Leonard Pitts
Posted on 01/26/2009 1:20:45 PM PST by lewisglad
“I hope he fails.” — Rush Limbaugh
It is, of course, a calculated outrage.
Meaning, it was spewed by a clown in the media circus to kick a familiar sequence into motion: angry denunciation by bloggers, pundits and supporters of President Obama (the “he” whose failure is hoped), followed by Rush Limbaugh refusing to retract a word, a courageous truth teller who will not be moved. And, trailing behind, like the folks with brooms trail the elephants in the circus parade, Limbaugh’s devotees, complaining that their hero has been misquoted, misunderstood or otherwise mistreated. “What Rush meant was ... yadda yadda yadda.”
A calculated outrage.
And knowing this, knowing how adroitly media are manipulated by self-promoting media clowns who defame conservatism by calling themselves conservative, one is tempted to let the statement pass, to make its way unimpeded to the dustbin like so many other manufactured controversies. But occasionally, it’s necessary to intercept one of them and hold it up to the light.
This is one of those times. Not because what Limbaugh said on his radio program a few days before the inauguration was an outrage — outrage is the point, remember? — but rather, because of what the thing he said says about him and his fellow clowns.
“I hope he fails.”
Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous, about Bill Clinton, who was slimy, about Jimmy Carter, who was inept, about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he’s going to fail, yes. You may warn he’s going to fail, yes.
But do you ever “hope” he fails? Knowing his failure is the country’s failure? Isn’t that, well ... disloyal?
The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.
That’s a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.
It’s not the country they love. It’s the attention. The ideology, their perversion of conservatism, is but a means toward that end.
Yes, an observer might point out that it’s counterproductive to give them attention while decrying their love of attention. But, as already noted, occasionally the clowns spew something that cannot, and ought not, be ignored.
Ideological division is nothing new to politics. But has ideology ever taken quite the seat of prominence it now enjoys? Have people ever been quite so prone to regard their ideological identity as more important than their national identity? The last 30 years are rare in that regard, if not unique.
“I hope he fails?!”
So that, what? The defamation of conservatism Limbaugh represents will stand vindicated? The Republicans will pick up a few seats in the midterm election? Limbaugh’s “side” — his word — will score points?
Is this only a game, then? No lives at stake, no future on the line, no planet in the balance? Just a game?
I hope he bricks this free throw.
I hope he fumbles that pass.
I hope he fails.
And to hell with the country.
The country doesn’t matter. The “side” does. And Limbaugh’s side seems angry in power and angry out. It’s as if anger is all they really have.
Barack Obama was elected in large part on a promise to carry the nation past anger, past the notion that either party has a monopoly on wisdom, past the belief that ideology is identity. He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again.
If he is successful, Limbaugh and the other clowns will face tough sledding in a radically different world. Small wonder he is so eager to strangle this presidency in its infancy. And need it even be said?
I hope he fails.
Hey, Leonard! I want Odumbo to fail, because what he wants to do to America is pretty much everything I oppose. Ergo, his failure would be America’s salvation and his success would be America’s doom. Leonard, you libs are forever associating one’s opposition to one of your chosen heroes to smack of something personal, as you always reduce everything to a personal level. However, in Odumbo’s case he has steadfastly refused to tell the American people anything about his past, or about himself pesonally (and the MSM, which includes you, Leonard, refused to even begin to question him, and thus you are complicit in his throwing a cover over who he is) as a person, so all we know about him is his politics; thus, all we know about him is his politics, and, quite frankly, his politics suck.
Exactly, Rush said if Obama persues a socialist agenda he would have no choice but to hope that he fails.
Lenny Pitts and any other idealogues trying to be “journalists” should not write about topics they know nothing about. Rush hopes 0 fails to get his agenda enacted because it’s bad policy and bad for America.
And you, of course, Leonard Pitts, want no attention and want no one to read your article.
Idiot. Columnists, talk show hosts, anchor people on TV, entertainers: all of you want attention. That’s your JOB! To sell advertising space or time. Authors want to sell books. Attention can earn you a living. Haven’t you figured that out? Or are you pretending you don’t know the secret? If you are dull, you will get no attention. Your newspaper will fire you.
You, yourself, are using Limbaugh’s name to get attention for yourself.
Detroit Free Press: ‘Which Books Would Palin Want to Ban?’
Posted by Mike Bates on Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:49:52 PM
Last week, the Detroit Free Press’s Web site posted “Which books would Palin want to ban?,” a column by syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. Pitts begins with a series of possible questions for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Then he makes his point:
Wow, every day SOMEONE comes out against Rush? Rush is such a treasure to this country — a man who speaks the truth boldly. I think we should watch his back.
This guy is in desperate need of an editor. Or maybe he should just quit crack. Either would go a long way, probably.
“white will embrace what’s right”
I just shake my head to have heard that on that day.
These libtards always write articles based on what they were told that someone else said. How about they actually LISTEN to the show and then write the article? That used to be taught in Journalism 101.
Yeah, darn that Rush for making Bambi mention him. Wonder how he got him to do it.
Leo is most surely the Pitts.
No one craves attention like our Poser in Chief.
uh...Leonard you lib whore...it was Obama that gave Limbaugh the attention, not the other way around you fool.
Writing about the most extreme narcissist ever elected to the office of the President.
Yeah right and Leo Pitts doesn’t.
Ha!
Jealousy is a very ugly emotion.
Hypocrisy is uglier.
Just asking the same thing....
Obama isn’t socialist. With over 51% of the country dependent on government, We’re already socialist!!!!!
Obama is Marxist. He wants MORE government control.
Listen to what he says, not what you think/want him to say:
code words i.e.
‘reward workers who created the wealth’
condemns ‘selfishness as a virtue’ (sounds bad but it refers to Randian ‘rational self interest’)
A communist is someone who reads Marx.
An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.
Sory there are not enough A”s in ASS for your comment.
Leonard Pitts
Rush stands to make obscene amounts of money off conservatives for the next eight years, listening to their cathartic rants and ventings on the air; from ratings and ad dollars on the network; and name-dropping at the same cocktail parties that The Left attends, because after all, we’re one big happy entertainment industry.
Because Rush is exactly that: an entertainer.
Leonard Pitts is a bitter, partisan, racist jackass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.