And that therein is the problem.

You can't separate the statement from him because HE said it.

This is why I cannot understand why some of you here are trying to translate it and make it mean (whitewashing it as it were) something else coming from him.

Again, if this statement was coming from someone a lot more respected on both sides, then a statement of this caliber would be looked at differently ( I think I said this earlier) and hold a lot more weight.

:rolleyes: Disagreeing with you on this particular point =/= defending Rush Limbaugh to the death.

Some are taking what he said at face value, notwithstanding inane, idiotic and hateful things he has said at other times. You are not. I don't think anyone has disagreed that what he said could be viewed the way you understand it. What people have disagreed with is the idea that the statement quoted in your opening post can only be understood the way you understand it.

On its face, the statement indicates only a deep disagreement with Obama's policies, and it is not unreasonable for someone to understand it that way. It requires context to understand it the way you do. You may be right as to what he really thinks, but you cannot support your view just by looking at the four corners of his statement. That's what people have been saying in response to you -- it's not so much defending Rush (something I'd rarely if ever bother to do) as it is looking for clarity from you. You are the one translating -- and you may be translating it quite accurately. But that translation requires context and backing up, because, as already stated, on its face it's an innocuous statement.

The last sentence is the problem here. If you evalute the statement with regard to who said it then I think you'd understand DS much better.
The statement was made by Rush who is definitely prejudice against black people. He is also considered a racist (though some may argue otherwise).
So if a blatantly prejudice and arguably racist person says I hope the POTUS fails you may wonder why he would say that.
Now, even the staunchest conservative probably wouldn't want the POTUS to fail at commanding the military, upholding the constitution, and protecting our nation.
So, if this person (if for only selfish reasons) would not want the president to fail to protect the nation and keep us from complete financial ruin (because that would be counter productive to self interests) why does he want the president to fail?
Now remeber that this person has an overwhelmingly strong dislike for black people no matter what their position in the world. I give you three guesses as to why this person would hope President Obama would fail...
1. Because
2. Obama's
3. Black

The clarity is in his history.

The clarity is what he has said in his past makes one looking at his present statement and calling what he said suspect.

His past statements, actions and POVs, which is so abundantly clear is the reason why you should look past the makeup applied to the face of his statements.

Scroll back a few and look for some quotes by him, I left earlier.

Ok. Now explain this for me. I'm not a racist and I also would prefer if the economy recovers and we win the war on terror. So why do I hope Obama fails? If you equate hoping the President fails to achieve his legislative agenda with hoping the country fails, the only reasons you are ever going to be able to come up with are personal dislikes and biases. We are saying that the comments make a lot more sense if you separate Obama's legislative agenda failing from the country failing because, unless you are of the opinion that Obama's way is the only way to do things that could possibly succeed, they are distinct from one another.

If you would prefer that the country succeeds and you are not a racist that does not mean that you have to want Obama's policies to succeed. The only problem here is that if Obama's policies fail then the country will fail. We're at a point where (no matter if Jmac or Obama were president) the policies implemented must be successful in order for the country to be successful. So, this isn't Obama specific. Im not say that Obama's policies are the only ones that will work, but I am saying that if he fails the nation fails. The same would apply to Jmac if he were president.

You cannot hope that a nation will succeed and at the same time hope that its leader fails. Thats like saying I hope horse x wins the race, but I hope Jockey X loses. It cant happen. Either horse x and Jockey x are are both successful or neiter is succesful. You may have wanted a different rider to fill the position of jockey x, but they didnt. You may want jockey x to have a different riding style, but he doesnt. At this point he's on the horse. So, if your desire for horse x to win is greater than your dislike for jockey x and his riding style then you've got to hope for jockey x's success. And if your dislike for Jockey X is greater than your desire for horse x's win (a win that you've bet everything on) then you have to take a step back and evaluate why that is. In the case of Rush his history shows that there is a strong possibility that the answer to that why question is the race of the jockey.

He did say majority and not all.

I see where you're going, but I disagree with your thought process here, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

I should say for the record that I'm not someone who is hoping that Obama "fails;" I'm just hoping that he backs off of his platform in some places, and that he changes his mind on some of the things he said during the election.

But, I think we'll just end up talking in circles if we try to debate our differences (not that it doesn't happen in other threads).

That is a great way of looking at it.

One should never hope that a president fails.

We may not like who is in charge but when he fails, then that simply makes the job much harder on the next one that comes in behind him.

To some degree, that is the case now.

I disagree that the leader needs to succeed in getting his legislative agenda passed for the country to succeed. I'm of the opinion that the country works best when we have a gridlock that keeps the government from doing a whole lot, because as a general rule the government messing around may well make things worse. Take for example Clinton's second term. Very little of his legislative agenda ever got passed because the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and blocked much of it. And the country did the best it has recently. If you are of the opinion that much of what the government can do is only going to make things worse (which is a fairly standard small government conservative position) than you are of the opinion that the country will be best off if we let the economy balance itself out and rebound without mucking around in it any more than we absolutely have to. To continue your metaphor it's the idea that we have a horse which will win on its own just running as it naturally would, but if the jockey succeeds in how he wants to run the race it's going to slow the horse down.

Or maybe a more apt metaphor would be that the horse fell down but is in the process of getting back up on its own. Kicking the horse and screaming "Get up!" all while loading more and more on its back is just gonna slow the process down.

I'm afraid I agree.

Thanks...sometimes I like to think I have a coherent thought or two, it makes up for some of the other gems I come up with...haha.

Interesting. I don't think it applies to me. However, I do know a lot of people who listen to Rush who aren't racist, and I don't know how you can arrive at such a generalization - that the majority of his listeners are racist - without knowing a majority of his listeners. I was being snarky at first because I don't care for sweeping generalizations that have the potential to include me. However now I am not: I am genuinely curious as to why you believe most of Rush's audience to be racist. Simply because they listen?

(And for those who have noted that he said majority and that I could be in the minority, I know that - and I know that my comment did not reflect that. :) Again, I'm just curious as to the evidence behind the post.)

May I ask you to be more specific? In what way did I downplay racism? Perhaps the comment that preciousjeni quoted? If so, I will clarify. When I stated that there are some things that I might think are okay but they aren't, I don't mean to say that I think it's okay to use racial slurs and otherwise discriminate against others on the basis of race. I simply mean that I am glad that I have "followed" the GC race wars, as I have been exposed to many new opinions and theories. In particular, I have learned a lot from Chaos/DrPhil. (Really) Is it sad that my education on this very real problem has come from a fraternity/sorority chat site? Probably. But I am not familiar with other credible sources to get it. Is that sad again? Yes. But there's a lot of crap out there, and I don't know how to wade through it to get to the good stuff. I guess I have never taken the time to try because it doesn't have a direct impact on my life. But I am interested in the dialogue nonetheless and would love to further my education on these issues.

I have never been a victim of racism. The "racism" that I have been witness to is limited to jokes and inappropriate comments. Which some would argue as actually prejudice because there is no direct issue of power. (Racism = Prejudice + Power) I AM NOT justifying these comments and jokes. I am trying to explain my inexperience and complete lack of knowledge in these very weighty matters.

I have learned that I have a lot to learn. And that just because I might think (or thought) racism has diminished in America, those that have been (and continue to be) discriminated against might not agree. I've really been thinking about it a lot lately for some reason (maybe because of the recent race wars) and thinking about my own experiences and whether or not I have said or done something in the past that could be considered racist or prejudice. I guess that's why I reacted to the statement about most of Rush's listeners being racist. I don't listen for 3 hours a day/5 days a week, and what interests me is his commentary on policies - foreign/domestic/fiscal/etc. As I mentioned to DS, I hadn't even heard of the Halle Berry/Halfrican thing until he mentioned it in this thread.

To further explain the statement PJ quoted, because of some of the things I have read on GC, I have really sought to examine my own perceptions and ideas of racism and prejudice. And I listen carefully to statements made by others to evaluate what might be behind it. I respect that I will never understand how deeply racism affects some Americans.

Bottom line: I love dialogue. And if I have made a racist or otherwise racially insensitive comment, I would love to hear why it is so. I will be happy to admit my wrong and will take the education to better myself.

There's maybe only one thing Limbaugh's ever said that I agree with:

Words have meaning.

Now, context can give us insight into intent and can certainly adjust understanding. Limbaugh's past is context. However, sometimes context doesn't change the meaning at all - there is no one effect it can have. If a liar tells me it is cloudy outside, it just might be cloudy.

Hehehehe...but what's the probablility that you believe the liar? ;)