In a recent Washington Post article Kathleen Parker weighed in on the recent ‘Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail’ debate. The key paragraph in what she said was this:
Where Limbaugh wants to slash and burn, Romney wants to build and repair. Where Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, Romney wants "our country to succeed, no matter who's in power. We want America to be prosperous and secure, regardless of who gets the credit ..... in good times and bad, the interests of this great nation come first."
But I have to agree with Rush on this one. And I have to think that Kathleen Parker is being a bit disingenuous in her attack on Rush.
Romney wants our country to succeed. But so does Rush, and I think Parker probably knows this, or she should if she pays attention to what Rush actually says on the topic.
Rush realizes that Obama’s current policies will work to the detriment of the United States – unless, that is, your goal is economic fascism of some kind.
Rush doesn’t care ‘who gets the credit’ – he is simply a freedom-loving anti-socialist who is, necessarily, opposed to socialism-creating policies.
While I can’t speak for Rush, I am quite sure that if Mr. Obama would advocate individual property and freedom respecting policies, he would receive nothing but praise and adoration from Rush Limbaugh.
Like Rush Limbaugh, I want Obama to fail, in the sense of failing to implement destructive policy. I want him to fail for the same reasons (and I am not making a total equation here, just an analogy) – for the same kind of reasons I wish the policies of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would have failed.
What is this so hard for people like Kathleen Parker to understand?