Talk Radio having a hard time talking about Rush

Hugh Hewitt confined himself to taking callers from people with some experience with addiction, either as addicts or care-givers. Micheal Medved has waded a little more deeply into the stormy waters of Rush's problems, but has balanced the collegial respect with a frank acknowledgement that its not something to just sweep under the rug. Some other hosts, Mike Gallagher for instance, have attacked callers for being disappointed with Rush for failing to live up to his own standards. Its Gallagher's possition that Rush has had a possitive influence and therefore shouldn't be criticized. Presumably there is a balance test here in which Rush's positive influence outweighs the disappointment. That's all well and good for an assesment of Rush the person. But whatever standard we apply has to make sence when we look at other celebrities and non-celebrities. Matthew Perry had a very similar problem, in which a medical condition produced a pain-killer addiction. There is the well publicised problems of Robert Downey Jr and Charlie Sheen. (Sheen's story is second, scroll down.)

Martin Sheen turned his son, Charlie, into the judge overseeing his probation from previous run-ins. The elder Sheen praised the effect of the legal system on putting leverage on people with a problem. Too often, especially where well-liked celebs are concerned, we greet such news with a wink, and that's no sign that anyone needs to get their life in order. The fact that there is going to be some criticism and that Rush's repuation will in part depend on how he deals with this, can play the role of valuable leverage in helping Rush to commit himself to resolving his addiction once and for good. If we are harder or easier on Rush because of politics than we would be on Perry, Downey, Sheen, Darryl Strawberry, or anyone else who becomes addicted (and the difference between becoming addicted because of recreational or pain-management is only a part of the issue, I don't think it makes all the difference) then we're just using our politics as a shield to avoid discussing the actual case at hand.

Personally I have always regarded addiction itself as the real evil, and don't think Rush did anything worse getting addicted and not taking the steps neccesary to fix it before now. Before we assume that Rush is a hypocrite, I'd like to see what he had to say about 1) cases like Matthew Perry in which someone else got addicted to pain meds, and 2) addiction itself, not the recreational use that can be one road to addiction. I think one can support Rush's position and still condemn recreational drug use that leads to addiction and other negative consequences.

As a side note, the comments on John Kerry's web site have been pretty sympathetic. I think that's a good sign that Dems (or at least Kerry supporters) are able to look past the politics to a degree.