Al, Al, Al, I'm amazed you don't see the absolutely screaming irony of what he just said about himself vs. his usual rhetoric. Surely you see the rather amazing parallels, and how he is using another standard for himself than the one he has applied to all those fucking drug addicts over the last 15 years of empathy-drained pontification. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.

The humor isn't that he has a problem, that deserves sympathy - the humor is how he is handling it vs what he has told the rest of the world to do.

I think Al might be asking for specific examples of the conflict, rather than assumptions that Rush must have said rude things about addicts because of whatever.

He's been talking for three hours a day for years, there must be something. And when produced, it'll be interesting to see if Rush faces up to it or dissembles about it. I suspect the former, but we'll probably see.

I don't understand, is Rush supposed to check himself into prison because he was addicted to pain killers? If the investgation that is still going on results in jail time or whatever, which it won't, but if it does, then Rush is obligated by law to serve it, which he would. I don't think he is being a hipocrite at all so far. In fact he would probably say that drug users still should go to prison. If Rush went to prison a month ago, don' you think it would have straightend him out better then treatment would have? I bet it would.

Where is the "empathy-drained pontification"? I've listened to him off and on, and I haven't heard "empathy-drained" at all. He might occassionally poo-poo some over the top whining, but he is by all appearances in fact a kind and loving human being. He's a pretty nice guy, best I can tell.

Al: I'm sympathetic to your view that many of Rush's critics are "projecting their own spiteful personalities onto him." That's because I'm one of these spiteful personalities. I say fuck him. And I mean that from the bottom of my hateful heart.

Watching smug moralists get caught in their own lies is one of life's great pleasures. I haven't been this ecstatic since Newt Gingrich nearly deep-sixed the GOP's Congressional majority. So close!

"Watching smug moralists get caught in their own lies is one of life's great pleasures."

Those are Mike's words, the words of a hateful, bitter person (who writes lousy satire, as well). If Wellstone had been a Republican, Mike would have rejoiced at news of his tragic death. Good for you, Mike.

Nonetheless, he is not some evil monster who deserves ridicule and suffering. Those supposed compassionate liberals who are enjoying his suffering, and are anxious to rub his face in it are showing their true colors- and they are a lot more ugly and hateful than anything Rush has ever shown.

Spare me, please. Rush has set himself up for all the barbs he's now receiving. I guess the guy can dish it out but can't take it.

Besides, I'm not enjoying Rush's suffering; I'm enjoying watching his monumental hypocrisy come rising to the surface. I'm not rubbing his face in his addiction; I'm rubbing his face in his lack of compassion for other addicts ... until NOW, of course.

This is not a compassionate man you defend, Al. Within the first few paragraphs of this first show back, he makes reference to "linguini-spined liberals". And then he goes on to talk about how hard it's been to try to make everyone around him happy.

I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between laughing at Rush's hypocrisy and laughing at his suffering. I'm doing the former, not the latter. And I think that's pretty clear in my writing.

We're just never going to be one big happy family here at Blogcritics, are we?

He has not gone on about locking up all the dopers, or any such. Those accusations are largely just made up out of the air.

"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."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If(Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"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

(One note: That last quote took place while he was on drugs. On his return broadcast, he noted that he had been addicted to pain pills for eight years.)

I have not once talked about Limbaugh's drug problem with glee. I only wished him well and offered prayers for his recovery. And yes, some libs trashed me for it. Whatever.

But the truth is the truth. His past statements exist, and he will be held accountable for them --certainly by commentators famous and non-, perhaps by law-enforcement officials. That isn't schädenfreude; that's only fair.

Limbaugh is almost single-handedly responsible for the spiteful, hate-filled, self-righteous tone of current political pundantry. It's entirely appropriate to now rub his face in it. I couldn't care less about his painkiller addiction. I just enjoy watching the pig get poked.

At least Mr. Larkin and Fsharp are honest in their wicked hatefulness. We know where YOU stand. "spiteful, hate-filled, self-righteous" Those words do not anything like accurately describe Limbaugh. They would seem to much better describe your comments here.

Natalie, I have not noticed you being hateful in your criticism of Limbaugh at all. It is also absolutely reasonable to bring his words back to him. Realize however that these are a few comments dug out of THOUSANDS of hours of talk.

None of which amounts to Rush being heartless or mean. He just doesn't think drugs should be legalized. He doesn't think that's doing the country right, nor that it's doing the best thing for people with drug problems.

As a good, practical conservative, Limbaugh would tend to favor a tough love approach. That doesn't mean that he is "empathy drained," but that he recognizes that sometimes a daddy boot in the ass will do you more good than mommy's coddling.

Personally, I might be considered much more cold hearted here than Limbaugh, rejecting either parental role for the government. As a libertarian, I think you have a right to do whatever you want with your own body. Plus I recognize that running other people's lives is a futile effort. I might try to reach out to a friend or family member, but at some point I'm just going to leave you to die face down in the gutter if that is what you choose for yourself.

Note also that those quotes of Rush are not complaints against people who use drugs, but against advocates of legalization. He thinks that legalizing drugs would be ruinous to the country. I may disagree, but it's perfectly understandable how he'd think such a thing.

Rush has never said anything like that the first time somebody gets caught with so much as a joint they should be sent to prison.

However, if he found himself convicted of some kind of drug charge in a court of law and sent to jail for a few months, I predict he would step up and take his medicine, and not whine about being a victim or that it's not fair.

What do you want from him, anyway?

I don't have any strong feelings about Rush either way - he's just another sight on the cultural highway - but the central tenet of his entire persona - I am always right, unprecedented excellence in broadcasting, follow me and I'll set you free - is so stunningly contradicted by his blanket statement about being powerless over addiction and learning to like himself, and not trying to please anyone with his opinions anymore, that it takes wanton blinders to ignore it.

I hope he gets and stays well, I hope he stays off the drugs and learns to like himself, but he has to come down about 75% on the hubris scale for any of this to fit in with his past proclamations.

People can change, that's great, but they have to explain the change in order for it to ring true.

We're just never going to be one big happy family here at Blogcritics, are we?

Not when one Blogcritic calls another a "hateful jackass" with a "spiteful personality" or "ugly and hateful," Eric.

"spiteful, hate-filled, self-righteous" Those words do not anything like accurately describe Limbaugh.

Let's see, does that include the time, on his television show, that he asked, "Do you know the White House has a new dog?" and then showed a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was about 13 years old at the time?

"Spare me, please. Rush has set himself up for all the barbs he's now receiving. I guess the guy can dish it out but can't take it."

I haven't heard him whine about it.

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993
I haven't heard him reverse his position on this stance.

"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

I haven't heard him reverse his position on this one either.

If nothing else you have to give him credit for admitting it in the face of a criminal investigation (which is still going on). If he is arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison and he then starts reversing his previous stance then I would probably scream hypocrisy.

I try to teach my kids a moral lifestyle, I try to teach them to make good decisions.

Does that mean that I have never made a dumb decision? Does that mean that I have never done anything immoral? Of course not... How does that make me a hypocrite? I would only be a hypocrite if I said that these things were not immoral for me but are for you....
That isn't the position I'm taking with my kids at all.

I must not be seeing it because I don't get it.

That's like saying that "I can't be a Christian" because I'm a sinner....

I try to teach my kids a moral lifestyle, I try to teach them to make good decisions.

Does that mean that I have never made a dumb decision? Does that mean that I have never done anything immoral? Of course not... How does that make me a hypocrite? I would only be a hypocrite if I said that these things were not immoral for me but are for you....

I agree, if you try to teach your kids a moral lifestyle while admitting that you yourself sometimes fall short of the ideal you aspire to. But it is absolutely hypocritical to hold other people to a standard that you yourself don't meet, all the while pretending that you *do* meet it. That's what Rush has done.

Someone else has summarized it better than I:

Rush Limbaugh is an addict who boisterously derided the moral shortcomings in others while actively and aggressively pursuing his drug habit--irrespective of the legalities.

*That's* why he's a hypocrite. Ever heard Rush go off on Ted Kennedy for his drinking? While he was doing that, he was secretly abusing prescription drugs and obtaining them illegally. Mocking someone for a very similar failing as yours, while not admitting you have that failing, is hypocrisy.

It's also hypocritical to say that drug users belong in jail, when you yourself are a drug abuser and haven't turned yourself in. I don't expect anyone to turn themselves in, but then again, I'm not saying that people who do the things that I do belong in jail. The implication, once you learn that Rush is an addict, is that *some* drug users belong in jail and others -- aka, Rush -- don't.

What if I said that I think abortion should be illegal and that women who've had abortions were morally wrong, and then I went out and had an abortion but didn't tell anyone but still proclaimed at dinner parties my standard line about abortion? That's not hypocrisy?

Face it, Rush's moralizing chickens have come home to roost!

BHW, regarding comment #14: Boo frickin' hoo. My comments are pretty damned mild compared to what gets thrown at me here routinely. Moreover, when I see Blogcritics saying stuff like

I say fuck him. And I mean that from the bottom of my hateful heart.

I don't think I'm out of line in the least to describe that as "ugly and hateful."

Rush is not particularly a moralizer. That would be Bill Bennett territory. Thinking that drugs are bad and should be illegal does not make you the Church Lady.

Nor do I see where the constant accusations of arrogance come from. He has a pretty good sense of his place in the world. He actually has some reasonable humility. He knows that he's quite good at what he does, which is undeniable based on many years of phenomenal success.

But he does not confuse being an outstanding talk show host with being God, or even a VIP. He has, for example, consistently downplayed his own significance in Republican electoral gains over the last decade.

As to Eric's charges of "hubris" I completely don't see them. Clinton lying in front of a federal grand jury, now that's hubris. Showing some confidence in your ideas does not qualify. For arrogance or hubris, Rush does not begin to even be in a league with a typical pop singer or congressman.

Perhaps the pinkos would be happier if he groveled and hung his head and acted like he didn't really believe what he says.

That ain't gonna happen, though- thankfully.

even if you love the man..as many do..you must agree that he is a bit of a hypocrite.

i don't listen to him at all his entire persona is so negative.

i think the man has a deep dark secret that the oxycontin helps to dull.

he will be much happier in jail.

jack e. jett
the jack e. jett show

BHW, regarding comment #14: Boo frickin' hoo.

I wasn't complaining, Al, just explaining that Eric's hope for a Blogcritics.org where everyone gets along ain't gonna happen. When I'm unfairly characterized, I'll defend myself, which I believe I've done well here.

Enough of Rush.

No, I don't see hypocrisy AT ALL. He's not saying that it's wrong when someone else does it, but ok when he does.

His persona is not negative. He is, as he sometimes says, a big lovable fuzzball. Some folks will insist that anyone who vigorously criticizes the left is a hatemonger. Saying that a million times will not, however, make it true.

The obvious "deep, dark secret" would appear to be absolute physical pain related to back problems and unsuccessful surgery.

"Natalie, I have not noticed you being hateful in your criticism of Limbaugh at all. It is also absolutely reasonable to bring his words back to him. Realize however that these are a few comments dug out of THOUSANDS of hours of talk"
yeah, but if, for example, i were to make some really racist comment, it would be only a few words out of the many i speak. it would not stop the comment being racist, or me from being shown as an ignorant asshole.

I would suggest that before, rush was (also?) spaghetti-spined - locking up all the problem people in prison, rather than trying to help them, is essentially trying to hide your problems, which sounds to me very much like a wussout so-called solution.
I am glad that he appears to have changed his view. The only thing is, both of the "all drug addicts should be sent to prison" "drug addicts should never be sent to prison" views are too generalised, but that's a whole other argument...
I would point out that almost all of the "anti-Rush" comments are not happy at his problem. Those that are, really are wrong. There are few people in the world who deserve to suffer, and i pray i never meet one

"i don't listen to him at all his entire persona is so negative."

If you don't listen to him then what are you basing your description on???

He isn't a negative person, he is very upbeat, he is an optimist.

And if people only highlighted a portion of what you said in a conversation and displayed it without putting it into context you would still look like a racist asshole....even if you really weren't.

One could assume that it was through listening that he realized his antipathy for Limbaugh's on-air persona -- which was mean, loud, obnoxious, boast-filled and hateful, IMO -- and then decided to stop listening.

I DO listen to Limbaugh regularly -- whtever one says about him, he knows broadcasting like few on the airwaves these days do -- and I hate the show. It was better when he had the comedy bits. Those were entertaining.

my ultimate issue with Rush is that his show is built around a cult of personality which says "be as much like me as possible." Do we want a nation of pompous lying narcotic addicts? If his central issue is pain, he could have recevied treatment and a legit prescription for Oxy or whatever was appropriate for the pain - that's what the drugs are made for. Why go through all this if chronic pain is the issue?

It's amazing because the "be like me" attitude of the radio host isn't completely uncommon, but the results are much different based on subject matter. If you have heard Jim Rome's radio show it is much the same style where he wants people to be like him and share his opinions. His listeners even graciously call themselves "clones" in "The Jungle." I guess sports takes are just a little less threatening than extreme right-wing political opinions. :-)

Where do you get a cult of personality which says "be as much like me as possible."? Is it just that he thinks his opinions are correct and that you should agree with him? He should display some cheesy neurotic insecurity in his opinions?

And where do you get "lying" from? What, that he was slow to admit that he had a problem?

You don't dig on Rush. That's cool, but you're making wild judgments that are not very reasonable.

Narcotics addiction is not cool, but no one is saying that it is- least of all Rush.

Apparently he did have a prescription at some point, but somewhere it got away from him. Moreover, there are a lot of issues in this country about doctors being afraid of overwriting (in the arbitrary judgment of government agents) scripts for painkillers- even for chronic or terminal patients- for fear of DEA scrutiny. Lots of chronic sufferers are driven into the black market like this.

doesn't the fact that his followers proudly call themselves "DittoHeads" sort of imply the cult of personality?

Mark,

Actually, that is a phrase that cropped up in the early days of going Rush going National. Too many people were starting their phone calls with the "long time listener, first time caller, I love your show, etc." and so Rush established "ditto" to be a short hand phrase for people to use to open a phone call.

Also, the "dittohead" thing is an inside joke mocking the common charge that his listeners are, in his usual phrasing, "mind numbed robots" who can't think for themselves and take some kind of marching orders from Rush.

"Let's see, does that include the time, on his television show, that he asked, "Do you know the White House has a new dog?" and then showed a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was about 13 years old at the time?"

Didnt happen.

Transcript from lexis nexis (Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists that were coming out by the dozens at the time, and how they were biased):

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

_________________________

Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized (and the guy responsible was fired).

_________________________

LIMBAUGH: My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton...I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. ...

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry...

LIMBAUGH: We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings...