Obama: Hoping He Fails or Hoping for the Best?

“9-11 changed me somewhat… Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11. (emphasis added)  If you took the phrase ‘fair share’ ‘millionaires and billionaires’ and ‘pass this bill’ out of his vocabulary he would be unable to deliver a speech…  The American people developed a fighting spirit after 9-11 and we responded back after them.  And if allowed to defeat would be total.  But, Barack Obama, what he has done to our economy, what he has done to the American spirit of individual responsibility and self-reliance… Killing three thousand people is a tragedy, Sean.  It is a real tragedy.  But, killing the individualism, the self-reliance, and the self-respect of the American people like Barack Obama has done is much more of a tragedy.” (Neal Bortz on the Sean Hannity Show, October 6, 2011)

Just as comparisons between Adolph Hitler and any politician, including Presidents Bush or Obama, should not be made (although people are free in this country to make asinine comments to their heart’s content), I’m not sure that using 9/11 to attack President Obama is the best way to make your point.  Of course, with Neal Bortz, he probably doesn’t really care how he makes his point.  Taking away the use of 9/11 imagery, I would wholeheartedly agree that President Obama has been a colossal disaster for this country.  Should he get re-elected, our country and world will experience turmoil like we have never seen.

The failed policies of the current administration cannot be laid at the feet of Congress or former Presidents, no matter how much Joe Biden wants to blame President Bush for our nation’s ills.  What we are witnessing from the Obama Administration, including the President and Vice-President, is a failure of leadership.  As smart as President Obama thinks he is, most Americans — at least those who have jobs or who would like to have jobs unlike the radical know-nothing hippies “occupying” Wall Street — do not want to hear a law school trained politician — two years into his Presidency — continue to deny any responsibility for the mess that our nation is in.  Unlike one of his predecessors, Mr. Obama apparently thinks the buck stopped just short of his desk.  He reminds me of NFL Quarterbacks who are paid millions of dollars, but who throw interceptions, fumble the ball without anyone around, take sacks without being hit, and “lead” their team to 1 and 3 records, but who never apologize for their own mistakes (can anyone say Kyle Orton?).

But, just when you thought things in this country could not get any worse, the “leader” of the free world announces that he sympathizes with the lunatic leftists who are staging protests on Wall Street.  For someone as bright as President Obama is supposed to be, he makes comments which would lead one to believe the man is out of touch with mainstream America.  That’s not at all surprising.  President Obama reminds me of many of my law school contemporaries who not only share a liberal ideology, but also a complete and utter lack of common sense.  Like Mr. Obama, I wouldn’t vote for many of my law school classmates for dog catcher, much less for President of the United States.  (Although I don’t agree with her politics, Congresswoman and fellow law school classmate Kathy Castor might be the exception.)

As President Obama publicly identifies with the radical rabble “occupying” Wall Street, the American people on Main Street — Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats — will simply not buy what the smooth-talking President is selling.  When you start singing the praises of hippies, anarchists, socialists, communists, and anti-Semites, the “Silent Majority” will say, “Enough!”  If ever people needed to realize what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said the following, it is now:

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.’ (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, ‘Oh, you can’t do that.’  Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the drive-by story is. I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it.” (article here)

If the President has any more success, then the policies of those who are “occupying” Wall Street — the same leftists that President Obama says he sympathizes with and gives credibility to by his comments — will continue to be enacted.  And, that “success” will spell disaster for the United States of America.  Maybe a “failed” one-term Presidency wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all.



12 comments for “Obama: Hoping He Fails or Hoping for the Best?

  1. Milton Robins
    October 7, 2011 at 8:38 AM

    Obama in 2012! (hehe)

    A couple of things though:

    “What we are witnessing from the Obama Administration, including the President and Vice-President, is a failure of leadership.”

    I hear this criticism about the president a lot, but I would submit to you that he has demonstrated leadership: financial regulatory reform, healthcare reform (despite how some critics feel about it), and stimulus (again, we can debate the effectiveness of it or whether it was enough for hours).

    Also, he showed extraordinary leadership by overseeing a risky covert operation that led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

    Let me pose this question to you, too. It is the question that John Dickerson over at Slate posed to his readers:

    “If his [President Obama’s] leadership has not been effective, is the president the only one to blame? America does have a divided government. The president is not king. Is it Obama or Republicans in Congress who deserves the greater share of the blame?”

    And pastor, don’t fall into the leadership argument trap in politics! As Dickerson rightly points out,

    “…Calling for leadership is a trick both parties use to arouse anger and keep us from thinking too much more about the underlying issue. If only we had a leader, everything would be solved, they’d like us to think. But we should think more about what it actually takes to be president—what kind of leadership works and what kind of leadership doesn’t.”

    Then you say, “When you start singing the praises of hippies, anarchists, socialists, communists, and anti-Semites, the “Silent Majority” will say, “Enough!”

    Surely you don’t think all of the Wall Street Occupiers are “lunatic leftists” and “hippies, anarchists, socialists, communists, and anti-Semites?”

    There’s fringe in any movement, (even the Tea Party) including this one, but a lot of these occupiers–like myself–are tired of money influencing our elections and are disillusioned with the political process. I think our president is simply sympathizing with some of the more disenfranchised that have been impacted by Wall Street recklessness and greed.

    To be sure, I haven’t agreed with everything this administration has done. I mean, that Solyndra thing was a disaster. And let’s not forget the fiasco at the Justice Department surrounding the “Fast and the Furious” program. Or how about early in the administration when that stimulus money wound up going to pay the bonuses for fat cat execs?

    And the Rush quote? Well, I suppose we’ll have to leave that one for another day…


    • October 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM


      Okay. Better late than never. 🙂 I agree that some would say that President Obama has exhibited leadership. He would have to in order to get passed some of his major accomplishments, including Health Care Reform and the Stimulus, among others. It’s just not a leadership that I would be inclined to follow. I will give you the leadership regarding Osama bin Laden. He did not have to, so that was a “win” for him. As for the “Occupy” Wall Street types, I would direct you to a similar group in Atlanta (see here). I will stand by my observation that the “Occupy” group is made up mostly (not exclusively) of leftists, anarchists, and hippie types. As for the President’s sympathies, why is it always with the leftists (including the Palestinians)? As for Rush’s quote, I do not want to see anyone (President Obama included) pass an agenda (foreign and domestic) that will weaken America, take our freedoms away, and put more power in the hands of the federal government. That’s what I see President Obama doing, so in the sense that “I hope he fails,” I certainly hope that his agenda fails. If not, then I believe our country is headed for more heartache in the years ahead. But, that’s just my opinion on this Monday. No politics on Sundays! 🙂 Have a great day and God bless,


  2. Bennett Willis
    October 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM

    Scott, it seems to me that the major issue is the economy. It has not responded in a clearly positive manner to a large amount of federal money being dumped into the system. If it had responded, we should be confident that complaints about Mr. Obama would be uttered in “empty rooms.”

    If the economy did not respond to the expendature of federal money, I suspect that the response to not spending the money would have resulted in a disastrous situation–even compared to the one we have.

    We say that taxes are so high that people and companies can’t create jobs. However, if you look at the money inventory in most companies (at least the public ones who have to publish the information), it is at record levels. Income taxes are at historic lows (along with interest rates). The “job makers” are sitting on their bank accounts and waiting for someone to have a good idea.

    The thing that distresses me the most is the increasing spread between the “have most” and the “have less.” This is at record ratios and is approaching that of Mexico–if it is not already there. This is not good and seems to have largely resulted from the “have most” becoming extremely good at collecting money–not because they have made more or better things.

  3. Bennett Willis
    October 8, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Rush should issue a disclaimer at the start of each broadcast saying how much each % increase in in the personal income tax rate will cost him. Rush’s motivation to be against increased taxes seems pretty clear to me.

    Another thing that I find odd about Rush is that he is apparently against paying all the taxes that the laws have imposed on us. This seems truly strange–unless he is pushing the envelope and does not want his practices to be examined. It seems to me that adding accountants to the IRS is the one place that the government needs to be growing. I’m sure it takes a number of good people to track through Rush’s tax return.

  4. Lydia
    October 9, 2011 at 4:36 PM

    Oh Dear. Leadership is not the problem when you have a willing congress to pass socialized medicine and more and more “stimulus” bills that are not working except to make Solyandra execs rich.

    Principles are the problem.

    To say “if the stimulus worked”….is kind of like me saying I can spend my way out of debt. It does not work. It did not work when Bush did a little and it worked even worse when Obama quadrupled it.

    Businesses are holding on to their money for one reason: They have no confidence in the future. Economics is more psychology than science. (Yeah, I know, tell that the Keynes) If congress would overturn obamacare we would see some movement. It would be a start.

    The bottomline is that Obama only knows socialist solutions. And ironically, Socialism always makes a larger gap between the haves and have nots contrary to popular opinion because it always has to have an oligarchy. But what Obama is doing is more fascism. Funding large businesses that are too big to fail is more fascist than anything.

    The even bigger irony of the wall street protesters is that Wall street gave tons to Obama. The rich rich are liberals! Take a look at Holywood. Read about the technology industry. That is the secret the media loves to hide. I would tell the young google billionaire who begged Obama to raise his taxes that he can donate money to the government. There is a way to do that.

    The only thing Obama has going for him is that so many people now look to government for solutions instead of telling government to get out of the way and stick to it’s knitting. They elected this man on a mantra of hope and change with no specifics! I was on a blog the other day and a woman actually said ” OUR government grants us rights and privileges”. She said that! And educated woman with an MBA! She did not know she was quoting king George before the Declaration of Independence was written. With a public this ignorant, I do lose hope at times.

    But for me, giving them more money would be akin to giving whisky and car keys to teen age boys. It is foolish.

    Cain for President. Because he has the right overarching economic principles. He knows government is the problem. Not the solution.

    BTW: Why would Rush want to give more money to government when they do stupid stuff like Solyandra? And big bonuses to AIG execs when they ran that company into the ground? They even wrote their large bonuses into the bill!!!!!

  5. October 12, 2011 at 4:31 AM

    Brother Howell,

    Are you looking to be speech writer for Dr. Jefress? 🙂


  6. Billy Ray Joe Bob
    October 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    Reverend Tebow will help all True, Patriotic Americans. They need only accept Reverend Tebow as Their Quarterback and The Man as Their Head Coach.

    Reverend Tebow is the greatest athlete this greatest of nations has ever or will ever produce. None plays better. None looks more True Patriotic American. None is closer in mind and body to The Man.

    Some alleged teammates, Fox, and Elway – non-believers all – will try to stop Reverend Tebow. They will fail. When Denver wins, Reverend Tebow will lead the way. If Denver loses, those teammates, Fox, and Elway will be responsible.

    Reverend Tebow was sent here to save Denver, Colorado, and True Red State America. In Reverend Tebow all is right.

  7. Stephen Fox
    October 20, 2011 at 6:49 PM

    Hiowell: Fraid you are woefully out to lunch on this one. Much more reasoned approach was on NPR Diane Rehm show Monday by Harvard proff; himself has disappointments with Obama, but not the unseemly and unfortunate demagoguery you display here; demagoguery you most routinely avoid.
    Hope you will reconsider what you have said here

    Robert Jeffress and the SBC under its current leadership is a bigger threat to our country than President Obama; and if you want to crystallized it further become acquainted with what Albert Lee Smith’s widow Eunie and Kris Kobach are doing to Alabama while the SBC there is struck mute

    • October 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM


      Hope you are doing well in AL. If by “reasoned approach” on NPR’s Diane Rehm show you mean a liberal slant and bias, then I will give you that 🙂 President Obama is one of the biggest demagogues in the political system today. Just because he speaks in measured tones does not mean that he is not demagoguing just about every issue that comes down the pike. We will have to agree to disagree on the current President because I think that he has done far worse than I would have imagined he would. As to Robert Jeffress, I think his endorsement of Gov. Perry was a mistake. I don’t disagee with his analysis of Mormonism, but I do think it ill-advised for pastors to publicly endorse candidates, even though they are free to do so in their personal capacity. I just don’t see how you can separate the personal from the pastoral, particularly in a church like FBC Dallas. Thanks for the comments and have a great day. God bless,


      • October 21, 2011 at 6:56 PM

        Howell: if you click on my name for this post,should take you to transcript of grand chat with Lawrence Lessig. His call for a Constitutiional Convention is compelling.
        I may link your reservations on Obama to Public policy forum of Baplife dot com. You may periodically want to check on that.
        Thanks for your kind reply. Even so I think you are woefully misguided on this matter.
        Aa an aside, google Patrick Nix on David and Goliath. We may have some common ground there with the world of Tebow, though I have other reservations I may express later.

  8. October 21, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    click on my name with this post

  9. October 21, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    To help your readers remember and put some things in perspective, a new documentary is out on Pearl Jam. REM whose manager is son of Presbyterian Minister, active for the common good in Athens Georgia, Bertis Downs, those two major groups among many others were active against Bush in 04
    Here are the lyrics to a Pearl Jam Song about Bush:

    How does he do it? How do they do it? Uncanny and immutable.
    This is such a happening tailpipe of a party.
    Like sugar, the guests are so refined, (look like melting mice)

    A confidence man, but why so beleaguered?
    He’s not a leader, he’s a Texas leaguer
    Swinging for the fence, got lucky with a strike
    Drilling for fear, makes the job simple
    Born on third, thinks he got a triple

    Blackout weaves it’s way through the cities
    Blackout weaves it’s way through the cities
    Blackout weaves it’s way,…

    I remember when you sang
    That song about today
    Now it’s tomorrow and
    Everything has changed

    A think tank of aloof multiplication
    A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
    Retrenchment and hoggishness
    The aristocrat choir sings
    “What’s the ruckus?”
    The haves have not a clue
    The immenseness of suffering
    And the odd negotiation, a rarity
    With onionskin plausibility of life,
    And a keyboard reaffirmation

    Blackout weaves it’s way through the cities
    Blackout weaves it’s way through the cities
    Blackout weaves it’s way,…

    I remember when you sang
    That song about today
    Now it’s tomorrow and
    Everything has changed
    [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com

Leave a Reply