John Wayne is dead, and Limbaugh lives on controversy.

I think the best example of an elected official acting against his country is Congressman Kirk telling the Chinese government not to trust the Obama administration.

Of course, that nor his serial lying about his military record prevented the people of IL from electing him their next Senator.

I have to eat my hat on that one. Why the hell did we run a banker?

"I want my President to succeed because if my President succeeds my country succeeds, and I want my country to succeed." If only conservatives could bring themselves to understand such a simple sentiment."

This requires a thought process - ain't gonna happen!

American conservatives are, very simply, traitors. They hate America and everything unique & good about her. They may decry Sharia law, but if you renamed it Jesus law, they would be foursquare behind it -- the beheadings, the whippings, all of it. If you rewrote the Declaration in simple modern English and showed it to them without identifying it, they'd have you thrown in jail as a commie. They know nothing about our history, our ideals or what once upon a time made us great.

The wealthy ones are in it for themselves; the poor, stupid ones will do anything the wealthy ones tell them to do.

from Gummo on November 5, 2010 at 5:09 PM

"The wealthy ones are in it for themselves; the poor, stupid ones will do anything the wealthy ones tell them to do."

Republican in a nutshell!!

Mark-nc is right. It's not a sentiment, it's a thought, and that's why the limbic-system-driven Teatards will never understand it, let alone agree with it.

Steve,

I see. So, if the president decides to nuke Canada, we should hope he succeeds because he's our president? Similarly, if the president decides to wreck the economy with massive giveaways to special interests-- guised as a stimulus-- we should hope he succeeds because he's our president? Is there any limit to this policy?

I usually think conservatives have so devalued their own ideology that the only thing they really want is winning for its own sake. But there is a point to wanting a Democrat to fail even if it hurts the country. It also means that the forward march of expanding freedom, prosperity, and social progress can be stymied. In a very real sense, Obama's success would finally drive a nail in the coffin of our entitled oligarchy. The unrelenting viciousness of the hard right makes sense this way. They don't hate their country, but then most of us wouldn't want to live there.

"So, if the president decides to nuke Canada, we should hope he succeeds because he's our president? Similarly, if the president decides to wreck the economy with massive giveaways to special interests-- guised as a stimulus-- we should hope he succeeds because he's our president? Is there any limit to this policy?"

How many absurd allegations and arguments can you find here?

doubtful:

In IL Dems defense, Giannoulius was an elected IL state official (treasurer) who is friends with Obama and won the primary BEFORE the banks melted down.
I didn't vote for Kirk, but he's my Senator and I hope he does a good job. *sigh*

Conservatism today is based upon Revealed Truths -- proclamations made by a divinely anointed authority figure like Saint Ronald and which are thus not subject to question.

It doesn't what arguments you use on the Conservative True Believers. Facts don't matter. They are no different than the folks who insist that dinosaurs were killed off in Noah's flood or that fossils are hoaxes planted in the earth by Satan to deceive the faithful. The Bible says that the Universe is 7000 years old, and so believing anything else is a sin.

Saint Ronald told his True Believers that government is the enemy, and that the only route to economic prosperity is through tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of corporations. Suggesting that any other action would work is blasphemy. So when Republicans say the Dubya's tax cuts created a record number of new jobs, they believe it (or they are pretending to), because saying anything else would be to spread Satan's lies.

Whenever I hear a conservative talking economics, I hear in my mind Terry Jones in Monty Python's Life of Brian saying:

"Because it's WRITTEN, that's why!"

Steve Benen wrote: "If only conservatives could bring themselves to understand such a simple sentiment."

Conservatives do understand that "sentiment". They just don't share it.

And frankly, I don't share it either.

George W. Bush planned to install Ahmed Chalabi as the "new, improved Saddam" to head up a US puppet dictatorship in Iraq which would rule that nation in subservience to the multinational oil corporations. Do you really wish that he had "succeeded"? Do you think that if Bush had "succeeded" in doing that, that America would have "succeeded"?

George W. Bush planned to "privatize" Social Security and hand over the Social Security trust fund to the same mega-thieves of Wall Street who caused the mortgage crisis and financial system meltdown, so they could loot it for their own enrichment and thereby destroy Social Security forever. Do you really wish that he had "succeeded"? Do you think that if Bush had "succeeded" in doing that, that America would have "succeeded"?

If you rewrote the Declaration in simple modern English and showed it to them without identifying it,

I don't recall the details but someone tried that experiment in the 60's. Couldn't get anyone to say they would sign it.

Why does Rush hate John Wayne?

I disagree fervently with the people who say, "Well, I hope that nice Mr. Limbaugh makes it home safe today". I hope that fat hyperbolic tub of shit gets hit by a speeding bus so hard that the black spots on his leopard-print jockeys have to sprint to keep up with him.

Somebody's gotta say it.

from SecularAnimist on November 5, 2010 at 5:36 PM "And frankly, I don't share it either."

You have two really good examples posted. These are policies that Bush pursued that nobody here would like.

But, there is a difference in not liking some of the policy decisions of a president and hoping he fails before he walks through the door of the White House. Limbaugh made a blanket statement and he even hoped that the stimulus bill to stop the economic free fall (Bush's legacy) would fail.

Your examples are a difference of opinion about certain policies, the other is treason - IMHO.

A month later, Limbaugh, talking about efforts to revive the economy, added, "I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail.... I do not want this to succeed."
~~~
And if Limpball's listeners could fire two synapses together they'd realize that Rush doesn't give a frack about their welfare... about what the stimulus accomplished for them (tax cuts, jobs, etc.). Because heck, Rush's got his and sure doesn't want anyone redistributing *his* wealth. Even to his listeners.

What a gigantic pile of crap of "humanity".

um... that's two neurons...

For a "permanent Republican majority" to be realized for a thousand years, then all opposition to a "permanent Republican majority" MUST fail, and fail, and fail, for a thousand years.

Of course, this is complete madness, of the right-wing fascist kind, so why would any of these insane proponents of a "permanent Republican majority" listen to the likes of the legendary John Wayne or the not-so-great George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan began this abomination, when his 1980 presidential campaign went behind President Carter's back, cutting a separate secret deal with the Iranians over the release of the U.S. hostages.

The culture of corruption Republicans, as exemplified by Nixon, were back in business, with many of the same right-wing characters involved in Watergate and the CREEP slush fund back, pulling the same old tricks.

After Reagan, George H.W. Bush carried the Republican flag of corruption, only being stopped when President Bill Clinton was elected.

Then, the bait and switch began in earnest after culture of corruption Republicans gained back control of the House of Representatives in 1994.

Culture of corruption Republicans launched investigation after investigation into President Clinton's administration and his family, essentially trying to shake off the fact of their utter corruption by shifting the idea of corruption to President Clinton and Democrats.

Then, a repeat of 1980 occurred in 2000, but this time involving some fascist Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court selecting Bush 41's dry drunk son, George W. Bush, to be president, in the process trashing the U.S. Constitution and a state's right to determine their own electoral process (Florida).

This led to eight torturous years of the most criminally corrupt Republican administration in American history (like Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 on steroids), with a "permanent Republican majority" being the goal and basis for everything they did.

In 2006, some Democrats finally decided to say what was obvious to so many, that the Republican Party was/is a culture of corruption, and Democrats took back control of Congress from the insane "permanent Republican majority" Republicans. With Bush/Cheney corruption still a gaping, bleeding wound in the consciousness of American voters in 2008, Democrats won even larger majorities in the House and Senate, as well as gaining the White House.

And yet, the phrase "culture of corruption" to describe accurately the Republican Party was dropped between January 2007 and November 2010, with Democratic leaders deciding that "working with" culture of corruption Republicans was preferable to calling them what they all are, corrupt. No investigations were launched in the past two years into the rampant crimes committed by culture of corruption Republicans during the criminal Bush/Cheney years. No prosecutions. No convictions. No jail time.

And now Democratic leaders want the incoming House Republican majority to return the courtesy, not launch impeachment hearings into President Obama (shades of Bill Clinton and the 1990s), even though Republicans have stated that this will be one of their top priorities in the new Congress next year?

Do you see a pattern? I do. The culture of corruption Republicans will hold impeachment hearings, issuing a flood of subpoenas to the Obama administratin, once again (like in the 1990s) trying to shift the idea of corruption away from themselves, placing it on President Obama and the Democrats.

Too bad make-nice Democrats stopped using culture of corruption to describe the culture of corruption Republicans. The culture of corruption Republicans have now been given another chance to destroy our nation, in their mad pursuit of a "permanent Republican majority," one funded and fueled by corrupt multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire fascist oligarch right-wing donors.

I agree with Mark-MC. When Republicans actively try to make the President a failure in helping the country, that's treasonous. I'm not sure about the legal definition, but actively working against the nation's self interest for partisan political gain, means you care more about your party than the country.

Be great if we could stigmatize the opposition.