COLUMNIST ALLOWED BIAS TO COLOR HIS ATTACKS ON RUSH LIMBAUGH

To the Editor:

I would like to point out several difficulties with David Surratt's
reasoning in his Oct. 30 column on Rush Limbaugh.

First of all, his ad hominem attacks (such as "loud-mouthed
ultra-conservative" and "cowardly resigned") demonstrate a bias against
conservatism and serve only to obscure any valid point about hypocrisy he
might be trying to make, as does his little side jab at Newt Gingrich ("a
poor Mexican juvenile with two ounces of marijuana...according to Gingrich
should be put to death for drug smuggling").

I would love to see the citation for that assertion. Oh, it's hyperbole?
Sounds like a "loud-mouthed ultra-conservative" we all know, but Surratt
seems not to pretend sarcasm here.

I am also surprised Surratt fails to make the obvious moral distinction
between illegal drugs used recreationally and those used for unbearable
pain.

As pointed out ad nauseam, Limbaugh underwent a failed operation to repair
discs in his spine, which, as everyone should know, is a particularly
painful situation.

Is he as guilty for getting hooked on pills just for the purpose of
functioning from day to day as someone who uses drugs just for fun or to
escape mental and emotional stress? The answer is obvious.

Finally, let's address some real hypocrisy.

Surratt expects "federal investigators [to] be calmed to a dull roar" on the
Limbaugh case. He seems to find this objectionable.

Do I need to bring up the many examples of such suppression of federal
investigation for such liberal luminaries as Ted Kennedy and the Clintons?

Alan Maricle, OU alumnus