Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that in an interview with the Real Clear Politics, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) was asked about the “view that perhaps Republicans are rooting for President Obama to fail. “Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot,” Sanford responded. The question was a clear reference to Rush Limbaugh declaring on Inauguration Day, “I hope Obama fails.”
Today on his radio show, Limbaugh responded to Sanford’s comments. Limbaugh suggested that while Sanford in spirit agrees with him, the governor “had” to denounce his comments for political reasons. Limbaugh then reiterated his hope that Obama will fail:
LIMBAUGH: I am told South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name. But he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot.” I don’t anybody else who said it. So, I guess he’s talking about– … Politicians have different audiences than I do and they’ve got to say things in different ways. So, after he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot,” then went on in his own way to say, “Gosh, I hope this doesn’t work.” … He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.”
Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
Later, Limbaugh suggested that Sanford simply didn’t have “the guts to talk about” Obama the way he does on his radio show. “Everybody wants to talk about [Obama failing] within the confines of policy,” Limbaugh lamented. Watch it:
Asked to comment on Limbaugh’s statement, Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s Communications Director, said that “the governor was not referring to anyone” in particular when he said that anyone hoping for Obama to fail is an “idiot.” Rather, Sawyer said, Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.”
It is important to remember that far more people do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, than do.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:39 pm.
To wish failure of the policies designed for our future is to wish for our future failure…
… Cheer lead that (R)ush.
.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:39 pmRushballs isn’t running for any public office, doesn’t have constituents ready to run his ass outta the statehouse.
Everyone into the shit, said Capt Rush!
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pmHilarious that the oxy riddled blowhard strikes such fear into the right wingers
That’s what they get for building their political movement with people that are stupid enough to believe the lies of Rush
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pmHell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right.
Meaning he wants the stock market to crash, and everyone to lose what’s left of their 401k’s.
There’s really no other way to read it.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pmOops, sorry…
February 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm… (R)ush already is being that cheer leader.
And this idiot wonders why women don’t like him????? Sheesh.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pmRather, Sawyer said, Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.
They’re afraid of RushBo.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pmI wonder if Rush’s listeners realize he’s hoping they’re wiped out financially, so they will return the nation to a center right political stance.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThey’re afraid of RushBo.
How’s your 401k?
February 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
What kind of person cheer leads for their Nation to fail?
… And none dared call it TREASON!
.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pmchucko?
backup?
want to help rush
with some real hard
“scrutiny”?
***
February 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pmHow’s your 401k?
In the crapper.
I meant that Sanford and his loser pals are afraid of RushBo.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pmRepublicans might think about having Rush as their next candidate for President. Look he and GW have alot in common like both are drunks/druggies and stupid. Rush would be the first President we would have that molest little girls but the actions of Vitter, Craig, Foley and others don’t seem to be a problem for those Republican Chistian Moral/Vaules that the GOP is so proud of. Who knows maybe Rev. Haggard or Joe the Plummer will be Rush’s VP choice. That would allow the USA to go to hell in a hand basket for sure. Sarah is still looking for Russians and John McCain is worried he’ll have to give back big bucks to the contrators who paid for his vote on the free money for the Wars. McConnal is worried about his wife Elain who violated the Hatch Act. Feinstein is laying low in hopes her illegal acts with givng her husband no bide contracts with Foggo and Wilkes wont come out. Harry Reid is to deep in the GOP corruption to get out now and Pelosi was paid to keep the Impeachment of the table and now is scared it will come out.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pmIt took Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander, to stand up to Joe McCarthy. What Republican today is going to stand up to Rush Limbaugh?
Certainly not weasels like Sanford, who sent out his press guy to walk back his criticism of Limbaugh.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
February 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pmWhat a bunch of snarky, sleezy subhumans who can’t even speak truthfully they are so fearful of their party. If Republicans cared about the USA they would find cooperative, positive ways to support the president’s policies. They have no shame after having gotten us into these multiple messes.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pmI saw a cute picture of Rush yesterday on Yahoo Most Emailed Photos. He was naked as a jaybird and in his natural element. The photo was of a Celebes Crested Macaque. Check it out.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:48 pmWhen is someone going to connect the dots here. Republicans want Obama and democrats to fail, I assume so they can get back into power.
Then what? Why on earth would anyone want republicans back in power? Haven’t we witnessed the results of their agenda already?
February 26th, 2009 at 2:48 pmCOMPARE/CONTRAST!
When George W. Bush was in Office, who wished he would fail?
I never did. In fact, I realized long ago, he did well enough on that front for himself. No coaxing required. I did, in fact, hoped, prayed, wished, and marched/protested his failures in hope and prayer that he would improve and stop failing us.
(R)ush just hopes for failure.
.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm“Freedom under assault”??? Once again… more Reich-wing lies and propaganda. There’s a certain number of morons out there that will believe this. Sad.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pmI wonder if Gov Sanford will be at the CPAC convention this week for this event.
Presentation of Defender of the Constitution Award
Recipient: Rush Limbaugh
February 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pmdidn’t it used to be treasonous to disagree with the president in time of war?
February 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pmMark Sanford didn’t know Rush Limbaugh said he wants Obama to fail? Sure he didn’t. And I’m a dug-up Princess Diana.
As long as he doesn’t go groveling to Rush for absolution, this makes me like Mark Sanford just a little bit more…although I wish he had had the guts to call Comedian out to his face.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pmSeeing the Republicans implode in a feedback loop of bile and vitriol is amazing. As long as they are beholden to a “base” of hatemongering mouth breathers every day is going to follow the same pattern:
(1) Rush pops an oxy, says something indefensibly offensive;
(2) Republican pols refuse to disagree, look foolish and weak;
(3) One Republican denounces Rush, forced to apologize; looks
foolish and weak;
(4) Next day, Rush drinks the bong water, says something even
worse;
Rinse, lather, repeat
February 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pmLimbaugh needs to keep talking ’cause every time he hopes for Obama to fail he loses listeners and sponcers.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pmbarfly Says:
I wonder if Rush’s listeners realize he’s hoping they’re wiped out financially, so they will return the nation to a center right political stance.
WTF? Who is getting wiped out financially? Wall streeters who bought into the easy money hype from the 90’s? Idiots who bought into Maddof’s ponzi scheme? Fools who bought a McMansion on a McDonalds income? People who believed that the “business cycle has been broken”?
Cry me a river suckers.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pmI want Obama to fail at retaining Bush’s usage of the state secrets privilege to stop torture lawsuits.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/
I want Obama to fail at defending John Yoo.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18063.html
I want Obama to fail at bombing Pakistan.
I want Obama to fail at escalating in Afghanistan.
While there are some things I wish Obama would succeed at doing, there are a lot of things I want Obama to fail at doing.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm.
I.O.U.S.A.
http://blip.tv/file/1808721/
Watch it!
.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pmSomeone please explain to me why the drug addled gas bag and his ilk, the brain dead ditto heads consider themselves Americans when they have taken the same stance toward our country as Osama Bin Laden.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pmDifference between a Democrat and a Limbaugh:
Bush/Iraq War:
Democrats in General: “Well, I completely disagree with the invasion, think it is the wrong thing to do, but let’s hope for the best and bring the troops home quickly.”
Limbaugh/Stiumus:
February 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pmLimbaugh: “I hope he fails!”
Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s Communications Director, said that “the governor was not referring to anyone”…
This is quite a clever ruse by Sanford. If he had voiced the name of his obvious reference, he would already be on his knees asking for forgiveness from Limbaugh. However, as you can see, it isn’t working. Limbaugh is on to him, and Sanford will pay the price of insulting the leader of the Republican Party.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pmHana’s back!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pmCry me a river suckers.
Shut up and takes Shrub’s advice: “go shopping”.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pmKing Rush of the GOP — leading the conservative GOP into obscurity.
Note to Rush: Bring back the Eisenhower Repubs, and you guys might just have a shot.. Quit ferreting out the moderates and driving them into the arms of the Democratic party.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pmThis Barbera is funny
February 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pmLapel Flag Pins
February 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pmRobertSeattle,
(R)ushpublicans on Iraq war and Democrats:
The Democrats want the USA to loose in Iraq.
(R)ushpublicans on Obama:
I hope he fails.
Of course, we all know that (R)ushpublicans aren’t out about cheering for failure when they do it! NO?
.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pmBarbera Says:
WTF? Who is getting wiped out financially? Wall streeters who bought into the easy money hype from the 90’s? Idiots who bought into Maddof’s ponzi scheme? Fools who bought a McMansion on a McDonalds income? People who believed that the “business cycle has been broken”?
If Barbera had a job, or a retirement fund, or a house, or could read a newspaper, he wouldn’t have to ask.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pmOur current disaster was brought on by the candidates Rush had ballyhooed. If anyone can top their failure or is unable to reverse the tide Rush must be all for it even if it means half the country ends up begging for rice. Surely his ego is more important than our well being.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pmDNFP Says:
Cry me a river suckers.
Shut up and takes Shrub’s advice: “go shopping”.
I do.
And as we used to say “DIE YUPPIE SCUM!”
February 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pmBarbera
February 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pmMight I trouble you for a listing of all your former names?
celtic cynic:
[hurl]
Please, who would want to see THAT?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pmInteresting that you mention that. My father was an Eisenhower Republican. It won’t work. The Republicans have gone way too far over the edge to ever get back an Eisenhower Republican like my father. He would rather cut off his arm than pull the lever for any of the fascists who call themselves Republicans today.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pmRush is foaming at the mouth. I give it 30 days before only the rabid members of the Right still bless off on his rants. The small percentage of Republicans who deify the fat man will remain but the rest are loosing faith in the rant.
Rush knows he is the Titanic and he has met his iceberg.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pmPart of the bloviating host schtick is to make the insignificant feel that not only are all powers against them but that the bloviator is the sole source that is standing between them and the malevolent forces.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pmWTF? Who is getting wiped out financially?
Rupert Murdoch [NewsCorp/FOX] lost some 6.4 billion in the last three months of last year
Since 2006 335 major US lending operations have imploded.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pmhttp://ml-implode.com/
barfly Says:
How’s your 401k?
As I heard someone else call it recently, mine’s now a 201K!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pmWhat d’ya spose Rush would say if Obama challenged him to a debate on the issues?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pmSince I’ve only lost about 25% of mine, I’d call it a 300.75K
February 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pmAnd as we used to say “DIE YUPPIE SCUM!” -=Barbera=-
Aww, aint that sweet. YDS.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pmBarbi, didn’t you get the memo? Bush is no longer in office, so now you are supposed to stop pretending there is no economic depression, and start blaming it on President Obama.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pmThere is a difference between wanting policies that you believe are wrong for the country to fail and wanting the country to fail.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pmCould Barbera’s first name possibly be Hanna?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pmLet’s be crystal clear – Rush Limbaugh IS AN IDIOT.
‘nuf said??
February 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm2009-02-20
Hedge Fund Implosions
Count of distinct funds: 3
February 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pmCapital base: $40 bn for all Highland Capital funds; >$1.5 bn for Crusader and Credit Strategies combined; $361M for CDO fund as of June 2008
Loss: 30% YTD for Highland Crusader ca. Oct. ‘08; ? for Highland Credit Strategies; total loss for CDO fund
He would claim to have an anal cyst, and ask for a deferment.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pmThe managers and directors of Highland CDO Opportunity Fund LP, comprised of a U.S. partnership and an offshore affiliate, determined that “it is in the best interests” of the fund to wind down, according to a Feb. 4 letter to investors. Remaining assets will be distributed to creditors, leaving nothing for shareholders.
WIPEOUT!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pmSenate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
Feb 26 02:58 PM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
Miller, Rhodes, Hartman, Maddow, Olberman…
Bend over and kiss your asses good by!
NO BAILOUT FOR YOU!!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pmRUCerious Says:
Could Barbera’s first name possibly be Hanna?
No way! I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Mr. Jim Barbera (Mr. Hanna was at a different table) and he was funny and a gentleman. Unlike this poser using his name!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm” The agency [SEC] has asked a court to freeze the assets of Pearl River, N.Y.-based Westgate Capital Management and its managing member, James Nicholson, for defrauding investors and prospective investors in 11 hedge funds by misrepresenting the value of the hedge funds, and using sales materials boasting of an allegedly false record of investment success.”
Hep Us Barbera Hep Us!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pmRush and his Republican co-horts can’t accept the fact they are in the minority. They are still seething over the fact that McCain lost to a black man. Can you imagine what that is doing to their repilian brains? The fact that Obama is intelligent, powerful and suave completely destroys them. This is going to be fun to watch for the next four years.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pmBarbi,
Miller, Rhodes, Hartman, Maddow, Olberman, ect. have been operating for years without the Fairness Doctraine. In fact, if you had ever bothered to listen to any of them, they don’t want it back. Please try to reason things out a little before making an ass of yourself. I’m embarrassed for you.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pmUmm, Barbera, the republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 without a fairness doctrine.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pmKeep bailing, Barbera.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pmRush would probably be more effective if he followed a fairness doctrine cause, honey, he sounds kinda bonkers, to me, with the same biased screed he bloviates over and over.
Like a broken record.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pmSenate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
As if this wasn’t the position we’ve had for a very long time, despite what the Mighty Mouths of the Minority have been trying to claim.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pmMy response to Oxybreath (with apologies to Motley Crue):
“Girl, don’t go away mad. Girl, just go away!”
February 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pmshoeless Says:
If you say so,
Twitter among yourselves, break is over, back to my evil profession.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pm*sigh* The Fairness Doctrine? Really? As Shoeless says, that’s been off the table forever. This is just proof you are a conservative zombie.
Addressing the real consolidation of media by only a handful of players, that’s a problem for everyone. It’s funny that you conservatives can only raise the scaaaaary specter of the Fairness Doctrine, awooooooooooo. Gotta keep it simple for the zombies, I guess.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:28 pmMr Sanford: <> Ppppppleeeeeease, Mr. gracious oh savior Limbaugh … pppppleeeeeease don’t hurt me! I am soooooooooooo sorry oh great GOP leader. Tell me what to do next, tell me what to do!!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:28 pmJust how quickly would have a liberal talk-radio host been declared a traitor if s/he had said the same thing about Dubya? Limbaugh would have been the first to demand their head on a silver platter.
If Obama fails, then we all fail. Despite my deep and abiding dislike of George W. Bush, I never ever for one second wanted him to fail because I knew that we’d all go down with him. True, his presidency was largely a failure, but it wasn’t because I was rooting for him to make a mess of things.
If Obama fails, then what does Limbaugh think that the GOP can do? More tax cuts? Does anyone seriously think that would work? There is NO SOLUTION to this problem that does not involve massive government involvement and resources. We cannot rely on the mythical “market forces” to resolve anything. Capitalism is simply incapable of bringing us out of this mess created by greed and excess. Like it or not, a healthy dose of socialism a la the New Deal is pretty much the only hope we have now.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:28 pmI have to say: I NEVER wanted ANYTHING Bush proposed to succeed.
NEVER.
I just didn’t have the platform Slimeballs has, sadly…
But had I had one, I would have been proclaiming my “treason” from the first phuquing day…
February 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pmSenate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
Feb 26 02:58 PM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
What a bunch of shit-eating cowards are the Dims in Congress.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pmBarbera Says: “…back to my evil profession.”
Podium croucher at the CPAC convention.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pmThanks to Joel Sawyer, my statements and criticisms of ThinkProgress’s original item and misleading headline on Sanford’s RCP interview last night have been vindicated, thank you very much: “Asked to comment on Limbaugh’s statement, Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s Communications Director, said that “the governor was not referring to anyone” in particular when he said that anyone hoping for Obama to fail is an “idiot.” Rather, Sawyer said, Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.”
February 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pmWhy isn’t this fat fork in jail?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI’m curious as to why no one on the left (or middle, or right for that matter) has tried to target the companies that advertise on stations carrying Mr. Limbaugh’s toxic libel.
While I imagine many of those are small, local businesses (AM is a local media), I’m certain there must be leverage points.
Not that I’m volunteering to listen to any of those stations long enough to learn which ones.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pmRush is losing his grip — he doesn’t even try to pretend his point of view is the correct one anymore. All he cares about his winning and losing, and that refers to his toxic ideology, not his country.
When I hear a politician or a pundit say, “I hope Obama succeeds, because the price of his failure will be too high for our country to bear — however, I don’t believe his present course of action is a good idea,” I interpret that as coming from somebody who truly DOES want what’s best for the country (there ARE some politicians like that, believe it or not), or somebody who believes Obama will fail and will be the first to say “I told you so.”
When I hear a politician or a pundit say, “I hope Obama fails,” I interpret that as “I’m scared sh!tless that he’s going to succeed, which spells doom for our side.”
Whether Sanford truly wants Obama to succeed for the sake of the country, or he secretly wants Obama to fail for the sake of the GOP, at least he knows how to play the game.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:43 pmshoeless Says:
Interesting that you mention that. My father was an Eisenhower Republican. It won’t work. The Republicans have gone way too far over the edge to ever get back an Eisenhower Republican like my father. He would rather cut off his arm than pull the lever for any of the fascists who call themselves Republicans today.
Yeah, I hear you. Even Goldwater and Nixon would be too liberal for this current crowd.
The upshot is that the Democratic Party needs a healthy GOP, with real statesmen, to stay healthy themselves. We need two parties (or more) in this country. But the current crop of remaining Republicans came to power in 1994 and have systematically destroyed themselves with the likes of Gingritch and Delay bullying out the responsible (and sane) Repubs….
February 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pmchucko, stop playing dumb. Sanford is afraid to actually name Limbaugh because he doesn’t want the Republican trailer park white trash rabble to descend upon him with torches and pitchforks. Your buddy, Rush isn’t buying it, and Sanford will eventually have to grovel to his Republican master in order to save his career.
Your “vindication” is that you are too obtuse to see the obvious.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pmSanford was asked a question posed by a Rush statement, whether he knew it is a moot point his answer was still ‘only an idiot [a generic one] would say that’
February 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pmSo the ‘pimpled arsed chicken hawk’ wants America to fail now seems to me the Vietnam War coward has crossed the line to treason! Where the hell is Joe McCarty when you need him! Maybe someone should check if he’s still making someone fetch his drugs!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pmRush doesn’t care about the economy. He doesn’t need any of the money he had saved. He has a $40 million CONTRACT. People with big money are buying gold these days.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pmtoken liberal,
February 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pmNobody wants the Fairness Doctraine back. Rather, what we need is to break up the gigantic media corporations to allow for local control of the public airways.
Ron Paul is seen as the most conservative of republicans..Limbaugh, and ilk, dont think Ron Paul is their idea of conservative.
So what ideology is Rush really pushing?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pmOh! Snappy come back Barbi! What a razor sharp wit!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pmI applaud Rush Limbaugh’s insistence to bray negative, alienating speech however he wishes and urge him to continue to so. I welcome his seceding of positive language to Obama in the strongest terms imaginable.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:57 pmThe GOP is dead. When you cut the head off a chicken, it runs around for a little while spewing blood all over the place, but it’s already dead.
Maybe the Whigs will make a come back.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pmRush the drug addict, underage Dominican boy prostitutes abuser says – “We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!”
Slavery is Freedom (to the repukes)
FCUK THE REPUBLICANS
February 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pmPuss Gut talks out his ass and some like Barbera lap it up.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pmWe want something to not go right.
why was the last 8 years of everything going horribly wrong under republican guidance not enough? what a sadomasochist.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pmOne has to wonder about Rush and off shore accounts!!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pmBarbera Says: 26
You have the heart of a bloodsucking leech and the brain of a fruitfly. YOU are Rush’s demographic.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pmBarbera Says: 40
And as I like to say. Bite my massive hairy nutsack you ignorant, brainwashed, hivemind parasite.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pmbackup 52
Yes there is and Rush CLEARLY wants Obama to fail he said so DIRECTLY in no uncertain terms
He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.”
Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right.
This could not possibly be any clearer. Stop trying to read his mind and tell us what he REALLY MEANT. THIS is what he CLEARLY SAID.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pmBarbera Says: FCC
So WHAT? Your look over there tactic is old and tired TROLL. It is almost as stupid as YOU. Who hear was talking about the fairness doctrine? You are an ignorant soulless harpy with the IQ of a dustbunny. Save yourself. Ignorant, brainwashed and soulless is no way to go through life and yet it seems to be your OBJECTIVE.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pmObviously, Rushbo has been watching too many of those thriller/killer movies where the former (and decidedly unhinged) boyfriend stalks the girl who left him and vows, “If I can’t have her, no one will — she must die.” So, naturally when America turns its back on the GOP, (the decidedly unhinged) Rushbo vows, “If we can’t have her, no one will — she must fail.”
February 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pmRush: He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.” Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
Not a lot of subtlety there.
Yet B-cup still claims he sees some gray area — in fact, B-cup assures us, over and over again, that Rush is not talking about the President personally, he’s talking about hoping his policies fail.
Yet B-cup never tells us what the distinction is.
No one could have predicted™ that B-cup would argue a distinction without a difference and call it a critical element.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pmBarbera Says:
You are a stupid worhtless punk. Did you think that was somehow a good thing to be. You parade your ignorance like a badge of honor. Why would you be so proud to be so stupid? You are a pusspocket on the butt of humanity. You would have to evolve considerably to be at the level of pondscum. You are sickening and stupid beyond what words can describe. Go pour yourself a nice steaming hot cup of STFU and let the adults talk.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pmWho said chuckles was “playing”?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pmNevar Says:
Barbera Says: “…back to my evil profession.”
Podium croucher at the CPAC convention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Blowing leperous, homeless dogs for pocketchange
February 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pmI’ll post it again.
I’ll try this: There is an implication that Limbaugh is unpatriotic when he wishes Obama to fail.
Taken in context, Limbaugh is saying that he disagrees with Obama’s ideology and hopes that Obama fails in his attempts to lead the country in that direction. Which Limbaugh thinks would be to the detriment of the country.
You can disagree with Limbaugh’s assessment, but him making it is no less patriotic than someone who opposed the war and wasn’t afraid to say so.
BTW, ralph. I know you will try to say I’m moving the goals posts, because I’ve tried to explain it a different way. If I’m moving the goal posts, it’s only in an attempt that you might see them better.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:33 pmRush, when the leader of our executive branch of our government fails, our country fails (see from recent history: 2002 – 2009). Just to let you know, you are an American citizen (unfortunately) and will be living in America whilst she sinks, should your kind succeed in destroying her.
What are you going to do when America crashes and burns? Jump into an interplanetary spaceship and go back to your homeworld?
PS: Rush, why wait? Just go ahead and take that trip back home today!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:34 pmNo backup, you’re splitting hairs. In fact, YOU are determining what Rush’s motives are and you don’t know that any better than the rest of the world. But Rush knows and what did he say? Why don’t you believe him?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
I’ll post it again.
There is a difference between wanting policies that you believe are wrong for the country to fail and wanting the country to fail.
That is not what the lard assed, drug addled, gas bag said and he is restating his wishes. The druggie wishes the same thing that Osama Bin Laden wishes. He should keep his illiterate, drop out, wishes to himself. Anyone defending a sorry sob like Rushpo is not very smart.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pmIf B-cup is splitting hairs, Shayne, he’s getting those hairs from the head of Michael Jordan.
B-cup keeps trying to push this limited interpretation on what Limbaugh has said repeatedly, and it contradicts the emphatic statements Rush has made.
Rush wants Obama to fail. Yes, he certainly wants Obama to fail to implement his proposals, but does anyone doubt that Rush is also saying that, should those proposals be passed and signed into law, Rush also hopes they fail to achieve their goals?
Yet B-cup would have us believe that Rush stops short of such a sentiment, even though Rush is unequivocal in his desire for Obama to fail.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:44 pmBTW Backup:
I despise everything that W Booshco stands for but I never wished he would fail…I wished he would change his criminal ways.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pmI’ll post it again:
Rush said: He (Sanford) just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.” Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right
B-cup says: Rush isn’t saying he wants Obama to fail.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pmAnyone that wants Obama to fail is UNPATRIOTIC. Especially in these unstable times. Everyone should hope he succeeds, then we all succeed.
As much as I despised W. I never cheered for him to fail.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThis is practically treason. It’s one thing to criticize the President.
Its another thing to try and sabotage him, and our country, and rally others to join in.
We listened to this pig spout his rhetoric for 8 years calling anyone who criticized George W Bush a traitor. Yet no one was actively trying to sabotage Bush, or hoping he would fail. Whatever our critiques were we always qualified them by pointing out we wanted him to succeed, we just knew he wasn’t going to on the path he was on.
But no one wished he would fail, and the country with him.
This guy is actively fomenting treason, or at least teetering on the edge.
So much for the patriotism of the right wing.
They’ll never be able to use the word again.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pmralph. I found an audio of Rush making the comments.
Listen to the audio. (you have to pan down to get the link)
http://tech-worlds.blogspot.com/2009/01/transcript-of-rush-limbaugh-i-hope.html
First of all, if you listen to the clip, it’s obvious that he is opposing Obama’s plans and Obama’s policies. He is not opposing Obama personally or opposing Obama to the detriment of the country. He ends the clip by saying that what Obama proposes will be bad for America. That is his concern. That’s what he believes. Right or wrong.
Limbaugh opposes liberalism. He is a partisan. But, he makes a point. If he opposes liberalism and he sees Obama as promoting more liberalism, why should it be controversial that he would want Obama to fail to do that?
Listen to his comments in context.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pmIts time someone starts collecting soundbites of pigs like this calling anyone criticizing President Bush was a traitor.
There’s millions of them out there, so lets put em together and play them on the evening news. Get all the quotes you can find. All the soundbites, video segments, and then show them side by side with the anti American rhetoric he and actual republican senators and congressmen are now saying.
Its time to drive the final nail into the coffin of far right wing, and put them to rest for good.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pmMARY@#59!
That’s so cool, I was merely inferring that the quality of Barbera’s commentary was cartoonish at best..!Pax!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pmBullsh$t.
I’ listened to his comments in context, and just because he tries to backtrack after saying what he really means doesn’t change a thing. His qualifying statements are ambiguous at best, and doesn’t change the fact that he has now repeatedly called on the airwaves for our President to fail, and enticed others to do so too.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pmYou’re full of shit, B-cup.
Simply put.
I’ve heard the audio, and I’ve read the extended context that you provided. The limited reading you claim is simply not there. Rush is hoping for the President’s failure, and he puts no conditions on it.
Again I say, with all due respect, you’re full of shit. I’ve grown used to this reality.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pmI should say “Rush is hoping for the President;s failure and he puts no meaningful conditions on it.”
February 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pmbackup Says: 103
That is garbage. You are making desperate appologies for an outrageous statement. You spin with NOTHING. You can TRY all day to read his mind and PRETEND you know that what he really MEANT isnt what he said which was abundantly clear to anyone not DESPERATE to appologize for this walking colostomy bag. He said it directly he wants Obama to fail. Strait out. He told Sanford he was wrong to say it is only idiots would. He wants Obama to fail PERIOD. He said so directly he couldnt have made it clearer. Retire your amazing mind reading powers. They dont exist.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pmbackup Says:
I’ll post it again.
There is a difference between wanting policies that you believe are wrong for the country to fail and wanting the country to fail.
I’ll try this: There is an implication that Limbaugh is unpatriotic when he wishes Obama to fail.
Taken in context, Limbaugh is saying that he disagrees with Obama’s ideology and hopes that Obama fails in his attempts to lead the country in that direction. Which Limbaugh thinks would be to the detriment of the country.
You can disagree with Limbaugh’s assessment, but him making it is no less patriotic than someone who opposed the war and wasn’t afraid to say so.
BTW, ralph. I know you will try to say I’m moving the goals posts, because I’ve tried to explain it a different way. If I’m moving the goal posts, it’s only in an attempt that you might see them better.
*
do you see this goal post?
RL: This is… it’s about power, it’s about control. These people genuinely look out over this country from their lofty perches. They don’t like what they see. Otherwise…
Caller: So they can go somewhere else! Like, I don’t understand, why do they have to stay here? Like, leave us alone!
RL: At this point, at this point Gretchen, I don’t care about the why. They’re not going to leave. They’re trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is they must be stopped!
Caller: I agree…
RL: Within the confines of our Constitution, and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don’t care why they see this country the way they see it. I don’t care why a murderer does it. I don’t care why a rapist does it. I don’t care why this Muslim guy offed his wife’s head. The NOW gang is out there saying ‘oh, that’s not domestic violence, that’s just, uh, that’s just…’ what do they call it? ‘Culturally honor killing. Or this woman was going to divorce him, that’s against the law. That’s his diversity.’ I don’t care, I don’t care why anymore. If I figure it out, I’ll be glad to tell you because it’s interesting to know, but it doesn’t matter in terms of defeating them.
*
i’ll make it simple for you backup.
(see? i can be patronizing too, pal)
he puts conservatism
ahead of country.
got it?
***
February 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pmThis is the problem and why I continually raise the point. You might as well be talking about conservatives complaining that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq as unpatriotic. It was wrong then and it’s wrong today.
It is a very small step from accusing anyone that wants Obama to fail of a lack of patriotism, to accusing anyone that opposes his ideas, of being unpatriotic.
That’s the jeopardy.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pmbackup Says:
No he doesnt make a good point. He never does, he bloviates he tells his dittohead audience what they are supposed to think. What is said could not be clearer he wants Obama to fail for HIS PARTISAN REASONS. There is nothing in the world other than wishes and delusions that can change the ONLY RATIONAL INTERPRETATION to what he said. He WANTS Obama to fail. Period.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pmralph,
from a previous post. it’s long and i apologize for that but with
backup going on another spree i wanted to get it in the record.
joe cantwell Says:
backup Says:
These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, ‘I agree with your ends but not your means.’
joe. unless you somehow actually are moving the controls of power, we are both just here debating. What action am I discouraging on this thread?
How does my agreement on progressive social issues fit into your conspiracy?
I’m not interesting [freudian slip?] in taking the time, but I’ve got dozens of past posts about how Obama is taking the right measures on social issues.
And, although I have questioned the stimulus bill, I questioned Bush’s attempts at stimulus.
Although, I have questioned why progressives weren’t questioning Obama’s foreign policy, I have supported Obama’s early moves [? he was just elected] in foreign policy.
I have chimed in with my support of progressive efforts to ensure the separation of church and state and progressive efforts to gain true equality for gays; to include gay marriage. And I have commented many times about how conservatives are lacking in race relations, especially among African Americans.
If I am a concern troll, when you consider all my support for Obama and other progressive ideas, maybe I’m not doing so good at it.
*
interesting template that fits neatly over
bill o’reilly’s protest that he is not a conservative:
If you haven’t seen “The O’Reilly Factor”, you might be wondering whether I’m conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what. I hope you’re still wondering when you do catch my program and also after you’ve read this book, my first attempt to put my thoughts in print.
See, I don’t want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn’t have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That’s my political position.
bill has also stated:
I am not a conservative – I believe in Global Warming
*
that might be true but is it what he’s known for?
and when he does take a rare liberal stance it’s almost
always tied to and usually outweighed by his main point
which is very pro conservative. like you backup, his bona
fides are not all that he claims them to be.
*
February 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pmI disagree. I think he believes that conservatism will produce a better country, just as you might believe that liberalism would produce a better country.
Many Democrats voted against authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2002. I would imagine if they voted against it, they were probably hoping the measure would fail. It was a pretty big decision on a matter of grave consequence. But, there was difference of opinion.
Should those Democrats just have voted ‘yes’ and mindlessly hoped the President and his measures would succeed?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pmI see the problem here.
B-cup cannot get past the disingenuous assumption that saying “I want Obama to fail” is simply a harsher way of saying “I oppose the President’s policies”.
Perhaps someone with more patience than I have could explain to B-cup that there is a strong likelihood that when someone says “I want Obama to fail”, he means exactly that — he wants the President to fail, and as spectacularly as possible.
With Republicans pinning their hopes for reemergence on the failure of the stimulus to produce jobs or stem the recession, it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to see their opposition as a manifestation of a desire to see the nation fall even more deeply into economic turmoil.
Not much of a leap at all.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:14 pmbackup Says:
he puts conservatism
ahead of country.
I disagree. I think he believes that conservatism will produce a better country, just as you might believe that liberalism would produce a better country.
Many Democrats voted against authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2002. I would imagine if they voted against it, they were probably hoping the measure would fail. It was a pretty big decision on a matter of grave consequence. But, there was difference of opinion.
Should those Democrats just have voted ‘yes’ and mindlessly hoped the President and his measures would succeed?
*
good cherry picking there backup.
completely overlooked the rapists and murderers
thing did ya? after all it really does give us an idea
of where old rushbo is coming from and we wouldn’t
want that now, would we?
***
February 26th, 2009 at 5:18 pmRush is a threat to this country with all this talk. Maybe we can bring him up on treason charges.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pmBut because he is convinced that liberalism cannot produce a better country, he will fight tooth and nail against liberal efforts to do so.
He will fight liberal politicians, duly elected by the people, he will fight liberal initiatives, despite proven effectiveness, he will fight liberal ideals with whatever weapons he has at his disposal.
This tells me that conservatism is more important to him than country, as joe said.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pmB-cup at this point you’re pathetic.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pmJust like a repeat box saying the same thing over and over again and WISHING it was “reality”.
Convincing yourself that it was and believing that everyone else believes it, pathetic.
ole tub-o-lard is begining to sound like the steroetypical crazy cat lady in the neighborhood. it’s kinda sad actually
February 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pmbackup, if progressives have been misinterpreting Rush’s motivation and true sentiments, then I would think that his “excellence in broadcasting” could find the right phrases to correct us, gleefully. The fact that he has not indicates that we, not you, are correct. Rush wants Obama and America to fail for the next four years, so his own ideology can be enacted and his ego can be stroked.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pmHoping for the failure of a legislative measure is one thing.
Hoping for the failure of the implemented policy is a completely different thing.
If you were capable of honest debate, B-cup, you would have compared Limbaugh’s opposition to the stimulus (as an example) to a mythical Democrat’s hope that the war in Iraq would fail — not the legislative measure but the policy, the war itself. One would have to hope that things would get worse for our troops, that violence would get worse in the streets, in order for your analogy to be accurate.
But you’re not capable of honest debate. You think you are, but your posts consistently reveal otherwise.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pmRalph nailed it again.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pmBut I bet he’ll ignore the point and go back to the “I hope he fails” argument.
If you were capable of honest debate, B-cup, you would have compared Limbaugh’s opposition to the stimulus (as an example) to a mythical Democrat’s hope that the war in Iraq would fail — not the legislative measure but the policy, the war itself. One would have to hope that things would get worse for our troops, that violence would get worse in the streets, in order for your analogy to be accurate
SPOT. ON. And the Grand Old Projectionists tried to pin that very type of opposition to the war in Iraq on Democrats, with Rush, Head Projectionist, leading the way.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pmEven if Rush is now couching his “wanting Obama to fail” with “wanting Obama’s policies to fail”, they are the same thing in the end. If the polities Obama is trying to implement fail, then so does this country. In the end the only thing anyone can come away with is that Rush Limpballs wants this country to fail so that the Republican’t party has a chance of regaining some seats in 2010. That makes him and anyone who thinks like him a traitor in my book.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pmFebruary 26th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
ralph. okay. people will have to decide for themselves. I see the transcript or hear the audio and hear Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail to implement what he sees as detrimental liberal policies. I do not see him wanting the country to fail.
I see it as an important distinction. you do not. The difference in the importance of the distinction may be how closely we each tie the value of liberalism to our country’s eventual success.
If you think the only way our country can achieve or regain success, is through liberalism, it may explain why there is no distinction between Obama failing and the country failing.
Maybe, I’m starting to understand.
Anyways, believe it or not, I’m tired of arguing.
To be honest, it doesn’t really matter what Limbaugh thinks. Most of his power comes from the efforts to silence him.
Good nite.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pmGo Cheney yourself, B-cup.
I never said anything like this, and you damn well know it.
This is more of your dishonest crap. When I say you are incapable of debating honestly, this is the shit I mean.
Futile though it may be, I’ll try one more time to explain why I see a wish for Obama’s policies to fail and a wish for the country to fail: let’s confine it to the stimulus right now. The bill has passed. It is the Law of the Land. If the measures in this bill fail to restart the economy, fail to reverse job erosion, fail to ease the recession — all outcomes that Rush would very likely welcome — then the nation is further battered. It’s economic health and its position in the world further deteriorate. Rush would celebrate this. (This is, after all, a man who titled one of his books “I Told You So.”)
It has nothing to do with whether or not I “think the only way our country can achieve or regain success, is through liberalism”. You’re a fu(king idiot for making such a stupid, simplistic statement and trying to attribute it to me.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm” I see the transcript or hear the audio and hear Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail to implement what he sees as detrimental liberal policies. I do not see him wanting the country to fail.
I see it as an important distinction. you do not.”
did you make that same distinction for the past eight years when anyone who questioned 43 were branded traitors and anti-american, wanting america to fail?
my best guess is you did not.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pmbackup Says:
I’ve heard the audio, and I’ve read the extended context that you provided. The limited reading you claim is simply not there. Rush is hoping for the President’s failure, and he puts no conditions on it.
ralph. okay. people will have to decide for themselves. I see the transcript or hear the audio and hear Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail to implement what he sees as detrimental liberal policies. I do not see him wanting the country to fail.
I see it as an important distinction. you do not. The difference in the importance of the distinction may be how closely we each tie the value of liberalism to our country’s eventual success.
If you think the only way our country can achieve or regain success, is through liberalism, it may explain why there is no distinction between Obama failing and the country failing.
Maybe, I’m starting to understand.
Anyways, believe it or not, I’m tired of arguing.
To be honest, it doesn’t really matter what Limbaugh thinks. Most of his power comes from the efforts to silence him.
Good nite.
*
yeah, most of rush’s defenders use that false equivalency -
(any effort to criticize limbaugh is actually a sinister effort to silence him.)
*
it’s an oldie but a goodie.
***
February 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pmOkay, B-cup, that’s what you see.
Now let’s take it a step further. Suppose those “detrimental liberal policies” do get implemented.
Then what? Is Rush’s opposition to them over? Does he then say, “Gee, it’s the path our nation is taking, I hope it succeeds”?
If his response to the just-passed stimulus bill is any indication, no, he won’t.
You keep busting your hump to portray “opposition to the policies being implemented” as the limit of Rush’s position. Everyone here knows otherwise. That’s why you look like such a fool.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pmralph, bilbo, plc…
from to “captain mantastic”
to “backup”
to…?
*
what will his new troll name be?
what approach will he use to
resurrect bush/cheney conservatism?
?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pmRather, Sawyer said, Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.
And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pmTrue dat, joe.
Good catch.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pmB-cup: I do not see him wanting the country to fail.
I see it as an important distinction. you do not.
Me before: B-cup at this point you’re pathetic.
Just like a repeat box saying the same thing over and over again and WISHING it was “reality”.
Convincing yourself that it was and believing that everyone else believes it, pathetic.
You were even more delusional then I imagine.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pmMore bullsh$t.
I’m perfectly capable of discerning the difference between criticizing policies such as the choice to go into Iraq, and wishing out loud for our country to fail.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:53 pmI retract my remark @ 73:
It is just barely possible that this was a stratagem to deprive the conservotards of a talking point, since it was in reality true that no one was EVER going to revive the “Fairness Doctrine.” Nor could they have. I am more in favor of examining station logs for “diversity” of programming, since they are indiscriminately broadcasting on the ‘public’ airwaves.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:58 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
joe cantwell Says:
yeah, most of rush’s defenders use that false equivalency -
(any effort to criticize limbaugh is actually a sinister effort to silence him.)
*
it’s an oldie but a goodie.
True dat, joe.
Good catch.
*
thanks ralph.
*
imagine… if we only supported rush
the way backup does, why he’d be
off the air by tomorrow!
*
February 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pmWe do not need the fairness doctrine. I do not want to hear an equal amount of wingnut bs all the time. There is too much of that anyway. What we need is for the FCC to revisit the regulations allowing Clear Channel and the likes to own all the stations and control theh reichwing instead of having a diversity in the market. They need to split up the monopoly.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pmbill has also stated:
I am not a conservative – I believe in Global Warming
If you hold that you can’t be a conservative if you believe in global warming, then you are already a neocon anyways.
.
backup Says:
I see the transcript or hear the audio and hear Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail to implement what he sees as detrimental liberal policies. I do not see him wanting the country to fail.
I see it as an important distinction. you do not.
This is precisely correct.
I’m not taking the party line on this one.
It’s perfectly reasonable for a political opponent to say that they hope the President fails in their policy attempts, if you believe that the President’s policies would do more harm than good to the country. In that case, you are hoping that the President does not do further harm to the country, which is perfectly “patriotic.”
Case in point: how much better off would the country be if Bush had failed – at passing the PATRIOT act, getting authorization to attack Iraq, getting approval of deregulation, etc?
Now it’s true that the Republicans tried to bludgeon everybody with the “patriotism stick” when it was their guy in office. It was wrong of them to do so. It is therefore wrong of us to do the same. We, unlike they, do not determine right or wrong based on which side is in power. If you believe it is unpatriotic not to support Obama, then you must have believed that it was unpatriotic not to support Bush.
The difference is that you feel that Obama’s policies are helpful and feel that Bush’s policies were hurtful. I think that everyone here can agree that Rush believes the opposite. Whether he’s right or wrong to do so is besides the point that he is applying that belief to his hopes for Obama in a manner consistent with patriotism. The additional assumption that Obama’s failure equates to the country’s failure isn’t stated, nor does it fit in with what I understand to be Rush’s political beliefs.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:36 pmYou can kick me out of here for this but it must be said: The Bloated Bloviator should be drawn and quartered. Then keelhauled in shark-infested waters. Basically given the Rasputin Treatment. Then the Mussolini Treatment. Then thrown into a volcano along with Bobby Jingle-jangle…
[Metaphorically, of course.. cough cough cough choke...]
====
February 26th, 2009 at 6:37 pmthat’s a fine analysis, ElBruce, except that B-cup is trying to revise what Rush said by attributing to it limits that don’t appear to be in the text.
Basically, B-cup’s argument suggests that Rush’s opposition to Obama’s policies ends at their implementation. He never acknowledges what happens after the laws are passed and implemented. I submit, and I think it’s easily supportable, that Rush’s statement includes not just opposition to implementation, but opposition to their subsequent success. Given the economic dangers we face, this equates to hoping for failure of the stimulus to achieve its proposed goals — increased employment, GDP growth rather than contraction, greater economic activity.
There is nothing in his statements to suggest otherwise, despite what B-cup wants to sell us.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pmbackup
I see it as an important distinction. you do not.”
NO you have made up a DELUSIONAL distinction that doesnt exist and decided that what Rush SAID is not what he MEANT. What he SAID is as clear as it could possibly be. You just have an obsessive NEED to appologize for Rush you just cant ACCEPT that he is such a jerk. The only reason to believe your attempts at mind reading are that you WISH it were true. NO possible reading of what he SAID can rationally fit what you keep trying to say he MEANT.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pmLook, I was still listening to Rush when Clinton took office. He said the same thing about Clinton’s policies. He said he wanted Clinton fail. I remember it. But America didn’t fail under Clinton. America Thrived for the most part (with the exception of “Free” trade Nafta type stuff, but that is another story)… Clinton’s deficit reduction plan was fought tooth and nail by the Repubs then, as Obama’s stimulus is being fought now. The good and the bad can be said about Clinton’s administration, but he did reduce the deficit and the budget had a surplus when he left office. AND the upper tax rate was 39.5% on the upper 2% of the wage earners. everyone did better then. Even the Rich.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:16 pmI don’t know chucko well enough yet to discern whether he is truly dumb, or whether he is playing the dumb right-wing game of playing dumb.
I will offer some advice to chucko, if he is listening, ‘If you play dumb for very long, everyone is going to assume that you are such, so snap out of it kid.’
February 26th, 2009 at 7:30 pmAl Franken said it best, “Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.”
February 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pmAnother American Parrot. You such a MORON. The fairness doctrine never called for liberal shows to balance conservative shows and visa versa. That is the ignorantBSyou have been programmed with. It only said both sides of a public issue be heard and personal attacks can be answered. Why do you enjoy being so ignorant?
February 26th, 2009 at 8:16 pmMore bullsh$t.
He didn’t qualify his statements until he got called on it, and wanting the President to fail during a time of war and a national crisis is not a “policy disagreement”.
And couple that with the racist rhetoric, the cartoons showing a monkey shot to death in relation to the Presidents stimulus package, the thinly veiled threats like “he’ll learn the lessons of Lincoln”, the hate speech riling up his opponents calling him a terrorist, and a Muslim, the challenges to his citizenship, and now, Sean Hannity calling for a REVOLUTION?
Give me a break.
Lets just hope the Secret Service isn’t as gullible as you’d like the rest of us to be.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm#58 Hana,
Of course it’s always “Fair and Balanced” when it’s just one view point…
… NO?
.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:52 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Basically, B-cup’s argument suggests that Rush’s opposition to Obama’s policies ends at their implementation. He never acknowledges what happens after the laws are passed and implemented. I submit, and I think it’s easily supportable, that Rush’s statement includes not just opposition to implementation, but opposition to their subsequent success.
To add that Rush is opposed to the success of Obama’s plans, you’d have to presuppose that Rush believes his plans might or might not be successful. But that’s not something that Rush believes; it’s something that you (and I) believe.
.
Average American Patriot Says:
Glenn Beck on npr? Sounds like a great idea to me! Bring on the “fairness doctrine”!
At the rate he’s going, Beck is going to be lucky getting a job talking into a tin can on a string.
.
WAYNEBRO Says:
He didn’t qualify his statements until he got called on it, and wanting the President to fail during a time of war and a national crisis is not a “policy disagreement”.
He didn’t have to “qualify” his statements to begin with.
Let’s do some formal logic! Here are some propositions:
1a) Obama’s success will hurt the nation
2) I want Obama to fail
3a) I want the nation not to be hurt (1a, 2)
1b) Obama’s success will help the nation
2) I want Obama to fail
3b) I want the nation to be hurt (1b, 2)
Rush has given us proposition 2. The question is, does Rush believe in proposition 1a or 1b? That determines whether we can logically derive whether Rush subscribes to sentiment 3a or 3b. I submit that from what I know of his radio show, Rush firmly believes 1a, and therefore we can derive that he subscribes to sentiment 3a. Note for purposes of this exercise that that 1a and 1b are mutually contradictory, as are 3a and 3b. Thus, if Rush believes 3a (which probability is equal to the likelihood that he believes 1a) then he cannot believe 3b (which is what you’re claiming).
.
WAYNEBRO Says:
And couple that with the racist rhetoric, the cartoons showing a monkey shot to death in relation to the Presidents stimulus package, the thinly veiled threats like “he’ll learn the lessons of Lincoln”, the hate speech riling up his opponents calling him a terrorist, and a Muslim, the challenges to his citizenship, and now, Sean Hannity calling for a REVOLUTION?
I make no such coupling. What are all the irrelevant topics for?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pmWhoosh Limpballs says: Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
And what freedoms would those be, exactly? You certainly exercise your right to freedom of speech. You remain free to render yourself even more ridiculous. You remain free to spout filth and lies. You’re not living out of your car as so many casualties of the Botch years are doing. You have freedom to marry or to divorce. You can live where you choose, work [if what you do could be called that] as you wish, worship as you wish. . .
WHAT freedoms are under assault?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:07 pmtokin librul Says:
I retract my remark @ 73:
Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
Feb 26 02:58 PM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
What a bunch of shit-eating cowards are the Dims in Congress.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Don’t you just hate it when you miss the memo from the democrat party telling you how to react? Makes you look foolish, but your retraction is duly noted.
READ THE FREAKING TALKING POINTS IN THE FUTURE!((h/t Lil’ Debs)
February 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pmAccording to the Republican ethos, to criticize a President in time of national crisis is to betray the country. Rush Limbaugh is a TRAITOR!
February 26th, 2009 at 9:53 pmWhat fairness doctrine, P? Please provide a link, or you are…
SOL.
LOL!
February 26th, 2009 at 10:17 pmputz?
Come on, P… what fairness doctrine?
SOL.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:37 pmBarbera Says:
You are nothing but an ignorant pustulent maggot infested herpes sore. Stuff your ignorant troll turds where the Sun never shines. Just STFU. No one cares what you say. You disgust any decent person anywhere. When you die, and THAT will be a good day for the world, the Earth itself probably wont even accept your diseased maggot ridden body.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pmShoeless at 81, 155 shows that when he (and others) loses a big point, he resorts to name-calling and insulting and making up sh*t (ex. my “buddy” Rush Scumbaugh, whom I can’t stand).
The point here is that although it makes perfect sense that Sanford was taking a shot at Rush when reading the quotes, you don’t know what Sanford is thinking at the time of the RCP interview for sure but have to acknowledge the possibility that his spokesman Joel Sawyer was telling the truth, that he didn’t know he was taking a jab at Limbaugh. If you don’t think that’s a possibility, there’s no further point in arguing with you.
I actually called Sanford’s office today to ask if a clarification on his “Anybody…is an idiot” statement was forthcoming and though I didn’t get an answer from his aide (she just passed on my request to him), TP did, so that will have to do for now unless or until Sanford makes a statement about this himself. And even then, his explanation will probably be doubted by many here. That’s fine, but don’t resort to name-calling and insults.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pmAverage American Parrot Says: 166
Stuff it moron. You are an ignorant liar. You are too stupid to take seriously. You are a brainwashed troll
February 26th, 2009 at 10:55 pmchucko33, your timing is impeccable…
Your bullsh^t is unmistakable…
Do you use this line often, chuck? How does it work out for you…
February 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pmAverage American Patriot Says:
Really? Would that tin can be gold plated?
Did you just paste in a bunch of text from another website without even giving the URL? Because it looks like just pasted in a bunch of text from another website without even giving the URL.
Or maybe you just made up some numbers in your wobbly head and typed them. I guess we’ll never know.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:03 pmElBruce. I am blown away. I don’t think Limbaugh’s sentiment is correct. And I’m confident that you don’t either.
But, it sounds like you get it. Limbaugh can be wrong, but it’s not necessarily unpatriotic. And it’s not idiotic for him to defend his beliefs, if he thinks they are in the best interest of the country. (The beliefs may be idiotic, that’s another story).
Trying to give Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt on anything here is nearly impossible.
I’m sure you are not a Limbaugh fan, but I respect your ability to ignore that and consider the issue reasonably, without prejudice.
Wow.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amLook at the advantages of all those Republicans betting Obama fails. If we start pulling out of this mess, they are going to go down in Flames (with a capital “F”). Bobby Jindal is betting against Obama, and if Obama succeeds, his chances of becoming president are shot. This is his Colin Powell moment, and good riddance.
As for Rush hoping that Obama fails, he wasn’t talking about just Obama’s policies, he was talking about everything Obama touches. He has had ample chance to clarify that, and has not. Since Obama is our nation’s leader, that means he is wishing for our nation to fail.
What sort of person hopes his own nation fails? Apparently a “ditto-head”. I think they call them “traitors” in other countries.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmAs Al Franken and others have noted, the Vulgar Pigboy is indeed a big fat idiot.
I look forward to the day when this cyst-ridden, syphilis-ravaged gasbag goes down like the Hindenberg.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pmHey, Barbera at 161:
It’s Democratic Party, you jerk.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pmIt is appropriate to want Obama to fail if Obama does not seek prosecution against George W. Bush for hate crimes.
George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
Bush was absolute evil.
Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush is a psychological prisoner.
Bush has a lot to worry about.
Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.
In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
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
March 1st, 2009 at 2:40 amOnce again Rush proves what kids of idiot he really is, maybe Rush, Hannity , Coulter and Malkin want Obama to fail, but America spoke and we are better for it.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:16 am