu of an arraignment letter. Not nearly as obvious a political manuever as the Duke arrests were.
Rush turned himself in, was released on bail and worked out a plea agreement.
SOP
Kel,
Mention Clinton? you mean Bill??? You think he learned from his mistake???? Good grief girl. It wasn't long after he got out of office he was spotted by the press buying pretty lacy panties! Do you thin they were for Hillary???
If you think Clinton is reformed, then you are wrong.
Anyone who wants to see complete lack of compassion for a fellow human being who was in pain, ought to go check out some of the comments on ExposetheLeft. Nasty, angry, vitriol. Rush is a pig, etc. They are also making what, as far as I can tell, is a false claim, that Rush's hearing loss is a direct result of his addiction to the pain meds. There is a lot of allegation on the internet about Rush's hearing loss, but the doctor who took care of him has stated that there is no way to know if the drugs effected his hearing. He was originally diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder that caused his hearing loss. I have been unable to determine what the timing is, as to whether it's even possible for his hearing loss to coincide with his addiction, but it's definitely not a proven fact.
Yes, Sparkle, they are comparing Rush to crack addicts. I agree with you that there is no comparison.
DaveinTexas, I've seen the quotes they are putting up. Rush was clearly talking about people who abuse illegal drugs, for, "recreational," use. He never criticized anyone who became addicted to prescription pain medication. So, again, the notion that Rush criticized others for doing something that he did, is false.
"Being a conservative isn't about being perfect. Far from it. It's about being better."
Thank you for saying this, dear. I've been saying so for a long time, and have despaired of being heard.
That was quite lovely Francis.
I think that as long as you are headed in the right direction and admit to having the faults in the past, than there may not be an issue. Rush is an entertainer and a pundit I can agree. And in no way perfect. But damn right are we better. Well said, Sparkle.
"But damn right are we better."
Good grief Dave, that says it all.
One more thing regarding Clinton. when it was all said and done and he wrote his book, he said he did it because "he could."
Now that doesn't sound too remorseful to me.
I agree Sparkle. It doesn't sound remorseful, but it does sound like the truth.
and that makes a difference how?
It's never too late for the truth, is it?
Not when the blue dress has told on you. I guess it isn't.
Come on. We both know that if it hadn't been for the blue dress, Clinton would even now be bemoaning the rightwing attack against him and Monica would be tagged the lying slut he tried to make her out to be (instead of just the loose woman she was)
It didn't bother you that this man used a young girl? Even an experienced one?
I don't want to rehash the whole thing. Heaven knows we heard it all, but being forced to tell the truth is always a bad thing.
Even Rush was forced. It makes one not want to give much credit for the telling.
But I will never understand how using an intern to service him while humilating his wife just never bothered the feminists. I will never understand it.
Who said it didn't bother me, Sparkle? I blame Clinton for giving you righties a reason to foam at the mouth. (bad choice of words) Did it make me crazy? Hardly. As a feminist, I believe that women choose their own paths. Stupidity cannot be used as an excuse.
So it was just Monica "choosing her own path?" ookkkkk.
And what about Hillary? what choice did she have in the matter?
It was the one time I truly felt sorry for her.
And wait a minute. It doesn't bother that he was going to tar and feather this girl?
Plus, Monica was just one bump in a long road of cheating and using women. Yet, this is Ok for a President? This doesn't bother a feminist?
*shakes head*
Sparkle,
I simply can't control the reasons why men do what they do. I, too, can *shake my head. I didn't say it was OK, and I sure felt sorry for Hillary, too. I would've walked. Hillary's choice was different, but she certainly had one.
Monica might not have thought she was taking a path of self-destruction, but I believe she made a conscious choice to "go down" that road. You know. Personal responsibility and all.
I don't understand why this makes you mad at feminists.
I'm not mad at feminists. I just don't understand them.
You and I once had a discussion about feminists and I thought you said you were one?
I was one when they believed in equal pay and equal opportunity and fought for women not being abused or expoloited, but not anymore.
Like the Democrats, they left me a long time ago.
I don't understand the hero worship for Limbaugh on the right and I really don't understand the mindless hate for the guy on the left. To me both are pretty immature.
Limbaugh is an addict. So are crack addicts heroin addicts and alcoholics - they're just dependant on a different chemical molecule. No, I'm sorry, there is no qualitave difference between what Limbaugh was doing and someone buying crack on the street. Both are trying to change their reality with chemicals. Both are breaking the law. Both are going to get the same, identical medical treatment - treatment for a diseased human spirit that causes people to be unable to deal with life on life's terms.
That Limbaugh came by his addiction through prescriptions is irrelevant - assuming that's true. He still abused them. He chose to take them in a manner other than as directed by his doctor, he BROKE THE LAW to get drugs just like a street corner crack addict. Sorry to have to break it to you like that but its true. That he did so without buying heroin - an opium derivative with the same physical affects as the chemical Limbaugh was abusing, if you didn't know - on a street corner is more about his station in life and his wealth than anything else. The distinction some try to draw between what Limbaugh did and any other addict's behavior is a distinction without a difference.
Is he a hypocrit? If he was bloviating about addicts while he was behaving this way then for Heaven's sake yes, of course he is. I have no idea if that is true though because I've only seen Libs say that and when it comes to Limbaugh or people they love to hate they simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
If the quantities of opiates he was buying that I've seen reported are correct anyone that thinks he wasn't deliberately getting high with them is simply wrong. He's lucky he didn't kill himself.
All that said so what? He's human, I'm human you're human.
Millions of people in this country suffer from drug and alcohol dependance. The attitude society (and some in this thread) have toward drug dependance and addiction and the people that suffer - make no mistake, these people SUFFER - from those conditions is depressing.
The difference (and this is a big one) is that he did not seek out drugs to get high. He was prescribed them by a doctor for severe pain. He then became addicted.
Everything after that regarding what you said about Rush is true. He shouldn't have abused them and he did.
But to me the beginning marks the big difference in seeking a high for your own pleasure and taking medicine that a doctor prescribes.
It's just not the same. It isn't.
In the spirit of simple discussion, not argument, OK RWS?
We don't know that. All we know is what has been reported in the media and the word of a drug addict, right? Neither are exactly the most credible sources on the subject of how Limbaugh's drug addiction evolved. From what you blogged I know that you know exactly what I'm talking about.
And even if that is true it doesn't make any difference - to me. In order to think of that as an important distinction it seems to me one must have the idea that people make a choice to be drug addicts and that in Limbaugh's case it snuck up and sandbagged him. In order to think that one has to have the attitude that drug addiction is a behavior rather than a disease or medical condition. In fact it is a medical condition that, among other symptoms, manifests itself in behavior. Do people really think some people CHOOSE to be drug addicts?
If I remember your bio over on the Chron you and I are a of a similar age. You grew up in the same environment I did, the late 60's and 70's. You never took a hit off a reefer or snorted a line of coke? (Rhetorical question, please do not answer.) If so I respect that but let's assume for a moment you did. What if addiction had taken you at that moment, ransacked your life?
Would there be an important distinction between that and what has happened to Limbaugh? Would Limbaugh somehow be better than you? My answer would be no.
Really, what's missing for me is a sense of 'there but for the grace of God...' from people on the subject, a sense of humility and compassion.
FWIW Limbaugh has an especially difficult road in front of him. His wealth and his position are going to make it very difficult to develop the sense of humility and surrender required to overcome his addiction, and he's got one of the worst addictions you can have; opiates. The last thing he needs is anybody minimizing it for him.
And yes, if you haven't figured it out I am a Friend of Bill. 
dwilkers
Addiction is a physical function of the brain, not a matter of the spirit. Spirit comes in when a person gets clean and makes the decision and does the heavy lifting of never taking that first drink/hit again. Alcoholics are not made but born. That's why most people can drink and never get addicted ... And why even AA has a high recidivism rate.
People who are addicted to pain meds may easily have gotten there where they never would have if it weren't for the surgery/injury/et al. Just as a ton of housewives became addicted to amphetimines during the 60's because their DOCTORS prescribed them for weight reduction.
Once that brain function has been breached, it is a b*tch to recover.
Limbaugh is not "my hero"... but it is interesting to see him pilloried for "personal hypocrisy" and I can't recall whenever a liberal or leftist has been such charged.
As Dennis Prager has observed:
Can you think of one prominent liberal ever labeled a hypocrite in the mainstream press? President Bill Clinton was labeled many things for his extramarital affairs and his lying, but never a hypocrite. But when the press discovers flawed behavior in the personal life of a prominent conservative, he is discredited as a hypocrite.
Why is this? Because you can only be a hypocrite if you violate standards that you promote or judge, and liberals rarely promote or judge personal behavior. Their moral preoccupations almost exclusively concern social positions. Liberals judge people by their positions on global warming, not by how they behave.
I certainly have compassion for Rush since I saw what my brother went through. And no, I never did do any drugs. My father was a public servant and I never wanted to do anything to embarass him. That, and being a Christian helped me avoid the misteps of a great many of my peers. Not that I was perfect by any means, I just avoided the BIG sins, so to speak.
You just reminded me of something though. When I was 16 I had 4 impacted wisdom teeth pulled. I don't know what painkiller they gave me, but I do remember thinking..I understood why peope would get addicted. I had a great life and had no need for a "high." but the painkiller still made me feel like I could fly. So I thought about how it must tempt someone who really feels awful about life. They would want to feel that nice feeling. I understand that. Which is why it's so important to find your purpose in life. To not have to feel "awful."
Friend of Bill? Clinton?
Ah, well, we all have our faults...
Being a conservative isn't about being perfect. Far from it. It's about being better. Being better than you were the day before and hoping to be even better tommorrow. It's about striving for the good. We may not get there, but the effort itself gives us much to be proud of.
This is going up on my blog.
Truer words were ne'er spake.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Here is my 2 cents, for what it is worth.
It was not the least bit surprising that Rush was/is demonized in the press and by the Left for his drug addiction. Though his addiction was painkillers, in practical reality, you could inset alcohol, cocaine, crack or heroin, and it would have the same effect and/or consequences.
It really does not matter how or why the addiction came to be. It might make the story a bit more sympathetic, but in the end, all that is left is dealing with the addiction. Apparently, Rush is doing so, and will have a lifetime of work ahead of him.
Personally, I have battled addiction problems with cocaine, and most recently, alcohol. Suffice it to say that Rush will have an ongoing battle that he will have to address daily, should he choose to do so. I do not wish him good luck, as luck has little to do with one's ability to overcome this disease. I wish him the best, and hope he finds him peace.
No no no. Not THAT Bill RWS. A friend of Bill W.
After I posted it I realized in the political context it means something else nowadays.
Ruck Limbaugh is a hypocrite. Here's what he said on his TV show -
"I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you'll find that he's very much right…"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."...
What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility. It's up to the people who are doing it. And Colangelo is right."
--Rush Limbaugh TV show (9/23/93)
I don't fault the guy for having a serious drug problem - specifically, opioids.
This latest episide shows just how tough a problem it is for him. It would be tough for any of us.
But here he is pontificating about drug abusers, while he is one.
If it ain't hypocracy, it's a strong case of denial.
My money's on hypocracy.
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
heh
Heh - Unless he was actively using in 1993, how is that hypocritical ?
exactly JD. It is very easy to say what Rush did when he did not know the pull of the disease.
He wasn't taking drugs then.
Geeze. You guys are going all out to get him, aren't you?
Guess what? He isn't a public servant. He isn't an elected official.
Rush is wealthy and will be wealthy even if this hurts him in the ratings.
I would advise the left to back off. This just makes you look like rabid dogs.
Rush has raised over $15 million for cancer and leukemia research. The dirty rat.
Rush is part pundit and part entertainer. He rose to fame for two simple reasons. He was giving a voice to a conservative point of view that was not being reported on and he was doing it in a fun way.
Regardless of what you think of the guy, you should at least be honest about what he does.
What he does may appear to be "fun", but what he is actually doing is giving a voice to the rabidly extremist right-wing who wants to blame everyone but themselves for America's problems...
I'm betting you have never even listened to him.
Sparkle, you're just making excuses for the guy in any way that you can.
Why? I don't know.
But this I do know - Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, unrelated to his addiction to narcotics. An idiot is an idiot.
You, however, are a classic Enabler.
heh
Why is he an idiot? Because of the drugs? Because of what he says on his radio show?
I am not here to defend Rush, as I said on my other blog. I have never agreed with his personal life, but I have never heard him be HALF as mean as any average poster on Kos.
RWS:
Do you see any difference between being a christian and being a conservative.
Cutting student loan subsidies and health care to impovrished children to fund a war in Iraq is being a conservative. This is not making the world a better place.
Cutting taxes on the those that need the cuts least is being a conservative. Borrowing money from your grandchildren to pay for your roads, schools and wars is being a conservative.
Allowing drilling in natural preserves, passing laws to allow for more pollution, and attempting to suspend the minimum standards at which people are allowed to pay others for their work in response to disasters and problems is being a conservative.
It's pretty damn far from the christian viewpoint you attempt to attribute to it.
I see a BIG difference in being a Christian and being a conservative. And that's a good thing too since so many of my friends are conservatives but NOT Christians.
Everything you described has nothing to do with being a Christian.
It is obvious that you are not one.
Christianity is about what YOU do (the indivdiual) NOT what the government does.
This is the problem when liberals/non-Christians try to channel what they think Christianity is to thier worldview.
YOu are just always wrong.
and everything you wrote is wrong anyway.
Taxing to fund programs that don't work is wrong to begin with.
Much of our money going to Iraq is helping impoverished children there (building schools and hospitals) And I mean REALLY improvished in a way American children could never understand.
Cutting taxes has always proven a windfall for charities. The most charitable giving EVER in this country was during the Reagan tax cuts.
Drilling in a tiny tiny part of a desert wasteland and calling it " a preserve" like it was a damn paradise garden of
Eden is just a big lie. (which is unChristian if you were one)
" have never heard him be HALF as mean as any average poster on Kos."
Wow. I don't think you're in any position to decide what any "average" poster on Kos is, let alone make the meaningless generalization that you have - solely for the purpose of coming to the aid of Rush Limbaugh.
Unless you've monitored the thousands of posts, and have analyzed them in any meaningful way.
Otherwise, your statement is simply ridiculous.
Rush is a mean spirited guy. He's a demagogue, and he plays his listeners like puppets for his personal financial gain. He also exploits and abuses his visibility, so in that sense he's every bit as accountable as any other public figure.
He's fair game.
As for your response to jdrew - double wow. Judge not, sweetheart, lest ye be judged. I don't think you're the person who gets to say who's a christian, and who isn't.
heh
I don't say that, for heavens sake, HE HAS.
Imo, Rush is ALOT less meanspirited than you Heh.
So you might want to think about that.
RWS, any idea why so many hate filled Lefty nutcase wackos come here to spew their venom?
You get quite a collection of ignorant loudmouth baboons and lunatic jackasses here. It's good for a laugh. How very sincere and self righteous the anointed pretend to be. How quick they are to condemn better men for minor faults.
I wonder if Lefty bully boys think it will be easy to beat up on a girl. Or, if they're drawn by outrage at your sparkle, or come motivated by a dark and bitter envy to display their base emotions? They want to jam you with false accusation and juvenile ridicule, shut you up, and then crow about how kind and considerate they really, really, (want others to think they) are.
I think it's because I don't call them names...
Oy, Sparkle - why so judgemental? And why so judgemental on such scant data?
As for Jack Black - blow me.
If the shoe fits.
Which of these traits is representative of one political leanings:
(1) The ability to learn from prior mistakes and adapt avoid future problems.
(2) The ability to admit when you are in error.
(3) "striving for the good"
(4) "Being better than you were the day before and hoping to be even better tomorrow."
The fact that you would list such things as traits associated with one set of political values is ludicrous (and a little frighteningly misguided).
Do you honestly believe that no liberals have any of these traits, and that the only reason you are able to maintain this positive character traits is because you vote for a certain slate of candidates?
If so, there is very little hope for you in America's future is the divisiveness that is currently being used by our leaders for their own personal power games ever falls into disfavor with the populace.
Would you simply stop trying to be a better person if you found yourself more like a Democratic candidate than a Republican one? You should give yourself a little more credit than this, and give your political party a little less.
I was just espousing the conservative philosphy. Not comparing it to liberals.
Stop being so touchy.
Black Jack
RWS can handle her own, most people on her site are civil, and she has plenty of help on her back to take care of the left, liberal people who post here. Which is why I enjoy reading and commenting here.
heh
Way to show how classy we licberals are.
No, you were espousing a christian philosophy and attributing it to conservatives (and by implication removing the traits as those which could be held by non-conservatives)
This is decidely not a part of any well thought out "conservative philosophy" that I have ever seen. Mostly, they stick with domestic and foriegn policy issues when talking politics. You are among the few who are willing to come out and tell the world that the reason for your self-betterment is not based on any set of religious or moral beliefs, or any hope in human kind and it's future, but is based solely in your political leanings, which you also admit have changed as time has passed.
Did you not strive for self improvement until Reagan took office and you changed parties? Or do you simply not see how similar you and Rush are in your style of pandering to your base by telling them exactly what they want to hear regardless of the logical gymnastics involved in attempting to prove or disprove your demagougery?
Black Jack:
If you can show me anyone who has denagrated this site with "hate filled Lefty wacko spewed venom" I'll do a hell of a lot more than you to run them out of here.
Just point some fingers, and I'll be all over them.
Oh, also, if you could point out the "ignorant loudmouth baboons" and "lunatic jackasses" as well it would be appreciated.
Don't be afraid to use usernames (which are located at the bottom of the comments).
Yet another thread derailed by a classic jandrew non sequeter. Well done.
Yeah, Sparkle, name calling might have something to do with it. I'll think it over and get back to you.
No, jandrew, actually I was into self improvement when I was Democrat. But when I saw what I felt was important for self improvement not being important to the Democrats.
I left.
So as a Democrat you never equated your personal character traits with your political philosophy, but as a "Conservative" you do?
Why is that? Could it be that the conservative movement has convinced you that the reason you are good has something to do with the beliefs they want you to hold?
You get quite a collection of ignorant loudmouth baboons and lunatic jackasses here. It's good for a laugh. How very sincere and self righteous the anointed pretend to be. How quick they are to condemn better men for minor faults.
Black Jack, congrats on an excellent description of the Rush Limbaugh fanbase!
jandrew,
You aren't listening. I DID equate my personal character traits to being a Democrat, but that was when being a Democrats really meant caring for the little guy.
It doesn't anymore.
From my reading of your note at TexasSparkle, I see I've violated your provision against name calling. Thanks for pointing that out. I did rattle a few cages, but that's beside the point. I shouldn't have called your Lefty commenters names. I apologize to them and to you.
"I shouldn't have called your Lefty commenters names. I apologize to them and to you."
Thanks. You can still blow me.
Glenn Beck's an ignorant asshole. That you "love him" speaks volumes about your lack of discernment and lack of intellect.
Commenting by HaloScan
