For those who choose not to recall any of the "left" wishing Bush to fail....

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

For those who choose not to recall any of the "left" wishing Bush to fail....

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." . . .

For those who choose not to recall any of the "left" wishing Bush to fail....

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

Here is what Carville said: “I don’t care if people like him or not, just so they don’t vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn’t succeed, but I am a partisan Democrat. But the average person wants him to succeed. It is his country, his life or their lives. So he has that going for him.”Carville continued, “There is a lot that is going to happen between now and next November. It is not that people don’t like him. It is not that people don’t want him to succeed, but it is also not that he doesn’t have some serious underlying problems.”

A comment to a room of print reporters eating breakfast is not quite the same as a voice going out to millions on the air. As soon as the attack was heard about, Carville retracted his statement. Everyone wanted Bush to succeed after the attacks. (It is a pity that he didn't.)

Here is a more complete statement of Carville's words:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...residents-fail/

Unlike Rush, Carville was obviously talking about the 2002 mid-term election. The Republican party was looking to solidify their holdings in Congress and Carville was hoping that they failed. Bush was playing high-profile cheerleader to a lot of Republican candidates at the time. Carville wanted the President and the Republicans to fail in elections. However, when the crisis came, the comments were withdrawn in hopes that the President would succeed solving the problem.

Rush, however, was talking about hoping Obama's plans to pull the country out of its economic crisis failed. He doesn't want a Democratic solution to the problem to work because that would stress a failing of his personal ideology.

The difference is clear: Carville talked about politics until the crisis came. Rush saw the crisis come and started playing politics.

Given that this was at a Monitor breakfest, I think we can say that the CSM is the best group to cover it, eh? They've got the tapes after all.
Isn't this how Rusha always operates? Take a small piece of anything that happens and spin it? Unfortunately the moronic ditto heads never do thier own research and find out what really happened. Its amazing how many easily led people there are in this country.

What about minutes after the attack?

Seems to me that Limbaugh's wishing failure on a crisis-bearing president who leads a crisis-bearing country is much different than Carville's pre-9/11 comment.