January 22, 2009

I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism

... that is, unless, you dissent from The Messiah's program.

Rush Limbaugh -- to whom I listen rarely and when I do it's because I find him at times humorous (not enlightening) -- was roundly castigated yesterday because he said he wanted to see Barack Obama "fail" (my emphasis):

I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's 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." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

So? Limbaugh despises what [he believes] Obama stands for and will implement, and hopes it doesn't come to pass -- that it'll fail. How is this so detestable, especially coming from a guy who makes his living off of ripping on liberals? And, more to the point -- as the title here asks, "progressives" the last eight years were gleeful in pointing out how patriotic dissent was (is). (In probably the most laughable instance, one of our local moonbats actually says "I hated Bush from the outset, but being an American first and a Democrat second, I never rooted for his failure." This is a ridiculously laughable lie. Someone please explain to me how opining that each and every thing that George Bush did in the last eight years as being a "horrible idea" isn't "rooting for his failure?")

The answer is simple: It is rooting for his failure! You didn't like his policies and his politics so of course you didn't want him to succeed. Such inane bloviating is just trying to meander around the knot "progressives" find themselves in now -- now that they have power, any dissent is henceforth "unpatriotic" or, as our local moonbat goes further, "un-American."

This certainly isn't a new phenomenon. Like the McCarthy era of the 1950s when right-wingers made flagrant use of red-baiting, today, especially in "progressive" academic circles, dissent is quashed via the "speech code," mandatory "sensitivity training" and "diversity seminars." Speech that deviates from the socially [politically correct] norm is "hate speech," or its slightly weaker version, "creating a 'hostile environment.'" But hell, The Messiah's presidential campaign did it itself, using the threat of local law enforcement to clamp down on those who ran political ads it didn't like.

So look -- spare us, "progressives." For the entirety of the last eight years all you did was hope for the president's failure. And in doing so, you said that your dissent was "patriotic." The tables have now turned.

I've already posted that, unlike Limbaugh, I do wish our new president success. Of course, I'll disagree with him on many things, natch, but on those items I'll hope that my view gets proven wrong, and that Obama's works out for the best.

Posted by Hube at January 22, 2009 05:25 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I take a bit of a different view, Hube. I hope for his success -- but believe that he can only be a success if he drops most of the platform he ran on. To the degree he does not do that, I hope he does fail to enact his major initiatives -- and given that I believe those initiatives will harm the country, I believe his "success" in enacting them will lead to his viewed as a failure. remember -- Bill Clinton's successes as President came where he adopted and co-opted conservative positions.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 22, 2009 05:35 PM

That actually isn't very much different from my own view, RwR.I honestly don't think Obama's policies will be successful, but if they prove so, more power to him (and us).

Posted by: Hube at January 22, 2009 05:39 PM