I see your point. Perhaps sincere was not the right word, but what I was trying to convey is that I believe he often chooses words that are the most inflammatory, rather than choosing words that most accurately describe is view. That is all I meant by saying that he isn’t being sincere. I was not implying that he doesn’t actually believe what he says.

I’ve heard him say, and I definitely think he believes this, that there’s no such thing as compromise but instead you have to decimate your opponents. That attitude permeates most of his rhetoric- he never gives an inch to his ideological opponents and seeks to defeat them through a positive presentation of his own views and ridicule of theirs. I don’t think that kind of attitude is productive, but it’s really the mirror image of those on the left who not only won’t admit that Bush did anything right but also have to ascribe malicious intent to his actions (eg, the case for war in Iraq based on WMD was not just a faulty decision, but a lie, and the real reasons for the war included greedy conquest and settling a personal family vendetta against Saddam.) While some of those lefties make those charges disingenuously to get attention, many of them actually do think that Bush is evil and mentally challenged. The fact that they use that kind of rhetoric doesn’t mean that they’re not sincere- it’s a choice of how to go about arguing one’s views, to either persuade or to conquer.

And I say this as someone who is mostly conservative and sometimes agree with him on the issues, but dislike his over-the-top rhetoric.

I doubt that anyone seriously believes that Limbaugh meant #2 when he wished for Obama’s failure. Those that claim that Limbaugh meant #2 only do so because they hate Limbaugh as a person and seek to twist his meaning to make him look bad. Trying to convince such people to change their tune is basically asking them to stop willfully lying — it is unlikely to produce anything other than intensification of their poseur-ness.

Unfortunately, pretending to be outraged at anything and everything that those on the other side do/say has become a commonplace in the blogosphere.

And if there’s any doubt, here’s an excerpt from Sean Hannity interviewing Limbaugh where he makes it crystal clear:
“Now, success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, I don’t know about this guy, I really don’t. But I’ve got my suspicions and they’re pretty close to convictions, but we’re gonna have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan — if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes, if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yeah, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan.

But if he’s gonna do FDR, if he’s gonna do the New New Deal all over, which we will call here the Raw Deal, why would I want him to succeed? Look, he’s my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. That matters not at all. If he is going to enact a far-left agenda — look, I think it’s already decided. Two trillion dollars in stimulus. The growth of government.

I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible, looking to government as their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it’s over. We’re never going to roll that back. That’s the end of America as we have known it. Because that’s then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated or provided.

Why would I want that to succeed? I don’t believe in that. I know that’s not how this country is going to be great in the future, it’s not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say no, I want him to fail if his agenda is a far-left collectivism, some people say socialism. As a conservative, heartfelt, why would I want socialism to succeed?”

So I agree with you on that part- and as I said previously, in ordinary times I’d agree with Limbaugh on this too. But I just don’t think the answer to our current situation is going to be pure conservatism and will have to include some policy which would be considered more left leaning or collectivist. It’s a situation where individuals can’t be allowed to bear the full brunt of the consequences of their decisions because it will now be so widespread that everyone will be adversely affected (eg, if thousands more mortgages go into default then housing prices will continue to decline and credit will be tight even for those who’ve managed their finances responsibly, and if millions lose their jobs then there’s a ripple effect to the economy when so many people have to consume less and demand for products and services drops so that even well managed companies will suffer the consequences.)

So again, it’s just not about conservatism vs. liberalism anymore, although I do agree that conservatives should be vigilant against attempts by the left to usher in sweeping socialistic programs under the guise of addressing our immediate crisis. I’m concerned, for instance, about the fact that under Obama’s tax proposals, we’ll go from an already ridiculous 30% to over 50% of the population not paying any income tax at all. That’s an example of a policy which I hope he’ll fail to implement, though I’m not optimistic that that’ll be the case.

Though I will say this… Don’t EVER, link to Think Progress again, that site is just … lies lies lies…

Any other site, even DailyKos is fine.

However, I think a country should criticize it’s president, no matter what time it is. It’s part of democracy and keeping the president doing his/her job.