Have you heard the latest? Apparently Rush Limbaugh doesn't only hate the troops and Mexicans, but he also hates America.

Or at least, it's what the media is reporting.

Let's start with some background. About 4 months ago, Barack Obama launched campaign ads falsely alleging that Rush Limbaugh had spoken of Mexicans in a degrading manner. About 16 months ago, Limbaugh called out anti-war propagandists who invented stories about having served in Iraq, appropriately labeling them "phony soldiers." Top Democrats alleged that he called real troops "phony soldiers," faked extreme anger, and 41 senators signed a letter to the CEO of the company that airs Limbaugh's show, suggesting Limbaugh is "unpatriotic. Limbaugh ended up turning this mockery into $4.2 million dollars for the children of Marines and law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty.

At the time, I wrote:

There is nothing more mesmerizing than watching Democratic leaders launch a massive, organized, yet groundless assault against a conservative for supposedly doing something they are usually guilty of doing themselves.

And how well these words apply today. It is like history is repeating itself. Last week, Limbaugh said, in part, the following:

I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.

Limbaugh's words provoked a torrent of faux-outrage in the media. But how are they controversial? For my part, of course I want Obama to succeed, but I believe the way to succeed is to cut taxes, shrink government, expand free trade, make progress in the war on terror, appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Constitution, etc. If Obama wants to pursue these goals, I most certainly want him to succeed. However, I just as certainly want him to fail in his pursuit of socialism, if that's what he wants to pursue. I think socialism would be the end of this country, so of course I want him to fail in its pursuit if he chooses to pursue it.

For example, I want his stimulus package to be shot down by Congress and want him to fail in enacting his awful economic plan. But since it looks like he is taking Iraq slightly more seriously now, I fully hope he succeeds in maintaining the victory and stability we have achieved, regardless of what that does to his popularity and reelection chances (a hope too few of Bush's opponents seemed to express). So it's nothing personal or partisan - it's an issue of what policies I want to see embraced.

Rob Port agrees:

I didn’t understand the whole controversy about Limbaugh not wanting Obama to succeed. Of course Limbaugh doesn’t want Obama to succeed. I don’t want Obama to succeed either, and that’s because Obama’s stated agenda for this country is something that I don’t support. Thus, I don’t want him to succeed at advancing it.

Unfortunately, context is too much to ask of media liberals in such situations. They want to start a new mega story that will be the background of all opposition to Obama in the next four years - this story is that Republicans want Obama to fail regardless of what he does, and that therefore none of their criticisms are substantive, but are all propaganda attacks designed to win elections. Take, for instance, this CNN Rick Sanchez video (the link to which simply read: I hope Obama 'fails,' Limbaugh says):

Sanchez announces:

I'm Rich Sanchez. Promised that you'd listen, or be able to listen, to the entire Rush Limbaugh commentary. Here it is.

Of course, by "entire Rush Limbaugh commentary," Sanchez meant enough of the commentary to take Limbaugh's words out of context. He blatantly omitted this part that immediately preceded the segment he aired in the audio:

I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

And the part that came after:

Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?

After this illustration of journalistic malpractice (and it's not CNN's first), Sanchez asks his guest:

I guess it's ok to say, look, I want liberalism to fail, because I'm anti-liberalism. But saying I want Obama to fail, is saying essentially in what is one of the most precarious times in our nation's history, you want our country to fail, isn't it?

Of course, Limbaugh was precisely talking about wanting liberalism to fail, and Sanchez fully knows that, which is why he omitted Limbaugh's relevant quote from the audio. Sanchez wants to create controversy out of nothing. I have seen him behave in such a bitter manner before. Rick Sanchez is a disgrace.