Democrats wanted George W Bush to fail.

But they did not want the country to fail.

Democrats disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Because it was not best for our country and our relations around the world. Soldiers and marines were dying for an unjustified war.

Democrats disagreed with spending huge sums of money off the record and running up huge deficits. They wanted George W Bush to fail in those endeavors. It was best for the country if we had an honest accounting of what we were spending.

Democrats disagreed with Bush on torture and suspending civil liberties and spying on our fellow citizens. They wanted him to fail because his actions and policies were anti-American and criminal.

In those respects, Democrats wanted George W Bush to fail.

However, Republicans want Obama to fail for different reasons. They do not share the same concern for the present economic crisis we are in. They are not thinking about what is best for our country - they are thinking about what is best for their Party and getting back into power.

They are not hoping Obama fails because he has invaded another sovereign nation or because he has crapped on our Constitution or because he has broken international and national laws. They want him to fail simply because they disagree with his politics- the nation be damned. There is a difference.

kicked and recommended.

He was like the opposite of King Midas. Everything he touched turned to shit.

Between looking objectively at a policy and the persons instituting and carrying out that policy, and deciding it's going to fail, and actively working against a policy so that it will fail.

His policies and actions ensured failure regardless of what anyone thought, and there was no need to desire or want failure.

I wanted him to become a person who could succeed. He was unable, however, to overcome his privileged upbringing.

is one thing. *Hoping* the ship hits an iceberg because you don't like the ship's destination is quite another.

We thought what he was doing was wrong. If Bush was proved right, would we have been mad at him? Would we be mad if the country had full employment and living wages for everyone now? Would we be mad if Iraq was now safer and better off for its citizens than it was before? No. That's what the difference really is. Rush wanting Obama to fail means that he will be pissed off if Obama succeeds, and the country fares better.

Sorry to the OP, because I know it was meant well but it did not get expressed well.

We did not wish that Bush would fail.

We did not wish that Bush's plans would fail.

I thought his plans would fail.

I thought that even if there was success, that in the ends-justifies-the-means strategy, even if he did win, that win would be sullied by those means.

I thought he was not following the Constitution and this was said as much as warning to him, that he would still have to face his peers if he did not respect it and the oath he took of it. If he could not continue in that oath, then he needed to let US decide.

He did fail, and in that we all failed. Failed to convince our fellow voters, failed to evince proper counting of our votes, and now we must pay.

... and, in sharp contrast to Barack Obama, what Bush appeared to be trying to accomplish was not what he claimed, and it looked very, very, bad for America.

I wanted him to prove me wrong. I wanted eight more years of peace and prosperity, like we had under Clinton. Unfortunately, Bush proved me right over and over--American conservatism is a corrupt and empty ideology that FAILS miserably every time it's implemented on a large scale. You knew it, I knew it, we all knew it--but for the sake of the country I hoped against hope that Bush would get lucky and things would work out. Unfortunately it became apparent that no amount of luck could undo the damage done to the country by Bush's "drown it in the bathtub" approach to government.

I hoped he would "succeed" in the sense that, much like Clinton, if he just stayed out of our way, and didn't screw things up too much it wouldn't matter all that much. Clinton wasn't a liberal by most definitions and I figured if Junior was like his father, it could only be so bad. After 9/11, I didn't like much of what he said, but I figured as long as he followed the Powell doctrine and moved ahead like his father did, we'd get through the thing. But with each decision, and each step, he got worse and worse. He wouldn't listen to critics in his own party, much less Blix or any of our "old Europe" friends. Heck, he didn't even really listen to Lap Dog Blair. It wasn't that I wanted him to fail, it's that I didn't see how he could succeed.

The United States Supreme Court succeeded in installing this worthless fraud therefore laid the ground work for the decline of the our Republic. Failure is the only consistent quality ever exhibited by George Walker Bush, it came naturally.

A world of difference. I don't want to be in control, necessarily. I want what's good for Americans. If the Repubs promoted governance that promoted human life, not unborn life, and not war, and not prison, and not robbing other countries and our treasury, then I would be all for them being in control.


I think we're going to have a confrontation. They're insisting on it. We want intelligent discussion, and they just want what they want. No central ground. I'm nervous about this. But then it's the McConnells and Santorums. So maybe that's just fringe right wing, and not the entire group of goons.


It's like wanting a runaway truck headed straight for a crowded sidewalk to get a flat tire and crash. It's not that we wanted failure. We wanted success.

Argh. I'm sick of this shit. It's so obvious, but we've got the machines working against us. And a dull group of American voters who are soaking up the lies.

Cakewalk, my ass.

Are we gonna be like Bush and rightwing pundits and say that people in the opposition are traitors? Thankfully, Obama did not set that tone in his speech. "Every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed."

But circumstances change. With our economy tanking, we need to work together to find a solution. We tried it their way. That is why we are here. They failed. Reality. What a concept!

When Rush Limbaugh openly hopes for Obama to fail, he is putting his personal ideology ahead of the country's welfare. How is that not traitorous? Limbaugh is not alone. The right-wing is chock full of people just like him. The only ideas they have are the same ones that got us into this mess, and their only goal is to prevent their political opposition from solving the country's problems, because it will reduce the Conservatives' power.

They're being a lot more than an opposition party-- they're obstructionists, hoping things get much worse so they can get back into power. There's nothing respectable about what they're doing.

the Arar case (even before Abu Ghraib was in the news), expressing concern about the FBI effort to frame Brandon Mayfield, opposing warrantless wiretaps and torture, worried about the Minot loose nukes event, trying to get the war defended or a withdrawal deadline imposed, and so on

If anybody wants to tell me that was wrong, I'm ready to laugh in his/her face

want Pres. Obama -and the American people- to FAIL PERIOD.

Coz that's the only way the republic party stands a chance at being back in power.

and he choose to continuing failing. what i wanted had very little to do with it.

Excellent post, by the way.

is not the same as wanting him to fail.

:applause:

I almost didn't click on this thread because of the title, That meme makes my blood boil.

If Bush had the competence of a chimp (sorry, had to say it!), we might have been in a different place, but his record of ruining everything preceded him....and we paid the price.
it is BECAUSE of his fialure that we are in this pickle - and he failed even when he had all his cronies to back him up, even when we had the LAW on our side...he just re-wrote it and then went on to torture and rape and pillage not just our country, but our world...

NOW the rethugs are not the majority and are having tantrums on every media outlet there is...and they are saying the same incindiary crap hey were throwing during the campaign. If we thought the hate and fearmongering would stop because we won, we are sorely mistaken. But Obama has his own back, and he will not let them eat him for breakfast. Remember he and rahm come from Chicago - the Rethugs always use the term with disdain, like it is a bad thing to know how to deal with swaggering bullilies in the hood. I think they need to be a LOT more careful, because Obama will just publicly spank them with his sweet words, and Rahm will pull out the Colt and pop a cap in their asses (metaphorically speaking of course, I AM a pacifist, after all)

great thread, thanks for bringing it up.

Democrats in the streets disagreed vehemently with the war and the tax cuts, but Democrats in congress did nothing to stop the tragedies of Bush.

liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, let alone one who actually said anything even close to what Rush said ...

Yes, I wanted him to fail.

George Bush never did anything to help the country. Everything he did was specifically designed to do exactly what he did -- destroy the middle class, enrich the ultra wealthy even further, destabilize the Middle East for profit, privatize the infrastructure, deregulate the corporations, pander to the Saudis.

Yes, I wanted him to fail in all of that.

I kept hoping he really did know what he was doing because we were stuck with him.
It turns out he was a lot worse and did more damage than most people ever imagined.

I have never heard prominent or even not so prominent Dems say they wanted the chimp to fail. But I've heard plenty of pukes say that just in the past week.