Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[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.