Can Anyone Endorse Rush's Hope?
 

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

Note that Limbaugh does NOT say that he wants the country to get worse under Obama. He specifically says that he does not want Obama to succeed in pushing his liberal agenda in a direction that he (Limbaugh) does not agree with and what he believes will be bad for the country. This is no different than someone saying that he hoped Bush did not succeed in getting Congress to endorse the Iraq war or his tax cut provisions.

I think it's time to tone down the rhetoric that views like this, while contrary to one's own, are "un-American".

I agree 100% with Rush and here's why.

Article from former Clinton Presidential Adviser.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/...lism/#more-530

:agree:

Kahuna - either you have been living on another planet during the GWB administration or you have ignored the liberal press, the liberal TV talk shows, and the Bill Mahers of the world. The things said about W have been horrible and the standard you want applied to Obama should have also applied to W. You have a nice platform here on TOTV and try to read you daily pronouncements but I couldn't let this one go by without a small response.
Rush does go overboard but what he says is balanced out by Maher and the SNL group.
Hope it warms up there so everyone can get outside away from the computers.
Irish

i think dick morris is a genius and his book fleeced is next on my list.

No doubt when Morris worked for Clinton he was a dope, but now that he's on FAUX news, he's a genius, along with Field Marshal Hannity and Billo the Clown.

Bill-O's clown act must be working... he has the highest rated news talk show on cable TV.

I find it amusing that the left is upset with Rush's comments. This is after eight years of the most venal attacks on President Bush. Most personal in nature.

I've lived in a socialistic country. I don't want America to become one. Unfortunately, it is well on it's way. If Obama/Democrats pass universal health care there will be no turning back. I'm sure George Soros is one happy man.

Oh Brother!
 

Hey, where's the respect for the President you all so demanded for Bush???

If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too??? :shrug:

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone with any intelligence would listen to that man. Rush Limbaugh is one step away from a skinhead. He's a sick, sorry individual that feels he must yell and rant to get his point (when he has one) across.

Fortunately, Limbaugh will be proven wrong -- yet again. ;)

You mean like the respect Obama gave Bush at his inaugural address. The booing, while not Obama's fault, was real classy, also.

"If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too??? "

No!! That's NOT what Rush said. You obviously disagreed with all or most of Bush's policies and obviously wanted him to fail in enacting those policies because you thought that that was bad for the country. Yet, I presume (hope) that you were not hoping that America would fail as well. So, yes, it is very easy to hope that Obama fails (to enact his policies) because you WANT America to succeed.

Rush
 

Why do we do this?
We have this nice , friendly forum where we can find out all about the Villages and the roundabouts , the CYV pros and cons, the restaurants and lots, lots more, and we start talking politics and we're tossing grenades at one another.
It is my opinion that nothing any one says on this political forum will change any one's mind about anything.

We do it because there is a political thread and, by nature, the political process in our 2 party system is adversarial. No one is forced to go to the political thread. There are pleanty of happier places on the TOTV. I, for one, value much of the wisdom that has been shared on the political thread by both sides. It's just like the television: you can turn on Bill O or Keith Oberman or you can turn on reruns of Father Knows Best.....

Some day there will be a dawning for SOME....
 

that there are two way streets.

The one way street that is pounded most often...if you are not for my guy you must for the opposition, therefore where is your head at?

To each his own but it does wear thin....

It makes their lives simpler as Nancy Pelosi professes...if it is from or for the opposition I am against it....doesn't get much shallower than that....our third in line for the POTUS (GOD please keep Obama and Biden safe).

BTK

I absolutely demand that you post the exact quote where ANYONE in this country...ANYONE, Limbaugh included...said they wanted "America to fail".....or to even imply it, but simply say that the SOCIALIST programs that would lead us to socialism should fail because he did not want socialism in this country.

Why can you not listen except to what you want to hear ????

I would expect that someone who is always bringing up her journalism degree would be loath to misquote someone...so as a journalist, please correct your error, as NOBODY ever said what are repeating in this forum.

If you listened or read the very link you provided, then you would be aware how out of context you have placed this.

I heard this on the media while they were nagging about it and thus investigated it since I dont listen to any of the right or left wing zealots. And you know what was said and in what context.

I suppose after all the out of context crap we have heard the last few years it will now continue as it did during the primary and general election.

I am NOT defending Rush Limbaugh...he can do that for himself....I am irate that this kind of out of context criticism from supposedly intelligent people is going to be used to protect this President as it was used to elect him.

I am so irate at this thread that I must further comment.

Since you quickly jump on here and start a thread about a person who, by his own admission is very hard right, and are totally 100% silent and mute on the comments from the far left, one can only make the assumption that you condone those or you surely would have started a thread condemning them because

"in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins."

OR, is it that it is not acceptable UNLESS you agree ?

Listen, Limbaugh is an idiot from all I have read, but had folks been on here quoting the Air America crowd or Michael Moore, you would have dismissed them out of hand.

Retribution...
 

Sally, I actually felt sorry for Bush when he was booed, but that had nothing to do with President Obama and everything to do with George W. Bush's failed policies and lack of understanding of the American people. :sad:

Really???
 

Bucco, let's get a few things straight. First, you're the one that keeps bringing up my journalism degree -- not me. A Journalism Degree does not a journalist make. i.e. Sarah Palin. (Bad example -- at least I read!)

Second, you can demand something of me until the cows come home . . . it ain't gonna happen! This was not a direct quote, hence the absence of quote marks.

Third, it is my opinion, that if a person wants our President to fail or even his policies to fail, it is then the same as them wanting America to fail. It's all the same. Bush policies failed. Get it??? Our former President failed. And look at the mess he left behind.

And Fourth, your CAPITAL LETTERS don't scare me, so calm down! :laugh:

Thanks for at least admitting you put words in the mans mouth he never uttered !!!!

Deleted Reply
 

*

I Had Hoped For Better
 

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country. I'm disappointed as well. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if John McCain had won the election and some left-wing nutcase expressed the same wish for him, I would be equally outraged.

It's exactly this type of venomous partisanship that has kept our government frozen for the last four Presidential administrations. Rather than using his platform to implore the inclusion of conservative objectives in legislation being created, or encourage conservative legislators to introduce new legislation which he feels important, instead he makes a disgusting personal attack on the new leader of our country. What's even more offensive is that he's taking this position even though the President seems to be making every effort to make his relationships with Congress inclusive of the desires of both parties.

The Republicans are not going to get everything they want in the legislation of the next couple of Congresses. They had a chance when they were in the majority for more than half of the last four Presidential administrations and did not make sufficient progress to satisfy the electorate. Different candidates were elected which shifted the majority to the Democrats. That's the way it was and that's the way it is. The real legislative leaders are those that can negotiate for what they feel is important legislation, even when in the minority.

Rush Limbaugh has elected not to use his position to stimulate the achievement of conservative objectives in the legislative process. Instead he mounted a venomous and outrageous personal attack.

I refuse to look backward, as some posters here seem wont to do. It does little good. If the members of one party or the other frustrated or even stopped the legislative process for personal or idealogical reasons, a pox on all their houses. I refuse to look backward in search of a justification for similar conduct in the future. Our county cannot afford more of the same. Besides a backward look might not provide a particularly satisfying picture of the party and idealogical principles which Limbaugh says he supports.

But why should I be surprised? Limbaugh himself says he's no longer a Republican. He seems to have established his own party, one based on the most extreme far-right ideaology and one which is totally unwilling to participate in the democratic process. For Rush, it seems to be I only want it my way and no variance from my personal beliefs will be acceptable. If I can't win then I'll torch the whole government and the political process.

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you. The next four years -- maybe eight -- will be long and frustrating. I will not characterize Limbaugh's statement as anything other than disgusting and anti-democracy. I will support our new President until such time as he performs in a way to lose my support, just as George Bush did after I voted for him for his first term but the second.

No doubt, every parent in America wants their daughter to work for "Billo". Who else could work for a major corporation and sexually harass a female employee to the tune of over $10 million and keep his job!

Having worked for a mojor corporation and seeing behavior not even approaching anything "Billo" did, result in termination, it says volume about "FAUX" news and the lemmings who continually listen to this sexist pig!

The political discourse in DC is getting a little less civil all of the time. When President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Court the confirmation vote was 96-3. She was at one time the chief counsel to the ACLU. The GOP Senators felt the President got to get his choice approved. When it came to President Bush's choice of Samual Alieto the vote was 58-42. Over the years the Dems in the Senate had a larger political agenda. It was to damage the Bush Administration at all cost. I suspect the GOP won't forget that soon. All the worse for us all.
Oh, and read what Rush actually said.

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country
__________________________________________________ ___-

VK...please post the names of those on here who did what you say above ????

Thanks

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you.
______________________________________________-

VK...please post the names of those who do what you say above ??

And the Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher and the after-midnight crowd are any better or different than Limbaugh? They are all entertainers, paid by revenue from advertising sponsors and at the mercy of ratings.

They do mirror segments of the populace, and they do bring out strong feelings - pro and con.

Now let's take one of the more flamboyant positions, that being an Obama failure. It's safe to say that we all want him to be a successful president, but that success is measured by different criteria, depending on one's political leanings.

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Let's remember that "all Americans" didn't vote for Mr. Obama. Many voted for him not because of his position on issues, but because they just either wanted somebody who didn't seem like a continuum of the previous administration, or because he is of like ethnic background, or because he was the media darling.

He does have a political honeymoon ahead, still owes many political debts, and has the luxury (as all new administrations do) of saying that things are worse than he thought, so the "rules change" is the first of the "changes" to occur.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Rhodes, Maher, and all the others - even as entertaining commentators - provide a lot of good, and have done so - pro and con - very well. We would all be much less informed, and probably less interested in many issues had it not been for these left-and-right-leaning commentators. They make us think! They force us to investigate! They have the luxury of devoting a lot of time into watching and listening, and give us information we would not have received from the broadcast media - also dependent on dog food commercial revenue for their survival.

So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism.

Well said Steve...entertainers is it and if we taking Liimbaugh to the wood shed, let us take them ALL there.

This quote from you post is the one that is scaring me terribly...

"So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism."

I am so tired of anytime I disagree with the President or his colleagues being either called a racist or having it implied...being told that I must be rich, etc and now we are taking quotes from the far end and shoving it up our noses...this along with the attempt to silence ANY comment but allowing those you mention ON BOTH SIDES and add to that the Michael Moore's etc.

Why VK does not include those in his tirade is beyond me !

I Don't Like Any Of It/Them
 

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a sad commentary on America if any of the "political performers" get much attention at all. While I didn't support Sarah Palin, I thought Tina Fey's characterization of her was in bad taste. Same for those who are regularly featured in the Sunday Funnies segment of George Stefanopoulous's show on Sunday morning. Other than watching those segments during that show, I never tune in any of the others. I do occasionally watch Bill O'Reilly. I know he leans to the conservative side, but I find his commentary and interviews often enlightening.

Most of the "entertainment segments" tend to be impersonations emphasizing personal characteristics -- Gerry Ford falling, many of Bill Clinton's personal proclivities, the senior Bush's nasal speaking style, George Bush's vocabulary, etc. Some of the other more serious pundits, ranging from Sean Hannity to Keith Olberman and all in-between, seem to argue using selectively-chosen facts or examples. Irritating for one side or the other, but rising nowhere near the loathsome level of Limbaugh's recent wish. Only Ann Coulter employs the same chalk-on-the-blackboard style. But even she hasn't lowered herself to the level which Limbaugh sank to yesterday.

While one may be critical of the taste of many of the "political entertainers", they haven't lowered themselves to the venomous and outrageous wish cited by Rush Limbaugh. It's the off-the-scale outrageousness of his statement that precipitated my comment.

I Like The List, But...
 

Steve, I kind of like your list. But your "anything less is a failure" condition seems an unattainable condition. Kind of like -- win the Super Bowl, but if you don't win by six touchdowns, you're a failure.

I'd be very happy if President Obama substantially achieved all of the items on your list. Even that might be difficult because...

• How does one measure what a government "believes"? It sure isn't what they say, we all know that. I'd consider #1 a success if there was realtive peace among all those groups within the geography of Iraq after we withdraw our military. If they start a civil or sectarian war, I'll write the whole Iraqi experience off as just a very bad idea.
  
• On the Afghanistan criteria, you might as well consider Obama a failure right now. The Russians finally gave up after ten years, and they had close to a hundred thousand troops trying to quell the war lords who run those mountains. Maybe Obama might have some success diplomatically, but we sure can't win militarily. I guess I might be willing to apply the same standard as Iraq -- if they aren't killing or threatening people, particularly us, I'd be relatively happy. I'm not even going to address human rights and the Taliban. We don't have enough soldiers, money or time to force a culture of two thousand years to act like we'd like them to.
  
• I don't know how you eliminate al Quaeda when we don't know precisely who belongs and who doesn't. A primary measure that I'd call successful is a meaningful decline in terrorist attacks. Alternatively, we're stuck with a standard of "if we simply declare victory against al Quaeda, we won". I don't like that one anywhere near as much as widespread relative peace.
  
• If Obama can begin to substantially reduce annual deficit spending within four years, I'd consider it a big success. If he effectively spends a little money on education, improving healthcare for a greater number of Americans, and decreases unemployment, I'll consider it a success. Because if he does those things, I know he'll have to cut a bunch of unneccessary government spending in order to do it. But the possibility that he could achieve a balanced budget and begin to whittle at the national debt seems unachievable right now.

But in general, I think meaningful progress towards all of those things would provide a good measure of success or failure.

I've read and re-read the transcript, and I just don't see anything venomous at all.

There are darned few conservatives who endorse much in the liberal agenda, and despise quasi-socialism passionately. To not want to see any expansion of the liberal agenda by government mandate is not venomous, but honest.

The republican party doesn't speak for all conservatives (or progressive neanderthals like me) - far from it. The differences between the two major parties are very slight, and within both parties are left-center-and-right, with select issues or family history being more the reason why people claim certain party membership.

Mr. Limbaugh did something unique. He stayed true to his beliefs, in spite of others bending-at-the-knee in the hopes of obtaining favored treatment or not losing position or power.

I don't remember seeing much in the way of righteous indignation over Rep. Pelosi's ten-pound-anvil comment and similar remarks over the last year. Was it because she was being honest in her feelings? Don't others get the same pass?

Not wanting socialism expanded, government dependency expanded, etc. etc. is the "to fail" within the Limbaugh transcript.

Charlie Daniels said it best:
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks

We can squabble internally, disagree, not want certain legislation to pass, and hope some programs start, stop or never happen. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's actually the sign of a healthy democracy. To expect everyone to march in lock-step to the tune played by the Obama administration is not democracy, but reminiscent of Berlin in 1939 and another charismatic leader. And before I get accused of saying that Mr. Obama is another Hr. Hitler, the comparison is towards how the followers were so passionate towards their leader that they condemned everyone who was not of their ilk. That seems to be what's now happening to anyone who does not want the platform planks to become part of the governmental structure.

I too hope that certain planks of the Obama platform crack and break. No different than all those who hoped planks within the Bush platform crumbled. That is normal, and honest people will admit they hope much of the campaign rhetoric and promises wither on the vine. That is not un-American, that IS American - First Amendment at its best. Or is it that freedoms are okay - as long as you agree with the administration?

Go Rush
 

when Sean Hanity interviewed Rush Limbaugh the other night he asked "do you really want Obama to fail?"

Limbaugh responded "yes if his policies are socialist."

I agree with Limbaugh and most Americans. I do not want to live in a socialist country. To quote Margret Thatcher on socialism, "the problem with socialism is that we too soon run out of other people's money."

This whole Iraq War issue is really getting to me, because there is little understanding on why it was a good idea at the time, and forget about all the WMD junk.

After 9/11 there was a feeling in this nation worse than Pearl Harbor ever had been. The hit was on the mainland, had tremendous press coverage, and the visuals shown over-and-over again all over the world placed this country in even more risk.

Hopefully, this analogy will help. You are living where there are several bullies, all who know each other and have a history of alliances against the peaceful folk in the neighborhood. Your kid comes home, having been beaten up by a couple of the bulllies, but he can't really identify specifically which ones did it. Your spouse gets threats as well. The way you fix this is you grab one of the bullies by the throat, beat the stuffing out of him and let it be known that you expect there may be others involved, but this bully is getting the punishment and there's more to be given out if your family has any more problems. The other bullies witness what happened to one of their own, and they back off. As neanderthal as it sounds, that's what works with that population, and it is all they respect and understand.

After 9/11, New York, DC and PA were our kids that got beat up. The bullies involved included not just al-Qa'ida, but those who support them logistically and provide safe havens. There was a public upcry wanting "something" to be done other than just waiting for the next set of atttacks to happen. Sobbing to the UN wasn't going to stop future attacks, but taking one of the bullies behind the woodshed and giving him what-for would do it. The US had to show the terrorist world that we wouldn't just do a bunch of defensive protections (e.g., setting up TSA), but would bring the fire-and-brimstone down upon those who would do us harm. The "you're either with us or against us" was really aimed at al-Qa'ida and its potential allies to show we would not be the international doormat, and that they hit the wrong target. We bite back, and deep.

All of the "where were the WMD" and that stuff just shows how folks don't understand the mindset of those who would do us harm, and what is needed to keep them (and those who may think it's worthwhile to get on their bandwagon) at bay. We have spent a lot off our resources on the Iraq War, and on homeland security at all levels of government, and it has worked - the bullies have bothered others, but have left us alone. The Brits and others have understood this, and that's why they have allied these years at no small cost to them.

So, all those who wring their hands at the Iraq War seem to have short memories on what the state of the nation was for many weeks after 9/11, and also no understanding of how to deal with terrorism - at the neighborhood or international level.

You can condemn Pres. Bush all you want, but he and his advisors understood the state of the nation, and what the state of the nation would deteriorate to should there be another significant terrorist hit. He get's my salute for his actions, knowing full well that the Michael Moore Media types would treat him badly.

I hope that Mr. Obama and his advisors have half the backbone that Mr. Bush and his folk have shown. Otherwise, "change" will be pretty limp, and the bulllies will sniff around our neighborhood again.

I agree. Rush is not a typical American. He is another money grubber that preys on situation. Bush made him a fortune. I Obama succeeds Rush has lost his thunder.

Don
Nashville, IL

There's the difference!
 

See right there in bold is the difference between you and I SteveZ. I never liked Bush, but I never wanted him to fail. I kept hoping he would succeed. That would help America. It's so sad that anyone in this great country would want their President to fail. :ohdear: Shame on you!

Why can't people separate ideas from party. Read what Rush actually said and you might just understand it. I disagree with Rush on lots of his comments. However I completely agree with this one. And again read it all the way through and don't take 6 words out of context. He does not say he wants Obama to fail. What he says is that he wants his socialist agenda to fail. Big difference. I also want Obama's socialist agenda to fail. I want very much for him to be a successful president, I just don't define success the same way some of you do. I want him to fix our economy. I want him to keep our country safe. I want our quality of life protected. I want our standard of living to improve. I just don't agree with how he wants to get there.

There is no country in the world where socialism has worked. It will not work here either. So in great support of my country, I want our presidents socialism agenda to fail. Same as Rush.

And SteveZ, right on.

Kahuna:

You have eyes to see but you don't see and you have ears to hear and you don't hear, you have a mind to think, yet you don't think. I don't mean this to be rude, just to emphasize what your statements tell us.

Rush Limbaugh is no bafoon. He is spot on with his statement and I whole heartedly agree with his premise. As many others have stated here, Rush is saying he hope Obama's policies fail. He is taking this country down the socialist, Marxist road. An equally frightening site to see is how many people accept this and have lost sight of what the founding fathers had in mind for this country. Socialism has no room for liberty and freedom of speech or any other freedoms that are not mandated. Read your history. If you really think that Rush is a bafoon, then I'm sorry for you.

But put Rush and his statement aside and go study socialism and Marxism in other countries like UK, France, Russia and many more. Then see if you can't find some common ground with Rush, like him as an individual or not.

Bafoon is not a description for Rush. You should reserve that title for many of the 535.

Respectfully Tall

So let's give this angle a try for all that hope Obama succeeds.

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.