Rooting for presidents to fail

[The_Trouvere]

Wishing the President to fail miserably simply because he is a member of the opposition party is decidedly unpatriotic and self-destructive. Failing to extend the full measure of respect to him and the office because of one's irresponsible partisanship is off-the-charts stupid.

Republican partisans know that if the economy improves, and especially if median income adjusted for inflation exceeds what it was during the Bush administration, President Obama will have the credibility to move the United States is directions they do not want it to go. That is why they hope things get worse, and why right wing posters on the GB gloat at every bit of evidence that things are getting worse.

To want Obama to fail is to hope that unemployment and home foreclosures increase.

 

[butters]

It's beyond me. I thought W was a shameful and dangerous leader. I was glad when his time was over. But I didn't spend a day of his eight years hoping that he would fail. Quite the opposite. I spent every day of his administration hoping he'd do alright for my country.

In fact, with one exception, I've never voted for any major-party candidate for president. I've disliked most of them in my lifetime. And in all that time, I've never spent a moment hoping any of them would fail.

They fail, we fail.

Dumbasses.

Bravo.

One of he best posts Ive read here.

 

[landslider2000]

Many people concluded that Bush Jr.'s agenda was bad for America, so they opposed it.

Now, many other people have concluded that Obama's agenda is bad for America, so they are opposing it too.

 

[busybody..]

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Bush said threats by Osama bin Laden to use weapons of mass destruction must be taken seriously. "This is an evil man that we're dealing with, and I wouldn't put it past him to develop evil weapons to try to harm civilization as we know it," Bush said. " And that's why we must prevail, and that's why we must win."

Bush said bin Laden has threatened in the past to use such weapons, but said there is no evidence bin Laden or his al Qaeda terrorist organization possesses such weaponry.





(and he's still at large, but we sure whooped that other guy.)

This

]"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

is NOT the same as WITH US OR AGAINST US!

This week, while BAM was in PEE KING, he was AXED what the greatest danger was that faced the US.

He said the exact same thing as Bush did

I assume you missed that

(Bush meant it, BAM didnt)

 

[Wrong Element]

Ordinarily I would agree with this, but I definitely rooted for Bush to fail. His success would have justified the criminal way he assumed office.

The end result is that Bush's status as one of the worst presidents of all time is secure, and the Republican brand is likely several election cycles away from recovery as a result. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[busybody..]

when he said this

he was DNC Chair

I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.

Howard Dean

He coulda said I disagree with em, or They are wrong, etc. He didnt!

He said HATE

So fuck you all assholes

FUCK OBAMA! I WANT HIM SHITCANNED!

 

[KingOrfeo]

He's already tripled the deficit, jilted our allies, sucked up to the bad guys.

Regarding the deficit, see post #40. And, what allies has Obama "jilted"? The Poles seem rather more pleased with Obama's missile-defense plan than with Bush's. As for "sucked up to the bad guys," that's all part of diplomacy; you suck up to anyone you want as an ally or even as a not-enemy. The U.S. spent the whole Cold War sucking up to bad guys -- Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Somoza, the Shah of Iran, etc., etc.

 

[driftinalong]

I someone does not like a particular presidents policies, then of course they want him to fail in that regard......

I didn't like GW invasion of Iraq and I hope he FAILED getting congress to go along with it, but did not wish failure on the troops there.

I don't like Obama's economic policies and appointments (lobbyists and bankers), therefor I hope he fail to the point where our country demands that the governemnt not be run by banks and special interests. I sure don't him to fail overall, that would imply that I would like to see the economy completely collapes, more deaths in out 2 wars, etc.....

Rush Limbaugh stating he wishes the president will fail is just that: Rush Limbaugh talking.... who cares about him. I cant stand him or the extreme left personalities either.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Republican partisans know that if the economy improves, and especially if median income adjusted for inflation exceeds what it was during the Bush administration, President Obama will have the credibility to move the United States is directions they do not want it to go. That is why they hope things get worse, and why right wing posters on the GB gloat at every bit of evidence that things are getting worse.

To want Obama to fail is to hope that unemployment and home foreclosures increase.

One could make the same argument about Democratic partisans who predicted and then openly wished for the surge in Iraq to fail.

For that matter, the emphasis of "irresponsible partisanship" on the part of one party to the exclusion of all examples of irresponsible partisanship displayed by the other party is itself the most glaring example of irresponsible partisanship that I am asserting.

You and Busybody are two of the greatest practitioners.

 

[zipman]

Here's the difference between a stupid post

Congress makes the laws. The President doesn't "lead" anything.

That's like saying a hood ornament leads a car.

America did well under a Republican Congress.

And an intelligent post.

As much as I agree with the spirit of your post, I think it fails to adequately distinguish between "loyal opposition" and irresponsible partisanship. To be sure, there is always a measure of America's success as being irreconcilably tied to the President's success. But it is hardly absolute or unlimited.

To wish for the failure of specific policies that you perceive as "dangerous" (whether you are Rush Limbaugh or flat5ive and whether the President is Barack Obama or George Bush) is not disloyal or self-destructive as an American citizen. Far from it. It is your patriotic duty to oppose those policies and work toward their failure.

Wishing the President to fail miserably simply because he is a member of the opposition party is decidedly unpatriotic and self-destructive. Failing to extend the full measure of respect to him and the office because of one's irresponsible partisanship is off-the-charts stupid.

The biggest failure of this entire country is that we long ago forgot how to tell the difference between dissent and disrespect.

Well said, Colonel. Especially the last line.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Many people concluded that Bush Jr.'s agenda was bad for America, so they opposed it.

Now, many other people have concluded that Obama's agenda is bad for America, so they are opposing it too.

Concluded after eight full years of Bush Jr. doing his "agenda" exactly as he pleased with virtually no obstruction despite vocal opposition and "many other people's" dissatisfaction.

Obama has barely finished his first full calendar year and his "agenda" has been obstructed from the moment he became President-elect. And the opposition has been more than just vocal, it's been horse-blinder-wearing hysterical.

How long did it take to get off the Birther bullshit? Two, three months out of a full fucking year? What would a more sane species of beings like the Vulcans have done with the same space of time, energy and resource? Then the schoolkid indoctrination crap? The nontroversy over his bowing to two foreign dignitaries? Now the buzz is about so-called Christian psalm-referencing t-shirts and bumper stickers praying for Obama's death and his family's misery? Not to worry, Bam can take the heat without cracking, but yeah, that planet-destroying asteroid that'll unite everyone everywhere by threatening to take out 99.9% of humanity can't come too soon.

 

[busybody..]

You and Busybody are two of the greatest practitioners.

Actually all Im (really) doing is just being a MIRROR of the other side!

DISCERNMENT is your BUD!

 

[John Doe]

Concluded after eight full years of Bush Jr. doing his "agenda" exactly as he pleased with virtually no obstruction despite vocal opposition and "many other people's" dissatisfaction.

Obama has barely finished his first full calendar year and his "agenda" has been obstructed from the moment he became President-elect. And the opposition has been more than just vocal, it's been horse-blinder-wearing hysterical.

How long did it take to get off the Birther bullshit? Two, three months out of a full fucking year? What would a more sane species of beings like the Vulcans have done with the same space of time, energy and resource? Then the schoolkid indoctrination crap? The nontroversy over his bowing to two foreign dignitaries? Now the buzz is about so-called Christian psalm-referencing t-shirts and bumper stickers praying for Obama's death and his family's misery? Not to worry, Bam can take the heat without cracking, but yeah, that planet-destroying asteroid that'll unite everyone everywhere by threatening to take out 99.9% of humanity can't come too soon.

You have a selective memory.

 

[busybody..]

In a normal world

if the DNC Chair sayshe HATES the other side, he would be AXED to resign!

If plays are made about KILLING a SITTING President it would have NO VENUE, it would be boycotted, instead it was lauded and the HIPPO CREEPS who today scream like stuck pigs about what is said about Obama were all LAUDING IT!


HIPPO CREEPS


I AM YOUR MIRROR,

It isnt pretty

is it?

 

[Ham Murabi]

Regarding the deficit, see post #40. And, what allies has Obama "jilted"? The Poles seem rather more pleased with Obama's missile-defense plan than with Bush's. As for "sucked up to the bad guys," that's all part of diplomacy; you suck up to anyone you want as an ally or even as a not-enemy. The U.S. spent the whole Cold War sucking up to bad guys -- Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Somoza, the Shah of Iran, etc., etc.

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big.. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative.. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You have a selective memory.

Try photographic and you win a giant lollipop with swirls.

 

[John Doe]

Try photographic and you win a giant lollipop with swirls.

Is that a non-denial denial or did you actually think I was talking about your artistic ability?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obama has barely finished his first full calendar year and his "agenda" has been obstructed from the moment he became President-elect.

And it was the same with Clinton. See the Arkansas Project. (Yes, Virginia, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy.) W never had to deal with anything like that when he started his term! Opposition to his Admin did not start to emerge until he started talking about invading Iraq, and even then it took a couple of years to really get going. But the RW apparently will try to discredit, tear down or obstruct any Dem POTUS, from Election Day onward, as a matter of course.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.

As I expected, this was a copy and paste job. G.B. wingnuts cannot compose this many paragraphs, even then they are this poorly written.

 

[busybody..]

My my

How the PIGS scream when THEIR PIG is stuck

 

[busybody..]

W never had to deal with anything like that when he started his term!.

What a BUFFOON!

Cause Bush wasnt called Illiget from Day 1

And so many said they will stop all his agenda!

FROM DAY 1

Who writes your shit?

MORON!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Is that a non-denial denial or did you actually think I was talking about your artistic ability?

I was actually countering your non-reply with a more meta non-reply of my own, which ironically non-non-replied to you in full. How you like them pseudo-snark answering apples?

 

[KingOrfeo]

OK, this may be C&P, but I'll answer it on its merits, such as they are:

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson "failed"?! He failed to get the U.S. to join the League of Nations, and the Versailles Treaty was more punitive of Germany than he would have liked. Otherwise, he had a pretty succcessful presidency, especially considering he spent the last 20 months of it incapacitated while his wife (secretly) ran the government.

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ.

Both of whom, of course, were spectacularly outfailed by Hoover and W. In fact, if not for the Vietnam War, LBJ would be remembered as the greatest POTUS since FDR.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big.. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.

See, now you're not talking about Obama, you're talking about the imaginary Obama who lives in RWs' heads. Even if "white people" were substituted for "American people," as is pretty clearly implied, the statement would be bullshit.

Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

We're talking about a law professor who is probably a lot smarter than Clarice Feldman and definitely a lot smarter than you, Ham.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

We're still in a recession! DUH! When the jobless rate goes down, Obama's approval ratings will go up, sure as sunrise. Meanwhile, he's far from a "lame duck."

No narrative.. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

OK, for connection to reality this is about on a par with the birth-certificate bullshit; only vaguer.

It's that he's not one of us.

Who's "us"? Obama is as American, and as in touch with ordinary Americans (and, yes, including white Americans -- remember who raised him), as any POTUS we've ever had.

 

[The_Trouvere]

KingOrfeo

OK, this may be C&P, but I'll answer it on its merits, such as they are:

Wilson "failed"?! He failed to get the U.S. to join the League of Nations, and the Versailles Treaty was more punitive of Germany than he would have liked. Otherwise, he had a pretty succcessful presidency, especially considering he spent the last 20 months of it incapacitated while his wife (secretly) ran the government.

Both of whom, of course, were spectacularly outfailed by Hoover and W. In fact, if not for the Vietnam War, LBJ would be remembered as the greatest POTUS since FDR.

See, now you're not talking about Obama, you're talking about the imaginary Obama who lives in RWs' heads. Even if "white people" were substituted for "American people," as is pretty clearly implied, the statement would be bullshit.

We're talking about a law professor who is probably a lot smarter than Clarice Feldman and definitely a lot smarter than you, Ham.

We're still in a recession! DUH! When the jobless rate goes down, Obama's approval ratings will go up, sure as sunrise. Meanwhile, he's far from a "lame duck."

OK, for connection to reality this is about on a par with the birth-certificate bullshit; only vaguer.

Who's "us"? Obama is as American, and as in touch with ordinary Americans (and, yes, including white Americans -- remember who raised him), as any POTUS we've ever had.

Once again you earn my respect as the most impressive poster here, KingOrfeo. I did not bother to study that blast of hot air; I just skimmed through it. For that tedious but well executed task you certainly deserve a gold star.

 

[Babalugats]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Take a nap.

I thought he was napping???