Christopher Ruddy
Monday, Oct. 20, 2003

Recently, when radio host Bob Grant appeared on a CBS morning show with Russ Mitchell, Mitchell asked the loaded question about whether Rush Limbaugh has been a hypocrite.

Grant, the longtime king of talk radio and a former colleague of Rush’s on New York’s WABC, defended Limbaugh and said he was not a hypocrite.

As Grant noted, there is a world of difference between someone hooked on prescription painkillers after a surgical procedure and a recreational cocaine user or crack addict.

The fact that the big media liberals don’t see the difference, or don’t care to, is their problem.

Clearly, they already know that Rush’s admitted painkiller addiction is a non-issue, so they are focusing on "hypocrisy."

It is the operative word that Rush’s enemies hope will undermine his credibility and that of the conservative movement.

So far, the major media have had little effect. Americans respect people who admit their problems and try to fix them.

Our president, after all, is a former alcoholic. The leading Democrat front-runner, Howard Dean, is a reformed alcoholic.

Months before the news about Rush’s problems broke, NewsMax.com ran a story on Howard Dean’s alcohol addiction. We noted that the media, unlike the case with George Bush, rarely notes Dean’s history with alcohol.

Rather than use Dean’s addiction to criticize him, we applauded his recovery. His success over the addiction is a feather in his cap.

Another allegation about Rush is that he illegally obtained the drugs using his housekeeper.

That may be true. It also may not be true.

It is bothersome that most media reports have portrayed his housekeeper, Wilma Cline, as an unwilling partner in Rush’s efforts to obtain painkillers.

As she told the story to the National Enquirer, Rush discovered that Cline’s husband had a prescription for painkillers, and she had him get more for Rush. One thing led to another, and housekeeper Cline was running all over town to illegally obtain the painkillers.

That story has been accepted hook, line and sinker. Newsweek’s cover story on Rush – a typical hatchet job – make a passing reference to Rush’s housekeeper, as if she was some pawn in his larger plan to feed his addiction.

But few have explored why Cline spent four years of keeping meticulous records of her pill-procuring efforts for Rush.

Or why, as Drudge reported, she went to the National Enquirer some two years ago to sell her story, which the Enquirer didn’t want to publish unless there was an official police investigation.

This time Cline had that police probe in her pocket. She was also willing to upset the police’s probe of a larger drug ring that had nothing to do with Rush, in order to collect from the National Enquirer for her story about Rush.

Could it be that Cline was a classic celebrity enabler – a person who pushed and encouraged Rush’s addiction to blackmail and control him?

Such people are commonplace around celebrities and oftentimes celebrities pay big blackmail payouts. Cline admits she received at least $120,000 from Rush to keep quiet.

Apparently, Miss Cline was nothing like Alice in the Brady Bunch, but rather a cunning lady who saw an opportunity and exploited it.

For sure, she is no stranger to having friends in the drug business. Her husband, David Cline, was himself convicted of cocaine trafficking in 1982.

Had Cline really been concerned about Rush and his health, as she later claimed, and was drawn into this unwillingly, as she paints the picture, wouldn’t she have immediately told Rush’s wife, his doctor, or even the police about the problem?

No, instead she kept good records and persistently made selling her story the priority.

Before we criticize Rush, we should wait for all the facts and not be so quick to believe his housekeeper.

Editor's Note: Do you support Rush? Click here to vote