As to my post defending “Bush, McCain, Gramm or the Republican Party…when that accusation was all the rage here on TMV, ,” please give me a little more time–like eternity–as I don't think I ever defended that quartet when it comes to our economic disaster.

No, it doesn't belong on Obama…….as equally as it did not belong on Bush, McCain, Gramm or the Republican Party. I've tried to locate where you came to the latter's defense when that accusation was all the rage here on TMV, but I am having a difficult time locating your post. Would you be kind enough to point it out to me?

I also appreciate your humor. I know it is well intended. But, sadly, some will very soon say (perhaps they are already saying them) very similar things and mean them.

Talking about Rush Limbaugh, I believe that this very “funny” man was blaming the economic crash on Obama, a few weeks ago, saying that the prospects of an Obama presidency had caused/were causing the financilal meldown.

Now, I don't think that was funny or well-intended.

And in his post, I believe that Tony doesn't see Limbaugh's words that way either–and with a lot of reason.

Start the impeachment proceedings before it's too late!

Tony and everyrone here, I think for me as an Independent, I was amazed to see RL fire into his own troops at will, over and over without anyone tempering or returning fire to stop him; he made a day after day campaign for the destruction of John McCain.

When through whatever twist of fate, Sen. McCain became the Republican candidate for the presidency, RL had already damaged him beyond repair in all usual Repub constituencies, esp the religious groups. What shreds were left, Newt Gingrich, pummeled as well.

The US Catholic Bishops even came out at the very end for McCain in an unprecedented public set of warnings to their 65M flock in the US that to vote for Obama was sinful (and perhaps means for excom. was the subtext) and against Catholic principles (for, I believe, Obama being not in their camp re abortion).

I cant say I've ever seen such –as the disgusting phrase goes, 'friendly fire'– and relentlessly and publicly in broadcast on radio and television and in print by Repubs toward one of their own. Usually, it's quite the opposite.

dr.e

We are still in Iraq
Guantanamo Bay has not been shuttered
Bush and Cheney have not been impeached
The economy has not recovered
There is still racism in the United States
Don't ask. don't tell is still in force
The education system has not been reformed
Fossil fuels have not been outlawed
Global warming has not been reversed
Universal health care still doesn't exist

The list goes on and on. It is obvious that this Presidency has failed.

p.s. – for those who are humor-challenged, yes, this is in jest. I actually am holding out high hopes for Obama, as his early steps, overall, have been very productive. Also trying to disprove the new meme that there is no way to mine humor from Obama.

It's not that I disagree with Mr. Limbaugh's statement; it's just that I think first and foremost, Limbaugh only cares about himself and his career. President Bush has spent more on domestic policy in increasing the national debt (prescription drug benefit among others) than any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson. Where was Mr. Limbaugh? Defending Bush. If you are fiscal conservative, then be one all of the time, not just when it's convenient or profitable for you to do so.

More importantly, can you explain what exactly the problem is with saying he hopes Obama fails? He isn't saying, as the transcript makes abundantly if prolixly clear, that Obama will fail to keep the nation safe or anything like that; he's saying that Obama's agenda is bad for America (in his view, and I happen to agree), and that it would be better for America if an agenda that is bad for it isn't put into effect. What's the problem with that, other than that you disagree with Rush's view on the likely effect of Obama's agenda?