![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Think Before You Speak
From South Florida Daily Blog dated March 2:
So when Republicans get in line behind a drug addict like Limbaugh and state that they want Obama to fail, what they are saying, folks, in effect, is that they want Obama's measures to rescue America to fail. They don't want his policies to be effective and they don't want any of the aforementioned to happen under Obama's leadership. Why? Quite simply, they desire this failure so they they can regain power in 2010 and 2012.From FOX via Say Anything Blog:
These same Republicans will try to justify their position by claiming that Democrats wanted Bush to fail. Well, no. Many Democrats disagreed with Bush on issues of the war, torture, the way he handled Katrina, and, quite frankly, the list was endless. But did we want him to fail? Did we want more American soldiers killed in Iraq? Did we want the people of New Orleans to hurt any more than they already had? Did we really want America to suffer so that in 2008 a Democrat would be elected as President? Of course not. Oh, you might find someone at Democratic Underground who expressed such feelings in the comments of a post there, but there was never a party spokesman or leader who ever uttered such words (ed. emphasis mine) let alone broadcast them for the world to hear.
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." (ed. emphasis mine)
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
Nope. Not a word. Ever. And definitely no retraction or correction on the part of SFDB.
posted by Robert at 10:17 PM
26 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert: Are you serious? Really? Almost 8 full years after this supposedly happened, Fox News, of all people, is now reporting that Carville said something that, up until now, went unreported....by anyone?
What great memories these Fox News people have, right? It's amazing what they remember when their leader comes under attack.
I'll be waiting to hear what James Carville's response is to this latest revelation that apparently came to Fox News after a week of criticism of Rush by everyone in the world...except Limbaugh Republicans like yourself.
Hey, Daily Kos is reporting that back in March of 2001, Bush is quoted as saying, "I know Iraq doesn't have WMD's, but I'm going to lie to the American people and tell them that it does. Dick, you with me?"
That's going to be my next post!!!
.
Robert: Are you serious? Really? Almost 8 full years after this supposedly happened, Fox News, of all people, is now reporting that Carville said something that, up until now, went unreported....by anyone?
Of course, not. Rick. How can I be serious about this? After all, it's FOX News reporting this, not a credible and unbiased outfit like CNN, NBC or CBS.
All sarcasm aside, let me get this straight: in your post you mention Katrina which occurred in 2005, the Bush presidency, Iraq, and how not a single Democrat operative ever expressed a desire for Bush to fail. Yet you make light of my comeback on the basis that it occurred 8 years ago and reported by a news agency you don't like because they're not on your side of the ideological fence? Whatever. And yes, "many of you" did want Bush to fail, and worse, put him in jail.
On a slight side note: I'm not Rush Limbaugh's #1 fan (don't dislike him either), but why constantly bring up his battle with drug addiction, as if it somehow reflects poorly on the millions and millions of regular folks that listen to his program. Are you perfect? Do you know someone who's struggled with drug and/or substance abuse? I thought you progressives were supposed to be tolerant.
Here's the thing; in 8 years, no one has publicized these statements that Carville allegedly made. And what do we get? Nothing substantial: we're not given a location, or the circumstances, or one shred of supporting evidence that he made the remarks. But let's say he did; the same source reports that he retracted those comments moments later.
As for beating Rush over the head about his addiction: it's not because he's an addict, it's because that while he was an addict, he vehemently denounced addicts as sleazebags who should be tossed in prison, and insulted those who sought to treat addiction like a disease. We bring up Rush's addiction because we want everyone to recognize that he's a lying hypocrite.
C.L.J.,
Carville only retracted after the attacks of 9-11 occurred later that morning. Perhaps that's also why the media "forgot" about his comments. The comments were made at a breakfast meeting in DC.
Regarding Limbaugh, it just shows that he's a fallible human being just like everyone else. His main beef with addicts has always been for hard users who don't fess up to their problem and seek treatment, continue to use, and are convicted. I listen to him occasionally (perhaps you do too), so I should know.
If you and liberal Rush-bashers out there want to rip him apart and call him a hypocrite for something he admitted to and eventually settled with the court on 5 years ago, fine...you have a point. But, five years later, your continued focus on this aspect of Rush Limbaugh, something he openly dealt with and eventually conquered, just shows how shallow and intolerant the "progressive" movement in America really is.
Robert, you get more mileage arguing with an iguana than you do with leftists. Don't bother. God almighty could come down and tell them their wrong, and the liberal will answer, "I don't believe in you, F U."
About the only thing they can give a good argument from them is where is the best coffee shot in Amsterdam to get toasted.
I know...I know. But it's still fun to see them fall all over themselves when presented with an opposing argument.
This is like watching children fight. Teacher, he hit me. No he hit me first! Geez.
What Rush said was wrong. Hoping the president, and by extension this country, fails is wrong. Why would you want the country you love so much to do poorly?
What Carville said, whether 8 years ago or 80, whether reported or not, was wrong. I say again, you should not hope this country to fail. Chances are Rush did not say what he did because Carville said it first, but even if he had it does not make it right.
If you agree with him that you hope this country fails, then you need to rethink how much you love this country.
It's ok to agree with a particular group (Republican or Democrat) but if you are unable to make your own decisions without looking to party "leaders" to see if your thoughts are in line with theirs then you have issues. Its ok to buck the trend, to disagree with those in charge. Its normal and its a premise which this country was based on. /rant
It's so rare that a right-winger ever offers an actual counter-argument that you've never actually seen how a liberal reacts to one.
Typical of the breed, Rush didn't admit his problem with drugs until he had been caught. And then he never did say "I was wrong to lambast all my fellow junkies over the years."
As for Carville's statements: "a breakfast meeting in D.C.?" That's your "substantiation?" I want to know where it was held and who else is there, so we can ask other people what he said. THAT's corroboration, not "he as at breakfast, and there might have been people there."
And again, the same source that reports his comments also reports that he retracted them moments later. Rush hasn't retracted anything.
Allen,
The context in which Rush made his remark could be taken to mean that wants Obama's socialist-like policies to fail for the good of our country. You can take to mean anything you want, and obviously both sides disagree on how the president's policies will indeed impact us in the long term.
Heck, even Newt Gingrich had issues with Rush's statement.
The whole point of this post was to illustrate how neither side is clean here, despite what Rick thinks. Thanks for your comment.
It's so rare that a right-winger ever offers an actual counter-argument that you've never actually seen how a liberal reacts to one.
Riiiiight. Sr Cohiba's point couldn't have been better supported by your remark above.
Robert,
This quote from Carville needs to be seen in context. Larger portions of the transcript are now available. Readers should take the time to read it, and distinguish the differences between Carville's and Limbaugh's comments.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/revealed-what-james-carville-really-said-on-911-about-wanting-bush-to-fail/
Also, audio of Carville's comments are available here:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/11/limbaugh-versus-carville-on-hoping-presidents-fail/
MW,
I read the transcription from the blog piece. Thanks for providing it.
The only conclusion I can draw from it is that Carville is exactly what he's always appeared to be - a career DC political hack. Even if his feelings were exclusively political and not personal, that's exactly the kind of mindset that has poisoned DC. Rush isn't a politician, and he has millions of listeners. There's a big difference.
MW- thanks for providing corroboration AND context. We should have access to the material, so we know what was actually said.
Robert, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Carville was anything but a career political hack. They usually don't have millions of listeners acting on their stated beliefs. It appears to me that this only makes Rush look worse, not better.
I think we agree that the atmosphere in DC has become toxically partisan; I happen to think it's worse on the GOP side, but I am willing to admit that it can be found on both sides of the aisle. I also feel that the only solution is meeting in the middle, not forcing one side or the other to capitulate.
Robert: I'm going to spend some time sorting out my thoughts about this and perhaps post something on Monday, if not before.
But let me make clear that, yeah, just like you guys take the entire mainstream media to task because they're "liberal," except when they're not and then you quote them, I am dubious of what Fox News reports. And you can put NewsMax in the same pile. They have demonstrated a bias on numerous occasions so when a quote surfaces 8 years after it was allegedly said and NOT reported, I sort of wonder. Just as you would if the Times or Post reported something similar. It works both ways, Robert, and for you to act otherwise is disingenuous.
.
Rick,
Fox, whether you like them or not, isn't exactly the type of news outfit that's going to make something up merely to justify some alleged ideology they're trying to promote. They're not a top rated cable news network for nothing. If you don't like the angle they take, that's another story, but discrediting them as something akin to a National Enquirer isn't exactly the smart thing to do. Now that we know that Carville actually made those statements (for those of you that had doubts) it makes you wonder why CNN and other outlets never reported it.
Well, one reason is because he immediately retracted it, something the bombastic Limbaugh hasn't come close to doing and won't ever do. But come to think of it, did any Republicans mention it, Robert? Did anyone take issue with it? No. Because he retracted it and it was made in a context different from Limbaugh's statement.
Neither NewsMax nor Fox makes things up that I know of, Robert, but they certainly mold and frame the story in a light that reeks of conservatism which these days equates to anti-liberalism.
.
Rick, don't you think what happened minutes after Carville made his comment had something to do with the retraction? That should be obvious. Other than that, the context was very similar to Rush's, IMO.
they certainly mold and frame the story in a light that reeks of conservatism which these days equates to anti-liberalism.
Rick, and the MSM does exactly the same thing just substitute "conservatism" for liberalism and "anti-liberalism" for conservatism. In particular, MSNBC/NBC.
It's all in the eyes and philosophy of the beholder.
LV: Which is exactly what I was saying when Robert questioned my distrust of Fox News.
Robert: If you believe the reporting, of course it did, because no one in their right mind wants their President to fail against something that is as ominous as OBL or an economy the likes we haven't seen since the Great Depression.
No one, of except, Limbaugh Republicans.
That is what we're talking about here, after all, isn't it? Or is it merely all about coming to the defense of a fellow ideologue?
BTW, I'm still waiting for the post where you distance yourself from anything that Rush has said in the past few weeks.
.
Rick, put a sock in it, please. Your progressive outrage is duly noted. BTW, are you one of the "Obama butt-boys" Rush talks about in his show?
OK Rick, I'll satisfy you this one time. I had no problem whatsoever with his "I hope he fails" remark for the same reason Jonathan stated in his post. I did NOT agree with Rush when he said that the GOP shouldn't have to reach out to minorities. Funny you ask, since I've already stated my positions on these remarks in past posts/comments. I don't listen to his show much, so I don't know what other things he's said that you'd like me to comment on.
Having said that, I won't bother any more with this since it really doesn't matter what I say or don't say, you're going to totally distorted the message anyways.
So when Bush tortures in the course of waging a war, I am perfectly okay, by your reasoning, to want Bush to lose the war? For more Americans to die? For additional monies to be spent in a losing effort? Because, after all, I disagree with torture and I want Bush to fail.
You see how ridiculously wrong Jonathan, you, Rush, and other Limbaugh Republicans are, Robert?
You want the steps that our President is taking to help fellow Americans and right our economy to fail. If he doesn't succeed, Robert, who loses? And you're actually hoping for that outcome?
Amazing.
.
I don't recall ever accusing you of wanting to lose the war, so your comparison is faulty. Obama's policies are what we want to fail, to go down in flames, so to speak. If the guy doesn't realize by now that more and more Americans each day aren't buying his economic plan, it's because in the long run we're going to be worse off. It won't help Americans. Supporing Obama's economic policies are supporting longer hardships for many. The sooner it fails and something better can take it's place, the better. If and when Obama realizes this and decides to change course (perhaps in 2010 when people are fed up with the Democrats in power), then we'd be willing to jump on board.
You want the steps that our President is taking to help fellow Americans and right our economy to fail.
I want him to stop implementing these steps because they are not going to right our economy. How do I know they won't right our economy? Because similar measures that have been tried in the past, here and in other countries, didn't work but instead prolonged the economic problems they were intended to remedy. I am not aware of any exceptions. Implementing a huge program of government spending, borrowing, taxation and regulation is not going to help the economy even if it's called a "stimulus" or a pink elephant or anything else. As a respected economist wrote recently, the idea that you can end a recession and promote economic growth by having the government spend a lot of money is only taught to economics students nowadays as an example of bad policy to avoid.
Post a Comment
<< Home