I just want all of his policies to fail. Don’t you see the difference?
I want the President to succeed, you know, as long as that success doesn’t include any of those policies I disagree with. (Which actually isn’t all of them. It would probably be a good idea to get rid of the homeowner deduction, as much as it would hurt.)
The battle rages. Fred Thompson wants the President’s policies to fail. Patterico approves of the wording while ignoring that, in context, that’s exactly what Rush said. Goldstein schools him. (The early comments are really funny, too.)
What I don’t get is how Patterico–who I have mentioned before does a great job calling out the Los Angeles Times for its many duplicities–can’t grasp this. I mean, I swear that in recent years, he’s found the Times just making crap up to support their narrative: How on earth does he think careful word choices and non-inflammatory phrasings are going to help?
If you let someone else control your meaning, you’ve lost the game. It’s that simple.
UPDATE: I wanted to point out here that I wanted George W. Bush to fail, too, in almost every case. In fact, it’s generally a good thing for the people if the Presidents do fail, unless they’re making government smaller–which they almost never are.