From the Patriot's Cookbook: How to Accelerate Obama's Failure >>

Rush said what I was thinking all along. Democrats called President Bush a liar based on false intelligence in a war they supported. They claimed that Bush stole the election despite a supreme court’s decision that he was lawfully the next president, they called him an idiot, a racist (despite fiscal largess to minorities), cranked out leftist films enshrining his caricature, and even one peep show detailing his much anticipated assassination, 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm468685568/tt0853096

Liberals called Bush an imperialist for building on Clinton’s assumption of WMDs, sent Hollywood leftists on a Children’s Crusade to Latin America to meet with hostile regimes, sent Michael Moore to France to belittle his Commander-in-Chief to socialist stooges, called for Bush’s impeachment for war crimes (even though recent investigations by the Obama administration cleared Bush), tossed Bush under the bus on Social Security reform, scrambled for proof of a reckless AWOL youth in the Texas Air National Guard, gleefully latched on to any bad news out of Iraq in order to pin it on Bush, chose to ignore the accomplishments (no attacks since 9/11, the thwarted Ft. Dix plot, his press in 2003 for reform of Fannie Mae before the theme became crunk, a low average unemployment rate throughout his administration, democracy in Iraq, a battered Al Qaeda, and a budget managing to be less than the current regime’s).

…and now the nation is united? And now I have to stand behind Barack Hussein Obama!?

!@#$%^& that!

According to James Carville right before the Sept. 11th attacks, he and a pollster announced their desire to see the new President George Bush fail.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

And it was also true that a scary bulk of lefties wanted Bush to fail in Fox polling back in 2006! Absolute hypocrisy!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/09/most-democrats-wanted-bush-fail-2006-poll-will-media-care

Limbaugh may be on to something. In the new era of big government, he has been the first to fervently pioneer the idea that America’s success and President Obama’s political successes are not necessarily a 1 to 1 correlation. And for once, Republicans are starting to doff their wimpy demeanor. If Obama wants to expand spending, socialize every industry that upstages the government in efficiency, and curtail the Second Amendment because he personally reprehends firearms, then I DO hope he fails. America would succeed in spite of him. If Obama conversely allows liberty to thrive by governing like Reagan, then I hope that he succeeds. Fat chance. But given the tone of the first 100 days in office and its transfer of stratospheric debt-wealth to liberal constituencies and its US Census power grab, I find it hard to believe that he has not, to paraphrase Pat Buchanan, “declared outright war on the Right.”

I have established I don’t like the chap’s plans and I want them to fail. Now how do we make it happen? To do this, we must look at the nature and personality of Obama himself and what makes him tick. His administration, its appointees (the conservative ones he regards as potted-plants to be seen and not heard), and its tone are all reflections of his character and nuance.

Obama is probably the type of man that if he walked into a hotel room and saw a crooked picture frame on the wall, he would straighten it. Now over time, his Chicago cool has probably trained him to ignore it or get someone else to do it for him. Combine that with a fellow who drinks his own Kool-Aid on personal greatness and you get a man who is aggravated when someone is not on his wavelength, and seeks them out to set them straight.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, immediately blowing back the veil on the “holy of holies” and exposes Obama as an occupant that straightens picture frames. Profaning the Sacred, Whitehouse Spokesman Robert Gibbs, as vapid as his boss is portentous, began to launch into Rush, Kramer, and a few other pundits who do not fall in line with the election as a revolutionary mandate. In fact, so did Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for the “politics aside” guard. The world is essentially collapsing around us, and our fearless leader is stressing over a radio talkshow host, a stock guru on NBC, and any other media personality that chips his paint. I guess when you are delivered from a media birth canal by journalists, being well-though-of is of prime importance. His genesis is his weakness and undoing.

A hostile media is something Obama will not accept, because it was media friendliness/giddy that he was born into. The atmosphere out there is something to which he is totally dependent, like an animal that has lived on an oxygen-rich earth for eons. This animal would not survive being transported to a planet of carbon dioxide or ammonia. It is something taken for granted, like a fish not knowing he is wet. Rush threatens that bare necessity required for Obama’s “success,” and pours too much chlorine into his pristine and protected tank. That is why talk radio is Obama’s chief concern this moment, and he apparently spent as much time addressing Rush as he did on the Porkulus bill.

For the past few weeks, Obama has tried to ease America into feeling better about the trillions he is spending by travelling and pitching before already sold audiences, using anecdotal evidence over economic metrics. He stated on a forum on healthcare that someone sinks into bankruptcy every 30 seconds due to medical costs, a statement which derived from a Harvard study widely criticized for inaccuracy in determining causality, and noted for being half of what Obama stated, at one per minute (There are 525,600 minutes in a year. That many bankruptcies occur annually for causes that may or may not be related to the medical field. But this administration is not concerned with numbers, and prays on America’s growing apathy towards the extra zeros as quantum theoretical abstracts. Obama thinks more in percentages). Obama met with the CEO of Caterpillar, representing an industry hard-hit by the construction bubble.  Afterwards, he made the asinine statement that CEO Jim Owens would hire back more people dependent on the stimulus passage. Jim Owens subsequently contradicted Obama saying he made no such pledge to that effect. But this underscores Obama’s pattern of needing—depending on—agreement to validate his policies. Running as balance-bringer allows for so much to go wrong. He had the votes in Congress, so why did he want the Republicans as team players? Simple: what he believes is so right, so moral, and how could anyone even think of disagreeing with it?

So this is where I press conservatives to “ramp it up.” Conservatives need not “play nice,” as that got us nowhere. There is no tally of fair play with which liberals reciprocate us at a later time. Talk Radio needs to flare up their heat and TV pundits need to dare to pop the piñata. Say what you will about Bush, but he did have thick skin. Obama does not. Can this President wean himself off cultic adoration to jettison his ascension? If we can multiply the heat of the first 50 days, I think not. Ruminate on this: the new Adminstration would not be so quick to sieze on a talk show host if they did not see a threat in the opportunity. >>