Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Do conservatives want Obama to fail?
Rush Limbaugh is a radio host with millions of listeners, a following he maintains partly by throwing darts at controversies. He stirred the pot recently by saying, “I hope Obama fails,” a mantra he repeated at this past weekend’s CPAC, covered by your D.C. WORLD reporters.
Meanwhile, other conservatives, including RNC Chair Michael Steele, backed away from that rhetoric. He called the remarks “ugly” and “incendiary.”
Eric Cantor, the House Republican Whip (No. 2 in leadership) has repeated his own mantra that he doesn’t want the president or his economic plan to fail. This weekend on ABC, he said,
Nobody–no Republican, no Democrat–wants this president to fail, nor do they want this country to fail or the economy to fail.
And even when all of the House Republicans, under Cantor’s leadership, rejected Obama’s stimulus bill, Cantor had this to say afterward:
We hope it works.
I wonder if Limbaugh is thinking about the implications of Obama failing? Sure, Limbaugh’s just stirring the pot like he’s known to do, but if Obama and his economic plans fail, it’s not just our economy that will suffer, but those around the world. How should those who disagree with Obama’s economic approach conduct themselves?
back to top118 Comments to “Do conservatives want Obama to fail?”
Obama fails we all win. His policies will do nothing but drive us further into government dependence, fiscal irresponsibility, and a depression.
Failure of his policies, means we have a chance to rebound.
“How should those who disagree with Obama’s economic approach conduct themselves?”
Keep shouting that he’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Yes he’s wrong. I wish those bills had not passed. I’m in agreement with those at the tea parties.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn #1,
I hope you are joking in your last statement…
I’m with Michael Steele. If, hypothetically speaking, Obama’s plan succeeds and the economy does rebound because of it, would admitting that he was right be all that terrible?
Report comment to moderator
but if Obama and his economic plans fail, it’s not just our economy that will suffer, but those around the world.
The policies he’s promoting have been tried in multiple places and failed every time. I can’t speak for Rush but, when I say “I hope he fails,” I mean I hope he fails in pushing this bound-to-fail ideology.
How should those who disagree with Obama’s economic approach conduct themselves?
Vigorously and enthusiastically!
Report comment to moderator
I spoke with an Obama supporter today and expressed my fears, and his answer was “I don’t know if it’ll work, but you have to do something.”
You know I have a soft spot for homeowners and if we should take a chance on someone, it should be them. But giving even more money to AIG just leaves me with a sinking feeling. Giving homeowners the benefit of the doubt and a second chance is one thing, and if they default again, that should be it. But that much money for one company doesn’t make sense to me. And the same idiots who brought us this show are still running the company. Where’s the incentive to do better?
The EU turned down bailing out Eastern Europe. We should turn down AIG. Let them make do with what we gave them already.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m with Michael Steele. If, hypothetically speaking, Obama’s plan succeeds and the economy does rebound because of it, would admitting that he was right be all that terrible?”
Call me when you can fully substantiate that Obama and any of his actions have directly affected a rebound in our economic prosperity.
Taking from those who do produce, giving it to those who DO NOT produce, never works. NEVER. History is clearly in my favor here so I’ll continue to hope that Obama fails, but that America survives.
Report comment to moderator
I believe that nearly every Democrat in existance in office or with a microphone said and did all they could (blatently I might add) to make sure President Bush would fail.
Despite, 9/11, Katrina, and other various struggles, our economy remained strong for at least 6 years under Bush, until the Democrats took over congress. Then it began to struggle. And the slavishly leftist media did all they could do as the Presidential election came to talk our economy down.
It was shameful. I think the Dems wanted Bush (and America under him) to fail more than they wanted air to breathe.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Projection much?
Report comment to moderator
I would agree with Joel Mark.
And they didn’t stop there. They wanted McCain to fail, too. This morning a woman who was questioned by the NYT about having an affair with him said the truth didn’t matter — they were so invested in the story that they kept it going to cause trouble. They didn’t care who they hurt or whether the truth was told. All liberals are like that, whether journalist or politician.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is right, and I think the problem some people are having with Limbaugh’s words is they equate Mr. Obama, the economy, and the country together. No, conservatives want all Americans to prosper and achieve their goals to the best of their ability. We want the economy to growth. But we believe Mr. Obama and everyone at the DNC have policies that are destructive and two-faced, which is how we got into this mess. Liberals in government (at least in this century) are like the corporate manager who can’t say no. He’ll fix that problem. Let him work on that project. After a while, you don’t want to ask him for anything because he’s too busy and can’t get it all done.
To the point, I agree with Rush. I want Obama to change his mind and govern as a conservative or do something that runs a hundred democrats out of congress. That’s more or less failure. I don’t want to work for the government.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob’s perspective is mine. It’s not that I want his policies to fail. (They simply will fail if history proves right again.) It’s that I want him to fail to implement some of his policies–as many as the Republicans can block.
It’s like asking if you want a drug addict to fail. Yes, I want him to fail to get more drugs, but if he stays on those drugs he is going to fail as a person.
The drug here is big government, high taxes, and outrageous spending. Those things will cause failure, by logical necessity. I just hope that Obama fails in getting much more of the drug.
Report comment to moderator
Also, leading Democrats took a severely defeatist posture toward Iraq not long after many of them voted to support it early on. Their defeatist failure-seeking rhetoric reached a desperate, crescendo. Senator Harry Reid (majority leader of the U.S. Senate) used a talk at a high school to call our President “a loser.” Reid also later claimed that the war in Iraq “is lost,” even as our boy’s still had boots on the ground in harm’s way. That encouraged the enemy profoundly.
And nearly no outrage was found among the slavish leftist media.
The #2 Democrat in the Senate last year, Richard Durbin, compared American fighters to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings.”
Nearly no outrage by the slavish leftist media.
Senator Ted Kennedy suggested G.I.s torture like Saddam Hussein.
Nearly no outrage by the slavish leftist media.
MoveOn.org (a powerful organization that supports liberals & liberalism) placed a full-page ad in the NYT soon after General David Petraeus took charge in Iraq, which accused Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House,” called him “a military man constantly at war with the facts,” and said he “is likely to become ‘General Betray Us.’” Democrat leaders refused to condemn the ad.
Hillary Clinton, actually intimated that Petraeus was a liar when she told him, “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Nearly no outrage by the slavish leftist media. In fact, they invented, inflated, and over-reported bad war news and tied all bad news to Bush and/or Republicans. At the same time, the media ignored or downplayed good news as it relates to Bush, the Republicans or the war. The media also wanted us to lose.
Yet, President Bush stuck to his principles and guided the Iraq war to the point where now President Obama (who obviously wanted him to fail) can speak of our withdrawing in the future.
Report comment to moderator
I want the USA to prosper and succeed and I believe conservative moral and political policies are more conducive to that desire.
It is a mistake to equate our love of country and our desire for it to exceed with a particular politican and his policies. I think most of the harping over Rush Limbaugh’s comments by Democrat leaders is simply meant to quench and disparage loyal dissent of the President’s policies.
Report comment to moderator
I want Obama to fail the same way I would want my son to fail at becoming a professional gambler. It is going to end badly so the earlier the better, before too much damage is done.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells – I’m with you on this one.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS, Joel M, two thumbs up!
But one thing we have to remember, over half of the people want the Dems policies.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt seriously that Rush is saying that he wants Obama to fail as a person, but rather that his policies should fail. I agree with that.
I don’t think Rush wishes Obama harm.
Report comment to moderator
I like the way that KBells put it.
I want this plan to fail — and as quickly as possible — so that we can fix things the wise way . . . though, at this point, I don’t hold much hope for economic wisdom in any of the Democrats and most of the Republicans.
I define “economic wisdom” as gutting the federal budget, letting the economy and the market correct itself, and, at most, providing only emergency assistance (e.g., food and shelter) to those who truly need it.
Report comment to moderator
My brother said it pretty well last night when I spoke to him.
I said that the visceral hatred of Bush was irrational. He told me that he’s only felt that way about Clinton, because he always thought Clinton was a weasel- I had to agree. He was a liar and philanderer, and just totally insincere. My brother didn’t feel that way about Obama and neither do I.
But I do fear that Obama’s policies and outlook are severely misguided. So yes, I do hope he fails to implement them. Although it’s too late to keep the “stimulus” package from passing, perhaps we can protest so vigorously that our representatives will think twice about doing this destructive foolishness again.
Report comment to moderator
I heard Limbaugh’s comments in context at a friend’s house. He was very specific in HOW he wants Obama to fail . . . he wants his policies to fail. He wants his campaign promises to fail to be enacted, he wants him to fail in turning this into a socialistic nation, etc. He wasn’t saying he wants him to fail overall, but he wants his wrong-headed policies to fail. So do I.
Now, I would prefer (and I assume Rush would too) for his policies to “fail” by never being enacted at all, but since many of his policies are moral or economic failures, I want them to fail even if they are enacted. I don’t want us to become socialistic, and I don’t want easier access to abortion. I don’t want “don’t ask, don’t tell” to be struck down, don’t want to see women in the front lines of the military, don’t want embryonic stem cell research to be funded by the government, don’t want him to increase taxes (even on “just the richest 2% of Americans, which definitely doesn’t include me), and so forth. So I want these policies to fail . . . but partly because the policies are wrong and partly because I want America to succeed.
America’s success is more important than Obama’s, and I’m afraid we may have an either/or situation here. If we do, I’ll go with America.
Report comment to moderator
Fives55, I spent time with a real Obama supporter today, and he didn’t necessarily WANT these policies, he just thought something had to be done. Many don’t know how this will pan out, but they’re willing to give it a try.
But there are people who DO WANT socialism and more government control. Many of them post here, and those people scare me.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I keep hearing from my Democratic/liberal friends, “Yes, but we had to do something!”
Kind of scary: preferring the wrong thing to no-thing. I’d rather we did little or nothing in this situation — less harmful (in the long run) than the current plan.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
How many examples do you need to prove your statement wrong? You provide zero citations.
You mean like the way people dogmatically decried anyone that was against the war as wanting us to lose the war?
So is it ok to be critical of a President’s ideas and policies or not? For the last 8 years i heard it was unamerican to not blindly follow the president. According to that policy there are a lot of people here that hate this great country and want it to fail.
Report comment to moderator
In so far as this economic crisis is a crisis of confidence, the Republican party is doing more than hoping Obama fails, the are actively working to make sure he does. The constant barrage of gloom and doom from the right is doing nothing to help allay peoples fears regarding the recession, thereby ensuring it’s worse that it otherwise would be assuming all other things are equal. If Obama’s plan is bad, this republican hysteria will only make it worse, and if Obama’s plan is good, the constant griping will only make it less effective.
I’m defiantly one of those far left citizens that Bill O’ loves to hate. I’m well plugged into the far left media and I have many like minded friends. I can’t think of any time I hoped for Bush to fail. I don’t remember anyone stating a desire for Bush to fail. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. just that it wasn’t a major topic of conversation, privately for me, or in the media. I never hoped we would have a massive failure of intelligence that led to the worse terrorist attack in history. I never hoped we wouldn’t find weapons of mass destruction. I never hoped we would let Osama Bin Laden get away. I could go on and on. These where actual failures that where heartbreaking to whiteness.
I would have been very pleased an extremely proud of our president if he hadn’t failed so miserably and repeatedly. There are political aspects of the Bush Presidency that I hoped would fail, such as the coordinated smearing of John Kerry, and the fear mongering of the 2004 election, but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. You want Obama’s entire agenda to fail. You would be happy if the Republicans maintained a filibuster so that nothing gets done.
It is your duty as a member of a democracy to advocate, vociferously if it suits you, for a policy you think will work better. This can be done without wishing for your opponent’s policies to fail. Anyone who hopes the stimulus package fails, or the bank bailouts are ineffective, is as misguided as anyone who hoped the Iraq war would fail. I’ve heard Republican politicians say, quite openly, that if Obama’s policies fail, they’ll have a good chance of making gains in the House and Senate, and perhaps retake the Whitehouse, and we all know they want that. Remember, these are the same guys who filibustered twice as much as any congress in history so they could run against the “do-nothing congress”. Can anyone honestly remember hearing a Democrat say they hoped the Iraq war failed so they can win an election?
Assuming Bush derangement syndrome is real, then Obama derangement syndrome is 10 times worse. Despite having lost the popular vote and having been installed by the Supreme Court, Bush maintained roughly 50% popularity and could claim to have brought some Hispanics into the GOP. Then, after 9/11 and thru the pre-Iraq stages of the Afghan war, Bush’s popularity was HUGE. Everybody supported him including all those Dems that voted for the Iraq war. This is historical fact. Sure there where some Democrats resentful of the way Bush became president, yet they still supported him. It was only after the Iraq war was bungled and we learned about Abu-Graib, Gitmo, Plame, warrantless wire-tapping, torture, extraordinary rendition, etc, that Bush derangement syndrome became what we think of it today.
Now we have the most watched news channel, FOX, regularly calling Obama a communist, and openly talking about the possibility of revolution or revolt. We have corporate sponsored tea-parties, with the likes of Michelle Malkin outraged that the MSM isn’t covering it. I’ve heard more Hitler references in the last week coming from Republicans than I’d hear in a month about Bush, and that’s after the 8 years of almost complete failure. Clinton never had it this bad and we’re one month in. I can’t Imagine that this reactionary and hysterical response of Republicans to Obama will be beneficial in any way.
Please try to be a little more constructive. Remember you got spanked hard in the last two elections because the majority of people do not agree with you. Obama won and is doing exactly what he said he would with close to 70% approval.
Report comment to moderator
You mean like the way people dogmatically decried anyone that was against the war as wanting us to lose the war?
So is it ok to be critical of a President’s ideas and policies or not? For the last 8 years i heard it was unamerican to not blindly follow the president. According to that policy there are a lot of people here that hate this great country and want it to fail.
Mega dittoes.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I never once wanted Bush to fail. Even when I strongly disagreed with his decisions, primarily over the Iraq attack, I wanted it to succeed because the consequences of failure would be bad. Any fleeting sense of ‘I told you so’ satisifaction I might get from it would not be worth the damage that would be done.
Report comment to moderator
I expect our president to fail. I hope he succeeds.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, Congress and the Senate could stand to get involved. They’re supposed to have a more active role than appauding a clever president and impeding incompetent ones.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with Rush’s approach is that it’s based on the politics of division and personal destruction. It’s not enough to disagree with a person’s politics – he has to personally denigrate and demonize people. The conservative movement these days is based on dividing Americans and pitting them against each other, not in finding common ground. Compromise and collegiality are “bad” words in the conservative movement.
But really, I think Rush cares about what’s best for Rush, not what’s best for America. The more outrageous he is the more money he makes. People eat his “shtick” up just like they do with people like Jerry Springer. If there is one thing we Americans love, it’s a good show.
That so many conservative Christians embrace Rush’s tactics and his outrageousness is just proof that Christians aren’t anything special. When the chips are down, they’re just as bad as the rest of us “heathens”.
Report comment to moderator
For all the conservatives in the hate the sin, not the sinner camp — what is the alternative proposal that you would have the country follow? And why do you think it would work?
The difficulty is that going back to the tax cut play book, or looking the otherway at the lack of regulation only repeats the play that got in this mess in the first place.
Hoping only for Obama’s policies to fail but not offering an alternative is a form of nihilism at best, at worst it’s the sort of childishness that John Derbyshire eviscerated.
Report comment to moderator
I believe that nearly every Democrat in existance in office or with a microphone said and did all they could (blatently I might add) to make sure President Bush would fail.
Bush did all he could to make Bush fail. He had so much talent in that regard, he didn’t need all that much help from Democrats.
Joel Mark doesn’t know what the word “shame” means.
I don’t know that Obama will succeed. But the attitude of Limbaugh and Mark is very illustrative. Let me make a little comparison to the story of Samson and Delilah. Although it’s a silly and childish story–well that fits, too, in a way.
People like Limbaugh and Mark would rather see everyone suffer hugely than have even a little success come through a method that scrapes their ideology a bit.
Good people, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
I hope the country won’t be harmed too badly by Obama’s policies.
Those policies are destined to fail, they can’t do otherwise, regardless of what I might hop, or anything I might do. Those policies could only succeed if human nature were different than it in reality is. Failure is thus inevitable.
KBells put it well, the hope is that the inevitable failure is relatively quick and painless.
Report comment to moderator
PROVOST: I expect our president to fail. I hope he succeeds.
There’s a voice of reason. Obama can stand at the edge of the cliff and fight off the wild Indians or he can attempt an impossible jump to the opposite ledge. Obama has chosen to jump. Provost doesn’t expect him to reach the other side, which would mean, bye bye Obama. Nevertheless, Provost hopes Obama will jump far enough to escape his persuers.
The difference is, Limbaugh doesn’t want to be on the opposite ledge. He’d rather take his chances against the wild Indians on this side, but, as Obama has chosen to jump, Limbaugh wants us all to fall into the chasm.
Report comment to moderator
Few Conservatives can truly wish Obama to fail. This is why: For most people, the amount of money they hope they can recover in their 401k’s far exceeds the amount of money they may have to pay in tax increases. Quite the reverse. If Obama succeeds, most conservatives can hope for a restoration of their 401K’s as a reward for accepting a tax cut. Yes, cut. A few conservatives will have to accept their rosy stock statements without any change in their taxes. A smaller number of conservatives will have to accept stock market riches along with a return to previous tax rates, as called for by legislation that Bush signed. Nobody will get higher marginal rates under the pen of Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Harris:
I suggest we give each state economic autonomy.
The current economic condition is a result of the dominoe effect, starting with the housing crisis. We had a housing crisis because the democrats wanted to feel good about helping poor people, and allowed risky loans. The republicans tried to stop that.
Report comment to moderator
Joel et al
I don’t think people were hoping Bush would fail or actively trying to make him fail, they were commenting after the fact. Bush did fail and some of us wanted to make sure his failures were noted so history would not be repeated.
Report comment to moderator
I was so ashamed for our country when I heard Democrats saying with the election of Pres. Obama they were finally proud of our country. I can’t imagine ever saying that about a Country God has blessed so abundantly.
I strongly disagree with those who have said that Democrats never wished Bush and or other republican leaders and policies would fail. The democrats have been spitting blood ever since the lost power after Clinton’s massive moral failures. They have utilized every strategy available to them to disgrace the republican party and now that they have a perceived strength want Republicans to be bipartisan, which to them means we conceed to all their wishes no matter how crazy.
Rush was quoted before CPAC saying he wished Obama success if he adopted moderate policies but if he implemented his platform promises then he hoped he failed in implementing them. That has been his position then and is in essence what he said at CPAC.
Report comment to moderator
I do not want a socialist country – but that’s where we’re headed with Obama – Obama’s polices will most likely fail. I hope they do.
Report comment to moderator
Provost:
The problem with your solution is that it still thinks of the crisis as being domestic in nature, yet most data suggests that the crisis has gone global. That is, smaller states would not have prevented the situation. Moreover, without the power to coin one’s own money, a more distributed system would still be at the mercy of the federal government.
Fwiw, I am unaware of how the GOP tried to stop risky loans. As I recall, they actually were celebrating the loans that (seemed to) put record numbers into homes. As to the CRA, the Federal Reserve commissioned a study on that subject and found little statistical evidence to support the case.
So we’re back to the essential problem with Rushbo: he’s political junk food. The real work of conservatives, the analysis, the -gasp!– policy needs to be done by others. And frankly, the sooner the better.
Report comment to moderator
So what happens when the money from the bailouts is spent? Why, the very thing it’s trying to cure; another recession:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE52168Y20090302
I’m not convinced these bailouts are a good thing. In fact, just the opposite; I think it’s a sincere, but sincerely misguided attempt at the same kind mistakes made during other recessions/depressions.
Even Warren Buffet isn’t predicting a comeback anytime soon.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s policies will definitely fail, since historically this has always been true.
So I am praying for a miracle. I hope that for the first time in history America will succeed despite Obama’s extreme irresponsibility. I hope that this time, massive wasteful spending and unprecedented growth of government power won’t destroy America.
Report comment to moderator
I was so ashamed for our country when I heard Democrats saying with the election of Pres. Obama they were finally proud of our country. I can’t imagine ever saying that about a Country God has blessed so abundantly.
“Democrats” never said that. The only person who said that was Michelle Obama, and she didn’t mean it as starkly as it sounded, although I understand it comes across that way.
But nobody else said that, Duffy.
Report comment to moderator
I have a lot of doubts about Obama’s initiatives and policies.
Nevertheless, if the Republicans, and particularly their dingbat supporters here, had an ounce of sense and an ounce of shame they would be very quiet for a while, because the policies of the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress were such as massive failure they should hide their heads in dismay.
Being a conservative religious Republican means never knowing when you were wrong and never knowing when you should have a bit of shame.
Neither “liberalism” nor “conservatism” have a clear view of a set of policies that will guarantee economic and political success over an extended period. Besides this lack of clarity, ideological thinking adds an extra burden of pernicious behavior.
Large percentages of each group are so wedded to their “team” (as if it were a sports team instead of an approach to making sense of civic life), that they can almost never admit, “That didn’t work,” “We made a mistake,” or “Let’s try something a little different.”
Report comment to moderator
#44 Gee, the liberal position is consistently moral equivalency. Republicans have no right to speak about trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions in irresponsible wasteful spending because they spent $601B on something Democrats opposed, namely keeping America safe.
Report comment to moderator
#25 K Watson
“I would have been very pleased an extremely proud of our president if he hadn’t failed so miserably and repeatedly.”
Most of his failures are because of his “Loyal Opposition”. Do you remember the State of the Union Address when he admitted he had been unable to reform Social Security and the Democratic side erupted in cheers and applause?
Report comment to moderator
Excellent posts from God’s on down the line, with the notable exception being the obvious Rushpublican talking points some regulars regurgitated out of reflex. Snakes often barf up whatever they’ve swallowed when startled or threatened. Same thing here.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! There’s so much nonsense here.
First, people are continuing to mix (and mix up) concepts. It’s just too vague to talk about whether we want a president to fail or not. People saying it should be more specific, as Rush Limbaugh was and as a few of the commenters here have been.
In what way do you want him to fail or not to fail, and why? In what way did you want President Bush to fail or not to fail, and why?
Second, it’s absolute, complete hogwash to pretend that during the Bush years the Democrats were lovely, bipartisan folks reaching across the aisle and uniting with Republicans for the good of the nation. Everything that Anlir wrote above is just as true of Democrats and the few interesting media spokespeople that they have as it is for Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. That’s why we have two parties in the first place–because each of us thinks that we are right and the other side is wrong.
Be very wary of people who sheepishly grin and say that they just want unity and bipartisanship and diversity. Mostly they want you to conform to them. It’s about power and control.
Third, President Carter was the one who first mandated banks to make bad housing loans. President Clinton signed the bill that renewed the mandate and also “deregulated” the banks. (It’s totally Orwellian to talk about the most regulated banks in the history of the United States as being “deregulated.”) That bill, by the way was pushed by Larry Summer and Robert Rubin–Clinton people. The main point of the bill was to allow the big Wall Street Banks to buy other banks and the assets of other banks, and it gave them an unfair advantage over smaller locally owned banks. Almost every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, right along with the Republicans. Look it up.
Fourth, we don’t have to talk about these economic problems as if they started 8 years ago. In reality they started over 50 years ago. Regan gave us a respite, because his policies held back this crisis far longer than we Americans deserved to have it held back.
We don’t have to talk about Obama’s policies as if they are new ideas that have never been tried before. We have about 100 years of history to look back on to compare state-controlled economies with free economies. We can simply compare the Carter years to the Reagan years, for that matter.
Look, even if free economies are not perfect–at least their free. I’d rather fail in freedom than “succeed” while being controlled by a statist government.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I want Obama and the people that he has empowered to fail. Pragmatism is an ugly, destructive thing that, because of man’s sinful nature, will ultimately destroy freedom and everything else that’s good. In the long run, there can be no “winning” with a man like Obama who sacrifices truth and justice for what appears to work. The blood on his hands in his abortion policies alone is enough to undo him, and this country with him. God is not mocked.
Report comment to moderator
I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. He is rude. As a believer, I am commanded from the Bible to pray for and respect our leaders. If I disagree with them, I contact them one on one. If they listen to my concerns, all the better. If they do not listen, then I pray for wisdom and ask the Lord for guidance. Although, I was not a big fan of John McCain, he made a very astute statement to a “Code Pink” agitator. John McCain said, “We have to stop yelling at each other.” People need to respectfully agree to disagree, rather than acting like a two year old who needs a trip to the woodshed for his or her own good.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles: Do you remember the State of the Union Address when he admitted he had been unable to reform Social Security and the Democratic side erupted in cheers and applause?
That’s because his effort to “reform” Social Security meant opening it up to the vicissitudes of the market. Checked the Dow lately?
That was one of his worst ideas and ok, I have to admit, I’m glad it failed.
Report comment to moderator
In fairness to Mr. Limbaugh, he said “I hope he fails” after explaining how Pres. Obama wanted to nationalize as much of the private sector as he could. It was in that pursuit of nationalization of the economy that Mr. Limbaugh said “I hope he fails.” I heard it. The liberal mainstream media heard it too, and then dishonestly separated the statement from its context. And now the myth is perpetuated here. This discussion of hope for failure is useful, but don’t discredit Mr. Limbaugh as leading this charge where no discredit is due.
Report comment to moderator
And some of us want Obama’s crackpot ideas to never get off the floor so that the don’t make history.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh either, but he’s right about this. And the more he says to Congress “do what you were elected to do” and the more they don’t, the more the Democrats have to fear in the future. So be it.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A — Financial deregulation was the product of Phil Gramm and other Republicans. Credit where credit was due. It got a decent reception from the Clinton team, but it was a GOP thing.
Report comment to moderator
Do conservatives want Obama’s plan to fail?
Some Questions
1. Who wants to ask another socialist country, “How’s that workin’ for you?”
2. Who’s plan is this? Seems sort of scripted and preplanned to me. Everything the Dems have wanted for years coming to pass.
3. Since when does going more into debt solve a debt/spending problem?
4. Do the conservatives really have to hope that this president and his policies fail? They are destined to fail, and methinks it’s supposed to happen that way.
On and I can go. I only pray to Jesus that my kids can have a blessed and prosperous life.
Report comment to moderator
After 8 years of Republican policies that directly led us into this mess, what is their prescription? Keep going down the same path. Unbelievable.
Well, the American people spoke on Nov. 4th and said “Enough!”, and they made clear they wanted a new direction. They threw the Republicans out and installed the Democrats to lead this country.
Let Rush and his conservative Christian minions scream all they want. They blew it and they’re no longer in charge.
Report comment to moderator
#24, G-D wrote; “You provide zero citations.”
You failed yourself, G-D, to pay attention. I offered several citations at #12 which I believe amount to clear examples of leading Dems who spoke and acted in ways that showed they wanted President Bush to fail. Disagree if you wish and explain why, but please pay attention first.
Report comment to moderator
#24, G-D wrote; “For the last 8 years i heard it was unamerican to not blindly follow the president.”
Okay pal, now it’s time for you to put up or shut up. You did NOT offer a citation to back up your salacious accusation. And you have a window of 8 years for such a citation. I know of NO leading Republican who ever said it was “unamerican not to blindly follow the president.”
Please put up or shut up, G-D.
And who again on this blog hates this country and wants it to fail? Please offer a citation, sir, and back up your accusations.
Report comment to moderator
#24, G-D wrote; “You mean like the way people dogmatically decried anyone that was against the war as wanting us to lose the war?
No, that’s not close to anything I said. I have respect for many who opposed the war on ethical or strategic grounds and said so honestly.
I do not respect those who distorted our mission and blamed us gratuitously and falsely for all the tragedies that we were actually there to prevent.
I have no respect for those (like the Democrat majority leader in the senate) who actually proclaimed that we lost the war, when our boys still had their boots on the ground working to win it.
I have no respect for Demcorat congressman Murtha who falsely convicted our military for atrocities before they even had a trial or investigation.
I have no respect for a media who selected only the worst possible reports and ignored positive reports, just to gin up opposition to the war on false pretenses.
Understood?
Report comment to moderator
#32, Random Name wrote; “People like Limbaugh and Mark would rather see everyone suffer hugely than have even a little success come through a method that scrapes their ideology a bit.”
What a perfect example of personal-motive judgmentalism. The politics of division and personal destruction continues from the left.
Report comment to moderator
I understand the frustration of my fellow conservatives. NO Democrats debated whether or not they wanted Bush to fail eight years ago. There was absolutely no question about it.
I personally want Obama’s harmful policies to fail, and I want him to fail in implementing them, but I would much rather see him succeed at doing the right things. But even if one wants Obama to fail, he could only fail politically. It is politically idiotic for anyone to say that they want him to fail. Rush has compromised his position and enabled his arguments to be portrayed as merely personal. It was a politically tone deaf thing to do.
When you go to war with politicians, you need to fight politically. Rush has a hard time doing this effectively. For all of his popularity and his ability to communicate, he failed to stem the Obama tide even a little. Look – Indiana and North Carolina went for Obama in spite of Rush and the rest of the alternate media. Obama even got an electoral vote from Nebraska. You could say this was due to the McCain campaign – and how effective was Rush at preventing McCain’s nomination? Rush could not even effectively influence his own party.
Rush is not an effective political leader. This is why the Democrats and their mouthpieces are making him into a political leader. This is why the immediate implementation of the fairness doctrine would have been premature.
Report comment to moderator
At #41, Harris said Rush is “political junk food.”
This is exactly wrong. Rush Limbaugh is one of the most brilliant political thinkers and communicators of our time, hands down.
At #51, Joe B wrote of Rush; “He is rude.”
I have to admit that Joe B’s criticism is fair, at least in that it matches with my main criticism for Limbaugh. But I have to honestly admit, that while Rush may sometimes be rude (and I don’t like that), he is a brilliant political thinker (second only to Charles Colson in our day).
But Charles Colson has the advantage of being tied for the LEAST rude thinker on the planet.
Report comment to moderator
I consider Rush to be the true leader of the Republican Party. He gives voice to what the Republicans are thinking and saying in their hearts. Yes, it’s “ugly” as Michael Steele said, but it’s what they really believe in their hearts.
The thing is, the Republicans are going to have to learn the lesson that the Democrats had to learn: When you allow the voices of extremism to dominate your party the American people will not allow you to run the country.
So I hope Rush and his conservative Christian followers keep it up. I hope they shout it from the rooftops so everyone can hear them. It guarantees that they will not be returning to the leadership of the country anytime soon. And for that we can be grateful.
Report comment to moderator
There seem to be a lot of incendiary liberals here complaining about conservatives who are more interested in being right than finding the truth. People, though incapable of seeing their own faults, can detect them quite clearly in others. After Obama’s election Joel Belz wrote, in WORLD’s printed segment, that Christians ought not hope for his failure.
Still, it is not to hard to understand why one might desire his policies to fail on grounds of delayed gratification. If they are the sort of methods that give immediate success before causing greater disaster, then that is understandable. A cursory glance at the arrayed comments shows that such is what all the people hoping for an “Obama failure” truly want: a smaller pain now rather than a greater one later. No one wants perpetual disaster.
Report comment to moderator
There you go Anlir: ‘Fail Rush, Fail’.
And you become incensed that a conservative might hope Obama fails for the same reason?
Report comment to moderator
Those that regularly and consistently display the disposition and mentality of willing slaves (G-d, Steveg, Harris, RPN, Anlir, Random Name, etc.) are quite incensed that anyone would actually want to stand in the way of their Lord and God Obama and his prostitutes in the media and his drooling goons and baboons in Congress and their articulated plans to destroy this republic, such as it is in these latter days.
A certain poster pontificates above about ’shame’. He ought to know about shame, I suppose. The hyprocisy of the little Stalinist Politborocrats who slink about the twitching carcass of this Republic is startling in its chutzpah, based on the constant drumbeat and refrain of lies and slander and attacks on anything and everything conservative or Christian (including on these threads) for the past many years.
Back to the topic.
Yeah, I want Obama to fail, and to fail miserably.
I want him to fail in his stated aims and his articulated plans so that 3000 + children will not be murdered every day in this country alone.
I want him and his henchmen to fail, so that our civil and economic liberties will not be stripped from us in a Stalinist orgy of political and economic destruction.
I want him and his cabal to fail, so that the criminal element called the Democrat leadership will not continue to rape and pillage the country and to destroy the future for my grandchildren.
I want him and his goons to fail, so that our external enemies who have solemnly sworn our destruction and attacked on our shores are not enheartened and even supported.
I want him and his toadies to fail, so that the rabid secularists and cultural and social experimentalists in government and in the media will not have a free hand to denigrate and trash everything worth anything.
I want him and the current hard-core Statists and Marxist-Leninists in control of the country to fail, so that all the blood and sacrifices of the past two hundred years are not tossed onto the garbage heap.
I want all those who have evil and malicious plans directed against the liberties and security of this Republic and her citizens to fail, just as they (including the shameless leftwing hypocrites on this blog) wish for all those like myself to fail.
There is a fundamental difference, however.
Ultimately, history (that pesky and largely forgotten subject) teaches one thing very well.
The far left wing, the Statists, the willing slaves of the Machine that squats and plots and broods over this country, desire and plan not just that their political and cultural and religious enemies FAIL – no – they wish them to be utterly destroyed as well, whether by supression or bullet.
And are quite good at it, too – to the tune of billions dead in the past odd hundred years, by their deliberate and planned actions and policies.
This is their same vision for the future of this former Republic, whose principles, traditions, and history they loath.
Wait and see their vision materialize.
Or actively work to see them fail.
Your choice.
Report comment to moderator
What does failure mean?
Whould he fail if America suffers?
Or would he fail if he is not reelected?
They are not mutually exclusive.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll say one thing – Rush has certainly taught his conservative Christian minions well. They know how to hurl insults and denigrate people with the best of them! It’s all so Christ-like, isn’t it?
A drug addicted, self-absorbed, politics of personal destruction and denigration, serial adulterer – he’s the perfect hero for conservative Christians!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, he will fail and we want him to. Anyone who thinks he will succeed is either naive or stupid. Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Most of us have been brainwashed into thinking the New Deal got us out of the depression. That is completely false.
I know I used big words, so it’ll be hard for you liberals to understand. Osama is a disgrace as President and it’s pathetic how the media got a gullible public to vote for this crooked empty suit.
Report comment to moderator
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article and analysis of job creation under various presidents. There’s a pattern here, and it does not favor the Rushpublicans. Why on earth would anyone listen to anything they have to say?
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.
Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.
Millions of Jobs Created per Year:
Bush 43: 0.375
Clinton: 2.9
Bush 41: 0.625
Reagan: 2.0
Carter: 2.6
Ford: 0.745
Nixon: 1.7
Johnson: 2.3
JFKennedy: 1.2
Eisenhower: 0.438
Truman: 1.1
Report comment to moderator
Do conservatives want Obama to fail?
Reading over this thread, I’d say we have our answer.
Many people would rather be right and watch the country burn than be wrong and see the country healed. That’s unfortunate.
But I think in the end, the people it will hurt worst will be the Republican party. They’re so divided right now that the supposed head of their caucus is called to task for criticizing one of their ideologues. One day Steele says “Rush is not the head of this party, he’s an entertainer, and his comments were out of line,” and the next day he’s saying “Sorry, I never meant to criticize Rush. I only ever meant that other people criticize him too much. That’s all I ever meant. And I’m really sorry.”
The American people don’t want Obama to fail, because they realize the consequences. Enjoy your 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Wow RPN..what a crappy reference.
Your conclusions are not justified by a table that has no say on how such things like the tech bubble affects the next president, or how presidents directly create jobs. Would it be fair to count Obama’s job losses based on the housing bubble???? Didnt think so.
Further, I dont think Bush actually used Reagan policies…which when you exam Reagan’s presidency in light of coming in on a recession (thanks Carter) he easily equaled if not bested Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
“Many people would rather be right and watch the country burn than be wrong and see the country healed. That’s unfortunate”
Apparently you didnt look over it at all. Every conservative poster has mentioned that they dont want the USA to fail…simply Obama. Most hold to the fact that if Obama’s policies succeed, the USA will ultimately fail.
Do you get it now, do you understand the difference? Actually reading the rest of the blog posts might help you as well. If not, I’m sure we could offer a simple kindergarten course to go over phonics and sentence structure.
Report comment to moderator
C’mon RPN:
No one can create jobs. Life doesn’t work that way. Our economy would be threatened by an over large workforce for the simple reason that people don’t produce anything. Most everybody is a consumer. Some Americans are prosperous, the rest are parasites.
The solution is to eliminate compulsion education, a merciless leveling force which tolerates no deviance and produces uniform consumers. That would hurt quite a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Limbaugh’s remarks just go to show that, like many conservatives on this blog, he cares more about his own ideology than the good of his country.
Could there be a more unpatriotic and anti-American sentiment than to want your country’s leader to fail?
Report comment to moderator
No we want his protectionsist Marxist and socialist ideas to fail. This country was founded on free market campitalism. As an American you must oppose the evil from within. By definition, if you support Obama’s economic and governemtal ideas – you are anti American despite your claime otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
“they don’t want the USA to fail…simply Obama.”
That’s just stupid – if the President’s policies fail, so does the country. It’s like saying you want the US to fail so the US doesn’t fail. You’re talking nonsense (as usual)
Report comment to moderator
#77 Llama proves my point with his usual algorithm
1. label the other party marxist
2. say marxism is evil and unamerican
3. pretend you’re actually for the country, when you’re really only for yourself.
The “evil” is “within” you, llama…
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t support Bush’s economic policies (or much else of his), but I certainly didn’t want them to fail – especially not on the scale they have!
Report comment to moderator
Talk show host Al Franken is the true leader of the Democrat Party. President Obama does just about everything Al Franken says and they think almost exactly alike, politically.
Report comment to moderator
We all agree that the president’s policies can have an enormous impact on the economy, which would include jobs created, or else we wouldn’t be posting so actively in this very thread.
The average number of jobs created per year, over the 8 years of the Bush presidency, seems a fair way to measure his economic performance. I’d agree that measuring the jobs created or lost in the first six weeks of a president’s term (”counting Obama’s job losses based on the housing bubble”) is too hasty, but if Obama’s economic platform cannot create jobs over his four or eight years in office, then it is a failure.
I also note that Bush supporters seem to have a lot of “explaining away” to do. He turned a budget surplus into a record deficit? Well, we had the war and Katrina and 9/11. His economic policies created an environment that saw the smallest job growth by far since we began measuring that stuff? That’s a “crappy reference.”
Obama’s stated goal is to create jobs and unfreeze markets. If he fails at that, by definition jobs are not created and markets remain frozen. So it sure sounds like many conservatives, in order to see their market theories validated, would not mind seeing jobs lost and markets frozen.
The concerned pragmatist would say, “I don’t think Obama’s Keynesian economics will work. In fact, I think they’ll make things worse. But for the sake of our country, I really hope they do work. I hope they create jobs and get the economy moving again. I just don’t think they will.”
That’s not what I’m hearing from Rush or the conservatives on this thread.
How about a course on snide nastiness? You seem to have that down pretty well.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza wrote; “Could there be a more unpatriotic and anti-American sentiment than to want your country’s leader to fail?”
Yes, there could. It would be more unpatriotic and unAmerican to actually say (like the Democrat leader of the senate) to in public that that the war (in Iraq) was lost even while our boy’s boots were still on the ground seeking victory and making gains.
And if your country’s leader was saying and doing the very things you believe will most hurt the country you love, it would be unpatriotic and unAmerican to silently and sheepishly follow him and hope he succeeds. That goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.
Report comment to moderator
#82, JJF wrote; “Obama’s stated goal is to create jobs and unfreeze markets.”
So? That’s nothing but TALK. Anyone can state well-intentioned goals. Most communist and fascist dictators in history came to power stating nice-sounding “goals.”
The trick is to come up with solid goals rooted in our Founding principles as a nation and confirmed by history and reason to have a good chance of being achieved with time-tested strategies in place.
If Obama fails to create constructive jobs in the private sector, I will not be pleased. But his talk has little to do with his policies. President Obama is actually capable of saying he does NOT believe in big government in the SAME EXACT speech that he is proposing the most humongus increase in the power and spending and size of governemtn in our history, by far. The key is to completely forget what Obama states and analyze what he does.
But I think Obama’s success will spell far fewer jobs and prosperity for working people. It will spell high inflation in coming years. That’s why I hope he fails. Having listened to Obama, it is my love of America and my desire for her to prosper that makes me want Obama’s policies to fail. I know and love our history and our Founding principles. How could I want anything else?
All that matters in the end is that America succeeds and moves forward without essentially changing who she is, fundamentally. What happens to Obama’s goals is of far less interest to me, except that I do think that the more his policies are held back, the better it will be for the America I love.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, JJF-
We’re clearly dealing with the lunatic fringe of extremism here, and they’re so wedded to the ideology and personality of their favorite entertainer that they would rather see the country fail. Fortunately they are a small minority, and for good reason. Their policies don’t reflect reality.
Report comment to moderator
I agree here. I am glad of your dissent, actually. I still think the Republican party as a whole (excluding a few like Ron Paul) is enormously hypocritical and playing a cynical political game, but I would not be comfortable with Obama enjoying unanimous support.
Still, your dissent should be phrased better than “we hope you fail!”
Spinoza (#79):
I’ve noted before that for people who claim to “love America,” some posters sure have little good to say about its people or its culture. I think “I love America” is an entirely elastic and circular sort of statement. It means only “I love the things I love about America.” Witness Llama extolling his patriotic love of country at the same time blasting the supposed stupidity or ill intentions of 75% of its citizens.
Report comment to moderator
#80 Sinoza,
Te left took over the economy of the USA in November 2006. All the failures collapses and failed bailouts have been on the Democratic congresses watch. Mortgages, housing, banks, credit, autos, stocks retirement every one of them was caused and happened on the democrats watch. Leave Bush out of it. President’s have no control over the economy or the congress that does.
Quit blaming the innocent Bush. He is just one man. Sorry, you sound just like a socialist and are probably anti American by definition. Hope it hurts
Report comment to moderator
Basically you’ve got a bunch of conservatives, Christians, and Republicans standing on the sidelines chanting “Burn, baby, burn!” in regards to America. They so loath President Obama that they would rather see America burn to the ground than for him to succeed.
I know it’s sad to see your own countrymen praying and chanting for the country to fail. But alas, that has become the defining characteristic of the conservative movement in America.
Report comment to moderator
“Te left took over the economy of the USA in November 2006.”
You are lying, Llama.
Report comment to moderator
I do hope Obama’s immoral policies and his globalist/socialist policies fail.
I also hope God changes his heart and that he becomes a follower of Christ. I could enthusiastically support him if he stopped warring against what I hold dear. (Religious freedom, high value for all human life, economic freedom, parental rights, and private property rights, for starters.)
By propping up entitlements and growing an already big gov’t even bigger, Obama is planting seeds of destruction, not recovery. Look at LBJ’s “War on Poverty”. An abject failure. Whole communities of Americans have abandoned personal responsibility, and now we have a generational attitude that dismisses fathers and replaces them with gov’t.
I do hope that Obama’s personal faithfulness to his wife and his dedication to his children is perpetuated in other families. I can say that I hope his call to fathers to step up succeeds wildly.
Report comment to moderator
Ideological rigidity in economic policy is normally a leftist problem but in the last 10-15 years the right has fore sworn pragmatism and become ideologues. In this way, the only real Marxists are the right. The left has become more accepting of a pragmatic course.
Despite the contortions of the right and the conservative commentators here, they have become reverse caricatures of what they perceived of Bush’s opponents.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, if Obama fails, the fall-out isn’t going to be limited to Obama and his advisors. The whole country – indeed the whole world – will suffer. For conservative Christians to think they are going to somehow escape the resulting fall-out if President Obama fails is the height of delusion and folly. When they are without a job, without a home, and their children are begging for food, we’ll see if it was worth it to destroy the country to score a political point. How stupid and shortsighted it is to pray for Obama to fail when it will bring certain calamity on you and your own family. Only a diehard ideologue could be that dumb.
Report comment to moderator
#91, HRW wrote; “The left has become more accepting of a pragmatic course.”
Actually, the left is simple still far too accepting of an enormously huge government as the solution course.
Report comment to moderator
Big government greed does not bode well for any country in the long run.
Report comment to moderator
#92 Anlir, I think the picture you paint will be more likely to happen if Obama’s POLICIES succeed. If his POLICIES are thwarted (IE fail), then perhaps we can avoid the calamity you describe.
In this sense, you’re right: as Americans, we will rise or fall together.
We have a disagreement–a fundamental, deep, principle-based disagreement–on what will bring recovery or ruin.
I guess we’re in for a huge experiment…although the big gov’t model as implemented in other countries has left those economies in bad shape.
All this centralization puts our eggs in one bloated basket. Better to have lots of solutions percolating in lots of places than to gamble it all on one top-heavy bureacracy.
Report comment to moderator
I keep hearing this “big government has failed in every country where it’s tried” argument. Can someone back this up for me? I look up the countries with the highest standards of living, and I get 10 countries you would undoubtedly describe as “socialist”:
Iceland recently suffered a devastating currency collapse, largely due to its over-investment in the American dollar. But I just don’t see the evidence backing up your assertion here.
Report comment to moderator
I keep hearing this “big government has failed in every country where it’s tried” argument. Can someone back this up for me? I look up the countries with the highest standards of living, and I get 10 countries you would undoubtedly describe as “socialist”:
Iceland recently suffered a devastating currency collapse, largely due to its over-investment in the American dollar. But I just don’t see the evidence backing up your assertion here.
(odd, my post didn’t go through the first time. I’ll try it without the link)
Report comment to moderator
Here’s my advice:
What ever you all are drinking (Drill, Llama, Joel and others), I’d put it down. It’s expiration date has come and gone.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, conservative financial policy has long been hell-bent on bankrupting the American government so they can do away with Social Security, Medicare, etc. So I’m not surprised that they want to keep us on the same path to destruction that Bush had us on for the last 8 years. The combination of tax cuts and deficit spending over the last 8 years was on the verge of creating the “perfect storm” for conservatives. Now they’re furious that Obama is trying to save the country from financial ruin because it will foil their agenda.
Report comment to moderator
#93 & 94
Big gov’t is a bogeyman the right loves to imitate. Under Bush, gov’t expanded. As JJF illustrates a well run gov’t benefits the populace. Its not the size of the gov’t but the managerial expertise of those in charge.
99
Anlir read the Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank you’ve pretty much summed up his thesis.
Report comment to moderator
“Democrats” never said that. The only person who said that was Michelle Obama, and she didn’t mean it as starkly as it sounded, although I understand it comes across that way.”
“But nobody else said that, Duffy. ”
Not to belabor a point SteveG but I heard it on talk radio countless times from multiple sources. Michelle Obama was just the most visible example
Report comment to moderator
“big government has failed in every country where it’s tried”
This sounds like classic Rush Limbaugh BS. The facts don’t back him up, but that’s not a problem for his worshipers.
Report comment to moderator
Hey! Look who’s back!
Report comment to moderator
#96,
Unemployment is much higher in socialist countries. Always have been. Prosperity is diminished. But culture still impacts a country more that politics or political ideology. Many Western countries who now lean toward socialism have been diminished but not destroyed because they still have roots in a Western culture that was generally Christian and included a work ethic and still respects some measure of liberty and the rule of law.
But socialism has and will hurt them and this will continue over time. And lines for government help will just slowly keep getting longer. The most prosperous and vibrant countries are more free and democratic (small ‘d’) and less socialistic.
Report comment to moderator
As the USA leans toward socialism, we are seeing her properity and vibrancy diminish too.
Report comment to moderator
The bottom line is that America’s economy is in serious trouble. Even if you think Obama’s proposed solutions are mistaken, if he fails, the consequences are going to be serious and long-lasting.
If you are rooting for Obama to fail, you are rooting for America to fail, and are far more deserving of the “traitor” sobriquet than any liberal against the Iraq war ever was.
Report comment to moderator
“We all agree that the president’s policies can have an enormous impact on the economy, which would include jobs created, or else we wouldn’t be posting so actively in this very thread.
The average number of jobs created per year, over the 8 years of the Bush presidency, seems a fair way to measure his economic performance. I’d agree that measuring the jobs created or lost in the first six weeks of a president’s term (”counting Obama’s job losses based on the housing bubble”) is too hasty, but if Obama’s economic platform cannot create jobs over his four or eight years in office, then it is a failure.”
I’m not saying they dont have an impact at all. I’m saying the referenced table is a poor example from which to attempt to draw such defined conclusions. It is not the only factor for economic judgement and it looks solely at numbers without any regard for circumstances, Congressional affects, military, or previous presidential policies.
“Obama’s stated goal is to create jobs and unfreeze markets. If he fails at that, by definition jobs are not created and markets remain frozen. So it sure sounds like many conservatives, in order to see their market theories validated, would not mind seeing jobs lost and markets frozen. ”
Stated goals are no different than anyone elses. What is under question is HOW to achieve those goals. Not the goals themselves, but the means to that end. Most conservatives do not foresee Obama’s means (policies) as any lasting long term growth, if even any short term. Most hold that if Obama’s policies are carried out…we will not reach those goals but will go the opposite direction. More jobs will be lost, the market will continue to descend.
So your definition is invalid. Jobs and market are not determined by the goals themselves. They are determined by the means to that end which is what we are debating here. Conservatives want Obama to fail at these policies because they will not help the USA. Liberals believe his policies are the only answer to helping the USA, so he must succeed for the USA to get better. It’s a simple difference of opinion and neither want the USA to crash and burn. I’m not stating what you “sound like”…
“The concerned pragmatist would say, “I don’t think Obama’s Keynesian economics will work. In fact, I think they’ll make things worse. But for the sake of our country, I really hope they do work. I hope they create jobs and get the economy moving again. I just don’t think they will.””
But for the sake of the country we hope that Obama changes his policies because we believe they wont help at all and could easily make things worse…
Take a battle for instance. Say two generals have differing opinions on how to strike the enemy. One wants to flank, one wants to head on charge. Depending on many factors, like terrain, tactical advantages, opposing armies composition etc. one of these tactics will work, and one will not. One brings victory and the other defeat. Just “doing something” is better than nothing may be true, but only if that something is the right tactic. Both generals want to win, but the wrong policy choice here can bring defeat.
“That’s not what I’m hearing from Rush or the conservatives on this thread.”
Because if the current Obama policy is the chosen tactic it will result in a resounding defeat. So yes, pick a new tactic, this wont work (BUSH tried some of it already). And by failure…we simply mean that the policies enacted will have no effect, becasue a draw is the best you can hope for at this point. His policies are like running through a blizzard blind and naked.
“How about a course on snide nastiness? You seem to have that down pretty well. ”
How about you stop assuming and insuating what it “sounds like” to you? How about you find me one place where anybody on this thread has said they want the USA to fail?????????????
Nobody has. And to say they are saying it, without any quoted reference is simply lying.
Report comment to moderator
Sweden has one of the largest suicide rates per capita. Most people are apathetic and hollow thanks toa government that has largely made working a non point. It’s vanity if a man works and he can not enjoy his due wage. They also only have about what 8 million people in the country? I wonder what their economy looks like without the IKEA guy.
Report comment to moderator
“The bottom line is that America’s economy is in serious trouble. Even if you think Obama’s proposed solutions are mistaken, if he fails, the consequences are going to be serious and long-lasting.
If you are rooting for Obama to fail, you are rooting for America to fail, and are far more deserving of the “traitor” sobriquet than any liberal against the Iraq war ever was.”
Maybe its better said that the difference here is that enacted Obama policies will make the American economy WORSE. I’d rather them fail at making things worse, which means you need new policies…because these policies are not going to help.
Common sense tells us that taking from those who produce and giving to those who do not, along with attempting to borrow your way out of debt…NEVER works.
Neither liberal or conservative here wants the USA to fail. As we saw with our own Republican party…spending endlessly is no way to help us. I’m saying Bush made plenty of mistakes..we are in it because of some of those, especially his spending policies and bailouts…so its very easy to shout to Obama that the same policy is obviously not going to work…I dont know why you liberals insist on using the same worn out abused never works policy. Unfortunately Bush didnt fail at his spending policy and this is where it helped get us…I wish he had failed and actually vetoed some crap spending.
Report comment to moderator
If only you liberals could hear yourselves. Coming from my point of view I find it much easier to forgive conservative foaming at the mouth but it genuinely seems to be far more rare on this post.
I don’t think Obama has a chance. I hope he’ll succeed anyway. I admit it. I’m afraid of failure and pain.
The conservatives on this post have consistently claimed that Obama’s policies amount to socialism and enslavement. Surely you can understand how they would rather be free and poor than wealthy and servants without releasing puddles of vitriolic drool?
Report comment to moderator
Common sense tells us that taking from those who produce and giving to those who do not, along with attempting to borrow your way out of debt…NEVER works.
Well no it doesn’t, but that description is not of the plan in place. That’s a caricature worthy of O’Reilly.
All the cries of “socialism” and so on are just fear being whipped up for cynical political reasons. The plan is more American-liberal than conservatives like, but Marx and Lenin would laugh in your face if you told them it was “socialism.”
Until the government gets into the business of owning the means of production and hiring managers as government employees, we’re not anywhere close to socialism. To constantly throw that word around — as conservatives did with “treason” a few years ago — both makes the word so broad as to be meaningless and demonizes people with whom you disagree.
Which, really, is a tactic that the right has embraced lately. When you can’t win on ideas, start hurling the inflammatory rhetoric and trying to arouse fear and suspcion of your political opponents.
Report comment to moderator
I like your analogy. Each general believes his tactic will bring success and the other’s will bring failure. Both generals want their side to win, but they have a sincere and stark difference of opinion regarding tactics.
But once a tactic has been decided upon, once one general’s plan has been chosen over the other’s, once the men are lining up and the charge is being sounded, can you imagine the other general looking over to his ally about to lead the troops into battle and saying,
“I hope you fail!”
Of course not! That would be hoping for the death of his own men, the loss of his own side, the victory of his enemies, all to prove that his plan would have been the better one.
I think your analogy makes a very good case for the strong reaction everyone from liberals to sensible conservatives (including Joel Belz on this site, rising GOP star Eric Cantor, chairman of the RNC Michael Steele) have against this “I hope he fails” sentiment.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, the CIA World Factbook puts the U.S. at #91 for lowest unemployment rate. Look who’s ahead of us: Sweden, Finland, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland… all those “socialist” countries that make the Top 10 in Standard of Living chart I posted in #96
It sounds like you have an unfalsifiable, and therefore irrational, belief. These “socialist” countries have higher standards of living, longer lifespans, greater reported happiness, and lower unemployment than the “free” U.S.? It’s because of their Christian past. In other words, if they’d just be “free” like us things would be that much better in those countries.
But you have no proof of that, and no reason to believe it other than your blind allegiance to the idea that Our Way is The Best Way.
Report comment to moderator
JJF is going to make poor Joel’s head explode if he insists on introducing facts into the discussion.
Unfortunately, linked to list is somewhat outdated. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of un-employed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points. (See table A-1.)
This moves us down the list to #99 at best; below Botswana, Bolivia, France, and Chile.
Report comment to moderator
Cross referenced the list in 97 with the CIA’s information linked in 113:
Unemployment Rates:
1. Iceland – 1.6%
2. Norway – 2.5%
3. Australia – 4.5%
4. Canada – 6.1%
5. Ireland – 6.2%
6. Sweden – 6.2%
7. Switzerland – 2.6%
8. Japan – 4.2%
9. Netherlands – 4.6%
10.France 7.5%
Report comment to moderator
POP!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks a lot for using facts to end the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
None of those citations cover every single democrat in office or with a microphone.
next:
Leading Republican? I never said anything about that. Go look through the last 8 years of comments on this blog. Look at the ones where people comment on the war. It usually denigrates into, “being against the war is being a traitor.”
People just wanted to bring our troops home and that was traitorous of them to be concerned with our Military resources. In this thread people want us all to get financially hurt.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!