James Carville has an op-ed on CNN (the Clinton News Network) in which he tries to “educate” Rush Limbaugh:

Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans’ 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends.

He writes, “Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.

“As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.”

And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current “daddy” of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo’s principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology.

Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too).

Now, ignore the usual flaming libtard comment about how Bush “stole” the 2000 election from Algore (isn’t it funny how the left thought Bush was a bumbling nincompoop, yet he outsmarted them at every turn?) and let’s take a look at where Carville has it wrong.

First off, no…Rush is not serious about this proposal. He only put it forward to demonstrate that 1) Obama does not really want to be bipartisan, and 2) to illustrate that the left said virtually the same things during Bush’s term (i.e., they didn’t vote for him why should they “suffer”, etc.).

Second of all, let’s take a look at the rest of his op-ed:

Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I’m sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.)

With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush’s term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street’s lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn’t collapse or entire cities flood.

We wouldn’t have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn’t have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act.

Uhm, Mr. Carville? The Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, too. And they did control 50% of the government (remember, you guys held the Senate back then). Don’t act like it was a one-way street, because it wasn’t.

Rather than lecture Rush Limbaugh on history and facts, Mr. Carville should keep his trap shut and start learning what is real history and what is liberal wishful thinking.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Carville…the ONLY reason Clinton had a surplus was because he had CONSERVATIVE Republicans forcing him into it. If the Democrats had controlled Congress during those years, the budget would have been red as far as the eye could see. What we’re seeing here with Obama and his budget is simply Clinton II: they’re simply continuing where Clinton left off when his agenda was foiled by the 1994 mid-term elections.