Presidential failure: a necessary byproduct of checks & balances
If wishing the President to fail is so bad, why do we have checks and balances? Everyone is so angry that people like Rush Limbaugh would dare say they want the President to fail. That is what checks and balances are for: ensuring the executive branch fails when it is WRONG. Wikipedia covers it nicely:
“Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power.”
Wanting Obama to always succeed is not democracy. That thought-process describes a monarchy. Let’s just get rid of congress and courts… let Obama handle it however he wants, and if you hope he fails, that’s treason. This is insanity.
If Obama is wrong, it is America’s responsibility to ensure he fails. The only reason Democrats are focusing on Rush’s comments is political posturing. Making Republicans look anti-American by selling the nonsense that Obama IS America. Obama isn’t America’s king. The President is only one, albeit enormously important, part of the power structure of our republic.