Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh and the Dems' smear offensive
Posted on 10/05/2003 8:19:29 PM PDT by luv2ndamend
Once again, the left's knives are out for Rush Limbaugh. The National Enquirer, that paragon of journalistic integrity, reported that Rush has been taking large quantities of unprescribed painkilling drugs.
Now what matters is not whether Rush is or was addicted to a prescription drug but how the liberal media are treating the issue. And true to form, these political inquisitors, political assassins and carriers of the flame for the Dems are using it to try and destroy him.
Of course, the National Enquirer will argue otherwise. But these are the same political bigots who gave unstinting support to Bill Clinton when Juanita Broaddrick accused him of raping her. (This rag also has David Kendall, Clinton's former lawyer and an ardent Democrat, on its payroll. This is called "looking after the boys").
It's always the same story with Democrats. Their motto should be: Don't debate, assassinate. And this is what they are trying to do to Rush, despite the fact that the alleged evidence against him is extremely flimsy and may well have been concocted.
There are numerous examples of the Dems viciousness. Recall that in August 2000 that Zack Exley, a vicious Democrat, put up a defamatory site describing George W. Bush as a drunk and cocaine-user?
Where is this foul-minded bigot now? Working for MoveOn.org, a leftwing organisation that is funded by a couple of rich Silicon Valley Dems.
(Incidentally, one of Schwarznegger's accusers is associated with MoveOn.org).
So where did a bigot like Exley get his inspiration? From Bush-hating journalists who in August 1999 published unsupported allegations of cocaine use and then demanded that he respond to them.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post was the alleged source of this rumor, for which he admitted that there was not a shred of evidence. So why did Kurtz publish it? Perhaps the question should be which Dem asked him to publish it.
Am I being conspiratorial? If so, can someone please explain why Kurtz, a Democrat and a friend of Bill's, refused to publish detailed accounts of Clinton's use of cocaine? Now the accusations of drug-taking by Clinton are not based on hearsay or vicious rumors.
In 1990, for instance, Sharline Wilson swore on oath to a Federal grand jury that Clinton took cocaine. This is how she described to The London Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard one incident of cocaine use by Clinton:
"I watched Bill Clinton lean up against a brick wall . . . he casually stuck my tooter up his nose. He was so messed up that night, he slid down the wall into a garbage can and just sat there like a complete idiot.'"
There is also the testimony of Sally Perdue who gave a detailed account of Clinton using cocaine several times in her presence, saying: "He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro. "
We also have the case of Dr. Sam Houston, a well-respected Little Rock doctor and Hillary Clinton's father's physician, who claimed that Clinton suffered a cocaine overdose
There exists a police surveillance team video tape of Roger Clinton telling his dealer: "I've got to get some [cocaine] for my brother, he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." I don't think I have to ask anyone why Kurtz and his fellow media brownshirts refused to investigate Clinton's drug-taking.
Drug addiction is not something to feel superior about. I've known drug addicts and I've seen the misery they go through. And alcoholism can be just as destructive. But there is a huge and self-evident difference between a presidential candidate using cocaine and a Hollywood celebrity, Martin Sheen for example, using it.
If the story about Rush is true, what we have is the tragedy of a man who became hooked on painkillers because of drugs his doctors prescribed to kill his pain. This will not have been the first time patients have become inadvertently addicted to medications.
To use this affliction, if he does in fact suffer from it, to try and destroy him is indescribably evil. This assault on Rush proves that hardcore Dems have neither compassion nor even a sense of common decency. Brookes' economics editor, Gerry Jackson, is right when he says "hate and malice is what defines the left"
Rush's situation demonstrates the disgusting level to which the same media that covered up Clinton's drug use and refused to investigate Juanita Broaddrick's allegations of rape have now targeted him for extermination.
It's becoming clearer by the day that it is the Kurt's, Chaits, Meyers, Krugmans, Jennings, Rathers, Kourics, Sulzbergers, Dowds, Exleys, etc., who are imperiling Americans' liberty, for what they are in fact saying to every American is that if you oppose the Party we will destroy you.
For those of you who think I am exaggerating, just recall that it is only days since the left forced Rush out of ESPN. In addition, the same vicious pattern has repeated itself in California, with Schwarznegger as the victim.
The same Dems and reporters who stood by Clinton when he was exposed as a sexual predator, who covered up Bustamante's racism and Davis's assault on a middle-aged woman have now targeted Schwarznegger as a serial abuser of women. If that doesn't make you vomit, nothing will.
However, unlike Clinton and Davis, Arnie, being the man he is, did the decent thing and publicly admitted that in the past he had behaved badly toward women. He then apologized. The response of the LA Times and the New York Times was to falsely accuse him of being a Hitler supporter.
The LA Times went even further by producing more allegations of sexual assaults. To publish allegations without any attempt to confirm them is a gross breach of journalistic ethics. But to hardcore Dems anything is ethical if it destroys a Republican candidate.
There is only one way to deal with America's media scum and that is to fight fire with fire
It is a good idea to weigh the facts on their own merit, when we actually have facts to weigh. If it should turn out that he fell into that particular weakness, I think it is more important to remember the good he has done and and the fact that he has for many years spoken what many of us believe when our own voices are lost in the crowd. I am sure that if any of it is true, that Rush will suffer enough humiliation at the hands of his enemies without his friends turning on him too. Which of us is without sin or weakness, or even without an occasional dash of hypocrisy?
Hmmm. Lemme see.
By your standard, I guess we should insist that any public figure who is accused of something by anyone, no matter how decrepid, MUST come clean to our satisfaction.
Yeah, that's right. If someone can get the national enquire to write a story implying some nefarious wrongdoing, then we MUST as a society demand that person come clean.
C'mon. No one in authority whatsoever has said anything about Rush, other than the fact that his name came up in conjunction with this housekeeper and her convict husband.
When someone in authority comes out with some hard facts about Mr. Limbaugh, then we might consider asking him.
Until then, you are falling right into the slimebucket trap that is already ruining this country.
Death by innuendo. Paid innuendo, no less.
All that matters is the seriousness of the charges -- even to some here at FR.
You wrote exactly what my family and I suspect happened. We think there is some truth to the rumor that Rush began abusing narcotic pain relievers. God knows it is very easy to become addicted to opiates and Rush is a man with big appetites.
That said, we also think this woman and her husband are huge liars and are using Rush in the way you described. It doesn't matter to me if Rush is an addict. I liked Rush before this happened and I still like him. I want the best for him and I feel like he will face up to his problems like a man.
He doesn't want to say anything to mess up the case against the maid. Being that his faher and grandfather were lawyers,and he is somewhat knowledgeable in these areas.
I believe he is getting his legal staff together to put the Enquirer out of business.
I heard him say on Friday that the truth will be out there very soon and as an aside he said maybe by the end of this coming week.
Got a quote?
(((( possession ))))
The First Amendment protects printers from legal consequence for just about anything short of dropping a printing press on your head. So having a journalist toying with peoples' reputations is about like being in a jungle where a tiger may lurk--you don't assume the best but seriously consider the likelihood of encountering the worst.
Belief in "journalistic ethics" is a sign of education-induced brain damage. Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate is my ongoing FR thread which discusses that reality, and what might be done about it.
It makes no difference whether a person is selling dope or not, intent to distribute is based solely on the amount of drugs seized, not on actually selling anything.
If Rush was found to have more Hillbilly Heroin than legally allowed, he would be charged with intent to distribute.
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.