I haven't read the newest biography of Rush Limbaugh yet, but I have read a lot about it.  Since "Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One" has been all the talk lately, I decided to finally sit down and read Zev Chafets' eight part article in the New York Times which served as the basis for the biography.

The Rush Limbaugh of Chafets' article is not the Rush Limbaugh that I know.  Although I suspect it is the Rush Limbaugh that Rush Limbaugh wants to portray, if you follow me.  Chafets' Limbaugh is both a titan of industry and a lovable teddy bear.  If Rush has any flaws, they are lovable flaws.  Oh, that Rush!  What a scamp!

The attitude in the New York Times article was softened for the biography.  But even so, it's pretty soft.  When Limbaugh's political beliefs come up, they are presented the way that Limbaugh himself would present them.  No mention is given to Limbaugh's endless string of hypocrisy.  (Which - Limbaugh supporters take note - is the biggest thing that Limbaugh haters have against him.)

Chafets touches on Limbaugh's drug habit briefly, only in the sense that he applauds Limbaugh for deciding to get treatment on his own.  That "Army of One" theme shines through as we learn that Limbaugh took full responsibility for his own habit, and for his own treatment, and it's a little surprising that he didn't manage to fix everyone else's drug habit too.

This rewrites the history that I know.  Which is, you know, that pesky thing I like to call "reality."  In reality, Limbaugh's drug habit was something that he kept secret from the world until it was splashed across the press.  Humiliated and deaf from drug abuse, convicted of a Class 3 felony, he was ordered by the courts to attend treatment in lieu of a jail sentence.

Limbaugh's drug habit is simply another manifestation of his huge appetites.  An accusation which he loves to level against Liberals, from accusing Democratic politicians of feeding at the pork trough (not like Republicans and the oil industry - oh wait…) to his endless harping on Clinton's infidelities.  But Chafets passes along Rush's own pious analysis without comment: Rush's drug habit was "born of immaturity and my childhood desire for acceptance."  

Thankfully (according to Rush) he's all better now.  He has overcome that addiction, and it hasn't softened him on crime or given him a more nuanced understanding of human nature or the world at large.  Instead, Rush thanks God for his addiction because "It made me understand my shortcomings."

Chafets doesn't even draw a connection between Limbaugh's drug habit and his deafness.  He approaches the subject in the passive tense, and focuses on Rush's pluck in overcoming the condition.  That Rush - what a fighter!  Someone who didn't know better would never realize that Rush's deafness was a direct side effect of his Oxycontin abuse.

This is just one example where Chafets obviously accepts Rush's spin control at face value.  If this initial article is anything to go by - and by most accounts the full-length book is even softer on Rush - then Chafets might as well rewrite his job description from "Freelance Writer" to "Rush Limbaugh's Official Mouthpiece."

Creative Commons-licensed image courtesy of Flickr user Travelin' Librarian