The essence of Rush's message is here:
Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. 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. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.
Once again, Limbaugh is clearly saying he wants the radical Obama agenda to fail, and I certainly do, too. To the extent he is not radical, I'm sure Rush will support him, as will ever conservative, I would imagine.
The best outcome would be if, at the end of four years, Obama has not destroyed the anti-terror infrastructure Bush has put in place over the last 8 years. Whether the economy gets better will have little to do with Obama (it being a cycle, which presidents don't have much to do with). I would hate like hell for Obama to get radical on the wars, but at this point it appears he'll maintain the Bush agenda on them. |
