Sucks, don\'t it?

Quite a bit of fuss was made over Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription drugs when the story broke, and so doesn't need to be made now. But the lessons didn't stop then for this right-wing hard-on. He just lost an appeal challenging the seizure of his medical records. If only every statist jerk would have his favorite programs used against him like this. The rest of us might get to breathe easier.

Now maybe he'll seriously consider what the Drug War does to people in this country. Maybe this will make him think of the millions of non-violent people who have been harmed even more by the government than he has been.

Share this

Maybe he'll grow wings and

Maybe he'll grow wings and fly.

I doubt there's anything

I doubt there's anything he'll learn. The hot air I've heard coming from conservatives on the Rush addiction issue seems to boil down to the idea that if you get addicted to painkillers you started taking for a medical problem, you're still better than some ordinary street junkie. You're a morally superior addict, and therefore not deserving of being crushed like an insect by the government for the good of society. (Get the distinction? Good. Neither do I).

Haha, good comment Lisa,

Haha, good comment Lisa, liked the end bit.

I'm of the opinion that those blowhard modern conservative and Neo con types are at least as bad as or even worse, sometimes, then your average leftie. And when the two mix in one then you really have some bad smelling sewage seeping..

"If only every statist jerk

"If only every statist jerk would have his favorite programs used against him like this."

I don't wish the evils of the state visited upon anyone simply because of what they've said.

Will Rush turn libertarian

Will Rush turn libertarian on drugs and, in a blaze of glory, both proclaim the truth and alienate millions of conservatives?

Poetically just as his prosecution of drug abuse is, the above question practically states its own answer.

Limbaugh will never change.

Limbaugh will never change. He is a reflexively "safe" and oh so predictable conservative Republican loyalist. In fact, I can't think of a single unorthodox position he takes on the issues that is outside of the standard conservative playbook. He so predictable that I seriously doubt whether he believes it all himself.

These days I turn the dial to Bill O'Reilly. He may be a blowhard but at least he strays off the reservation now and then.

David Beito, Limbaugh is an

David Beito,

Limbaugh is an obnoxious blowhard, but he is actually halfway civil to callers who disagree with him when they get through. He lets them finish a sentence, at least. O'Reilly deliberately, through interrupting, editing, and yelling "Shut up," prevents his audience from hearing any heretical argument if he thinks there's a danger they might be swayed by it.

Usually when O'Reilly strays from the reservation it's just enough to make his "rugged independent" branding seem barely plausible. And his negative "admissions" about Bush usually have the effect of distracting viewer attention in the direction Bush & Co. want. For example, "independent" O'Reilly got "tough" on Bush last spring by slapping him on the wrist for being misled by bad intelligence and not cracking down hard enough on Tenet afterward. No mention at all of Doug Feith or the OSP--it was all those naughty rank-and-file analysts at the CIA. O'Reilly couldn't have adhered any closer to Bush admin talking points if Karl Rove had written his script for him--assuming he didn't.

As unpleasant as he may be, I don't think Limbaugh is anywhere near the disingenuous whore O'Reilly is.

Limbaugh is far more

Limbaugh is far more intelligent and talented than O'Reilly, it's not even close. Limbaugh is often painfully aware of being disingenuous, it shows in the way he gets very awkward and strained on some points.

O'Reilly simply dismisses any argument that doesn't strike his fancy today, Limbaugh actually thinks his way through things even if he doesn't do so honestly on the air.

O'Reilly is a blowhard, rude

O'Reilly is a blowhard, rude to callers. True. True. He may even be worse than than Rush in this respect. Forced to choose, however, I still would rather listen to him. At least on occasion, he provides useful information that is not in the RNC playbook. For example, this morning he mentioned (without reflexively deconstructing) an AP poll that showed Kerry ahead. Rush would never do that.

Rush is usually better in odd (non election years). Last year, for example, he was actually somewhat critical of Dubya's Medicaid bill. Once an election year begins, however, he throws away all hesition and becomes a down-the-line kool-aid drinking, RNC loyalist. Listening to him in this mode is a complete waste of time, at least for informational purposes.

The only topic on which I

The only topic on which I can recall agreeing with Oâ??Reilly was his criticism of Jesse Jackson. I credit Rush for sparking my interest in Politics (I was a conservative for a few weeks or so before I discovered libertarianism).