Leonard Pitts Jr's idiocy aside, hoping that the President fails to achieve his vision of the United States is not the same as hoping the US fails.
Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous; about Bill Clinton, who was slimy; about Jimmy Carter, who was inept; about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he's going to fail, yes. You may warn he's going to fail, yes.
But do you ever hope he fails? Knowing his failure is the country's failure? Isn't that, well . . . disloyal?
Urm, than what was all that Bush is Hitler, Bush is War Criminal, NOT MY PRESIDENT stuff? That didn't have anything to do with hoping he would, somehow, fail did it? And, those Presidential assassination plays were ... what then? Or, is the suggestion that those would be the proper way to register our lack of support for Obama?
Barack Obama was elected in large part on a promise to carry the nation past anger, past the notion that either party has a monopoly on wisdom, past the belief that ideology is identity. He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again.
If he is successful, Limbaugh and the other clowns will face tough sledding in a radically different world. Small wonder he is so eager to strangle this presidency in its infancy. And need it even be said?
It's funny, because I see little signs that Obama is interested in being bipartisian ("I won"), yet this claptrap keeps being said. Look I hope Obama fails to socialize healthcare. I hope he fails to pass card check and localism. There are lots of things I hope he fails at; things he RAN on. Why in the world would I want him to succeed at this stuff?
Really, all this mumbo jumbo racial stuff doesn't have anything to do with the aims of Obama as president. That's just the hope and change fluff that resulted in such uncritical support of him.
Honestly, what does it MEAN to "have a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again." Please, someone tell me.
Of course, one of the left's favorite put-downs is to advise the right-winger to turn off Limbaugh. The suggestion, of course, is that I neither listen, nor read, to any other media source. It makes leftists feel good to imagine that I don't get my info from a rather well-balanced collection of sources.
Plus, it takes Jay Nordlinger, to point out the obvious:
“Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh,” say the Obamas and the Powells and some other people. They are giving “free advice” to the Republicans. Well, since when has the GOP listened to Rush? If it did, we would not have nominated Senator McCain last year (for all his virtues, which are considerable). Moreover, Rush did not ask for many of the policies of the Bush administration, particularly in the domestic realm.
If Rush had the power and influence the left ascribes to him, McCain wouldn't have been the GOP nominee. Wouldn't have happened. Rush didn't come out for one candidate, but anyone who has even been an occasional listener (which I am) would know that McCain wasn't even in Rush's top 5.
And, in hindsight, Rush was right about that choice, wasn't he?
Iamfelix points to this blogger who has an interesting angle for Obama's attack on Rush.
With nobody to blame, i.e. Bush or a Republican Congress, Obama needs a scapegoat, a way out, a "get out of jail free" card. . And unlike these small morsels he has thrown to his ObamaBots in his first week, the financial issue will fall squarely on his shoulders, despite attempting to blame Bush for "…eight years of failed Bush policies".
Who better than a pudgy Republican radio show host to be able to blame, should Obama not be able to get his "package" passed. Obama will accept no responsibility for failure in any way.