'He's our President, and I want him to succeed'

[AustinHoya03]

It has become laughably apparent over the past month that this phrase, typically followed by 'but,' has become a talisman that right-wingers believe allows them to say something strange and/or negative about the President.

This weekend I heard it followed by "but I wouldn't be surprised if someone kills him."

Was there a secret meeting where this bizarre antecedent to criticism/insanity was decided upon, or is it merely an instruction from Rush?

I don't have a problem with criticizing the President (I've done it frequently myself in the past few weeks), but stop blowing sunshine up my ass with this useless, meaningless expression.

[Bando]

Actually Pat Robertson of all people criticized Rush for this this weekend. (Link)

[Elvado]

but I am appalled by the fact that he took a three day sojourn to Chicago to wine and dine his wife before signing the most critical, urgent piece of legislation ever. I am also appalled by the fact that Madame Pelosi bum rushed said bill through the House so she could meet with the Pope (especially since the bill contains items which are anathema to Catholicism).

[thebin]

Feb 17, 2009 21:35:21 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

It has become laughably apparent over the past month that this phrase, typically followed by 'but,' has become a talisman that right-wingers believe allows them to say something strange and/or negative about the President.

This weekend I heard it followed by "but I wouldn't be surprised if someone kills him."

Was there a secret meeting where this bizarre antecedent to criticism/insanity was decided upon, or is it merely an instruction from Rush?

I don't have a problem with criticizing the President (I've done it frequently myself in the past few weeks), but stop blowing sunshine up my ass with this useless, meaningless expression.

Probably people who say this are afraid (with justification) that criticism of the president will get them labeled racist. You could not have lived in America over the last 20 years and not concede the possibility- no make that probability- that if American whites are strenuously critical of a black person in public someone will at least imply they are bigoted. And that's usually all she wrote. It is through this delightful tactic that whites in America have not been allowed to really participate in many matters of public debate for some time without kid gloves.

[Cambridge]

Feb 18, 2009 9:03:00 GMT -5 thebin said:

Feb 17, 2009 21:35:21 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

It has become laughably apparent over the past month that this phrase, typically followed by 'but,' has become a talisman that right-wingers believe allows them to say something strange and/or negative about the President.

This weekend I heard it followed by "but I wouldn't be surprised if someone kills him."

Was there a secret meeting where this bizarre antecedent to criticism/insanity was decided upon, or is it merely an instruction from Rush?

I don't have a problem with criticizing the President (I've done it frequently myself in the past few weeks), but stop blowing sunshine up my ass with this useless, meaningless expression.

Probably people who say this are afraid (with justification) that criticism of the president will get them labeled racist. You could not have lived in America over the last 20 years and not concede the possibility- no make that probability- that if American whites are strenuously critical of a black person in public someone will at least imply they are bigoted. And that's usually all she wrote. It is through this delightful tactic that whites in America have not been allowed to really participate in many matters of public debate for some time without kid gloves.

Ohhhh, it's American whites that have been disenfranchised. I've been operating under some seriously misinformed assumptions.

I think you miss the point. Austin is asking, correct me if I'm wrong, why would you hope for failure? or death? or worse? I get wanting to be on the right side of history, but isn't this one of those situations where you hope to be proven wrong?

[Filo]

I think it is more so that some on the right labelled anything anti-Bush or anything against the war in Iraq as unpatriotic. So before criticizing the current president, they are trying to head off any return anti-patriotic labelling with the disclaimer. Who knew that that is all it would take

[kchoya]

Feb 18, 2009 6:02:15 GMT -5 Elvado said:

but I am appalled by the fact that he took a three day sojourn to Chicago to wine and dine his wife before signing the most critical, urgent piece of legislation ever. I am also appalled by the fact that Madame Pelosi bum rushed said bill through the House so she could meet with the Pope (especially since the bill contains items which are anathema to Catholicism).

Cut him a break. He promised that every bill he signs will be published on the web for five days before he signs it. He has to balance that with his whining about how the bill must be enacted ASAP and the country will suffer every second it was delayed.

Much like Pelosi's promise that members of congress would have 48 hours to review the bill before voting. Guess the trip to Italy trumped that.

[thebin]

Feb 18, 2009 10:07:40 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Feb 18, 2009 9:03:00 GMT -5 thebin said:

Probably people who say this are afraid (with justification) that criticism of the president will get them labeled racist. You could not have lived in America over the last 20 years and not concede the possibility- no make that probability- that if American whites are strenuously critical of a black person in public someone will at least imply they are bigoted. And that's usually all she wrote. It is through this delightful tactic that whites in America have not been allowed to really participate in many matters of public debate for some time without kid gloves.

Ohhhh, it's American whites that have been disenfranchised. I've been operating under some seriously misinformed assumptions.

I think you miss the point. Austin is asking, correct me if I'm wrong, why would you hope for failure? or death? or worse? I get wanting to be on the right side of history, but isn't this one of those situations where you hope to be proven wrong?

Cambridge- Let's be clear because it seemed like your response was intentional obfuscation. I contend that it is an undisputable fact that over the last 20 years Black Americans have been freer to speak up about race and race relations than have white Americans without threat of being attacked as bigotted by mainstream Americans in the media, etc. Now let's go on record Cambridge...you think that is false and that perhaps the opposite is true? Interesting. In a similar vein, I believe the sun is at the center of our solar system. If you think it says something grand about yourself, now would be the time to dispute that one too....

[strummer8526]

Feb 18, 2009 6:02:15 GMT -5 Elvado said:

but I am appalled by the fact that he took a three day sojourn to Chicago to wine and dine his wife before signing the most critical, urgent piece of legislation ever. I am also appalled by the fact that Madame Pelosi bum rushed said bill through the House so she could meet with the Pope (especially since the bill contains items which are anathema to Catholicism).

Eh, wining and dining the lady is fine by me. I actually agree on the Pelosi thing, though. I wouldn't let Catholicism guide my legislating, but I also wouldn't be in a hurry to meet the Pope.

[EasyEd]

He's our President and I want him to succeed in keeping the country safe. I do not want him to succeed in his shift of power to the federal government nor in many of his other policies.

[Cambridge]

Feb 18, 2009 11:12:27 GMT -5 thebin said:

Feb 18, 2009 10:07:40 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Ohhhh, it's American whites that have been disenfranchised. I've been operating under some seriously misinformed assumptions.

I think you miss the point. Austin is asking, correct me if I'm wrong, why would you hope for failure? or death? or worse? I get wanting to be on the right side of history, but isn't this one of those situations where you hope to be proven wrong?

Cambridge- Let's be clear because it seemed like your response was intentional obfuscation. I contend that it is an undisputable fact that over the last 20 years Black Americans have been freer to speak up about race and race relations than have white Americans without threat of being attacked as bigotted by mainstream Americans in the media, etc. Now let's go on record Cambridge...you think that is false and that perhaps the opposite is true? Interesting. In a similar vein, I believe the sun is at the center of our solar system. If you think it says something grand about yourself, now would be the time to dispute that one too....

I disagree with you, sir. But, perhaps, not as fundamentally as your post seems to suggest.

I believe the left, the right, the blogosphere and the mainstream media have done their best to stifle honest conversations on race in America. Anything that approaches that minefield is set upon by agents on both sides of the aisle - whether it be the knee jerk j'accuse of "racist" or "playing the race card", everyone has been guilty of stifling conversation.

So, yes, I do disagree with you, my friend, because I believe that whites have been no more hindered in their discussion of race than anyone else, from any other race or background. Personally, I would like to change this and would welcome open, honest dialogues involving people from all backgrounds, races, religions etc.

As a matter of disclosure, my father is the director of a non-profit that engages in the fostering of conversations between people of various backgrounds - racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, political, etc. His goal has always been to bring the furthest extremes together and create a space where they can talk openly and honestly about their past, present and future. It is not a place for accusations, but a place for reconciliation. That cuts both ways - it's not a one way street of victim-victimizer. There is anger, resentment, hostility, confusion, ignorance, jealousy, etc. bottled up in every community. The only way to move beyond it is to form bonds of trust across these social cleavages and open up channels of real, honest conversation.

All have been responsible for the failures of progress, and all must be responsible for rectifying the situation.

[Elvado]

Eric Holder tells me it's because we are a nation of cowards when it comes to issues of race. It is nice to be lectured to by a man of his high moral character. The sad part is that I tend to agree with him on that point.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Feb 18, 2009 14:57:39 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Eric Holder tells me it's because we are a nation of cowards when it comes to issues of race. It is nice to be lectured to by a man of his high moral character. The sad part is that I tend to agree with him on that point.

I agree too. I don't think he's saying anything that people on both sides of the political spectrum couldn't acknowledge (albeit with different examples and implications, I'm sure). I think he's in a position to talk about it too, he manages the Civil Rights Division at DoJ.

[Boz]

Couple of points:

1. It's more than a little amusing how upset some people are getting about this. (I will make an exception for the "someone is probably going to kill him" comment, which is just ridiculously stupid, but I'm also waiting for someone to tell me who actually said that; there's a pretty big difference between a John Boehner or even a Sean Hannity saying that than just some schmo who might have a blog somewhere. Can anyone source that comment?) Anyway, back to the point. I seem to recall some pretty vile things being said about our past President, with no wishes for success at all. Moreover, there were quite a few complete idiots who wouldn't even acknowledge that Bush WAS their President. At least conservative opponents are granting that much. (as do I, I should add)

2. Saying "I hope he succeeds, BUT...." is a valid statement. It can be seen as contradictory, but only when viewed in terms of success meaning he gets 100% of what he wants. What is wrong with saying "I hope he succeeds in helping this economy recover, but I do not think his policies or this bill are good for that economy and I cannot support them."? There are many areas in which this President can succeed, in which I will want him to succeed, that are completely unrelated to this bill which is very difficult to support.

For instance, let me offer the following: "Barack Obama is my President and I want him to succeed, so I am completely in support of his recent decision to deploy an Army brigade and a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Afghanistan."

3. OK, so now the "stimulus" bill has passed. So the next argument might be, even if Republicans didn't vote for it, they should want it to succeed. Well, not necessarily. First of all, it is becoming more and more evident that the massive spending in this bill may only be the first of at least one more and probably several more massive spending bills that will be required for this approach to work. Secondly, it is not out of the question, I hope you can agree, that some Democrats might want to institute permanent spending levels for some of the things in this bill, as opposed to initial, temporary emergency spending measures. Well, it's not out of the question for a fiscal conservative to say, "Hell no to that! I cannot root for this bill to succeed because of the long-term damage it will do."

Finally, this is political rhetoric. What is the big deal? Throw out everything else I just said and assume that this statement means nothing more than "I really don't want him to succeed, but I am going to politely and respectfully say that I hope he does because it's more politically advantageous to say it that way." Is this really any type of political speech that's unlike anything before?

It's kind of like George Bush saying, "I respect the new Speaker of the House." Hell no, he doesn't, but it's political speech so he says it anyway. There is a name for politicians who don't learn to talk that way....that name is Joe Biden.

[SFHoya99]

I'm not the least bit upset by this, but you can't tell me that "I want him to succeed, but" isn't exactly like "No offense, but..."

It's completely meaningless, and most of the time the person saying "no offense" more or less is intending to offend -- they are using the phrase as some kind of get out of jail free card.

I'm sure there are folks out there who disagree with Obama who want him to succeed at some things. But there's a lot who don't want him to succeed at anything. I think, most commonly, so they can get their guy in.

[kchoya]

Feb 18, 2009 14:57:39 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Eric Holder tells me it's because we are a nation of cowards when it comes to issues of race. It is nice to be lectured to by a man of his high moral character. The sad part is that I tend to agree with him on that point.

I certainly agree with him. And I think a lot of white people ARE scared to talk about racial issues, and rightly so.

[rosslynhoya]

Feb 18, 2009 17:12:45 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I'm not the least bit upset by this, but you can't tell me that "I want him to succeed, but" isn't exactly like "No offense, but..."

It's completely meaningless, and most of the time the person saying "no offense" more or less is intending to offend -- they are using the phrase as some kind of get out of jail free card.

I'm sure there are folks out there who disagree with Obama who want him to succeed at some things. But there's a lot who don't want him to succeed at anything. I think, most commonly, so they can get their guy in.

Okay, so how about - I want our President to succeed, but if he's going to fail, I hope that the failure occurs in such undeniable fashion that no successor ever attempts to repeat such an experiment again.

This type of talk probably sounds a lot like how many Kerry backers in 2004 took visible delight in the casualty reports out of Iraq. I believe it was once expressed to the effect of every Iraq death represented a net gain of 4 votes for Kerry: one less vote for Dubya and three more for Kerry (mother, father, and spouse). Somehow, crossing my fingers and hoping for a GM bankruptcy this week just doesn't seem quite as heinous to me

[Coast2CoastHoya]

People so wrapped up in politics that they want an elected leader -- especially the president -- to "fail" so they can get their "own" party/guy/gal in power need, for the good of the country, to find a new outlet for their insecurities and lack of vision. This applies to several personal friends of mine in both major and some minor parties, and lots of people I'll never have the (dis)pleasure of meeting.

I have no problem with people who criticize what a president does and what the consequences of his actions are. That's the very basis upon which I criticized our previous president. I have a real problem with the "what if"ers who are convinced a thing will fail because they're convinced it will, rather than based on available evidence.

[AustinHoya03]

Feb 18, 2009 15:01:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

(I will make an exception for the "someone is probably going to kill him" comment, which is just ridiculously stupid, but I'm also waiting for someone to tell me who actually said that; there's a pretty big difference between a John Boehner or even a Sean Hannity saying that than just some schmo who might have a blog somewhere. Can anyone source that comment?)

The schmo I was referring to doesn't even have a blog. I've noticed the phrase used more among ordinary Americans than media types -- that is why it is so personally annoying to me. I've got less of a problem with politicians using boilerplate language, but when the person you're having a beer with uses it, it makes that person an ass.

Re: thebin's comments, I don't disagree -- the American conversation WRT race has been childish and foolish for years. My reply is that the use of phrases designed to appease/mitigate are also childish and foolish -- people need to get some cojones and just say what they think.

Also, I can think of many examples where accusations of racism have been unfair and uncalled for. However, I can't think of an instance where a person has been labeled racist for criticizing Obama. If there's an example out there, do share.

Feb 18, 2009 17:12:45 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I'm not the least bit upset by this, but you can't tell me that "I want him to succeed, but" isn't exactly like "No offense, but..."

It's completely meaningless, and most of the time the person saying "no offense" more or less is intending to offend -- they are using the phrase as some kind of get out of jail free card.

Exactly.

[Boz]

Feb 18, 2009 17:35:32 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Feb 18, 2009 14:57:39 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Eric Holder tells me it's because we are a nation of cowards when it comes to issues of race. It is nice to be lectured to by a man of his high moral character. The sad part is that I tend to agree with him on that point.

I certainly agree with him. And I think a lot of white people ARE scared to talk about racial issues, and rightly so.

It's difficult not to be a "coward" on racial issues when something like this is automatically considered to be blatantly racist:



If you go to CNN, their clip of this issue is much better with Roland Martin and David "Everything is Racist" Gergen claiming that there just couldn't have been any other meaning to this political cartoon. Something, say, that was just in the news recently, perhaps?