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 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.