Defending Rush Limbaugh

Proving once again the benefits of carefully crafting headlines to maximize one’s Googlerank, my previous entry, Rush Limbaugh: Addict is currently #1 on a search for that phrase, and the profusion of comments on the page is the result.

Most of the comments are predictable serves-him-right snark. But looking afield for other comments, I noticed the following from David Frum: Rush and Us, II (you have to scroll down a bit past the actually somewhat apt commentary on liberal hypocrisy during Monicagate). Here’s an excerpt:

To these gloatings, there are two things that should immediately be said.

First, if the only people allowed to argue in favor of moral standards are people without moral imperfections, then there will be nobody to do the job at all. Every one of us on the conservative side of the great moral and cultural divisions of the day is riddled with faults, flaws, and failings.

Second, on the drug issue in particular – who knows better than the drug addict how seductive and deadly drugs can be? In light of Rush’s own dependency, his attacks on drug use and drug legalization resound more powerfully than ever. This is not hypocrisy: It is conviction grounded in painfully acquired personal experience.

I can appreciate, on a certain level, the artistry that goes into crafting an up-is-down assertion that does a good job at maintaining internal self-consistency. And given the overwhelming power of human belief, there doubtless are fans of Frum’s who read that passage (in its original home, at the National Review Online, at least, if not here) nodding their heads in sober agreement.


Rush got caught in flagrant hypocrisy. You either recognize that, or you’re deluding yourself. I’d wager pretty much any amount that Frum falls into the former category, rather than the latter, so I lump him in with the rest of those willing to knowingly deceive others in pursuit of their larger aims.

One Response to “Defending Rush Limbaugh”

  1. Patriot Says:

    Well, almost.

    We (his audience) all knew he was taking possibly-addictive painkillers that he was PERSCRIBED because he told us. Then all the sudden one day we hear he’s “on drugs” and we’re like “No way! There’s no way someone could have done that job and been on drugs, that’s a hard job!” Then we find out it’s 75% hype, he’s not “on drugs,” it’s just that he’s developed an addiction to the painkillers – something he’s never made fun of in others.

    So not exactly a hypocrite, just irresponsible. I want to find out whether he really tried to obtain them illegally or not and what that situation was.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.