Jump to content

"I Hope Obama Fails"


GernBlansten

Recommended Posts

That's what Rush Limbaugh said the day after President Obama took the oath of office.

 

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Dissent is good, it moderates, it enables debate.

 

But wishing the leader of our country to fail isn't dissent, its fatalism. Its ideology over nation.

 

When Bush was in power, I never heard the left say "I hope Bush fails". I heard lots of calls that he had failed, but never hoping he would fail. It's quite the distinction.

 

Our nation is in dire straights. If Obama fails, there won't be a nation to rebuild.

 

Clearly, Rush never wore a scout uniform.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, Rush is succeeding in his mission - getting more people to listen to him - by being provocative. Pulling a Paul Harvey, and the rest of the story - Rush said he wants Obama to fail with his liberal policies, that we don't need more liberalism. If you think this is any different than Democrats hoping conservative policies fail, you should go into the Making Mountains Out Of Molehills business. But don't take my word for it, look at what he actually said.

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush points out that socialism has not worked in other countries. He also cites learned economists who have studied the great depression and have concluded that the New Deal served only to prolong the depression. So the conclusion is that massive government spending will in the long run only make the economy worse. Thus, Rush is wanting the country to do well but he believes that Obama's policies will only make things worse not better. Which is more patriotic. To support presidential policies that you believe will make things worse but you support them for the benefit of the president or to try to have legislation passed that supports your opposing view of the optimal solution. If you believe the former, then you would have never criticized President Bush's handling of the war or the wisdom of going into Iraq.

 

Rush is being just as patriotic as those who are supporting the president. No one knows the best solution and as in the Great Depression, only one solution can be done at a time. Whether a more conservative approach would work was not tried in the Great Depression and is not likely to be tried now. I do not see the wisdom in repeating the same tactics when they did not work before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the Great Depression is not my forte, WWII and Korean War is, but it is my understanding that Hoover's policies were stop gagging the Depression. FDR came to the presidency because people did not believe Hoover was doing enough. Unfortunately we now know that FDR's policies actually kept the Depression going longer than it should have. Only WWI got us out the Depression.

 

Basically what people want is called KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS. Basically the belief is that government needs to spend money during an economic crisis in order to create jobs. Sounds good in theory, but when government plays around with a free market, it affects multiple areas,sometimes without people realizing how far the effect will be. I think of it as a reverse trickle down effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An analogy.

Two lieutenants are in a battle. There are two distinct strategies to winning the battle. Each lieutenant holds one of those views. A new commander comes and decides which strategy to use. One lieutenant supports the commander's decision and does everything in his power to make it succeed.

The other states "I hope he fails" and spreads dissent amongst the troops and does everything in his power to see to it he fails.

 

Which lieutenant is patriotic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gern,

 

Or do as the left has done, scream, yell obscenties, protest, spit on the military, make up lies about the right and stand by them even in the face of evidence until it has been said so much that people believe the lie, destroy the careers of anyone opposed, etc. I think to calmly engage in discussions bringing alternative solutions are better for the country. I don't intend to leave but as long as we have free speech I will speak out against those policies that I see as bad. I hope others on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, dissent, but not subvert.

 

You all sound like petulant school yard children who aren't getting to play the games they want so they go about and break the equipment, disrupt the games and generally make $%#@s out of themselves.

 

The nation chose a different direction Nov 4th. You had your way for 8 years and we are reaping what you have sowed. The least you can do is give the other team a chance to fix it.

 

Is being subversive what you teach your scouts about citizenship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gern,

Point of order regarding your post of Friday, 1/23/2009: 7:32:54 AM.

 

An Officer who fails to support the given order of a Superior Officer is in a completely different position than a Citizen of the United States of America who disagrees with the policies of his President.

 

The analogy is not apt.

 

The Officer in questioned should be cashiered in the example you give unless he follows "The Scout"s comment which would also be appropriate in the instance he references - the Citizen should be applauded.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...