Obama Voters Swallow Stupid Pills

NOTE: ON SUNDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY, I'LL HAVE COLUMNS THAT I HOPE WILL BE THE SIMPLEST, MOST HELPFUL PIECES AVAILABLE ON THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS -- AND HOW TO GET OUT OF IT. PLEASE VISIT. There was an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes. Prior to his current high position, Geithner was head of the Federal Reserve's New York branch, an institution with heavy responsibile for the financial crisis.


There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and convicts registered by ACORN. As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]

As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.

As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one.

We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people who curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberty.

During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama. However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."

I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.

II was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us.

A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly. In short, I may have taught the man a simple truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.




Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit labeled "Hope" and "Change."

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.

Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."

Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.

I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgeable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.

The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are.

As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't. A majority of Obama knew that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house." In fact, Sarah never said any such thing. The remark was made by comedienne Tina Fey.

It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Democrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority

.In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.

America's Most Hilarious Opinion Survey

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly – and for the most part sincerely – assured of their greatness.” President Calvin Coolidge, shortly after leaving office -- and he never even knew Barack Hussein Obama.

Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit.

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.

Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."

Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know. I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.

The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.

How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.

It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.

In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.

Sarah Palin: Political Strategy 2009

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses. Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money." Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists?) or that they just didn't know. I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are totally clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who arent's knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything of importance. The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know.

At some point, and I don't think that time is now, Sarah should be speaking out on Obama-nomics, his disastrous economic policies. She's wise with her approach of being in the limelight occasionally (interviews once or twice a month with conservative or centrist national media) and being out of it most of the time. Throughout much of 2009, third-parties (us on the blogosphere, FOX news, other conservative outlets) should carry much of the load of criticizing Obama.

Talk radio people (Rush, Glenn, Sean, Laura, and their local counterparts) should keep up a constant drumbeat of criticism, although their focus should always be Obama's policies and his associates, not the man himself. (More advice next week for talk-radio people.)

Practically speaking, Sarah must let the "Obama honeymoon" continue to unfold (and, eventually, unravel). The election didn't occur that long ago, and she doesn't want to be seen as a sore loser. Any criticisms she makes of Obama -- and this doesn't hold for people like me -- should be in tone of "helpfulness." Actually, of course, she wants to "help" Obama fail -- as he is, as he will continue to do. She wants to position herself as an attractive alternative to BHO, as the angel of real, effective change.

In terms of specifics, Obama's approval rating (about 60%) is still too high for sharp criticism to be effective. Most Americans want to "give him a chance," mainly because they can't see any alternatives. They know he's going to be around for four more years. They mistakenly confuse his success with America's. Limbaugh needs to continue simplifying his point on hoping Obama fails. The way I've put it is, "If Obama succeeds, America fails." Or, "If Obama's extreme agenda succeeds, Americans lose freedom and opportunity." She should not into detail.

When he goes below 50% in approval rating -- and that sould happen late this year -- Sarah's criticism should be sharper and relatively continual. Until then, she should be proposing constructive alternatives to Obama's "Socialism Lite." She needs to stay away from abstractions, such as "he wants to redistribute the wealth," and personalize it, "He wants to take your money and your children's money and give it to other people." She needs one-syllable words and short sentences -- "zingers."

Most of all, she doesn't want to suffer from over-exposure. Remember, part of Sarah's charm is her role as "the Mystery Lady from the Northland."

Gov. Ed Rendell of PA is admittedly, a vote-buying, semi-socialist type who never saw a tax increase he didn't like. However, he's also a very savvy politician, and he said of Sarah, "She has great political instincts." He's absolutely correct. Lately, Sarah's instincts have been telling her to take a lower profile -- not to be invisible, but to be less visible. That will also help strengthen her situation in Alaska, where the people -- some of whom act like little more than children -- can get the idea that Sarah is paying sufficient attention to them.

Those of in the "Sarah Movement" never tire of her. We may wish we had "all Sarah all the time." But she needs to be very calculating about media appearances. My view is that never again -- even if she ends up getting electing President -- should she waste her time with people like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. CBS. for example, is in nearly as bad shape as Ciitigroup and GM. There's no reason to prop up Katie or other Obama shills.

Right now, the most important thing she can do is to raise money for SarahPac -- lots of money. She needs to determine exactly which candidates she wants to help. A good "first candidate" would be Jim Tedisco, the Republican state assembly leader in New York who's running for the vacant congressional seat in New York's 20th District. It's an important race (for a seat perviously held by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand). Also, it's in an area of New York (Albany, Saratoga Springs, Hudson Valley) that's friend to Sarah and her views. Sarah has a great chance to carry New York in the 2012 "Super Tuesday" primary.

She should concentrate appearances (over the next three years) in states she must win, including FL (crucial), VA, NC, NM, CO, NV, OH (crucial), and perhaps PA.

Why am I concerned about over-exposure for Sarah? Consider what happened to Hillary Clinton, who had certainly been around -- and in the news for a long time. By 2007, the media was tired of her. She was old news. Some journalists speculated that the nation was suffering from "Clinton fatigue." In contrast, Obama was "the new guy in town," someone who was "bold and fresh," to steal Bill O'Reilly's phrase.

Sarah doesn't want to become old news. When a conservative journalist wants to interview her -- and go to Alaska to do so -- she should cooperate if it's in her interest to do so. When a left-wing journalist (or someone like Oprah, wants to chat, Sarah should find some an excuse to say no.

Barack Obama: Bankrupting the Nation

Handing money out to AIG is "like donating blood at a morgue." (Troy Dunn)
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."
Her: "He has your wallet."

Financial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG.

In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)

Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.

Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..

What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.

Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.

Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.

GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.

GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.

What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.

What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?

What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)

This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."

About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."

If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.

Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.

[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]

Rush is Right, Obama Wrong

Tomorrow (Thursday), I'll discuss Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million resident. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million provide 63% of the city's revenue. What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? It would do real harm to city services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people. Is Obama aware of such situations? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama.

Below: "Obama's success would be America's failure." That's why we don't want him to succeed.

Barack Obama has no understanding of how the American economy works. How could he? The man has spent his entire life going to left-wing academic institutions, "organizing" communities, and running for ever-higher offices. If you want to know what's wrong with the economy and what must be done to fix it, don't go to Obama's web site. Instead, come here, where I'll offer simple explanations of what is going on and how we can help improve the situation.

A last word (for now) on Rush Limbaugh's amazing speech to CPAC: What Rush reminds us is that we don't have to "make nice" with people who try to smear Sarah Palin -- or who sling mud at Limbaugh. Being nice to deceitful, dishonest people ensures they will never get any better. We may not change their minds, but we can at least make them uncomfortable.

Frankly, in his LONG address Rush did not say offensive things. His goal was to defend responsible democracy and the American way of life. The accusations he made about Obama's socialist -- or vote-buying -- agenda happen to be true.

Some of our Republican leaders are good people -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, even Michael Steele -- but they aren't forceful enough. As Limbaugh indicated, when it comes to simple matters of right-and-wrong, "bipartisanship" is not the answer.

When a public policy is bad, compromising on it doesn't make it "half-bad." When Obama is taking steps that harm charities and the housing market, we don't need a bipartisan compromise. When people tell us comforting lies, we need to tell the truth to the best of our ability.

Also, when investors feel gloomy about the stock market's prospects, we need to reveal the negative effects of Obama's efforts to increase the tax rate on capital gains and reduce people's capacity to invest. Finally, when Rush says that's what Obama's doing, is he being "mean" -- or is he just reciting some obvious truths?

We don't want to punish the most productive people in the economy and reward the least productive. Doing so harms the country. That's why many of us, including Rush, don't want Obama to succeed.

In fact, Obama's success would be America's failure. We don't want to become like Britain and France, with slow growth, high unemployment, and a social welfare scheme that reduces opportunity.

Barack Obama likes to talk a lot about Abraham Lincoln and, lately, Franklin D. Roosevelt. One historical individual Obama has never mentioned -- but should -- is Benjamin Franklin.

What's the best way to gain great wealth? Is it to speculate wildly on Wall Street, assuming that the market will always go up -- as you've noticed, it doesn't? Or is it to buy more house than you can afford, believing that the market will always trend upward and you can sell it at a handsome profit. Not anymore.

Benjamin Franklin took a more modest approach, one we might describe not as "get rich quick," but rather as "Get rich . . . slowly."

He said, "The road to wealth, if you desire it [who doesn't?], is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both."

In the U.S., tens of millions of people have gotten wealthy by doing exactly what Franklin advised. (In contrast, Obama got rich through two massive book deals for autobiographical volumes that were strong on hope and short on real accomplishments.) His wife got a rich person's salary primarily because she was married to an influential legislator.

Currently, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is trying to get rich with a book deal of his own. If all else fails, as it did for Blagojevich if not for Obama, then write a book.

For normal people, it pays to follow Ben Franklin's advice, sagacious as he always was.

[Tomorrow: What Obama doesn't know about the economy could fill a book -- one he presumably won't ever write.]

Rush Limbaugh versus Barack Obama

On Rush Limbaugh: We all, including Rush, fall into the situation described by St. Paul: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God." Sarah Palin reminded us long ago that she isn't perfect either. (But you're closer than most, Sarah!) This is the second of two columns today about Limbaugh. Scroll down to see the other.

NOTE: PLEASE SEE URGENT INFORMATION AT BOTTOM


That said, Rush Limbaugh evokes fear and loathing from the Left not because he's a "bad man." He does so because he is the embodiment of the American Dream. He came from nowhere (Cape Girardeau, MO) and from nothing. He never went to college (remember, Bill Gates dropped out in his sophomore year). He has benefited greatly from the kind of opportunity America provides to its citizens. He's grateful. He doesn't expect everybody to agree with him, because he understands, as he put it, that we're all individuals, all unique.

I disagree with Rush on a couple of issues, one of which is how to handle immigration. But I was happy he brought up the scapegoating of businesspeople, some of whom are no more responsible for their companies' problems than I am for the collapse of my 401-K. He made ME feel guilty, because I sometimes trash Wall Streeters indiscriminately. Of course, the Obama people are looking around for others -- scapegoats -- to blame for the disastrous results their policies are producing.

Rush shamed the media, which should be shamed every single day. He brought up questions about Obama's actions that the media should be raising -- but isn't. He asked where on earth a socialist agenda, and that is Obama's agenda, had ever worked. That is a legitimate question, and not one CNN or MSNBC wants anything to do with.

To me, Rush stood up for the Constitution, for liberty, for tolerance (*we want everybody to be successful"), and for opportunity. If people want to trash him for that, they're not only short-sighted but downright dangerous. For someone like Rahm Emmanuel, the essence of America boils down to buying votes and selling influence. For Barack Obama, it's redistributing wealth -- without having a clue how wealth is created.

Rush said what many people feel and believe, but lack the skill -- or the guts -- to tell the truth as effectively as he did. As one of my blogs put it today, "Three cheers for Rush Limbaugh."


URGENT INFORMATION BELOW:

CONGRESS EXPIRES CRITICAL TOOL FOR SCREENING ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT!
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screen
employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6. E-Verify has been in
use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping'
Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the
"Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media
news coverage.

LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed
to the hiring of illegal aliens. SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this
link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html

In Praise of Rush Limbaugh

Last Saturday afternoon Rush Limbaugh delivered a remarkable one-and-a-half-hour speech to CPAC. It was broadcast live by FOX, CNN, and a few other outlets. The speech ignited a storm of commentary on the Sunday talk shows and throughout the country. In it, Rush said he "hope(s) Obama fails." Rush said he felt that way because Obama's policies, particularly in economics, are bad for the country -- and at variance with the traditions that have made this an exceptional country.

I watched the well-received speech on CNN, a network Limbaugh intentionally failed to mention in his speech (he mentioned FOX several times). The CNN reporter and news reader seemed miffed that Rush had omitted any reference to their network.

CNN also read several e-mails from viewers hostile to Limbaugh. One called him a "fascist"; another likened him to Hitler. Later, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "agitator" and "incendiary." (Subsequently, Steele apologized and praised Rush.)

Time out, folks. Limbaugh's could have been "A Tribute to America." He spoke in support of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, two documents he believes Obama is ignoring in his rush toward a nanny-state. Rush allied himself with the Declaration's commitment to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He called for a government that respects the Constitution, which Obama clearly does not. He saluted Americans' self-reliance and their belief in liberty and opportunity.

In short, the speech Limbaugh gave was one Barack Obama should have delivered -- but won't -- ever. There was nothing fascistic or Hitlerian about Rush's call for equality of opportunity and fairness. There's nothing dictorial about a love of democracy.

Yes, it's possible to disagree with Rush on some issues -- and I do myself. However, Rush cherishes dissent from his views, because he realizes that conflict draws attention. If he didn't have an audience, he's end up like so many of us, basically talking to ourselves. When Rush talks, people listen, and that's the main goal of his profession.

If Limbaugh is an "agitator," then the nation could use a lot more agitation. If he's an "entertainer," as he has often admitted he is, Rush demonstrates that there's nothing wrong with being entertaining. Making a thoughtful statement on politics and society does not require one to be as boring as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Michael Steele.

Limbaugh is passionate about all the right things: liberty, equality, opportunity, innovation, and wealth creation. He's deeply rooted in American traditions and values. Other Republicans could learn a great deal from him.

Does Rush rely heavily on emotion? Of course, and he's wise to do so. Most Americans (70%? 80%? More?) don't on their intellect -- the rationality -- in making political decisions. Instead, they respond vicerally, emtionally -- with their hearts first and their heads second. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about issues. Other Republicans -- in general, we're an unexciting lot, alas -- could learn a lot from Limbaugh.

Rush's point -- and my point -- is this: We hope Obama fails in his effort to socialize the country. Insofar as Obama fails, the nation succeeds. Insofar as Obama fails, the Constitution will remain the foundation of our nation's greatness.