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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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.

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?

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."

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...
[*]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.
...

...

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

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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?

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. 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.

Originally Posted by bimmertl

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!

It also says volumes about the huge audience that tunes in everynight to watch him. I think his audience continues to grow and grow because Keith Oberman is so obsessed with Billo. Oberman's producers should recognize that he gives Billo free advertising everynight because he seems unable to get through his show without mentioning Billo. It has gone from comical to pathetic. Maybe that's why Oberman is now trying to be a football commentator.

It's just the same "usual suspects" that want President Obama and/or his policies to fail. Fortunately, you are in the minority!

These are just a few of the people that want him and America to succeed.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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
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. Shame on you!

If you can't see the difference between platform planks and the person, there's no hope in understanding. As examples:

1. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-abortion - I'm not, and I truly hope any attempt to expand that agenda fails.

2. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-national health insurance funded by increased taxes (and who will end up paying them?) - I'm against the nationalization of any industry, as the service is always cheapened, and costs still go up due to the need for supplemental coverage. So, I hope any attempt to impose national health care upon us fails.

3. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are terrorist-coddlers in that they believe they can diplomatically cajole bullies - I'm don't agree and believe that attitude places us all at greater risk (That's what Spain, Japan, Indonesia, Colombia, Italy and others have learned the hard way), and I truly hope the policies of F.D. Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain in dealing with international bullies aren't replayed, because the subsequent damage can be as immense as WWiI. Yes, I hope that any attempt to butt-kiss the bullies stalls and never occurs.

4. The F.D.Roosevelt "New Deal" made a lot of money for select "captains of industry" and attempted to turn average Americans into serfs. I see the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration intentions to set up a 21th Century New Deal to do the same. This idea that "only government" can make things better is dictatorial, and reeks of arrogance not seen except in the most maniacal monarchies. Yes, I hope that plan crumbles before it can do harm.

If one was to review posts on this board going back a year or longer, one would find many instances when people condemned the plans and policies of the Republican Party and the Bush administration, hoping that 1) plans would never be activated and 2) policies would cease. What's the difference here?

I do not want to see America degenerate in a socialistic nation where individuality is replaced by a drone-like mentality where before anyone can think or do, they must first find out if it meets "fearless leader's" concept of life. And if it doesn't the individual learns what assimilation really is. I saw the worst of that socialistic concept in Vietnam with the re-education camps, and we're a stone's throw from that when we give up our freedoms for "only government can fix this." Once you start down that track, it's virtually impossible to stop this train.

Yep, shame on me for not joining the Democratic Party and the Obama administration' version of the Hitler-Jugend and accepting everything as being for my own good. You may see a political messiah who you want to follow as "fearless leader" who knows all and does everything right and is infallible. I see a charismatic socialist whom I hope the Democratic Party leadership - filled with self-serving millionaires who have a lot to lose personally - keeps in check. I am much more concerned about the United States continuing according to its Constitution than I am about the "success" of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration in establishing a socialistic state where"government" is master and the citizenry are the government's servants.

I'm no fan of President Kennedy, but his famous quote of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is timeless. Today's Democratic Party and the Obama administration have effectively perverted that quote, having the citizenry "Ask what your country can do for you, and your country will be the benevolent provider of your life's needs." Nope - when I ask "give us this day our daily bread," it's to a much higher authority.

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here. But pleeaaaaaaaaseeeeeeee don't drag out a Hitler analogy. It's just so telling of your mindset. And why, just because President Obama has an 80 percent approval rating, does that mean it's a "drone-like" mentality? That statement is insulting to the American people.

So, if that's what makes you comfortable, just hang on to the old policies of the last eight years that got us where we are today. It's a new world out there and it's arriving at everyone's front door. Good Luck with that.

Please read your history. SteveZ was not dragging out a Hitler analogy as you want to think, he names the Hitler-Jugend which was the Hitler youth movement that followed their new leader blindly without thought to his end state or agenda.

Many people on both sides are saying they "do not know this man" and what he stands for. Yet as the Hitler-Jugend followed him, they to are following Obama. Actually a good historical analogy. Their are several others but many of the others followed their leadership out of fear. In the 1930's Germany, they followed because this leader told them what they wanted to hear and promised fixing all the problems created by prior leadership during and after WWI.

It's more an analogy of the masses following any leader with blind faith.