Home > Why did we lose?
Much has been thought, said, written about how George W. Bush became President in 2000. Even more has been thought, said, written about how he became President again in 2004. But little has been written about WHY a Democrat didn’t become President in 2004. Until now.
Joshua Frank has just completed LEFT OUT! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush. http://www.brickburner.org/
And he doesn’t pull any punches. The Democrats ignored the one true liberal candidate they had - Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats burned through campaign funds trying to keep Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo off the ballot rather than spending their money to bring new voters to the poll. The Democrats ignored their base, which was heavily against the War in Iraq, and chose the most warlike candidate they could find to “report for duty.”
Frank’s book gives us details we never heard before or perhaps have forgotten. It clearly shows WHY the Democrats lost in 2004. It is a most-worthwhile read.
Forum posts
9 June 2005, 17:47
lol
this is assuming there was no vote fraud, wich all signs point to yes
I’m a republican, I work with 90% republicans, we all voted for kerry because he was good for business, maybe not multi-national corporations with armies of lobbyists and lawyers, but for the small-large private self proprietorships and entrepenuers.
I won’t be buying a book about how "liberals" helped bush become president because the term itself is ambiguos at best. I will buy a book that details how the insider duopoly stole the election though.
good luck on your sales
9 June 2005, 22:40
Someone should write a book on how to hack a Diebold voting machine!
10 June 2005, 04:53
Monday morning quarterbacks all have their opinions about what cost Kerry the election, but they’d be running the very same opinions, with just the names reversed, to explain what had cost Bush the election.
I agree that Bush’s Ohio campaign operatives—notably his campaign chair who presided over the state election results—probably used some voter intimidation tactics and voting machine fraud (in particular, the withholding of adequate voting machines to traditionally Democratic precincts).
Let’s give a major benefit of the doubt and assume that everyone who tried to vote managed to complete a ballot and every ballot was correctly counted. In that case, I’d credit Bush’s slim win to being an incumbent president who exploited people’s fears and prejudices and hatreds via slanderous attack ads, and who got a free pass of constant and uncritical coverage by corporate-controlled media.
Kerry demolished Bush in the debates, and Edwards did a passable job trying to get a debate going with Cheney. It’s possible, but I seriously doubt that Kucinich would have made a stronger VP candidate than Edwards. As a national candidate, Kucinich would have been slaughtered within weeks just by neocon attack jokes ridiculing his height and exaggerating his policies.
10 June 2005, 17:50
"Kucinich would have been slaughtered within weeks just by neocon attack jokes ridiculing his height and exaggerating his policies."
What does that say about our electorate? Pathetic.
11 June 2005, 15:13
You have obviously never heard Rep. Kucinich speak!
He would be a GREAT president for the people of America.
10 June 2005, 22:43
We "lost" because of well-planned election fraud. Book is based on a false assumption. Sorry.