Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[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).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

That is a great way of looking at it.

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.

[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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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.

I'm afraid I agree.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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 understand what you're saying. Checks and balances exist for a reason and I'm glad they do. However, the POTUS is a Dem. The legislative is controlled by Dems. Thus it isnt likely that something similar to Clinton's 2nd term will happen. It's highly likey that a lot of Obama's policies will make it through. Because of this fact I'm saying that this leader's legislative agenda must be successful in order for the country to be successful. I'm not arguing that a leader needs to get his agenda passed for the nation to be successful. Im arguing that since this leader will very likely get his legislation passed it is necessary for his legislation (ie:HIM) to be successful if the nation will be successful. So, in this case if you want the nation to be successful then you want Obama to be successful.