Rush to Victory - Why the Liberals are losing...

[fossten]

WONDER LAND

Rush to Victory
Why is Harry Reid acting like David Koresh? Because conservatives are winning.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, April 29, 2005 12:01 a.m.

In 1987, Rush Limbaugh sat down at a microphone at radio station KFBK-AM in Sacramento and began broadcasting something called "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

The rest is history.

The "rest"--the inexorable 15-year rise of conservative ideas and clout across what Howard Stern calls "all media"--is described in a provocative new book by Brian C. Anderson, "South Park Conservatives." What was once a mostly exclusive liberal country club--television, the press, book publishing, even the campuses--has become heavily integrated with aggressive, even crude, conservatives.

As described by Mr. Anderson, a writer with the Manhattan Institute, conservatives established their first beachhead in the early 1990s with talk radio. Then Fox conquered cable news and finally a virtual Mongol horde of conservative-to-libertarian bloggers swept across the Internet. In the 2004 election, these electric horsemen (apologies to Jane Fonda) pulled down Dan Rather and haunted John Kerry's war hero with Swift-boat ghosts.

It is no news that America has become a big backyard pool of opinion, awash with Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, the Drudge Report and, I'm told, Al Franken.

Contrary to myth, Roger Ailes didn't do this. Ronald Reagan did. Ronald Reagan may not make it to Mount Rushmore for winning the Cold War. But he secured his place in the conservative pantheon for tearing down another wall: the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was a federal regulation, dating to 1949, which mandated "contrasting viewpoints" from broadcasters. In reality, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that incumbents got "free" TV coverage across their terms while challengers got crumbs. The Fairness Doctrine was also an early nuclear option: If a local broadcaster's news operation made the local congressman or his party look bad, Washington could threaten to blow up his broadcast license.

Ronald Reagan tore down this wall in 1987 (maybe as spring training for Berlin) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination.

It wasn't obvious that conservatives soon would dominate talk radio. Radio programming has always been a soulless decision based on ratings. If programmers thought they could win the drive-time slots with Don Imus reading "Das Kapital," that would be on the air and advertisers would support it. But it's not.

What worked after speech became free in the spectrum ozone was hyper-articulate conservative hosts opening their microphones to millions of hyper-angry conservative voters--not least in such liberal bastions as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich, his Contract With America and the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952--the years in which the Fairness Doctrine largely kept politics off the air. This didn't happen because the Gingrich candidates were getting their message out in the Los Angeles Times or Boston Globe.

The conservative media ascendancy chronicled by Brian Anderson has driven many liberals nuts. The liberal media-advocacy group FAIR wants a new Fairness Doctrine to repair "broadcast abuse." Just months ago, FAIR cited "the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves."

What goes around comes around, I suppose. Conservatives would say they're now using radio, TV and the Web--all of it free from political control--to give as good as they got from the 1960s onward. For years, they claim, liberal managers in broadcasting, journalism, publishing and academia marginalized them. Were conservatives imagining that?

Maybe not. Mr. Anderson cites left-wing philosopher Herbert Marcuse (who taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis) urging liberals back then to practice active "intolerance against movements from the Right" in the name of "liberating tolerance." Thus, for example, liberal academics would vote to deny tenure for conservative colleagues--and still do--believing that this is a morally mandated act.

Liberals now marvel at the energy and output of the conservative "movement"--the talk shows, the think tanks, the blogosphere. No need to wonder; they compressed the rocket fuel for the inevitable explosion.

But a price has been paid. What got lost during the years of liberal exclusionism, according to Peter Berkowitz of George Mason University, was "guidance for the negotiation of disagreement in a democracy." No more perfect example of the price the political system has paid for years of conservative shunning exists than the Senate's standoff over judges. You can find the reasons Democrats are shunning the Bush nominees to the appellate bench by consulting the Web site of People for the American Way--abortion, corporate law, minimum wage, Social Security, environment. They disagree with these nominees on--everything.

For Democrats, judicial philosophy is a cultural Armageddon. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy have turned the Senate into a Branch Davidian compound. No one in the liberal cult is allowed to leave, including the hostage nominees--unless they recant their conservatism. How many Senate Democrats plan to be in this bunker when Bill Frist's ATF squad detonates the "nuclear option"?

Time was, "choice" for conservatives mainly meant accepting one's lot in life. Now they have options, lots of them.


Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

 

[TheDude]

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

Rush Limbaugh 1995

Did he say this after or before he popped enough OxyContin, Lorcet and hydrocodone to kill an elephant.........

Rush = Hypocrite

 

[fossten]

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

Rush Limbaugh 1995

Did he say this after or before he popped enough OxyContin, Lorcet and hydrocodone to kill an elephant.........

Rush = Hypocrite

You are so predictable it's laughable. I told a friend that I was going to post this article on here, and I said the first response would be some stupid personal attack on Rush about Oxy. You are so ignorant of the facts of his case it's not even worth my time to set you straight.

Not to mention the fact that you haven't even ADDRESSED THE TOPIC.

WEENIES=HYPOCRITICAL CHARACTER ASSASSINS

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Rush's (and in turn your) credibility has been proven to be zip, nada, ziltch. Having said that, your article in a nutshell credits the "rise of the right" to the supposed take-over of the MSM by the likes of Rush. That is in direct contradition to what you've asserted again and again on here, which is that the MSM is controlled by the left. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. Flip-floppin' feelin' good?

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Rush's (and in turn your) credibility has been proven to be zip, nada, ziltch. Having said that, your article in a nutshell credits the "rise of the right" to the supposed take-over of the MSM by the likes of Rush. That is in direct contradition to what you've asserted again and again on here, which is that the MSM is controlled by the left. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. Flip-floppin' feelin' good?

*owned*

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Oh, and also, you couldn't be more wrong. On all counts, by the way.


The article doesn't talk about Rush taking over the MSM anywhere in the text. That's your spin. The article does talk about the level of debate starting to increase in the country as a result of Rush and people who have come after him, thus negating much of the MSM's influence on the views of the American people across the country.

The MSM is controlled by the left. But it's not the only media out there anymore. It's losing its power because it promotes too much liberalism and dishonesty.

Rush has more credibility than any TEN of your Weenie leaders in Washington. The proof is the Harriet Miers debacle. 35+ Weenie senators tried to filibuster Alito and FAILED FAILED FAILED, looking miserable and pathetic in the attempt. Rush got on his show and questioned Harriet Miers' qualifications, sparking a nationwide outcry, and she withdrew her name from consideration. Checkmate, end of story, Jordan pulls up, hits, and THAT'S THE GAME!

I don't expect you to understand the difference, since your grasp of truth is feeble at best. But everybody else knows that you are consistently, routinely, and easily *owned* by me.

 

[TheDude]

You are so predictable it's laughable. I told a friend that I was going to post this article on here, and I said the first response would be some stupid personal attack on Rush about Oxy. You are so ignorant of the facts of his case it's not even worth my time to set you straight.

I'm glad you have friends..... Please do enlighten me, tell me why around the time he was being investigated on the 'alleged' drug abuse he suffered from hearing loss in both ears and rapid weight loss; both symptoms of abuse of these drugs?

Not to mention the fact that you haven't even ADDRESSED THE TOPIC.

The title says it all 'Rush to Victory'........ I'm not argueing that Rush isn't effective, but a hyprocrite. He's also a good character assassin, does that make him a weenie?

WEENIES=HYPOCRITICAL CHARACTER ASSASSINS

See, the difference is I attack Rush Limbaugh for being a hypocrite; he's a public figure whose words reach millions, it's very important for him not to be a hypocrite and follow the ideals he rants about. You on the other hand attack me, talk about character assassination and hypocrisy.

 

[fossten]

I'm glad you have friends..... Please do enlighten me, tell me why around the time he was being investigated on the 'alleged' drug abuse he suffered from hearing loss in both ears and rapid weight loss; both symptoms of abuse of these drugs?

I confess that I don't know the medical cause of his hearing loss, but I don't know that there's any evidence to support your allegation either. As for your absurd ad hominem claim about "popping" enough drugs to "kill an elephant," I can tell you that you don't know your numbers very well. He took around 2,000 pills over almost a 1-year period. That divides out to less than eight pills per day; hardly anything out of the ordinary when it comes to reducing excruciating pain. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

The title says it all 'Rush to Victory'........ I'm not argueing that Rush isn't effective, but a hyprocrite. He's also a good character assassin, does that make him a weenie?

You do well to acknowledge his effectiveness in restoring Conservatism to prominence, but you haven't offered any proof that he's a hypocrite. Being addicted to painkillers isn't the same as dealing drugs to others.

See, the difference is I attack Rush Limbaugh for being a hypocrite; he's a public figure whose words reach millions, it's very important for him not to be a hypocrite and follow the ideals he rants about. You on the other hand attack me, talk about character assassination and hypocrisy.

The difference is that you attack Rush Limbaugh for his personal flaws because you can't handle him in the arena of ideas, the same way you treat any of us in the same arena. Your playbook is still the same, and now you've admitted it.

 

[fossten]

Sick of Sausage
Today's voters crave ideology.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, February 3, 2006 12:01 a.m.

The most significant moment in Tuesday evening's State of the Union speech did not occur while President Bush was speaking. It was just before the speech, when TV cameras caught the two new Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They are conservatives. They are what the Republican voting base wanted on the court and what George Bush promised he would nominate if elected.

Liberals are appalled. Those who are not appalled are apoplectic, filling Web forums with denunciations of the justices and the president whose election victory entitled him to name them. This is a fight over ideology.

Ideology isn't popular in Washington. The American press abhors it, going so far as to make "ideologue" a term of political opprobrium, if not suggestive of mental illness. Ronald Reagan, an ideologue, was a "cowboy." The press prefers "pragmatists," politicians who win elections then set ideology aside to "get things done."

Looks to me like the pragmatists are running out of covering shade. Ideology is back at the center of American politics. It is going to stay there through the 2008 presidential election. This is what happens when the reigning political class abandons ideology--as now.

What preoccupies the Beltway's conventional wisdom today and what interests voters could not be more different.

What matters most to the Beltway is who gets caught by the Abramoff scandals, the legal dicta of al Qaeda surveillance, and who takes the fall for Hurricane Katrina. These things can be fun but alone they reduce politics to an Xbox game.

What interests the most motivated Democratic voters now is "progressive justice," "our values," "our rights," "public needs," Roe v. Wade. What interests their GOP opponents is "big government," "spending," patriotism, the "ethics" of cloning, "activist" judges, Roe v. Wade.

At a time when the Democratic elites no longer have a vibrant ideology and the Republicans in Washington are deserting theirs, the public across the spectrum seems to be screaming for recognizable signposts, shared political principles.

Back in 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book remembered for its title, "The End of Ideology." Years later he said in the New York Review of Books that some had missed an important caveat in the book's last chapter: "I said specifically that there is always an emotional hunger and yearning for ideology and that these impulses are always present among young intellectuals."

And so today. I don't know if I would call the people running Democratic Web sites such as MoveOn.org or the Daily Kos "young intellectuals," but what they're hungering for can only be called ideology. One might prefer a less fanatic, less foul-mouthed faction than this, and their Democratic principles may seem a tad antique, but the unmistakable fact is that the Web Democrats are ideologues--proudly and defiantly so.

They're insisting that the party nominate a candidate who'll run unashamedly on "progressive ideas." They believe Clintonian triangulation is a sellout. And they matter more than similar ideologues going back to the Trotskyite cells on the Lower East Side because they've proven they can use the Web to raise millions to support or punish Democratic politicians. Even ideologues on the left need capital.

This is what John Kerry's obviously quixotic filibuster was about, not stopping Sam Alito. When Al Gore gives a speech that strikes you as crazy ("How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison"), it's about this internal ideological competition, not you.

Karl Rove in a speech last month to the Republican National Committee said that "a party's governing philosophy should be at the heart of our political debates." The Web Democrats agree with this. The left-wing American Prospect magazine writes in its current issue: "In private conversations, progressives recognize that there is a need to do something about broad social changes that they, too, find objectionable." That is about the search for a winning ideology, not mere polling tactics. John Boehner's upset defeat of Roy Blunt in yesterday's House leadership vote suggests the Shadegg insurgency woke up House Republicans to the fact that their voting base was prepared to abandon them in November after they abandoned their ideological moorings.

The argument of practicing politicians against all this is that politics is ultimately about control by whatever means. You win, you control. This is often true, but now amid Abramoff, "out of control" GOP spending and the Democrats' 24/7 carping, whatever works is in low esteem in the heartland, if not discredited. In the new media world, the political sausage factory is always on view. Ugh.

Many candidates in the off-year election this November will still try to hide from ideology. That will be hard. In his State of the Union message Mr. Bush said, "We've entered a great ideological conflict." His is unavoidably a wartime presidency, and with no respite from politics. There was a time when politics stopped at the water's edge. In our time the Web Democrats' search for an ideology ensures that the president's every move will be subject to challenge. The fact that they're fighting the Bush surveillance policy on hapless legal grounds rather than separation of powers suggests it may take until 2008 to make the primal Web scream ideologically coherent.

People who crave the middle are simply going to be disappointed in 2008. The Democrats have abolished the middle, and the Republican middle has discredited itself. There is a reason John McCain markets himself as more right than center; he knows ideology matters just now. So do George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback and the rest.

How Hillary Clinton triangulates in the current atmosphere is the Rubik's Cube of our time. But for the Web Democrats and GOP refugees from the Congress they thought they controlled, the puzzling is over. They're looking for candidates "who represent my ideas." Ideologues.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

 

[TheDude]

I confess that I don't know the medical cause of his hearing loss, but I don't know that there's any evidence to support your allegation either. As for your absurd ad hominem claim about "popping" enough drugs to "kill an elephant," I can tell you that you don't know your numbers very well. He took around 2,000 pills over almost a 1-year period. That divides out to less than eight pills per day; hardly anything out of the ordinary when it comes to reducing excruciating pain. Bet you didn't know that, did you?.

He went through detox twice for his problem/addiction, that should tell you something. His house-keeper (now ex) says she supplied him illegally with many more pills above his doctors prescription.

You do well to acknowledge his effectiveness in restoring Conservatism to prominence, but you haven't offered any proof that he's a hypocrite. Being addicted to painkillers isn't the same as dealing drugs to others. .

The guy has said that drug users should be 'accused, prosecuted and sent to jail'. Abusing painkillers until you become addicted is legal?

The difference is that you attack Rush Limbaugh for his personal flaws because you can't handle him in the arena of ideas, the same way you treat any of us in the same arena. Your playbook is still the same, and now you've admitted it.

That coming from the king or personal attacks is laughable Fossten. As for Rush, he's a pain-killer junkie and being addicted to drugs makes him a hypocrite.

 

[fossten]

Big whoop, so somebody alleged something against Rush. So far the sum total of actual proven FACTS, or even INDICTMENTS, is ZERO. So much for your rumor mongering. Strike one.

It is NOT illegal to become addicted to drugs, it's illegal to SELL or DISTRIBUTE or TRAFFICK in drugs. Strike two.

Your inability to engage me or Rush or anybody on this forum in the true arena of ideas makes you an ineffective hypocrite. Strike three.

You're out.

 

[TheDude]

Big whoop, so somebody alleged something against Rush. So far the sum total of actual proven FACTS, or even INDICTMENTS, is ZERO. So much for your rumor mongering. Strike one..

Again, rapid weight lose and lose of hearing, guess that's just a coincidence that it happened while he was being investigated of drug abuse.......

It is NOT illegal to become addicted to drugs, it's illegal to SELL or DISTRIBUTE or TRAFFICK in drugs. Strike two..

It IS illegal to abuse prescription drugs and it IS illegal to buy them without a prescription..........

Your inability to engage me or Rush or anybody on this forum in the true arena of ideas makes you an ineffective hypocrite. Strike three..

Blah blah blah and blah...... Don't look now, but you're a hypocrite and very effective at being one.

 

[fossten]

Again, rapid weight lose and lose of hearing, guess that's just a coincidence that it happened while he was being investigated of drug abuse.......



It IS illegal to abuse prescription drugs and it IS illegal to buy them without a prescription..........



Blah blah blah and blah...... Don't look now, but you're a hypocrite and very effective at being one.

Either you are stubbornly trying to be childish, or you really just don't get it. I'm going to try this again:

There is NO EVIDENCE that Rush abused or purchased ILLEGAL DRUGS. You are trying to paint him as a hypocrite by the use of coincidental anecdote, which obviously isn't enough for even the PROSECUTOR who's trying to nail Rush on anything. He's been totally UNSUCCESSFUL in finding ANY evidence of wrongdoing, and has admitted this publicly. Your assertions are simply NOT BASED IN FACT, only rumor at best.

Again, you have no answer for the arena of ideas, so you resort to personal attacks. Your best shot is to try to turn everything I say around and direct it back at me, which is worse than 5th grade level stuff. I can actually sense the overall IQ level in this forum plummet when you speak.

I grow tired of this conversation, especially since it's a moot point. Rush has not been found guilty of ANY crime, and he is still on the air making mincemeat out of you and your weenie ilk.

End of story.

 

[TheDude]

Either you are stubbornly trying to be childish, or you really just don't get it. I'm going to try this again:

There is NO EVIDENCE that Rush abused or purchased ILLEGAL DRUGS. You are trying to paint him as a hypocrite by the use of coincidental anecdote, which obviously isn't enough for even the PROSECUTOR who's trying to nail Rush on anything. He's been totally UNSUCCESSFUL in finding ANY evidence of wrongdoing, and has admitted this publicly. Your assertions are simply NOT BASED IN FACT, only rumor at best.

Again, you have no answer for the arena of ideas, so you resort to personal attacks. Your best shot is to try to turn everything I say around and direct it back at me, which is worse than 5th grade level stuff. I can actually sense the overall IQ level in this forum plummet when you speak.

I grow tired of this conversation, especially since it's a moot point. Rush has not been found guilty of ANY crime, and he is still on the air making mincemeat out of you and your weenie ilk.

End of story.

Can we say personal attack? But I'm glad you got that off your chest super genius. "I can actually sense the overall IQ level in this forum plummet when you speak." That was actually funny, thanks for the laugh.

I guess you believe OJ Simpson was innocent too, the glove didn't fit afterall.

End of story as you say.

 

[fossten]

Deville, is your first name Joe?

You know, Deville, this caller on Rush's show today sounded a lot like you, full of sound and fury while signifying nothing.

I've enclosed a transcript:

Joe from Williamsport, PA Articulates Liberalism
February 7, 2006


RUSH: Joe in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, welcome to the program. Nice to have us with us, sir.

CALLER: Yes, Rush, I have to disagree with your take on Rock the Vote. I think it takes a lot of nerve to accuse Democrats and liberals of voter fraud after what happened in the year 2000.

RUSH: Doesn't take any nerve at all. We deal with the truth and facts here.

CALLER: I don't think so. We've got a president who has authorized torture and wiretapping, tools that can be used against guys like you when Democrats get back in power.

RUSH: I love you guys.

CALLER: No, you don't.

RUSH: Yes, I do. You are the best friend people like I have.

CALLER: No. You really are misguided if you think I'm your friend.

RUSH: Well, not intentionally. You don't want to be my friend. As long as you want to stay stuck --

CALLER: I don't want to be your friend.

RUSH: Wait a minute, now. If you want to stay stuck in the notion that you got cheated out of the election in 2000, and if you then want to jump forward from that and say Bush is spying on you, then I'm going to get out of the way and let you deliver the rest of your monolog because I want the whole country to hear where you Democrats are, so go ahead, Joe, and let me have it.

CALLER: Good, Rush. When people who are your enemies come to power, they can use the tools that Bush now has. Guys like you, drug addicts like you, better watch your butt.

RUSH: Hey, Joe? Don't stop there. Don't stop there, Joe. You're doing a fine job of portraying yourself. Your buddies have already tried stuff like that with me, Joe, when they're not even in power. Did he hang up?

CALLER: No, I didn't hang up.

RUSH: Well, why are you so quiet? You've got a forum, Joe. I want you to keep going. Keep it coming. I want to find out every poisonous thought that's circulating through your body.

CALLER: No, Rush, you'd lose your license if you heard them. I'm trying to be fair and balanced and listen to you, Rush.

RUSH: Well, this is the third time. You can't tell me what you think. Not about me. Tell me what you think about President Bush, or what you think about the country or something. But just tell me what you think politically, and if you can't do it without being profane, you've got a problem.

CALLER: No, Rush, you have a problem. It's about time someone in the country stood up for the rich and powerful, and you're just the guy to do it.

RUSH: Well, that really hurt. Glad you at least know the truth about it. I'm proud to do it, Joe.

CALLER: I bet you are.

RUSH: You know what, Joe, the truth is I wish you could join the rich and powerful and find out what it's like.

CALLER: Rush, you're George Leroy Tirebiter. You never lie and you're always right.

RUSH: Well, thanks, but, you're blowing a great opportunity here. There are millions of people waiting to be persuaded by your political thoughts and your analysis and all you want to do is insult me.

CALLER: That's not all I want to do, Rush, but that's all I've got time for. I'm a busy man and you're wasting my time.

RUSH: (Laughing.) Did we call him? (Laughing.) Joe, you still there? He hung up! He hung up. (Sigh) Oh, me oh my. Never let it be said that I am unfair. Never let it be said that I don't give these people a chance. He was a lib; we put him at the front of the line. I gave him the opportunity to proselytize and to evangelize his point of view on anything. That's all he had and then he has to tell me I'm wasting his time.

 

[MonsterMark]

Culled this from Powerline... priceless.

"liberalism is the philosophy of the ill-informed; the intemperate; the marginal."

 

[fossten]

Setting the record straight

Roy Black on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
December 15, 2005


BLITZER: Roy Black, thanks very much for joining us.

BLACK: Good evening, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's get to the issue at hand. I guess this has been going on now for two years or so. The allegation made by these prosecutors -- no charges have been filed -- that he was doctor shopping in effect, that Rush Limbaugh had 2,000 pills. He got prescriptions from four doctors over a six month period. Is that true?

BLACK: No. Let me make this very clear, Wolf, because there's been so much misreporting about this story. What happened is that Rush was treated by four doctors but two of whom were partners and they prescribed something like 90% of the pain pills. What happens: it's over a period of 212 days. We're dealing with something like 1750 pills; comes out to eight a day. This is hardly overwhelming. When people report this story, they put this big figure in there but don't mention over what period of time this is. The other two doctors prescribed pills once or twice or three times at the most and this is sort of... You know, it's blown so far out of proportion, it is sad.

BLITZER: Did the other doctors, the two other doctors know about the prescriptions he was getting from the other two doctors?

BLACK: Well, the doctors certainly know about each other because they're all in different fields. We had: two doctors were handling his pain situation; the other two doctors were handling his hearing. So I don't want to go into all the details about his medical treatment since we've been trying to keep that private, but they're all treating different things for him and that's hardly unusual today that patients see multiple doctors, particularly specialists for particular problems.

BLITZER: If Rush Limbaugh has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong, what's the problem with letting the prosecutor speak to the doctors and go through all the records?

BLACK: Well, Wolf, that's an excellent question. A lot of people ask this all the time. You know what? We have a right of privacy in this country that I think is important for us to hold onto. I mean, we could let prosecutors and police into our bedrooms, search our computers, watch us having sex. We could let them do all these things, but then we would have a police state. We would no longer have a democracy. I think it's very important to fight these privacy battles -- and Rush Limbaugh has taken on this battle of privacy with your doctor, and I think it has really been a public service for him. Not only for himself but everybody else who wants their medical records and medical treatment kept private and not to be disclosed in the press or with the police or prosecutors or anyone else who has no business being there.
BLITZER: In this most recent ruling, which was a mixed bag, the Fifth Circuit Court of Florida ruling December 12th, it said this: "The Florida evidence code does not recognize a separate doctor-patient privilege. Likewise there is no recognized common law privilege of confidentiality as to physician-patient communications." It's not like attorney-client privilege, is it?

BLACK: No, Wolf. I'm glad you asked me this question. That's one of the reasons why I took up your invitation to appear on your show, because there has been so much confusion about this opinion. This opinion clearly comes down on our side. What the Court says is there's no common law privilege -- of course, and we all knew that but there is a statute. From the beginning we have been litigating this statute and what the court says: I cannot stop the prosecutors from subpoenaing whoever they want because they have a statutory right to do that, but I can limit them in what they can ask, and they cannot ask any questions about his medical condition, nor can they ask any questions about the discussions he had during the course of his treatment. So all the things that they want to ask these doctors, all the privacy matters they want to get into, the court said – unequivocally -- they cannot do it.

BLITZER: Rush Limbaugh has made a very serious charge against the prosecutor as recently as yesterday. Let me put it up on the screen. "It's what the legal process has become. You know, people trying to criminalize political enemies, and it's taken on a life of its own." Does he feel that the prosecutor in this case is political and is going after Rush Limbaugh strictly for his own political views?

BLACK: Well, Wolf, let's look at what went on in this case. You see so many celebrities who announce that they are going into rehabilitation, that they had a prescription pain pill problem. Everybody applauds them -- particularly when they're successful, and many of them go multiple times into rehabilitation. Rush Limbaugh announced on his show he was going into rehabilitation, did it for five weeks over two-and-a-half years ago and has totally solved his problem. Yet while everybody else is congratulated for that, we now have prosecutors who have spent two-and-a-half years going after his medical records, subpoenaing his doctors, doing all these kind of things. I think that is unprecedented -- and, of course, Rush thinks it's because of who he is that he's been targeted. But I will tell you this: In my experience this intense an investigation over somebody who went voluntarily into rehabilitation I think is totally unprecedented.

BLITZER: We're out of time, Roy, but do you believe this prosecutor, James Martz, is political?

BLACK: Well, I really don't want to get into a political mud fight over this. I can just tell you my experience. I think it is time to end this investigation. This man has totally turned his life around regarding his pain problem. I think he should be congratulated on it like everybody else, and he ought to be able to go back to his radio show and exercise his right under the First Amendment.

BLITZER: Roy Black, the attorney for Rush Limbaugh. Thank you very much for joining us.
BLACK: Thank you, Wolf.