Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails
 

heh...for those that got offended at what Jay Z said....take a gander at this:


RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. 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. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html


Video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...r.limbaugh.cnn

I guess it would be wrong if somebody says that they hope Rush ODs.....hehe

"Somebody's gotta say it."

Normally this would annoy me, but honestly I find it amusing. It's really so pathetic. lol

I don't see how "I don't like Obama's policies and I hope he isn't successful in implementing them" is even close to "I hope a man dies from overdosing."

"Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

The fact that Rush stated aloud his own prejudices and hateful ideologies over the health and welfare of the country is disgusting all by itself.

To me, when someone says that they hope a President fails, I read that as meaning that they hope his policies fail.

You're also stating that Obama's policies are good for "the health and welfare of the country," and honestly, that's just your opinion at this point (as well as the opinion of those who voted for Obama). There's nothing to say that his policies will be successful, and we won't know that for quite a while.

There are people who have legitimate problems with his platform, and there are a lot of people who think that his policies won't help the country and who hope he fails in implementing them. That's just the nature of being a President - some people want your policies to fail, because they don't agree with said policies.

I'm by no means a Rush fan, but I see no problem with what he said.

I understand Rush says some ridiculous stuff, and that he can be a real lightning rod...but you're stretching it a bit here.

In implementing the policies that Limbaugh doesn't agree with.

Limbaugh is like Ann Coulter, whatever good points he's making is being coated in shock rock. Get distracted by that at your own risk.

Precisely.

Sorry but with Rush and taking a look back at his track record, I disagree with you when anyone thinks that ALL he meant was policy.

Wordplay at work.

OK. I've been thinking about this. And DS, I know there's no way in hell you will ever agree with Rush Limbaugh about anything, even if he said the sky is blue. :) As someone who did not vote for President Obama, I can read between Rush's lines and know where he is coming from. Rush did not vote for Obama (no secret) because he does not believe that Obama's ideas for solving the country's problems are the best way to go about it. Neither do I for that matter.

So Rush does not want him to succeed in creating socialized healthcare or spreading the wealth or any other number of things. Because Rush (and 57 million other Americans) don't want this stuff to happen. I don't want a lot of it to happen. So as far as hoping that Obama succeeds on putting his campaign platform into law, I would agree with Rush.

I think that Rush was speaking on a micro level - about Obama's specific policy ideas. On a macro level - I (and many others) desperately want him to succeed. For the most part, we all want the same outcomes, it's just that we differ on the methods to achieve them. I happen to believe in a free market system (NOT a fan of any bailout). I do not believe that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to see a doctor without paying for it. I believe strongly in helping others - through private channels and the creation of jobs, not through tax dollars and bailouts/handouts. I gave 3 times the amount Vice President Biden did to charity, yet I make 20% of what he makes. I am a hardcore Libertarian that believes the federal government should exist only for defense and maybe a little infrastructure. Let the states handle other issues.

I DO NOT have all the answers. If I did, I would run for President. But as a business owner, I know that I want as little unsolicited input as possible from the federal government about how to run my business. And how to run my life. And what I should be required to do with my money and my time. If I go bankrupt, that's MY problem. Not the government's and sure as hell not your problem or your responsibility to help me out. I don't want help. This woman scares the shit out of me. How have we gotten to a point where Americans believe that the President of the United States is going to fix it so they don't have to worry about paying their bills? I would like to believe that she is thinking macro, and that it is her belief that Obama's policies will create so much wealth that she will get a great job and have money to burn. But I don't doubt that there are folks out there who voted for him just because they want more social programs and money for nothing. "How DARE anyone in this country take home more than $250,000 in salary. Take it from those greedy bastards and give it to me. I'm poor."

I have great respect for President Obama. He is my President, and when he proposes something that is in line with my personal values and thoughts, I will hope that he succeeds and will share that with my Congressman and Senators. However, if he proposes something that I do not agree with, I cannot help but hope that he (read: IT) fails. I am even more liberal than he on some issues (gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, and other matters of liberty that I believe to be PRIVATE issues and none of the government's business).

And I have to agree with our new Secretary of State: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”

And that includes Rush Limbaugh.

Donovan McNabb
Halle Berry
Halfrican American
Barack the Magic Negro
Curious George

To start, those are just a few of the reason why I do not give Rush a pass with that portion of his comment.

ETA: Had it been someone else of more credibility and integrity, then the whole statement would require more 'generous' scrutiny.

I think how you interpret his comment depends on how you define a successful Presidency.

Is a successful Presidency one in which we achieve peace but remain a super power? Have a growth economy and low unemployment rate with a decreasing national debt? Have a productive, healthy and (basically) happy population? And, if all of this is achieved, isn't it good for everybody, even if a liberal is the one who achieved it?

On the other hand, if you define a successful Presidency as one in which the President is able to implement all of his policies, whether the policies themselves make things better or not, then I can understand Rush's statement.

But, again, this statement seems to presuppose that Obama's policies will lead to the things you mention, and there's no way to know if that's true. It could very well be that his policies will lead to higher unemployment, burdensome taxes, a lack of safety at home and abroad, and an unhappy population.

No one knows whether he'll be successful or not, but those who hope his Presidency will "fail" probably think that his policies will not lead to prosperity or happiness, that instead they will lead the country into tougher times.

ETA: In the end, it's way too early to even be making these judgments about whether he'll be a success or a failure.

Rush Limbaugh is racist, and always has been. So is the majority of his audience. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Donovan McNabb - I don't know enough about his football skills to agree or disagree with Rush's assertion that he got more hype because of his skin color. Are you saying that it is impossible for Rush's statement to be true? (I don't know - I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically.)

Halle Berry / Halfrican American - I didn't know what you were referring to here and had to Google it. I am not black, and so I do not presume to pass judgment on the offensiveness of this situation. I have learned a lot from reading the other race wars on GC that what I might think is okay - really is not. So if this offends you as an African American, so be it. I won't tell you you are wrong.

Barack the Magic Negro - That term originated from an African American columnist, not Rush.

Curious George - That came from a caller to his show, not Rush.

Again, I don't think any amount of discussion or persuasion will ever convince you that Rush is right about anything. And that's OK. I do read your posts and your opinions on GC because I realize that unless I am truly informed about the ideas and opinions of those with whom I disagree, I cannot say that my own opinions have been generated without examining all sides of an issue.

I did enjoy your photos from the inauguration. :)

As someone who listens to Rush, this is a surprise to learn that I'm a racist. May I ask how you know that about me?

jwright...I thank you for that...and while I understand that some of what I listed didn't 'originate' from Rush's mouth, the fact that he picked up the baton as it were and ran with those thoughts and ideas, is offensive enough.

Starting with what he said about Donovan McNabb who has been one of the MOST successful QBs (period) in recent history, Rush's statements were clearly out of bounds...no pun intended.

He doesn't get credit for starting the fire but he sure as hell gets credit for fanning the flames.

And he did say 'majority' ....if you consider youself a 'minority' , and not a racist, to his argument, then it's no big deal.

While I didn't vote for Barack Obama, as an American, he is now my president. Why on earth would I want to see his policies fail? But I did find the following article (I'll link & give y'all a snippet) very interesting:

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post (letters@charles krauthammer.com).

Charles Krauthammer: Even Obama seems to understand how much Bush got right

"WASHINGTON -- Except for Richard Nixon, no president since Harry Truman leaves office more unloved than George W. Bush. Truman's rehabilitation took decades. Mr. Bush's will come sooner. Indeed, it has already begun. The chief revisionist? Barack Obama.

Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds -- the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition.

It's not just the retention of such key figures as Secretary of Defense Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the last year. It's the continuity of policy...."



It's very easy to say, "I'm going to change this, and do that," when you don't have all the facts. Now President Obama does have the facts, so I wouldn't plan on any major changes overnight. But I do wish him the very best, as it would be in the interest of ALL Americans for him to do well.

I liked your photos, too!

This is imbecilic.

Limbaugh may indeed be "hateful" and "prejudiced" but his statement, as quoted in your OP, is neither. It is anti-liberal, a stance that is not implicitly hateful or prejudiced. What, did you simply go with whatever Bush said? No, not at all - you railed against the man, both politically and personally. Now Limbaugh does the same for his politics, standing up for the same things he's been preaching to the evangelical right for decades, and you resort to ad hominem and say it's racist - seriously? You don't see the irony? You're assigning personal motives for him, when you yourself do the same thing and REJECT ANY PERSONAL MOTIVE. Come on. It's not like Limbaugh didn't wish ill on Clinton politically. Context matters.

You are reaching here, even with the comparison with the Jay-Z thread (which sucks too). At least "No more white lies" can be construed as "lies from Whites" - this thread is absolute tripe, DS, and contributes to the clusterfuck that political discussions have become on this board.

Simply put: this discussion would be better if you were. That's the new mantra, not just for you, but for everybody. Think about that before you post. Jesus.

Sorry if you don't like it.

But Rush simply is not credible when making statements like that.

Again, his track record alone proves that when he opens his mouth there will be questions and cringing behind whatever tends to fall out.

Take it as you see it.

lol - k

Credibility is markedly different than the assertions you made in the original post.

Indeed, even if you'd simply said "I can't take this bigot seriously" you would have been on the right path. You didn't.

I was, you didn't follow.

Really? You're claiming my reading comprehension was off? I mean . . . do you want me to walk through this?

Do what you feel, no one is holding a gun to your head.

... or you could simply say "I was unclear" or "I was being rash and reactionary"?

In the interest of time and humility - it's the season for coming together.

I won't because I was very clear in what I said.

Maybe you just don't want to believe that I said it or the fact that it was said.

You just need to reconcile with the fact that Rush is not exactly a friend of Black America, in my view and as someone stated earlier, I think is racist and more than enough times his bias has come out and has been called into question and even in McNabb's case,(and to a huge degree Tony Dungy) proven wrong, what more do you need?

So yeah, when he opens up his mouth and let's some stuff like that slide past his teeth, it's not wishful thinking that he hopes the POLICIES fails like you believe...he is hoping that the Black man who was elected and sworn in fails, just so in four years he can say, "I told you so."



That is what I believe...you don't have to like it.

deepimpact2, ITY? :p

I don't get why what Rush said is racist.

Even if you accept your premise that he is a racist (which I think is at least arguable, but I don't listen to the man and don't really care whether he is or not) than what he said isn't racist.

Rush didn't say "I hope he fails so that we don't ever elect another black president."

He said simply "I hope he fails." In certain areas so do I. Why? Not because I'm a racist, but because big government policies are the opposite of what I believe in. Obama succeeding will mean an astronomical growth in entitlement programs, increased government ownership and control of US industry, sweet deals for the labor unions, tax "rebates" going to people who weren't paying taxes in the first place, and any number of other similar policies. If you are of the opinion that those changes, many of them nearly irreversible, will worsen America than you hope that Obama fails in getting them implemented. Simple as that.

It should be an even bigger surprise to find that you don't have to be in the majority of his audience.

Agreed

Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?

5 quotes from Rush and think about if he was talking about policy:


I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.



You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.



Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.


I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back

- Rush Limbaugh

I didn't say all, I said the majority. And if you think it applies to you, then it probably does.

A good hint is the way you downplayed the racism in the post right above the one I'm quoting.

I think that you're reaching. Even if Obama does fail and Rush is able to say "I told you so" is it impossible to think that his context of saying "I told you so" is that he knew from the beginning that Obama's policies wouldn't work and that America was just slow to realize it?

First, as an Eagles fan, I'm almost 100% sure we should avoid the McNabb conversation right now. ;) Give me a couple of weeks, man!

Second, I'm repeatedly on record as saying "context matters" - and what you're doing is taking his statements from the standpoint of the man's past racial missteps, and essentially saying "anything he says must be racially motivated because of his past." I get that.

However, it's also important to look at the actual words being used - even with the context of exposing racial bias in the past, he's completely allowed to hope that Obama fails in his liberal policy expansion. Indeed, he noted the exact same feelings toward Clinton - how do we reconcile that?

In short, I think you're going too far - you're going beyond credibility and reading into it actual malice or ill intent. When you go with "heh...for those that got offended at what Jay Z said....take a gander at this:" the comparison is implicit: this is a racist or racially-motivated statement. There's simply nothing in the statement to back that up - and, sure, Limbaugh's publicists probably scrubbed it to be neat and tidy, but any time we cry "racist!" at something that probably isn't, we devalue all of the correct cries. This is, in essence, how we get shit like claims of 'reverse racism' (which doesn't even conceptually make sense).

The quotes you posted later are very strongly racial and show pretty strong prejudice. It's not that they don't apply to Rush, who likely is biased against blacks (and not in the "thinks they're better than him at basketball" way) - it's that even racists can say things about a black man that aren't racially motivated. Context (still) matters, even when it's not the context we want to include. We have to look at all of the evidence, not just the evidence that fits our preconception.

I don't want you to think I'm playing gatekeeper, but there's a centrist area that is vital.

My first reaction to someone saying "I hope Obama fails" means that they hope this country fails economically and militarily under Obama's watch. That's why I ask those of you who want to see Obama fail what outcomes they hope to see in the next 4 years. Are you really hoping for a Depression? more wars? What constitutes a failure vs. a success. I haven't seen anybody answer that yet.

K Sig. Unless the audio file has been scrubbed, it's verbatim to the transcript played. Check the links.

His racial bias is the motivating factor that would cause someone not to believe that his words could be taken genuinely and what he meant was that he hopes his policies fail.

Sorry but a leopard can't hide his spots.

And the isolated incident with Clinton is nothing compared to what he has voiced all of these decades because you know as well as I do, unless you disagree and I have to go pulling out another set of quotes, he is anti feminist as well.

I may be going far because for some it may be uncomfortable conversation but the point is, it's stuff like this that we have to stop ignoring and confront. Commenst like that, coming from one such as he, should be called for what it is and not excused.

I'm pretty sure there are readings of "fail" that are somewhere other than "I hope opposing armies defeat ours, people lose jobs and kids go hungry" - it could be as simple as "I hope he fails in his bid for economic stimulus, as it would do more harm than good."

I don't want to speak for others, because I'm not "hoping for failure" or whatever, but you're reading a lot into a statement that was pretty well explained.

Basically, your reading assumes that the opposite of Obama's policies is the failure of a nation. Others could argue Obama's policies represent the failure of a nation, so the opposite would be positive.

I just don't see why people are surprised that Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama fails. Did we really think he was going to rally behind the President?

I guess my point is, why is this an issue?

I did answer it here:

Edited because KSigRC's statement restates my post in a much clearer manner:

Broken into two posts because the original post wasn't clear...


Ummm...no, that's not what the majority of people are saying. If you want to get inflammatory about it, that's your choice, but that's a mischaracterization of what most of the people are saying in this thread.