Saturday, March 14, 2009

Julie Mack Lies about Rush

In her opinion column in the Gazette, Julie Mack lies about Rush Limbaugh.

Opinion Column -- What Rush Limbaugh and I have in common: We both like to talk about Rush

The truth is, the biggest similarity between Rush and myself is that we're both capable of talking for three hours straight. But I like to think my monologues make more sense. Take Limbaugh's spiel about how he hopes President Obama fails -- how stupid is that? Yeah, another Great Depression -- that'll show the Americans who's right!

Limbaugh compares rooting against Obama to rooting against the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl. Are you kidding me? The Super Bowl is a game. The economic crisis is not. In the Super Bowl, the only thing at risk for those involved is pride. In this recession, the stakes couldn't be higher.
As Rush has explained repeatedly, he hopes that Obama fails at implementing his policies. Rush correctly believes that Obama's policies would cause America to fail. Rooting for America means rooting against Obama.

Julie Mack doubtless disagrees about the effectiveness of Obama's policies, but not to acknowledge that this is the disagreement, not whether America should succeed, is dishonest. Liberals can't debate Rush on the merits of the issues, so they lie about him instead.

1 comment:

Matt said...

This group is making a mockery of itself. Remember when the article containing this quote was supported by the College Republicans:

"That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fails in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state...

I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straight forward Commandments."

Not only are the College Republicans giving a voice to someone who is "praying Obama fails," they are delusional about which president presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. It wasn't Obama, it was Bush2.

It seems clear that the right is opposed to Obama even if his policies reduced inequality, provided jobs, lowered taxes for the middle-class, and increased the GDP. I'm not arguing that I believe his policies will do this, but it seems apparent that if they did the Republicans would be upset about it because it didn't happen through their ideological framework (and I'm flattering the republicans by even saying they have an "idealogical framework").