Quit blaming it on vote fraud. Kerry didn't win in a landslide because:

[bobweaver]

Kerry failed to attack Bush in direct, simple, ruthless and vicious ways. The same ways the Republicans attack the Democrats. Bush was vulnerable in a variety of areas. Even in the area supposedly the strongest for Bush (national security and the "war on terror") Bush was highly vulnerable.

Kerry could have tied Rumsfeld to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and then by proxy to Bush, because Bush appointed Rumsfeld. Kerry could have tied Bush directly to the horrific execution of Nicholas Berg. Kerry could have tied the 9/11 attacks drectly to Bush's ineptness and failure to address the warning signs. The mere fact that the attacks happened during Bush's presidency, on his watch, was a huge black mark against Bush and the failure of his staff (Rice) to take their jobs seriously.

Kerry could have skewered Bush on the lack of WMDs and contrasted it with Bush's previous insistence that there were WMDs in Iraq. Kerry could have skewered Bush with his prior insistence that Saddam was connected with the 9/11 attacks, while the 9/11 commission concluded that there was no connection. Kerry could have tied Bush directly to the deaths of 1100 Americans in Iraq and an unknown number of Iraqi civilians, at least in the tens of thousands.

Kerry could have laid the blame for these deaths directly at Bush's feet, for after all Bush was the world's biggest advocate for the war. Kerry could have skewered Bush mercilessly for the ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. Kerry could have ridiculed Bush for attempting to teach an entire country the concept of democracy while simultaneously pointing guns at them. Kerry could have roasted Bush on the touchy subject of the private connections between the Bush and Saud families.

Kerry could have roasted Bush on the reduced stature of the U.S. in the world which is a direct result of Bush's words and actions. Kerry could have grilled Bush mercilessly on his creation of an undisputable miasma in Iraq and his unwillingness to even address the Iraq situation any more, other than the occasional obligatory mention of it, along the lines of "we're pleased with the progress" or some such bullshit.

On the domestic issues, Kerry could have tied Bush directly to Ken Lay of Enron, since the two were very cozy and Lay was Bush's biggest single campaign donor and even let Bush fly around on his private jet. Kerry could have hung the Halliburton logo around Cheney's neck since of course Cheney himself is a former CEO of Halliburton.

Kerry could have lambasted Bush for his malicious and dishonest attempts to destroy the nation's environmental protection laws, all in the name of profit for the corporations who donated to Bush's campaign. Kerry could have pointed out that Bush's so-called "Clear Skies" initiative actually has the effect of making the nation's air dirtier, not cleaner. Kerry could have pointed out that Bush's so-called "Healthy Forests" initiative is actually just a carte blanche for the timber companies to chop down the nation's vital forests, not to save them.

Kerry could have tied Bush directly to the Republican's endless campaign to drill for oil on the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and to drill for gas on the Rocky Mountain Front. Kerry could have roasted Bush alive on the price of gasoline alone! Kerry could have impaled Bush on the Valerie Plame scandal (someone in the White House "outed" her as an undercover agent in retaliation for something someone did that they didn't like). Kerry could have chided Bush for creating a "No Child Left Behind" act and then not funding it.

Kerry could have tied Bush to a whole laundry list of deregulation activity instigated by the Bush administration which specifically and obviously benefits the corporations which donated heavily to the Bush/Cheney campaigns. Kerry could have driven home the point that Bush's tax cuts really do benefit the upper income taxpayers and offer a comparative crumb to the rest of us - that was an easy point to make and it could have been a real stinger.

The final, fatal blow that Kerry could have rendered would be to call Bush on the carpet for his spending. This is one area where even some Republicans are extremely angry with Bush. Bush is the biggest spender in the history of this planet, and his deficits are the highest that any country has ever had, and the national debt is now over 7.5 trillion dollars - with no way to pay it off. Kerry could have painted Bush as a reckless and irresponsible spender (and pointed out that huge chunks of the spending go to the very people who funded Bush's campaigns).

And there's so much more ammunition Kerry could have used: the stagnant economy. The first president since Hoover to have a net job loss on his watch. Outsourcing and the devastation of the American job market. The declining standard of living for Americans vs. the rising standard of living for corporations. The high price of housing and all essential goods and services coupled with the ever-declining real wages being paid and benefits being cut. The enormous numbers of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. The absurd, unjust and embarassing inequality of wealth and power in the U.S. The absurd power that corporations have. Offshore tax havens which give corporations the ability to avoid their tax obligations completely. Scandals in the financial and investment markets.

The whole Bush administration is one huge scandal comprised of a multitude of smaller scandals. The erosion of civil liberties by the Patriot Act. The wholesale attempt to shred the Bill of Rights and the attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Any of these could have been major target points for Kerry to attack Bush with.

Kerry did mention many of these things in passing during the debates and at campaign appearances, but he was too polite and gentlemanly about it throughout the campaign. Bush was highly vulnerable in all these areas, and if Kerry had attacked viciously, Bush would have had no real comeback for most of them. Kerry should have hit much harder, been completely merciless, and he could have reduced Bush to a quivering mass of purple jello, and won the election without any question, and would be making phone calls right now asking people to be on his cabinet and going out tomorrow to get fitted for the suit for the inauguration.

Instead, Kerry took the "high road" and acted too formal and "presidential" to make his own image look better, but did nothing to tear apart Bush's image. Kerry lost it by his own failure, in my opinion.

[Rumba]

1. Can we say "line break"?

[berniew1]

41. Detailed analysis shows stolen election in Ohio; likely other states as we

Systematic Voter Suppression: STEALING VOTES IN Ohio Urban Areas (by ward/precinct)

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/columbus.htm

The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch. The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County. Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County Republican Party. Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day. The idea was to discourage turnout in Democratic wards by forcing voters to wait in long lines at the polling places. Such a strategy would be far more effective than encouraging turnout in Republican wards. Elections are all about margins. There are 74 wards in Columbus. George W. Bush won 12 wards, with a margin of 7.35%. John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%. Affecting Kerry’s turnout would greatly reduce his margin of victory in Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better chance of overtaking Kerry given a strong enough showing in suburban and small town Republican strongholds.

In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the Franklin County Board of Elections all the data I needed in order to calculate, ward by ward, and precinct by precinct: (1) The ratio of registered voters per voting machine. (2) Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast divided by the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry, calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for president. (4) Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry, calculated as the difference between the vote totals for Kerry and Bush.

All 36 of the wards at the bottom of the list of voters per voting machine were won by Kerry, and they include most of his strongholds. In 29 of the 36 wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout.It is important to understand what these numbers mean. The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes. If there are 400 registered voters per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has less than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream of voters, with no rushes at certain hours. It also assumes no challenges to voters at the polls. If there are 550 registered voters per voting machine, and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes. All of this amounts to theft of votes. It has been shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with enough voting machines.

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the magnitude of the conspiracy. Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are 74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not possible for one person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be investigated for possible complicity.

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. 4 Fisher Street Canton, New York 13617 [phone] [e-mail]

Stealing Votes in Cleveland http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm

Indications of possible ballot box stuffing in S.W. Ohio counties www.flcv.com/swohio.html

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/warren.htm

www.flcv.com/fraudioh.html

Favoritism in the Suburbs http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/suburbs.htm

Analysis Indicates Kerry could win Ohio with a "fair process" and fair vote count

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/uncounted.htm

.

[jamboi]

117. Valid analysis, yet even if more effective attacks, can't overcome cheatin

g. The margin of cheating (MoC) was too large to overcome by GOTV. Still I think you've got some good critique here. I was just watching Chad Clanton from Kerry's campaign on CNN and he said much the same thing.

[murielm99]

2. Have you ever heard of paragraphs?

Break up some of those sentences, too.

People might be more likely to read and discuss your ideas if your post was more readable.

[bobweaver]

15. OK I broke it up into smaller sections and also added some more text

[KittyWampus]

50. Now You Can Work On Learning About All The Fraud That Actually

happened.

[Eloriel]

60. And you could start here --

esp. the 5th link, but there's gold in the other links too:

VOTE FRAUD LINKS - A DU Compendium - Thread #4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=6166&mesg_id=6166

VOTE FRAUD LINKS - A DU Compendium - Thread #3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x4927

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#


The BEST of the DU Analyses (KEEP KICKED PLEASE!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=97510#97805

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobweaver]

105. You are judging me by the number of posts I have made?

Or by the length of time I have been a member of this board? That's called discrimiation and closed-mindedness. Maybe you should join the Republicans, because discrimiation and closed-mindedness are their honored values.

[The Backlash Cometh]

109. Uh, no, no. Everyone discriminates. But Democrats don't

discriminate based on race, color, religion, gender, nationality or disability. However, being able to recognize and evaluate certain factors which are legally acceptable is not only allowed in the real world, but vital to survival and enhances one's job opportunities. For example, the insurance companies discriminate against people who have two speeding records versus someone who has none. They put the high speeder in an insurance market that will cost more.

So, one thing that I can question about someone with a low post count is if that someone has done a good job of lurking on DU before posting to take into account in their opinion, the prevailing data on the newsgroup. And perhaps what I'm saying is that if you had and adjusted your post accordingly, you wouldn't have been received so negatively?

[bobweaver]

91. You can get all hung up on the fraud if you want...

... but to dismiss the whole election as a fraud is to neglect the failings of Kerry, the Kerry campaign and the Democratic party. They should have won this one in a landslide and they could have if they had used the same type of campaign tactics that the Republicans use. They could have walked all over the Republicans and they didn't. And they failed to convincingly win the White House and they lost seats in both house of Congress - do you still think they campaigned effectively? Look at all the polls before the election - they didn't vary too much.

This was an election that required an attack-dog candidate, not an eloquent-statesman candidate.

[Wordie]

118. When was the last time a challenger unseated an incumbent in wartime?

I think that explains it much better. An incumbent wartime president should have won in a landslide, according to historical precedent. So, given the circumstances, he did unbelievably well, and came quite close to pulling it off. (Whether he DID in fact, pull it off is yet to be determined.)

I don't think a critique of what people feel are Kerry's mistakes is useful at this point.

[jsamuel]

120. 2004

[mitchtv]

3. He didn't use the word" Liar", the word "torture"

the word "Coward". He pandered to the idiot swing voters instead of Democrats. I could go on , but you just said it.

[RaulVB]

4. Do me a favor:

I'll stop talking about fraud when you break down the Republican "vote" for me and you show me how is it that Bush gained 9 millions of new voters respect to 2000 (don't put the uncertified Florida 2000 results in the package), after LOSING SUPPORT IN EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THAT VOTED ON NOVEMBER 2ND, except for "rural christians."

That would be a great service to all of us!

I can't wait...

[aquart]

11. Me, too. Really eager to see it.

I'm sure he can call up CNN or MSNBC or someplace else and get it here immediately or sooner. Right?

[Eloriel]

64. The thing is,

All of what he said is probably true (I didn't bother reading it all) -- it just wasn't why Kerry "lost" the election (since he didn't lose).

[Eloriel]

65. The thing is,

All of what he said is probably true (I didn't bother reading it all) -- it just wasn't why Kerry "lost" the election (since he didn't lose). IOW, it's not an either/or proposition. Kerry sucked; he still won.

[flyarm]

88. when someone can explain this to me..in fla here

i will get off my high horse when someone can explain to me why bush won all of the counties here in fla with anomolies, and kerry won none..zero , zip, zilch...now if you see nothing strange about that, then explain why all the nation wide anomolies only sir bush won..then we can discuss what kerry did right or wrong , or who really won this election!!..the odds of that must be astronomical!!

so is anyone going to tell us all how only bush won each and every anomolie??..its an impossiblity!! and i am notttt ..a math wiz, but you would have to be dumb and blind to not know something is seriously wrong!! fly

[glitch]

Somebody, somewhere needs to explain this. Anybody?

The ONLY speculation proffered so far is.. he didn't, it was fraud.
Some wannabe bright young repuke needs to offer up some explanation. This looks like a job for David Brooks.

[Nederland]

102. Here's Your Favor

Its really a rather simple explanation: you are wrong.

I'm not sure where you heard that Bush did lost support in every single demographic group that voted. Its simple not true. Bush improved his 2000 percentages among Catholics, Hispanics, African Americans, and--believe it or not--atheists.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html

[clarknyc]

5. Can we say...

take a fucking breath, godammit! Please?

[politicasista]

8. This is depressing

All this coulda, woulda, shoulda, mess. He had sorry campaign manager, advisors period. Sure he could have fought back. Had he gotten elected, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :cry:

[aquart]

13. Well, that hasn't been established, has it?

[latteromden]

6. I can't even read that... I'll try, but

Next time... paragraphs, PLEASE?!

[Old and In the Way]

7. Or maybe it was.

Voter fraud.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=114232&mesg_id=114232&page=

Hmmmm, I wondering now if maybe Kerry, the federal prosecuter and the BCCI investigator, was letting this angle play out. I was pretty skeptical, but if this is as big as it seems to be.....the Republican Party may be imploding as we speak.

[glitch]

84. That is my beautiful dream - and if it doesn't pan out this way THIS will

be the would should coulda of the USA.

[davidwparker]

9. Yeah, Kerry had issues. Isn't he one of those DLC loosers?

Dean 2008! He would have called Bush a liar and would have run an aggressive campaign. Next time, he'll know the DLC and the poor leadership in the DNC is his greatest threat.

Dude, maybe we need to wake up. Did Kerry take the dive? I hope they didn't clear the way for Hillary in 2008. They're not getting my vote. If Dean isn't the nominee, I'm writing him in as my last act as a Democrat before switching to the Green party.

http://blackboxvoting.org

[mitchtv]

10. I think we need Dean to head up the DLC

but then he can;t run

[Eric J in MN]

37. You mean DNC. DNC= Democratic National Committee.

DLC= Democratic Leadership Council - a bunch of pro-corporate Democrats.

[saracat]

14. Loser is spelled with one o!

[aquart]

16. Unless, of course, like Gore, he actually won.

Let's deal with that issue first, okay?

And if you're going Green, buh bye.

[ValleyGirl]

21. Kerry isn't really a DLCer

They consider him to their left, as does PPI.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. come on, he signed onto PPI to get the approval of the DLC

His voting record over the last few years puts him right in line with the DLC as does his record of getting more corporate money than any other senator.

[ValleyGirl]

98. That may be true, but

I know he isn't part of 'the gang' over there and they consider him to their left. I agree with you about Kerry's record being pretty centrist. However, Marshall et al do not consider Kerry to be a "New Democrat". If PPI and the DLC backed him it was only because they had no choice.

[Protect The Vote]

12. The answer is....

Vote fraud!

I *won't* stop saying it, because it happened.

Eyes wide open,
PTV

[aquart]

17. It didn't just happen. It happened AGAIN.

[goclark]

35. Eyes wide open FRAUD nt

[autorank]

18. Welcome to DU! Vote fraud AND lack of attacks not mutually exclusive

I wondered why we didn't just open up a big can of whup-ass at the convention and every day until election day. * faltered throughout. Can you imagine how he would have cratered with a full scale campaign pointing out his multiple failures?

Very strange. I think the voter's motto (the minority who voted against Kerry since it was, in fact, stolen): If they're not willing to fight for this, we're not willing to vote for them. This is a stupid way to look at the election. Nevertheless, the poster has many good points.

[ClintCooper2003]

19. I disagree.

Kerry did an excellent job of hitting Bush on the economy.

I agree he should have hit harder on 9/11, Abu Ghraib, etc, but the debates were his only real opportunity to do this and he only had 45 minutes in each one.

One of the real stories for me was the clearly biased (in favor of Bush) news coverage from CNN, MSNBC, and, as usual, FOX NEWS. How is Kerry supposed to get his message out if those networks aren't even showing much of what he says.

[Eric J in MN]

43. The advertising against Bush should have been harsher, and

Kerry should NOT have told MoveOn to pull its ad saying Bush went AWOL.

[FredStembottom]

87. Just 1 example of many..

Imagine a Kerry who spoke of 9/11 as the event that happened _only_ because of the Bush admin. failings. It was their fault. They were on duty, they had warnings and 3000 died. The administration that couldn't get a couple of fighter jets scrambled and on-target for (how long was it? An hour and a half)?

Imagine the storm and fury! Not even corrupt news networks would have been able to ignore THAT.
Now imagine Kerry maintaining that attack while simply stating the hundreds of other failures of the Bush admin in the same way.
Wrap it all up with the two words "failed presidency". Or "worst President in history".
Repeat.

No amount of vote -rigging could have defeated the landslide that would have followed.

[sandnsea]

20. To hear you tell it

Kerry travelled across America and drew tens of thousands of people to watch him chase butterflies across the stage.

Bush was hammered, by John Kerry and 527's. You know what? America just didn't like the idea of the looney left being in control, and that's the perception Karl Rove painted and that's what America believed. THAT is why we lost.

[rodeodance]

22. and Kerry was hit hard by the Swities and bin laden tape

Kerry argued well--People just seemed to like 4-5 word sentences that come from Bush: First he voted for it. Then he voted again against it!!

No brainer sound bites!!

[BlueCaliDem]

25. I Don't Think So...

...and after being on DU all this time, you shouldn't think so either.

John Kerry was "hit hard" by nothing less than a powerful Republican owned-and operated broadcast, and print media.

Plain. And. Simple.

Televised, and print propaganda is a powerful tool for brainwashing masses, and since right-wing Repubs kept up the farce of a so-called "liberal media bias", people watching CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CNBC, and yes, even CBS were tricked into thinking that, since these stations weren't the obvious right-wing mouthpiece like "Faux Fox News", they were getting unbiased news.

As we see today, with the lack of coverage on election fraud in the MSM, and the fact that all broadcast media were "calling it" for Bush November 2nd even before all votes had been counted and certified...is there still any doubt in anyone's mind, that John Kerry was set up for the fall by MSM?

[BlueCaliDem]

23. And Yet, All That Work Was Insufficient to Make Your Opinion...

...any more feasible.

If John Kerry could be faulted for anything, it's that he, and other Democrats in Washington, after the theft of the 2000 Pres. Elections; the 2002 surprising win by McBride over Reno in the Florida Gubernatorial race that pitted a weaker Democratic opponent against Jeb "steal Florida for my bro" Bush, and the 2003 California Recall, had all been too complacent, and too gullible with RWers, and Republicans in Washington regarding the Help America Vote Act--that gave birth to those disastrous "provisional ballots"--and the election contraptions owned, and operated but paid-for by taxpayers' dollars, by right-wing Republicans that allowed one Republican after another to win all across the country with seemingly effortless, if not predictable ease.

They should've known better.

"Fool me once, shame on you..." comes to mind here.

[RageKage]

24. But he did do all those things...

(and I beleive this to be a valid conversation whether Shrub got 45 million or 59 million - either is a sign of something terribly wrong)

As much as I share the emotion - the sense of frustration as we ask "how could the WORST PRESIDENT in the HISTORY of the USA not get reduced to a quivering mass of exposed lies and recognized hypocracy!?!" I think that is just plain BS.


Kerry did attack him. When I watched the debates I was extatic. I almost felt sorry for Shrub, floundering on national television, head-on against a very quick and able speker, - and Shrub with that ADD, booze-raddled brain of his.

Kerry not only drawrfed Bush, he put forward his main plans with clairity, simplicity, and a fair explanation of them - in a forum that makes that almost impossible.

If you really wanted to try to win the election by out-smirking Shrub, you should have run Edwards for Prez. and Kerry for VP. (Now, "Cheney v Kerry" I would pay money to see!)

It didn't matter what Kerry said. The Media, as AN ADMITTED UNWRITTEN RULE presents the two messages "equally" and "balanced". ie:


DONOTEVENTRY NEWS
Aug 2004
by Jack Shitaboutanything

WARAMI, SWINGSTATE - During a campaing stop in America today Senator Kerry said that "1+1=2"... Later that afternoon, at a different place in America, President Bush issued a stern retort to Kerry's earlier speech saying "1+1=4". This campaign has been marked by sharp and often bitter disagreements regarding the tally of numbers.

Ima Tool of the Corporate Shill Council commented that President Bush "really projected a sense of unblinking faith in whatever he saying. I like that in my leader"

Noah Better, president of Pointless Whatever, expressed similar sentiments regarding his canditate. "Kerry is like a foot taller than Bush".....



Maybe P Krugman said it best. (paraphrasing) "If the administration announced "the Earth is flat", the reports in the press the next day would be "Shape of Earth in Doubt",


RK

[Eric J in MN]

40. Yes, Kerry was great in the debates. But there should have

been much more negative tv advertising against Bush, and a negative Democratic Convention against Bush.

[m.standridge]

26. That's all well and good

I'm sure there was plenty wrong with the Kerry campaign.
Kerry was way too liberal for my tastes.
But Bush isn't out of the woods in the Electoral College.

[nmoliver]

27. you missed the point

Or should I say, two points.

1. The blogger assumes that Kerry lost the election. This has not been proved, and in fact, apart from the machine tallies, there is no evidence for it.

2. Kerry was chosen by big-money precisely because his attacks on the Bush regime were so restrained and conservative. I preferred Kucinich, but for whatever reasons (money, etc.) he was not able to beat Kerry in the primaries. So, it's not fair to blame Kerry for not taking Bush on for the big issues - that is who he is and that is why he was allowed to run against Bush.

Even Kucinich didn't take on the major issues, such as Bush's failure to protect our country on 9/11, to say nothing of possible complicity in the events of that day; Stolen Election 2000; torture and Abu Ghraib; and the scam of electronic voting.

- Nina

[seaveggie]

29. Actually, I agree with much of this post

There are important points being raised with this post. It's time that progressive-minded folk begin to honestly question how far we can ride the DNC. The democratic party of the 21st century is essentially a slightly-to-the-left movement compared to the republicans. "Slightly" is NOT going to get us anywhere.

How about a single payer healtchare system, like the rest of the democratic capitalist countries have? How about an open assault on the rampant consumerism that's blasted to our children in corporate media gone out of control? Where's the honest, serious criticism of US foreign policy, one that's creating terrorism and hatred for Americans all the way to the "homeland"? I could go on. None of these things were raised by Kerry, at all.

The plain fact (even putting vote fraud aside) is that the exit polls showed a clear preference for Bush's "values". The problem with Kerry - and the rest of the DNC, Dean aside - is while Kerry could critisize well, he didn't really stand for anything. No passion. No values. No win.

Kerry should have won in a landslide. This was the most vulnerable, and failed presidential administration in 100 years. Fraud should not have come close to affecting this one. The fact is that Kerry blew it, the DNC blew it, because as a corporatist party they are not able to advocate real social change, just a slightly different status quo. A lot of people saw that, and were turned off. We should be too.

For me, I'm turning to the Greens, I think. The DNC is dead for progressives.

Just my two cents.

[jagsd01]

32. GREENS ARE A WASTE OF TIME

The failure was to go negative and of Bob Shrum, and the overcaution of the candidate and his staff...

[Wordie]

119. I'll say it again, he lost (if he did lose) because of the war. People

don't want to switch Presidents in the middle of a war, and the Repubs did a good job of confusing the populace into thinking that the Iraq invasion was in retaliation for 9/11. We here at DU know this is not in any way true, but out there in the non-DU world, it is not a well-established fact, even at this late date. We have underestimated this factor. It is a sign of how well Kerry campaigned that the margin was really quite small, under the circumstances.

[mattclearing]

30. I believe you are mistaken.

People expect Republicans to fight dirty. When Democrats do it, they lose both ways, on the left and in the middle.

We have a higher threshold for credibility because of our side's ideals. It is as simple as that.

If Kerry did everything you say, there would have been no need for fraud. The American people generally don't hate Bush as much as we do. Bush would have won in a landslide.

[Eric J in MN]

38. The Kerry stategy of being Mr. Nice Guy was a failure.

MoveOn responded to the Swift Boat Liar ads with its own ads critical of Bush going AWOL.

Kerry told MoveOn to pull the ads, and they did.

Do you really believe that was a good move by Kerry?

[mattclearing]

46. Nah, You are right there.

Bush actually put out scary negative ads himself, which I thought was a bad call. If Kerry did that, it would have been a disaster.

But letting surrogates call a spade a spade? Hell, why not?

[goodboy]

52. It was a failure....(nt)

[berniew1]

68. GOP & Major Media would have berated Kerry if he had attacked more

Kerry was in a bad situation; The Major Media did not and was not going to treat him fairly and the major media infulences public opinion a lot. The majority don't vote based on the issues being discussed here; most vote on impressions from snippets in political ads and what they see in Media headlines. Like Kerry is a waffler, etc.
Look what happened to Dan Rather when he made a valid point that was supported by the evidence, but denounced widely based on a technicality- a document that perhaps was a copy or reproduction of the original but accurately reflected the facts according the the Secretary of the person who was being quoted. How many stories come out each day with innacurate and distorted information that aren't similarly treated. It all depends on whose Ox is being gored.
And treatment is different depending on this. Likewise with Clinton and mistreatment of Clinton by media- compared to others who did far worse but weren't similarly treated.

[goodboy]

51. "When Democrats do it, they lose both ways,"

we didn't do it, and lost. So what's next.

[mattclearing]

71. That's the big question.

Personally, I think taking over the party with a Howard Dean mentality. Real progressive leadership on social issues with an economically pragmatic fiscal policy should be the way it gets done.

I recently said that love or hate Dean, at least he knows what we are up against. Most of the current Democratic establishment doesn't understand how the Republicans do what they do, or why. Can't say that with Dean.

He knew about Diebold and the threat they posed back during primary season.

He knows guns are a loser issue for us.

He knows that gays deserve equal rights and that Republicans are trying to appeal to our worst nature, and was happy to say so on national TV.

He knows Republicans will never balance the budget, as they are happy to be the party of "cutting your taxes" while we are the party of "balancing the budget." We used to be the party of social programs. People do not understand why a balanced budget benefits them, because in the short term, it doesn't.

In the meantime, the Republicans are handing out cash while we promise nothing.

Unfortunately, the voting machines are unreliable. Voting fraud is the only issue that matters because we will never win again until it is addressed.

I would say:

1. Expose the fraud. Fix the problem, make it foolproof. Paper ballots counted and regulated by nonpartisan commissions.

2. Purge the party of Bush apologists and people who believe "They are winning, so let's do what they do." These people should be smacked silly, they are doing Republicans' work for them.

3. Run true progressives, who are smart, know what they believe in, and who are not afraid to verbally bitchslap Republicans who talk silly "terrorism" "soft on national security" "raise your taxes" "liberal" nonsense.

Kerry was afraid to call George Bush a liar. Why? Because the "liberal" media would have castigated him for it?

He looked like a chump. And he got played like a chump.

[goodboy]

73. "...who are not afraid to verbally bitchslap Republicans..."

nice. I do not want to see our party move toward the middle...that's happening right now, and it's gonna lose more elections for us. You said, "progressive leadership on social issues, with a economically pragmatic fiscal policy should be the way it gets done."

All I have to say is...(NT)

[mattclearing]

74. Thanks.

[LisaL]

31. Well, it's very hard to win in a landslide when you are

running against an opponent that actually counts the votes.

[righteous1]

33. I just love Monday morning quarterbacks

[Eric J in MN]

42. What is the alternative? Congratulating ourselves for losing? NT

NT

[goodboy]

54. this is not monday morning quarterbacking,

....whenever any of us said things like this during the election season, we were chastised, flamed, and called everything, including freepers.

I personally said on numerous occasions that Kerry needed to hit bush harder and people jumped all over me. Turns out...we were probably right. This is a COMPLETELY different issue than voter fraud, which did occur...the question is, if Kerry did all these things in Bob's post (which no matter what any of you say, he didn't) would it have brought enough voters over to our side to compensate for the fraud. It's that simple.

[righteous1]

62. When in doubt just goose up the level of vitriol ,is that it?

[goodboy]

66. I'm sorry, did I offend you?

on edit: what was vitriolic about my post?

[righteous1]

99. No, your post was not offensive ,nor was I offended

The original post was suggesting an increased level of "ruthless and vicious" attacks against Bush would have helped, i was addressing that

[Chicago Lulu]

34. It should never have been close enough to steal

but that doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

[goodboy]

70. great point...welcome to DU...(nt)

[goldengreek]

36. Kerry did all that.

And Edwards picked Cheney apart like a prosecutor during their debate. He was, in fact, pretty merciless. Especially over Haliburton's corruption during his tenure as CEO.

In addtion, Kerry got tons of support from the intelligence community during the last fews weeks of the election and he really went for Bush's jugular. It was one 'October Surprise' after another dropped on their heads.

The reason I was in despair after the election is precisely because all this happened and I'd thought the American people still voted for this bonehead. It wasn't like 2000, when the media was given its marching orders to lie about Gore early and often and cover up everything for Bush.

This election was stolen. Pure and simple.

[Eric J in MN]

39. There wasn't enough negative advertising against Bush.

And the Democratic Convention avoided criticizing Bush by name.

[goodboy]

57. Some of what Bob says in his post happened, but it was done

half-assed...and his point is that we have to be RUTHLESS, and MERCILESS like the Repukes. No doubt the election was stolen...but if we'd hit bush harder like bob is saying, maybe we could've off-set the vote stealing.

[IAMREALITY]

61. You Can't Be Serious

"if we'd hit bush harder like bob is saying, maybe we could've off-set the vote stealing"

Off set the vote stealing? That's absurd! You think they just went in with a fixed number and said here, add 1000 here, 2000 there, no matter how many votes Kerry has.

Ummmmmm Nooooooooooo!!!! They had it written/rigged in such a way that through algorithmic science the votes would be tabulated to ENSURE a shrub win and a shrub mandate. Period. You think they'd be that friggin stupid to put all that effort and criminal activity behind stealing the election just to fall short cause Kerry got more votes then they had anticipated? I think not, mon frere.

It is clear to us all, Kerry COULD NOT have won this election when the election was run by Deibold and ES&S.

[goodboy]

63. I don't agree

You're saying that even if Kerry was ahead 53-46 they still would've stolen the election? As for the algorithmic science of this...I'm a musician, and I can only count to 4.

[IAMREALITY]

67. Don't You GET IT????

Based on the way this was rigged, there was NEVER a chance for Kerry to be up 53-46!

:eyes:

[goodboy]

69. we're talking about 2 different things....

I'm talking about how the public viewed Kerry BEFORE the election, not how the vote turned out...and I DO GET most of it...just not the mathmatic-science stuff. but I trust the math whizzes at DU do, and I believe what they are saying 100%...

I'm saying that it should've never been close enough to steal...

[IAMREALITY]

76. And My Point Is

"I'm saying that it should've never been close enough to steal..."

Why the Fuck are we wasting energy discussing how close it was, I don't give a fuck how close it was, my point is IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN STOLEN AT ALL!!!!!

[goodboy]

89. I agree with you that it shouldn't have been stolen at all, but that is

a completely separate issue than that of whether we hit the repukes hard enough.

edeted fer speleng

[IAMREALITY]

110. My God It's Like Beating A Dead Horse n/t

[MoonRiver]

80. I think the point is

that the machines were rigged to such an extent that no matter how many people voted for Kerry those votes would never show up in the tally. The fix, numerical and otherwise, was in from the beginning. That's why the Pukes want nothing to do with exit polls. They are the only real threat left to an otherwise perfect coup.

[goodboy]

90. I understand that completely MPR,

in your opinion then, no matter what, the election would've been stolen.

[MoonRiver]

101. Probably.

Look at Truth Is All's (DU poster) data analysis. Also check out Verified Voting and Black Box Voting websites for more expertise than I possess.

[lonestarnot]

44. bushit makes joe redneck feel he could be pres..

Dumbshits identify with bushit. "Well maybe I could be president someday." Kerry whipped his ass around every corner and he did it with splendor and grace. There is just nothing to compare. THEY CHEATED and there is no other explanation. Suit to watch is being filed tomorrow in Ohio by Cliff the lawyer.

[seaveggie]

49. Saying only "they cheated" is a dangerous precedent:

Yes, there was fraud, maybe massive fraud. But millions of votes worth? I think we need to be realistic here. You could steal hundreds of thousands, maybe even 2 or 3 million. That means that, in a clean election, there would have been the slimmest of victory for the winner, probably Kerry. Maybe he would have won by a million votes, or two. So were there 5 million stolen votes? That's rather unrealistic.

It's absolutely vital to understand that, while we need to fight very hard for clean elections, and that there's still a chance this one will flip, the plain truth is that Kerry should have won by a LANDSLIDE. By MANY MILLIONS of votes. Did Bush steal 10 million votes? 20 million? C'mon.

Bush was a failed president. Yet I still saw plenty of Bush bumper stickers. A lot of people really did vote for him, we need to accept that. The question is, why? And how to stop it next time? The National Socialists were a legitimate, growing party thoughout the German 20's. A lot of Germans voted for them, even before the rigged elections. It can, and maybe it is, happening here....

Progressives lost this election when Dean was wiped out. Without a passionate alternative, the democrats will always look weak. People recognize that. We need to be passionately progressive, and the democrats will never be. It's not just Shrum, it's the corporate backing of the Democratic Party. We need an ANTI-corporate party - it's the corporations who are killing our democracy, not neoconservatives. It will happen again. The DNC is a corporate-backed party. Where do you think they get their $$ from?

[lonestarnot]

75. No time to argue this...

Wait for the facts, fast track discovery by Cliff the lawyer, argument to you futile.

[IAMREALITY]

45. Kerry Could've

Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've
Kerry Could've

Kerry Could've done everything in the goddamn world but would've still fucking lost...

...Cause Bush Fuckin Cheated. Wake Up.

[seito]

93. So Reality, what are you really trying to say? :-)

[marions ghost]

95. Hi Bob Weave it Anyway U Like --

.....OK as we all know, you can:

Dean it
Shrum it
Swift it
DNC it
DLC it
WMD it
AbuGraib it
ANWAR it
Hoover it
9-11 it
Patriot Act it
Moral values it
All of the above it
-------------

You can tell us to get over it...
But Puh--leeze, save your many debate points until WE DIEBOLD IT.

----------------
**Or, go post in a forum where you chew on all the Kerry "what ifs" til the cows come home.

First things first. Did my vote get counted? Or did it hit the electronic shredder.

[IAMREALITY]

111. Marions Ghost

I see you are new, so I'll give you a tip. Respond to the post you want to respond to, do not respond to a post that has nothing to do with your response. In this case, you would've wanted to reply to the original message, not mine. I thought you were replying to me and was about to give you a HUGE smack of REALITY but then realized you simply made a newbie error and responded to the wrong post. Just be more careful in the future, so that your words are reflected back to where you want them to go, instead of misdirected.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[marions ghost]

114. thanks

:) oops, sorry

[goodboy]

47. Bob, I agree with everything you say,

I guess the real question is: Suppose Kerry did everything you say, and hit Bush harder on every issue and we didn't take the high road at our convention and turned Bush into a quivering mass of jello...would it have made a difference if they were stealing votes anyway? Would it have brought enough people over to our side to compensate for the voter fraud? I don't know.

[vol5516]

48. swiftboat guys

I think the Swiftboat guys played a huge role in Kerry's defeat. And I think that maybe next election, can we Democrates FINALLY choose a vice presidential candidate that can win his home state??????? We haven't had one of those in eigt years!!!!!!

[IAMREALITY]

56. I think

computer keyboards, touch screens, diebold operators, and lying scumbag cheating administrations played a huge role in Kerry's defeat. But alas, to each their own...

[SnoopDog]

53. All the more reasons to pursue election fraud!

You did a great job in showing what a failure * is.

[Shalom]

55. If Kerry Ran A Better Campagin, Repigs Would Steal More...

You can't win when Repigs control the ballot box.

[goodboy]

59. Well we've caught them red-handed in many areas, so if Kerry

ran a better campaign, they would've probably had to attack Iran, or let another 911 happen in order to win.

[Shalom]

72. And This Would Be Better ?

These Repigs would love nothing more tha another "Reichstag fire" to shut down democracy for good.

They are ruthless freaking fucking animals, a flesh-eating virus that has invaded the body politic.

[goodboy]

92. nope. (nt)

[Wordie]

121. Whew! "a flesh-eating virus that has invaded the body politic" Whew! n/t

[drummer55]

58. dude wake up

doesnt matter who cast the votes only who counts them

[SueZhope]

81. YUP Drummer55

We can analyze the campaign till the cows come home but if the votes
are counted by 80% company's who back the Republican party
we voted on blind faith.....(that's despite all the other Vote Fraud issues that were found)

Time for America to wake and analyze that

[buddysmellgood]

77. Yes, let's work our buts off in the hope that next time, their system for

stealing elections will somehow fail and our candidate will get into office by mistake.
Great plan.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

78. The way this administration and congress is going....

I don't believe there will be a next time. In 2008 we will be Amerika.......

[stepnw1f]

79. The Ignore Button is Convenient

[Psyop Samurai]

82. Not just vote theft - Entire election was fraudulent

The Democratic Party has been thoroughly infiltrated by a treasonous fifth column, which aims to establish a one-party fascist state. It seeks to accomplish this while maintaining the illusion of democracy.

Blame Kerry’s DLC straight jacket by Ahmed Amr

"John Kerry lost the White House because he played by the rules – The Democratic Leadership Council rules. The DLC appointed JFK as their standard bearer to contain the campaign within the red lines drawn by Joseph Lieberman. As a starting point, Kerry willingly sold his soul to the DLC devils and set out to derail Howard Dean’s insurgency. Beyond that, he was free to win or lose against Bush – so long as he accepted some basic DLC guidance on domestic and foreign policy."

"Kerry and the DLC avoided the risk of energizing the Democratic Party’s base – lest the rank and file be tempted to tinker with the party’s agenda. The DLC convinced Kerry that they could bank on the Anybody But Bush vote. It follows that they didn’t feel any obligation to curry favor with the peace movement or progressives."

<...> (includes 94 marching orders from the DLC - MUST READ)

[Overseas]

83. You are in THE WRONG FORUM-- you have many other choices

>>>There are many other designated places you can discuss campaign mistakes. We here have heard all of your points before. I know you'd like to be the special "wiser, smarter, more mature & realistic, fabulous guy helping us idealists face the bitter truth," and don't want to be lost among the thousands of others in other threads who are saying the exact same thing you are. But sorry, pal, your line of argument is not a refreshing new perspective. Campaign management certainly deserves to be reviewed, but that is being done in lots of other forums. Please go there.
>>>We think the thousands of on scene reports about voter fraud and intimidation and misdirection are very important and deserve investigation and full disclosure in the media.
>>>We think the huge disparities in exit polling vs "actual results" deserve an honest examination.
>>>We know that if election fraud is allowed to stand unchallenged, it will get worse-- witness the evolution of 2000 to 2002 to 2004.

[politicasista]

86. I was hoping Kerry won to....

hush all the haters up. Too much second-guessing.x(

[Razorback_Democrat]

94. Your premises are wrong

simple as that

Kerry did win

fraud was committed

it ain't over 'til it's over

Jan. 6 I'll either celebrate the election of Kerry or I'll concede, until then I'll not give up hope.

[MarkusQ]

96. I agree

In the primaries, when he was trying to be a centralist version of Dean, he looked much better than when he was trying to be a centralist version of Bush.

I am a Republican, and a Conservative. I decided early on that I would vote for who ever most clearly endorsed my values:

• Honesty (that lets Bush out)
  
• Prudence (that lets Bush out)
  
• Valuing life (that lets any pro-war candidate out)
  
• Respect for individual rights & dignity (that lets any pro-patriot act candidate out, and Bush for Abu Ghraib, and any pro-corporate-rights-over-human-rights candidate)
  
• Fiscal responsibility (Almost all of them flunked this one)
  

I might have considered Dean; as it was I wound up voting for Badnaric because he went to jail for trying to serve court papers on the debate and no one spoke up for him. Kerry could have had my vote in a heart beat if he had spoken up for the minority candidates, or hammered on any of the points you mentioned.

--MarkusQ

P.S. But I'm still not dropping the fraud issue: Even if it had no effect on the outcome, electoral fraud is wrong. Saying that we should drop it is like telling a rape victim they should drop it because they didn't get pregnant.

[Stand and Fight]

97. This whole discussion is pointless.

Considering the hard work that many DUers, congressmen, actual investigative reporters, and activists are doing we should not even be talking about this till after January 20th. People, I have said it once, and I will say it again:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

I have a friend at work, a Republican, who has told me that he loves to go on sites like DU and INTENTIONALLY build up his post, cause trouble, and incite arguments. Just because this person has 400+ posts does not mean that they are not a problem starter. Notice that a lot of the people in this thread are suddenly appearing in the last couple of days with low posts counts and all. They are here to detract from our hard work and tireless efforts. Even some of the higher posters are just as suspect -- having not looked at the date they joined -- but they have more integrity than those who have recently joined and are speaking out in contradiction to our efforts and those of people like the Honorable John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Keith Olbermann and countless others. I trust that we will remain focus and not give these "wrinkles" in our discourse the time of day. Iron right over them as you would your favorite and most tailored pair of slacks.

This issue, about why Kerry lost, can be expanded upon in the next couple of years. For now we need to be focusing on the matter at hand regarding election irregularities. This post only serves to detract from the efforts of many good and hardworking DUers. This post simply calls for us to take the standard roll over, cry "whoa is me," and second guess ourselves when we have not yet begun to fight. I encourage everyone NOT to respond to this post.

Thanks,
Stand and Fight

[robbedvoter]

100. How do you know Kerry didn't win in a landslide? Pollsters' word?

here's a cartoon from 2003:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobweaver]

104. You judge people here by the number of posts they have made?

You filter the message by a factor of how long the poster has been a member of this board? Hello - that's called intolerance and closed-mindedness - the very things you criticize the Republicans for. Ever heard of the concept of DISSENT? Or are you already conforming to the Patriot Act?

[New Earth]

106. i think the point is

you might find one or two people here (out of roughly 60,000) that agree with you. you are entitled to your own opinion, but have fun finding the people who agree with you on this board, because you are highly outnumbered.

[robbedvoter]

107. It sometimes clarifies why one would go to a forum dealing with fraud

and post a completely contrarian POV - sucking out much of the energy dedicated to constructive activism.

[AntiFascist]

108. Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that Kerry didn't win in a landslide...

and welcome to DU.

The Media, and some high profile Democrats, are trying to spin that the religious right quietly turned up in force because of the gay marriage issue. I couldn't see this happening without Bush trying harder to convince Congress, and besides, most Americans feel there are more important issues to deal with.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. BW - I agree with eveything you say - I thought many of these

during the election. I never understood why he didn't bring up 9-11. I mean every time * said, "I can keep you safe" I said to myself, why doesn't he say is "Well you didn't on 9-11" It is bad when I think I could have waged a better verbal campaign than he did, me an armchair political junkie. And not bringing up the fact that "CON"di knew, self-admitedly, about a "regular" highjacking was a very big pet peeve lost opportunity. No one asked, Well what exactly did you do to prevent a "regular" highjacking - like strengthen the cockpits, warn security at airport. I mean IMHO the whole 9-11 thing boils down to a simple fact. If they didn't get on the planes there would be no 9-11. I don't really know if it was him or his campaign advisors. Or maybe he just thinks too much (good for when he is president, bad during a campaign). If I say this, they will bring that bad thing up. But these two examples I have mentioned have no "bad thing" that I think would be worth not bringing them up.

That being said, I believe John Kerry won the election and I would now after reading everything here (especially tinfoilberet)bet my life on it. He is a good man and he will save us when the election is overturned.

Edit to add:
P.S. It doesn't matter how many votes JK got, they would have screwed us anyway

[Wordie]

122. It may be if he hit * too hard it would have backfired b/c are at war. n/t

[The Minus World]

113. A Futile Deluge

While you have, in fact, detailed some of the failings of the Kerry campaign, you seem to make the simple error of believing that a weak campaign is somehow evidence that no vote fraud took place.

I also believe that, if we lived in a country devoid of propaganda; a country that embraced every shade of the political spectrum equally, that Kerry would have won by a margin that no fraud could countermand. However, the sad reality is that most Americans have accepted the 24/7 influx of pro-war, right-wing propaganda as reality, and honest leftist thought has a hard time finding a suitable forum for exposure.

You make some valid points, but your text is nullified by a very simple fallacy: You seem to believe that Kerry's campaign was not as strong as it could have been, therefore, no fraud took place, and the blame for Kerry's failure should be placed squarely on Kerry's shoulders.

Listen: If the scorekeepers are paid off, it doesn't matter how your performance is on the field - all judgments based on performance are nullified by the presence of tampering.

[cloudythescribbler]

115. They are BOTH true -- Voter fraud AND a weak Kerry campaign

True, voter fraud may have only cost Kerry a few states, including Ohio (and NM) and the electoral college. However, it may have been widespread enough so that the exit polls were right and he won the popular vote as well.

But the Democrats should have had this in a landslide. Actually, with all the 527s out there, most of those attacks were made. Kerry AND the 527s AND the media mainstream and liberals AND the progressive leadership ALL failed to counter the flimsiness of the flipflop spin (which is completely debunked by Jonathan Chait in the Oct 18 cover story of the New Republic, originally posted Oct 7, and never really substantiated, only drilled in without opposition). They also failed to respond to the distortion by Matt Bai in the Oct 10 NY Times Magazine, which was crucial to the home stretch of the campaign. It suggested (parrallelling with highbrow demagogy the Bush campaign's longstanding spin on the issue) that Kerry was less willing to confront terrorism militarily than Bush, when in fact Kerry had argued repeatedly for a large INCREASE in the special forces to INTENSIFY the struggle with Al Qaeda and the hunt for Bin Laden. The Republicans siezed on the 'nuisance' blooper and the distortions in the article with a sustained wave of protestation, augmented by a tsunami of DAILY columns from rightwing pundits, often exaggerating the distortions of Bai (see eg Dick Morris "Nuisance Nonsense" NY Post Oct 12). The Democrats et al were a pack of hound that didn't bark, failing to respond in a timely way to the flipflop spin or to the distortions by Matt Bai. This is the third presidential election in the last five that the Democrats have DUTIFULLY thrown (at the time of the Democratic Convention 88, the polls showed him ahead by 8 points, and the Village Voice ran a cover story "Will He Blow It?" -- which indeed he did. In 2000, Gore had it going away, (Bush famously cursed about Adam Clymer, whose articles pointed out that on economics, it should have been at least 54-46 Dems) but Gore insisted on speaking as if to third graders and the media did its usual job of justifying the lying down to the astroturf roots -- as in covering for Bush's failure to know the leaders of countries like India and Pakistan.

Progressives need to be willing to call the system on these issues, and to confront the various 'cultural defense mechanisms' like what I call "the pseudo-liberal anti-paranoid style in American politics" turning Hofstadter's phrase around. But between the proliferation of counterfeit or inauthentic progressives, promoted by the system for its purposes (while often made to look grass roots) and the cravenness and respectability seeking of those who are not simply counterfeit, progressivism is kept effectively "occupied territory".

[EFerrari]

116. PPppppppppppppssssssssssssstttttttttttttttt

Kerry didn't lose.

You may want to reconsider your analysis.