Regarding the title: I’m still channeling the Ceiling Cat.

Anyway, the new talking point from the GOP on Rush Limbaugh is that the focus on Rush Limbaugh is just a distraction manufactured by Dems to divert attention away from the budget.

I’m trying to remember the last time Republicans did anything but distract. Nothing is coming to mind.

Rove and Miers will testify to Congress under oath. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the depositions will be closed.

This is a riot.

Rush and other mouthpieces for movement conservatism are not backing down from their public wish that Barack Obama fails. As Dave Neiwert says, his excuse for this is the time-honored foundation of all conservative morality — That other kid did it first.

Limbaugh: Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail?

[Crowd shouts:] Yeah!

Limbaugh: Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure! There’s Dingy Harry Reid, waving a white flag, ‘This war is lost. This war — ‘ They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified! [Boos.] Mrs. Clinton — [Loud boos] … Said she had to suspend, willingly suspend disbelief for whenever one had to listen to Petraeus. We were in the process of winning the war and the last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed.

Dave’s comment:

It would be one thing if Republicans were simply warning that Obama’s stimulus plans were doomed to failure. We’d understand that. It certainly would mirror how we felt about the Iraq war: we believed it was a doomed enterprise that would not only cost far more in human lives than anything that might possibly be gained from it, but would actually worsen the conditions for terrorism it purportedly meant to combat. We recognized that Bush’s rosy scenarios might come to pass, but we doubted it deeply — and said so, and rightly.

But it’s another thing altogether to openly hope for failure — in the case of the Iraq war, because it meant American soldiers would die needlessly, an outcome no one who loves America would want; and in the case of the economy, because it means that America is doomed to slide into a Depression. It will mean that millions of Americans will lose their jobs, millions will slide into poverty, and misery will be rampant.

Of course, from the moment the invasion of Iraq became public discussion, any arguments against it evoked howls about “Fifth Columnists” and “Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys” from the Right. I do not believe most of them see a difference between expressing the opinion that X is a bad idea and wanting X to fail. There’s a huge difference, of course, but I suspect it would be easier to teach algebra to a gerbil than to teach that difference to your standard wingnut. I personally would not want to waste my time trying.

However, it’s also the case that when a wingnut evokes “Iraq” and the rest of us speak of “Iraq,” we’re talking about entirely different things. I go back to my contention that right wingers, like the Tamarians of Star Trek TNG, see everything as part of a vast mythology.

When most people think of the War in Iraq, they see the Mother of All Boondoggles; a hopeless mess that was entered into foolishly, for reasons that proved to be false, and without proper planning, that has wasted billions (at least) of taxpayer dollars, has taken the lives of 4,255 American soldiers (so far), has caused immeasurable stress and hardship for military and reservists’ families, has drastically decreased our military’s ability to respond to other (and possible real this time) crises, has eroded American prestige, has probably increased the risk of another terrorist attack, and has generally pissed off the planet.

When you say “Iraq” to a wingnut, however, out of the misty haze of his brain comes a mythical vision of good versus evil, where the shining forces of righteousness (righties) eternally battle the dark, malevolent Other (everybody else). And victory over the Other is not really about the Middle East or even 9/11. It’s about preserving Christmas and Jesus and gun shows, and the right of white Americans to hear no language but English spoken in the aisles of Wal-Mart. And, of course, conquering the Other requires unwavering faith. To doubt is to embolden the enemy. Through our very brain waves, we doubters gave strength to the Other; and because we refused to clap, the fairy almost died.

For the rest of us, who think somewhat more analytically, if we are accused of wanting the war in Iraq to “fail,” I’d have to ask for clarification. What part of it exactly did we want to “fail”? We on the Left do have a pubescent fringe whose antics are lovingly documented by Michelle Malkin as representative of all of us, but the truth is that Democratic Party leaders and the huge majority of liberal political activists have been supportive of the troops all along, and have not spoken against military victory in Iraq. Nor am I aware of anyone who has opposed democratic elections in Iraq or hoped the government of Iraq would fail and be replaced by a junta of Islamic radicals.

What we’ve opposed, other than the damnfool invasion itself, is the incompetence and corruption. It’s the way the Bush Administration was perpetually six months (at least) behind in responding to ongoing developments. It’s the way billions of taxpayer dollars have been soaked up by corrupt contractors or just plain evaporated. It’s the way the Bush Administration was forever coming up with post-hoc strategies that were more about domestic consumption than real-world application.

Because we actually noticed this stuff, and commented on it out loud, we were not playing by the rules of rightie myth. “Winning” requires us all to shut our eyes, keep visions of John Wayne at Iwo Jima in our heads, and to speak only of honor, glory and resolve.

On the other hand, if President Obama’s stimulus programs fail, we and much of the rest of the planet will be plunged into another Great Depression. We might end up there, anyway, for policies that are too little and too late. But not acting pretty much guarantees it.

Now, it may be that righties really don’t want another Great Depression, any more than I supported Saddam Hussein or wanted Iraq to collapse into a failed state. (Note to wingnuts: I didn’t, and I didn’t.) They just don’t comprehend that we’ll end up there if we don’t get currency moving through peoples’ hands again, and fast. Whether they don’t understand this because they’re blinkered by ideology or just plain stupid, I’ll let you decide. The fact is that the Right hasn’t come up with a alternative plan beyond oh, let’s just keep doing what we’ve been doing, which is what got us into this mess. Not an option.

Then you’ve got the faction (most righties, I suspect) who sincerely believe Barack Obama is an agent of totalitarian socialism who is trying to undermine republican government and turn the U.S. into a gulag. These are the same people who are insulted if you call them “John Birchers,” mind you.

If one really believes this, then I suppose it would be one’s patriotic duty to want Barack Obama to fail. I would argue it’s their patriotic duty to get professional help.

Update: See John Cole.

Be sure to read “Extraordinary Measures: A new memo shows just how far the Bush administration considered going in fighting the war on terror” by Michael Isikoff. See also “George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution” by Scott Horton and “The newly released secret laws of the Bush administration” by Glenn Greenwald.

What is it with “movement conservatives” and blowhard narcissists who present themselves as “leaders”? Although some deny it now, for a while the lot of them were ready to follow George W. Bush off a cliff. And now they’re following Rush Limbaugh off a cliff. Not that I mind, but it is a remarkable phenomenon, is it not?

And what about the Michael Steele-Rush Limbaugh flap? Oh, how I wish Steve Gilliard were here to comment. I can just imagine what he’d be saying now. You were right, Steve.

If you missed it, yesterday morning the big news was that RNC Chair Michael Steele had spoken against El Rushbo. On CNN, Steele called Limbaugh’s style “incendiary” and “ugly.” Limbaugh is a mere entertainer, said Steele.

And, of course, as with so many others who dared speak against the Big Fat Mouth, within hours Michael Steele was crawling to kiss the feet of his King. Michael Steele may have been elected RNC chair, but we know “movement conservatives” are not about to allow Steele to be any kind of leader.

And of course the Right, which sided with Rush nearly unanimously, told Michael Steele in so many words to stay in his place.

And if any wingnuts stalwart movement conservatives happen to drop by, let me say that I encourage you to stay the course and follow Rush into the wilderness to glorious victory.

The White House and the Democratic Party are only too happy to celebrate Rush’s rise to power. They see Rush as key to the future of movement conservatism — as an ever shrinking and increasingly irrelevant political fringe.

The CIA destroyed at least two nearly 100 interrogation tapes.

The government threw another $30 billion at AIG, Reuters says. Angry Bear says this sorta kinda makes sense, and explains why, although he is not without concerns.

There has been much grumbling about President Obama’s current plans for leaving Iraq. Some critics say he is backtracking on his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. Juan Cole says there is no reason for alarm, and that “we’re really leaving Iraq.”

I’m reading an article about Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC convention speech, which I didn’t have the stomach to watch on television. So did he really say this –

We believe that the preamble of the Constitution contains an inarguable truth, that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom — and the pursuit of happiness,” he said, pausing several times for enthusiastic applause.

And, of course, the preamble of the Constitution says no such thing. He’s mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and garbling the quote at bit, at that. But I’m willing to assume that Rush misspoke in the excitement of the moment and really does know the difference between the two.

This was the part I found more interesting –

“We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are, because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we’re portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party,” the conservative talk show host told a mostly young crowd of energized supporters.

So who are you, Rush?

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.

We liberals want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be, too, which is why we support universal health care, unions and fair labor laws; good public schools; regulations to keep the economy stable and not a series of roller-coaster boom-and-bust cycles. So, Rush, exactly what have conservatives done to enable people be the best they choose to be?

(Cricket chirps)

OK, let’s go on.

We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

And, of course, we liberals can sincerely say the same thing. So what is it that distinguishes conservatism from liberalism? What is the essence of conservative philosophy, the foundation upon which conservative policies are built?

I’m not going to post it, but here’s a YouTube snip of Rush’s speech in which he says “Let me tell you who we conservatives are [dramatic pause]. We love people.”

OK, I’m sorry I didn’t warn you about that one. I’ll pause for a moment until you stop gagging.

I found a transcript. If your stomach is still queasy, skip the quote between the asterisks.

We don’t hate anybody. We don’t — I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience — let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year.

Anyway, Rush goes on to say that conservatives believe people will be just fine if they didn’t have to deal with too much taxes, too much regulation and too much government.

And you know what? Surely there are parts of the world in which people don’t have to deal with taxes, regulation and government. I’m thinking of some lost tribe in the Amazon jungle, but maybe there are other places without taxes, regulation and government, and if Rush’s tribe wants to pack up and go there, I sure as hell will not stand in their way.

But instead they stay here, where they can enjoy a political and economic system enabled in part by taxes, regulation and government. And they bitch and moan about it and do whatever they can do to destroy it and turn the U.S. into some third-world sinkhole.

But one thing Rush cannot do, which is tell us who he is and who his followers are. They can’t tell us, because they honestly don’t know.