- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The 2004 election was not so much stolen as given away by a Democratic party that would rather see a Republican in office than climb out of its comfy chair and teeter toward some genuine change. In order to be nominated for the US presidency, a candidate must satisfy a number of unofficial criteria, including an aristocratic pedigree and years of calculated sucking up to party grandfathers who periodically put their gray-to-balding heads together and decide whose turn it is to play the Palace.
Think back, if you will, to the Washington Idol tour of 2004, in which a handful of presidential wannabes competed to see who could improvise the greatest number of political innanities in a single hour. Almost all of these contestants had more charisma than John Kerry, who looks and acts a lot like one of those big stone heads on Easter Island, and one or two--Kucinich in particular--actually ventured an interesting idea now and then. It was John Kerry, however, who proved the most talented at stretching non-threatening homilies to interminable lengths which, as it turns out, is exactly what the judges were looking for.
In other words, the Democrats handed the Bushies a stealable election by nominating a boring party workhorse who would protect the status quo whether he won or lost. I'm still not convinced that GW Rove stole 2004 outright, but it sure seems as if the Democrats and/or John Kerry took a dive. In spite of numbers that were close enough to warrant an automatic recount,Kerry folded within a couple of hours of the final poll closing, muttering something about sparing the American people the agony of another contested election as he rushed toward back door. In the presence of so many solid reasons for dispute,including the victors' known affinity for political kleptomania, Kerry rolled over and went to bed early.
The truth is that Democrats are Republicans who are o.k. with homosexuality and abortion. Combined, they represent an entrenched aristocracy who are educated at the same schools, belong to the same clubs,attend the same social gatherings, and marry one another's children in strategic alliances reminiscent of Hapsburgs or Plantagenets. Every four years the American people are encouraged to choose the aristocrat who is least likely to crush their spirit, but in the end it's a pretend choice, more or less like the choice that a smart parent offers a stubborn two year old who responds to the illusion of control.
Was the 2004 election stolen? I'm not sure that it matters any more. If it wasn't stolen, it was bought and paid for and neither of these options has much to do with the principles of democracy. A couple of years from now the parties will once again present their favorite finalists to the American people and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ryan Seacrest hosts the whole she-bang. Me, I'd like to see them all go and unless there's an upset, I'm probably going to just penciil my own name onto the 2008 ballot. Either my name or Chris Doherty's. Now there's a candidate who really was robbed.
