Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

... 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

deepimpact2, ITY?

[CrackerBarrel]

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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

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.

Agreed

[AGDee]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

My statement isn't about the policies because the quote I heard was not about policies. It was "I hope he fails" That's pretty wide open to interpretation. However, I was trying to get a feel for what people would consider a failure vs. a success in a President on a more broad basis.

Additionally, I'm curious whether it's a success or a failure if the outcome is good but the means to get there is not in line with your philosophies. The bailouts, for example. Lots of people are against them. If they do end up preventing a depression, the loans are paid back within a few years and the economy grows strong again, people keep their jobs or jobs increase, resulting in more income for the government through the interest achieved by giving out those loans and the income taxes of individuals who are working instead of being on unemployment, etc, etc, then is it a success, even if you didn't think they should do it in the first place?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

I did answer it here:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSigkid]

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

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?

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.

[DaemonSeid]

What I think some of you are doing and I understand it, in your attempts to clarify and explain his words, is that you are softening what he says.

But I honestly believe that some of you are closing your eyes to what he is really saying underneath his 'noble' disagreement he has with the president.

Some of you simply don't want to believe that that's what he meant.

Some of you want to believe that he is more progressive than what his merits (or demerits) says about him was well meaning in his words.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

I think the gist of it isn't hoping the country fails. It's hope that he fails to accomplish his specific policy goals because I'm of the opinion that they are very likely to make things worse.

I don't hope he fails in the broad "hope" goals. It's the "change" part I at least anticipate having a problem with, because growing government is a change in the wrong direction from my point of view.

So essentially the gist of the argument is that the country will recover better on its own than with big government, so we're hoping for gridlock so none of his legislative agenda goes through because a lot of it will be nearly impossible to undue even if the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency in the future.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?

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

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

What I think some of you are doing and I understand it, in your attempts to clarify and explain his words, is that you are softening what he says.

But I honestly believe that some of you are closing your eyes to what he is really saying underneath his 'noble' disagreement he has with the president.

Some of you simply don't want to believe that that's what he meant.

Some of you want to believe that he is more progressive than what his merits (or demerits) says about him was well meaning in his words.

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.

[LttleMsPrEp]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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?

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.