The article states that “Under the administration’s plan, the government temporarily will increase the loan guarantee to 90 percent as an incentive to banks to lend. The administration believes this increase will reduce the risk lenders face when they make loans to borrowers who cannot find credit elsewhere and ultimately give the banks more confidence to sell and make more loans…”

Is it just me or does this sound familiar? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, anyone? Is Obama about to do to small businesses what the government has already done to home owners?

That’s funny, because in my mind having Pelosi and Reid initially write the entire package with zero input from Republicans and then telling the Republicans “I won” and to shut up when they protested parts of the bill doesn’t come across as “doing everything” to me. I’m actually fine with Obama saying “I won” and wanting the Republicans to just go along with it as long as the Democrats give Republicans that courtesy the next time power shifts hands.

Of course Limbaugh knew this would be inflamatory, would be taken the wrong way, and would result in millions who didn’t know him being exposed to him, many of who would become listeners and therefore pour even more gobs of money into his enterprise. But what did Limbaugh really mean, and how else could you take it as being offensive? It’s fairly simple to explain, and we can do so by comparing Presidents Obama and Bush and how their adversaries view them.

Failure vs. Failure

There are two ways to look at Limbaugh’s statement. Either he wants Obama to fail in implementing his stated policies, or he wants Obama to fail as President, regardless of his policies. Limbaugh clearly meant he wanted Obama’s policies to fail. His full statement wherein he said “I hope Obama fails” was:

“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.

For Rush, Obama represents liberalism, and Rush hopes that liberal policies aren’t implemented. In that sense, he wants Obama to fail. He wants him to fail to implement liberal policies. This is quite different than saying he wants Obama to fail as a President. If Obama were espousing policies Rush agreed with, you can be sure Rush would be wanting Obama to succeed.

Contrast this with how Bush was treated. During the Bush years the Democrat party didn’t care what Bush did or what his policies were. They wanted him to fail as a President because he was a Republican and in their minds anything a Republican does is bad, even if it’s what they would do. Any piece of legislation can be bad or good based on whether Democrats or Republicans support it. Even when President Bush signed bills that would normally be favored by Democrats (No Child Left Behind, Medicare benefit for seniors, etc.) they bad-mouthed these plans and tried to make them fail in order to make Bush look bad so that they could restore Democrats to power, and obviously is has worked. Of course it hasn’t helped the country much, but at least Democrats are in power, and for Pelosi and Reid that’s what appears to really matter.

And so the liberals have described Rush (and by extension all conservatives and Republicans) as wanting Obama to fail rather than simply wanting his liberal policies to fail. They do it either knowingly because it’s politically expedient, or unknowingly because it’s what they would do, and indeed did, when presented with the chance.