RINOs in a china shop ~ By Erik Rush

Erik Rush has it right, and it's what I been thinking ever since Obama took office. His destruction of the economy had to be intentional. Any other explanation wouldn't make sense. I believe that Erik has come to the same conclusion, as you will read in his column.

Whether the errant Republicans I've described are simply dim, imperceptive, weak or closet progressives makes no difference at this juncture. Either they realize we're playing for keeps or they must be made to get out of the way.

There will be no room for bipartisanship again until progressivism is killed and buried, and the earth salted over it.

By Erik Rush

Posted: February 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

This is intending to fail. …

– Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Feb. 19, on President Obama's spending policies

As conservatives rode high on the afterglow of last week's wildly successful CPAC convention, which galvanized and fired the hopes of millions of their number across America, some commentators and Republican lawmakers continued to admonish President Obama to cut spending and taxes in a real effort to turn the economy around, as opposed to what he is currently doing.

Something fundamental is eluding these folks here, and the prominence of some of them should not engender incredulity regarding their ignorance of what is transpiring; it is likely that the "unthinkable" and outrageous nature of Obama's objectives account for their escaping these otherwise astute men and women. Indeed, the president's design has always been to drive the U.S. economy over a cliff. It is only in this way that he will be able to implement the drastic measures that, no doubt, he will claim to hate as much as he "hated" the bank bailout, but which will secure the presidency (read: Obama) unprecedented latitude, to put it very mildly.

So, apropos Rep. Bachmann's remarks: Of course Obama is intending to fail; in failing to preserve the economy, he is succeeding in his own designs. Therefore, discussions around Obama putting a halt to spending, implementing tax cuts, or "what he ought to do" are beyond specious.

Meanwhile, afraid of being associated with the "party of 'no,'" and desirous of being able to say that they were for job creation as economic conditions further deteriorate, Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., voted against the GOP's efforts to filibuster President Obama's so-called "jobs bill" (also referred to as "Stimulus II") this week. While many Americans will be aware that at least a couple of these are Republicans in Name Only (RINOs), some will no doubt be perplexed as to why the others would support something this imprudent and economically unsound – not to mention oxymoronic.

Also this week – though perhaps less surprising – California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with accolades for Stimulus I on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show, claiming that it had done "great things for the state of California." He also expressed veiled support for Obama's health-care efforts (via the health-care summit), claiming that "everyone needs to work together." Now, while Schwarzenegger is not running for high office, nor is he really a major political player, his attitude – and the condition of his state – are indicative of where progressive Republicans will take us.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com