Deconstructing Rush

Discuss this on our boards!

Deconstructing Rush
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

October 28, 2003

"Candidly Yours"

Linda A. Prussen-Razzano I had my first ugly taste of the politics of personal destruction in the mid-1990s. During my slow political evolution from a moderate New York Democrat to an Ultra Conservative Republican, I discovered talk radio. At the time, my hosts of choice were Bob Grant and Lynn Samuels, hard right and hard left, for an interesting mix of viewpoints. When I found myself incapable of relating to Lynn Samuels any longer, Bob Grant became my personal favorite. Perpetually angry, brilliantly articulate, and brutal in his honesty, he won my mind first, my loyalty later.

I can remember one particular broadcast, where he was detailing the horrific rape of a young woman by several vicious thugs. He called them “savages.” I heartily concurred. What they did was savage. They had most deservedly earned the title.

Months later, that same quote would be used against him in a smear ad linking “Bob Grant, the racist” to Christie Todd Whitman. Why? Because the perpetrators who violently gang-raped and beat that poor woman were black. Ergo, Bob Grant called blacks “savages.” Nowhere in the ad did it mention what these men had done. Any attempt by listeners to defend him was shouted down by a frothing media and their uninformed panderers.

Angry phone calls from a sea of folks who never listened to a single broadcast forced him out of his spot. Within a short enough period of time, he was picked up by another station, but the damage had been done. Even shock-jock Howard Stern got into the act, defending Grant’s provoking style and informing his listeners that Grant’s departure illustrated why radio was so mediocre; controversy, sometimes feisty debate, was the critical element necessary for productive discourse.

When the recent brouhaha began over Rush’s perception of deferential treatment of a black quarterback, my first response was an unconcerned shrug. Not having seen the television broadcast in its entirety, and being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter, I left any commentary to those who better understood the issues. Because of my new schedule, I only caught Rush’s show occasionally, but I had always enjoyed it. Still, having been an ardent listener in the past, I knew enough to recognize a pile of horse hockey when I saw it.

Like all great and controversial men, Rush has many detractors. When they couldn’t beat him in the realm of rational debate, they threw steaming piles of horse hockey at him. They called him a racist, all the while ignoring his friendship with Walter Williams and his high praise of Dr. Alan Keyes. They called him a sexist, completely missing his soliloquies on the beauty of strong women. They called him any number of crass names, like fleas on an elephant, trying to keep themselves alive by sucking little bits of blood from him.

Over the years, none of these ploys worked. As a result, I was slightly surprised by the McNabb “scandal” and paid scant attention to the ensuing “fallout.”

When the drug “scandal” claims emerged, I, like many other Rush supporters, immediately discounted them. This man had conquered tobacco, weight problems, and fought his way back from a hearing loss. Drugs? I never detected any variation in Rush’s message when I listened to him. He was always spot on. It had to be horse hockey, too.

But when Rush made his announcement last Friday that he was taking a leave, I realized a breath of fresh air was not waiting behind the smell. And depending on the facts of the case, it may bode more trouble for Rush than any claim his detractors could ever make against him.

Drug dependency is a cruel cycle. I know; I saw several friends from my youth toss their lives away on drugs. Some of them are not here today because of drugs. But Rush is not some misbegotten youth, looking to explore or rebel or escape; he is a standard bearer for the Republican party, a rational adult of means and consequence, a man who articulates values and holds people to high watermarks. That he allegedly fell prey to drug dependency due to uncontrollable pain in understandable; that he saw it and was not able to stop it on his own is understandable.

That he remained dependent, with so many resources available to him, is not understandable. Further, stepping outside of the law to acquire drugs is not understandable.

We almost brought a President down because he trampled all over the law, because he thought himself above it and threw his arrogance in America’s face. Despite Rush’ greatness, despite the movement he helped to ignite and the hearts he so convincingly changed, he, too, is subject to the law.

Republicans often accuse each other of eating our own, of being unwilling to fight for our folks in the face of trouble. In this case, I will fight until it’s proven that Rush crossed an important boundary…from dependency to illegality. If that should be the case, and I certainly hope its not, then I must stand for something bigger than Rush, bigger than anyone…the belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, that actions have consequences, and that we must be held accountable for them. ***

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files