Obama has set himself up with a comparable foil in the form of Limbaugh, an intolerant know-nothing who makes up statistics out of thin air, demands ideological purity, has a mean streak and more than a little hypocrisy.

Are both foil characters unfair strawmen? Sure. But one is based in the past and one is based in the present. One amounted to a disorganized, whiny, elitist, ineffectual political minority and the other is a demagogue with a large megaphone and a large amount of power within his party.

Laughable. Nixon was at besh a Bush-mold centrist from SouCal... no conservative, he.

He was conservative as compared to Humphrey...and George McGovern... but then again, who wasn't?

I'd say you've dug that hole down far enough.

Clearly, social conservatism isn't the defeat mechanism you try to cast it as.

Would you care to try again, this time actually adressing the point you made?

True enough. That might actually start a reflective person to think about the differences between Reagan and Limbaugh. Since reflection isn't your strong suit, I'd start with Reagan's lack of demonization of his adversaries (comapred to Limbaugh's routine use of terms like feminazi or referring to Chelsea Clinton as the family dog) and some measure of pragmatism (including signing tax increases in nearly every year of his presidency after 1981) totally lacking in Limbaugh.

Republican leadership to either explicitly embrace social conservatism, and turn it into a regional party, with little to no chance of winning elections in the North, industrial Midwest or much of the West, or turn its back on social conservatism, and lose its most fervent supporters, allowing Democrats to win more in the South and rural Midwest.

Funny thing; I don't recall Reagan and his appeal being limited to one region or another.

I see the anti-Limbaugh campaign as forcing the Republican leadership to either explicitly embrace social conservatism, and turn it into a regional party, with little to no chance of winning elections in the North, industrial Midwest or much of the West, or turn its back on social conservatism, and lose its most fervent supporters, allowing Democrats to win more in the South and rural Midwest.

This entire meme about Limbaugh is part and parcel of the attack on the Republican grass roots efforts. Limbaugh most assuredly isn't in the leadership of the Republican party, whatever the Democrats might be spouting at the moment, but the attack serves the purposes of the Democrats by getting the Republican leadership to disown the values of the Republican grassroots. Stele didn't do that, but came close enough for serious questions to arise from his comments.

I say this: I'm disappointed with Cantor and with Steele in this. I've been angry with McCain for years for the same reasons.

Here it is; I want Obama to fail in his plans, because his success means America fails. His successes thusfar are why we're still losing ground as a country. If Steele, Cantor, McCain and anyone else cannot get their feeble minds around that concept I want them nowhere near the reins of the Republican party.

Clinton (and a GOP congress) gave Bush a budget surplus. Bush and a GOP congress gave us... what???

partisan hack you say lol

Rush then mocked those who have criticized him for saying he wants Obama to fail, and directly challenged them to choose: You either want Obama to succeed or fail at his goal of dismantling conservatism.

James, here is the problem with the above statement (and the perceived wish of Rush's): He does not care whether the other guy is right or wrong, he wants them to fail because he is a slave to his own ideology, the facts be damned, this is a holy war.

Whats wrong with it is it is not true neither is this.
you feeling my is is baby?

A day without controversy is a day without sunshine in the increasingly growing new and old media. And Monday was a day when it seemed as if the sun with blinding light was ready to swallow up the earth: conservative talk show giant was at verbal ...

Please understand one thing. I am AGAINST universal health care provided by the government, on basic principle. But even a government system will fail if it does not rein in the greed and enforce cuts on ghastly fees. I can remember a time when doctors went into the profession because they cared more about the people than about the money. Doctors can moan all about their high malpractice premiums that they want to. But fact is, if patients felt as though doctors actually cared about them, they'd have far fewer lawsuits--and the care quality would go WAY UP!
If doctors aren't willing to start caring again, then it's time for them to GET OUT and bring in new ones who do!

The same thing applies to everything else that the government has thrown money at in recent months. Greed got them there--and now they want the government to bail them out of their blunders. Organized labor screwed big companies, then cry in pain because those companies can no longer compete--and the workers end up without jobs. You can't kill the goose that laid the golden eggs and still expect egg production. Stupid, asinine greed got us here--and only national repentance for our sins will get us out, NOT more government bailouts!

I suppose many out there would prefer USA to fail as long as Obama succeed.

And may I remind you, Obama only succeeds if we succeed? (and by we I mean the majority of the populace, not the narrow top 1% of the wage earners of America)