Home / The Party Opposing Bush

The Party Opposing Bush

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone


What do all of these acronyms have in common? You probably guessed already.

They’re all either anti-Bush slogans, websites, or organizations. In the order they are presented, the acronyms stand for “Mothers Opposing Bush,” “Citizens Against Bush,” “Impeach Bush Now,” “Vote Bush Out,” “Beat Back Bush,” “Anybody But Bush,” “Grannies Against George,” and “Yalies against Dubya’s Ascension.”

Phew! Thats a spicey meat-a-ball!

Which is my way of saying, “someone please hand me the Pepto Bismal!”

Really, there is a serious amount of negativity eminating from the left these days. No big surprise. I’ve been blogging on that topic for over a year now.

What I’ve listed above just scratches the surface. The site where I found all of the acronyms in the first place has hundreds of additional anti-Bush sites, blogs, slogans, bumper stickers, etc., listed there.

How many pro-Kerry sites are there at the same site? ZERO!

Again, no big surprise. The fact is, “Anybody But Bush” is much more the slogan I hear when debating with liberals than “Kerry 2004.” It’s their mantra, their shield against any argument which liberals cannot answer.

I wonder how Senator Kerry feels about all of this. He is, after all, the Democratic candidate who was nominated, not because of his outstanding traits, but because he seemed the most electable and the least objectionable of the ten original candidates who ran.

I think a very telling statistic is the fact that just 42% of Kerry’s supporters say their vote is “for” Kerry, while 51% say that it is “against” President Bush. Conversely, 76% of President Bush’s supporters say that their vote is “for” him, while 18% say that it “against” Kerry. John Kerry’s support continues to be the most negative of any presidential candidate since Pew began asking the question in 1988.

Really, if Democrats wanted to do anything more than oust Bush from office, they would have gone with Howard Dean. Dean was the guy they really loved. Unfortunately, Dean was dissed, by his party during the primaries because he was considered “unelectable.”

The fact is, liberals have wanted payback on President Bush since the 2000 elections. They don’t care about the facts of the election, they only care that they lost. And Democrats, the party of big inclusive government, have no identity without power. Therefore, they need to get some semblance of power back, no matter the cost.

Say what you want about that whole situation — and it was stressful and discouraging for everyone, not just for Gore supporters — President Bush did win legally and legitimately. I can say that with confidence because, shortly after the election was over, a swarm of the nation’s largest media companies — few, if any, friendly to the President — invaded Florida and recounted every single vote in about five different ways.

Their conclusion?

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

Yes, every media organization that sponsored or ran a recount arrived at the same conclusion. All this, of course, despite accusations made by Michael Moore made in his movie.

As a matter of fact, the Pantagraph, which is the paper that Moore misquotes in his movie had this to say of the whole incident:

“While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie,” said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, “we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented…” But a check of that day’s newspaper revealed the large headline prominently flashed in the movie — “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election” — never appeared in that edition.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition — but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered “factual” news stories.

But, of course, many still believe that President Bush “stole” the election. And people like Michael Moore have made a mint from on the anti-Bush craze. Is this what is meant by “Anger Management?” Managing voter anger to the tune of millions of dollars in the bank? It sure seems to be that way for Democrats these days.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that people like Moore and McAuliffe are “harvesting” the anger of the left. Moore’s motive, of course, is based in good old fashioned Capitalism, but McAuliffe is hoping to stoke and then tap into voter anger to get a Democrat back into the White House.

McAuliffe well understands that if he doesn’t succeed in generating a major victory in this next election he can kiss his job as DNC Chairman goodbye. The fact that the DNC has not already ousted McAuliffe is, to me, an indication of just how broken their party really is.

But I guess some of you believe at this point that I’m just a hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the greatness of the Democratic party is embodied by people like Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Joseph Leiberman, and Zell Miller.

But instead of following great leaders like these, they follow people like Howard Dean, who once advanced the idea that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, and Terry McAuliffe, who embraces people like Michael Moore while calling the President illegitimate and dangerous.

Their hatred for the President is so great, I think they should formally change their party name from “The Democratic National Committee,” to, “The Party Opposing Bush.”

Don’t you think this is appropriate? Really, from the time that Bush took office, this became both the strategy and the definition of the DNC. If the President favors the privatization of Social Security, then Democrats don’t. If the President pushes for school vouchers, then Democrats adamantly oppose them. If the President wants to get tough on Iraq, then the Democrats call him a bully, a warmonger, and a chicken hawk.

In the first year of Bush’s presidency, every time he proposed some kind of reform or initiative, even if it was originally an initiative supported by Democrats, Senator Daschle would unfailingly appear on TV calling such a proposal a “bad idea.”

In other words, they are “The Party Opposing Bush.”

What do they stand FOR? I have no idea.

David Flanagan

Powered by

About David

  • boomcrashbaby

    How many pro-Kerry sites are there? ZERO!

    You must mean how many pro-Kerry sites are there, that are blogrolled to WorldNetDaily? Then you would be correct.

    There’s plenty of positive from the Left. You just don’t see it because we don’t direct the positive to the Right. Makes sense if you think about it. But it’s there aplenty if one takes a few seconds to look.

    Just a sample of pro-Kerry, positive, liberal sites:

    Kerry Support
    Independents for Kerry
    Climbers 4 Kerry
    Teens for Kerry
    Greens for Kerry
    Young Professionals for Kerry
    Artists for Kerry
    Nurses for Kerry
    Doctors for Kerry
    Armenian Americans for Kerry
    Conservatives for Kerry
    Moms for Kerry
    Rally to John Kerry
    Contra Costa County for Kerry
    Pennsylvanians for Kerry
    Kerry Licks Bush

    There’s even a John Kerry webring starting up.

    Since there are plenty of sites that are pro-Kerry, I have only listed a few, I guess that makes the whole rest of this rant moot.

  • You must mean how many pro-Kerry sites are there, that are blogrolled to WorldNetDaily?

    No, I meant on the page which was full of “oppose Bush” sites, slogans, and stuff.


  • boomcrashbaby

    well David, the url that you posted ends in antibush.htm, not prokerry.htm. Just something to consider as to why it might be filled with nothing but antibush sites.

  • This is just one huge right-wing red herring, David.

    The vast majority of Bush opponents are against his failed policies, at home and in Iraq.

    I’m sure even you would fire an employee after years of failure after failure.

  • Shark

    I see nothing wrong with admitting that I’m opposed to Bush — and that a turd with shoes could do a better job of leading the nation.

    Just sorta says something about the current ‘qualities’ of George II.

  • RJ

    This next election will almost be like a “confidence vote” in a Parliamentary democracy. “Yes” or “No”, not “Bush” or “Kerry”…

  • against his failed policies

    I see that all of the Democratic talking points are being rolled out. 🙂

    Let me just make two quick points regarding this popular Democratic talking point:
    1) This kind of talk means nothing and most everyone knows it. It’s something that politicians love to say when campaigning.
    2) Even assuming that Bush has this so-called list of “failed policies” gives him a major advantage over Kerry. Kerry has been in Congress for 19 YEARS! What does he have to show for it? [I think I hear crickets chirping] President Bush has been in office less than four years, inherited a recession from the previous administration, inherited the Wall Street scandals, inherited the dot com bust, and, on top of all of that, has had to oversee the war on terror.

    Given all of that, we have an expanding economy, with unemployment that now mirrors the rate that Clinton campaigned on in 1996, and not a single terrorist attack in this country since 9/11.

    What does Kerry promise? That we’ll be better friends with the French.

    Heh heh.


  • boomcrashbaby

    What does Kerry promise? That we’ll be better friends with the French.

    If there’s anybody who can improve relations with the mustard people, it’d be the ketchup guy.

  • But you’re not talking plain old everyday mustard here. You’re talking Grey Poupon…. Yuck!

    I can live without Gray Poop-on.


  • Your intro: you seem to think Democrats talking, even though I’m not one of them, is a bad thing. Taking lessons from Bill Thomas and the White House, are you?

    Point 1: You said nothing.

    Point 2: Four years of failure is not an advantage. Four years, and “what doe he have to show for it?” [I think I hear desperation whining.]

    Our “expanding economy” is expanding because it had shrunk so much.

    His “overseeing” the war on terror has increased the the danger in this country, and last year had increased terrorist acts around the world (since you’re using the number of attacks as a measure, although the fact that there hasn’t been an attack in this country since 9/11 doesn’t prove anything, as the previous foreign attack was back in 1993 – time between attacks is meaningless with this kind of threat).

    Unemployment isn’t as rosy as you think. When Bush took over, there were just under 6 million unemployed, last month there were 8.2 million. In addition, there are another 4.7 million (BLS data) who want jobs but can’t get any for total of 13 million. The percentages used for unemployment are based on a household survey and are not nearly as accurate as establishment-based numbers.

    Another way to look at it: When Bush took over his job, the non-farm employment number was 132 million. From there things went downhill, bottoming out at just under 130 million mid-2003. Last month’s preliminary figure shows 131 million employed, so things aren’t as bad as they were. However, they’re worse than that latter figure indicates because during Bush’s tenure another 5 million entered the work force. That leaves Bush about 6 million jobs short.

    Bush is a total failure. On jobs and the economy, on trade (setting a new record trade deficit this year, breaking the record he set last year), on security, on foreign policy.

    A total failure any way you look at it.

    What does Bush promise?

    More of the same, and few who understand are laughing.

  • RJ


  • I think it is worth repeating, for those who want Bush to lose, that it is not enough for the Kerry team to merely say, “I’m not Bush” or “Bush has failed”. Sure, those in agreement are nodding and grinning, but it is those voters on the fence that have to be reached in order to secure victory.

    Look back no further than 1996, when Bob Dole ran on “I’m not Clinton” and “Clinton has failed”. Where did it get Dole to not enunciate, “This is my record” and “This is what you can expect from me”? It got him the same place it will get Kerry, in my analysis.

    Negative campaigning never succeeds. Kerry has to develop an extremely positive message. Interestingly, it is these alphabet soup PACs that are hurting Kerry the most in trying to hurt Bush. The TV ads the PACs are running in swing states such as Ohio are so bitterly negative, that I am afraid the fence sitters will be repulsed from voting Kerry, denying me my glorious gridlock.

  • Dewade Sayles

    kerry is a liar plain and simple. The man tried to use his whole 4 mos. in wonderland to fool the country into believing he is ‘fit’ for office. Well now the secret is out and he is outed for what he is: a typical democratic candidate who has to lie and sell his ass for candidacy and have any chance of winning. With the democratic half of this country breathing their own flatulence up close and personal its no wonder the likes of kerry even has half a chance at winning enough electoral votes for the Presidency.
    Sad but true most democrats literally vote with their wombs, bung holes or bong pipes and the candidate willing to consume the afterbirth, suck on someone’s pipe water or bong fumes gathers a willing population of latent dulled out neanderthal zombies who have the inate ability to pull a lever or maybe even punch some holes in tree carcasses.

  • buying into the Republican spin that Kerry has no positions on anything is playing right into their hands.

    Check out Kerry’s site – there’s meat on the table.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Sad but true most democrats literally vote with their wombs, bung holes or bong pipes

    It’s tolerant, compassionate rhetoric from the right like this, that makes me glad to be a democrat. I’m voting for Kerry this election because I am concerned about national security, the economy, civil rights and the separation of church and state. I don’t care about what happened 30 years ago. I care about what’s happened in the last 4 years, and that’s reason enough to fire Bush.

    I also believe the current adminstration is the most corrupt America has ever had. I’d put it right alongside Kim Jong II’s cabinet in terms of corruption. And given the way American politics are today, I think Bush will probably win, with some underhanded trick like the many he’s pulled in the last 4 years.

    Going back to the many comments from the paleo-cons on the political blogs here, not just on this page, where all they can do is rant about the moral character of Clinton, the moral character of Kerry, the moral character of today’s youth, the moral character of Hollywood, the moral character of gay people, the moral character of feminists (being pro-choice), the moral character of Europe, etc. ad nauseum, I’m completely convinced that Bush could seal this election in a heartbeat by just advocating bringing back the stockades into the town squares of rural America.

    Not only does the current adminstration win hands down in terms of corruption, it also wins hands down in terms of immorality. But of course that’s the way most conservatives have always been, it’s okay to do something as long as you rant against it and punish other people for doing it.

  • Distorted Angel

    In my opinion, the fact that so many of us are willing to vote for almost anybody but Bush says as much about Bush as it does about Kerry.

    By the way, I’m curious about what you Bush-supporters thought that Dubya brought to the table when he ran for President. It doesn’t seem as though he’d done a particularly good job of governing the state of Texas, and then there were all those stories about his past alcohol and drug abuse (which the Right would have crucified any Democratic candidate over). So I assume that to a lot of folks he was an attractive candidate simply because he wasn’t Al Gore.

  • RJ

    “I also believe the current adminstration is the most corrupt America has ever had. I’d put it right alongside Kim Jong II’s cabinet in terms of corruption. And given the way American politics are today, I think Bush will probably win, with some underhanded trick like the many he’s pulled in the last 4 years.”

    Wanna actually back up any of these shrill attacks?

  • boomcrashbaby

    I said ‘I believe’. It’s a personal opinion based on observing politics and the administration over the last 4 years. If I only said ‘the administration is the most corrupt’, and stated it as fact, then I’d need to back it up.

    There’s one other thing I believe. Faith overrides fact among conservatives. If I found a tape of Bush vocally admitting all that I believe he has done illegally, immorally or unethically, almost nobody here would care. The Republicans have their Lord and Savior. He is infallible to them. His past is as least as checkered as Kerry’s. Nobody cares. He’s flipflopped on his 2000 platform completely. Nobody cares.

    So any attempt to prove to middle America that Bush has increased the ranks of terrorism, that he’s increased anti-American hatred globally, that he’s made us less safe than we were before 9/11, not safer, that his administrations ties to business/energy are corrupt at the expense of the average American, that he’s tromped on all the freedoms and liberties of our great nation, it’s a waste of time. Nobody cares.

  • boomcrashbaby

    All they care about is that some commie 30 years ago, running with a rocket launcher, MAY have been shot in the back. On this, we must base our vote for the future. Everything else is irrelevant.

  • RJ

    Oh, he WAS “shot in the back.” Kerry admitted to doing so, without admitting to doing so.

    Typical Kerry…

  • boomcrashbaby

    And this of course is what you focus on, rather than everything else I said.
    I rest my case.

  • RJ

    Kerry offers nothing other than:

    1 – He’s not Bush

    2 – He once spent 4 months in Vietnam, and got a lot of medals that are now being called into question

    That’s about it.

  • boomcrashbaby

    There’s a lot of specifics on what Kerry offers on his site, but you only see what you want to see.

  • JR

    And there are specifics on why people would oppose Bush’s policies. I simply don’t believe Kerry could be anywhere near as bad for this country as Bush is.

  • Crash,

    I’m sure Kerry offers specifics on his website of what he would LIKE to accomplish, but what has he accomplished in the past is my first question. In Kerry’s 55 minute speech, all of which I heard, when he accepted his party’s nomination, there were only about 75 words covering what he has done in Congress, whereas, he gave a 10,000 word speech.

    He loves to talk about his Viet Nam service, and I don’t fault him for that, but he spent 20 years in Congress. He needs to tell us a bit more than the fact that he served in Viet Nam.


  • Comparing Kerry’s speech to Bush’s campaign speeches before he was elected is instructive.

    Bush has done the opposite of what he claimed he would do in many areas.