Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The failure argument takes a new turn

A lot of hay has been made recently about Rush Limbaugh and his desire to see President Barry fail. In fact, there was a dust-up recently between Patterico and Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom over the whole rhetorical issue. (Both men were given their chance to present their arguments in special Hot Air commentaries here (Patterico) and here (Goldstein). I'm not going to get into this because I made my views known on Hugh Hewitt's show last week when Jim Geraghty filled in for a vacationing-in-Italy Hugh. Quick recap: Limbaugh is a commentator; Obama is the president. 'Nuff said.

But riding in tune with the whole failure meme JammieWearingFool points to a person who wanted to see President Bush fail. The comments were made back in September of 2001, just minutes before the attacks on that morning were known to have taken place. The @$$hat that uttered the infamous words? Ragin' Cajun, James Carville:

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.

So, it's OK for Democrats to hope for failure of a president, but not Republicans when it's a Democrat president? Seems sort of hypocritical if you ask me. What's worse is that unlike Limbaugh, Carville and Greenberg NEVER explained what they meant. Rush has. He doesn't want to see President Barry fail. He wants to see the extreme liberal/borderline socialist agenda to fail. (Any student of history knows that his policies right now have been tried time and again, and guess what? They DO fail.)

But for people like Patterico, who would rather have us play the PC game of minding what we say, this rhetoric is simply too much. Now readers know that over the last couple of weeks I've been a bit snarkier than usual. Know why? Because I'm frustrated as Hell, and the only outlet I have for it is right here because I know I share the sentiments of a good deal of our readers. So I'm not going to mind what I say as much as I used to. Neither Marcie or I like President Barry. We know he's going to hurt this nation deeply with his flawed, liberal thinking and practices. So, screw him, we hope his policies fail, and that when he's done as president he ranks lower than Jimmy Carter ever will. (Carter is a pure genius compared to Barry.)

We share Jeff Goldstein's pragmatism. No matter what we say -- even if it's PC-ified in media speak -- it will be taken out of context and thrown back in our faces. So, why mince words? Granted, when I'm on the radio, and if I'm ever on TV (fat chance as I have a face made for radio) I'll abide by FCC rules and guidelines. And here on the site, while I have used swear words in the past couple of weeks (all censored as we do try to be "family friendly here) I dislike using them. Swearing is for emphasis, in my opinion. I don't want our site to challenge Ace of Spades for the most foul-mouthed blog in the 'Sphere.

But I'm sick and tired of the Left in this country having an absolute tizzy over the words and actions of us on the Right, especially when these fools have been caught doing the same damn thing. They treat a Republican sex scandal like it's the end of the world, but when Eliot Spitzer gets nailed with a $4000 an hour call girls, it's no big deal. When Duke Cunningham got caught taking bribes, the Republicans became the dirtiest party in politics. Yet William Jefferson did the same thing, is under indictment, and no one in his party will hold him accountable. And don't get me started on the tax cheats, be it Charlie Rangel in the House or Tim Geithner heading up the Treasury.

Liberals, methinks thou doth protest too much. Hypocrisy is thy name. Own it because you already live it you twits.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home