51% of Democrats said NO.

My apologies, Jay, you did have some evidentiary basis for your statement, after all.

I would note, however, that this poll, if accurate (this is FOX we’re talking about, after all) was taken after 5.5 years with Bush as president, and is in response to a rather open-ended question. What is going through the respondent’s mind in answering the question: I hope Bush fails to what…? Retain his majority in congress?

Somewhat different from Limbaugh and the hope-he-fails chorus of Limbots who have been screaming ever since the day Obama was elected.

Oh now it has to be something specific for him to succeed at? Give me a break Sean. I noticed that in the same poll, Republicans and Independents didn’t need specific examples.

Good grief.

You’ve taken question #10 in isolation out of a poll. It doesn’t do anything to back up your point.

Sure it does. The contention is that Democrats didn’t say they wanted President Bush to fail. This poll question is evidence that a majority did want him to fail.

Why didn’t you do that, Jay. It’s your point that you’re trying to make.

And I cited what my evidence was and posted a link to it. Jaim wants to be an intellectual lazy ass. It’s not my responsibility to provide with a trail of breadcrumbs to the details. Enter “patterico poll bush fail” into the Google toolbar and it would point him right to the full entry. Is that what you people are going to bitch about now that the whole, “We didn’t want him to fail!” whine has been exposed as nonsense? Give it a rest.

At what? Succeed at what?

You’ve taken question #10 in isolation out of a poll. It doesn’t do anything to back up your point.

Bullshit? It’s a direct link to a question from a poll. Do a Google search for details for crying out loud.

Why didn’t you do that, Jay. It’s your point that you’re trying to make. You don’t’ seem to be aware of this, for crying out loud, but it isn’t up to us to provide support for your argument.

It was hyperbole, and so is Oliver’s notion that Edwards almost destroyed the Democratic party. The party would have survived the scandal had Edwards been nominated, and I’m sure the country would manage to survive a term or two of McCain/Palin.

Mission accomplished.

Nice of you to like to an image file, rather than provide some context for your bullshit.

In 2006, there was a poll taken that said, “Regardless of how you voted, do you want to see President Bush succeed?”

51% of Democrats said NO.

In short, they wanted him to fail. Independents meanwhile, polled 63-34 for him to succeed.

Mind reading my ass.

http://patterico.com/files/2009/03/poll-should-bush-succeed.jpg

Like, if you had asked me whether or not I hoped that Bush Jr. would wreak destruction upon this and one other nation, the answer was “no”.

If, however, you asked me if certain policy approach X could even possibly lead to some desired outcome, I would have in most of Bush Jr / GOP policies said “no”.

Not based on what I “hoped” but because of what I know of reality and the world.

If a neighbor of mine was truly in a desperate situation and declared his intention to get out of his problems by building a staircase to the Moon, what do I “hope” for and what do I “expect”?

I would “hope” that the neighbor would change his mind and abandon his destructive folly.

Instead, the Bush Jr. years were like a lot of people screaming at me about why I was opposed to letting this man reach the Moon.

Turns out he did a bunch of shit. I didn’t want him to do the shit that he did. Did I hope for him to fail? No, strangely enough I wanted him to not turn 8 years of progress and prosperity into war, economic crisis and the trampling of the Constitution, but he did, despite my fervent longing to the contrary. I did not hope for Iraq to turn into a pointless quagmire, but it did. I didn’t hope that Bush would drag us into the mud with illegal detentions, wiretapping and torture, but he did. If giving away tax breaks to the rich actually turned out to be for the benefit of us all, well, that’s one on me and good on him for his principles. Except it wasn’t principles and it didn’t have that effect.

Do I think he’s a complete piece of shit for doing these things, yes, yes I do. I didn’t have to hope for him to fail, he did that on his own.

Wingnut mind reading abilities, ladies and gentlemen.

No, a wingnut’s projection of his own bitter selfishness, and his confusion of patriotism with tribalism.

Bush burned the fucking house down. Opposing the moronic invasion and occupation of Iraq was the only patriotic, American thing to do.

Wingnut mind reading abilities, ladies and gentlemen.

Whatever conversation you’re remembering, Dennis, I didn’t say I listen to him fairly often. I can barely stand to listen to Limbaugh for more than literally 2-3 minutes before the sheer weight of the lies he’s spewing forces me to switch back to my usual stations. And only tune his show in about once every couple of months. And only then because I can’t tolerate those who want to ban books they haven’t read or picket movies they haven’t seen because someone told them they were bad, so I listen to Limbaugh on rare occasions so that I can form my own opinion of himm from first hand experience.

he said specifically it was his policies he wanted to fail because he thought his polices would do great harm to this nation. He framed in that manner.

First thing out of the gate, setting the stage (the frame) for his view:

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000.

Yeah, that’s a statement on Obama’s policies. “Wah, they didn’t give Bush a chance, so I’m not going to give him one.”

Then he does describe policies:

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.”

Except they aren’t policies that Obama has ever supported or tried to enact. The “absorption of as much as possible by the gov’t”? Nope, never what Obama has stated or done. It’s a straw man Limbaugh sets up. Not much different from “He’s wants to killing your Grandma to save on medical costs. And I’m opposed to that.” Well, who wouldn’t be? But that isn’t what Obama was doing.

So he isn’t objecting to Obama’s policies. He’s objecting to what he claims (falsely) Obama’s policies are. His objection is to Obama. It is the man that he wants to see fail. IF it was truly the policies, then he would attack the actual policies, not mocked up, distorted versions of them.