Patterico's Pontifications

3/8/2009

Democrats Have No Right To Be Snooty About Rush Not Wanting the President to Succeed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:37 am

Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s undeniably right about this:

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?

I think we all know the answer to that — but here’s some hard proof. Reader jimboster passes along a 2006 poll (.pdf) that proves the point. Check out question 10 — and pay particular attention to how the answers break down by party:

Recall that in August 2006, we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain. And Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed.

Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.

Now, in a way, this question is meaningless — because wanting a President to “succeed” (or “fail”) is such a vague concept that it can be infused with several meanings.

But that’s part of the point. Limbaugh might not have been crystal clear about the details of what he meant — but it certainly wasn’t an anti-American sentiment. He clearly wanted what was best for America in the long run. His definition of success was every bit as clear as the definition in the poll.

So if it’s supposedly evil for him to say he wants Obama to fail, why was it OK for Democrats to say they didn’t want Bush to succeed?

Don’t let the Democrats take the moral high ground on this. Even as we perfect our message, it’s vitally important to fight back against those who would distort it.

UPDATE: Jimboster e-mails to say that credit for this find goes to Garden State Patriot.

UPDATE x2: Third Base Politics had this on March 2.

228 Responses to “Democrats Have No Right To Be Snooty About Rush Not Wanting the President to Succeed”

  1. It’s centripetal. Noncupatory, even.

    nk (502275)

  2. They were even worse than that: They (Dems) were saying things like we only bomb innocent civilians and we terrorize women and children in the dark of the night. Murtha called our own Marines Murderers before the frickin investigation into Haditha even started. The Dems were cheerleading for the “insurgents” hoping and wishing the surge would fail. The Dems are assholes and have no business trying to take the high ground on this. Hannity played a tape of all the Dem leaders wishing for Bush to fail on either Friday night or Thursday night. There must have been at least twenty (20) Dems on tape wishing for our U.S. failure.

    If the Dems try to take the high road on this issue — fuck them! They are the fricken traitors; they are the ones guilty of treason. hey are guiltyy of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

    J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca)

  3. You must remember that Democrats and Liberals, specially, really believe that the old Roman adage “Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi” applies to them. The double standard is alive and well in Democratic politics as well as in the main stream media. For those not blessed with high school Latin, the adage means “What is legal for Jove (the chief Roman god) is not legal for a cow.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  4. Democratic hypocrisy is getting to record breaking heights.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. Nicely done, Patterico. But don’t worry, you will be told that this is different, that Bush is stupid…all from people who aren’t willing to admit the truth.


    Four legs gooooood.
    Two legs baaaaaaad.


    With apologies to my namesake.

    It will be interesting to see which (if any) MSM journalists report on this.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  6. Answering a poll is different than making an hour-long address on behalf of a movement.

    As Pat points out, the question means very little taken on its own, as it is too vague.

    Rush had more than enough time to be specific, to deliver all the nuance, all the details and to lay out all his motivations. He chose not to do so, and it was deliberate. He’s not too bright, at least in terms of his performing persona, which is the key to his appeal.

    A lot of conservative commentators could expound on their philosophy solo, hour after hour. What makes Rush special is that he can do so in a way that never breaks a ninth-grade level comprehension. He keeps it stupid, yet not dull — a balancing act few, if any, rivals can match.

    That, and a broadcaster’s baritone, is his bankable talent.

    He instinctively understands that the bulk of his audience is primarily seeking salve for their intellectual insecurities.

    There’s a reason he tosses in the schoolyard-style bragging about God wanting to be like him along with the celebrity name-dropping and golf-course tales. It’s part of the formula that prevents logical trains from getting too long.

    When liberal political commentators reach for nuance, detail and specifics, Rush’s audiences feels they are being told they’re dumb. When the point of a comment is that facts and logic — not “moral clarity” — are essential to decision making, Rush’s audience feels like a finger of blame is being pointed at them.

    When I comment on conservative blogs, I repeat over and over that there are conservatives in America that are far more intelligent that myself and, I even name high-profile conservatives I think are intelligent.

    Yet, invariably, conservative posters insist that I’m calling THEM dumb. They never assume they fall into the category of conservatives who are more intelligent than I am. Why is that?

    David Brooks, who is really more of a moderate than a conservative, though, importantly, votes Republican, has been very articulate about the Republicans needing to get rid of the anti-intellectualism in their party. He says plainly that the party has to stop running against newspapers and running against higher education.

    The question about whether Rush is the guy to lead the party is essentially that: is anti-intellectualism good for the party and/or good for America? If not, then it seems obvious that Rush isn’t the right guy.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  7. Didn’t I say, Patterico, that that was different (insert foot stamping pout)?

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  8. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/8/2009 @ 12:13 pm

    Heh. Just like clockwork….

    Dana (137151)

  9. I wonder how the different mindsets evident in people of the left and right — beyond just liberals actually being less generous than conservatives are in donating time, money and, quite literally, blood — affects national opinion polls?

    George F. Will, February 2006:

    A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals — in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves “very happy,” only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

    Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.

    Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right (“Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward”), as did Adam Smith (“There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile — touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

    Conservatives’ pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised — they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes — government — they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity — it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

    Mark (411533)

  10. I’m glad you liked it, Dana. I knew it would happen, too.

    I honestly think that the first casualty of partisanship (on both sides) is a sense of humor.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  11. Oh, and by partisanship, I mean the “thousand yard stare” type.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  12. Yup, you called it, Eric.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (2436f1)

  13. So basically, Limbaugh and his dittoheads are no better than the liberals?

    Stay classy, Rush.

    Subash (36f307)

  14. George Will — now there’s a smart conservative. Sharp as a tack, and a very good writer.

    Would that the Republicans were letting him, rather than Rush, define their party.

    As for happiness, the same sort of polls show Nigerians are the happiest people in the world.

    Case closed.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  15. Did Democrats Want Bush to Fail?…

    Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s undeniably right about this:

    Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even……

    Defend America (bcc7a5)

  16. Basically Hack ignores the hypocrisy exhibited so brazenly by Democrats and Hack himself.

    Typical.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. As for happiness, the same sort of polls show Nigerians are the happiest people in the world.

    So apparently those Nigerian Banking Scam emails really worked. Whoda thunk!

    Dana (137151)

  18. I’m surprised Hax V. didn’t dismiss the poll just because they claim Fox isn’t reliable. I’m sure someone will, though.

    Hax Vobiscum wrote,

    There’s a reason he tosses in the schoolyard-style bragging about God wanting to be like him

    Two reasons. 1) It’s a joke. 2) The fact that you or anyone else takes it seriously is really funny! Which is actually Rush’s primary intent. Thanks for biting on that hook, you poor fish!

    When the point of a comment is that facts and logic — not “moral clarity” — are essential to decision making

    Whose facts? Are all the facts being presented and what is their reliability? You don’t seriously expect anyone to take things on your sole word or that of any leftist or “journalist”, do you?

    He’s not too bright, at least in terms of his performing persona, which is the key to his appeal…Rush’s audience feels like a finger of blame is being pointed at them.

    Since most of the audience is not as smart as Rush, that’s really exactly what you’re doing. Your ingenuous act is transparent.

    Of course, the average person may not be as educated as you, but they know when they’re being handed a load of bullshit.

    Jim C. (9e7cc9)

  19. “He says plainly that the party has to stop running against newspapers and running against higher education.”

    I still don’t understand this BS.

    In economics we’ve had Harvard/Yale grads and their MBA ilk formulating complicated algarithms that have raped our of system of it’s wealth and gamed the meaning of ‘fiscal responsiblity’ to meaninglessness.

    At what point does intellectualism get branded ‘FAIL’?

    At what point to we admit that a BA graduate of an average university; a housewife who knows what it takes to balance a checkbook, raise a family responsibly and who has good political instincts – may be qualified for elective office? When do we say that her ‘simple’ values may be the answer to what ails us?

    Dan (07ef25)

  20. This is true, the Democrats wanted Bush to fail, because they thought it was best for them politically.

    Terrye (f40c5b)

  21. For some amusing light reading, check out the letters section at http://www.419eater.com – a website where they ‘scam the scammers,’ mostly those Nigerian banking ones. They have them hand-write letters, take photos, and my favorite – having the would-be scammers send fake artwork.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  22. Dan, I agree with your sentiment; it makes me wish for a return to part-time Congress and 90% staff reductions in Washington DC.

    Especially since (veering back on topic) we are discussing the clarity of the message. Not the nuance, the clarity. Voters who heard “yes we can” and voted were not interested in the nuance. They were not intellectuals. They are currently calling mortgage brokers saying “Obama said I could get 4% fixed for 30 years” and the like..

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  23. There is much Trollish Humor here, let’s face it.

    Don’t let Rush Limbaugh define the Republican Party. Instead, let trolls define who should be the spokesperson.

    Riiiggghhhht.

    As for George Will, I well remember the old National Lampoon fake version of his Newsweek column, with Will in a knight’s helmet, and the caption “Why I am a Feudalist.”

    An excellent example of the snootocracy.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  24. Right there with ya, EB. That is one sentiment that has been made kristalklaar on this board over the past few weeks.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  25. Patterico,

    Obsess much?

    j curtis (ab633a)

  26. So apparently those Nigerian Banking Scam emails really worked.
    Well, there is something about the word “scam” and the name of the guy in the Oval Office that to my way of thinking does go hand-in-hand.

    According to an article posted in the Nigerian ThisDayOnline, Paul Ibe of Abuja and Ahamefula Ogbu in Obama Kingdom, write that Barack Obama may have roots in Nigeria. The Obama community in Rivers State claims that the third great grandfather of Barack Obama is of Nigerian descent.

    The community, which is in present-day Bakana in the Degema Local Government Area of Rivers State, said the name “Bakana” was a Portuguese creation, as their real name is “Obama” which means “Oba’s kingdom” or “Oba’s town.” It is claimed that “Oba” means king.

    The ThisDay website folks were told that when Barack Obama became a Senator four years ago, the King, Kegan Igbanigbo Will-Braide, informed his chiefs that the African-American has his roots in Obama Kingdom in Rivers State.

    Mark (411533)

  27. Is this the, “We’re hateful, but so are you” defense? The America that a successful progressive agenda leads to is contrary to the concepts of conservatives. The same is probably true for liberals were conservatives to get their way.

    Saying that we’re both equally petty ignores the point: we’re right and they are wrong. Our solution leads to liberty and equality and theirs leads to a sort of self-righteous slavery to government. Rather than meet them halfway, let’s say that we believe our agenda to be wholly good and theirs to be wholly evil?

    Good post on Hot Air this morning Patterico. Thanks for hanging around as long as possible in comments. Now if only people would stop crucifying Allahpundit…

    blankminde (dbf5bf)

  28. #14 So basically, Limbaugh and his dittoheads are no better than the liberals? Stay classy, Rush.
    Comment by Subash — 3/8/2009 @ 12:37 pm

    would you please get real? the whole point is the reaction to Rush hoping that Obama fails in turning this country into even more of a socialistic country with a far too powerful federal government.

    idiots like you are a joke…sorry…but a fact.i truly tire of you fools and tools.

    j (ffafb5)

  29. The ThisDay website folks were told that when Barack Obama became a Senator four years ago, the King, Kegan Igbanigbo Will-Braide, informed his chiefs that the African-American has his roots in Obama Kingdom in Rivers State.

    Comment by Mark — 3/8/2009 @ 1:14 pm

    And Obama will be able to claim his birthright of $10,000,000 if only he can send a $3,500 “processing fee” to King Kegan Igbanigbo Will-Braide, payable via Western Union…

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  30. [...] much as I believe he’s going to and shoves the progressive fantasy-makers off the high ground here. Also, see the comments here for an exchange I think might be [...]

    Rush’s Critics Need to Read What He Actually Said. : The Sundries Shack (cb8a87)

  31. The eggs they threw at Bush’s limo during the first inauguration parade were for good luck, weren’t they?

    MayBee (e7e019)

  32. Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.”

    Heh. As though we are talking to rational people who truly want to debate !

    C’mon – they all wanted Bush to fail because he was BushMcChimpHitler -the personification of evil – the President who single handedly destroyed the reputation of America which had not known or even heard of anti Americanism. Of course the “evil” Bush needed to fail, silly !

    But in electing Barack Obama, America has finally absolved itself of its original sin and has the elected the cleverest, most intelligent, most brilliant, most everything President. How DARE you could wish such a person to fail ??

    As far as liberals are concerned, conservatives are some where between deranged and evil – there fore they oppose Obama !

    What is most amusing about this whole manufactured brouhaha is that Barack Obama’s policies AND his personal leadership HAVE BEEN FAILING. After his “indispensable” tax cheat of a Treasury Secretrary laid a goose egg a few weeks back, the market has tanked EVEN WORSE. Bloomberg went so far as to call this the Obama bear market.

    The whole point of this Rush Limbaugh smokescreen is to DIVERT attention from the ACTUAL failures of Barack Obama.

    I am stunned that a smart guy like Patterico fell for this and has basically felt guilty about this and has had to scurry back to find out all the polls which show that Democrats wanted Bush to fail. Like we actually NEEDED a poll to confirm mainstream liberal “thought” !

    I read Patterico’s piece on HotAir about how Limbaugh does not represent him – a very honest and thoughtful piece. But ultimately a useless one.

    New flash Patterico – There are’nt enough liberals who CARE about whether conservatives truly agree with Rush. They LIKE to have conservative villains so that they can blame them when the economy CONTINUES TO TANK. When the “stimulus” proves to be nothing more than a waste of money on Democrat pet projects that add very little value to the overall economy.

    It is truly sad to find conservatives so guilt ridden and so defensive.

    THANK GOD there is a Rush Limbaugh.

    Nagarajan Sivakumar (2b84ec)

  33. I am truly astounded that the Democrats have not yet called the markets racist and rooting for Obama’s failure – otherwise, HOW ELSE can you explain how they have tanked so badly since this Jesus like fugure we have for President took office ?

    Raaaaacist markets – they need to be “reformed”.

    Nagarajan Sivakumar (2b84ec)

  34. I am stunned that a smart guy like Patterico fell for this and has basically felt guilty about this and has had to scurry back to find out all the polls which show that Democrats wanted Bush to fail.

    I got an e-mail with a link and thought it was interesting. Ask jimboster. I stand by everything I have written. I don’t feel guilty at all.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  35. Most Liberals that I see, when they are not high on something, look like they just bit into a lemon. Even though “they won” they still look as sour as ever. This article explains it as being just part of their nature, so, thanks.

    Regarding the left’s attack on Rush and others, Saul Alinsky wrote the book, “Rules for Radicals,” which has been used by hardcore left wing radicals for over 30 years. His Rule Number Twelve explains why Rush is under personal attack by the Left:

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    Again, this explains all the hate filled remarks about Rush, Michael Steele, Jim Kramer and Ray Santilli. The people on the left don’t want the truth, they want to destroy the opposition.

    DL13 (d25090)

  36. When liberal political commentators reach for nuance, detail and specifics, Rush’s audiences feels they are being told they’re dumb. When the point of a comment is that facts and logic — not “moral clarity” — are essential to decision making, Rush’s audience feels like a finger of blame is being pointed at them.
    - Hax Vobiscum

    This is odd, I don’t note any “logic” nor “facts” when liberal commentators support policies that smack of socialism, Socialism is a proven failure in every instance its been tried. Nationalized healthcare is a loser and leads to terrible heathcare, welfare doesn’t get rid of poverty, Social Security is bankrupt…the list goes on, and yet American liberals continue to espouse these policies.

    Secondly, I fail to see how 8 years of BDS can be so easily forgotten by the hypocrites that now state that we *must* support President Obama and his policies. We have been told numerous times that dissent is patriotic, even in times of war, and even if it makes us look weak to our enemies. Well, let me hand that back to you, dissent is patriotic and we are definitely dissenting.

    When people (Conservatives in this case) see that the policies of the party in power are counter-productive and contrary to their understanding of what is “good” for the country, it is their right, and duty, to express that point of view. The Conservative point of view is that Obama and the congressional Democrats’ policies are driving this country further and further into the ground and killing its economy, possibly permanently. Once a bureaucracy is built it is difficult, if not impossible, to tear down and yet, the liberal will continue to grow the federal government so that it can “serve” the people, no matter the cost and no matter the outcome. How is that logical?

    To Conservatives, the only way that we believe that our country will stay that shining city of light on the hill that is a beacon to all freedom loving people, is if Obama’s policies FAIL. Not because we want *America* to fail, but because we want America succeed, to rise and become greater. The American liberal policies are assured to cause the downturn of America, and perhaps that is what you desire? If you look at the “logic” and “facts”, you will see that Obama is not practicing governance any differently than his predecessors, you’ve been sold a bill of goods on that one. He is not some great leader that will guide this country to recovery and greatness, on the contrary, if this country recovers, it will be despite the liberal policies, not because of them.

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  37. Patterico, re: #34—there are an awful lot of mobies breaching in this particular ocean right now.

    The Alinksy business is more apt than people suspect.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  38. First, I wouldn’t trust a poll by Fox News, but even if you grant that, what were the actions of Democrats in positions of influence? They bent over backwards and supported nearly all of bush’s policies, from 9/11 on, unthinkingly, it seemed. They symbolized Rush’s vision of bipartisanship as Republicans squashing Democrats into submission.

    If you were to do a similar poll of Republicans, I bet they would beat the 51% wish the president to fail by miles.

    blha (51b7e0)

  39. Hmmm…

    “…They bent over backwards and supported nearly all of bush’s policies, from 9/11 on, unthinkingly, it seemed….”

    That is a pretty remarkable statement.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  40. Blha has been living in that fall-out shelter for too long and has just come out to find that adult store built over the shelter.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  41. Yay! A poll! Nonetheless, I am struck by the fact that neither the proprietor of this blog nor a single commenter here can point to one quote or comment by a prominent liberal expressing his or her desire for Bush to fail (even prior to his assuming office). Which is the whole point of this exercise. But then, I’m not the prosecutor here.

    Bill (4e9868)

  42. I got an e-mail with a link and thought it was interesting. Ask jimboster. I stand by everything I have written. I don’t feel guilty at all.

    I am not a regular to this blog and i am not sure who jimboster is. But this is all besides the point.

    Given the fact that “Operation Rushbo” was a White House operation that has been okayed by Obama, it is very clear that this is nothing more than a giant distraction that also tried to tie the GOP in knots trying to defend Rush.

    2 weeks from now, no one is going to care what Limbaugh said if the markets continue to lose confidence and Obama continues to prove that he is indeed a leftist idealogue.

    What conservatives need to demonstrate with sincerity is if they really believe in their own principles and how they can help the country move out of this economic downturn.

    When liberals where rooting for Bush to fail, the “moderates”, “centrists” didnt really care. They did vote for the Democrats in 2008, even though they knew fully well that Democrats NEVER EVER helped Bush and wanted the surge to fail when they voted against it in 2007.

    Nagarajan Sivakumar (2b84ec)

  43. I know Greenwald is probably anathema here,
    but, he noted the Democratic submission.

    what bills and what appointments did they block? other than harriet miers, who conservatives couldn’t countenance, and john bolton, whom bush sneaked in anyway

    blha (51b7e0)

  44. Democrats NEVER EVER helped Bush and wanted the surge to fail when they voted against it in 2007.

    really, so how did it pass in the democratic-controlled congress?

    blha (51b7e0)

  45. Why we oppose Obamanomics…
    There was a sign being held in one of the pix of a TeaParty event at Instapundit:

    “SOCIALISM: Trickle up Poverty!”

    I think that pretty much sums it up for a lot of us.

    AD - RtR/OS (7d5017)

  46. I am struck by the fact that neither the proprietor of this blog nor a single commenter here can point to one quote or comment by a prominent liberal expressing his or her desire for Bush to fail

    I am struck by the mere fact that you can write such a sentence after 8 years of “Dissent is Patriotic” and BusHitlerChimpyMcHalliburton assanination chic fantasies from liberals.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (2436f1)

  47. I seem to recall the Dems keeping the Senate open for business every day over the Christmas break in 2007 to prevent Bush from filling a very large number of judicial positions the Senate was refusing to ratify.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  48. Democrats – Proudly undermining America since 1968.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  49. @john hitchcock… right, and what about alito and roberts?

    @AD – RtR/OS it’s really sad that you think that obama is practicing socialism when he is practically forking over money to keep private institutions alive and hasn’t demanded any of the controls that a normal shareholder would get on assuming such a large stake.

    blha (51b7e0)

  50. You people earning 7 million a year are now limited to earning 500k a year. Nope, no strings at all.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  51. Dear Patterico: if you rearrange the letters of “blha” you get…?

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  52. Rush’s statement accomplished exactly what he wanted it to, brought media attention to himself. He could have made it more clear what he meant by hoping that Obama failed, and indeed did so later on his radio show. Rush is after all in the entertainment business, not in political office as he has stated on numerous occasions. If you want a political leader, look elsewhere.

    Rick Scott (b950c7)

  53. [...] No. Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s undeniably right about this: [...]

    Bloodthirsty Liberal » Did Liberals Want Bush To Succeed? (cb2f3f)

  54. Blha, in #45, you mentioned the Democrats passing FISA. Did it ever occur to you, that it might have been in their best interests, also, and that they might have been in some of the Telecom’s pockets, also? But of course, they are liberals, so they would never stoop to that, would they? (sarcasm intended)

    Winder (6f0cc8)

  55. “ Socialism is a proven failure in every instance its been tried.”

    Let’s see:

    Social Security
    Huge success. Basically ended poverty for the elderly. Not perfect, but a spectacular success for decades. Still going strong.

    Medicare
    An essential companion to social security, has successfully provided health care for the elderly and indigent for decades

    Public schooling
    The backbone of American competitiveness. Not perfect, but remarkably flexible and effective, given the size and scope of its task.

    Scandinavia
    Among the world’s highest per-capita incomes. Universal health care. Universal free education. Steady, consistent economic growth. Internet and mobile phone technology leaders.

    China
    World’s fastest-growing economy, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty via industrial planning and the world’s largest command economy.

    Japan
    Rock-solid social stability. Universal health care. Ultra-high literacy. Extremely high integrated technological development. High level of industrial planning and government intervention via bureaucracy.

    To name just a few…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  56. # – Democrats NEVER EVER helped Bush and wanted the surge to fail when they voted against it in 2007.

    really, so how did it pass in the democratic-controlled congress?

    Comment by blha — 3/8/2009 @ 2:36 pm

    The surge didn’t ‘pass,’ as there was no bill pertaining to it. In Feb. 2007, the House passed a ‘symbolic’ bill OPPOSING the surge. While they passed bills to appropriate funds for both wars, they attached amendments asking for troop withdrawals.

    Feel free to inform yourself before you opine.

    Wait, didn’t a ‘blah’ post here before?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  57. Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed.

    A poll ain’t the same thing as the dominant voice in conservative media at the moment. That said, I think this poll neatly points to the vacuousness of this debate. I wanted Bush to fail because his “successes” put American lives and livelihood in harm’s way. He “successfully” misled the American people to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, which he “successfully” won in May of 2003, &c. This is as non- as a non-issue can be. I would’ve loved for the Democrats to have won more seats then banded together so they could’ve overridden a Presidential veto, that way Bush could’ve failed to enact more of his policies. Every time Bush failed, in my opinion, American won. Every time he succeeded, in my opinion, America came that much closer to being a police state: warrantless wire taps, secret interrogation sites, &c.

    If you really want to pick nits, the problem wasn’t with the word “fail” but with the word “hope.” No Democrat “hoped” the surge would fail: they believed it would. No Democrat “hoped” tax cuts for the wealthy would increase the tax burden on the middle- and lower-classes: they believed it would. In this respect, Pat’s absolutely correct: had Limbaugh chosen his words more carefully, this would be a non-issue. (And I know he was responding to a solicitation that included the word hope, but I think Pat’s correct here too: he knew it’d score him some face-time and couldn’t wait to be restored to the place of prominence he held during the Clinton years. Few people are so cynical as to relish being in the minority party, but there you go.)

    SEK (072055)

  58. what appointments did they block? other than harriet miers, who conservatives couldn’t countenance, and john bolton, whom bush sneaked in anyway

    Comment by blha — 3/8/2009 @ 2:29 pm

    I seem to recall the Dems keeping the Senate open for business every day over the Christmas break in 2007 to prevent Bush from filling a very large number of judicial positions the Senate was refusing to ratify.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/8/2009 @ 2:37 pm

    @john hitchcock… right, and what about alito and roberts?

    Move goalposts much?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  59. China: World’s fastest-growing economy, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty via industrial planning and the world’s largest command economy.

    Hax, ever wonder why you’ll never convince any conservatives to ever take your positions seriously? Let me give you a hint: see what I’ve quoted there? Stare at it long and hard and think about why a brutally repressive regime that only stops curtailing the freedom of speech long enough so it can torture dissidents might not be the best working example for socialism.

    SEK (072055)

  60. Dear Patterico: if you rearrange the letters of “blha” you get…?

    blha, I am confident, is not blah.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  61. The whole idea of the “Obama fail” is a pointless canard foisted by some liberal in a “gotcha” based on liberals trying to show conservatives as racist. End of story. There is no other reason to ask the question and to quickly debunk the canard, have the liberal substitute George Bush’s name in the question. I’m sure they get a real laugh about the fact so many republicans took it so seriously and in doing so, took their eyes off Obamanations failing and destructive policies, choosing to fight other republicans instead. Until the republicans quit biting on this type of insanity, they aren’t going anywhere…..
    a quote from some smart person;
    “Conservatives get mad about lies being told about them and Liberals get mad about the truth being told about them.”

    hank (3ee8f2)

  62. Well, not literally, anyway. But it sure does sound the same…

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  63. If you really want to pick nits, the problem wasn’t with the word “fail” but with the word “hope.” No Democrat “hoped” the surge would fail: they believed it would.

    When Congressional leaders and liberal media said that the surge is a ‘failure’ before it started were they believing it would fail, or hoping, or just lying?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  64. SEK (#60), you are a reasonable fellow, even when we disagree. Thank you for that, truly. But attempting to get someone who only posts to argue (or “to win” as the person has described it in the past) lends too much legitimacy to that entity’s arguments. It’s like the joke about teaching pigs to wrestle: it wastes your time, gets you all muddy, and the pig likes it.

    The pattern is thus:


    TdJ: “X” is a great example why a Republican position is wrong.
    Response: “X” is a horrible counterexample, for the following reasons A, B, and C.
    TdJ: That is a Western conceit, and probably pro-Zionist. Your evidence in A, B, and C comes from biased sources (again, Zionist in nature). Besides, I never said that “X” was a great example.
    Response: But you did!
    TdJ: You need to read for comprehension. Typical of a mouth breathing cretin of a moose hunting Republican. How ’bout those 49ers?

    As I say, there is much grounds for legitimate, civil disagreement among political opponents. But not with TdJs.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  65. really, so how did it pass in the democratic-controlled congress?
    Comment by blha — 3/8/2009 @ 2:36 pm

    How did what pass? What legislation do you think was passed that ordered the surge? You realize that the legislative branch didn’t commit to the surge, don’t you? The Commander-in-Chief gave the order.

    @AD – RtR/OS it’s really sad that you think that obama is practicing socialism when he is practically forking over money to keep private institutions alive and hasn’t demanded any of the controls that a normal shareholder would get on assuming such a large stake.
    Comment by blha — 3/8/2009 @ 2:41 pm

    There are now unprecedented controls and interference into private business on the pretext that tax-monies have been given (CEO salary-caps, congressional hearings into private companies, etc…). What else would you call “practically forking over money to keep private institutions alive” except Socialism? It’s certainly not Capitalism.

    That “stimulus” bill was nothing more than the Dem wish-list for the past 20 years getting pushed through before people had time to complain. Expect more of the same. The “change” this administration has embraced is nothing more than “Let’s just do what we want as quickly as we can and to hell with what the people want or what has proven to be a failure in the past. Once it’s in place, we can fight to keep it from being undone. Ignore all the objections, we’ll have time to spin it, let people forget about it, shift blame for failure onto the GOP, or delay any effective countermeasures until the point is moot. Who knows? Something might even work and we can just keep pointing to that as proof we’re right about everything else.”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  66. Oh, and I know that SEK’s politics are at least a couple of parsecs distant from my own. But I seldom read actively insulting or trollish posts from him.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  67. Stash, stash….this blha person is just repeating Teh Narrative.

    Feelings not facts.

    And certainly no research. Think bumper stickers.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  68. Good post, P.

    Subotai (7fc5f4)

  69. SEK: You’d have a point if that was the only example I cited for the success of socialism. It was one of many, so you have no point.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  70. Well, I called that one, too. Except that there was no comment on sports teams.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  71. Social Security
    Huge success.

    How do you define bankrupt as success? The federal government has continually tapped into the SS fund to pay for other programs (both parties) and taken every dollar that’s in there. Such negligence will lead to the elderly being truly indigent as soon as the present tax base stops paying the bill.
    Note to Hax: There isn’t a single dollar in the “fund” right now, just a big, fat, worthless IOU.

    Scandenavia….blah blah blah

    Combined population? – 20M, less than 1/10 of the US.
    Norway has a mix of private and government held companies (does that make it 1/2 socialist?), plus it has a lot of petroleum and natural gas, so because of their small population, they make out well, sort of reminds me of Alaska. When the government makes its money off of natural resources instead of the taxing of its citizens, then I suppose it works to their advantage, but we’re not allowed to tap our natural resources here, now are we? No offshore drilling, no mountain shale extraction, no ANWR…sigh.

    Sweden? I think you better re-look at Sweden. Largely private held companies, not government owned.

    Denmark: Well, you got me there. 50% of the people pay the highest taxes in the world (42-70% scale) so that the other 50% can live off of them at the same standard of living…sounds like a liberal paradise if you don’t work. And, their healthcare? – Crap, it sucks.

    Public schooling
    The backbone of American competitiveness.

    Really, that’s a joke, right? Take a look at the world rankings post-4th grade. I fail to see how the NEA and the federal government have proven themselves in this arena, more like egg on our faces. Show me how our public education system is anything to be proud of.

    China:

    Wow, you want to bring up China, that’s brave. Yeah, let’s just overlook their policies regarding their citizens…but I guess that is moving the goalposts. I suppose I should have clarified that statement a little, because you could say that Venezuela has been a huge success too. I wonder though, I have a few Chinese co-workers and previously, Chinese/Taiwanese professors…do you suppose they would rather move back to China to live out their lives, or stay in the US? Did you think I meant that Socialism works for the GOVERNMENT, or for the people? Of course, I meant that Socialism fails because it destroys PEOPLE and then fails in the long term when it can no longer be supported financially by feeding off of the citizens’ production with *nothing* of value in return.

    Japan:

    OK, you got me. Socialism works, its the best system that humans have, we need to adopt it immediately (see President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress). You’ve broken my assertion that Socialism is guaranteed failure and with kindness and joy in my heart for my fellow human beings and Mother Nature, I declare that the true way to get out of our problems (and save the Earth at the same time) is to follow the Democrat policies and become a highly successful and well-thought of nation in the eyes of the world. We need to cast off the shackles of our punitive capitalist war mongering forefathers and move on to the paradise of Socialism.

    Still, I kind of like the whole cowboy thing we had going for us. Not to mention, it seems like everybody was constantly trying to get into America for the last 100 years or so…I wonder if any other nations had immigration problems of that nature? Must have been because we had baseball or something, that must have been why people were immigrating here, don’t you think?

    - ?

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  72. If you really want to pick nits, the problem wasn’t with the word “fail” but with the word “hope.”

    SEK, what is happening here is not exactly a nit picking exercise – this is a full blown operation that flows directly from the White House.

    Rush Limbaugh did not even bring this on to himself – EVEN BEFORE he made these comments Obama started Operation Rushbo by telling Republican Congressmen that they should NOT be listening to Rush in opposing his stimulus plan – is’nt it odd for a President to ask his opponents NOT to listen to this or that media personality?

    As though if Rush had’nt supported the stimulus, the GOP would have suddenly discovered how great it was and voted for it? What do you have to say about the BlueDog Democrats who voted against the stimulus?

    No Democrat “hoped” the surge would fail: they believed it would.
    You really ought to be joking here. If they really “believed” that the surge WOULD FAIL, what exact alternative did they provide to counter this “failure” ?? NONE.

    They wanted nothing more than a drawdown of troops from Iraq at the earliest possible. I am pretty sure that they “believed” that this would help bring about “success” in Iraq. !

    Harry Reid DECLARED the war LOST in April 2007 – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/ – and his Democrat colleagues pretty much seconded him.

    The only Democrat who opposed the Democrat position on Iraq spoke at the Republican convention last year. It is striking how he was thrown out of the party for his stance on the Iraq war ALONE.

    The distinction between “hope” and “belief” on what the surge would do is NONE. It would nt have changed the circumstances on the ground nor does it change the Democrats craving to wash their hands off of Iraq, leaving them to the mercies of likes of Iran and Syria.

    Besides the Democrats sure as hell hoped for the Iraq war to fail so that this country could be taught a lesson on not being an imperialist nation bulider.

    If the Iraq war came to a decent conclusion AFTER ALL THE MISTAKES Bush made, how does it help the Democrats who have spent their energy against this issue?? They obviously were rooting for a defeat.

    It took Obama an extraordinary long amount of time to even acknowledge the success of the surge. And it came soooo GRUDGINGLY.

    No Democrat “hoped” tax cuts for the wealthy would increase the tax burden on the middle- and lower-classes: they believed it would.

    This is nothing but standard Democrat class warfare. For starters, this “tax cut” for the “wealthy” as you say is not seen as a “tax cut” by conservatives. We have no problem letting people KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

    Your argument says that whatever wealthy people earn principally belongs to the Government of USA and that Bush was being unfairly generous to them.

    Also, his tax cuts did not increase the tax burden for the middle class – it is not that they were asked to pay HIGHER TAXES to compensate for the loss of revenue from wealthy people. They WERE ALLOWED to keep more of their money AS WELL. Since they earned LESSER than the wealthy, they did not get as much as the wealthy did. To me that makes sense.

    The top 1% of the income earners pay 37% of all income taxes. The Top 20% literally pays 80% of the country’s income taxes. And i have not even gotten to point out how the wealthy buy more, own more property and consequently pay more sales and property taxes.

    You can bash and decry the wealthy all you want, but they are the ones who invest in this country and create jobs.

    The Democrats indulged in their favorite game of class warfare because that is WHO THEY ARE – class warfare warriors.

    Nagarajan Sivakumar (2b84ec)

  73. Oh, I forgot to mention; I’m glad that someone from the left is finally standing up for Socialism. All of that denial leads to undue stress. If the left is for Socialism, stop pussyfooting around and just say so. We’re all big boys and girls, we can take the truth (contrary to Colonel Jessep’s assertion).

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  74. I love that Hacks’ fellow travelers are calling it an imbecile. And I love that it thinks we should emulate China.

    JD (db0f14)

  75. Nope, JD. That person included China as an example of the success of socialism, except when that person didn’t.

    Details, details.

    You know the drill.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  76. JD, a gentleman and scholar, is trying to put words in my mouth.

    I cite China as an example of where socialism has worked.

    Does that mean I think we should emulate China?

    Of course not, especially when it comes to civil liberties.

    I note the current uproar on the right about “socialism” in the U.S. has nothing to do with civil liberties.

    It’s all whining about taxes on the richest going from 35 percent to 39.5 percent of taxable income.

    I think the U.S. has, for most of its history, found a very effective balance of free markets and socialism. We’re a pragmatic people, so we generally support what works.

    The American right, though, has been red-baiting everything from public schooling to water flouridation for decades. And now, thanks to Limbaugh, they seem to believe Americans are ready to buy into it again. They’ll learn the hard way, I suppose that their story’s way too stale.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  77. Denmark: Well, you got me there. 50% of the people pay the highest taxes in the world (42-70% scale) so that the other 50% can live off of them at the same standard of living…sounds like a liberal paradise if you don’t work.

    Moreover, most of the nations of the Third World — and virtually all of the communities of inner-city America — have often followed a very liberal or socialistic approach to electing politicians and governance. Meanwhile, such places (Mexico as a rather close-by example, or a city like Detroit as an even closer example) see dysfunction, severe mediocrity and even backwardness reign supreme, year after year, decade after decade.

    A liberal, pro-Democrat-Party approach to running a nation’s government is akin to a permissive, easygoing, spoil-them-rotten approach to running a family. In either case, you had better pray the people of a nation or the children of a family are inherently reliable, at least somewhat self-disciplined, resourceful and stable. If not, the situation facing the country or family in question is likely to go from bad to worse.

    Mark (411533)

  78. Translation from Troll-ese: Hey! Look over there! True, I wrote something that was outstandingly dumb about China—clearly listing it as a success of socialism—but I also said other things. You can trust those!

    Yeah, about that.

    Of course, we haven’t looked carefully at the rest of the examples. But based on the vaunted accuracy and usual antics, why would we? Given the source, I mean.

    Of course, that means another Wall of Text is approaching. Sorry, folks.

    I especially liked the juxtaposition of championing China, splitting hairs with a micrometer (to avoid responsibility for a thoughtless post), then commenting on Amerikkka’s “red baiting” history.

    Completely unaware of the auto-mocking. What. A. Prat.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  79. Wishing Obama would fail before he’s even inaugurated isn’t directly comparable to wishing Bush would fail two years into his second term.

    Nels (3e56d7)

  80. But I seldom read actively insulting or trollish posts from him.

    I never troll, but I do occasionally get offended and give offense. (I chalk that up to being human.)

    what is happening here is not exactly a nit picking exercise – this is a full blown operation that flows directly from the White House.

    You mean to tell me that there are people in the White House trying to manipulate the coverage of the administration? Good Heavens, man, what in the name of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush is going on here?

    You really ought to be joking here.

    There’s these two guys on the internet, see . . . then one turned the other and said, “No way, man! When I’m halfway across you’re going to turn the Tubes off!”

    If they really “believed” that the surge WOULD FAIL, what exact alternative did they provide to counter this “failure”?

    I don’t claim to understand the complexities of Iraqi politics or military tactics, but the idea that the key to military victory? political stability? in Iraq was the presence of 20,000 more boots on the ground. There are plenty of alternative explanations out there for why the situation on the ground changed. But even if all credit is given to the surge, that still could point to a failure of leadership on the Bush administration. Why didn’t they consider it sooner? If they were so certain it would work, why didn’t Bush and Cheney oppose Rumsfeld and implement Shinseki’s plan in the first place?

    I mean, if 20,000 more troops had always been the correct answer, why had the administration spent five years asking the wrong questions?

    They wanted nothing more than a drawdown of troops from Iraq at the earliest possible. I am pretty sure that they “believed” that this would help bring about “success” in Iraq[!]

    They did. Given that one measure of the surge’s success is the reduction of the monthly death rate of US soldiers, there’s no doubt that an immediate withdrawal of troops from combat operations would’ve successfully accomplished that. Given that some attribute the surge’s success to the reassignment of troops already in Iraq and the marked uptick in arrests — indicative of a change in engagement strategies — in the months after the surge. Complex issues all, and I’m not qualified to speak to them.

    Besides the Democrats sure as hell hoped for the Iraq war to fail so that this country could be taught a lesson on not being an imperialist nation builder.

    Surely you must be the one who now ought to be making with the jocular statements intended to elicit laughs of bemusement now? Because it is with certainty that I state that Bush said: “I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.” So how could the Iraq war be an act of nation-building unless OMFG Bush is a liar and a hypocrite and no Republican can ever be trusted again because of it!

    Wait a minute, that’s not my logic: it’s yours, and it’s bad. Bad when you use it, bad when I do.

    We have no problem letting people KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

    And the more you make of it — that is, the less you need it to meet daily expenses — the lower the percentage you pay out in taxes. In this sense, I’m all for a flat-tax so at least anonymous folks on the internet wouldn’t throw inane statements like this one at me:

    The top 1% of the income earners pay 37% of all income taxes. The Top 20% literally pays 80% of the country’s income taxes.

    I don’t know whether you’re numbers are accurate, but if they are, so what? I’m thinking of a word: begins with “ex,” sort of rhymes with “potential.” Care to hazard a guess? The top 1 percent of income earners should always pay the lion’s share of the country’s income taxes. That’s how math works. The philosophical debate is over whether they should pay more, proportionally, than those in the lower tax brackets.

    You can bash and decry the wealthy all you want, but they are the ones who invest in this country and create jobs.

    I think you’re confusing your talking points here: Republicans are the anti-elitist party, the Joe-the-Plumber and Tito-the-Builder party, they’re not the protect the-caviar-sipping, arugula-crunching, decadent-living party. Please, get your talking points in order before you start moving your fingers. It’ll help you avoid painful bouts of cognitive dissonance.

    SEK (072055)

  81. Let me get this straight… the first liberal line is that Bush was a hyper-conservative, and now we’re being told that the (brow-beaten) Democrats signed off on everything he did? Is it just me, or does it sound like the trolls realize that the conservative line, that Bush passed a lot of wishy-washy moderate programs that pleased neither side, is the truth but can’t admit it?

    Civilis (6018b0)

  82. I note the current uproar on the right about “socialism” in the U.S. has nothing to do with civil liberties.

    Ever read any Hayek? It’s central to a number of anti-socialist arguments “on the right.” Controls beget controls because those darned people just won’t behave.

    My goodness, can we start directing our fire back at the other camp for a change? Let’s charge in with bayonets fixed instead of electing one representative at a time to get picked off by snipers.

    DrSteve (826060)

  83. “Controls beget controls because those darned people just won’t behave.”

    Doesn’t always play out that way.

    If it did, Chinese would be free to speak their minds on politics.

    As it happens, China has cut way back on marketplace controls, while keeping the clamp on civil liberties.

    Not axiomatic.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  84. What I like best about your posts, SEK, is that you generally are able to admit you aren’t expert in everything. Thus, you easily admit that you might be wrong about a given subject, but you advance your ideas without much rancor.

    Yes, you are human.

    But I feel good about your postings now not because of what you just wrote, but because you stood up regarding those gerontocratic despots in China. I’m tired of hearing about what a great place it is. But then, I remember you-know-what Square.

    Yeah, the TdJs will short explain that we are every bit as bad. Sigh. Zionist influence, I’m sure.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  85. Boo hoo, wingers! 70%+ of the public backs Obama and wants their country to succeed. Meanwhile, you wish for failure, and talk about “going John Galt.” Fine, do it. Stop working, and better yet, move your sorry, thieving Republican tax cheating asses out of my country to … where? Tell me, where on earth will you go?

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  86. SEK:

    I mean, if 20,000 more troops had always been the correct answer, why had the administration spent five years asking the wrong questions?

    Like you, I don’t claim to be an expert on military strategy or tactics but we don’t really know what questions the Bush Administration asked or when they asked them. Further, there was more to the surge than simply putting more troops in Iraq. It also involved a different approach that might not have worked at the beginning of the war. For instance, it’s probably easier to get peacekeeping cooperation from a populace weary from years of insurgency.

    I think you’re confusing your talking points here: Republicans are the anti-elitist party, the Joe-the-Plumber and Tito-the-Builder party, they’re not the protect the-caviar-sipping, arugula-crunching, decadent-living party.

    I’m a big tent Republican who welcomes both the wealthy and workers who want to become wealthy.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  87. SEK,
    Thanks for re-inforcing every thing that i have come to know about liberals like you.

    I don’t claim to understand the complexities of Iraqi politics or military tactics, but the idea that the key to military victory? political stability? in Iraq was the presence of 20,000 more boots on the ground. There are plenty of alternative explanations out there for why the situation on the ground changed.

    Rip van Winkle just woke up, didnt he ?. It is stunning indeed to find the absolute ignorance of people like you on why and how the surge worked..

    the phrase “plenty of alternative explanations” is so telling.

    SEK, it was all a “miracle.”

    So how could the Iraq war be an act of nation-building unless OMFG Bush is a liar and a hypocrite and no Republican can ever be trusted again because of it!

    Wait a minute, that’s not my logic: it’s yours, and it’s bad. Bad when you use it, bad when I do. ”

    i was looking forward to you quoting Cheney about not taking down Hussein in the First Gulf War… but i was disappointed.

    I dont know SKG but Bush and Cheney were so radically pissed off by this 9/11 thingie that they lost their wits ?

    And the more you make of it — that is, the less you need it to meet daily expenses — the lower the percentage you pay out in taxes. In this sense, I’m all for a flat-tax so at least anonymous folks on the internet wouldn’t throw inane statements like this one at me:

    you need to be taught the meaning of the words private property… for a liberal like you, it should indeed be a strange concept.

    let me explain – what I earn belongs to me. How i use my money, how much i use it for “daily expenses” or even if i use it that way is none of your business.

    This is was by the way in response to your rant about “tax cuts” for the “wealthy”… the Government is not “giving” anything to these people… it is STILL taking most of the income taxes from them… only at a lesser RATE.

    But you still dont understand that, do you ??

    As far as anonymity goes, some one who goes by the name “SEK” should nt be talking abt it, me thinks.

    The top 1 percent of income earners should always pay the lion’s share of the country’s income taxes. That’s how math works.

    Easy for you to say. With an attitude like yours, i am not sure if you are even in the bottom 50% of income earners.

    The philosophical debate is over whether they should pay more, proportionally, than those in the lower tax brackets.
    No shit, Sherlock… and youe philosophy seems to be “soak the rich”.

    You want to know who pays how much in inxome taxes ?? Visit this website – it is called irs.gov. Jesus.

    I think you’re confusing your talking points here: Republicans are the anti-elitist party, the Joe-the-Plumber and Tito-the-Builder party, they’re not the protect the-caviar-sipping, arugula-crunching, decadent-living party.

    A PICTURE PERFECT illustration of how and why you can never reason with a liberal retard…Only a few posts later, you were complaining about how Bush was giving all those “tax cuts” to the “wealthy”.. you know those caviar-sipping, arugula-crunching, decadent-living top 1 %

    And then you are asking me to get talking points about the party being anti elitist.

    If you remember the brouhaha about Joe the Plumber, he was aspiring to get richer – he didnt have any problems being wealthy – only with socialists like Obama taxing his higher income (if he ever earned a higher income.)

    Please, get your talking points in order before you start moving your fingers. It’ll help you avoid painful bouts of cognitive dissonance.
    Do you realize that you are spewing trash?? Do you have any idea what cognitive dissonance even means ?

    Coming from a guy who thinks that GOP talking points are anti elitist while decrying them for cutting the tax rates for the wealthy elites… uh.. is indeed cognitive dissonance.

    It always SHOCKS the liberals how a person like Joe the Plumber speaks for lower taxes.

    He is anti-socialist for sure.. he is partly anti elitist to… against DeomCRAT elites that is.

    Good night, LOSER

    Nagarajan Sivakumar (2b84ec)

  88. Wow!


    “..move your sorry, thieving Republican tax cheating asses out of my country…”

    And here I thought that:

    1. “America: love it or leave it” was one of those tired retro Republican philosophies! Sure hope that the poster never sneered at a Republican saying that kind of thing some time ago!

    2. “Dissent is patriotic” seems like a flexible and party-dependent concept, it appears.

    On the gripping hand, it might just be Yet Another Moby!

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  89. Liberals Love To Assume…

    I love this:
    Apart from the fact that there is little distinction between wanting Obama to fail and wanting his policies to fail (with both ultimately meaning that the country has failed)
    Why, it’s a liberal Democrat’s policies! How can it…

    Liberty Pundit (0a2842)

  90. Another community based reality-ist. Good Allah, they are painful. Look at the polls, beeyotches!!! Get out of my country fascists!!!

    JD (db0f14)

  91. Larry and Sue-Ann Nivens!

    steve miller (c76b20)

  92. Bush is a war criminal who waged an illegal war of aggression, established torture as the law of the land, violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping.

    When Obama acts in similarly anti-American ways, then I will want to see him fail as well.

    In contrast, Rush (and as admitted by other Republicans) wants to see Obama fail because success would be a repudiation of Republican policies.

    Apparently Bush and the last 8 years of misrule and catastrophe weren’t sufficient repudiation of mismanaged government, unfettered free markets, and neoconservative foreign policy.

    Tell me, do you think Bush was a successful president? In what ways, so that we can measure Obama.

    Nick (2528eb)

  93. Illegal how, Nick? Violated the Constitution how?

    Yes, Bush was a successful President by many measures. Check attacks on the homeland, successive quarters of economic expansion, and the number of countries allied with our foreign policy.

    Pablo (99243e)

  94. Hmm. Sure you should credit Garden State? I had this exact screen cap up last Monday.

    http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-semantics.html

    DJ Tablesauce (1ed817)

  95. Proportinally more than those in the lower tax brackets, SEK? Nearly 50 percent of the country do not pay income taxes. Zero. I am no math whiz, but a ratio of something like $80,000,000,000 : 0 seems a bit off.

    JD (db0f14)

  96. Rush had more than enough time to be specific, to deliver all the nuance, all the details and to lay out all his motivations. He chose not to do so, and it was deliberate

    So, you missed that 90 minute speech he gave a CPAC, you retarded marmoset?

    N. O'Brain (453dd2)

  97. Nick is consistent insofar as he is always wrong.

    JD (db0f14)

  98. Nick, you have an active fantasy life.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  99. ” Stop working, and better yet, move your sorry, thieving Republican tax cheating asses out of my country”

    Your
    country?

    Who’s gonna pay for your welfare check?

    N. O'Brain (453dd2)

  100. Tell me, do you think Bush was a successful president? In what ways, so that we can measure Obama.

    Bush is the measure, now? Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton? Really?

    One thing’s for sure, though. We would not have been hearing this shit from North Korea two months ago.

    nk (502275)

  101. “Successive quarters of economic expansion”

    Fewer than any two-term president since the Great Depression.

    Nice try, Pablo.

    I knew the bar was low, but that’s ridiculous…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  102. Illegal in that it was a war of aggression, as described by Supreme Court Justice Jackson at Nuremberg.

    Violated tbe Constitution numerous ways–violated treaties regarding torture and waging wars of aggression, violated the 4th Amendment (with the aid of various Democratic and Republican congress critters) through illegal wiretaps and intelligence gathering in violation of FISA.

    And Bush didn’t protect the U.S.–he presided, after multiple warnings, over the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And then after that attack we had another terrorist attack via anthrax. Neither perpetrator was brought to justice.

    Nick (2528eb)

  103. The top 1 percent of income earners should always pay the lion’s share of the country’s income taxes.

    Why?

    What, do you think wealth is stolen from poor people?

    They’re poor, you moron.

    Go learn some economics.

    N. O'Brain (453dd2)

  104. The top 1 percent of income earners should always pay the lion’s share of the country’s income taxes.

    Why?

    Well, for one thing, they earn the most money. (I’m not sure it’s the lion’s share, but it’s certainly the most.) It makes good sense that those making more money should pay more in taxes.

    But the fact that SEK omits is that the top 1% of income earners pay a much higher percentage of the taxes than they make in income.

    We can argue about the fairness of that; I’m not particularly scandalized by it. I think a flat income tax with a high personal exemption — which I wholeheartedly support — would produce roughly similar numbers.

    But this is all very far from the original post: that according to a poll taken in 2006, Democrats wanted Bush to fail.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  105. [...] Patterico: Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail [...]

    51% of Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail | PAWaterCooler.com (2d4f3a)

  106. Hmm. Sure you should credit Garden State? I had this exact screen cap up last Monday.

    I created the screencap myself and didn’t see your post. As I said earlier, jimboster e-mailed me earlier and (after I asked him) credited Garden State.

    I have updated to give you the credit. It’s a nice catch. Wish I had known the source right out of the gate.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  107. Proportinally more than those in the lower tax brackets, SEK? Nearly 50 percent of the country do not pay income taxes. Zero. I am no math whiz, but a ratio of something like $80,000,000,000 : 0 seems a bit off.

    Fred Thompson said 40 percent — and that includes both non-filers and people whose gross income falls below the cut-off line and who therefore get their employer withheld federal income taxes returned to them — but I’m quibbling. This discussion is where we turn from numbers to philosophy; that is, where we have to ask whether $100 means the same to someone who makes $10,000 a year as it does to someone who makes $80,000. And then we’re off into an entirely different conversation, along the lines of whether it’s right and just to take from those who need more from those who can do with less. No, it’s not my place to decide where that line, and any decision will be arbitrary so long as it involves taxing people whose non-necessary expenditures include “saving for a college education” or “investing for retirement.” So the only decision, to my mind, is to only tax the filthy rich because in Soviet Russia you don’t eat the rich, the rich eat you. Literally.

    SEK (072055)

  108. Why? What, do you think wealth is stolen from poor people?

    This is what happens when you read uncharitably for so long it becomes habitual. Read what I wrote and tell me that I’m not talking about math. You know, like how 10 percent of 100 is way less than, say, 10 percent of 1,000,000. Pull out your calculator and do the math yourself. I’ll wait.

    SEK (072055)

  109. #88

    …move your sorry, thieving Republican tax cheating asses out of my country…

    Geitner, Daschle and Rangel are Republicans now??

    Who knew?

    David R. Block (f0b78e)

  110. Bush is a war criminal who waged an illegal war of aggression,

    That would be the one where he named his brother Jeb Governor in Excelsis of Mesopotamia?

    established torture as the law of the land,

    Personally, I appreciated the order from the local Sheriff stocking up on thumbscrews, Iron Maidens, and the like.

    violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping.

    Something tells me you don’t work in signals intelligence.

    …wants to see Obama fail because success would be

    an unprecedented leap forward in turning this country into another failed socialist state. But hey, you know ungrateful those East Europeans can be to their former socialist overlords. Maybe it wasn’t really that bad.

    years of misrule

    Maybe you ought to look at that Constitution thingie again…the whole point of it being that being ruled over ain’t such a hot idea. But maybe in your county your Sheriff does show up at your door when you’re late for work. I dunno.

    sufficient repudiation of mismanaged government,

    So the answer to “mismanaged government” is more of it? Not just a little bit more, but lots and lots more! Got it.

    unfettered free markets

    Only in my dreams, sadly. You’ve actually got to go to … well, come to think of it~I don’t think there is anyplace that has “unfettered free markets,” although there are a lot of places that come closer than here.

    neoconservative foreign policy.

    Ah, yes. Those nasty Joooooooosssss! How dare a people teaching peace and social responsibility for millenia try to survive?

    so that we can measure Obama.

    While the markets aren’t as free as I would like, they do seem to be free to take the measure of Obama, and it looks like they see a bumpy ride. It might be a little early yet, but it looks like Obama has managed to stimulate a world wide recession, if not outright panic.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  111. This has nothing to do with what’s going on with Limbaugh. No one that would be considered a “leader” in the Democratic party ever said they wanted Bush to fail.

    Jonny Home (a5a36f)

  112. Lest we get derailed by Hacks and SEK, I want to remind everyone that the Dems actively and overtly rooted for President Bush’s failure from before he even took the Oath of Office. As our host points out, it is absolutely the pinnacle of hubris and mendacity for the Dems to cry foul given their track record.

    JD (db0f14)

  113. This is SEK @ 82

    “We have no problem letting people KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

    And the more you make of it — that is, the less you need it to meet daily expenses — the lower the percentage you pay out in taxes.”

    The presumption is that rich people just don’t NEED all that EXTRA money, even if they EARN it fair and square. What you earn belongs to the government first and foremost and what they decide to leave you with after tax, out of fairness, is none of your business. Just because you decide to buy a bigger house and maybe a vacation home and a few extra cars a few other goodies because you’ve been extra successful and your expense levels are high, the government doesn’t care. You make too much money! You are different. It’s not fair. You don’t need it. The government doesn’t care how you are spending your money. The government will keep more of it. Tough Titty. Sincerely, the Bureaucrats.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  114. It’s all good, Patrick. Thanks for clearing everything up. It’s appreciated.

    DJ Tablesauce (1ed817)

  115. #108 SEK:

    This is what happens when you read uncharitably for so long it becomes habitual. Read what I wrote and tell me that I’m not talking about math.

    While I’m sure N. O’Brain has no problem speaking for himself, it certainly seems to me that he was making a policy comment, rather than a mathematical one.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  116. #116 daleyrocks:

    The presumption is that rich people just don’t NEED all that EXTRA money, even if they EARN it fair and square.

    Well, you know how it is.

    Some days I spending growing arugula in my window boxes, and some days I spend soldering copper pipe.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  117. #115 JD

    Lest we get derailed by Hacks and SEK, I want to remind everyone that the Dems actively and overtly rooted for President Bush’s failure from before he even took the Oath of Office.

    Prove it. Show me where a leader of the Democratic party openly wished for Bush to fail before he took office.

    mj (33f399)

  118. [...] are the stunning results (h/t Patterico via NB reader Thomas [...]

    Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care? (ef1f42)

  119. [...] are the stunning results (h/t Patterico via NB reader Thomas [...]

    Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care? (ef1f42)

  120. Hey wingers, you’re the ones talking about wanting to “Go Galt,” and the de facto head of the Republican Party wants the president to fail. It’s clear that you hate this country, so I think you should get the hell out.

    The real question is who the hell would want you?

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  121. Hey wingers, you’re the ones talking about wanting to “Go Galt,” and the de facto head of the Republican Party wants the president to fail. It’s clear that you hate this country, so I think you should get the hell out.

    The real question is who would want you?

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  122. And the more you make of it — that is, the less you need it to meet daily expenses — the lower the percentage you pay out in taxes.

    I disagree with this.

    First, the more money you make, the greater a percentage of your earnings is paid in income tax, both at the state and federal level.

    Second, most states exempt food and housing from sales tax. The more income you make, the more you will spend money on things that are taxable, and so the greater a percentage of your income goes to sales tax.

    Finally, the only tax that has a cap is Social Security. However, by the time someone has reached that level of wages, he’s paying a third in federal income taxes…much higher than 6.2%. And not far above that income level, Schedule A and other deductions start getting eliminated. So, each dollar you earn makes the total tax percentage even higher.

    But if you add up all taxes at all levels of government, I’d bet you’ll find that the percentage of income going to taxes increases with income.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  123. “Well, you know how it is.”

    EW1 – Isn’t the expression, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  124. Mr. Realist is Yet Another Moby.

    Maybe we should just call his type Queequeg.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  125. Between 1979 and now, I have earned (in today’s dollars) between $30,000 and $950,000 in any one year. My effective tax rate was never lower than 20%, and never higher than 35%. In most of these years, my pay was between $80K and $550K, and then my effective tax rate ranged from the mid-20s to the mid-30s.

    There were very few changes to speak of, regardless of who was president. No one ever pays more than 35%, and no one ever pays less than 20% unless they’re dirt poor. Wingnuts never want to talk about this because it conflicts with their ideology.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  126. Incidentally, those tax rates include real estate and sales taxes. I have kept very good records over the years. Unlike the wingnuts here and elsewhere on the Internet, I pay attention to facts.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  127. Comment by Mister Realist — 3/8/2009 @ 11:12 pm

    That is not even possible with AMT.

    When AMT kicks-in, 40% goes to the feds (no if’s, and’s, or but’s).
    Plus do not forget about the state tax (in CA just under 10%).

    Odd, your claim.

    Pons Asinorum (87c424)

  128. C’mon, PA. You know that this is more trolling.

    The claim isn’t odd. It’s not true.

    People who make 950K in one year, and 30K in another, are aggregate people, with numbers designed to prove a political point.

    And the angry insults give away the whole game.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  129. Fox News – the Republican propaganda machine – prints a poll that finds that Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed in 2006. Shock, surprise, and amazement! WOW. Not that they’ve ever slanted their coverage in favor of the Republicans. And you view this as proof? Who were these Democrats and where they did they find them?

    How many major Democrats – vocal ones, on the record, in public said that they wanted Bush to fail? It would have been major news.

    After all the complaints about not supporting President Bush not one single Democrat said they wanted to fail. NOT ONE! They may not have supported all his policies, but NO ONE suggested that he fail, and take the country with him as Rush Limbaugh has.

    (Of course, failing and taking the country with him is something he did all by himself)

    Baycat57 (3c8bef)

  130. [...] Patterico does it by producing a 2006 poll: [...]

    Ending the “I Want Obama To Fail” Kerfuffle | QandO (4844f0)

  131. Not sure anyone will read down this far, but here goes:

    1. Not succeeding is different than failing.
    2. When the leader of the party says he hopes the President fails it sends a different message than when poll respondents say they hope the president does not succeed.
    3. “Destroying” a president before he is inaugurated? That’s not a crime — that’s a tradition!

    Seriously: Bush had been in office for nearly 6 years at that point in time and had implemented some of the most heinous attacks on the Constitution ever charted in the history of the US Presidency (not to mention the shenanigans of the 2000 election). To compare that to a President who has barely been in office for barely 6 weeks is ludicrous.

    P.S. The standing of the Republicans in 2006 is better than it is in 2009. That alone should tell you what y’all need to know. I’m just saying.

    Ara (f309bb)

  132. [...] you like this post, please subscribe to read more content on this topic.Patterico exhumed a 2006 poll from Fox News wherein 51 percent of Democrats said “No, they did not want [...]

    Republican Pushback: Dems wanted Bush to “not succeed” so we’re even | E Pluribus Unum (750690)

  133. It’s politically idiotic to say that you want Obama to fail. Say you want his bad policies to fail.

    We are playing into their hands. There is nothing they want more than to make this personal. There is no reason why we can’t insert those words bad policies. Saying you want Obama to fail will never ever ever communicate what you really mean. It sets us up to fail, which is why they want Rush to be our spokesman.

    We have let a radio host’s search for sensational sound bites set our message. We are being played, and the clear voice of the opposition is stifled.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  134. ZOMG! They are trying to rewrite history right in front of our eyes.

    Mj – Look at Haary Reid’s repeated assertions about our failure, even going so far as to declare defeat of the surge before it started.

    Ara – no natter how many times you assert it, Rush is not the leader of the Republican party. A valid comparison would be Air America or MSNBC, and to suggest that they did anything other than push his failure is laughable.

    Mister community based reality is an abject liar.

    JD (61e494)

  135. [...] Patterico dusts off a 2006 poll from Fox News that plumbs the history of wishing failure a little more thoroughly than the media seems to want to do on their own.  The question of wishing success or failure is not new; Fox explicitly asked that very question to its survey respondents.  Fifty-one percent of Democrats wanted to see George Bush fail: [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Guess who also wanted a president to fail? (e2f069)

  136. [...] Patterico dusts off a 2006 poll from Fox News that plumbs the history of wishing failure a little more thoroughly than the media seems to want to do on their own.  The question of wishing success or failure is not new; Fox explicitly asked that very question to its survey respondents.  Fifty-one percent of Democrats wanted to see George Bush fail: [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Guess who also wanted a president to fail? (e2f069)

  137. I kept really good records too. It looks like my income was “between” $3 and $20,000,000,000,000.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  138. [...] poll is from 2006 and was dug up by Patterico. Not only did 51% of Democrats want then-President George Bush to fail, but more than a third of [...]

    Flashback: Poll Says Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail | The American Pundit (b45940)

  139. The top 1 percent of income earners should always pay the lion’s share of the country’s income taxes.

    You do know that we have a progressive tax in this country, right? The “wealthy” (which is definitely becoming a moving target) pay a *disproportionate* amount of the taxes of this nation. In order for the top 1% wage earners to pay 40% of the nation’s taxes (with 50% not paying _any_ income taxes), they’d have to be earning many times more than than their fellow citizens.

    To whit;

    Approx. 150M workers in the US, 50% = 75M

    Let’s use an estimate of 500B in federal tax revenues (just making up a number here)

    1% of 150M = 1.5M pay $200B in income taxes.
    49% of 150M = 73.5M pay $300B in income taxes.
    50% of 150M = 75M pay $0.00 in income taxes.

    Portion that each member of the top 1% pay (evenly divided for the sake of brevity) = $133K

    Portion that each member of the 49% pay = $4K

    There is too large of a proportionate discrepancy there, as you can see. Its punitive to the successful people (small business owners) and Obama wants to make it more disproportionate.

    I too am a firm believer that we need to adopt a flat or fair tax rule, heck make it a Constitutional Amendment.

    The problem isn’t that a family making $600k a year pays 33% in income tax ($200k) and that they still have $400k to spend, its that they also have to pay capital gains taxes, sales tax, and so on and so forth. They are paying the brunt of the tax burden for no other reason than to aid those that make less and to pay for the business of the government. As our government grows, so does the dependence of its citizens upon that government. When the people have to depend upon the government (instead of the other way around), they’ve effectively enslaved themselves and yielded all of their liberties.

    Remove the incentive for success and people will stop succeeding. In a capitalistic society, socialistic policies will kill the economy. People come here to have a chance to succeed on their own merits, if those incentives are removed then those people might as well have stayed in their home countries.

    It makes no sense to me that people that embrace Socialism would want to change this country instead of going where Socialism is already in place and “working”. If a nationalized healthcare system is the answer/best, then why wouldn’t you move to a country with that system already in place? If a welfare state is the most humane in your opinion, don’t try and force a square block into a round hole, move to a country that has adopted Socialism. I’m not saying, “love it or leave it”, I’m saying why expend energy in an endeavor to change something when you can get what you want elsewhere? Why do people from other countries immigrate here and try to change this country into their previous home? If what they had was working, why did they leave?

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  140. [...] got the whole story, but is anyone surprised? Anyone with even a marginal ability to read between the lines knows the [...]

    Turns out Limbaugh stole that whole “wanting the president to fail” schtick from mainstream Democrat thought three years ago | College Republicans at Texas (695391)

  141. Hey, I’m the new official spokesman for the Republican party:

    We hope, and some pray, that President Obama FAILS in implementing his policies. We view his policies as antithetical to the American tradition of a representative republic with individual liberties and a free market economy. The Conservatives see President Obama and the Democrats in Congress as having a far left Socialist agenda which we believe endangers our liberties and rights.

    We Conservatives are trying to save you liberals from yourselves before you do irrevocable harm to this nation. Perhaps you feel that Obama is the best solution, but his policies have been tried and failed repeatedly (see Japan’s Lost Decade). But, its not just the economy that we worry about, we also worry about our civil liberties, and the retention of our “inalienable” rights. I use quotes around inalienable, because we all know that when a government grows big enough and powerful enough, a piece of paper declaring “inalienable” rights means nothing. Well, we’re headed in that direction. You think that Bush was destroying the US Constitution (btw, previous PotUS, Democrat and Republican did these same actions) with “illegal” wiretapping? When you see the 1st and 2nd Amendments fall, will you even register a protest? So far, you haven’t and yet its happening right under your noses. Perhaps you don’t feel that your effected by these changes, but when they are removed from us, they are removed from you as well and there will come a time when you will no longer agree with the actions that the government is taking, but by then it will be too late…

    This is not about partisanship, it about retaining America’s unique qualities that guarantee her citizens rights and liberties that no other country on the earth has. The persons in power are grabbing power by the truckloads and putting this country in deeper debt in order to weaken us and gain power as a result. It is not a conspiracy theory, the actions they have taken show their hand clearly;

    – Nationalized healthcare; SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid (see UK, Australia, Canada, et al for the wonderful world of nationalize healthcare)
    – Nationalization of banks and other corporations; list too numerous to mention (Venezuela seems relevant currently)
    – Nationalized income/retirement; Welfare, Social Security
    – Shutting down dissenting voices; localized content, ownership rules…you will note that policies of media control are ONLY being directed at talk radio and the internet, and not at newspapers or television. Those are the places where dissenting views are being heard. You may not agree with Conservatives, but when our rights to free speech are tethered, yours’ are too.

    The federal government is growing too big and powerful. It is taking too much control and asking us to give up too much in order to grow and support it. When the government controls the above, they will control YOU. This is all being sold to the people as emergency actions, and yet we’ve had bigger problems and deeper recessions and yet historical actions (the most money being spent) are being taken. The results are already being seen; AIG didn’t recover, it posted continued losses and GM didn’t recover, it continued to post losses…throwing money into the fire pit…the result of all of this money being spent is that the *people* are weakened and fearful, making the country ripe for the government implementing more control or our lives.

    This is why we hope that President Obama FAILS.

    ————————————————-

    You Democrats/liberals go on, take this country down. No one else could have done it, it had to be an inside job. It was fun while it lasted, but now its all but over.

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  142. Somebody call a WAAAHH-ambulance. The right wing has fallen down and can’t get up!

    GOP08_DOA (0cd70b)

  143. [...] Links via Hot Air. Here’s the first question, exactly as it was offered: [...]

    Moe Lane » Just a reminder: Democrats wanted Bush to fail in 2006. (da2344)

  144. [...] Links via Hot Air. Here’s the first question, exactly as it was offered: [...]

    Just a reminder: Democrats wanted Bush to fail in 2006. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState (796605)

  145. [...] and Patterico both posted a 2006 Fox News poll in which 51% of Democrats said they wanted to see then-President [...]

    What Democrats Don’t Want You To Know: “I Wanted Bush To Fail” | Smoke Break (633bf1)

  146. [...] much gratitude to Patterico and Hot Air, I offer you this FOX News poll from August 2006 which asks the question that over half [...]

    51% wanted President to fail at The K. Ryan James blog (b709cb)

  147. Somebody call a WAAAHH-ambulance. The right wing has fallen down and can’t get up!

    Heh, I think you’ve got the right (no pun intended) idea. Carry on as normal, nothing to see here…

    My only joy will be seeing the leftist grovel at the feet of their masters to be fed a crumb…muhahahaha! Bunch of pantywaisted, beta males. GG!

    Geministorm (e5cc3e)

  148. “No one ever pays more than 35%”

    Mr. Realist – Complete bullshit. I have the returns to prove it.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  149. This liberal wanted Bush to succeed at not royally fouling things up. I wanted him to succeed at learning lessons from the past. I wanted him to succeed in making the United States and the world a better and more harmonious place to live. I wanted him to succeed in preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. That didn’t really pan out.

    I wanted him *not* to succeed at providing massive tax cuts while we were in the middle of two wars. I wanted him to fail at torturing people (innocent or guilty); I wanted him to fail at politicizing the DOJ, fail at suppressing a scientific approach to resource management and climate control, and fail at undermining the UN, world peace and goodwill towards the US.

    I guess it all comes down to how you define “success.” In the end, I mostly didn’t get what I wanted out of the Bush years.

    DavidK (7e13bf)

  150. Hey, I found a prediction, and it was worse than I expected!

    For Bush, I see the death coming from assassination, most likely from a Mideast source through terrorism because of an escalation of war with Iraq that takes place between now and the end of 2002.

    Plus, Nostradamus himself thought W would be a bad president. Can’t argue with that.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  151. 130 Comment by Eric Blair — 3/9/2009 @ 12:11 am

    C’mon, PA. You know that this is more trolling.

    The claim isn’t odd. It’s not true.

    People who make 950K in one year, and 30K in another, are aggregate people, with numbers designed to prove a political point.

    And the angry insults give away the whole game.

    True professor, just trying to be gentle, as it appears he may have problems with reality.

    #141 Comment by carlitos — 3/9/2009 @ 7:21 am

    I kept really good records too. It looks like my income was “between” $3 and $20,000,000,000,000.

    $20 trillion — make sure to save it, because next year this time that will be the price of a loaf of bread (not even organic). ;-)

    Pons Asinorum (87c424)

  152. I rarely mention my income online because wingnuts will never believe it. You hate facts anyway. I’d love to make a bet with you, and escrow the wager, so that I could collect my $10K when I prove my income and tax rates.

    Fact is that, as you increase your income, a variety of deductions kick in. People simply don’t pay an effective tax rate of more than 35% in this country. I suspect you people are too poor to understand it.

    Oh, and to the wingnuts who cite the AMT and CA state taxes, a couple of things. First, there is a difference between a marginal rate and an effective rate. Go check, wingnut idiots. Second, I don’t live in CA. If I did, in the $950K year I might have gone a shade higher than 35%, but only because I don’t do the tax minimization thing.

    Do you people realize how fucking stupid you are? I guess not. I mean, these days the wingnuts are talking about “Going Galt.” I actually read Ayn Rand’s two “masterpieces,” The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and even when I was in college I laughed my ass off at them, especially the barely disguised kink. The idea that anyone would take that shit seriously as a “philosophy” is ludicrous, but then again, this is the country that gave us the Mormons and the Scientologists so I guess it’s only to be expected.

    Now, my little wingnuts, when you “Go Galt,” there isn’t going to be a sci-fi forcefield in Colorado Springs, so please tell me which country you’re going to pick for this final fantasy of yours.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  153. I seem to recall one Mrs. Clinton saying that actually believing Gen Petraeus’ testimony required a “willing suspension of disbelief”, no?
    An Senate Majority leader, Reid, not content with calling Bush a “loser” in front of school kids, stated that the war was “lost.”
    So far from “hoping” anything, it looks like prominent ELECTED Democrats had moved all the way to declaring failure.

    Stephen D. Oliver (b47539)

  154. [...] should not complain about Rush Limbaugh stating that he wants Pres. Obama to fail, because Democrats were rooting for George W. Bush to fail, too (emphasis in original): Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and [...]

    Republican Stupid Disease « Liberty Street (565823)

  155. Bush was a loser. It’s a neck-and-neck race between him and Franklin Pierce for worst ever.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  156. OK…. so you there was an idiotic poll and a bunch of idiots answered accordingly. All this poll demonstrates is that there are good polls and there are really bad polls, this being the latter. Regardless of your political background it is unwise to desire the commander in chief, the President of the United States to fail. Don’t we all lose when this happens? This is so stupid, I feel my IQ dwindling even pointing the irony of this out.

    snooty democrat (30f9b6)

  157. Snooty, what makes this a really bad poll? Was the sampling group not sufficient? Were the questions asked not proper?

    See, it seems to me that, rather than admit that a fair number of Democrats said and believed very stupid things when Bush was President, that most Dems posting here would deny it to the point of saying the poll was bad.

    Show some evidence that the poll was bad, if that’s your point.

    Otherwise, I think Patterico has it nailed: Limbaugh shouldn’t have phrased it the way he did, and Democrats complaining about Limbaugh really aren’t in a position to point fingers.

    Steverino (69d941)

  158. All this talk about China. From people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. I lived in China for a year, and I frequently travel there on business.

    Myth: China is Socialist

    No, it is not. China is a Communist nation that has a very highly regulated economy. They even call the people who run the country The Chinese Central Committee. In the late 1980s, the central government told people “It is glorious to get rich”; this essentially repudiated Mao’s legacy.

    Let’s not forget “The Great Leap Forward” and “The Cultural Revolution”. These two events essentially killed over 100 million people. It is so bad, that when I’m in a business meeting over there, I am typically the oldest guy in the room, and I’m not even 50.

    Hell, even the Central Committee has deemed Mao 70% right and 30% wrong. But look at the 30%.

    Most of the companies are former State Owned Enterprises (SOE), they are now largely either privately held or publically traded. The remaining SOEs are basically PetroChina, The National Rail System, The National Power Comapny (National Grid), etc.

    Myth: China has socialized medicine.

    Not a chance. In China, you get the health care you can afford. There is no medical insurance.

    Myth: There is a government run saafety net.

    Wrong. The social support system in China is family.

    Dr. K (f76971)

  159. Me, I want to teach the world to sing

    in perfect harmoneeeeee……

    Is that hope?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  160. #85:

    You are joking, right? Right?

    China has some of the most stringent controls in place with respect to foreign currency transactions.

    Eaxmple 1: While living there, I was paid in US$ and brought US$ into the country for “spending cash” (and 99+% of the economy is cash based). Everything you read tells you that you can change you Chinese currency back into US$ as long as (1) it within 6 months of when you changed it into CNY AND (2) you CANNOT change more into US$ than you changed into $CNY.

    The reality is that yes, you can if you have a Chinese national handle the transaction for you. My interpreter had to show her internal passport in order to do this for me, but it was a huge hassle.

    Example 2: Ever wonder why the “fake” markets thrive in China? Because a knock-off Ralph Lauren Polo shirt in a fake market costs about $4. You could buy the same shirt in a US outlet mall for $20. Buying the real deal in China can make the same shirt that you pay $20 for here over $120 in China.

    Because if you buy a real shirt, some of the money goes to Ralph, and you are essentially “exporting” cash. So they tax the hell out of it.

    You cannot get a license to do business unless you are willing to pay a bribe to someone to intorduce you to someone (who you bribe) who knows someone (who you bribe) who is friends with the person you also have to bribe to get the license. It is all legal.

    Dr. K (f76971)

  161. Dr. K, you are wasting your time. See here for examples.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  162. This conservative wanted Obama to succeed at not royally fouling things up. I wanted him to succeed at learning lessons from the past. I wanted him to succeed in making the United States and the world a better and more harmonious place to live. That didn’t really pan out, and it hasn’t been two months yet.

    I want him *not* to succeed at wrecking the economy through his policies. I wanted him to fail at politicizing the entire government, fail at suppressing science to push through a set of idiotic regulations, and fail at undermining world peace and goodwill towards the US. So far, I’ve gotten nothing from Obama.

    Either this doesn’t count as wanting Obama to fail, or the liberals in this thread need to get together and stop undermining each others arguments.

    Civilis (6018b0)

  163. Your party has wished for presidential failure. As irritating as this is, I welcome it because it lays bare the truth for all Americans to see: You are traitors, hoping for failure. Welcome to your wilderness, crazies.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  164. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_231_rls_web.pdf

    Yea have the poll handy only problem is you are wrong no question was asked in the poll if anyone wanted him to fail.

    Closest that comes to it was.

    Do you approve or disapprove .

    And thats asked in all polls .

    koollook (b15e4a)

  165. I see the rest of the Massengill heiresses decided to drop by.

    JD (5ffaf3)

  166. Hey, drive bys, it’s worse than that. We wish for the total and complete conversion of Democrats to responsible government.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  167. I note the lack of response of a certain commenter. Shocka.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  168. You are traitors, hoping for failure. Welcome to your wilderness, crazies.

    See, back when it was the Democrats hoping for failure, we were all told dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now we’re dissenting, and we’re told we’re all traitors.

    Could you Dems please get the tune right, so we can dance to it?

    Steverino (b12c49)

  169. I don’t know what all the Whitehouse and main stream media hype is all about over what Rush said, because the cards are on the table…Obama is on his way to failure and saying it doesn’t make any difference regardless of what Rush said. I too hope his socialist agenda and plans fail. The quicker he fails the quicker the country can get back to being a Republic!

    Al Barrs (9c882f)

  170. Yea have the poll handy only problem is you are wrong no question was asked in the poll if anyone wanted him to fail.

    Closest that comes to it was.

    Do you approve or disapprove .

    You’re citing the wrong poll, koollook. Your poll was #231, the one cited in the original post was #230.

    Steverino (69d941)

  171. Fox News. You’ve said it all. Why, just yesterday when flipping channels, I heard some douchebag there claim that FDR used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to start a war with Germany.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  172. Mister Community Based Reality is a mental midget. Prolly owns a lapel flower that squirts water and big red clown shoes.

    JD (0c1fee)

  173. Sure you did. Feel free to link that for us.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  174. Fox News. You’ve said it all.

    That’s known as the Genesis Fallacy, a subset of ad hominem

    If you’re going to make an argument, try making a valid one.

    Steverino (69d941)

  175. Then again, not too long ago, I heard someone on Fox (network) News use the n-word – twice. Unfortunately, it was Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  176. First, there is a difference between a marginal rate and an effective rate.

    I understand the difference between marginal and effect tax rates. I also understand that at $950K of income, almost all of that income is in the highest marginal rate, so that the effective rate is very close to the marginal rate.

    Try making that argument with someone who doesn’t understand math.

    Steverino (69d941)

  177. You mean Grand Kleagle Byrd (Dem – KKK) ?

    JD (0c1fee)

  178. #179, Mister Realist – you are right that that was a stupid statement since FDR had already attempted to start a war with Germany by employing the US Navy to intervene on behalf of Britain long before Pearl Harbor.

    SPQR (72771e)

  179. JD, my wife and I were watching Fox News Sunday, and we heard Senator Byrd say “white nigger” 2 or 3 times, and we just couldn’t believe it. This was right after he said how much better race relations are. We just about fell off the couch.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  180. Why, just yesterday when flipping channels, I heard some douchebag there claim that FDR used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to start a war with Germany.

    Bob Beckel? Marc Lamont Hill? Ellis Hennican? Alan Colmes? Susan Estrich? Geraldine Ferraro? Geraldo Rivera?

    Do tell, Mister.

    Pablo (99243e)

  181. Its tough Pablo, as all of those you listed are as ignorant of US history as Mister Realist is.

    SPQR (72771e)

  182. [...] Patterico had this great post today to remind normnal people of what they already knew, and to shove it in the face of the elite media and the Democratic leadership who are once again trying to rewrite history: [...]

    Patterico: Proof Democrats Wanted the War to Fail. They said so. « The IUSB Vision Weblog (fb05f5)

  183. 188, I don’t know who the hell said it. It wasn’t anyone recognizable. All I know is that the douchebag said it, and I laughed and flipped to a different channel. You and your Foxliars will say absolutely anything.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  184. Let’s see: you don’t know who said it, you don’t have a link to it, and you flipped the channel right away before you could see what the reaction to the statement was.

    That’s quite an indictment you have there.

    Steverino (69d941)

  185. I saw Obama on Fox. It was probably him.

    Pablo (99243e)

  186. Mister Realist, #191, really all you’ve done is illustrate your own ignorance, no one elses.

    SPQR (72771e)

  187. I just flipped by MSNBC and they were hanging Milton Friedman in effigy. I flipped the channel right away, though.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  188. SPQR, do you also think that FDR used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to go to war with Germany?

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  189. Mister Realist, as I said before, it is obvious that FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to go to war with Germany.

    That’s because FDR had already spent more than a year trying to provoke Germany into a declaration of war before Pearl Harbor.

    So the statement was silly because it referred to events long after FDR had engaged in hostilities against Germany.

    Try to learn some history Mister Realist.

    SPQR (72771e)

  190. If you wade into a post calling people “crazy” “traitors” and (seriously) “foxliars” (sic), I wouldn’t expect much in the way of serious replies. Sorry, just being a realist. Feel free to go back to flipping through news channels and see what Pat Buchanan is saying. What network employs that hatemonger again?

    carlitos (1653ac)

  191. it is obvious that FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to go to war with Germany

    Well that’s what your idiot Foxfriends said the other day on TV, so any time some wingnut cites a Fox poll I think we really ought to consider the source.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  192. Mister Realist, Joe Biden said that FDR went on TV to calm the nation after the stock market crash in ’29.

    So using your rather stupid criteria, we can ignore everything the Obama administration says.

    SPQR (72771e)

  193. Obama Derangement Syndrome, anyone?

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  194. In case you haven’t figured it out, “Mister Realist” ( among our most misnamed of trolls ), the comment about FDR using Pearl Harbor as an excuse to wage war on Germany is far closer to real history than Joe Biden can get on his best day.

    SPQR (72771e)

  195. Still hooked on your Foxlies, I see. By the way: Germany was allied with Japan. The sequence of events went this way:

    7 Dec 1941: Japan attacks the United States

    8 Dec 1941: The United States declares war on Japan

    11 Dec 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on the United States

    Seeing as how you’ve been on your knees polishing the knobs of your Foxfriends, I thought you’d like to know the facts. Not the facts ever once mattered to a wingnut.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  196. So, my Left of center friends here…

    Remember how it is really, really bad when Right leaning folks get all insulting and personal? How typical it is of the evil Right wing?

    I recommend you clean up your own side of the aisle.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  197. Mister Realist obviously isn’t Mister Historian.

    Civilis (74c566)

  198. #204, I don’t care if wingnuts get all insulting. I’m not a crying baby. You are the infants here. You seem to think that not being a wingnut means that we sit around singing Kumbaya and forgiving you for your idiocy. I have news for you: Nope.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  199. Civilis, why don’t you give me the wingnut timeline, then. Maybe in your wingnut world, first the U.S. declared war on Japan, then the U.S. declared war on Germany, and then your Fuhrer, pushed to the wall, with no other choice, issued a declaration of self defense?

    Come on, idiot wingnut traitor, tell me how it went. Give me a preview of what the Foxliars will say tomorrow morning.

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  200. “Realist” is a little loopy, no?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  201. Mister Realist, you really are quite ignorant. FDR had been trying to get Germany to declare war on the US for some time ( among other reasons, because FDR was a follower not a leader ). He had been pushing the US Navy to engage in provocative actions in the Atlantic for quite a long time before Pearl Harbor including US ships for escorting convoys of war materiel to Britain for half the distance and attacking German U-boats in international waters. Go find out about the USS Rueben James for instance. Try to figure out why it was sunk in March of 1941.

    So the comment that you can’t source, can’t identify the speaker and can’t directly quote is closer to historical truth than the twit Vice President that Democrats foisted on us can get.

    Grow up Mister Realist, your attempt to show up Fox just makes you look like an idiot.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  202. “March of 1941″ above should read “October of 1941″.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  203. SPQR, your Foxfriends, the Foxliars, said that FDR used the Pearl Harbor attack as an excuse to go to war with Germany. It was a very specific statement. It wasn’t a larger comment about the events that preceded Pearl Harbor, but rather a direct and simple statement.

    You are such a wingnut idiot apologist for any lie tbhat your Foxliar Foxfriends tell that you can’t even bring yourself to repudiate that narrow bit of idiocy. That makes you just as much of an idiot as they are.

    No wonder the country has repudiated you and your kind. Welcome to the wilderness, idiot. And just think of it: Fewer than two months into PRESIDENT OBAMA’s first term, you and Limbaugh are burning down your house. This is fun!

    Mister Realist (66858c)

  204. So much ignorance in so little time, and all this deranged ranting based on one little quote, with no context, on Fox News. I say we keep him.

    Civilis (36a597)

  205. [...] tip: Patterico, who notes that we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain.  When Democrats try [...]

    Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » They Hope the President Fails (685f85)

  206. Well that’s what your idiot Foxfriends said the other day on TV,

    By your own admission, you don’t know who the speaker was. He may not have been a regular Fox commentator, he may just have been someone being interviewed.

    SPQR, your Foxfriends, the Foxliars, said that FDR used the Pearl Harbor attack as an excuse to go to war with Germany. It was a very specific statement. It wasn’t a larger comment about the events that preceded Pearl Harbor, but rather a direct and simple statement.

    Again, by your own words, you can’t make that claim. You flipped the channel after the statement, and you have no idea what the reaction or follow-up was.

    Seriously, you are close to becoming unhinged on this subject. One tiny statement from an unknown source, and you’re using it to tar all conservatives.

    Just for the record: I don’t watch Fox, or any other news network. So don’t call me a “foxliar” or a “foxfriend”.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  207. Mister Realist, so far we’ve established that this unknown person on Fox News knows more history than you do, and than Joe Biden does.

    Then you write: “You are such a wingnut idiot apologist for any lie tbhat your Foxliar Foxfriends tell that you can’t even bring yourself to repudiate that narrow bit of idiocy. That makes you just as much of an idiot as they are.

    Given what I wrote above in comment numbers 186 and 197, your comment is a lie.

    So much for your alleged superiority over any mysterious person on Fox News.

    SPQR (72771e)

  208. Seriously, you are close to becoming unhinged on this subject

    A bit of an understatement, coming from a foxliar traitor wingnut idiot apoligist like you.

    Just for fun, google’s #1 result for ‘foxliar’ is lyrics to this awful 80′s hair metal song – liar.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  209. [...] that 51 percent of Democrats – when asked in a 2006 poll – did not want President Bush to succeed. Patterico has more, with the full poll courtesy Fox [...]

    Democrat strategists wanted Bush to fail - before Sept. 11 | Radio Vice Online (212653)

  210. #159 Comment by Mister Realist — 3/9/2009 @ 11:57 am

    My apologies for being late to the party; not certain if you are still here Mister Reality, but I will try anyway:

    I rarely mention my income online because wingnuts will never believe it.
    False; most will not believe it because of your patently false claims. Your self-described income may or may not be an accurate account (who really cares); however your demonstrably false statement about income taxes (as related to AMT) is in dispute.

    You hate facts anyway.
    False; on the contrary I prefer facts.

    I’d love to make a bet with you, and escrow the wager, so that I could collect my $10K when I prove my income and tax rates.
    No thanks; I could care a less what you make.

    Fact is that, as you increase your income, a variety of deductions kick in.
    False; the following are some basic and brief excerpts demonstrating your falsehoods.

    from TurboTax (click for full source)
    The AMT is a parallel tax system that operates in the shadow of the regular tax, expanding the amount of income that is taxed by adding items that are tax-free under the regular tax system and disallowing many deductions.

    from the IRS (click for full source)
    What is the AMT? The AMT came into being with the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Its purpose was to target a small number of high-income taxpayers who could claim so many deductions they owed little or no income tax. A growing number of middle-income taxpayers are discovering they are subject to the AMT.

    from Fairmark (click for full source)
    The alternative minimum tax (or AMT) is an extra tax some people have to pay on top of the regular income tax. The original idea behind this tax was to prevent people with very high incomes from using special tax benefits to pay little or no tax. The AMT has increased its reach, however, and now applies to some people who don’t have very high income or who don’t claim lots of special tax benefits. Proposals to repeal or reform the AMT have languished in Congress for years, but effective action does not appear to be on the horizon. Until Congress acts, almost anyone is a potential target for this tax.

    First, there is a difference between a marginal rate and an effective rate.
    True.

    If I did [live in CA], in the $950K year I might have gone a shade higher than 35%, but only because I don’t do the tax minimization thing.

    False; the “tax minimization thing” is exactly what AMT prevents. The truth is your Federal rate would have been close to 40% (income and AMT) and your state tax just shy of 10% — grand total is about 50% AT BEST!

    The rest of your comments devolve into a rant full of insults; complete with religious bigotry, name-calling and irrational tirades — typical refuge for the weak-minded who cannot argue in a logical and genuine fashion when challenged. Possibly because of a deficient intellectual capacity or maybe a political bias of hatred that is so bent, it twisted your ability to act in a civil fashion with a fellow citizen. What a proud person you must be.

    Pons Asinorum (87c424)

  211. That whole episode was sad. Mr. “Realist” demonstrates irrational thinking, and makes some stuff up. Then he claims he saw something on Fox News, no link no name no context, and, when challenged, anyone doing the challenging is a “foxliar” or worse “idiot wingnut traitor.” They are this whether or not they watch Fox News (most of us don’t). Inverted genesis fallacy with head up ass, claims to authority based on claimed income, etc. Very very strange.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  212. Exactly right, Carlitos.

    A man who is secure in his beliefs does not fear other beliefs. Nor does he need to resort to pretend-stories to support his position and insist that they are facts.

    Some liberal-minded folks speak intelligently about their political beliefs and ideas. I greatly enjoy those discussions (challenging, too). Not this guy. Maybe next time we can hope for a more honest dialog with a person that can cite sources when challenged, or (dare I say it) at least maintain a civil tone.

    Hope and Change!

    Pons Asinorum (87c424)

  213. [...] a comment » Democrats wanted Bush to fail: “Patterico: Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s [...]

    Democrats wanted Bush to fail « Dirty Democrats (7610dc)

  214. [...] Consider the response of Democrats to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken in August 2006 at the height of the insurgency during the War in Iraq.  When asked, "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" 51% of Democrats replied in the negative.  (http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-pres…) [...]

    Buckrun Outdoors » Blog Archive » Liberals Never Wanted President Bush to Succeed (8ce4c6)

  215. [...] In a poll from 2006, 51% of Democrats, and 31% of Independents wanted Bush to fail. [...]

    quit picking on president precious? : NO QUARTER (c8d490)

  216. [...] I argued, “he sacrificed clarity for controversy.” I also noted that Democrats had no right to be snooty on this issue, as they had said they wanted Bush to fail. [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Patterico’s Shameful History of Attacking Rush Limbaugh (e4ab32)

  217. [...] at the height of a war no less. Patterico has the scoop, a 2006 poll. At the time in 2006, more than 50 percent of Democrats polled said they [...]

      Want More Proof that Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail? by Macsmind (59a4c1)

  218. [...] Patterico: Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.  [...]

    Cheering for failure? « Full Metal Patriot (f7ab6a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7913 secs.