I don't listen to Rush, Sean, Bill-O, and the rest of the gang “in order to know what the enemy is up to.” I can’t do it. I’m glad there are others out there – people at this site and at groups like Media Matters – monitoring the lies and the ridiculous versions of history that the wingers continue to spew out of their microphones. But I’ll leave the heavy lifting to the experts. Just last week I tried to watch Rush on CSPAN when he brought his Looney Tunes carnival to CPAC, but I got about two minutes into it and had to retch.
But, of course, it’s impossible to avoid his big head, even on the front page of DailyKos, and so I read with interest today his response to Michael Steele's comment that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly:
Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it’s your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do.
So, Steele has "some explaining to do," eh? Let’s entertain a little hypothetical, Rush. That shouldn't be too difficult for you, since you live in la-la land most of the time anyway. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Obama’s “massive spending” plan actually works. Let’s say that by the end of his first term:
• millions of people return to the employment rolls,
• necessary infrastructure work like reinforcing bridges, building roads, mass transit, and fiber optics installation gets underway,
• thousands of green jobs are created, developing alternative energy sources and taking a big step toward breaking our foreign oil addiction,
• taxes are higher on the wealthy, less so on the other 95 percent of us,
• our wildlife areas, national parks, and oceans are no longer threatened by drilling or mining,
• Gitmo and torture are distant memories, and the rule of law (that Constitution thingy) finds its way back into both domestic and international policies,
• the deficit is cut in half,
• fewer people are forced to walk away from their homes due to foreclosure,
• universal healthcare is passed which means, among other things, people are not forced into bankruptcy because of a medical emergency,
• banks and investment firms right themselves and start lending,
• children have up-to-date textbooks, classrooms that don’t endanger their health, and teachers who are well-trained and adequately compensated,
• college is affordable for anyone who wants to pursue higher education,
• oh, yeah, the U.S. exits Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let us assume, Rush, these things happen on Obama’s watch. Maybe they all won’t, but that’s not the point of this exercise. What I just sketched is what success would look like for the administration. And it is this which you gleefully and unapologetically say you don’t want to happen. Why? Not because you think it’s a bad idea to create jobs, save homes, or educate children; even you aren’t that callous (I want to believe). No, what you don’t want to succeed is the person and his "left wing" methodology (which is not really that far left). Rush, DeLay, Santorum, Canter, Bachman, Rove, and the rest of their circular firing squad don't want "this" for America, as if the "this" we lived through during the last eight years worked out so well.
Rush would prefer we retreat to the methods of Bush, Cheney, and Reagan – methods that history has proven do not work for America – because Obama’s policies might threaten the corporatists’ and militarists' stranglehold on the country, and so you scream “Socialism!” and “Taxes!” It was okay when the bailouts, taxes, deficits, and subsidies propped up your ideology – and its war on other nations, on our environment, on the Constitution, on financial regulations, on the middleclass. But now that the “massive spending” is directed toward us, and not the no-bid Halliburtons and Blackwaters of the world, well, that’s socialism!
Sheesh Rush, no man is an island, E Pluribus Unum, brother's keeper, City on a Hill, and all that stuff. Socialism, collectivism, communitarianism - call it what you will. We get in trouble when we allow loud mouths like Rush to warp that idea into fear of "the other," until someone like FDR reminds us that the “social compact” is democracy’s most effective tool. Rush and his pals scream “Socialism!" and "Leftist!" as a fear tactic the same way McCarthy did – as if unions and government programs that serve people bring us a step closer to Stalinism. Bullshit. Tell that to just about every other developed nation with universal health care, free education, and a fair tax structure. In case we ever doubted it, the Yoo news today reminds us we were much nearer fascism with Bush than we’ll ever be to communism with Obama.
So, Rush, if there was even the teeniest possibility that the accomplishments above could be realized, given the people in charge and the dreaded "left wing" ideology they champion, would you still wish for failure? I believe you would, which speaks volumes about your ability to put party before nation, ideology before results, corporations before people, and your own bloated ego before anything else.
What, exactly, do you want to fail, Rush? To succeed? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with improving the lives of most Americans. It's nice to see Republicans forced into a corner of either supporting Rush and his failure quote or a revitalized America, which is Obama's plan. And if you've ever seen rats backed into a corner . . .
******
P.S. As I was working on this, another front page story about Rush misquoting the Constitution popped up. His words are Jefferson's of course, with a little help from Franklin I believe. The nerve of this man! If there were two Founders who'd just as soon kick Mr. Limbaugh in the balls, it's those two.