10 March 2009

So What's The Big Deal?

**Update 3/11/09:
"On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
and . . .
"The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail." See story here.
and . . .
"I think that honestly I don’t want to take credit away from the great Rush Limbaugh who did it on January 16 when he said he wanted the president’s policies to fail, and that’s what started the whole thing,” Carville said. “So don’t give Paul and I, or Rahm credit. Credit is due to the great Rush Limbaugh. So my hat’s off to you, Rush."
No James, our hat's off to you . . . for raising awareness regarding foot in mouth disease now permeating the Nation's Capitol, as well as raising awareness that members of the mainstream media are basically stenographers for the Democrat Party. Story here.
A lot has been made in recent days of Rush Limbaugh's comment that he wanted President Obama to fail (in his efforts to convert America into a European-style socialist state). Is it really earth-shattering news that someone philosophically opposed to a political opponent would want that opponent to fail? No, of course not. As a matter of fact, polling data in 2006 showed that a majority of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail. Once again, the mainstream media has been shown to be nothing more than shrills for the left:

Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

(Yes, want him to succeed. No, do not want him to succeed)

Democrats: Yes - 40%
No - 51%
Don't Know - 9%

That's politics folks. Nothing new.


James F. Epperson said...

It's one thing to say you want certain of a president's *policies* to fail, something else to say you want *him* to fail, especially when we are at the edge of an economic abyss, as we are now. For Limbaugh to say he wants Obama to fail is dangerously close to saying he is willing to have the country go down the economic tubes for short-term political gain. And that kind of attitude is, to say the least, unfortunate. And, no, I would make no exception for my fellow Democrats in 2006. I remember discussing this very point with some friends after the 1980 election. I certainly did not want all of Reagan's ideas and policies to "work," if only because I was viscerally opposed to so many of them. But I did not want *him* to fail.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...


That is not what he is saying. As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. Limbaugh believes that Obama's socialist policies will ultimately destroy the country, or at the very least damage it severely. I heard him make the comments originally, and that was the context of his remarks.

Also, a number of Obama supporters, i.e. Kramer, Buffet, Jack Welch, are all now saying Obama's policies are disastrous. These are all men who voted for Obama.

James F. Epperson said...

ISTM that calling someone's policies "socialist" because they are more liberal than you, is akin to calling someone "racist" or "fascist" because they are more conservative than you. Both may be emotionally satisfying, but they tend to cut off much meaningful discussion. I'm curious: What policies of his are socialist in your opinion?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

No, it's not. I do not associate conservatism with racism. Fascism is actually the ideological soul-mate of socialism.

"Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." (Merrian-Webster)

So, take your pick: banking, the auto industry, healthcare.

Yes, Obama continued what Bust began, but with steroids.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Bust" - perhaps a Freudian slip. I meant "Bush."

James F. Epperson said...

So, I ask again, what of his policies are socialist? IMO it is unfair to pick on the recent economic mess; a significant number of qualified folks have said the government needed to intervene in the banking and auto sectors to avoid failures that would have been catstrophic for the country. So it is unclear if Obama would have done something like this if not for the compulsion of the emergency. (In fact, it is fairly clear that he wouldn't have, based on his campaign rhetoric from before September.) We can't say his healthcare plan is "socialist" because there is no healthcare plan on the table yet. So what is socialist?

Arthur B. Breedlove said...

"ISTM that calling someone's policies "socialist" because they are more liberal than you, is akin to calling someone "racist" or "fascist" because they are more conservative than you."

Not a good analogy for several reasons. Like Mr. Williams I don't associate racism with conservatism. The term has become so expansive and all encompassing to include nearly anyone. I think the current definition is anyone who doesn't readily subscribe to godless liberalism,lol. Remember fascism was also known as national SOCIALISM. Hitlers rise to power also required the centralization of power, something most true conservatives I know oppose.

"So, take your pick: banking, the auto industry, healthcare."

Lets add to the list wealth redistribution which Obama is a champion of.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James, please. It would be easier to answer which ones are not. "Qualified" folks? You mean the same ones who got us here? Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

Catastrophic? Perhaps, but we're rewarding failure and corruption and are just postponing the catastrophe for our children and grandchildren. Its the coward's way out.

I don't care how many experts spout off the opposite, you cannot violate the laws of economics indefinitely. They, like gravity, tend to enforce themselves. What goes up . . .

"(In fact, it is fairly clear that he wouldn't have, based on his campaign rhetoric from before September.)"

You can't be serious. Sorry, I'm not a member of the Obama cult.

"We can't say his healthcare plan is "socialist" because there is no healthcare plan on the table yet."

So you really believe that Obama will offer free-market solutions? You're smarter than that.

"So what is socialist?" Already answered that question. Speaking of campaign rhetoric, do you mean the "spreading the wealth around" remark?

"From each according to his . . ."

I'll let you finish the quote.

James F. Epperson said...

"So you really believe that Obama will offer free-market solutions? [For health care.] You're smarter than that."

Well, I appreciate the compliment, but I do think his solution will be mostly free-market. I say "mostly" because the fundamental issue in universal health care is getting someone to put the folks who currently have *no* coverage on their plan, and that involves a degree of compulsion. (An alternative is a system like Canada's, which I like, but it wouldn't fly here. And it has its own drawbacks.) But I do believe Obama's plan will leave our medical system in place. You and I will still be able to go to the physician of our choice.

I am just as concerned as you are about "rewarding failure and corruption," and I think President Obama is as well, but if the choice is between "rewarding failure and corruption" on the one hand, and "total economic collapse" on the other, then I am all for "rewarding failure and corruption;" sorry.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Well James, I honestly hope you're right and I'm wrong. Unless we deal with the debt and insane spending, we're going to have the collapse anyway. We may delay it, but we can't avoid it.