Sanford: Rush Limbaugh is an ‘idiot.’
By on Feb 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Sanford: Rush Limbaugh is an ‘idiot.’
In an interview with the website Real Clear Politics, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) was asked about the “view that perhaps Republicans are rooting for President Obama to fail.” This question was a clear reference to Rush Limbaugh, who infamously said, “I hope Obama fails.” Sanford responded in unequivocal terms:
SANFORD: I don’t want him to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble.
In the past, Limbaugh has attacked other Republicans who have expressed hope for President Obama to succeed, declaring that they are “drinking the Kool-Aid… they’re afraid of being called racists.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Am I missing something?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pmYes
An R insulted Rush?
Yeap, Sanfords done or he’ll be kneeling at the alter of Rush by noon no?
Thx
February 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pmTrying to change his tune? Or will he be down on bended knee before The Bloated One begging forgiveness before the sun goes down tomorrow?
====
February 25th, 2009 at 5:50 pmAverage American Patriot Says:
Am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A clue?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pmA functional cerbral cortex?
A dim idea what you are talking about?
All of the above? Yeah, I would say you were missing something
Well Sanford is right Rush is an idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pmSanford: Rush Limbaugh is an ‘idiot.’
– - what’s the over/under on when Sanford “Gingreys” Limbaugh?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pmHere’s Sanford’s quote in context.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot”
So he’s calling Rush AND Rush’s supporters an idiot.
Better?
I know the implication by some of the trolls was that TP is putting words in Sanford’s mouth but it just backfired in a big way. Thanks for playing trolls.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pmif you’ve looked at that kind of stuff and you legitimately think that something ain’t going to work, you’d be cheating him and cheating yourself if you didn’t lay it out and call an ace an ace in terms of where you’re coming from.
And what exactly has Rush laid out? His pill box?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pmDon’t worry. Sanford will issue an abject apology tomorrow.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pm“obviously we don’t want him to fail, but we do want him to continue giving ourselves and our best friends/supporters tax breaks at the expense of a healthy economy”
wouldn’t that actually be calling an ace an ace… admitting that you just want to get your financial backers paid for allowing you to fund a winning campaign. never mind the needs of your constituents or the american people.
the problem with so many republicans is that they live in a world where rhetoric is all that matters, not real world results.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:03 pmHere’s Limbaugh’s quote in context:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Average American Patriot Babbles:
Am I missing something?
Yes. A few working neurons, and reading comprehension skills -just for starters.
And yes, Limbaugh is an idiot…
February 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pmProblem is, backup, there is no “far-left collectivism agenda” in Pres Obama’s recovery/stimulus plan.
Anyone who suggest that Pres Obama’s stimulus plan is remotely similar to a soviet-style collectivization policy needs to have their head examined by a health care professional asap…
February 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pmAverage American Patriot Says:
Open mouth, insert foot which is stuck up your a$$.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pmWell, guess that makes Limbaugh an idiot’s idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pmHere’s Limbaugh’s quote in context:
Looks no different than a steaming pile of shit on-fire left at someone’s doorstep.
Nothing else.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pmneeds to have their head examined by a health care professional asap…
Must be that anal cyst acting up again…
February 25th, 2009 at 6:12 pmTo be clear, Mr. Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail, only his policies and attempts to turn the free USA into a socialist state.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pmonly his policies and attempts to turn the free USA into a socialist state.
You really should have been paying attention to your country’s affairs starting about, oh, say, 35 years ago, numb-nuts.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pm….and a drug addled pervert who uses underage Dominican boy prostitutes while under the influence of Viagra/Oxycontin.
And of course our trolls just love him for that, it’s what they would like also if they could afford the trips there.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pmLet’s see, backup. From your own quotes:
“I don’t want him to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble.”
~Sanford
So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
~Limbaugh the idiot
Did you notice Sanford didn’t qualify his statement with “…unless you happen to be a conservative heartfelt, and don’t want socialism to succeed”?
So, you are proving the point of the thread -Sandford indirectly called Limbaugh (an anyone who wants Pres Obama to fail) “an idiot”.
Thanks for playing.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:17 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
To be clear, Mr. Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail, only his policies and attempts to turn the free USA into a socialist state.
Here we get a great example of the “what Limbaugh really meant” story from a dittohead. And only a dittohead would look at the expressed policies of a moderate liberal president and think “socialist state” is the result or desire.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
To be clear you are a stupid brainwashed moron. Obama isnt turning us into a socialist state. He is NOT a socialist but you ARE a moron.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pmThe Freepers are coming, the Freepers are coming!
Those would be same Freepers, of course, who think that another Civil War is imminent because of Obama’s identification with Lincoln.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pmwhat i’d like to know is what took them so long to discover this about the tub-o-lard?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pmSanford will be on Rush’s show in less than a week expressing sadness for saying such a thing and throwing his support behind Limbaugh as our new GOP leader. The GOP always seems to be big and strong when it doesn’t matter, only to fold when the light shines on them.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pmGregor. I only offer the quotes in context because the headline here:
Is less than accurate. I know you understand the value of context.
BTW, I agree with your assessment that it is not a far left collectivist agenda.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
We’ve been in a corporate / military socialist state for 30 years now. Way to pay attention numb nuts
February 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pm“To be clear, Mr. Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail,…”
dice it anyway you want lil duece poop, and you still got a steaming pile of crap you’re looking at
February 25th, 2009 at 6:23 pmDeuce Coupe
A socialist state is what gave us the G.I. Bill, Brown vs. the Board of Education, Civil Rights legeslation, and more than I can possibly post.
You’ll be glad to know, it’s also what gave you electricy, and running water, what gave you healthcare (such as it is) and a forty hour work week (until the r.’s did away with that).
Why are you such an idiot? Is your coupe only running on one cylinder?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:23 pmbackup Says:
I only offer the quotes in context because the headline [...] Is less than accurate.
I will agree that it is a bit of a hyperbole. But at the same time nobody is pretends it is a literal quote.
If you thought someone was trying to mislead you, may I suggest this site?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pmTakes one to know one?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pmIn Sanford’s quote, he adds this:
Sanford says he wants Obama to succeed, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t going to express disagreements with Obama if and when they arrive.
If you disagree with someone on a policy plan, is it really a stretch to hope that the particular plan isn’t carried out? Does not succeed? It is a policy that you disagree with.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pmCould just for a second sanford be channeling al franken?? atleast he had a serious thought between his ears for once
February 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pmToo Scoops sez: “…the free USA …”
You must have taken the blue pill.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pmSanford is smart enough to know limba is an idiot but not smart enough to know that he is an idiot himself. Funny how that works…
February 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pmIn bizzaro world, imagine that after 4 years of Obama, Jeb Bush somehow becomes president and pledges to re-implement W’s policies on the environment, healthcare, foreign policy, stem cells, etc, etc.
You may love the country, and want to support it’s new president – but could you really say that you hoped he would succeed in doing it?
Wouldn’t you feel pretty comfortable saying that you personally hoped he failed?
Would that make you an idiot?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:37 pmSuch a rebuke. I’m sure Limbaugh is having a hard time reading his increase in ratings and bank account with the sting of the tears in his eyes.
Notice how he rarely even acknowledges his so-called competition.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI know a regular panhandler makes about a dollar in change for every 100 people solicited.
So Captain – how much do you get for begging the question day in and day out?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pmokey dokey barbera – you’re right and we’re all wrong, and that’s why Obama’s in the WH and the R’s are out in the shed behind the capitol building.
brilliant.
little did we know there is an alternative universe that we could only be aware of if we listened to one particular man on the radio, that is more “real” than the one we think we occupy.
enjoy your oz, and remember to leave that curtain alone.
wouldn’t want you disappointed.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pmBarbera Says:
You ratings queens are such a stupid joke. Are you PROUD that Rush the huckster has fooled a whole lot of people as stupid and clueless as you? Yeah he tapped into the moron demographic and takes full advantage, you are among them, conratulations.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pmBarbera Says:
I thought it smelled like Virginia Slims and Hungry Man Dinners in here.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pmrather than adding clarity
backup in obfuscating the
discussion. that’s a troll’s
job. let him chase his tail.
*
as for sanford. remember
phil gingrey? wait a few days, let’s
see if sanford winds up going on
his and hands and knees begging
the corpulent talker’s forgiveness.
:)
February 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pmMore context from Sanford:
RCP: Is it irresponsible to reject these funds that are coming to your state given the challenges that all states are facing, for ideological reasons?
Gov. Sanford: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Is it irresponsible to borrow a bunch of money from the Chinese, Social Security and Medicare to pay for current operations of government so we can stick the tab with my four boys, or your future kids or grandkids? I mean, to me that’s the height of irresponsibility.
Past is present,Governor. Did you complain about money borrowed to invade and occupy and ‘reconstruct’ Iraq? If you did then good. but in which case why would you have a problem with reconstructing America where we all can benefit from the money borrowed to pay for the reconstruction–which should generate funds to pay for the financing?
And if you didn’t complain about the financing of the Iraq ‘adventure’ and it’s failure, after 6 YEARS, to deliver any benefit to the US why are you NOW complaining about about expenditure in the US, FOR the US, that is a NECESSITY and NOT an OPTIONAL INDULGENCE, and holds the promise of national enrichment rather than unproductive fiscal drain and debt?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pmAnd the FauxNousChan A$$clowns are reporting an increase of 24% in Conservative Radio listenership?? Here is one right-leaning individual who is finally waking up. Is it too much to ask that there may be more who will come to their senses and begin to support Pres Obama’s efforts to turn the USA around?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pmFinally some honesty– Limbaugh IS an idiot. And anti-American. And someone who hates his country. Let’s never forget that.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:52 pmbackup Says:
In bizzaro world, imagine that after 4 years of Obama, Jeb Bush somehow becomes president and pledges to re-implement W’s policies on the environment, healthcare, foreign policy, stem cells, etc, etc.
You may love the country, and want to support it’s new president – but could you really say that you hoped he would succeed in doing it?
Wouldn’t you feel pretty comfortable saying that you personally hoped he failed?
Would that make you an idiot?
*
defending rush is a tough job,
innit backup? hmmm, let’s say in a “bizzaro world” you’re
a junior college instructor and i’m stuck in your class
listening to your masturbatory musings…
would i want you to fail?
would that make you dennis prager?
do you ever go on other sites and bore people this way?
;)
February 25th, 2009 at 6:54 pmdasm Says:
Finally some honesty– Limbaugh IS an idiot. And anti-American. And someone who hates his country. Let’s never forget that.
*
concise, well reasoned
and to the point.
backup, why can’t you
be like that?
:)
February 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pmSo Rush creates a straw man from a few straws of Obama’s plan that is starting to clean Bush’s shitstains then burns it down. And pathetic backup drops to his knees in awe. Again.
Let me try. Please! Please! Please!
This Limbaugh fella is really an alien from planet Analcyst3 and is trying to defeat America to prepare for the extermination of all humans. Do we want him to succeed? I don’t. I hope he fails.
And backup little buddy, get off your knees. It makes you look cheap.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pmIn bizzaro world, imagine that after 4 years of Obama, Jeb Bush somehow becomes president and pledges to re-implement W’s policies on the environment, healthcare, foreign policy, stem cells, etc, etc.
You may love the country, and want to support it’s new president – but could you really say that you hoped he would succeed in doing it?
Wouldn’t you feel pretty comfortable saying that you personally hoped he failed?
Would that make you an idiot?
I think the proof is in the pudding backup. The policies DID NOT SUCCEED! PERIOD! If anyone tells you differently, they are lying. PERIOD!
February 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pmOT, but the top three stories on Cnn.com are McCain. Tell me again who won the election. WTF?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:11 pmbackup: You may love the country, and want to support it’s new president – but could you really say that you hoped he would succeed in doing it?
You are confusing allegiance to a position that is supposed to reflect and serve national needs, with merely a title.
Bush was President.
His administrations polices have resulted in two occupations and wars of choice, the most expensive in blood and treasure having been prosecuted based on lies and wishful fabrications.
Domestically energy efficiency , health care, jobs, national security and economic stability have all been ignored by Bush and the GOP in favor of the massive enrichment of their already very rich financiers.
The Bush administration philosophies that have guided these polices are a continuation of those philosophies laid down and exercised by the Reagan administration—the Bush White House took every aspect and pushed it as far as they could towards logical conclusion:
For the Republicans that logical conclusion was maximum wealth for their Republican clique at the expense of the general population INCLUDING their own ordinary supporters who could be assuaged with lip service to their archaic religious beliefs.
For the Democrats the logical conclusion of GOP philosophy and polices was the impoverishment of the nation.
The FACTS show that the Democrats WERE AND ARE CORRECT!
The FACTS show that Democrats improved the nation AS A WHOLE, and not just the circumstances of a select faithful few–INCLUDING improving the fortunes of those who railed against their policies and programs.
The Republican response to Obamas and the Democrats plans to REVERSE the GOP policies that have resulted in crises in all aspects of national life–health, environment, finances, wages, employment, debt, defense, and so on has been to recycle the EXACT SAME PHILOSOPHIES AND POLICIES THAT HAVE BROUGHT THIS NATION TO A STATE OF IMPOVERISHMENT NOT SEEN IN DECADES!!!! THOSE ARE THE FACTS!!!
Your incapacity to appreciate any of this, at this juncture in the fortunes of this nation and its people, is beyond me.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pmThey did not succeed. People did oppose them, at the time. And despite this rhetoric, there were people that weren’t idiots or traitors that hoped Bush would fail. Because they understood that hoping Bush fails to implement his policies is not mutually exclusive to the country succeeding. They actually believed to the contrary that the country would be better off if his policies failed.
It is not patty cake, it’s politics. If Obama’s ideas are good (I think many of them are) they will succeed despite Limbaugh. But, he has a right to believe what he wants. And he’s not an idiot or a traitor for doing it.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:17 pm5th, well done.
but it will gain no purchase
in backup’s crooked mind.
his job is to be a troll and to
bring up back to this.
*
February 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pmAnd despite this rhetoric, there were people that weren’t idiots or traitors that hoped Bush would fail.
I like to see you find examples of this.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pmBackup, when those of us who disagreed with Bush’s foreign militaristic, murderous, dysfunctional foreign policy expressed our dismay, pointed out the illegality of his actions (without ever saying “we want Bush to fail”), we were called traitors and much, much worse by the likes of Limbaugh, his dittoheads, and the Bush loyalists.
But now that Limbaugh has openly said he wants Pres Obama to fail, it’s a-ok because reichwingers have rediscovered free speech?
Double-standards, anyone?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm5th estate. I support Obama, but sense when is it idiotic to act as opposition? Do you really think that Limbaugh believes what Obama plans is good for the country?
If you really believe something, should you just role over and pretend you’re on board? Or should you defend what you believe?
If you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, don’t you have an obligation to speak up?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pmbackup Says:
I think the proof is in the pudding backup. The policies DID NOT SUCCEED! PERIOD! If anyone tells you differently, they are lying. PERIOD!
They did not succeed. People did oppose them, at the time. And despite this rhetoric, there were people that weren’t idiots or traitors that hoped Bush would fail. Because they understood that hoping Bush fails to implement his policies is not mutually exclusive to the country succeeding. They actually believed to the contrary that the country would be better off if his policies failed.
It is not patty cake, it’s politics. If Obama’s ideas are good (I think many of them are) they will succeed despite Limbaugh. But, he has a right to believe what he wants. And he’s not an idiot or a traitor for doing it.
*
one of backup’s favorite tactics.
no one tried to abridge limbaugh’s
right to free speech.
*
he’s on the air seven days a week
in case you didn’t think we didn’t
noticed. if you’re going to lie to try
and win an argument, you’d better
pick a better one than that.
()
February 25th, 2009 at 7:26 pmbackup Says:
If you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, don’t you have an obligation to speak up?
So, opposition is patriotic now?
What a difference a few months make…
February 25th, 2009 at 7:28 pmGregor. you’re right. It was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those opposed to the war. If the charges being leveled against Limbaugh are payback, you make a great case. I cannot defend Limbaugh there.
I’m only arguing the principle (that progressives proved correct) that opposition can actually make the country stronger.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:30 pmbackup Says:
5th estate. I support Obama, but sense when is it idiotic to act as opposition? Do you really think that Limbaugh believes what Obama plans is good for the country?
If you really believe something, should you just role over and pretend you’re on board? Or should you defend what you believe?
If you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, don’t you have an obligation to speak up?
*
how long has obama been in office?
*
eric boehlert writes:
Rush Limbaugh’s original anti-Obama proclamation at the outset of his presidency — “I hope he fails” — already seems benign in retrospect. Since Inauguration Day we’ve learned Obama has “Marxist tendencies” and is “addicting this country to heroin — the heroin that is government slavery” (Glenn Beck). That, “there are eerie, eerie similarities” between Obama and Nazis” (Michael Savage’s guest host, Chris Stigall). And of course, Limbaugh himself famously bemoaned that “[w]e are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black.”
*
more here.
*
backup defends limbaugh
the way john yoo defends torture.
both minds are inhuman and disgusting.
***
*
February 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pmbackup Says:
Gregor. you’re right. It was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those opposed to the war. If the charges being leveled against Limbaugh are payback, you make a great case. I cannot defend Limbaugh there.
I’m only arguing the principle (that progressives proved correct) that opposition can actually make the country stronger.
*
no you are not.
you are defending limbaugh
and supporting his aim to
bring down the obama administration.
*
we see you for what you are.
()
you are trying to sell lies.
and no one is buying.
:)
February 25th, 2009 at 7:38 pmThe Republicans have created a real monster, their own Jabba the Rush. He was cute at first, when they called his shots. But now they find themselves dressed in embarrassingly skimpy costumes, dancing at the end of chain. They are afraid to cross Rush and he is in it entirely to pander to his ratings base. But his base is not enough to win elections. We can only hope that he drags all those spineless sycophants off the elections cliff with him. That would be a delicious irony of the free market in action.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:40 pmIf someone who wants the president to fail is an idiot,
and Rush wants the president to fail,
then Rush is an idiot.
I fear that the simple logic of the transitive property just doesn’t apply when we’re dealing with GOOPers.
Tomorrow’s TP headline: SC Gov. Sanford Calls Rush to Apologize. Just wait for it.
PEACE
February 25th, 2009 at 7:42 pmjoe cantwell is right; obfuscation is a troll’s job, and b-cup is quite good at it.
Fact is, Rush said he wanted Obama to fail. there are reasons that explain this sentiment, sure. but that IS his expressed sentiment.
Mark Sanford said anyone who wants the President to fail is an idiot.
Two pretty clearly expressed statements that are not altered by the larger context our obfuscatory friend provides us.
Did Limbaugh say he hoped the President fails?
Yes. Whether that means his policies fail or the man fails personally (what is the difference, really?) it stills means he wants the President to fail.
Mark Sanford essentially said that Limbaugh is an idiot,because he said unequivocally that “Anybody who wants him (the President) to fail is an idiot”.
Deal with it.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:46 pmHow about this:
Everyone of Rush Limbaugh’s ideas may be idiotic.
However, just because someone disagrees, or opposes, or wants particular positions or even a whole platform of ideas to fail, it is not idiotic.
It would not be idiotic for anyone here to want a future Sarah Palin agenda to fail. You probably would not want the country tugged in her direction.
The graying of this difference looks an attempt to make the inference that anyone who disagrees or opposes the President – is also an idiot.
I don’t think we really want that.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:52 pmto backup and all the others whining about rush being criticized for openly hoping the president fails.
you might have heard this little phrase, “what goes around comes around” and to that i might add, “you un-american dick”
i never hoped for bush to fail, i wanted nothing but good things to happen. Bush failed all on his own, and once he delved deep into highly illegal behavior i hoped for impeachment and respect for the rule of law.
the democrats let me down and now have a lot to do to regain my trust.
the republicans more then let me down and after 8 years of republican administration and 4 years of college i don’t think i’ll ever trust any of them ever again.
republican policies did not work.
republican leadership blatantly broke international law.
republican leadership shamed the office of the presidency.
and now republicans hope the current president fails while claiming the previous president responsible for all of the above was a good guy.
i think you can take having your patriotism questioned because you clearly don’t think the United States should be a bastion of morality, helping those in need, and doing right by the rule of law.
republicans have lost their way and many are proving just what kind of patriots they are. LOYAL TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FIRST and the success of the country 2nd.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pmfckup says
If you really believe something, should you just role over and pretend you’re on board? Or should you defend what you believe?
Gotta love the typo It’s all a role for these Repugnants isn’t it?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:57 pmand backup
although i hope palin never gets to the white house, because the embarrassment would just be too much, if she did i’d hope she had a bit of a change of heart, read some books, read some news, and respected the constitution.
i’d also probably leave the country because sarah palin, like bush or mccain, does not represent me or what i believe in any way shape or form, but i’d hope beyond hope that she proved me wrong and succeeded in ways that were good for the country.
i simply wouldn’t hold my breath for it.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:01 pmTake it up with Mark Sanford, b-cup.
No one here is interested in your dishonest labyrinths of faux-reason.
Whether you believe it is idiotic or not has nothing to do with the logical conclusion that Mark Sanford indirectly called Rush Limbaugh an idiot, a logical conclusion you seem to be disputing, but then again sometimes you seem to be arguing something completely different (like above).
Go peddle your crap somewhere else.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:01 pmI disagree with Sanford.
Let me put it to you in these terms.
There have been thousands of posts opposing the Bush administration here. That’s the purpose. I get it.
Was it not implied that the hope was for Bush policy to fail so it could be replaced by more progressive leadership?
Imagine if I would have come here and said, ‘anyone that would want the president to fail is an idiot’. That would make sense to you?
You were all content with wishing W. ‘good luck’? Because he’s our president?
Progressives have proven the value of opposition. It is not idiotic.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:09 pmBackup..
If someone believes something regardless of evidence that refutes that belief, does that make that belief valid and worthwhile?
If I believe in UFOs from Mars and thus propose a bill to build a space fleet to invade Mars before the Martians invade Earth, wouldn’t you want some PROOF, some FACTS to justify the expenditure and the effort? Even if I gathered together a horde of fellow believers, equally lacking PROOF and FACTS but resolute in their belief?
What’s the belief BASED ON? FACTS AND EXPERIENCE?
Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans have PRACTICED their BELIEFS and THEY DON’T F__KING WORK!
NOW they are promoting THOSE EXACT SAME BELIEFS despite the fact that they DON’T FU__KING work as a SOLUTION to the PROBLEMS that their beliefs have caused , and that demonstrably DON:T FU__KING WORK!!!!!
I’m done with you backup; if you can’t distinguish between belief without evidence and belief based on evidence then how the FU-K do you explain how airplanes fly?
You can believe that angels hold them aloft because GOD loves you, but I believe that air forced asymmetrically by jet thrust around the wings produces a pressure differential across an expanse of shaped material that then pushes the airplane off the ground, overcoming gravity so long as sufficient forward velocity maintains the pressure differential— a belief easily reinforced and confirmed with a piece of carefully folded paper,and a belief that can be demonstrated an d proven any old time.
But as long as you believe that belief in itself is ipso facto all that is required to accomplish anything, why don’t go ahead and believe as hard as you can that you can fly, on your own,—take a jump of a cliff for instance.
Oh not prepared to do that? Why not? Because belief on its own won’t enable you to fly. FACTS inform you that belief. in that instance. is stupid and probably deadly.
Ironically I can’t believe I need to explain any of this to you, and yet the FACTS are that I apparently HAVE TO.
I’m done defending your ‘engagement’ with the rest of us in this forum. You are willfully ignorant and a functional idiot—there’s a village that can function without you. Go back there.
beleive
February 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pmbackup
here’s why you’re wrong with your opposition argument.
there is one MAJOR difference between the opposition of the bush administration by progressives and the “opposition” of republicans now.
progressives were offering different solutions to problems created by the administration they opposed. they also called for a simple respect of the rule of law.
republicans are offering no new solutions, they are calling for the problem to be fixed with more of the policies that caused the problem. all the while hoping that the plan for the economic recovery of their country fails.
that is the difference, this is not productive opposition. this is just republicans hoping bad things happen to our country for their own political gain.
it is disgusting
if you support that, you are disgusting too.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:16 pmVery nicely obscured, b-cup.
You do know your business, I’ll grant ya that.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:17 pmI think you needlessly complicated things, calavzma.
What’s wrong with b-cup’s argument is simply that he refuses to debate honestly. His first argument was that TP’s headline was “less than accurate”. He has since abandoned that, presumably because it was demonstrated conclusively that this argument was a non-starter. Yet all he did was subtly shift his argument to “it is not idiotic to oppose policies”.
He’s incapable of arguing honestly. Or else he IS capable and just doesn’t like to.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:25 pmWhatever, it doesn’t matter. He’s a waste of good time and thoughtful replies.
calavzma…
a pithier version of my response at 77…. I tip my hat to you!
February 25th, 2009 at 8:25 pmcalavzma. what you see so clearly as facts, the opposition disputes. They disagree. They believe differently.
It makes sense to me to think Limbaugh is an idiot based on his ideas or on what he says.
What doesn’t make sense to me, is the idea that he is an idiot because he wants Obama’s agenda to fail. Anyone here 7 years ago would have been rooting for Bush’s agenda to fail – because they didn’t believe in it. That is legitimate.
If Palin became president on a platform of ‘we are going to drill more oil and burn more oil to return to prosperity’. Most people would hope that would fail. Because they intuitively see that as the wrong direction for many reasons.
Those ideas are idiotic, but the people that would root and work for them to fail are not.
The point I cannot get across here, is that Rush really believes what he believes. He does not see history and the present situation and come to the same conclusions that you do. He does not take it for granted that Obama’s policies will be better. He is convinced they will result in a worse situation, not a better one.
Rush may believe wrong. His ideas may be idiotic. His opposition, base on his beliefs, is not idiotic.
I don’t care if people think Rush is an idiot. I care that somehow people get the idea, that if you oppose Obama’s policies, you are an idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pmralph the amazing southern-hemispheric ungulate:
Whatever, it doesn’t matter. He’s [backup] a waste of good time and thoughtful replies.
It took me until now, but I finally stopped licking the Amazonian tree frogs and I accept your wisdom in this matter.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pmYou are indeed a wonder llama!
5th estate….
we were probably typing at more or less the same time.
great minds think alike?
backup, i came up with an idea of how to explain this in terms that are very simple.
lets abandon the real world and go to a bizarro world, you seem to like that.
lets pretend we’re a nation of wall-punchers. we’ve been going along for over 200 years, happily punching walls and becoming world renowned for our wall punching and leading the world in its practices.
suddenly theres a particular president who over reacts to a situation and suddenly has us all punching the wall hard and fast with our right hand. we do this for 8 years and after 8 years our collective arms are very tired and our hands are broken. its now hurting us to punch the wall. what will we do?
there’s an election, one candidate wants to keep punching the wall hard and fast with our right hand while the other candidate wants to step back and re-evaluate things. The 2nd candidate obviously wins, because voting for the first would be foolish.
then once the 2nd candidate is in office he says, we can’t abandon our principles of wall punching, but we can’t keep doing things the same way. why don’t we through some light jabs with our left hand while we let our right hand heal. (i say this because obama is clearly a capitalist who favors some social programs, anyone who thinks he’s a socialist doesn’t know anything about socialism)
basically what the republicans current role in this bizarro world would be is that they would say, “we can’t do that, we always punch the wall hard and fast with our right, to do otherwise would not be right, and in fact i hope we break our left hand on the first punch so we can’t punch the wall at all for awhile, maybe then people will listen to me.”
they’ll abandon all their principles of wanting success for the country in order to continue to do something stupid and self destructive in a war of ideology rather than even try something new.
how is that productive? how is it not going against your country?
in case you didn’t notice, wall punching was a metaphor for economic policies.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:44 pmGosh a Republican something non offensive, thoughtful and constructive. Cudos!!!!
February 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pmI don’t care if people think Rush is an idiot. I care that somehow people get the idea, that if you oppose Obama’s policies, you are an idiot.
If the opposition is based on self-referential ‘belief’ instead of reason and external facts and verifiable experience, then the opposition is idiotic and the opposer an idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pmIt’s not reasoned, supportable opposition that that is the issue, it is unreasonable insupportable opposition that makes Limbaugh an idiot, and that makes those who find an equivalency between idiocy and reason and who choose to defend that equivalency, and idiot too. You are an idiot.
I think that’s George Bernard Shaw.
keep working with me, we’re half the way there.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:50 pmand backup, you still feel to realize that its not productive opposition if no new ideas are proposed.
opposition like that should not be respected.
and the hate rush spews is certainly unamerican.
the difference between people that didn’t like bush’s agenda was that they proposed other ideas that we were not positive would fail.
republicans now are only proposing more of the same failed policies.
its like someone who has a drinking problem and is told that if he keeps drinking his liver will shut down. his friends tell him he obviously has to stop drinking and he insists the only thing to save his liver is more drinking.
only in this case the liver is the economy and the drinking is pure tax cuts.
do you not see why one form of opposition is different from the other?
February 25th, 2009 at 8:50 pmcalavzma.…
most amusing analogy and rather well written…like Aesop of fable fame. Also spot on.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:51 pmI’m moving on now… good job, and good night, see you around.
You fu(king fraud.
the issue wasn’t Rush’s “opposition”.
It was his statement “I want him to fail”.
This is exactly why i say you’re dishonest. Anyone as bright as you seem to be should have no trouble keeping that simple declarative statement in focus.
Yet you insist on revising it downward from “wanting the President to fail” to “opposing the President’s policies”.
It’s a straw man — you set up an inaccurate image of the issue, one that’s easy to knock down, and then you knock it down.
You’re a hack.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:57 pmAnd before you go ahead and try to explain how “I want him to fail” is really an extreme way of Rush saying he opposes Obama’s policies — save it.
Rush said “I want him (the President) to fail.”
Sanford said “Anyone who says they want him (the President) to fail is an idiot.”
Case fu(king closed.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:59 pmcalavzma. I understand your circumstances in bizzaro world. (it’s good). I would agree that we should try the left and right jabs. (my hand is sore, too). And I could consider those that want to continue the hard right hand punches, wrong (or idiotic).
But, if people started to make the claim that they are idiotic, not for their ideas, but for their opposition – I would disagree.
Because, I may personally think there is a better way to punch the wall one day, and I don’t want there to be an atmosphere were anyone that disagrees with the left/right jabbing, is dismissed as an idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:59 pmRush said “I want him (the President) to fail.”
In context, Rush said he wanted Obama to fail to implement his policies. The policies that Rush believes are the wrong direction for the country.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:02 pmNo b-cup, Rush said unequivocally “I want him to fail”. Of course that means he wants his policies to fail; what else would it mean? But it means he wants the President to fail.
There’s no getting around that. All your squirming and parsing makes not a bit of difference.
Rush said “I want him to fail”.
Sanford said “Anyone who wants him to fail is an idiot.”
Case. Fu(king. Closed.
Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:08 pmbackup…
you realize that in 92. you said that you wouldn’t want people who you concede are idiots to be labeled as such.
and the point isnt that they disagree, its that they want to do the same things that havent been working.
and they hope anything that isn’t the same thing fails.
so you’re in favor of the side of the argument in which failures pursue more, exceedingly massive failures over a world in which people are held accountable for their beliefs and it is made public when they support something destructive while standing in the way of a different potential solution.
lets be real on this.
no one here is saying that limbaugh can’t disagree with the president, but he better have more to his argument then simply i hope he fails so we can keep doing the things that haven’t worked.
that is his position and that is what you are defending. his right to be counter-productive and make no real contribution besides to oppose any new idea.
does that sound like a winning strategy for our country? NO!
opposition without thoughtful alternative is a fools opposition and thats what we have with the modern republican party.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:09 pmralph. you mean to tell me that 7 years ago, it would have been idiotic for you to wish that Bush’s policies would fail?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pmcalavzma, you’re making a strong argument, but it’s the wrong one. You’ve allowed b-cup to draw you into territory marginally more favorable for his argument, and you’ve ignored the central issue that b-cup first started arguing before it morphed into the one you’ve taken up against.
The original issue was simple:
Rush said “I hope he fails”.
Sanford said “Anyone who wants him to fail is an idiot.”
B-cup claimed that TP’s headline was inaccurate.
When that was shown to be factually wrong, b-cup slithered his way toward a more reasonable position — a claim that people who oppose you are not idiots for opposing you.
That’s not what Sanford said. That’s not what Rush said.
The sad thing for b-cup is that he’s been able to draw you into his swampland, and you’re still kicking his ass.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:15 pmYes. Bush was the president. I didn’t wish for him to fail.
He did fail, and look where we are. This kind of a situation is what we get when presidents fail. Don’t you think it would be idiotic to hope for the economy and the foreign policy circumstances in which we now find ourselves?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pmyou mean to tell me that 7 years ago, it would have been idiotic for you to wish that Bush’s policies would fail?
yes it would have been
they did fail, but lets pretend they had succeeded, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
lets say he had implemented policies in the was on terror that brought osama bin laden to justice rather than using it to start an illegal war in iraq. this would have been a great success.
that is what i hoped for. that, and a stronger economy, would have been the results of successful bush policies.
to hope for his policies to fail would be counter productive.
to be actively counter productive is idiotic.
to not want to be proved wrong, even if being proved wrong means you’re living in a better world is idiotic.
so yes. on all counts hoping your leader fails is idiotic.
any more questions?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pmTo be clearer: Yes, it would have been idiotic for me to wish Bush’s policies would fail.
I suspected they would fail, but I hoped they would succeed.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:20 pmBut, to get back to the original point:
TP’s headline was accurate. Sanford said, by extension, Rush is an idiot.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:21 pmralph, i’ll let him draw me out because even this argument is an argument on which he has no ground to stand on.
hoping policies fail in order to be proved right is the attitude of an idiot and a masochistic one at that.
AND,
there’s been some good stuff said here by a number of people, before i started posting here i read it for months and often things people said in the comments sparked thoughts for me, so i don’t mind the writing because i know there’s problem someone out there like me a few months ago who can take what they like, leave what they don’t, and make it work for themselves…
February 25th, 2009 at 9:23 pmproblem=probably….. maybe i’m starting to burn out a bit here hahaha
February 25th, 2009 at 9:24 pmThis is where I disagree. They do not want the country to fail, just because it isn’t ‘their way’ of accomplishing it.
They believe (rightly or wrongly) that either punching the wall with hard rights is the best way or that the left/right jabs is a mistake that’s somehow going to make the wall fall on them.
This is the core of my misunderstanding here. People like Rush Limbaugh don’t want the country to fail. They believe that the country will fail, if the opposition is successful. That’s what they believe. Not what I believe.
Obama said something in the speech last night, to the effect that he was sure everyone in that room loved America. There were plenty of democrats and plenty of republicans in that room.
They have significant disagreements about how to best serve America. Conservatives do not see the benefits of progressive policies as confidently as progressives do. Even after the Bush years.
It’s not that they don’t want progressive ideas to result in a better America, it’s that they don’t believe they will result in a better America.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pmI can dig it, calavzma.
I appreciate your willingness to engage b-cup. i know he enjoys it. And it took me a long time, probably over a year, before I got fed up with his act. I used to enjoy wrestling with him but I finally decided his slippery crap was not worth the trouble.
May you have better fortune.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:27 pmAs a believer in strict, accurate quoting and as a nonbeliever in mind-reading, I have to say that ThinkProgress is wrong here to say Sanford was referring to Rush Limbaugh. I predict that the next serious journalist that interviews Sanford will try to get him to clarify his remarks to RCP, and the governor will probably say he was not referring to Rush and may even go as far as to point out that Rush hoped Obama’s liberal policies fail, not that he will be a failure as president. I’m just sayin’. Who knows if there will be any fallout from this interview.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pmRush Limbaugh: “I want him to fail”
B-cup: “He’s not saying he wants him to fail.”
Ludicrous.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pmHow’s that non-believing in mind-reading workin’ out for ya?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:29 pmRalph the wonder llama says: I suspected they would fail, but I hoped they would succeed. I don’t know one thoughtful person who wished Bush would fail. This is the intellectual division between progressives and conservatives. Cudos to the llama!
February 25th, 2009 at 9:29 pmHey Sanford! Limbaugh is the poster child and speaker for the GOP. He also says “I own the men.”
The fact that he speaks for you all, and to you all, says it all. And when he can get someone to grovel and apologize on the air it makes him even stronger in his own eyes. Of course he is stupid. He is getting paid millions to entertain. What you should really be asking is why the Republicans are so hard up that they encourage such a man to speak for them. Why are Republicans so bereft of ideas and genuine caring people that they embrace a Jindal, or a Palin, or this man Rush.
What you have in Rush is not a failure to communicate, but a man that communicates what the Republicans are. And in doing so, shines the spotlight on what they are.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pmRalph, there’s a BIG difference between reading into what someone ACTUALLY SAID and PREDICTING what someone WILL SAY. Got it, smartypants?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:33 pmO)h I see, predicting what someone will say, like… “may even go as far as to point out that Rush hoped Obama’s liberal policies fail, not that he will be a failure as president“ isn’t mind-reading.
it’s just predicting that Gov. Sanford will engage in mind-reading.
Point taken.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:36 pmchucko
he DID say that ANYONE who wants the president to fail is an idiot.
rush has said repeatedly that he wants obama to fail.
do you really think Sanford wasn’t fully aware of this and still said it knowing that?
maybe you’re being a little naive here.
and predicting what people will say in the future is a lot more ridiculous then drawing the line that if someone says, “anyone who wants the president to fail is an idiot” would think that rush, who has said he wants the president to fail, would fall under that category.
i’ll agree he’ll probably back track, but thats because he’s a coward, not because he didn’t mean what he said or that he rush wouldn’t qualify as an idiot by his statement.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:36 pmbackup Says:
Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life.
ralph. you mean to tell me that 7 years ago, it would have been idiotic for you to wish that Bush’s policies would fail?
*
notice backup’s number is 7?
as eric boehlert correctly notes in his article:
“Malkin’s [backup's] lame stab at revisionism was simply an attempt to justify the right’s radical attacks on Obama. Were there widespread, hysterical Hitler references to Bush 30 days after he took office? Not that I recall. And in the wake of Bush’s tax cuts being passed by Congress in 2001, did any major newspapers publish cartoons that seemed to connect Bush with a bullet-ridden monkey? No. And if there had been such a tasteless cartoon, would a single high-profile liberal commenter have possibly defended it? I can’t imagine one who would have.”
*
if backup wants to support a man who
compares us to “rapists and murderers”
and return us to the days of bush/ cheney,
that’s his right – . but we won’t stand by idly
while he tries to put words in our mouths,
builds straw men out of our arguments and tries
to feed us his fetid moral relativism.
*
February 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pmbackup Says:
New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.
I think that’s George Bernard Shaw.
keep working with me, we’re half the way there.
*
like gay marriage.
yeah you’re half way there.
:)
February 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
backup Says:
Rush may believe wrong. His ideas may be idiotic. His opposition, base on his beliefs, is not idiotic.
You fu(king fraud.
the issue wasn’t Rush’s “opposition”.
It was his statement “I want him to fail”.
This is exactly why i say you’re dishonest. Anyone as bright as you seem to be should have no trouble keeping that simple declarative statement in focus.
Yet you insist on revising it downward from “wanting the President to fail” to “opposing the President’s policies”.
It’s a straw man — you set up an inaccurate image of the issue, one that’s easy to knock down, and then you knock it down.
You’re a hack.
*
mr. philby is a hack.
backup is so much worse.
*
February 25th, 2009 at 9:49 pmjoe cantwell, damn nice catch on the seven years from B-cup.
Yet another little dishonesty slipped into the mix. And I let it sneak by.
He’s one slippery motherfu(ker, ain’t he?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:49 pmNice take-down at 113, calavzma.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pmall good points joe
AND
lets not forget that after 9/11 bush had unprecedented approval ratings and support from not only the american people, but the international community. squandered in only a few years time.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:52 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
joe cantwell, damn nice catch on the seven years from B-cup.
Yet another little dishonesty slipped into the mix. And I let it sneak by.
He’s one slippery motherfu(ker, ain’t he?
________
Hey… how many times have I tole youse guys?
BTW, ralphie… chucko got ya good there… called ya “smartypants”…
Ouch… ouch… ouch… that’s gonna show in the morning, huh?
Do llama pants have 4 legs?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pmralph, cal, guys,
mr. philby (backup’s inner voice)
is back. he is now calling himself
barbera in what i can
only guess is a pathetic attempt to
improve limbaugh’s poor ratings with
women. such outstanding trollery has
to be seen to be believed.
*
goodnight backup wherever you are.
bush/cheney is dead and you’ll never
revive it.
:)
February 25th, 2009 at 10:01 pmCalvzma, the fact is you can’t put words in anyone’s mouth, for the sake of accurate journalism alone, no matter what you may think someone is referring to. Now, let’s see if any journalist follows this up so we can know for sure Sanford was referring to Rush. Until then, it’s not accurate to say he was referring to Rush and calling him an “idiot.”
February 25th, 2009 at 10:06 pmralph. you mean to tell me that 7 years ago, it would have been idiotic for you to wish that Bush’s policies would fail?Just to get back on one point.
Bush failed on his own.Not because someone wanted him to fail but because he was simply lazy-joke.
Anyways you don’t wish for the president to fail and every year that Bush failed people would NOT WISH NOR say that they wish he failed because when HE FAILED on 911.
THEY KEPT REMINDING US TILL THIS DAY TO PASS THEIR AGENDA.
And seriously anyone who oppose them they would’ve said they support terrorist.
Don’t assume we think like you or Rush Limaugh because we don’t.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:14 pmOne more note I’d like to make is that ThinkProgress would’ve been much better off posing what Gov. Sanford said to RCP in the form of a question, as opposed to absolute fact. Ex. “Did Gov. Sanford call Rush an idiot?” And also remember the subtle distinction that Rush is usually referred to as a “conservative” more than just a “republican.” And of course, RCP asked Rush about “republicans” wanting Obama to fail. But even if RCP inserted “conservative” instead of “republican” in its question to Sanford, TP should’ve asked whether or not he referred to Rush, not assumed he was as a matter of fact.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:15 pmUntil then, it’s not accurate to say he was referring to Rush and calling him an “idiot.”
SANFORD: I don’t want him to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble.
You’re an idiot
February 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pmThe End.
chucko33 Says:
One more note I’d like to make is that [ balh blah blah... blah blah blah...] not assumed he was as a matter of fact.
___________
You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay…
Sorry, but you don’t get to rewrite to serve your own purposes…
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck…
February 25th, 2009 at 10:21 pmchucko….
you’re the one who was saying what you think sanford will say in the next few days.
are you serious. you find no problem with that statement but you have a problem with thinkprogresses headline, which is just to get people to read and if you actually read the article they don’t say that sanford ever said rush was an idiot they only connected the dots for us.
there was no breach of journalistic integrity… if you read more then headlines
and to say that rush qualifies as an idiot by sanfords delineation is totally 100% accurate.
you’re the only one here who’s engaged in mind reading, assuming you know what the gov. really thinks.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:22 pmIt’s pretty simple. I won’t post it again, but Limbaugh’s comments in context are posted back around #13.
If you read his ‘I hope he fails’ comment in context, it is obvious that he is talking about Obama failing to implement what Limbaugh believes to be socialist policies.
It is disingenuous for those here to say that if a right wing conservative became president and wanted to outlaw abortion, cut the tax rate to 5% on everybody, and insist on prayer in school; that they wouldn’t want those policies to fail.
And chucko’s right. That headline couldn’t survive scrutiny anywhere but here.
Have a great night.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:34 pmbackup Says:
It is disingenuous for those here to say that if a right wing conservative became president and wanted to outlaw abortion, cut the tax rate to 5% on everybody, and insist on prayer in school; that they wouldn’t want those policies to fail.
___________
Just DETERMINED as all get out to get the last word in, and play word games, right to the end, huh?
Nice bow tie, BTW…
February 25th, 2009 at 10:39 pmAnd chucko’s right
February 25th, 2009 at 10:42 pmRalph was right, there’s no point talking sense with you.
still don’t get it.
hoping the policies fail in terms of economics is hoping we all fail. abortion is not relevant to this conversation, neither is prayer in school, those aren’t problems that need a solution, they are more a matter of debate and the constitution which supports abortion, but not prayer in school.
on the 5% tax rate. i wouldn’t hope it would fail because i disagreed with it. if that were put into place and the economy went balls to the wall and we did fantastic… i’d LOVE it, i’d change my tune on taxes. i would not hope for it to fail simply because i disagree with it. but facts have shown that it doesn’t work for anyone but rich people, so i’d certainly be disappointed by the policy but would hope for the best.
i’ll repeat from earlier.
to hope for his policies to fail would be counter productive.
to be actively counter productive is idiotic.
to not want to be proved wrong, even if being proved wrong means you’re living in a better world is idiotic.
and i’ll offer one last example. lets say your favorite sports team picks up a guy you hate. i’m a sox fan, i’ll use a-rod as an example. right now i HATE a-rod, i want him to get hurt so he never puts up record breaking numbers and won’t make it to the hall because he cheated. if the red sox picked him up tomorrow and he was on our roster, i’d still not respect a-rod… i still would not like him, i still would not want him in the hall… but i’d want him to succeed, i wouldn’t want him hurt, i’d want him jacking up homeruns.
thats why only a fool would want their president to fail, its like hoping a star player on your favorite team fails. everyone loses.
only an idiot wants to lose.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pmbackup Says:
It’s pretty simple. I won’t post it again, but Limbaugh’s comments in context are posted back around #13.
If you read his ‘I hope he fails’ comment in context, it is obvious that he is talking about Obama failing to implement what Limbaugh believes to be socialist policies.
It is disingenuous for those here to say that if a right wing conservative became president and wanted to outlaw abortion, cut the tax rate to 5% on everybody, and insist on prayer in school; that they wouldn’t want those policies to fail.
And chucko’s right. That headline couldn’t survive scrutiny anywhere but here.
Have a great night.
*
nice of you to take time out
of your schedule to explain it all
to us “rapists and murderers”
backup. btw, we read your
comments why don’t you read
ours? afraid they might pass
pass “scrutiny” with anyone
else but you?
:)
oh and you’re being “disingenuous” when you write:
It is disingenuous for those here to say that if a right wing conservative became president and wanted to outlaw abortion, cut the tax rate to 5% on everybody, and insist on prayer in school; that they wouldn’t want those policies to fail.
*
because anyone who ran on a platform like that
wouldn’t get elected unless he lied about it and
you know it. we know about “false equivalencies” backup
try them out on chucko.
*
i’m sure you’ll sleep well.
most sociopaths do.
*
February 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pmcalavzma — color me impressed. Nice work on this thread.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:30 pmWell, of your three extremist right-wing wet dreams, #1 and #3 are unconstitutional, and #2 would complete the Republican’s job of turning the US into a third world country.
So, it doesn’t matter whether I would want those insane Republican policies to fail, they would all be failures in their own right.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:37 pmNo, Limbaugh understands that Obama will get most of what he wants, and Limbaugh hopes that Obama’s policies will fail, thus sinking our country into an even worse economic depression. That way, a$$holes like Limbaugh can blame the Republican Depression on Democrats and return to power, so the Republican con men can begin yet another ponzi scheme.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pmIt appears that b-cup must sense he’s backed up against another wall, because he’s trying to shift the landscape yet again. Now it’s not even that Limbaugh hopes that obama’s policies fail; it’s that he hopes he fails to get them implemented.
Strange that, even in fuller context, it sounds like he just flat wants Obama to fail:
So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
Oh, yeah, I can see clearly how Rush is talking about legislative setbacks here. Not.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:45 pmWhen FDR saved the country after a Republican Depression in the 1930’s, Republicans were devastated. Some things never change.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:49 pmEvery economic recession since the Civil War, including the Depression of 1870, the Depression of 1929, and this current Depression were all caused by Republicans. Look it up.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:53 pmBoy, talk about your bad timing, huh?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pmMust be a coincidence.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:00 amralph
thanks for the compliment
much appreciated.
cheers
i think our conservative friends have given up for the night hahaha.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:08 ambackup, thanks for having me back, so to speak. Looks like you and I are the only non-partisans on this thread and who believe in straight out facts, in full context. I guess that’s too hard for ralph, cal, repubofSTUPIDITY and the rest to swallow.
And BTW Cal, your defense of ThinkProgress and its headline is laughable. Apparently you’ve never taken a journalism course. “Connecting the dots” means linking hard facts together. TP is assuming Sanford referred to Rush and called him an idiot, not that he actually did so. Again, until Sanford makes clear who and which Republicans he was thinking of, you and TP can ask out loud if he was dissing Rush, but can’t be sure it was a “clear reference” to him.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:10 amAnd by the way Cal, I’m a registered democrat, thank you.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:12 amYeah, you and B-cup.. the lone “non-partisans… who believe in straight out facts”…
heeheehee… good one.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:18 amchucko, I know you! You’re the redneck who always calls Washington Journal on CSPAN and says, “A’ve bin uh Democrat ahl mah life, an ah jus wanna say ‘Thankee George W. Bush!’”
Then Brian Lamb always says, “Sir, you do realize that you are only allowed to call in once a month?”
February 26th, 2009 at 12:22 amsigh,
oh chucko…. i’ll agree the headline is misleading, and i have taken a journalism class and have read enough newpapers to know that you’ll often find headlines that are sensationalist and not entirely accurate
why?
it makes people read the article. in this particular article he was never misquoted. and it is not out of line to believe that someone who thinks “anyone who wants the president to fail” is calling rush an idiot, even if its unintentional, the purpose was served.
also… you can’t be non-partisan and a registered democrat… that would make you a partisan democrat.
i’m a former republican now a registered independent who will never again vote republican. after 8 years of bush, 4 years of college, reading scholarly books published by university presses, and reading newspapers not published in the united states i have gained a great deal of perspective, also having lived overseas for about 1/3 of my life.
also, a lot of what passes for journalism in our country is laughable anyway… the fact that bill o’reilly can claim to be in a “no-spin zone” and people buy that is laughable
February 26th, 2009 at 12:29 amYes, I must admit that is an interesting point. Tell us chucko, which Republicans do you think want Obama to fail in his efforts to rescue the country from the Republican economic depression? John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin? All of the above?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:40 amSorry Cal, you CAN be a registered democrat and be non-partisan. I used to consider myself a solid liberal but now consider myself an independent and have voted for independents in recent elections. Definition of partisan: “1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.” I don’t have any “emotional” or “biased” loyalty to the democratic party anymore, which time and time again has let this country down over the years. I will never vote Republican, so its either dems, a third party or a no vote.
And Shoeless, you might as well call yourself Clueless.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:44 amFebruary 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Hey Clueless, you have no clue what you are talking about. Like Obama, I am a post-partisan democrat who thinks for himself. You are a partisan who enjoys demogauging and making crap up about people you disagree with.
But do have a good night.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:02 amLimbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:
“So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.”
Read it and weep. “Liberalism is our problem”? When so-called ‘conservative’ policies got us into the mess we’re in, and which voters rejected in November.
So, yes, Rush Limbaugh said “I hope he fails” when asked about Obama. And, yes, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:10 amchucko…. sounds like you shouldn’t be a registered democrat then.
and is it safe to say that maybe you are partisan in the same way i am since you won’t vote republican.
i don’t trust democrats either… as far as i’m concerned our entire gov’t needs reform because even the democrats pretty much support the rich exclusively too, just not quite as much as the republicans, thats the american way.
have the democrats let us down more then republicans?
maybe by not prosecuting republicans or attacking them for breaches of ethics in the same way that republicans go after dems.
have you given up on your journalistic integrity campaign since it doesnt hold water.
the point of the headline wasn’t that the gov. said that. it was that based on his statements and other things reported recently on this blog we can conclude that rush is an idiot and Sanford provides the criteria.
i’m sure i could find many a headline that labels barack a socialist… especially if we’re going to play this game with blogs too. where is the journalistic integrity in that?
February 26th, 2009 at 1:15 ami’m sure i could find many a headline that labels barack a socialist
Yeah, try Newsmax, their headlines are pretty, um, imaginative.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:16 amchucko
ben nelson
joe lieberman
chucko
:)
February 26th, 2009 at 1:26 amA very enjoyable thread. Thoughtful arguments, entertaining analogies. Kudos to everyone involved, and especially to those who dismantled backup.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:30 amWhat, because I vote for dems and third party candidates, that means I shouldn’t be a registered democrat? Are you serious, Cal? We registered voters can vote how we want and don’t always have to vote a straight line party ticket. Maybe you do, but I don’t anymore. And how is it that my “journalistic integrity” is in question here, Cal? All journalists have their own personal political preferences, but the goal is to keep them from influencing your reporting. You do get that, I hope.
And speaking of holding no water, your excuses for TP’s misleading headline as only meant to be provocative and to draw readers doesn’t hold up. The body of the story should always support its headline with hard facts, not assumptions. No if ands or buts.
TP should’ve ended the headline with a question mark and should’ve called Sanford’s office (which I might do Thursday) to ask if he was implying Rush was one of the “idiot” Republicans who want Obama to fail before printing this blog item and instead of writing in the body of the article that he clearly did.
Think about this also: Don’t you think the right-wing media machine would’ve been all over Sanford by now if his Rush dis was a certainty? [I did a google search and so far only liberal sites are covering this.]
And no, Dems haven’t let us down more than republicans, but let’s hope Pat Leahy’s Truth Commission gets some legitimate results – as in prosecutions of former Bush officials.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:54 amjoe cantwell: another rebel without a clue.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:59 amchucko33 Says:
joe cantwell: another rebel without a clue.
*
something wrong with being
grouped with ben nelson and
joe lieberman?
*
why?
***
February 26th, 2009 at 2:08 amoh joe, don’t pretend you meant that as a compliment. Actually, Claire McCaskill is more my type of dem. Jon Tester also. Who’s yours?
PS LIEberman has forever disgraced himself over these last few years
February 26th, 2009 at 2:39 amThe person who should really be labeled “idiot” is George W. Bush.
George W. Bush is an idiot:
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/george-w-bush-is-idiot.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
ONLINE, ANTI-BUSH, EDUCATIONAL, SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH: LISTING OF MAJOR ISSUES
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2009/01/online-anti-bush-educational-scholastic.html
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 amIf this keeps up, GOP leaders might actually start calling Rush Limbaugh an idiot directly instead of indirectly.
Which means that our hopes for his failure are coming along quite nicely!
February 26th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Limbaugh mentioned “racists.”
Let me say that Bush is a raging racist.
George W. Bush is a hate-crime criminal (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-did-you-think-of-that-naacp-anti.html “George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes”).
George W. Bush is a raging racist:
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/george-w-bush-is-racist.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
ONLINE, ANTI-BUSH, EDUCATIONAL, SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH: LISTING OF MAJOR ISSUES
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2009/01/online-anti-bush-educational-scholastic.html
February 26th, 2009 at 2:45 amOops, I forgot to provide a link to our hope-Rush-fails site:
http://www.RushHopesObamaFails.com
February 26th, 2009 at 2:52 amchucko33 Says:
oh joe, don’t pretend you meant that as a compliment. Actually, Claire McCaskill is more my type of dem. Jon Tester also. Who’s yours?
PS LIEberman has forever disgraced himself over these last few years
*
oh chucko don’t tell that backup.
next to rush, captain mantastic
loves old joe best.
:)
February 26th, 2009 at 2:59 amJane E. Schneider Says:
Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:
“So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.”
Read it and weep. “Liberalism is our problem”? When so-called ‘conservative’ policies got us into the mess we’re in, and which voters rejected in November.
So, yes, Rush Limbaugh said “I hope he fails” when asked about Obama. And, yes, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
*
thank you jane,
a bigoted mind like backup’s won’t understand.
but we do. thank you again.
*
February 26th, 2009 at 3:14 amRush: “If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?”
Classic straw man argument from the right. Obama’s agenda is NOT “a far-left collectivism,” but since most of Rush’s listeners are too ill-informed to understand what that means, they accept Rush’s characterization and they tell their Congress Critters to oppose Obama’s agenda (without even vaguely understanding what that agenda actually is).
February 26th, 2009 at 10:07 amJoe.
bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
or this one: One strongly loyal to one’s own social group, and irrationally and prejudicially intolerant or disdainful of others
I don’t think I’m intolerant of your views. I don’t think I treat you with disdain.
Et tu?
February 26th, 2009 at 11:40 amWayne. Rush’s characterization of Obama is inaccurate. I believe he believes it. But, I think a better characterization of what Obama is trying to do, is to use government to regulate capitalism that has gone astray due to a lack of adequate regulation.
BTW, I had to look up shibboleth. It’s the perfect word for your view of the right’s use of the phrase ‘big government’. I’ve thought about it and it makes sense to me.
I believe it is being overused and it gives the inaccurate impression that Republicans spend less money on government than Democrats. That’s not the case.
You’ve changed my mind.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:52 ambackup Says:
Joe.
bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
or this one: One strongly loyal to one’s own social group, and irrationally and prejudicially intolerant or disdainful of others
I don’t think I’m intolerant of your views. I don’t think I treat you with disdain.
Et tu?
*
i found this:
bigot
One entry found.
Main Entry:
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\?bi-g?t\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
*
sounds like limbaugh to me.
“Et tu?”
*
moving on:
an article by glenn greenwald commenting
on karl rove’s op ed in the wsj.
read it. do you recognize yourself?
see #114
*
res ipsa loquitur
***
February 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pmLet’s be serious, as someone who benefitted in a huge way from the Bush Tax Cuts for the Already Embarrassingly Rich, and as someone who gets his pharmaceuticals from his housekeeper and pays for them in cash, the tax cuts and no health insurance are bound to be what is important to Rush! He is just another “overnourished” (yes, that means fat), overpaid, self-described Master of the Universe who believes that he is Entitled To Get It All and to hell with the little guys. I think some of this is influenced perhaps by the abovenoted pharmaceuticals, and when he was arrested I actually read a comment by a Rush supporter who claimed that he should be allowed to keep overdosing on Oxycontin because it made him “better at his job.” So, if that means it makes him nastier, more vitriolic and less patriotic (maybe the Sedition Act wasn’t so horrible after all? We sure seem to have experienced a lot of it during the Bush days…)then I agree, maybe it does improve his job performance. Nevertheless, he is just a bad joke of a human being and the fact that the people who listen to him (called dittoheads for a good reason – lemmings would also be appropriate) do not realize that he IS a joke is sad for our country, but reinforces the President’s call for better schools, for sure. I think it is time we all stopped paying attention to him. Period. Tune him out. No more quotes, no more “news” reports, no reason for him to appear anywhere. Nothing. Let him fade into history – it would surely exemplify the words,”silence is golden.”
February 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pmThank you, backup. I try. Glad you liked the word. I had to look it up, too, just to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. I don’t mind admitting that.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pmRMcD Says:
Let’s be serious, as someone who benefitted in a huge way from the Bush Tax Cuts for the Already Embarrassingly Rich, and as someone who gets his pharmaceuticals from his housekeeper and pays for them in cash, the tax cuts and no health insurance are bound to be what is important to Rush! He is just another “overnourished” (yes, that means fat), overpaid, self-described Master of the Universe who believes that he is Entitled To Get It All and to hell with the little guys. I think some of this is influenced perhaps by the abovenoted pharmaceuticals, and when he was arrested I actually read a comment by a Rush supporter who claimed that he should be allowed to keep overdosing on Oxycontin because it made him “better at his job.” So, if that means it makes him nastier, more vitriolic and less patriotic (maybe the Sedition Act wasn’t so horrible after all? We sure seem to have experienced a lot of it during the Bush days…)then I agree, maybe it does improve his job performance. Nevertheless, he is just a bad joke of a human being and the fact that the people who listen to him (called dittoheads for a good reason – lemmings would also be appropriate) do not realize that he IS a joke is sad for our country, but reinforces the President’s call for better schools, for sure. I think it is time we all stopped paying attention to him. Period. Tune him out. No more quotes, no more “news” reports, no reason for him to appear anywhere. Nothing. Let him fade into history – it would surely exemplify the words,”silence is golden.
Well you sure give the man the importance that everyone seems to think he doesn’t have.
What he does have is millions of listeners.
He did have a pain killer habit but that was brought on by the terrible pain that he was in. Millions of people in this country have gone through that and kicked the habit as he has done.
He does seem to speak for millions of Republicans and he brings up points that Liberals want left unsaid. And it is a free country with rights under the 1st amendment.
Hey, he is what he is. So you don’t like him, no I’d say you hate the man. Many don’t. You’re so lucky to find a place protected by the 1st amendment yourself.
Get it off your chest but don’t make the man more important than he really is. You’re in the trap.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pmRush is the man Liberals love to hate. He’s good at what he does. It made him a rich person. It took 20 years to accomplish this. He has huge ratings and now Presidential acknowledgment by Obama. A mistake on Obama’s part I think.
He has made many people fall into his trap (or wise business move)and they are making him a very important person on the national scene.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm