Actually I have a hard time thinking of him as anything but the token negro. a link Am I racially paranoid or is this a legitimate vote for a man who coincidentally happens to be the same color as the current POTUS? I wonder what Rush will say?!

After Obama won the election the Onion published the headline "Black Man Hired For Worst Job in America" (or something to that effect). Along those lines, the headline for this news could be "Black Man Hired For Second Worst Job in America".

Maybe the Republicans thought they were placing bets on the Superbowl and figured the missing "rs" was a typo?

Prior to the news about the competition for RNC chair, with the flap over the revival of the "Barack the Magic Negro" song, the only candidates for the job that I had ever seen on television were the outgoing chairman, Mike Duncan, and Michael Steele - and Ken Blackwell too (I forgot about him). I've seen Steele on Hardball and on Bill Maher's show. From those appearances, he came across as a likable person, sufficiently articulate for Republican purposes. His media profile is likely what got him the job in the end. Duncan had no real chance given how poorly the GOP performed at the polls last election. The guy circulating the "Greatest Hits of Deniable Racism" cd had little chance as did the guy who recently left the all white country club. That left Steele and Blackwell, and Blackwell comes across as highly arrogant. So in the end, they picked the best of a bad lot.

Rachel Maddow had a bit of fun with this news yesterday. She framed the event as the "GOPreakness" and illustrated the various rounds of voting as a horse race. I thought the segment was a bit too close to the Daily Show for a real news show, but since it was Friday I suppose she's entitled to have a little fun.

Steele is not without problems. According to this, African American Michael Steele Takes Over Floundering GOP, during his 2006 campaign for the US Senate, Steele was caught using homeless people to circulate flyers portraying him as a Democrat (as linked to in that link). And the WaPo ripped him as a man of "no achievement, no record, no evidence and certainly no command of the issues." According to this, Michael Steele, forever failing upward, he once equated stem cell research to the experiments of Dr. Mengele, he had troubles passing the bar, and with personal debt.

If those accounts are too critical for anyone, I'm certain that google can turn up plenty of hagiography about Mr. Steele.

As for Limbaugh, these days it seems he's too busy picking fights with CNN (Campbell Brown Challenges Rush Limbaugh To Economic Stimulus Debate) and otherwise fending off justified criticism of his stated hopes for American failure. (Yes I know he hoped for Obama's failure, not America's failure, but right now, if Obama fails, then America fails. Look at the unemployment figures and the shrinking GDP for evidence.) See this cartoon, Conservatives Have Their Own Plan, for illustration.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
As for Limbaugh, these days it seems he's too busy picking fights with CNN (Campbell Brown Challenges Rush Limbaugh To Economic Stimulus Debate) and otherwise fending off justified criticism of his stated hopes for American failure. (Yes I know he hoped for Obama's failure, not America's failure, but right now, if Obama fails, then America fails. Look at the unemployment figures and the shrinking GDP for evidence.) See this cartoon, Conservatives Have Their Own Plan, for illustration.

It really isn't that hard to understand what Limbaugh was saying, and a failure to understand is just playing politics. The success of a president to push his/her agenda does not directly correlate to the success of the country. I'm sure there are hundreds of things that Bush was "successful" in doing that people would not see as good or successful for the country. The same can be applied to Obama. An Obama failure doesn't mean a failure for America, depending on your point of view and what, exactly, he failed at doing.

Quote: Original post by Mantear

Quote: Original post by LessBread
As for Limbaugh, these days it seems he's too busy picking fights with CNN (Campbell Brown Challenges Rush Limbaugh To Economic Stimulus Debate) and otherwise fending off justified criticism of his stated hopes for American failure. (Yes I know he hoped for Obama's failure, not America's failure, but right now, if Obama fails, then America fails. Look at the unemployment figures and the shrinking GDP for evidence.) See this cartoon, Conservatives Have Their Own Plan, for illustration.

It really isn't that hard to understand what Limbaugh was saying, and a failure to understand is just playing politics. The success of a president to push his/her agenda does not directly correlate to the success of the country. I'm sure there are hundreds of things that Bush was "successful" in doing that people would not see as good or successful for the country. The same can be applied to Obama. An Obama failure doesn't mean a failure for America, depending on your point of view and what, exactly, he failed at doing.

Is this defense fooling anyone? The original distinction was Obama failing as an individual vs Obama's policies failing. What you just described is Obama's policies failing vs America failing. These are two different distinctions. The second distinction is irrelevant, as it is an attempt to get people to believe you said something you didn't say. The first distinction is nonsensical, as Obama's life now is his presidency, and for him to fail as an individual necessarily means that he his presidential policies have failed. To hope for Obama's policies to fail is the same as hoping for Obama to fail. Which, since the dittoheads insist on dragging America's well-being into this, is hoping for America to be worse off under Obama. This is abundantly clear and a little embarrassing that it needs to be spelled out. Funnier still, this is exactly what Limbaugh and many other right-wingers said about sane people and Bush - that we wanted Bush's policies (especially the wars) to fail.

Quote: Original post by Mantear

Quote: Original post by LessBread
As for Limbaugh, these days it seems he's too busy picking fights with CNN (Campbell Brown Challenges Rush Limbaugh To Economic Stimulus Debate) and otherwise fending off justified criticism of his stated hopes for American failure. (Yes I know he hoped for Obama's failure, not America's failure, but right now, if Obama fails, then America fails. Look at the unemployment figures and the shrinking GDP for evidence.) See this cartoon, Conservatives Have Their Own Plan, for illustration.

It really isn't that hard to understand what Limbaugh was saying, and a failure to understand is just playing politics. The success of a president to push his/her agenda does not directly correlate to the success of the country. I'm sure there are hundreds of things that Bush was "successful" in doing that people would not see as good or successful for the country. The same can be applied to Obama. An Obama failure doesn't mean a failure for America, depending on your point of view and what, exactly, he failed at doing.

I see you've been drinking the kool aid... In ordinary times I would agree with you about the distinction between the success of the President and the nation, but these are not ordinary times. There are more people unemployed today than at any time since they started keeping track of the numbers back in 1967. The number of foreclosures continues growing. The number of homeless people continues growing. GDP is shrinking fast. The economy is in free fall. Meanwhile, the US is still involved in two wars. Israel appears on track for a war with Iran. North Korea is acting up again. And in the middle of all that, before Obama was even sworn in as President, Limbaugh professed his desire to see him fail. Limbaugh, the guy for whom President Bush could do no wrong, the guy who led the cheers for war, for indefinite detentions, for torture. Limbaugh, cheerleader for war crimes. Now he's cheering for economic collapse, because that's what an Obama failure means.

The notion that Bush kept his successes secret is a complete joke. You're talking about the guy who benefited from one of the slickest public relations operations in history. If Bush succeeded in doing things that he thought were good but that the people would not see as good, his administration would still have announced it. Bush proudly destroyed consumer protections - the FDA, the USDA, the EPA - and claimed it was good for business. His minions destroyed the Justice Department and the Department of Interior. Bush succeeded at setting up a torture regime - extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, enhanced interrogation. His supporters still maintain that these crimes kept the country safe. Hah!

I think Limbaugh is worried that a successful Obama administration would put an end to the already discredited anti-government ideology that he has pushed for the last twenty years.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If Bush succeeded in doing things that he thought were good but that the people would not see as good, his administration would still have announced it.

I don't know what Mantear meant, but in one respect, Bush and the ruling class he served were wildly successful. They got most of what they wanted, and much of that success should have been completely off limits to them. Obviously, the success I'm talking about was diametrically opposed to the public trust which Bush was charged with, but the only thing preventing me from declaring them an unqualified success for privileged douche-bags across the country is that they somehow failed to loot Social Security.

Quote: I think Limbaugh is worried that a successful Obama administration would put an end to the already discredited anti-government ideology that he has pushed for the last twenty years.

Maybe, but on the other hand, his audience is immune to objective reality, and with Democrats in control (at least nominally) they're right where they love to be - playing the victim. I don't know what makes Limbaugh's ratings go up or down, and I don't know what the weasel himself expects to happen, but I do know that Dems in control and a country in the crapper isn't all bad news for him.

Quote: Original post by Mantear

Quote: Original post by LessBread
As for Limbaugh, these days it seems he's too busy picking fights with CNN (Campbell Brown Challenges Rush Limbaugh To Economic Stimulus Debate) and otherwise fending off justified criticism of his stated hopes for American failure. (Yes I know he hoped for Obama's failure, not America's failure, but right now, if Obama fails, then America fails. Look at the unemployment figures and the shrinking GDP for evidence.) See this cartoon, Conservatives Have Their Own Plan, for illustration.

It really isn't that hard to understand what Limbaugh was saying, and a failure to understand is just playing politics. The success of a president to push his/her agenda does not directly correlate to the success of the country. I'm sure there are hundreds of things that Bush was "successful" in doing that people would not see as good or successful for the country. The same can be applied to Obama. An Obama failure doesn't mean a failure for America, depending on your point of view and what, exactly, he failed at doing.

I don't know the original remarks, but the only interpretation of "failure for Obama" that I can think of that doesn't lead to "even worse failure for America" is the belief that Obama's plans are worse than doing nothing so it would be better if he were to fail at implementing his plans.

To that, I would say that I don't think anybody believes putting our heads in the sand and doing nothing is going to lead to anything but failure (which is why I said "even worse failure" above), so, if I disagreed with the president's policies, I'd hope I was wrong and that his plans succeed. I disagreed with Bush, thinking what he was doing was wrong in principle and in practice, but part of me sincerely hoped I was wrong about it not working in practice.

I don't know if Limbaugh expressed this sentiment, but I remember republicans I knew defending Bush by saying that he's our president so we should stand behind him and support him; I hope they apply the same reasoning to Obama.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
I don't know the original remarks

Then why comment on them? If you believe that you understand the original remark through second-hand sources, then these second-hand sources have clearly misled you.

Quote: but the only interpretation of "failure for Obama"

Limbaugh said explicitly that he was not hoping for Obama's failure, but rather, the failure of his policies. As I said above, this is a nonsensical distinction, but people appear to be buying into it, so let's keep the facts straight.

Quote: that I can think of that doesn't lead to "even worse failure for America" is the belief that Obama's plans are worse than doing nothing so it would be better if he were to fail at implementing his plans.

Again, you are either badly guessing or have been misled. It would take minimal effort to find out for yourself what Limbaugh said. He said that he hopes that Obama's policies fail, and he said it quite clearly. There is no way to twist his words to fit your guesswork.

The funny thing is that reverse of what Limbaugh said would actually make sense for him: I could understand wanting the man to fail if you mean the man to be his agenda (or the paranoid version of his agenda that they buy in to) yet hoping for his policies to succeed for the good of the country, even if you don't expect them to. But Limbaugh said the opposite, and that makes no sense from his perspective, unless he doesn't give a damn about the country.

Quote: I don't know if Limbaugh expressed this sentiment, but I remember republicans I knew defending Bush by saying that he's our president so we should stand behind him and support him; I hope they apply the same reasoning to Obama.

Lack of hypocrisy would indeed be refreshing, but better still would be that they have learned a lesson and realize that it's never OK to stand behind the president just because he's the president. Of course, I would take any such claims of "lesson learned" with a grain of salt until it's put to the test with the next Republican president.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
I don't know the original remarks

Then why comment on them?

I wasn't; I was commenting on the idea of wanting "failure for Obama" but not "failure for America" and we seem to agree that the only sensible meaning for that would be to disagree with Obama that his plans are best for America but hoping that America does well, whether it's because of or in spite of those plans.

So, I was neither guessing nor misled, and I don't care enough about what Limbaugh says to put even the minimal effort in to find out. I was basically just saying what you said in response to me: If Limbaugh (or anyone) meant this... cool, because I felt the same way during the Bush presidency. I thought it worth saying since any sense in which one hoped for presidential failure would've been considered unpatriotic not so very long ago.

It's funny to see people get so worked up over this. I listen to Rush every once in a while if I'm in my car when he's on because he's entertaining at times. No kool aid drinking going on. Having actually listened to his show, he'll often go off on very sarcastic monologues where, if someone hasn't listened to his show before and just happens to tune in, might think he's being serious. My only point here being that people like to take sound-bites from his show and try to use them without fully understanding what was going on.

His comments being referenced here are along the same lines, although he wasn't being sarcastic when he said he wants Obama to fail. Again, anyone who actually listened to that show where he first said it (I think I caught about half of that portion of the show) would know and understand that an Obama failure != a failure for America. Believe it or not, Barack Obama is not somehow magically linked to the well-being of our nation. What's good for Barack is not always good for the nation. It might be good for his political party and the agendas they want to push, but that does not equate to all of America.

If you can't understand that, I'm sorry, I can't help you. I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm just trying to make the facts clear. You can dislike him for his points of view, that's fine, I'm just trying to make sure you understand what that point of view is, because there seems to be some confusion.


EDIT: Back to the main point. Coincidence? Maybe. It does feel a bit like "me too!" from the republicans. My best guess is that he would have been high in the running previously, and being black pushed him over the top. If a white male had won the presidency for the democrats, I doubt Steele would have won, although he still would have been in the running.