That is exactly what Rush wants to happen. He wants it to get worse.

Wanting something to fail is not the same thing as wanting it to get worse.

In Rush's mind, if the plan fails things will get better.

The fact that from the very first days in office the administration has gone out of its way to denigrate Limbaugh is evidence enough. They haven't done this for any other conservative commentator: not Hannity or Anne Coulter or anyone else. They know who they have to discredit and silence, and they've gone at it ever since.

As for the Valerie Plame thing, I'd be skeptical of Scott McClellan. His memory has proved faulty on other matters too. Don't forget: it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame, and he admitted it, although he said it was inadvertent.

Also don't forget: Both Plame and her husband lied about the whole Niger business, a fact uncoverded in the U.S. Select Committe Report on Intelligence. (Funny, too, how Wilson did not complain about those "16 words" in Bush's SOTU address until after he joined the Kerry campaign.)

Actually, no contortions needed. It's quite simple logic.

Funny that coming from you who dared to cite the post hoc fallacy in the immediately preceding letter. Your error: it's a post hoc fallacy only if there's no relationship between the two events.

But consistently since January 20, every time Obama has made an economic pronouncment, the market has gone down. Correlation does not prove causation, but if it consistently happens, then it's logical to draw a conclusion.

You know, Dr. Occam's razor and all that.

You apparently are immune to logic or the clear meaning of simple words.

And while the market has been in decline since mid-2008, it has dropped precipitously since Nov. 4 and even more precipitously since Jan. 20.

Gee, what has happened in the meantime?

More to the point, every single time Obama or one of his spokesmen has opened their mouth about an economic matter, the market has gone down.

Sorry you're incapable of seeing the obvious. Perhaps you still have shit in your eyes from kissing Obama's ass.

I'll spell it out for you, toekutter. I'll write slowly, since I know you can't read very fast.

Wanting something to fail does not automatically mean you want things to get worse.

If I want a bank robber to fail, does that mean I want things to get worse ... or better?

By Rush's reasoning, Obama's policies will make things worse, ergo, if they fail, then things will be better.

Really now, it's quite simple logic. You are just too dense to get it.

But you were the one who brought in the digression about Plame.

And here's what Richard Armitage said:

It was Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, who outed her to him. In fact, according to Armitage, Wilson was telling everyone he could about his wife's CIA connection in order to pump up his own credibility.

And as Robert Novak said, he didn't think it was big news since most of Washington knew Plame's employment already. That's why he mentioned it in his column.

Only if you believe Obama's policies will help. Limbaugh thinks they will hurt, and therefore it's obvious that he would wish them to fail.

The logic is quite simple. I'm not saying you have to agree with Limbaugh, but yeesh, are you so dense that you can't follow this simple logic?

You are so blind to your own presuppositions that you're incapable of seeing anything clearly.

Limbaugh thinks Obama is the "bank robber" in the metaphor, not the bomb squad.

Therefore he wants him to fail. You think Obama's the bomb squad. Fine. Let's have some evidence for your confidence.

You might want to factor in the fact that most of the economic markets also think Obama is the "bank robber", since they've expressed zero confidence in his plan.

You're so clever. No how about some actual reasoning and evidence to go with your claptrap.

Actually, the stimulus does not add to the economy, because it's all borrowed money. That, or the government must print more money. Both are bad.

The result of one is higher taxes, the result of the other is inflation. Both rob in the sense that they take productive money out of the economy.

Obama's plan is a "stimulus" only in the sense that a cattle prod is a stimulus. It may jolt the beast a few feet forward, but short of shocking him again, it provides no incentive for him to keep moving.

And you still can't see the simple logic of my statement. Whether or not you think Obama is the bank robber or the bomb squad, the fact remains that Rush thinks he's the bank robber and therefore hopes he will fail. QED.

If you're incapable of seeing that simple syllogism, then there's no hope for you.

Only diehard Obamaites and Salon readers could actually believe this headline.

Here's a more sober take, especially on Obama's need to have some sort of teleprompter, even if it's a big screen at the back of the room that TV viewers can't see. How pathetic:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/barack-obama-ne.html

... Bush never needed teleprompters or giant TV screens in the back of the room to feed him answers during press conferences.

Gullible Salon readers will fall for anything.

You and Jim Webb are about 25 years too late to the party. Chuck Colson and his ministry, Prison Fellowship, have been advocating prison reform since the early '80s. They also put their money where their mouth is, reaching out to prisoners and their families with concrete help.

They're motivated by their Christian principles, so that's probably why Greenwald and Salon haven't noticed. Apparently it doesn't count unless motivated by "progressive" politics.