Thursday, August 18, 2005

What Will The Left Do, Without Bush?

President Bush is in the middle of his last term. He cannot run for President again. He is a "Lame Duck" president. At the beginning of his final term he announced some very grand plans for transforming the country. He set forth a grand agenda to establish tort reform, restructure the convoluted, oversized tax code and to reform Social Security. So far, only one of these items has been even moderately accomplished. By all accounts the president's actions towards reforming SS have been a dismal failure and he hasn't even started working on the tax code. I predict that this agenda will not be accomplished. The media is dead set against all of the items on this agenda. They control public opinion in this country and they still hold sway over the great majority of Americans.

Although all of these items were great ideas, even if they had been accomplished, I am not sure the end result would have been something better than the status quo. I mean, look at the other "victories" of this administration: No Child Left Behind, the new Transportation Bill, Medicare reform, etc. In each case, in an effort to wrangle votes from the opposition, a terrible result has been achieved. NCLB is a toothless measure that was made ridiculous, all the more so because it was co-written by Teddy Kennedy. The Transportation Bill is a pork-laden handout to every Senator and Congressperson, ruined by the desire for their re-election. Medicare is even worse off than it was before the reform, and that was a difficult achievement even for a politician.

The Left should be ecstatic about this presidency. There have been no real meaningful reforms to government, especially in juxtaposition with the hopeful agenda of the Contract With America ideals put forth by our new Republican congress in 1994, during the administration of Clinton, arguably the most corrupt and disingenuous political machine ever assembled.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bush is a genuine man. He says what he thinks and does try to do what he says. I believe the man when he speaks. I just don't know what, in the current political climate, is actually possible for a politician, even a President, to do.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. We need a return to our constitutional roots. We need to stop making political office a gem of a job that a person will kill to get and keep. We need to make it a duty to hold political office and a part-time duty at that. There is no reason why we should be paying-and paying well-politicians a full time salary with outrageous benefits to work at doing what they do to us on a full-time basis. All day, every day, politicians are working hard to mess up our lives. If the government were to be locked out for a couple of months, even if we had to pay these criminals during the lockout, we would all be immensely better off.

The Left has attacked the War On Terror, one of the only proactive and positive things the government has done for us in decades, as a "War For Oil", a war based on lies, a mistake and an affront to the rest of the world. They attack everything done by Bush and any of Bush's associates. Why do they do this? I think it is because they can't get over the loss of their two Golden Boys in the past two elections. You see, the American people want to move toward a more conservative place. They are tired of the moral relativism of the Left. They are tired of the socialist tendencies of our elected leaders and their kowtowing to corrupt and wrongheaded leaders from Europe and the rest of the world. They are tired of paying politicians to financially rape them while living the good life on their dime. They believed the Republican signators to the Contract With America and they are being grievously deceived by those same Republican Congresspeople. Still, they know they are better off with them than the alternative.

Because the Left can't MoveOn, they attack everything that this country does as if it were all Bush's fault. One great example is the idea that Bush has criminalized stem cell research. All Bush did was make it illegal to use Federal money to finance stem cell research beyond the existing stem cell lines. He didn't outlaw stem cell research. If this research is so promising, why does it need Federal money to achieve it's aims. Corporations should be clamoring over each other to throw R&D money at this sure fire deal. They aren't? Wonder why?

Right now, the Left is holding on to the little Bush-hating credibility it has left, getting supporters to help them in their fight against the evil Shrubya. They hold protests against the war as if they were back in the sixties at some love-in, and have the Hollywood loonies spouting the DU talking points for them on the evening news, while the MSM dutifully covers every rag-tag group of fifty idjits that hold up signs saying "NO War For Oil". But, I ask you good people, what will they do when Bush is gone? After his last term is completed, and he goes into retirement in Crawford, what will they do? Will they continue to camp out outside his ranch or will they MoveOn to some new enemy and attach the same ridiculous invectives to him or her?

Prediction: The Left will largely disappear after Bush is gone and the vacuum left by these people will be a ripe opportunity for the rest of us to enact some real change in this government. I'd opt for something simple for starters. How about the Contract With America? It sounded good to me at the time.


Libby Gone™ said...

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I think we are about to see the "left" get even more extreme to the point they alienate the "moderates".
great blog! By the way, I linked you, after I figured out how.

Maggie said...

Great blog!

The 2008 election cycle is closer than we think.At this juncture,I don't see a potential republican candidate.Sen.George Allen,former gov.of Virginia, was my choice until he encouraged GWB to meet with Cindy Sheehan.Also,he is not pro-life.
I firmly believe that if the "ILLEGAL" immigrant and "FAIR tax " issues are not addressed,we won't stand the proverbial "snowbird's" chance in maintaining the White House.

Kajun said...

We are constantly bombarded with what "the public" or a large percentage of them, think or want.

In fact, these are only what journalists or other members of the MSM think or want.

How many people do you know who care if holes are punched in in the wastelands of Northern Alaska?

How many people do you know who care if the temperature is .01 degrees warmer at the North Pole than it was 100 years ago?

How many people do you know who care if mosquitos become extinct?

As the average village idiot knows, the Earth moves from one Ice Age to another, over periods of thousands of years.

Frozen Mammoths have been discovered in the Arctic. Mammoths were a leaf-eating vegetarian animals.

Who caused that global warming?

The Earth is in a slightly eliptical orbit around the Sun. That's the problem.

Beerme said...


I hope to see Newt Gingrich run. I'd probably vote for him if he does. I am, of course troubled by his cozying up with Shrillary, but I hope that doesn't continue...

Libby Gone™,

How do you link another blog???

SGT USMC 1ea said...

That was a very cogent and thought provoking piece. I salute your coherency. I presume to label Bush a Social and Foreign Policy conservative who acts as a fiscal liberal and has effectively increased the size of government.

I love the fact that Bush has taken a long view on what is needed to neutralize the acidity of the middle east restore a PH balance more conducive to Marine life in the long run. Unfortunately our own lefty acidic elements resist the caustic alkalinity required to accomplish it. The lefties are of course the acidity causing fish poop [neat word poop-poop-poop] of the limited aquarium analogy. The conservatives I guess are the biological (plants and plecostimi) and mechanical filtering agents that balance the 10 gallon microcosm.

Many forget there is an all knowing, loving and just aquarium keeper out there dispensing the food on schedule and sometimes dispensing a dose of shock-it (Or awe-it) type treatment in the form of 911 or the Iraq war to maintain a PH balance we cannot understand. I just live in the aquarium and try to keep it clean but if everything were according to my will the aquarium would soon be so alkaline as to kill the inhabitants. I think I will submit my will to that of the aquarium owner to avoid such a thing.

aquarium analogy mode/off

I agree with you that something should be done about the perks and salaries of congress. It should be on a sliding scale based upon income like government subsidized housing or education grants. We should not prevent the poor from serving nor should we further enrich those financiers who seek the office just for the power and benefits. We have Senators and Representatives who make the laws and stand to greatly profit from those who would benefit in influencing their votes. Lobbying and large donations should be very severely curtailed. Unfortunately those who make the laws effecting such things are the least likely to vote yay on something which would reduce their power and personal income and re-election chances. The reality of politics and humanity far outweighs my wishes.

Deus est Semper Fidelis

Beerme said...


Of course an aquarium analogy would make sense to a Marine, right? Good one, though.

One thing that solidly exposes the wrongness of our system as it pertains to our elected officials and their remuneration for doing their duty is the fact that they must put forth a motion, second it and vote in favor of said motion, to keep from getting a raise!
Now, I don't know about you, but I think most people find this ridiculous and wrong. If we could just start the electorate down the path of stopping that simple procedure, I'm sure a dominoe effect would result that may end up showing many of these idjits the door. It also would open the door for those who might want to do the job, without the outrageous perks and for the betterment of the country. It sounds like something most people could get behind and it would be a simple thing, but a meaningful one.

What say ye?

SGT USMC 1ea said...

Somehow I think the start of our grass roots efforts would necessitate a name change since my nom de net implies a military cause and yours suggests you would spend the advertising donations on microbrews. We could call the organization "Taxation Without Equalized Representation of the People Served" (TWERPS). We could change our web names to Mr. Fair and Balance D. News. OK maybe not.

I think a lot and talk big but act too little IMO. Probably 60% of America does not even really think about this stuff at all and never act except a few cross words the day the LSM announces the latest pay raise. The casus belli is a legitimate but dangerous one destined to inflict tax audits upon its creators. It does however generally reflect the opinions of those who vote for both sides of the aisle. Nobody really likes corruption except those who profit from it. Term limits for Senators anyone?

Initial cost to start (including significant bandwidth website, server, domain, gaining name recognition, preliminary advertising, hours of labor, etc...) $50,000. What say ye?

Beerme said...


I agree with you on talking alot but acting little; I am much the same.

$50K! Party pooper!

TWERPS is kinda catchy, though...

Beerme said...

The following is a quote from Chuck Muth's News and Views, an email newsletter. Mr. Muth also heads a group called Citizen's Outreach. In this article he asks readers to name a public figure and gives clues as to who it is. The public figure is Ben Franklin and this clue caught my eye as being apropos to this post:

"At the core of this public official's political philosophy is a belief that elected officials should have some other occupation outside of government and that whenever a public office "becomes so profitable as to (attract) many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the Legislature."

Hmmm. Remind me again how many people "applied" for the job of California governor last week?"

This is what I was talking about. And it appears others are talking about it, too. Maybe we can save our $50K and let people like Chuck Muth do the work (he's already spent the start-up capital). So let's email him and let him know we want something done about this corruption of our form of government, eh?

Hawkeye® said...

Interesting piece Beerme. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it. I happen to think Bush has accomplished more than you give him credit for.

Has he increased the size of government? Yes. Is he a Reagan conservative? Not exactly. But kids' test scores are improving, and at least partial credit should go to NCLB.

Anyway, when Bush goes, the Left will have find some new arch-nemesis to blame everything on.


Beerme said...


I have seen some new, impressive stats coming out about school test score achievements. Let's see if any real pressure will be put on the schools that fail. That will tell the tale.

I was so happy when Bush kept his promise to cut taxes! I said to everyone that here was a President that was going to do what was right: bleed the monster. But the problem was, he increased the size of the monster!

You can't cut taxes and increase the size of government. It's just bad business. We have to diminish the costs of government and that means cuts. There's plenty to cut. The congress won't do it without pressure. Bush has the ability to apply that pressure. He hasn't even vetoed a bill yet...

camojack said...

What will the Left do, without Bush? Like Kajun basically said, I'm sure they'll get the outdated media to think of something...

Beerme said...

For another idea of a person to take over the presidency after Bush leaves, try thinking of South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was voted the most conservative governor in America. He was elected to the Senate in 1994 as a signator to the Contract with America. He drew straight A's from the Americans for Tax Relief throughout his six year term. He left after six years as he said he would. He has been a strong supporter of gun rights, a strong pro-lifer and has cut taxes relentlessly in his state, while reducing his state's debt and spending considerably.

Sign a petition to draft him as a candidate for 2008 here:

Libby Gone™ said...

Sorry I been out of the loop alot due to my computer puking. I was able to link by going to the main page of blogsite, then going to template. In the help section there is demonstration on what to type into the template.

Beerman said...


Global warming is a fact not only from a cyclical perspective but from human engineered perspective. Please read here.


I'm a moderate. I don't think the liberals are any more insane than the Neo-Cons. From my perspective Bush is a terrible president. He lied to everyone about invading Iraq, the evidence is overwhelming. If it wasn't for oil what then was it for? It certainly was an ill advised war for any reason and he was warned many timesthat it would become the quamire that it is. Personally I find it embarrasing that he was re-elected.
Bush's approval rating is at an all time low and deservedly so.

Maybe the left will disipate some after 2008. But the left can do little to change my viewpoint about them while GWB is in the White House.

One thing I would dearly love is for the left to develop an agenda other than attacking the right. It's clear to me that GWB is wrong, but it is not clear what the left would do to make things better. That I would love to see.

Beerme said...


I am predisposed to like you with a name like that, but...

I am certainly willing to concede that there is a lot of evidence for global warming, even from a human engineered standpoint, but it is not a fact. I will read your citation, though.

As far as Bush lying about the reasons for going into Iraq, I don't believe anyone has proven that at all. He certainly was wrong but that does not equal lying. If you really think it was done for oil, why wouldn't we just invade and take the oil? I know it sounds absurd but the left believes that Bush is a shill for corporations, a liar and other equally preposterous things, so why not?

I will tell you exactly why he was re-elected: because of his competition. The Democrats nominated a lying, East Coast bluenose, career politician with a terribly wishy-washy and terrifically left- wing record. Kerry was a disasterously poor choice for a candidate.

Now, you already know that I am not terrifically impressed with the job Bush has done while in office, but really how could you expect his approval rating to be any higher? The media is completely opposed to anything he says or does and tirelessly works do denigrate him. As stated before, Kerry was a disasterously bad candidate but given the media's tireless efforts on his behalf, he almost won!

I am glad to hear you admit that this constant Bush-bashing is wearisome but what can they do but complain? The left doesn't seem to have any agenda. They (DNC out every few months with a call for the identification of their core values, because they don't seem to know what they stand for. Can you imagine the right saying such an idiotic thing? The right knows what it's core values are because they (the values) define them (the right).

BTW, I welcome reasoned discourse from any political point of view. As long as it's civil and reasoned, I respect it.

Beerman said...

Nothing is rarely black and white. Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean that its not true.

Global warming is a massive issue and there is a ton of proof that humans are causing a tremendous amount of harm. To not realize this is disasterous. Today, another example:

"A conference on global warming in Greenland ended last week with a call to heed the plight of the local community as the ice, and with it their livelihood, melts away.

"Greenland is living the dramatic reality of global warming which scientists have predicted for the Arctic region," Hans Enoksen, Greenland's head of government, said.

"Hunters and fishermen have to stay at home for long stretches of time because they can't hunt if there is no ice or fish if there are violent storms," he said.

I completely agree that Kerry was a terrible candidate, apart from the fact that at least he appeared intelligent and ripped Bush up in the debates. Bush acted like an emperor and when questioned he became very upset, which put Kerry into the race. As far as fabrications there were whoppers on both sides. The Swift boat thing was pure genious. That was based on a bunch of lies as well, but it worked. Rove also assinated one of his own party, McCain. He's a ruthless genious.

I believe Bush was re-elected because of Kerry and his lack of own stance; but the trump card was when Rove rallied the religous right with the gay marriage thing and it was brilliantly done. I voted for Kerry because I want to vote for anybody but Bush. I felt a change was neccesary and didn't think Kerry could have done any worse.

If Bush didn't lie about Iraq than he was completely duped about the "WMD" evidence that was never found. Go reread the State of the Union addresses, the year before the invasion and the year after the invasion. The "before" one lists massive amounts of WMD and the "after" states they found nothing. Either way he's a liar or completely incompetant and that makes him unfit for command in my book. Now if there was a really good reason to go in then perhaps I would support it and the lies that went with it, but I can't find one. I remember alot of lies about the justification for invasion that I will not forget. Like, "The "liberation" will be paid for by Iraqi oil". We all know that never happened, in fact billions of dollars have disappeared. So if not for oil what for? The story changed so many times I have lost count.

I don't like the way this Republican party does business. The way that they have shielded Bush from the public? Bascially you have to be a card carrying republican and then selected to be invited to any of his "rallys" town hall meetings, etc. Then the Plame affair where she was outed by Rove as a political payback for Wilson shooting down the Niger Yellow cake fabrication Bush used. Someone is gonna fall hard for that, or at least the should. McClellan stated that Rove had no involvement in that but recently Rove admitted to it. They lied, in public.

As far as the press goes, they were all completely terrified of the White House from 9/11 until sometime after the reelection. Only recently have they been brazen enough to truly question them. The Republican party is splintering and posturing for 2006 as is typical in 2nd term elections and press is no longer afraid of them. The press let this country down during the whole Iraq affair.

The media may now be out to get Bush. Bush has lost is credibility with them. After being lied to and surpressed for so long perhaps its payback time. I don't trust the guy, I don't know why they would either. You can only hide behind that "I'm a straight shooting man's man" facade for so long.

Now as far as the Democrats go so far they have shown me little. They are disorganized and are not sending out a message anyone will grab on to. They don't impress me. But they don't get my blood boiled like this administration.

I would prefer someone like McCain in there. I voted for him in the primary before Rove chopped him off at the knees.

I truly am a moderate, but this administration has left a truly bad taste in my mouth. I'll vote Republican again when they show me they have changed their ways. Something obviously very important to me is the envionment and Bush doesn't care 2 cents about it.

I agree that as bad as I think the right is, they do have a message. The left is so all over the map they can't get a coherent one out. If all they can do is attack the right, then they will lose again. Perhaps it's the right versus everyone else and that makes it to hard to come up with a policy for the left. Kind of like trying to organize a trip to the zoo. The left spends weeks trying to find a date that pleases everybody and the right just says, August 25th, be there or be left behind.

And lastly I will always be civil. But I can't believe any of you and your buddies link to Ann Coulter or Rush. They are both laughible sources. That would be like me citing Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky. Are you guys all extreme right wingers? Because you seem pretty reasonible to me and not one of the kool-aid drinking Bush supporters.

Hawkeye® said...

Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean that its not true.

When something is not proven, it is a hypothesis or a theory. As beerme said, it is not a fact. It may be a good theory or a bad theory, but it is not a fact... just like evolution, it is not a fact but a theory. In the 1970s there was a theory that we were about to enter the next Ice Age. That theory didn't last long.

Beerme said...


I first must say that many of the things you mention as complaints about Bush and Republicans in general are not true but have been spun to seem so by the mainstream media. I could go into great detail about them but it has already been done so many times before on so many blogs, I am tired of the game. One point though, in refutation and we'll Move On, so to speak.

The media in general was very much against Bush looong before the election. The Swift Boat Vets, who had a great point about Kerry and his anti-American stance during the war/his associations with VVAW were ignored by the media or used as a laughable foil by "pundits" such as Chris Matthews before the election. Dan Rather ring any bells? He and CBS tried to launch a largely ficticious story demeaning Bush weeks before the election based on a forged memo. Newsweek was also all set to "break" that story all based upon obvious partisan hacks from the Democrat Party in Texas. This all was an attempt by the Mainstream Media to discredit Bush and throw the election over to Kerry, obviously a candidate they respected and admired far more than Bush. But that's all water under the bridge (and we haven't even brought up Ted Kennedy!).

Lastly, I will say that I listen to Rush fairly often and agree with him most of the time. I also read Ann Coulter sometimes and, while she is purposely controversial and hyperbolic, she often writes very reasoned and pursuasive columns. A recent column refuting Maureen Dowd's take on Cindy Sheehan is a good example:

And, yes, many of us are extreme right wingers, but that doesn't mean we don't think for ourselves, disagree with what left wingers say all the time or agree with icons like Coulter or Rush all the time, either.

Beerme said...

Here is a beer game from Germany. I just played it and scored 335 on my first try!

Beerman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Beerman said...


OK, I agree there's a line there. But there are many facts that point out that humans are significantly contributing to global warming and changing the environment in a harmful way. Every day there is a new article.

Species disappearing:

It's a very sad and dangerous thing to mess with the worlds ecosystems.

Global Warming

The concentration of carbon dioxide -- a potent greenhouse gas -- is likely to double before the end of the century, the United Nations says. Scientists say further warming is inevitable as greenhouse gas emissions climb but that the worse effects can still be avoided.

I don't believe it's too late to reverse things and we all have to do our part. Recycle, conserve energy, find more efficient cleaner fuels to use, make your next vehicle a hybrid! But left unchecked, things will steadily get worse.


I have done extensive research on Bush & Co actions and they are very dirty. If you listen Limbaugh & Coulter they spin it all one way, I would hardly consider them objective. I did listen to Rush the other day and the way he was hurling insults at liberals was a real turn off. So I did. Whatever message he may have is lost to me because of the method of delivery. I throw out all the extremists, read the news daily and dig into whats behind the issues as best I can. Maybe we can agree that the governemnt lies all the time, no matter if it's left or right. One must figure out the truth as best one can on your own.

Rather conducted a blatant fabricated attempt to discredit Bush. I think that back fired and cost him is job as well, he got what he deserved.

The media is not out to sink Bush because he's a righty, they're reporting news. Bush is sinking himself. Remember how they were all over Clinton? Equal opportunity reporting, so I don't know how you can cry foul on the media, they will pick on anybody.

Question for you guys, what do you think about Jon Stewart? I'm sure you think he's a Liberal Moonbat, but I think he's completely hilarious and does manage to pick on both sides (although mostly on the right). Trent Lott was on the other night pimping his book "Herding Cats" and I liked the guy, it was a good interview.

In closing, IMO Bush is a lame duck at this point. It's time to move on figure out who and what is next.

I generally don't usually hang out with extreme right or left wingers, but you guys seem pretty reasonible. Mind if I hang around?

Kajun said...

The world population is rapidly increasing.

The body heat alone of so many people tends to warm the atmosphere.

Those who insist we should use no oil (viz: the attempt to blame the Iraq war on oil, and the constant reporting of increases in the price of oil [which drives further speculation in price]), would return the world to the burning of wood, or coal.

These same people decry the cutting of trees and the mining of coal.

Most humans do not grow fur. Therefore we are limited in our toleration of a cold climate. Massive annual migrations of human beings would be required if we were deprived of some means of warming our immediate surroundings. We could probably adapt to raw food.

These massive migrations of people would tend to concentrate billions of human beings in small areas of the world...probably more humans than could even stand in these areas.

Survival of the fittest would come to the fore, and millions of humans would be killed to make room for other humans.

Do environmentalists recommend war to solve all of the above problems?

Beerme said...


Kajun and I would, I'm sure, both agree that it is very important for everyone to be a good steward of our environment. As a lifelong hunter and fisherman, as well as a camper and backpacker, I am not only very interested in keeping the environment clean and flourishing but I am also constantly doing my part to keep it that way. You see, I am out in it all the time. I leave almost no trace of my being there behind and I make it a habit to clean up other people's messes as much as possible.

I wonder if you would argue against the fact that the environment is cleaner (air and water) than it has been for decades? That we are doing a very good job of protecting our environment, even though it could and will get even better?

As far as the issue of endangered species, I read something yesterday that was interesting. It seems that a certain woodpecker, which has been considered extinct for forty years has been discovered, distinctly non-extinct, in Mexico. Now, the EPA wants to list it as an endangered species. The article opined that the woodpecker has done pretty well for the last forty years without the government's help and might resent the placement on the Endangered Species List, since placement there seems permanent (most species placed on the list do not recover, at least in sufficient numbers to be removed from the list...).

I think Jon Stewart is funny. Sure he is demonstrably liberal, but so is everyone else in Hollywood. Gets on my nerves sometimes, but I can usually find enough humor in him to laugh it off.

You're of course welcome to post here as often as you like. I will try to post articles more often, though I have said that before...
You will be argued with, though so be forewarned.

Beerman said...

Please, lets not argue. I have my wife for that.

The environment has been cleaned up but there is becoming "less" of it. Now there is a struggle with the current administration over funding of the National Park Services and exploiting the parks for energy exploitation. Now I'm all for cheap gas but I think once you exploit these parks there is no turning back.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An ongoing and secret Interior Department attempt to rewrite and override 90 years of laws, rules and court rulings governing the 388 sites in the U.S. National Park System would "hijack" the American's national parks, leaving them wide open for what are now barred uses and making it extremely unlikely that the sites would survive as unspoiled treasures for future generations of Americans, according to the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR), which is a watchdog group of 410 NPS veterans accounting for 12,000 years of collective park management experience.

As an outdoorsman, this should be of major concern to you.