March 08, 2009
Did Democrats Want Bush "to Succeed"?

Patterico offers a necessary course correction for doe-eyed faithful of the One who remain absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could not hope for the successful implementation of hope-n-change (aka standard fare left-of-center dogma). He points out that in the midst of the tumult of 2006, 51% of Democrats didn't want Bush "to succeed":

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.

All to say it's pretty clear there should be a rational delineation between wanting the country to "fail" and hoping that one's partisan opposites are not successful in implementing the agenda with which one disagrees. Anyone with a brain, or not trying to score political points, can see the delineation.

Moreover, anyone who recalls how viciously partisan Washington, DC was in 2001 prior to 9/11 might also think the Democratic talking point focused on lamenting the evils of Rush is exceptionally strained.

Closing thought: Isn't it just a tad ironic that the candidate who campaigned against distractions (Jeremiah Wright anyone?) and against "Rovian" tactics is now being defended by the same such tactics, which are heavily dependent on using Limbaugh as a foil to mask discussion of Obama's tough-to-pass agenda?

UPDATE: I'd say the Center-left Establishment revolt against Obama that I've been alluding to in recent days has begun, sparked in part by revulsion to the "hey, let's beat up on Rush Limbaugh because we're starting to get savaged in Congress" trickery. Will such a revolt lead to open and sustained hostility? Maybe. Maybe not. But, when the deputy editor of the Washington Post's editorial page is writing a column titled "George W. Obama" then by chance there might be some trouble afoot?

Posted by Eric Earling at March 08, 2009 08:26 PM | Email This
1. More importantly, in Jan-March 2001 I don't remember the left getting on board with "giving Bush a chance". They accused him of stealing the election and repeatedly said "He is not my President".

Turnabout is a bitch. We told you left-tards that if you kept behaving that way, it would come around right back at you. That we would get our revenge. Revenge is a dish best served cold!

Posted by: Crusader on March 8, 2009 08:42 PM
2. Democrats have never met an enemy of America they didn't like. I predict a major US city will be nuked under Obama's naive command.

Posted by: TraitorDems on March 8, 2009 08:59 PM
Yep. You got your revenge. Now that you’ve lost both the House and Senate, and the Presidency, you have your revenge. Enjoy.

You now get to root for the doom and destruction of your country…. Just so you can say “we told you so.”

Some bunch of freedom loving patriots you turned out to be.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 8, 2009 09:02 PM
4. It's always a double standard with the left. It's part of their collectivist philosophy. How else could one propose spending the country in to bankruptcy and call it stimulus. Or silence political speech and call it a "Fairness Doctrine."

Orwell had it right. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 8, 2009 09:02 PM
5. @3 Unkl Witless - it was your side that was rooting for the doom & destruction of America for 8 whole years until Barry the Magic Negro arrived.

Posted by: Crusader on March 8, 2009 09:07 PM
6. Revenge, only in the minds of the progressive left, who is focused on a culture war within, while DC burns. The lefts lack of discretion makes it seem like they would be happy with failure of this country, but that isn't true - they just want it their way or no way at all. The truth is that we are rooting for less gloom and doom than the Congress and the complicit White House has shown that they wish to inflict on Wall Street, including the stock market and the rest of us with retirement investments, BTW.

You so have it ass-backwards #3. Try engaging in an honest dialogue - I know that would be a stretch for you though.

Posted by: KS on March 8, 2009 09:31 PM
7. Screw you, Wiz. We are damned sure going to give back to you and that simple minded idiot you supported the exact same thing that you people gave to us... so knock off the sniveling, and take it like a man.

If that's possible for your sort, I mean.

So far, he has been a lying son of a bitch, and your ilk doesn't want him to face what we faced every waking moment?

Hell, no.

And believe me, I want that empty-suited racist bigot president of ours to fail AT LEAST as much as you hypocritically wanted Bush to do the same.

The scum leading you in Congress... Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha... THATS who you follow?

Prepare for four years of the last eight. We will hound that man and the scum leading you out office by making moveoff.disorg look like a fender bender.

Posted by: Hinton on March 8, 2009 09:57 PM
8. The dems were decidedly against us succeeding in Iraq. But I have to agree with Rush--Obama hates capitalism and personal responsibility. And he wants to get rid of those things in this country, so I sure as heck don't want him to succeed at doing so.

Posted by: Michele on March 8, 2009 10:08 PM
9. Hi all,

Well, actually I agree totally with Earling's post. Liberals and leftists should quit being outraged at Rush, when they and we have all been there before, not wishing our enemies the best of luck.

But once the stakes were higher.

Back before we attacked Iraq, I personally spent $4000 of my own money on newspaper ads against the invasion.

It's still my proudest moment, one in which I acted on my true conservative principles--my opposition had nothing to do with whether it would be successful but whether it was morally right.

At the time I had to square two contradictory emotions in my heart.

One was fear that I would end up looking like a fool. If the invasion was a big success with no deaths and the people of Iraq were all over the news telling W. he had saved their country, anyone who had a pragmatic turn of mind as opposed to a principled one might reflect on what an idiot I was with that hindsight.

But that was exactly what I had to hope for in order to be a good person.

So I hoped things went well in Iraq.

But the situation now is not the same. No one has to die for Obama to be judged a failure, and in that same sense, the left is just being ridiculous asking the right to adhere to a higher standard than they do or did.

Thanks all,

New Left Conservative # 1

Posted by: new left conservative # 1 on March 8, 2009 10:16 PM
10. Your "bad" #10. is that you don't understand recent history. We invaded Iraq because it was violating the UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement that stopped the Gulf War. WMD's be damned. Exactly what was Bush lying about, about the UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement?

We didn't invade because Cheney said "Saddam could have a nuke in as little as 6 months." We invaded because Saddam violated his cease fire agreement.

Posted by: Kevin R on March 9, 2009 12:08 AM
11. What we're all forgetting is the classic liberal command: Do as I say, not as I do.

You pay your taxes now, you rich ass. Meanwhile, please ignore that I evade taxes all the time.

There are too many conservatives on talk radio and also that irritating Fox News channel so we need to bring the Fairness Doctrine back. Meanwhile, please ignore that all of regular through the airwaves television news shows are liberal as is pretty much all of academia.

Buy stock now because that "price" to earnings ratio is looking good in my crystal ball right here in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, please ignore that I'm going to raise capital gains tax high enough that no one will want to invest in the market anymore.

George W Bush was the worst President and we should all continue to disrespect him at every chance by blaming everything on him. Meanwhile, let's not notice that the Dow is down to levels not seen since 1997 which was, like, 4 years after Clinton took office and 4 years before W took office.

Posted by: ferrous on March 9, 2009 12:16 AM
12. Factless, Who the heck is that?

A site that is about 10 times more objective and fact-based than the useless website excrement you push...

I hoped to hell we found WMD's in Iraq, because I knew how bad it would look of we didn't.

And we did. The fact that you Marxist Slavers plugged your ears, closed your eyes and yelled "NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" doesn't change the truth. Or the facts (which once again escape you).

BTW I never once wanted Obama to fail. If his policies would make the lives of "most" Americans better I would be all for them. They won't. More of the same won't help either.

Fixed that for you... Now do you understand why Conservatives want Obama to fail? His policies are failures.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 9, 2009 01:03 AM
13. Does anybody want Hugo Chavez to fail? I do. His goal is a communist state. I want him to fail at reaching his goal. Why is this stuff so hard for some people to understand? Do I want President Obama to succeed in nationalizing our core institutions, and bankrupting/punishing the producers and the job creators? Yes. His policy failures will be good for the country.

(Time for liberals to say I want the country to fail in 3, 2, 1...)

Posted by: Gary on March 9, 2009 07:57 AM
14. 15: Greenspan, now that's a name we all admire,huh? And since when did Greenspan become an expert on foreign policy? Isn't he the one who kept lowering the interest rates, leaving the door wide open for inflation to come? Greenspan is not a name conservatives speak with reverence. And by the way, I have to ask, during the $4+ oil prices, where was all the oil we went to Iraq for? Where is it now?

Posted by: katomar on March 9, 2009 08:25 AM
15. Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care? |

*****Update: Former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote about this deplorable poll on September 24, 2006 (h/t Betsy Newmark via Sister Toldjah via Garden State Pundit via Gateway Pundit) --

The Hate Trap
by Craig Charney
September 24, 2006

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. [...]

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people--suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies--detest George W. Bush.
When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it's hard to see why independents--hardly right-wing zealots--hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn. [...]
Yet if Bush does fail--for instance, if Iraq spirals into civil war or the economy slides into recession--then America is in trouble. Making progress on these key issues, like others facing the country, will require bipartisan solutions, not political finger-pointing.

It's only bad to want the president to fail if you are a Republican

Most Republicans are opposing President Obama for the simple, sane reason that his policies are an anathema to their core principles. Asking someone to abandon their principles and blindly and slavishly support a president - especially when the ones doing the criticizing didn't practice what they preached when the shoe was on the other foot - is not only hypocritical but dangerous to liberty.

The idea that the GOP should roll over and play dead for Obama is sickening. The Democrats may be successful in convincing the public that the political opposition should not oppose but rather bark like a puppy and wag their tails whenever Obama proposes something. They have the media to help them with that and I fully expect Republicans and conservatives to suffer for standing up for what they know is right.
But Obama's way is not the only way - despite his lies to the contrary. And if it takes events making a turn for the worse to get the American people to understand that, then we will have the satisfaction of knowing our opposition was not in vain.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 9, 2009 09:46 AM
16. "I also was for the invasion, because Dick Cheney said Saddam could have a nuke in as little as 6 months. I didn't think we should let that happen. I didn't know he was lying. "

Factless @10, I guess all the DEMOCRATS were lying as well eh?

Here are a few quotes for you regarding Democrats and Iraq:

As for who was telling us there were WMD's in Iraq well let's see:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Posted by: pbj on March 9, 2009 10:18 AM
17. PBJ, somewhere there's a quote from Hillary saying how she even checked with "her own sources" before casting a vote. Do you recall that one?

Posted by: PC on March 9, 2009 12:37 PM
18. 卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐

Posted by: NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER on March 9, 2009 03:30 PM
19. Here's a Democrat who agrees with Eric's post... to a point.

1) I don't condone what D's said about Bush, but there's also plenty of us who were raised properly to believe that you don't ridicule and put down the POTUS. Period. It's a position worthy of respect, whether you agree with the man or not.

2) This isn't "media bias" OR 100% Democratic hypocrisy. It's also karma for a GOP effort that branded anyone who even questioned the Bush Administration's conduct of the War on Terror as supporting terrorists. Democrats didn't say "You're either with us, or you're against us." And it was Rush, along with Hannity and Coulter and a few other disagreeable Right Wing nutjobs, who started the whole character assasination of anyone who claimed to want Bush to fail.

Turnabout is fair play, and should be expected, no matter how disgusting I find it when it comes from either side.

Posted by: Mickymse on March 9, 2009 04:11 PM
20. Before his execution Saddam admitted that he was exaggerating his claims of nuclear capability... no not to scare the US, but to intimidate IRAN and keep them from taking advantage while he was trying to dance around the UN and US enforcement of the Gulf War cease fire.

Everyone one believed him, not just the Iranians.

Of course the left turned that into a Bush/Cheney lie.

Posted by: daveg on March 9, 2009 04:53 PM
21. More importantly, in Jan-March 2001 I don't remember the left getting on board with "giving Bush a chance". They accused him of stealing the election and repeatedly said "He is not my President".

Dem's were bitter...they got over it, the whining then also had nothing to do with the economy or his economic policies.

It's also funny that anyone who opposed Pres. Bush after Sept. 11th was labeled a traitor or un-American. Funny how that works.

Posted by: Cato on March 9, 2009 05:14 PM
22. Statistically, it was shown in at least one poll that by a 51-34% margin, Democrats did not want Bush to succeed, based on the unnecessary Iraq War and other policies and also because of how he won in 2000.

Bush set some bad precedents - I voted for him once and felt I was duped. I would be surprised if many on the left who troll this blog could bring themselves to say that even if Obama ends up bankrupting the economy with universal health care, nationalizing banks and giving blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, besides leaving us open for a terrorist attack - that happens, which he is in the process of doing by removing safeguards. It is early, but I believe that he is attempting to engineer sweeping legislation that will not be good for America - he is over-ambitious and seems to already be thinking legacy to the detriment of the people he supposedly serves. Until proven otherwise, I'll go on record as saying Barack Hussein Obama is doing to the economy what Kevorkian once did to his patients.

BTW - you on the left can slam Bush all night long- Fine. He brought a measurable portion of the current situation on himself.

Posted by: KDS on March 9, 2009 07:06 PM
23. Factless,

If you're too lazy to look up the WMDs we found in Iraq, then there is no helping you. Of course we already know that anything put out would be dismissed by Marxist Slavers like you as "that's not big enough to be a WMD".

But what about the other 15 reasons for the war? What about the policy set in place by President Clinton? What about Barack Obama's retaining of William Gates as SecDef, and continuing the entire Bush policy towards Iraq?

You hate Obama now, too, since he is following in the footsteps of President Bush?

Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT.


Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 9, 2009 10:47 PM
24. Dem's were bitter...they got over it -Posted by Cato at March 9, 2009 05:14 PM

They STILL aren't over it!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 10, 2009 01:26 PM
25. Isn't it droll that when a leftist finally, at long last, minces no words about the USSR, when you admit almost in so many words that there was an evil empire and it wasn't us, that Reagan was right, you use belated truth only as a pretext for telling a vicious slander: Old Bush was the New Stalin.

We live in a hyperactivist region, Mr. Ross. Volcano to the left of us, volcano to the right, tectonic plates that bump and grind actively in the night. If the big one, economic or tectonic, shakes Seattle out of its shoes, if a terrorist cell of rogue Republicans sneaks across the border and winds up a ticking time bomb in Pioneer Square, do you think 'Bag Ban' Nickels is going to bail us out?

We're poised on the brink, an oblivious fool's paradise partying like 2004 New Orleans, and Nickels is dumping sand in our rivers and estuaries and throwing sand in your eyes.

Nickels is an oblivious fool. That's why we may need the Army and Marines to ride to our rescue. Bush knows that. Why don't you? Inconvenient truths:
- From 1865 - 1877 the American military rescued blacks, Republicans, and black Republicans from Democrat lynch mobs;
- In 1942 FDR used General DeWitt's Army to fight FDR's war against Japanese Americans;
- In 1957 General Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock;
- In 1962 JFK invaded Mississippi;
- From the burn-baby-burn riots of the 1960s through the Rodney riot of 1992, the Army and USAR tried to keep peace. Commisar Bush knows our history. Why don't you?

Posted by: Iosif Vissarionovich Bush on March 10, 2009 02:32 PM
26. And here's the truth:

DEMOCRATS WANTED BUSH TO FAIL. Incontrovertible proof.

Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 11, 2009 02:59 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?