Comments (17)

• Brad

  I agree. How can one not agree with Rush when he quotes F.A. Hayek at CPAC? The conservatives sound like conservatives! The schnozberries taste like schnozberries!

  Why should anyone want to see Barack Obama succeed at destroying the market economy which created so much prosperity over the last several hundred years?

  Published: March 8, 2009 11:12 PM

• Tim K

  Unquestionably true.

  There is no "irrationality" in being in opposition to stupidity and foolishness. Unfortunately, we have, in our fair country, decided that relativism applies to everything, including facts. Therefore, since no fact is "true", all that matters is the "feelings" of the person espousing it. This is the reason that the loonies attack anyone who dares to point out their lack of clothes.

  Published: March 8, 2009 11:13 PM

• Zach Bibeault

  As much as I dislike Rush, his comment was completely taken and run with by the media and by establishment liberals (and even some conservatives I believe). What Rush said was in reference to wanting POLICIES to fail, and I'm personally confounded how people didn't see that.

  I think that if the candidate were a white person, it wouldn't have been controversial, but since everyone is so sensitive about race with Obama, they immediately took it as some sort of extreme insult, which to me is covert reverse-racism.

  Published: March 8, 2009 11:15 PM

• Zach Bibeault

  As much as I dislike Rush, his comment was completely taken and run with by the media and by establishment liberals (and even some conservatives I believe). What Rush said was in reference to wanting POLICIES to fail, and I'm personally confounded how people didn't see that.

  I think that if the candidate were a white person, it wouldn't have been controversial, but since everyone is so sensitive about race with Obama, they immediately took it as some sort of extreme insult, which to me is covert reverse-racism.

  Published: March 8, 2009 11:30 PM

• Mike Rack

  I like Rush and I do not have wish that the new president fails, I know he will. The president and his government are doing everything possible to fail the country and help their reelection efforts. That is obvious. God help us!

  Published: March 9, 2009 1:47 AM

• Conza88

  It's far better to adopt Ron Paul's stance on this.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YwPAlcf11M

  Published: March 9, 2009 2:08 AM

• Friedrich

  I think this is typical for dictatorshiop. Do what I say otherwise everything will go down. It's the complete opposite ot liberalism and so no-one with a bit of horse sense must oppose it.

  Published: March 9, 2009 2:27 AM

• Gil

  Isn't true that Libertarians don't want the system to succeed? As Rothbard put it (to the tune) of: a Libertarian should blister his finger to push the button that would end the state. The Skeptical Optimist (Steve Conover) believes the economic system of the West could have ground to a halt here:

  http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2009/02/capitol-hill-debates-the-stimulus-bill-.html

  Is this where Libertarians cringe? The current system was almost stopped by a giant electronic bank run but the government intervened and saved the state apparatus? Or do Libertarians know that if it happened but was averted by the guvmint it will reappear and with greater force? Are Libertarians right and the end of the current system is nigh?

  Published: March 9, 2009 3:41 AM

• Larry Sheldon

  Right on!

  Published: March 9, 2009 7:27 AM

• geoih

  Qoute by Gil: "The current system was almost stopped by a giant electronic bank run but the government intervened and saved the state apparatus?"

  The current system is entirely government controlled and hasn't been saved from anything. The fractional banking system is a giant inflation machine perpetuated by government. The government has parasitized the market to the point where it can no longer be sustained.

  The host is dying and sucking more blood from it will not make it healthy.
  

  Published: March 9, 2009 7:36 AM

• Lucas M. Engelhardt

  Peter Schiff actually had a good point here. There are two ways we can interpret this. One is that we want Obama's policies to be implemented but not help anything (and thus "Obama doesn't succeed [at fixing the problem]"). The other is that we don't want Obama's policies to be implemented at all (and thus "Obama doesn't succeed [at getting his policies through]").

  These are very different things.

  Published: March 9, 2009 7:41 AM

• Ed M

  Orwellian double speak I can agree with. "Success is failure."

  Published: March 9, 2009 7:46 AM

• Richie

  For Newt to say that if Obama does not succeed, then the country does not succeed is ridiculous. Typical philosophy of a big-government statist.

  Published: March 9, 2009 8:32 AM

• Sebaneau

  Given that the Gray Communist Cheat's agenda is to impose socialism on the American people through the use of police force, those who want him to succeed are socialists, i. e. criminals.
  Do I not I see to little argument to the effect that the Constitution is supposed to forbid this?

  Published: March 9, 2009 8:38 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  Undoing Socialism
  Monday, March 9, 2009

  'Success' Of Something Unethical Is An Obomination!
  
  When something is unethical why would opposing it (not wanting it to succeed) be deemed as a negative?

  In the bizarre world of politics where advice is being given by ethically neutral (in other words, ethically void) economists there is no test, no standard. That is exactly the symbolism also being conveyed by the lack of a gold standard, not coincidentally. Without a standard it is all an illusion, subject to misinterpretation (or economic intervention in the case of gold).

  But not everyone is an ethical moron. And not everyone is an economic moron.

  Those who do not want something that is unethical to succeed are fully rational. Those who just use rhetoric to oppose things but never really comprehend that there is a lack of ethics are ego-driven interpreters that will immediately become ego-driven interventionists as soon as they gain power.

  With the standard of ethics (and the gold standard in the economic sense) as the criterion the demagogues can easily be separated from the ones who are truly wise and just.

  Where do you stand? Are you opposed to the unethical impositions of socialism and fascism or are you just opposed on the grounds of political partisanship?

  Or maybe you are so poorly educated about classical liberalism that you actually want these oppressive and totalitarian schemes to succeed. Shame on you!
  

  Published: March 9, 2009 9:18 AM

• peter

  I think what they all mean is that they would like to see President Obama fail SOONER rather than LATER so that we can get down to the real solutions for this crisis.

  Published: March 9, 2009 4:24 PM

• Gil

  My point geoih is one of - is this the proof Libertarians need to show the world is teetering on the edge of financial collapse? If it is true will Libertarians like (or are even prepared) what they asked for when it does come crumbling done? Will this be another great depression followed by a world war or outright technological/civilisational collapse just like Rome?

  Published: March 9, 2009 8:56 PM