RUSH DEFENDED

Responding to your editorial titled "Basher's back," this letter isn't
defending or supporting Rush Limbaugh. It's questioning accuracy, ethics
and reasons behind the editorial staff's comments. We are all entitled to
our opinions, but should they include sarcasm, innuendoes, name-calling,
uncharitable, false statements? I think not, so:

1. You sarcastically say you must have missed Mr. Limbaugh's honesty in the
past. Is that regarding his personal life or including his political views?
What examples do you have that he never has been honest? Would you have
written the article if his political views agreed with yours?

2. Why should he not be back on his show? If he is indeed guilty, does he
not deserve another chance? Do the names Glenn Beck, Darryl Strawberry,
Imus, Dwight Gooden, Robert Downey Jr. ring a bell? How about hundreds of
athletes and Hollywood stars with drug and/or alcohol problems? Why do they
get second, third, fourth chances, but not Mr. Limbaugh? I must have missed
"Viewpoints" when you wrote about them. I also missed "Viewpoints"
condemning former President Clinton for a statement he made way back before
he was in national politics: "If a president of the United States ever lied
to the American people, he should resign." Hypocrisy?

3. "Fame in conservative circles means never having to say you're sorry."
That's a sympathetic, all-encompassing, accurate statement you made if I
ever heard one, and prejudiced to boot. Your conservative acquaintances
must be only one or two people if you imply that's the attitude of all.
Perhaps you should meet more conservatives before making such an accusation.

Your article is an example and continuation of biased writing based on
insufficient facts, made to provoke and demean, not to inform or put
forward an honest opinion. The editorial staff of the Bradenton Herald
should know better, and their readers deserve better.

Sal D'Aquino, Bradenton