I wanted to write about Rush Limbaugh's comments, so I went to the source- the transcript of his interview with Sean Hannity that set a lot of this furor off.
The neo-conservatives are claiming that Limbaugh never said he flat out wanted Obama to fail; they're right.
What he actually said is that if Obama's agenda was for the government to take over portions of this countries industries or assets and promote socialism, he wants him to fail.
He also went on in the interview to give examples that "prove" that socialism doesn't work.
He pointed to China, the USSR, and Cuba as examples of how socialism was a failure.
There's one problem with his examples; those countries were never socialist, they were communist.
And compared to what existed in China and Cuba prior to communism, one could argue that they are not failures.
Limbaugh knows this, but doesn't want to start bringing up countries who ARE the blending of capitalism and socialism he asserts Obama wants to create because- guess what?- they have been successful.
Sweden has had one of the highest standards of living in the world for decades, even higher than ours.
Japan is the second biggest economy in the world, which is remarkable given the fact that it is nothing more than islands with next to no natural resources to exploit.
Germany is one of the strongest economies in Europe and has managed to weather the absorption of the former East Germany and its economic woes while still maintaining its overall economic strength and stability.
Canada is one of the few countries that has not gone to ruin in the last few months while having prescription drug prices and medical care that is so affordable that Americans have been going there to buy their drugs and have medical procedures done in record numbers.
The reason that Republicans want to raise the specter of the socialism boogeyman is that they and their friends don't want change.
They like things just the way they are.
Rush Limbaugh will never have to know what it is to want for anything.
He makes his money from playing off the fear and discontent he creates and, like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Coulter the rest of the conservative pundits, bears no responsibility for the success or failure of anything he says, does, or promotes.
Even if his career ended today, he will never have to worry about going without.
If he wants to donate to charity by giving money or goods, he wants to be sure it's tax-deductible so it can lower his tax bracket and reduce the amount he owes in taxes.
If we established any form of socialist programs here, it would cut into his standard of living, and he can't have that.
He is set just the way things are, so "So what?" about what happens to the "little people", the lazy do-nothings who are the listeners who give him his soap box, who buy his sponsors' products, who work to provide him with the goods and services the uses everyday.
Who cares if they can feed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for their children? They should just get off their butts and work harder; quit slacking.
The problem is is that 94% of the people in this country ARE already working and they are still having troubles.
Because they don't have the ability to get paid for wishing ill on others and talking trash with no consequence, they and their needs don't count.
Republican pundits and neo-conservatives talk about American values- a lot.
Since when is it an American value to refuse to give a helping hand to the vast majority of a country in need in times of trouble, just so you can reserve the right to say "I told you so" later on? If that is the current state of American values today, then we are in far worse shape than we think.