Comments on: Rush’s Critics Need to Read What He Actually Said.

By: Tennesseefree.com » HotAir posts Jeff Goldstein’s take on Rush Limbaugh’s “I Hope He Fails.”

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:56:26 +0000

[...] were, you know, unbiased. Instead, media and written opinion writers fanned the flames. Flames that enveloped the right side of the blogosphere: Patterico, Ace, HotAir’s Allah, and others on one side; [...]

By: Republican Stupid Disease « Liberty Street

Republican Stupid Disease « Liberty Street — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:21:41 +0000

[...] Jimmie at Sundries Shack: I’ll also bet that no one talking about this ginned-up controversy told you that he said this on January 16th, before the President was inaugurated. That makes a difference, doesn’t it? [...]

By: Jon Swift

Jon Swift — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:06:51 +0000

Rod Dreher Finds the Subtle Nuances in Mass Murder…

If you look past the murders, this story actually has a happy ending because it shows that it is possible to save our kids from homosexuality….

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:34:09 +0000

Yes he was. So was I. Like I said, there are two paragraphs where he says very specifically what he wants. You can either take the simple explanation of make up something more complex.

By: D

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:19:13 +0000

I don't think there's any doubt that Rush was hoping for the utter failure of Obama's presidency. And why is that? Read what he said. He said he needed only four words on his "hope for the Obama presidency." If Rush had his way, this is what would have appeared in this publication:

WHAT ARE YOUR HOPES FOR OBAMA?

We asked people from around the country what they wanted to see of our new president. What they said might surprise you

Jan. 20 2009

RUSH LIMBAUGH, conservative broadcaster

"I hope he fails."

…

It can't be any clearer than that. He feels this is sufficient explanation of his position to a worldwide audience.

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.”

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:34:54 +0000

Not really. When I say "I do not want the government in charge of all these things" I am being very plain. It does not mean that I want the government in charge a little, then want the government to fail thus damaging these things. It means I do not want them in charge.

I think you're giving him far too little credit and the left who concocted this controversy far too much. But, hey, like religion, sometimes you have to cozy up to people you don't like.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:32:44 +0000

I already pointed out one thing you'd have to ignore in my last comment so you're incorrect on that.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:05:37 +0000

I don't think you have to ignore anything to interpret it the way that Ace, I, and countless of my commenters believe is a reasonable way to interpret it. It's not the ONLY reasonable interpretation, but it's a fair reading.

Of course, everyone is convinced that THEIR reading is the only fair one. But there is NO QUOTE you can point to in which Rush says that he doesn't want the economy to suffer, even for a second. All he says is that he doesn't want the policies to succeed — which does not tell me which of the two (actually three) interpretations set forth in my poll is correct.

If he had made himself clearer, I would not want to "cede" or "concede" anything, or allow others to "frame" the "narrative," or any of the other buzzwords I keep hearing. I STARTED TO DRAFT A POST DEFENDING RUSH ON THIS POINT, weeks ago, until I read his words and realized that what I had assumed I would find there, was not there.

But it's a matter of faith. I will never convince you. Everyone who has an interpretaton thinks theirs is the ONLY reasonable interpretation. It's just that the interpretations are very different.

Kind of like a religious text.