In 2004, Bush beat Kerry fair and square, by deftly employing all of the dirty tricks, electoral fraud and money laundering that have become part and parcel of American presidential politics. Even if Kerry now proves a wrong was done, yet there is no conceivable remedy available. It's time to move on, for those who are able. But like a dog returns to his vomit, John Kerry returns to last year's issues. Far better to prepare for the next election, which can still be won in the voting booths and in the courts and trenches, instead of relitigating elections that are lost for all time. But are today's Democrats up to the task?
The fact that Kerry continues to rehash 2004, condemning a seated President who cannot run again in any case and only now realizing that Bush is a "liar", just shows that Kerry has failed to focus his mind and his energies on something that can help America today. This is a real shame, because Kerry has $17,000,000 in the bank, yet seemingly he has no idea how to use it productively.
Today, elections are won not only in the voting booths, but also in the trenches and in the courts, before and after voting day. Gore won in the voting booth but lost in the trenches, because he didn't have the heart to fight Bush with all available weapons, including by announcing that the election had been stolen in an illegal coup of electoral corruption and calling Democratic voters into the streets to witness and assure the counting of votes. The Supreme Court acted not in a vacuum, but chose a President in light of the peaceful acquiescence of the Democratic leadership and their troops.
When electoral fraud has been computerized, the notion that losers must quietly accept defeat is quaint and historical. It comes from a time when we reasonably believed that votes had probably been counted fairly. That time has passed, while the methods for electoral fraud have multiplied. Rather cry over elections past, Democrats need to plan for the stolen elections of the future.
Perhaps the largest single reason for electing leaders in fair votes is that this procedure is the peaceful alternative to armed chaos. Yet, the only guarantee that elections will be fair is the determination to fight should elections be stolen.
Democracy exists principally as an alternative to armed conflict and anarchy. Unless there is a real chance of anarchy in the absence of democracy then democracy itself loses its most potent reason for existing in the first place.
If free, fair and transparent democracy is the alternative to chaos and armed conflict, then the certainty that armed conflict and chaos will result in the absence of democracy is the ultimate guarantor of democracy itself.
The Democrats' failure to take to the streets and the courts on voting days when elections are stolen removes the primary deterrent to stolen elections. It allows and indeed encourages Republicans to steal with impunity.
The first predicate of truth is the willingness to identity falsehood. Kerry now calls Bush a "liar", when Bush has been lying for years. http://www.washtimes.com/...
Kerry did not call Bush a liar when Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". Kerry did not call Bush a liar when Bush claimed ignorance of the swift-boaters. Kerry failed to call Bush a liar when Bush was ginning up the Iraq war. He has not called Bush a liar as Bush gins up the Iran war. It is very late in the game for Kerry to call Bush a liar, when lying has been permitted to become a substitute for truth.
The 2004 election, like the 2000 election, is RES JUDICATA, having forever been resolved in Bush's favor. Nothing can give us back the lost years. New evidence today is only as useful as post-mortem evidence of the cause of death. It might save other people, but it won't save the life Kerry lost in 2004. Instead of researching what Bush did in 2004, Kerry should be studying what Bush might do in 2006, 2007, and 2008 if Kerry has any remaining desire to become President.
In American, we agree to choose leaders in elections to avoid choosing them in civil wars. Yet, today, there is no deterrent to Republican voter fraud, because they know the Democrats will accept whatever result the Republicans and Diebold announce, no matter how fishy it seems. In the days after the election, Democrats are loath to insist upon a full and fair accounting. They sit on their rights as Kerry has, only later announcing their recovered memories of past abuse, when the trail is cold and their opponents are already seated in power.
There is no present deterrent to Republican voter fraud because Democrats lack the heart, conviction and organization to fight for democracy in the streets should it be stolen from us at the ballot box.