« Iraq Briefing - 23 February 2009 - Still A Third World Country | Main | Obama's Porkulus Package will Break the Bank »

February 26, 2009

Do I Want Obama to Succeed?

Do you want Obama to succeed?

This has become a test question for conservatives. The only correct answer, of course, is "yes." Heaven forbid you should answer otherwise. Rush Limbaugh said that "Obama failing is a victory for the America I've always known," a statement that has sent the left into a tizzy. There's even a page on the Democrat Congressional Committee's website, where you can "express your outrage about Rush's comments today."

I went to the site and entered my name, and what I wrote is similar to what I write below. What's funny, though, is that conservatives have raided the DCCC blog post on it and from what I can see 90% of the comments support Rush. Heh heh.

So do I want President Obama to succeed? Here's my response:

I want Obama to fail; fail to implement the specifics of his program.

This "do you want Obama to succeed" is one of the most dishonest questions I've ever heard. If Republicans answer "yes," then we'll be required to support each of his proposals, otherwise we'll be told "he can't succeed unless what he proposes is voted into law." If we say "no," we're accused of subverting the country.

So if you mean "succeed" in some vague, general sense of "make the economy better" or "keep us safe from terrorism" then yes, I want him to succeed.

But candidates don't run on vague generalities, they run on specifics. Obama has a whole list of specific proposals in the Agenda section of the White House website. I think that most of his specific proposals would be bad for the country, so I want him to fail to get them implemented into law.

If you really need specifics;

I want Obama to fail to confiscate the wealth of the producers in this country.

I want him to fail to set up a permanent Democrat majority through instituting government programs that create a need for funding year after year, and thus government employees, most all of whom will vote Democrat so as to keep their taxpayer funded jobs. This is why I opposed the so-called "stimulus" bill.

I want Obama to fail to radically transform our country into a French style dirigisme relationship between the government and the economy.

I want Obama to fail to get the so-called "assault weapons ban" through congress that his Attorney General announced today.

I want Obama to fail to get "comprehensive immigration reform" passed, which he says will "allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

I want Obama to fail to get the additional "hate crime" statutes passed that he wants. These laws are at best Orwellian and at worst ridiculously unconstutional.

I want Obama to fail to get any sort of government run universal coverage health care system passed.

I want Obama to fail to get his pro-abortion agenda passed into law.

I want Obama to fail to pressure Israel into giving up territory in a foolish "land for peace" deal.

I want Obama to fail to get the defense cuts through congress that I'm sure he will propose.

I want Obama to fail to "Create a Green Jobs Corps" or raise the minimum wage, or any of another hundred things.

In fact I want Obama to fail to impliment just about all of the proposals I see at the White House website.

So rather than go on, in closing I'll quote the great Rush Limbaugh as he response to a question to him by James Carville;

There's not going to be cooperation here, James. Why do I want this to work? Why do I want an attack on capitalism to succeed? Why should any of us want that? Why should anybody want a fundamental restructuring of the United States of America to succeed? What is so hard to understand about this? Let's say that you're a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers. They've just come back and scored the touchdown that puts them up four points with 15 seconds to go, and Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals drops back. You damn well better believe I wanted Warner to fail. I wanted Warner to screw it up. I wanted him to fumble. I wanted him to get tackled on his backside. The last thing I wanted was Warner to succeed in beating the Steelers. Now, what is so unusual about this?

When was the last time we ever heard the Democrats say, "Gosh, I hope Bush succeeds"? Do you realize what a straw dog this is? And here come a bunch of cowardly Republicans who know exactly what I said and know exactly what I mean, but because of the historical nature and the aura and the power of The One, "Oh, no, we can't... We can't... We gotta hope he succeeds." Do you realize what a hypocrite it makes all of you on our side, when you say you "hope he succeeds" means? Do you realize how your own voters hear that? What does both of my succeeding mean? Somebody tell me. Some of you on our side, I want to hear from you on the phones. If you can't find it within yourself that you hope he fails. Because, you see, Obama failing is a victory for the America I've always known, the America I grew up in.

Obama failing to socialize this country is success for the country. It's a victory for the country. Obama failing to confiscate the wealth of the achievers and the producers in this country, that's success. That's victory for America.

Ditto that.

Update

Well well, look what ace reporter Bill Sammon has unearthed:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Yup. James Carville wanted President George W. Bush to fail.

Make sure you read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom at February 26, 2009 8:30 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1296

Comments

You said it. None of us want the country to fail or our economy to falter. That's the main reason we want Obama to fail. His idiotic, naive and dangerous policies risk everything we hold dear.

Posted by: Mike's America Author Profile Page at February 27, 2009 12:02 AM

And here is why the Republican Party is a failure and hostage to the extreme right wing Tom. Because of statements like the one posted by Mike's America.

You gave an in depth and well thought out (not agreeing with much of it. I respect the effort you put into it) post about why you want Obama to fail.

Mike gave a simplistic, two sentence answer that was nothing more than calling President Obama a name. And people like Mike control the Republican Party and it's message. The child running for sixth grade class president uses the same startegy: Vote for me because the other kid is a nerd."

Tell me what is wrong with keeping assault weapons off the streets. Or what is wrong with sensible laws and regulations that protect the public from abusers like Madoff. I know you will give a reasoned answer Tom. I have zero doubt the Republican Party and those that are it's standard bearers will stick with the dumb it down and hope the public keeps not paying attention approach. Ala Mike.

Posted by: truth101 at February 28, 2009 3:52 PM

Thank you for stopping by, truth101. Normally I don't like or allow off-topic questions, but you are polite and seem like a nice fellow so I'll allow an exception.

Define "assault weapon," please.

If you mean "automatic shoulder-fired weapon" then they're already banned.

If you mean "scary looking semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapon" then I want them to stay absolutely legal.

I believe that a proper reading of the Second Amendment is that it allows individual ownership of firearms for self-defense. It's purpose was and is not limited to hunting. As such, we should be able to own pretty much any weapon we want.

Automatic weapons and those over .50 cal are banned for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they're beyond what one needs for self defense.

But as for "scary looking guns" it gets more complicated. For example, there is no technical or functional difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The difference between them is wholly cosmetic; the former looks military and the latter looks like a hunting rifle. So why ban the former, when you're doing so based on looks alone?

You may still ask "ok, so why do you need an AR-15. I'll give you three reasons.

First, my constitutional answer; it's none of your business.

Second, my personal answer; they're fun to own and shoot.

Third, my political answer; to make a political statement and annoy liberals.

From a constitutional standpoint, just as I don't need to justify why I want to write a letter to the editor, I don't need to justify why I want to own a particular type of gun.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at February 28, 2009 8:59 PM

I'm not arguing against the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens to own firearms for whatever reason they want. I support 2nd Amendment rights as well s you do Tom. I just think that law enforcement has a duty to protect the public by knowing that ONLY responsible, law abiding citizens own firearms. We have examples of people that shouldn't have arms getting them at gunshows with no background checks. That is stupid.
Concealed carry laws are on the books across the river from my state. In Illinois we're going through the process of establishing concealed carry. Those that want to carry will have to complete background checks and certain resting to see they are proficient and responsible enough to carry. That is smart.
I agree that it's not my business to know if or why you have guns Tom. It is my business to know that law enforcement has made sure that responsible people like you are the ones that have guns.

Posted by: truth101 at March 1, 2009 11:46 AM

Then it looks like we're in agreement 100%, Truth. I'm happy to see that not only do you see clearly on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians but on our Second Amendment as well.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at March 1, 2009 7:52 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)