Mar 9, 2009 5 Comments ›› Pat Dollard
Democrats Have No Right To Be Snooty About Rush Not Wanting the President to Succeed
“Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?” – Rush Limbaugh
I think we all know the answer to that â€” but hereâ€™s some hard proof. Reader jimboster passes along a 2006 poll (.pdf) that proves the point. Check out question 10 â€” and pay particular attention to how the answers break down by party:
Recall that in August 2006, we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain. And Democrats didnâ€™t want Bush to succeed.
[ ... ]
Me: This was also post-Katrina, mid-terms when republicans lost control in Congress, and Pres. Bush ‘dismissed’ Donald Rumsfeld. It was the climax of the BDS in the country and in the media most importantly, who drive public opinion trends. The more they could report on war casualties, and hype-up ridiculous “Bush Admin. war crimes” bull, and not cover accomplishments in Iraq or a relatively decent economy and high employment rate. Instead, it was the media’s duty to talk down the economy and claim our military/troops had lost the Iraq War … WITH the backing echoes of idiots like Reid, Kennedy, and the lot.
Now, Limbaugh’s remarks of , “I hope he (Obama) fails” was NOT a personal ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) chant. It was that of a patriotic, Constitutional conservative who sees the downfall of this country and our system of government coming down the track like that big ‘Red Train’ in Doctor Zhivago. Rush’s simple statement was a real ‘hope’ for the salvation and preservation of this country as what the Founding Fathers had intended it to be. The fact that Limbaugh and others are still driven to justify and explain the statement is ridiculous … if you place it side by side with the hopes for Pres. Bush’s failure (and by that the failure of our military) in a war where our troops were paying for that ‘hope for failure’ with their very lives and limbs and minds. The blood is on their hands, and this country’s current nose-dive is in the hands of Obama and the democrats in the Congress who want to ‘change’ America into the USSA. So, in that case ‘failure’ IS an option … can and should be argued. Not that one man with a big voice said it.
[ ... ]
Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. Itâ€™s proof that the Democrats didnâ€™t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.
Now, in a way, this question is meaningless â€” because wanting a President to â€œsucceedâ€ (or â€œfailâ€) is such a vague concept that it can be infused with several meanings.
But thatâ€™s part of the point. Limbaugh might not have been crystal clear about the details of what he meant â€” but it certainly wasnâ€™t an anti-American sentiment. He clearly wanted what was best for America in the long run. His definition of success was every bit as clear as the definition in the poll.
So if itâ€™s supposedly evil for him to say he wants Obama to fail, why was it OK for Democrats to say they didnâ€™t want Bush to succeed?
Donâ€™t let the Democrats take the moral high ground on this. Even as we perfect our message, itâ€™s vitally important to fight back against those who would distort it.
A 2007 poll shows the same results:
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Overall: 63% Yes … 22% No … 15% Donâ€™t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes … 34% No … 15% Donâ€™t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes … 11% No … 10% Donâ€™t Know
Independents: 63% Yes … 19% No … 17% Donâ€™t Know
Me: Not that we know how Obama would have ‘polled’ on this over the last eight years (pre-senate and senate term) … I mean, a person just wouldn’t be able to tell given his non-votes and both primary and general campaign remarks …