Rush Limbaugh: new, softer
civil libertarian?
Commentary by PAT MURPHY
Could it be that Rush Limbaugh,
the right wing’s most abrasive and reliable ideological polemicist, is
undergoing the same sort of transmogrification that turns an
unattractive caterpillar into a beautiful butterfly?
Is he, wonder of wonders, showing
signs of becoming a civil libertarian?
Will Rush Limbaugh one day
announce, for example, that gays should be allowed to serve in the
military and same-sex marriages should be legalized?
Far-fetched? Oh, yes. But check
out Rush’s symptoms for telltale signs.
As millions of his faithful know
and millions of critics who delight in his current plight know, Limbaugh
is an admitted pain killer addict whom Florida authorities want to
charge with doctor-shopping for pills—2,000 pain killer pills in six
months from four doctors, maybe more.
But Limbaugh is outraged that the
Palm Beach County attorney used a search warrant to seize his medical
records, rather than notifying him. He’s in court arguing that his
privacy has been violated.
He also claims, Limbaugh-style,
that he’s the victim of politics—the prosecutor is a Democrat and, as
Rush is wont to suspect, a liberal Democrat to boot.
But along comes an utterly
unlikely ally to join his defense and help argue his case—the (gasp!)
American Civil Liberties Union, of which few are more liberal in Rush’s
mind and whom Limbaugh has flipped off ungraciously in the past.
So, if Limbaugh has become such an
ardent defender of privacy rights and a civil libertarian concerned
about prosecutorial zeal, presumably he henceforth will preach on radio
what he practices in his own legal troubles.
Does he regret his memorable quote
from the past, "If you commit a crime, you're guilty!"
Limbaugh, who lives in an $11
million seaside mansion in Palm Beach and commutes from his New York
broadcast studio in a private luxury jet, ironically and perhaps
prophetically, also said on the air, "Poverty is not the root cause of
crime."
And this: "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." Presumably
Rush draws a distinction between violating painkiller laws and violating
street drug laws.
Further, "In most cases we ought
to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy
sentence and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too
tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime in too many parts of
the country."
If privacy rights are now
Limbaugh’s personal crusade, what’re the chances he’ll fire an angry
salvo on radio at President Bush and his homeland security brass for
asking American, JetBlue and Northwest airlines to fork over personal
information on millions of passengers without informing them, admittedly
illegally, and not even with a search warrant or court order?
Limbaugh criticizing President
Bush?
Naw. Rush’s high dudgeon about his
privacy rights after all does have its political exceptions.