As a non-fan of Rush Limbaugh, I seem to be talking a lot about him lately. I’m not sure if it is because I feel sorry for him because he is the subject of attack by his detractors or that it is sad that he continues to say things that make him look like the “root of all evil” on the right. In any case, we are back to the use of one word: fail.
This weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rush gave the primetime speech on the last day, in which he referenced his desire to see President Obama fail.
This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we’ve got. That’s nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that’s not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail?
They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There’s Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: “This war is lost. This war is” — They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We’re in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
Now, is it “polite” to say that you want the sitting President to fail at his job? Or to call him a failure? That has to be something you decide for yourself. But remember, Rush is not an elected individual but rather a talkshow host. Would your opinion be different if he was an elected politician? If so, what are your thoughts on this comment by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi last year:
God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States [George W. Bush] — a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject.
Or this quote by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (which I reported on in an earlier article):
I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything. (NOTE: the quote was made before the full implementation of the surge)
These two individuals are not only elected politicians but the leaders of their sides of Congress. So if the Democrats are upset with Rush Limbaugh for wanting Obama to fail over a difference in ideologies, why weren’t they upset with Pelosi and Reid for wanting Bush to fail for the same reasons?
Folks, look … as long as there are political parties (especially two dominating parties) in this country, both sides are going to want the other to fail. It is no different than a sporting competition. Just as there cannot be two winners in the Superbowl (to use Rush’s example), there cannot be two winners in politics. Differing political ideologies do not allow for coesistance. Each piece of legislation that is passed is based upon someone willing to bend on their ideological positions in order to see an otherwise desired outcome.
A perfect example is the stimulus bill that passed just a few days ago. A handful of Senate Republicans were willing to bend on their political positions, just as some of the Senate Democrats had to give on their positions, in order to pass the bill. That is how partisan politics work. If our current Administration cannot handle this level of opposition, they need to step back and reexamine the environment which they are operating in.
Related articles:
Rush Limbaugh – “Rush’s First Televised Address to the Nation”
CNN – “Emanuel says Limbaugh GOP leader, Cantor rejects “fail” remark”
Loading ...
Recent Comments