I do hate to say this, because I've never been a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. He's always seemed kind of pompous and loud to me. That's a personal impression, not me lambasting him. Nonetheless, I have to admit that I agree with him. He recently said "I hope he fails". If this were all he said, I'd be in agreement with just about everyone else that Rush had crossed the line. Obama is our President and we need to support the office, unlike anyone in the last 8 years. That doesn't mean I sit back and smile like a lemming in Congress for Obama or even for Bush, but it also means that I don't go out and intentionally demean the man. There were a lot of things Bush did that I didn't agree with. There were a few I did agree with as well and I bet an honest appraisal of people would discover that is true for an overwhelming majority, whether they liked him or not. The whole "anybody but Bush" mantra in 2004 resulted in a washy liberal campaign that turned so many people off that it resulted in another Bush victory (yes he won in 2000 too, get over it). But, insulting Bush at every turn became the mantra for victory in 2008. This was disgusting and turned me away from the Democratic party (for which I had almost always voted previously). Not because I liked Bush, I don't, nor because I liked his policies, I didn't a lot of the time, but because they were attacking the man on a personal level (which I expect from comedians, not politicians and the media) not on a political one. I expect people to disagree politically and to espouse their disapproval of policies, but somehow, Bush wasn't just someone we disagreed with, he was the devil incarnate. Perhaps that is why the Democrats used a "messianic" campaign to win this time. This also turned me off even more to the Democrats, but that's a different story. So, why do I agree with Rush here and now? Isn't he attacking Obama personally, like all the Democrats did to Bush? Well, I'd agree that is true if all I knew about what he said was "I hope he fails". However, unlike the majority of Americans who listen to the news and expect to receive truth by osmosis rather than actually looking for it, I went and read the transcript of the show. See, I like to know the truth. Here is the quote from the transcript:
Look, what he's (Obama) 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."
So, he is not actually attacking Obama personally. He is clearly saying that he thinks the guys policies are wrong and that he doesn't want them (the policies) to succeed. This is a perfect example of how the news becomes distorted, because by removing only the I hope he fails comment, this sounds awful, truly awful. But it really isn't, is it. It continues on:
We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are.
So no, he isn't bashing Obama personally, he is making a statement about his policies and liberalism in general. Nothing wrong with this, so get over it people. This is actually tame in comparison with what Democrats did and said in regards to Bush, so I find the double standard amusing and perhaps downright scary. Nonetheless, don't take my word for what the transcript says, go here and read it for yourself and then decide for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment