Apparently there is some sort of hubbub regarding a statement that Rush Limbaugh made.
That in itself isn't so surprising. Rush Limbaugh often makes statements that raise a ruckus. It's what he does, it's what he has been doing for the better part of a quarter century.
Being on vacation, I was on a self-imposed blackout because I wanted to enjoy my time off, so I missed the whole beginning of the spat. I did catch the
original statement, but the follow-up completely escaped my attention.
The upshot is that the Democratic Party is all butt-hurt about Limbaugh saying "I hope he (Obama) fails" and wants to steer the conversation in that direction. What they conveniently leave out, however, is what Limbaugh wants Obama to fail at.
Here, from the transcript, is what Rush hopes Obama fails at: "
Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." "
And now, conservative and neo-conservative pundits are busting Rush's chops for how he said what he said. They are falling for the Democrat's plans hook line and sinker, they are ignoring
what was said because of
how it was said. And any time you engage the enemy on ground of his choosing, you are at a disadvantage.
What Conservatives should do is say "You were upset over how he said what he said. Poor baby. Now let's talk about what he said instead of how he said it." And then we should force the conversation to stay on that topic, WHAT was said, not HOW it was said. So far all I see is EPIC FAIL.
I want Obama to fail also. I want Obama to fail at implementing his socialist policies. I want him to fail at socializing medicine. I want him to fail at nationalizing the banks and auto industry. I want him to fail at destroying the coal industry. I want him to fail at absorbing my 401K into the Socialist Security system. I want him to fail at any socialist policy that he brings up, because history has shown that socialism is a dismal failure everywhere it's been tried. Anyone who is truly a Conservative, or a Libertarian Conservative, should want the same thing.
Yes, I hear you talking about the socialism lite that pervades much of Europe. Let me ask you a simple question, if Europe had to provide for their own defense instead of relying on the US, how successful would their socialism lite be? If the US were to withdraw all military and foreign aid, how long would they last? Their socialism exists and works only because we, the USA, has enabled it. What happens when we become one of the takers instead of the giver? What happens when Atlas shrugs?
Limbaugh, Colter, Boortz and Hannity are entertainers. They do what they do for the specific purpose of selling more books and attracting a larger listening and (in Hannity's case) viewing audience to garner higher ratings. It's how they make their living, and they are good at it. That does not make them "spokespeople" for the Republican party, but the Republican party should keep in mind that they are not talking to themselves. They are not selling books to themselves. They are not appearing at functions all by themselves to speak to empty rooms. What they are doing is providing the voice of conservative America, and if you are campaigning to conservative America you should listen to what they are saying. But they are not the leaders of the Republican party.
The people that should concern you are the elected ones that wish to be our masters. They, not Rush, are the ones who pass the laws. They, not Colter, are the ones that (selectively) enforce those laws. They, not Hannity, are the ones who levy, collect, and spend taxes. They, not Boortz, are the ones that make the decisions that affect each and every one of us on a daily basis.
Let's get back on target.
UPDATE: I could have said it like
this guy, but this is a G rated blog. Mostly.
UPDATE II:
Patterico and some
others are missing the point entirely. Apparently they are engrossed in the
either/or option, the two options being either 1) Rush hopes Obama fails to get the policies enacted, but hopes the policies succeed if they are enacted or 2) Rush hopes Obama fails to get the policies enacted, and hopes the policies fail if they are enacted.
Here's option 3 cupcakes. Rush (and me, and
Gonz, and, going by the comments,
Annie and
BoBo, and - well, just about everyone that doesn't have his or her head up their own ass or who isn't furtively contemplating their own navels) hopes that Obama fails to get his policies enacted. Period. Full stop.
We hope he fails.
There is no "but if the policies are enacted he hopes that..." because if they do get passed it won't make a flying fornication at a rolling pastry what who hopes afterwards.
If the policies are enacted, they are GOING to fail, and fail BIG TIME, because that's what socialist policies do EVERY TIME there isn't someone with deep pockets to pay the bill. And America has no one left behind them to pay the bills.
Ergo, Options 1 and 2 are bullshit and not worth squabbling about.
Like I said before.
Back.
On.
Target.
UPDATE III: I just had to put up the picture of the Dem's new
billboard. I like it! Hat tip to the
Rott.