Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[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 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.

I don't think it's a matter of him being more or less progressive; it's a matter of taking what he says at face value, versus assigning it some deeper or more nefarious meaning.

I was taking your statement in more the general sense - i.e. that hoping that the President "fails" is automatically a regrettable thing to say.

If you want to assign a different context to it because of it was Limbaugh, that's one thing...I think the rest of us are evaluating the statement largely independent from the person who said it.

Originally Posted by AGDee

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?

I can only speak for myself...but if a policy that I disagree with (like, for example, the bailouts) turns out well (not just for the next year or two, but years into the future), then I'll say that it was a success.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't think it's a matter of him being more or less progressive; it's a matter of taking what he says at face value, versus assigning it some deeper or more nefarious meaning.

I was taking your statement in more the general sense - i.e. that hoping that the President "fails" is automatically a regrettable thing to say.

If you want to assign a different context to it because of it was Limbaugh, that's one thing...I think the rest of us are evaluating the statement largely independent from the person who said it.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't think it's a matter of him being more or less progressive; it's a matter of taking what he says at face value, versus assigning it some deeper or more nefarious meaning.

I was taking your statement in more the general sense - i.e. that hoping that the President "fails" is automatically a regrettable thing to say.

If you want to assign a different context to it because of it was Limbaugh, that's one thing...I think the rest of us are evaluating the statement largely independent from the person who said it.

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

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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).

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.