Democrats Wanted Bush To Fail


Great find at Patterico’s Pontifications. It’s a poll question from 2006, when we were in the thick of it in Iraq, asking if you wanted Bush to succeed. Can you guess what the outcome was on the Democrat side?


Of course this relates to the recent “outrage” over Rush’s statement that he did not want Obama to succeed.

So let me see, 51% of Democrats and 34% of Independents wanted Bush to fail in everything he does…including in Iraq. Rush and myself want Obama to fail in turning this country into a Socialist state, period. Rush couldn’t of been more clearer:

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.

Wanting our country to remain what the founders envisioned is a bit different then wanting our country to fail in a war because of their ignorant hatred of the President.

So, as Patterico said, you can shove that poll response into the face of any liberal who whines that we want our country to fail because we want Obama to fail in enacting his Socialist policies. They have no right to the moral high ground now.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

i love how all the libs latch onto the premise that if we hope the socialist aspects of obama’s policy’s fail we want the country to fail. you can hate the sin and love the sinner can’t you? well i can’t stand obama or anything he stands for, the only thing i respect is that he has children that he loves. i really can’t find one great thing in his stance on issues that i agree with. i also love how the libs assume we are all bible thumping jeses freaks who follow rush through fire, are you kidding me? i think rush is a hoot, he makes me laugh, i don’t always agree with him, but i see him like ann coulter, i love them both but i don’t agree with everything they say. i hope obama’s policys fail, i hope his administration implodes and all of the libs end up with huge amounts of egg on their faces.

It’s all how you word the poll question. Nobody wants America to suffer more.

Sounds like that siad (but unnamed) “major American print publication was trying to provoke a reaction out of Rush. (From what I’ve seen, the press loves to set Republicans up.) Asking Limbaugh to provide them with a 400 words on his “hope for the Obama presidency” was surely calculated to get a typical comment out of Rush. Given the administratons egging on of the Steele/Limbaugh episode, I ponder if perhaps this request might have originated from the White House.

Weeks after the Senate voted to go to war, months before we even went to war, years before this poll was taken, here is Ellen Radner hoping the war fails because she did not want President Bush to be re-elected.

As we all well know, comments like this intensified in print, movies and by leftward talking heads throughout the Bush presidency. But now, negative comments directed at policy sends the hypocrits into a rage and a WH making fools of themselves. Busted by Newsbusters.

Did a liberal on TV ever declare they wanted Bush to fail in Iraq? Well, here’s one from the Fox News Channel. On the December 27, 2002 edition of Your World With Neil Cavuto, during a discussion with left-winger Ellen Ratner on expectations the economy would grow and the stock market would go up in 2003:

BRENDA BUTTNER: You’re basically saying he’s [Bush] going to get re-elected. I mean essentially.

ELLEN RATNER, FNC political analyst: Well, unless the economy tanks –

BUTTNER: The economy could. That’s what people vote on.

RATNER: Well, unless he messes up the war [with Iraq]. My hope.

BUTTNER: Your hope?!

RATNER: Well, I don’t want him to be reelected!

BUTTNER: Right, but I mean, “mess up the war,” what do you mean by that?

RATNER: I mean, do something that will make Americans say, ‘maybe we shouldn’t have done this.’ You know, that kind of thing.

Who started all this garbage about Rush? Why, it was the same scum that did this in 2001:

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.”

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.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama’s liberal policies.

“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

“I deal in principles, not polls,” Limbaugh added. “Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” he said. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”

Greenberg added: “He’s driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want.”

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.