Rooting for Failure : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Creationist vs Creationist | Main | A Whacko Anti-Gay Ad in Utah »

Rooting for Failure

Posted on: February 20, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton

Here's Rush Limbaugh yet again declaring, "I want everything he (Obama) is doing to fail." Can you even imagine how he would react if a Democrat declared that they wanted Bush or any other Republican president to fail? They would be preparing treason charges, for crying out loud. Audio below the fold.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

If Rush Limbaugh had said this would he still be a hero?

- I want millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes and health care. I want people's savings and 401k's to dry up, so that the retirement is a reality for those rich enough to not have to work in the first place. I want America to to become more dependent on foreign oil so that the process of environment destruction can happen on a faster pace. I want America, to not only lose the war in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. I want the world to hate us again. I want to bankrupt the government so that not only will it not be able to provide services today, but I want the failure to extend to tomorrow. Most importantly, I am sick of America's place as the richest and most powerful nation, and I hope that changes quickly.

I know Rush can't hear anymore. Is it possible that he wanted to say that he wanted Obama to succeed, but simply did not realize that he was saying the word "fail" instead of the word "succeed"?

Posted by: Thoracantha | February 20, 2009 9:35 AM

This is off topic, but I'm sort o f dedicated to fighting the misinformation about Social Security, so here's a Link to an article over on the Wonk Room about the upcoming Fiscal Responsibility Summit and "entitlement reform".

As to Rush, Republicans in Texas spend all their time talking about how everyone KNOWS Obama will be assassinated and how TERRIBLE that will be, but they won't really mind it. On the issue of support for Obama and respect for the Presidency, Rush is unfortunately much tamer than his listeners this time.

Posted by: Julian | February 20, 2009 9:38 AM

hmm, the "but they won't really mind" phrase doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say very well. The string of their conversation is 1)he'll get shot, 2) that's terrible 3) but it really isn't and we'll be happy when it happens. Just figured I'd clarify.

Posted by: Julian | February 20, 2009 9:43 AM

I can never stand to listen to this guy. I didn't even get to the relevant quote because the first 20 seconds were already so grating.

Posted by: Paul | February 20, 2009 10:04 AM

Essentially, this guy already has a conclusion (that Obama will fail, that libruls are wrong, etc), and he is desperately hoping that the evidence will support his conclusion. So he values being right over the well-being of millions of people.

I never liked Bush and I predicted he would fail, but I always hoped I was wrong, for the sake of the country. I felt like my predictions were validated when Bush did terrible things, but I was never glad that those things happened. Limbaugh is just a hateful jerk.

Posted by: catgirl | February 20, 2009 10:49 AM

Rush, leader of the repub "Scorched Earth" policy.......

Posted by: RAM | February 20, 2009 10:53 AM

There's a good reason Limbaugh has a 21% approval rating (except with the rabid right-wing, Republican base, of course.) I'm hoping for failure too, I want to see Republicans, and hate-mongering demagogues like Limbaugh, go the way of saber-toothed cats!

Posted by: Raymond Minton | February 20, 2009 11:02 AM

Come on folks! You know he's just kidding, right?

Posted by: tacitus | February 20, 2009 11:29 AM

I agree completely catgirl. I always felt that the Bush policies were wrong, that they would fail, but openly admitted that I could be wrong and honestly hoped I was wrong. Unfortunately, over and over again, I was proven to be right, or at least more correct, than the Bush supporters. In this case Limbaugh and his cronies are openly hoping that Obama fails either oblivious or uncaring to the fact that if Obama fails this country is going to spiral into a massive decline that will likely make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

But hey, they're the "True Patriots" ™ so who are we to argue?

Posted by: dogmeatib | February 20, 2009 12:25 PM

Even Pat Buchanan said that it was wrong to want the president to fail. And when Pat Buchanan thinks you're being irrational...

And yeah, I never liked Bush, but I also never wanted him to fail, because he'd be failing at America.

Posted by: Raven | February 20, 2009 12:28 PM

He says this kind of stuff because that's the only thing he can do to get anyone outside of 20%ers to pay attention to him. He's jumped the shark and is flailing around like a five year old to try to convince everyone (including himself) otherwise. GOP House Republicans aren't helping any by prostrating before him like Medieval kings before a Pope.

Posted by: Ericb | February 20, 2009 12:40 PM

I never liked Bush and I predicted he would fail, but I always hoped I was wrong, for the sake of the country.

Someone once told me that this is why being cynical is the best way to be: you are either proven right or wrong just as much as anyone else, it's just that when you are shown to be wrong it is a very pleasent experience.

Posted by: AL Jeremy | February 20, 2009 1:34 PM

Even Pat Buchanan said that it was wrong to want the president to fail. And when Pat Buchanan thinks you're being irrational...

I disagree with Buchanan on many things, especially given that I despise conservatism. However, I don't believe one can assign irrationality as a character attribute that is consistently displayed with Buchanan like it is for most of his colleauges. Most his positions are based on arguable positions rooted in paleo-conservatism going back to reconstructionism, unlike O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Bush 43, Limbaugh, who are merely sword carriers for the GOP.

In fact, a primary reason Buchanan is not a Republican is because he is consistent in applying his ideology to his positions, unlike the GOP where political expediency continuously tops consistency. His opposition to the Iraq War and authoring two books during the Bush era slamming the GOP as it varied from Goldwater- & Richard Russell- conservatisms are two prime examples.

I have also found Buchanan argues positions that seem pure in terms of his committment to working in the national interest, even when I feel his positions are actually very harmful. That's very different from the GOP power brokers who don't give a flying fuck about the national interest but instead about political power and the financial benefits of cronyism and therefore depend on rhetorical fallacies rather than a fairly framed debate.

I think there's a reason why many liberals view Pat as their favorite true-blue conservative, which is rarified air (maybe George Will as well until he went hypocritical on climate change a few years back). Pat also respects opinions different from his own and with the exception of church/state issues, always frames his arguments and his opponents in fair way.

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2009 1:50 PM

Michael Heath writes:

Pat also respects opinions different from his own and with the exception of church/state issues, always frames his arguments and his opponents in fair way.

I'm not so sure that this entirely true. In his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World he paints a very distorted and unfair picture of Churchill, to my mind.

Posted by: Dave S. | February 20, 2009 2:07 PM

Dave S. - I agree I opened myself up to exceptions, that's easy to do when claiming honesty or rationality for any person, including Obama for example. Would you agree that in general, Buchanan is a fair broker of arguments whose positions are arguable and rational? I'm not talking relative to other conservatives, that's too low a standard given their dishonesty is a defining attribute, my context would be all those who have access to the media in order to make their arguments.

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2009 2:44 PM

Quick, someone with PhotoShop skills, edit Ann Coulter's book cover of Treason: Conservative Treachery from the War on Terror to the Credit Crisis. :)

Posted by: Danny | February 20, 2009 9:35 PM

dogmeatib wrote:

I agree completely catgirl. I always felt that the Bush policies were wrong, that they would fail, but openly admitted that I could be wrong and honestly hoped I was wrong.

If Bush's policies were wrong, and you thought at the time that they were wrong, why would you hope that your views turned out to be incorrect? If a certain set of policies are wrong, their success could harm the country, even if there is a short term benefit.

Posted by: Cato | February 20, 2009 10:09 PM

I do get the impression this is a kind of false outrage. Does anyone really expect that a politician who voted against something hopes he'll be proven wrong by the bill's success? What they hope is that their opponent will fail, they will be proven right, and they will get re-elected.

If--and I did say if--Obama had declared that communism was the only way to "save" the country, would that have been sufficient cause to hope he "failed"? If so, where is the line that allows someone to say "I hope that person's policies fail because I think they're wrong and they'll do more harm than good?" How bad does a policy have to be before we're allowed to hope for its failure--even at a cost--so that the "good" policy will prevail?

While the words may seem blunt, there is an underlying point. If Obama succeeds (and the stimulus bill "recovers" the country), he will have proven his contention that "only the government" can save us. For those that favor capitalism and free enterprise, those are fairly dire words.

Posted by: JD | February 20, 2009 10:55 PM

JD "If Obama succeeds (and the stimulus bill "recovers" the country), he will have proven his contention that "only the government" can save us. For those that favor capitalism and free enterprise, those are fairly dire words."
No. At most, all that would prove is that commie-pinko-socialism "worked" more slowly than unregulated free-market capitalism would've, and that the latter would've worked not just faster, but better, with streets paved with gold and chromed hovercars for every hardworking American. This is because the purely theoretical consistently outpaces the actual.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 21, 2009 1:15 AM

Michael Heath writes:

Would you agree that in general, Buchanan is a fair broker of arguments whose positions are arguable and rational? I'm not talking relative to other conservatives, that's too low a standard given their dishonesty is a defining attribute, my context would be all those who have access to the media in order to make their arguments.

I would agree that in general, that would be a fair statement to make. Mainly I objected to the word "always" in your final sentence.

Posted by: Dave S. | February 21, 2009 8:24 AM

" For those that favor capitalism and free enterprise, those are fairly dire words."

Right - because it would be far better to let the folks who gamed the system and got us into this mess to go on and completely destroy it than to give your opponents a chance to help.

Posted by: dean | February 21, 2009 1:41 PM

Why do you guys continue to seize on this? This is so stupid. If Limbaugh opposes everything Obama does, why wouldn't he want Obama to fail? I think socialism absolutely sucks, therefore I want socialist Obama to fail at his agenda as well.

Posted by: mroberts | February 21, 2009 1:42 PM

mroberts, you would probably be taken more seriously if it weren't for your transparent use of "socialist" as a bugaboo epithet. Socialists favor abolishing the institution of private property, liberals merely favor a generous welfare state in addition to private property. It's not that hard a distinction to grasp.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 21, 2009 1:53 PM

Tyler, what else do you call it if not socialism? Socialism ought to be an epithet, though I didn't use it as one. The massive government interventions Obama is pushing are not good for us and they never would have been supported by our nation's Founders.

Posted by: mroberts | February 21, 2009 2:02 PM

Mroberts said: If Limbaugh opposes everything Obama does, why wouldn't he want Obama to fail?

Because while there are differences in opinion on the solution, there shouldn't be differences on the goals. Its just another case where hardline GOPers place party and ideology above country.

Posted by: Science Avenger | February 21, 2009 2:49 PM

"Tyler, what else do you call it if not socialism?"

Government intervention != socialism. Socialism is a system that calls for the out and out collectivization of the means of production. The only thing remotely socialistic that Obama is calling for is the temporary nationalization of failing banks, as policy that is really more like bankruptcy and receivership anyway, and us something something the FDIC does regularly.

"Socialism ought to be an epithet, though I didn't use it as one."

Uh, yeah you did. You outright called Obama a "socialist", and in context it certainly seems as though it was used pejoratively.

"Obama is pushing are not good for us and they never would have been supported by our nation's Founders."

Our nation's founders were largely pre-capitalist and didn't live in anything resembling a modern day economy. Forgive me if I don't take the opinions of men who have been dead for a couple of centuries as the gospel on what economic policies should be in place nowadays.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 21, 2009 2:52 PM

"The only thing remotely socialistic that Obama is calling for is the temporary nationalization of failing banks..."

Well, it just occurred to me that he isn't really calling for it, yet. But we all know it's gonna happen.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 21, 2009 3:00 PM

Tyler, we can argue about definitions all day long, and obviously you are not going to accept me applying the label of socialism to massive state intervention like what we are seeing today. Yes, we do not have outright public ownership of the means of production, but surely you can at least acknowledge that state intervention is socialist as opposed to capitalist, can't you? Isn't the welfare, universal healthcare, and central planning of the economy through interest rates at least "socialist" if not outright socialism?

Posted by: mroberts | February 21, 2009 3:03 PM

"Yes, we do not have outright public ownership of the means of production, but surely you can at least acknowledge that state intervention is socialist as opposed to capitalist, can't you?"

You're insisting on a false dichotomy, something is either capitalist or socialist. That is nonsensical because socialism refers to a specific economic system and not merely government intervention into a private market (something that has happened to varying degrees since the latter has existed). If you want to call it something, call it a "mixed-economy". But if you're not going to argue on honest terms and are simply going to call names, don't blame anyone else for not listening.

"Isn't the welfare, universal healthcare, and central planning of the economy through interest rates at least "socialist" if not outright socialism?"

Welfare is a government provided safety-net while universal health-care is a government provided service (comparable to, say, the post office, is that also socialist?). And the Fed setting interest rates isn't socialistic for a very simple reason: socialists are opposed to private speculation and credit. "Socialist" interest rates are sort of like fascist opposition parties.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 21, 2009 3:18 PM

Tyler DiPietro:

"But if you're not going to argue on honest terms and are simply going to call names, don't blame anyone else for not listening."

You do know who you're "debating" here, right? mroberts
can't argue on honest terms, he doesn't know how to.

(Aside to mroberts--I have no idea where you've been, but please go back there and STFU.)

Posted by: democommie | February 21, 2009 3:44 PM

Tyler:

It is arguable that even that isn't the case. Banks are not, technically, a "means of production" the way, say, auto industry is. No less a figure than Henry Ford believed that ALL banks should be nationalized (of course, anti-Semitism played a role in that, but is absurd to call Henry Ford a socialist). Mroberts would go apoplectic about 1950s, with "massive state intervention" in the form of Cold War defense buildup, the interstate highway system, and a top margin income tax rate of 92%--which coincided with a massive economic boom, contrary to anyone who claims raising taxes stifles the economy.

So, mroberts: no, social welfare programs do not constitute socialism. And I know you have a typicall tactic of quoting stuff from the Communist Manifesto, so don't bother. Communists also believe 2+2=4, but math isn't a socialist or communist concept.

Please read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", specifically the part about words that have lost all meaning, leaving only a positive or negative connotation. You use "socialism" to mean "things I don't like that the government does".

Why is using taxes to protect people from crime acceptable but using taxes to protect people from disease isn't?

Posted by: R. Sherman | February 21, 2009 3:59 PM

R. Sherman:

"Why is using taxes to protect people from crime acceptable but using taxes to protect people from disease isn't?"

mroberts seems to have gone away (that would be nice), let me paraphrase his possible answer:

Because criminals are poor, black, gay atheists--just like those who don't have decent, affordable health care. It's a "Win-Win"?

Posted by: democommie | February 23, 2009 7:11 AM

How can you say that the Bush policies failed. Haliburton and the Carlisle Group made tons of money off the wars and the ponzi scheme that is our economy. Just because America or her benefit from this does not mitigate the success.

Posted by: teammarty | February 23, 2009 3:05 PM