Astounding! While voter undermining was predicted, this revelation of the scale and diversity of the tactics used casts new lights on GOP tactics. It is heartwarming to see the principle of universal suffrage so systematically corrupted in the land of the free. Let�s hope this one runs and runs�

For George W Bush has for the first time legally been given the mandate to bankrupt the US and pursue idiotically the war on trrr.

i did not believe for an instant, not prior to election day nor on election day itself, that bush would legitimately win the election. and the evidence mounts that he did not. so, as far as i'm concerned, he still has no legitimate mandate and it bothers me greatly that so many journalists and bloggers have been quick to act as tho he now does. they continue to do the same disservice they did to us when they unquestioningly supported the iraq invasion. for example, here the ny times apologizes for its coverage, and admits that it was not critical enough of the positions being put forth by the bush administration. why now are they so quick to assume that this election was won fair and square then, particularly with the amount of evidence present on election day itself and now after the fact which demonstrates an unprecedented amount of voter fraud in districts presided over by bushites like ken blackwell and dubya's brother jeb? why is it that msnbc is the only mainstream news source paying these matters any attention at all? instead, the news sources are getting all smarmy, dismissing "new media" for its inexperience because the majority of bloggers and online publications predicted a kerry win based on leaked exit polls. the irony is that these polls were conducted by the very same news sources which are discrediting "new media" for relying on them.


Why do the Democrats always seem to help Regan/Bush (ultra-conservative/religious right) Republicans by putting up wooden oafs who try and criticise the incumbent without suggesting that there are many policy differences between them? In his surrender, Kerry still preached the need for unity: now is the time to make Democrats worthwhile opposition, not appeasers.

i hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but frankly i think kerry ceded the election way too quickly. kerry, it should be noted, is the same guy who went after the bushites in the reagan administration during the iran contra affair. it should be noted that they basically got away with murder, embezzlement, illegal arms trafficking and drug smuggling back then. is it really mere coincidience that kerry and bush are members of the same secret fraternity? i draw no conclusions, but it certainly makes me wonder.

anyway, to more directly deal with your question, i think a lot of it has to do with the divide within the democratic party itself. there was a lot of contentiousness between the far left "deaniacs" & kucinich supporters and the more centrist "clintonesque" kerry/gephart/edwards camp. the truth is that the far left is a political minority, and that it fares little success within the democratic party. the majority of democrats do not favor the extremism of the far left and seek a more moderate political approach. this is evidenced by editorials such as this one in slate which advocate toning down the radical (and repulsive) nature of the political discourse and being more open-minded and open-hearted towards the right in order to better engage in discourse with them. and it's certainly a fair point, especially if you start listening to people on the right like this guy, who raises many of the same points about the repulsive nature of the discourse.

so why pick kerry? and why should kerry seemingly appease the right with talk about unity? because kerry was the dnc's move to save the image of the democratic party as one that doesn't project "intellectual superiority" or political extremism, and thus alienates "ignorant" and "complacent" middle americans, but rather one that understands their needs and their values. the message is, you don't bring people into your camp by calling them names nor making them out to be religiopaths. and i think this is an increasingly important idea. to quote the situationists, "you can't fight alienation with alienated means." revolutionary politics are alienating, because the turn common folk who simply have different perspectives or a different value systems into an enemy. it is unhelpful to your cause to make the people you need fighting with you into the enemy you're fighting against.


How did increased voter turnout convert to a clearer margin of victory for Bush when a higher turnout has always favoured the Democrats in the past?

the greatest voter turnout came from churches who were riling up their parishoners on the gay marriage issue. the figures of this group's influence were apparently underestimated. or so said sen. chuck schumer on the daily show the night following the election.


Why was (Dubya & Jeb associate) Glenda Hood, the head of election services (?) in Florida, not questioned properly about loss of power to voting equipment, the supplier Diebold�s performance in previous elections and Republican Party links and other irregularities this time around?

why indeed. and isn't it even more peculiar that the bush admin is now pushing to make the d.o.j. the only entity permitted to pursue law suits in such cases?


Why is it that the debacle in 2000 has now made it easier for the American public to dismiss complaints about loss of ballot papers and other forms of illegal interference coming from the �losers� camp?

i don't think it has. at least, not on the left. the right will continue to deny their hero bush can do any wrong til the cows come home to roost.


Why has no formal investigation been launched into why all US TV channels (starting with Fox, interestingly) said Gore had won in 2000 and were then proxy broadcasters for the Bush camp by presenting all sorts of red herrings and supreme court propaganda to allegedly cover up their editorial error? (How to guarantee a subservient media � accuse them of treachery).

because the fcc, which would be responsible for such an investigation, is directed by the son of bush's secretary of state? kind of a no brainer there.