Skip to main content

View Diary: Disgrace: NY Times Knew before the Election (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There was probably no fraud (none)
    At least none above and beyond historical norms (IE Diebold didn't make things worse).  The potential for fraud certainly is there, but I don't think it actually happened.  There certainly is nothing close to proof of actual fraud.

    Bush won because he was the incumbent, and Kerry didn't show why he should be president.  To kick out an incumbent, you have to show why you should have the job, not just why the current guy sucks.  Kerry never did that.

    •  Well Kerry showed me (none)
      why he should have the job.

      Let's see, for starters: intelligence, multilateral approach to foreign policy, lifetime of dedication to public service and trying to make a difference (even if one didn't agree with some of the anti-war movement's activities), lifetime commitment to the environment (with scores from LCV to prove it), dedication to human rights... not to mention a stunning, independent wife who is accomplished in her own right and would have no reason to hang around with a slug.

      And I was pretty much an average voter last year. Except I don't watch Faux. And I know enough to look something up, rather than take a hatcheteer's word for it. On second thought, guess I wasn't that average. But THAT is the problem Kerry needs to overcome - getting through the gullibility of the average voter. It wasn't that he didn't offer something positive enough himself, because he did.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site