Democrats are shocked — shocked! — over statements made by Rush Limbaugh.
What mortal sin did Rush Limbaugh commit to earn the wrath of the Democratic Party and its sycophants in the liberal media?
Apart from drawing breath, Limbaugh had the temerity to say he did not want President Obama to succeed. Of course, what isn't mentioned is that Limbaugh told Sean Hannity, "I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan."
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125106.guest.html)
But then why should that deter liberals? It isn't what they want to hear.
Long before MSNBC's Chris Matthews described Limbaugh as "a human vat of vitriol" he asked, "Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new President. He wants him to fail. What an amazing – I've never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail." (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2009/01/21/chris-matthews-does-rush-limbaugh-hate-country)
CNN political analyst Bill Schneider, commenting on Limbaugh's CPAC speech last month, said, "Well, he did say he hopes Obama fails. Now that in my view crosses a line." (http://www.businessopportunitystartup.com/blog/cnns-bill-schneider-limbaugh-speech-was-angry-mocking-bullying-harsh-and-full-of-contempt/)
Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, "Rush Limbaugh's reprehensible remark that he 'hopes' President Obama fails . . . has no place in the public discourse."
(http://dccc.org/blog/archives/dccc_chairman_chris_van_hollen_condemns_rush_limbaughs_comment_hoping_presi/)
Now Matthews, Schneider and Van Hollen might be shocked – shocked! – to hear that Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. But does it really come as a surprise to anyone that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail?
It is not surprising when you consider liberals never wished success for President Bush. Liberals not only did not want George W. Bush to succeed in the White House they questioned the very legitimacy of his Presidency. Lest we forget all the liberals who insisted the 2000 election was stolen. Liberals were in no mood to be generous.
Days before his inauguration, journalist Pete Hamill warned that the Bush presidency "should fill intelligent people with fear and trembling." (http://www.petehamill.com/bushpresidency.html) Ah yes, liberal tolerance at its finest.
Kevin Phillips, the one-time Republican strategist who later took a sharp turn to the left, did not send Bush a housewarming gift. Phillips instead wrote an article in The American Prospect where he compared Bush's election to the restoration of the British monarchy in 1660 as well as the restoration of the Bourbons in 19th Century France. (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/news012201a.htm)
When NAACP President Julian Bond likened President Bush's cabinet and judicial appointments to the Taliban was that his way of wishing the new President good luck? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/14/20030714-121535-2713r/)
Consider the response of Democrats to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken in August 2006 at the height of the insurgency during the War in Iraq. When asked, "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" 51% of Democrats replied in the negative. (http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-president-to-succeed/)
I don't mind that a majority of Democrats indicated they didn't want President Bush to succeed. If that is their honest opinion then so be it. But those same people ought not take Rush Limbaugh to task for not wanting their man in the White House to triumph.
On behalf of conservatives, to liberals who are indignant that Rush Limbaugh doesn't want Obama to succeed let me politely say, "Please spare us."
Liberals had eight years to pillory President Bush in every which way imaginable. No doubt if Sarah Palin is elected President they will so do again, probably with even more vitriol than even Chris Matthews could muster. Especially if she should defeat Obama in 2012.
Surely liberals had to expect some ribbing to come their way? Or is The Anointed One above criticism in any way, shape or form? What does it say about not only liberals but liberalism itself that it cannot handle Rush Limbaugh telling his audience he would rather not see President Obama succeed in office?
So where does writer stand on the question of Obama's success?
I want President Obama to succeed to the extent that I want all others who have held the office before him to succeed. I want the President of the United States, be it Barack Obama or anyone else who holds that office, to fulfill the duties required of that position under the Constitution. I want President Obama to succeed in preserving, protecting and defending the people of the United States and its Constitution from internal and external threats.
However, I might not agree with how President Obama goes about preservation, protection and defense of our people and our Constitution. If President Obama insists on likening Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs to the Soviet Union in the Gorbachev era and insists on rewarding their behavior by having an audience with them then I do not want such a policy to succeed. I would not want Obama to succeed with such a policy because I do not believe it is in the best interests of the United States.
If President Obama initiates a policy or makes a statement that is beneficial to the United States I will make my opinion known. But when I do not agree with President Obama's policies or statements I will make my views known along with many other conservatives. We will be a loyal opposition. In other words, my views resemble those of Rush Limbaugh.
The difference in the liberal mind is that George W. Bush was obviously, to any rational observer, the absolute personification of evil, and therefore wishing for his failure was equivalent to wishing for the failure of, say, Satan, or Hitler. The same is obviously, to any rational observer, completely untrue of Obama, so wishing for his failure is mean spirited and hateful. And most likely racist. When you, and you alone, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil, racist and tolerant, etc, as the typical liberal fancies him/herself, these are very simple, absolute issues. George W. Bush evil. Barack H. Obama holy. Failure of evil, good. Failure of holiness, hateful. Ratchet your reasoning down a few notches and throw back some nice kool aid.
Yea, they called Bush Evil, Satan, Hitler and a Cowboy, but at least they didn’t call him a Schwartza.
A prime example of the Left Wings hypocrisy. During the years of the Bush administration, there was constant criticism of the War in Iraq. A major part of the tough critiquing of the war came from the mainstream media(which by now we all no is definently non partisan… God I love sarcasm). Nearly every time I watched a story reporting on the status over seas the messages conveyed were negative. This insinuation that we are on the losing side of the battle and that we also have no justification for our actions is outright absurd. However, the ignorant and uneducated public took the news as the gospel truth and began supporting pulling our troops out. Between the news and the liberal politicians spuing this assanign excrement from their lips, this whole idea developed that we shouldn’t be there. The problem though, lies in the spite Democrats have for Republicans in actually hoping that the war was a failure. Because losing a war means that your military was defeated, which means that you have suffered from too many casualties, to hope that we lose a war, is to hope that the courageous men and women who fight everyday to protect us lose and ultimately die. Wishing death on your fellow country men and women is evil and on this level in my book is treason.
What Rush Limbaugh has said, thus far has been twisted and potrayed in the media as evil. Hoping that his socialist policies fail is completely rational since socialism hasn’t worked in the past. The very idea of the government making you responsible for another person is against everything our constitution stands for. Our country was set up for equal opportunity not equal outcome. If the outcome was equal everytime we would all be equal and if we are all equal there is only mediocrity.