2009-02-14

Rush the Traitor

Rush Limbaugh has already said he wants Obama to fail in the pursuit of his policies, because he thinks those policies will be bad for the nation. Fair enough - he is in opposition, after all.  In fact, I'm fairly happy to have Limbaugh defined as the leader of the Republican opposition, given his radioactivity with the general public.

But now he's gone one step too far.  Rather than hoping that Obama fails in his pursuit of his policies, he's now hoping for the policies themselves to fail.  He's not hoping that the Republicans stop Obama, but that Obama's policies fail to achieve the intended effect.
"I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail.... I do not want this to succeed."
What is the purpose of the stimulus package?  To avert a disastrously deep recession, and return the American economy to the prosperity creating juggernaut that it once was.  And he wants the package to fail to achieve that purpose.

That's no longer rooting against Obama.  That's rooting against America.  That's rooting against the American people, who don't have a job they can't lose like Rush.

9 comments:

Jim Ga said...

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/03/11/fox-carville-greenburg-told-reporters-they-wanted-bush-fail-morning-9-11

Also...

"FOX News Poll: 51% of Dems Wanted Bush to Fail

The Democrats are still going nuts that Rush Limbaugh does not want President Obama's Far Left socialism to succeed in America.

My, how times have changed...
It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were hoping that President Bush would fail.
Garden State Pundit discovered this poll today from 2006:

51% of Democrats wanted Bush to fail-- " ect...

And this while Americans were dying in two wars.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/fox-news-poll-51-of-dems-wanted-bush-to.html

Jim Ga said...

And for the record, I hope he doesn't succeed to use this crisis as a way to further his social engineering.

Kepler said...

The Carville example in fact damages your argument. After all, that comment was from before the crisis. Then, when the crisis hit, Carville retracted everything he had said, since in a time of crisis Americans band together and want their country to succeed. They want their President to succeed in addressing the problems that only government can. This is exactly the opposite of what Limbaugh and the hardcore conservatives want.

As I said in the post, I don't begrudge Limbaugh saying that he wanted Obama to fail in enacting his policies. What's the point of Obama? To be a successful President. I can see a political enemy wanting his opponent to fail in that pursuit. What was at issue here was that he said he wanted The Stimulus to fail. What's the point of The Stimulus? To keep our country from spiraling into another Great Recession. Thinking it would fail is one thing, actively hoping for failure is something else entirely.

Jim Ga said...

And your response adresses the post 9/11 poll where a majority of Dems wanted Bush to fail how?

Truth is there is no love lost between both sides of the isle now. But to point one's finger self righteously at someone while ignoring the same in yourself is less than honest.

Kepler said...

First of all, having your source be Fox News doesn't encourage faith in the poll. You know how their polls run, historically.

Secondly, in 2006 we had just finished the Social Security fight. Damn straight Americans wanted Bush to fail at that. Remember, it was the SS fight that drove Bush below 40% approval, where he stayed for 3 years.

And finally, as I said, Limbaugh is allowed to want Obama to fail at enacting his policies. I don't have a huge problem with that. It's when he hopes the policies will fail at making things better that he crosses a line. He can think the policy wont help, but rooting for their failure actually is rooting for America's failure.

Since the War is really your sticking point here, remember that the vast sentiment on the left was that the Iraq War would not turn out well and that Saddam wasn't a real threat to America. Once we were at War, however, the vast sentiment was the one Powell had - you break it you own it. None but the farthest left 1% wanted us to just pack up and leave. We may have thought he would fail, but no figure like Rush Limbaugh (who, when repudiated must be supplicated to) on the left ever said they hoped we would fail. There's a couple of comments you could point to like that from the left, but they've all been roundly repudiated by the Party. They didn't even have to go groveling in apology after the repudiation. This is not the case with Rush Limbaugh, who is the only person in the Republican Party that shall not be crossed, which I think is as good an indicator of leadership within the party as any title could be.

Jim Ga said...

"I don't think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped. But I don't want the president of the United States to fail." - Rush Limbaugh


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/10/politics/main4857494.shtml


Hardly a conservative source.

Your supposition about the 51% wanting failure being about Bushes SS plan is not supported by any data. Are we to believe that all 51% were concerned about social security, an issue that was hardly on the radar compaired to Iraq? The poll question was simple: "Regardless of how you voted in the last election, do you say you want president bush to succeed or not". There's no bias to that question. There's no inuendo. Its not phrased in any leading matter. Its a simple question.

Now try this..

Three and a half years into the Iraq war, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly appeared on David Letterman's show. He asked Letterman, "Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?" Letterman gave a long-winded answer about the evolution of his thinking on the war.

"Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?" repeated O'Reilly. Letterman paused.

O'Reilly said, "It's an easy question."

"It's not easy for me," said Letterman, "because I'm thoughtful."

Now admittedly, Letterman is not a leading democrat, but i find it hard to believe that he represents "the farthest left 1%"

Finally, seperating weather you want the president the man, or his policies or the nation to fail is just splitting hairs. Every president brings forth what they believe in the form of policies aimed at helping the nation. You can not seperate the success of those policies, implemented or not, with the fate of the nation. After all, even failure to pass a policy means the policy failed and thus the nation was deprived its good intentions. In other words the fate of a president and his policies are hand in hand with the fate of the nation.

Kepler said...

First, my publication date was 2/14. Rush revised his remarks on 3/10, since they were received so poorly, and he didn't want to be the main target anymore since it's bad for the Republican Party. Second, I had said repeatedly that I don't begrudge him wanting President Obama to fail. He's in the opposition, after all.

But he doesn't just want Obama to fail, he wants the policies to fail in revitalizing America. That's a step too far. That's qualitatively different.

As for Letterman, he's not the most articulate policy guy in the world, but I can imagine what he was thinking: "Do I want us to win in Iraq, he asks... hmmmm... what does Win mean? I don't think we can win in the way we were told we would, so as much as I want us to have that victory, it would be childish to say you want something you know you can't have. Iraq's never going to be an ally of Israel, for instance. Not going to happen. So I can't just say "yes." But I can't just say "no" either, since I don't want us to fail. I just think we're overwhelmingly likely to fail, given the initially defined victory conditions. But O'Reilly's demanding a one word answer... hmmmm...."

See, Rush Limbaugh said he hoped these policies would fail to revitalize America. Not that he thought they'd fail, but that he hoped the would. That's different, and you know it.

Jim Ga said...

"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, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"

There's the statement in question. Where do you see that he wants the policies to fail to revitalize America? Nowhere. Its an assumption done with a compromised eye. In fact the preceeding comments were about passing nationalized health care, not the stimulus as you stated. The inference made is that he is more interested in fanatical policy over the welfare of the nation. from the same interview...

"I do care about the country. I care about what made it great. I want it to remain great and continue to be great for people that follow after me..."

Anyone who has listens to rush's show should know, if nothing else, that he sincerly interested in the welfare of this country. Read the whole interview and you get a completely diffent sense of what he means. The rest is liberal rantings.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html

Kepler said...

Have you listened to the audio I linked? Cuz I'm talking about a specific comment. I know that he's made many other comments around the issue, but these specific comments are very clear. He wants the Stimulus to fail in stimulating the economy, because if it did he would have to rethink his entire political worldview. This would be very inconvenient to do while being a radio host. Those are political and financial reasons that he wants the Stimulus to fail, and that is a different thing.