Here's the full context of his comments made on-air.  His point being that he doesn't agree with Obama's politics and doesn't want him to succeed in many of his liberal-leaning plans.

That's a logical viewpoint.  I'm anti-abortion, I don't want Obama to make abortions easier.  I'm against higher taxes on the rich to be distributed to the poor (even though I'm one of them), so I don't hope he succeeds in his desires to redistribute wealth.

But that's entirely different from not wanting him to be a successful President.  I just hope he moves to the center and governs for ALL the people, not just the liberal elites.

Right now I have a great deal of confidence he will.

---------------------------------

I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

 

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

 

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

I did hear the full diatribe, but it would not have sold itself to ears if it didn't contain the plottingly controversial phrase to generate the buzz "I hope he fails."

Doesn't change the fact he's a druggie a-hole either....

Context does make a bit of a difference here. The word choice is very harsh, but the man does have a right to express his opinions. Not everyone is going to agree wholeheartedly with the policies of the Obama administration, just like lots of people did not agree with the policies of the Bush administration. The only objection I have heard to any form of Bush bashing was this morning on the news... Joe Scarborough stated that he thought it was tacky that people were booing Bush at the Obama Inauguration and singing "Na na na na, na na na na, hey, hey , hey goodbye!"

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

---

Interesting though that you chose not to share the entire "diatribe", only the point that served your purposes.

Typical flaming liberal




.

---

oh it served his bottom line purpose too- he's finally being talked about again.

darleneapd wrote:

---

Take a chill pill ............. Limbaugh!!

---

or 5.....

Don't kid yourself, Rush is as popular as ever with the Republican base.

Seriously though, you can not deny his point. You don't have to agree with him, but his point is valid. The second paragraph sums it up perfectly.

If he doesn't agree with any of Obama's long-term goals why would he hope he succeeds? You hoped Bush failed in many of the things he'd like to have accomplished in his term. The only difference is the audience for your views reaches your friends, family and the folks on this forum while Rush reaches the globe.

But the things you've said about Bush on this forum alone and in person to me are thousands of times harsher and meaner that "I hope he fails", yet that's exactly what each comment meant.

Face it, you took four words from a long monologue and tried to use them to make Rush Limbaugh look like an idiot. You're an intelligent man, and if you put aside your dislike of Rush you would have to admit the guy is an extremely intelligent person who merely happens to disagree with your views of how the country should be run.

Don't sink to the level of the media and try to create your own version of a story based loosely on what was actually said.

You're a tool!

JD The Jazz Doctor wrote:

---

by the way, wouldn't this be good over a couple of cold beers? I miss yelling with you, at you.

-- Edited by JD The Jazz Doctor at 10:58, 2009-01-22

---

I KNOW!  I miss seeing that one vein on your forehead bulge amid a sea of purplish red flesh. 

 

really, though. we all need to pay close attention to the dealings in the house and senate -- that's where the big guns are...

Only cus you weren't around. You're back in my sights now.