Kerry's Pummeling
Not A Surprise: Bush with a TKO
By Joshua Frank
17 August, 2005
Countercurrents.org
(Editor's
Note: The following is an excerpt from Joshua Frank's new book Left
Out!, just published by Common Courage Press)
Yaaaawn.
It is November 3, the day after George W. Bush won his reelection campaign.
No, I am not exhausted because I stayed up into the wee hours of the
morning glaring into a fuzzy TV set watching the polls roll in. I am
just bored. John Kerry phoned George Bush earlier today to concede the
race and gave his lifeless concession speech later in the afternoon.
The Democratic elite
are not going to wage a fight over the Ohio electorate, where the vote
split is greater than 136,000, even though some 150,000 absentee ballots
have yet to be counted and voting fraud is fast making its way into
the headlines. But if the tables were turned, you can bet the Republicans
would have flown James Baker out to Ohio to begin the recount and wring
the necks of some Democratic operatives. The Democrats aren't much for
fighting, as we well know, so no alarms have been sounded.
Anyway, Bush not
only kicked Kerry's butt in Ohio. He also slapped him around in Florida,
where the vote margin for Bush exceeded 376,000 votes. Luckily, the
spread was such that Ralph Nader's measly 32,000 votes in the Sunshine
State could not be blamed for Kerry's brow beating. The Democrats proved
unequivocally that they can lose all on their own.
Given that Nader's
presence in 2004 hardly aided Bush's victory at all, it looks like all
the time and millions of dollars spent by Democrats and their liberal
cohorts to keep Ralph off the ballot were all for naught. Not to mention
an awful strategy. In fact, some of the sultry attacks on Nader came
from the same group of funders who drove Howard Dean out of the primary
race.
Many of these DC
opportunists came together to form Naderfactor.org, which begged Nader
not to run, and then attempted to smear his character once he defied
their plea by announcing his candidacy to Tim Russert on Meet the Press.
It should be noted that the president of the Naderfactor was Tricia
Enright, the Dean campaign's former communications director, who transitioned
herself with ease from the Dean camp to the dark Kerry quarters. No
qualms were raised. What a waste.
Enright wasn't the
only Democrat working to silence Nader. In fact, a fair number of the
Kerrycrats were behind the "dirty tricks" to keep Nader off
the ballot in swing states this year.
Writing for LeftHook.org
in early October, Toby Shepard had this to say about the shenanigans:
"Take Oregon.
After Nader volunteers collected more than the required 15,306 signatures
(a total of 18,186) needed to appear on the state's ballot, Secretary
of State Bill Bradbury invented reasons to disqualify his constituents.
If signatures appeared illegible, (despite printed names appearing directly
below 'illegible' signatures) Bradbury disqualified them. In one instance,
a volunteer had begun to write a '7' to mark the day of the month, realized
the error, crossed it out and wrote '8.' Bradbury discarded the entire
sheet. Bradbury even threw out 2,354 signatures (which had already been
verified by individual counties) because they were submitted without
page numbers. All in all, Bradbury left Nader 218 signatures short of
being on the state ballot. Three cheers for democracy.
"In Pennsylvania,
a law firm by the name of Reed Smith successfully barred Nader from
appearing on the state's ballot. According to the Washington Post, the
firm (whose PAC gives primarily to the RNC) counsels 29 of the top 30
US Banks, 26 of the Fortune 50 companies, 9 of the top 10 pharmaceutical
companies and 50 of the world's largest leading drug and medical device
manufactures. The New York Times quoted one lawyer as saying '8 to 10
lawyers in [the] firm were working pro bono on the case, 80 hours each
a week for two weeks.'
"In Arizona,
large Democratic donors employed the services of three corporate law
firms to file frivolous challenges to Nader's ample number of signatures.
1,349 signatures were thrown out because the volunteer who had collected
them failed to provide the correct name of the county, despite filling
out the rest of their address accurately.
"In Ohio, the
law firm of Kirkland and Ellis (of which Kenneth Starr is a partner),
whose former clients include Dow Corning (breast implant litigation),
Brown and Williamson Tobacco (anti-smoking cases brought by state attorney
generals), and General Motors (product defect cases against victims
of injuries), has provided two full-time lawyers to keep Nader-Camejo
off the ballot."
This is what democracy
looks like. The Democrats should have used their money and energy to
register voters in Florida and Ohio instead. Or better yet, allocated
those funds to make the case for voting pro-Democrat as opposed to anti-Republican.
Then again, there were not many exciting things to say about Senator
Kerry, aside from a few snide jokes regarding his botoxed cheeks and
perfectly groomed mane.
No doubt we should
have seen the writing on the wall back in July when the Democratic National
Convention proved to be nothing more than a glorified war parade, with
Kerry floating by reprehensibly announcing he was "reporting for
duty."
Since Kerry's ambiguous
proclamation in Boston last summer he has trounced around the country
defending his call for the continued US occupation of Iraq. In Florida
during the first presidential debate, Kerry even boasted of his numerous
veteran military backers, "I am proud that important military figures
are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son,
General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crowe;
General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his
father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander-in-chief."
With Kerry singing
such a militaristic tune, it should come as no surprise that The New
York Times' former conservative columnist William Safire dubbed Kerry
the "newest neo-conservative" who is even "more hawkish
than President Bush," on October 4, 2004.
Safire, no doubt,
was right on the mark. When Kerry sought to show voters that he would
have been tough on terror, for instance, he did so by defending Bush's
pre-emptive policy. "The president always has the right, and always
has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine
throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued
about with respect to arms control."
So much for distancing
himself from the Bush agenda. No wonder the Democrats were more energized
against Nader than for Kerry. If anything, Kerry was simply saying he
could do the whole thing better, and in fact did say as much. "[I]
will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are," Kerry
belted out in the first presidential debate. "I can do better."
Kerry also said he would accomplish his goal by not backing off "of
Fallujah and other places," which, he proclaimed, "[sends]
the wrong message to terrorists."
So much for options
in 2004. Progressive voters were told that they had to vote for a pro-war
candidate. There was no choice. Period. We were all left out, and that
makes me wonder: What ever happened to the anti-war movement anyway?
You'd think they would have raised some hell over Kerry's hawkish pose
on Iraq. Maybe these seasoned activists have been on a nice vacation,
or out campaigning for Kerry since his nomination. Talk about hypocrites.
We'll see what kind of credibility they'll have now that they are getting
back to work.
Predictably, Election
Day was by and large a miserable venture for the Democrats - and not
just in the presidential race. Along with Kerry, who plotted his own
demise, South Dakota's veteran Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, went
down in flames to his handsome younger challenger, John Thune. The Republicans,
with the help of Tom Delay's redistricting in Texas, also extended their
12-year reign of control in the House of Representatives.
The Dems did manage
to pull out a few wins, however, including the great triumph of Cynthia
McKinney in Georgia and Barack Obama's landslide victory in the Illinois
Senate race against right-wing radio personality Alan Keyes. Young Obama
is often referred to as the new hope to transform the Democratic Party
into a progressive powerhouse.
His speech at the
Democratic National Convention was said by some to have outshined that
of Howard Dean and even Bill Clinton. But like Dean, Obama should not
be mistaken for a progressive. Just one day after he stole the spotlight
at the convention, Obama told reporters, "On Iraq, on paper, there's
not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and
a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago." He
added, "There's not that much difference between my position and
George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is
who's in a position to execute."
Writing for CounterPunch,
Eric Ruder said of Obama: "[He] is a gifted politician. Like Bill
Clinton, he knows how to encourage people of opposite political beliefs
to see what they want to see in his speeches and policy prescriptions
... Obama finds a way to talk left -- but makes it clear that he will
never pose a threat to corporate interests or make a policy proposal
that would carry a hefty price tag. In Illinois, where it's obvious
that the death penalty system is too flawed to fix, Obama is celebrated
by liberals as a crusader for death penalty reform -- but he continues
to support capital punishment for 'punishing the most heinous crimes.'"
Ruder adds, "Obama
calls for tax breaks for American workers and government measures to
create jobs. But he's a supporter of Corporate America's 'free trade'
agenda ... Obama claims to be a defender of the public school system
who will campaign to put more teachers in classrooms. But he also trumpets
charter schools -- with their record of union-busting and siphoning
funds from public schools."
Much like Howard
Dean did for a fleeting period, Obama's victory has given many progressive
Democrats reason to believe that change may be on the way for their
party. Change is certainly on its way, but how fruitful it will be remains
to be seen. To be sure, you can expect a fight within the Democratic
chambers in the months and years ahead, as Joe Trippi warned on Now
with Bill Moyers. Trippi, who told Moyers the Dean movement isn't dead
yet, suggested, "I think what's gonna happen is the first initial
response is gonna be to reform the Democratic Party from within."
In fact, Dean's
progressive funds helped elect Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer
(who ran with a Republican as his Lieutenant Governor) in the state
of Montana, which is a conservative bastion. Dean's organization, Democracy
for America (DFA), which he formed after dropping out of the primaries,
helped elect a total of 31 democratic candidates in 2004, 15 of which
will be first-time office holders.
However, the looming
fight within the Democratic Party may be a wasted effort. For it will
be waged not by true progressives like Dennis Kucinich, but by purported
progressives like Obama and Dean. We know what happened to Dean as well
as Kucinich in the primaries, and you can rest assured that any fight
for policy "change," even if waged by centrists, will again
be muted much like Dean was this election season. The Democratic establishment
will surely look at Kerry's loss and pump up their rhetorical machine
to call for the Democrats' continued attempt to outflank the Republicans
to the right -- even though this strategy has been a losing one for
years.
As Al Sharpton told
Playboy during the Democratic primary race, "This whole centrist
move, which I consider a Right move, hasn't worked politically. Centrists
keep saying we can't win without going to the center. Well, they have
been in charge of the party since 1992. It's 11 years later, and we
have lost everything. We lost the House in 1994 with Gingrich, and we
failed to regain it in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. How do you lose five
Super Bowls and not say there is something wrong with this coach and
this game plan? Aside from the fact that I don't believe in what they
are saying -- pro-death penalty, pro-business deregulation, pro-NAFTA
-- politically it hasn't even worked. They act as though they are outsiders
shooting at the inside. They are the insiders. They have control of
the party, and they have failed. They have put this party on its deathbed."
While the losses
may seem to be coming to a head just now, the Democrats have been lying
in their current state for quite some time.
Consider, for instance,
Jesse Jackson's populist Rainbow Coalition, which took on the Beltway
establishment in the 1980s. Once Clinton took the helm in 1992, the
group had little to show for their arduous efforts. "By a brisk
accounting of 1993 to 2000, the black stripe of the Rainbow got the
Crime Bill, women got 'welfare reform,' labor got NAFTA, gays and lesbians
got the Defense of Marriage Act. Even with a Democratic Congress in
the early years, the peace crowd got no cuts in the military; unions
got no help on the right to organize; advocates of DC statehood got
nothing (though statehood would virtually guarantee two more Democratic
Senate seats and more representation in the House); the single-payer
crowd got worse than nothing." As Jo Ann Wypijewski writes in Dime's
Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, "Between Clinton's
inauguration and the day he left office, 700,000 more persons were incarcerated,
mostly minorities; today, one in eight black men is barred from voting
because of prison, probation, or parole."
In short, as on
so many other issues, the Democratic Party disarms its progressive wing
in order to enable a rightward move. It should be clear to any would-be-challenger
that the Democratic Party is not open to the politics supported by its
base -- minorities, the poor, and unions.
This democratic
shortcoming, along with Kerry's failure to inspire the American electorate,
explains why the Democrats faltered in 2004, despite a seemingly massive
grassroots undertaking to oust Bush. With November 2 as evidence, it
is safe to say that hatred for an incumbent is not enough to
elect a challenger. Bush was and is hated, no doubt. But many who supported
John Kerry were uninspired by his campaign. For he failed to distinguish
himself from his Republican opponent on a range of issues -- from war
to the economy, from trade to civil liberties. It was textbook"lesser-evilism,"
and as was the case in so many elections before, it was a losing strategy.
Democrats must learn to offer alternatives if they ever want to win.
But don't count on them for that.
Kerry's campaign
was also consistently in a tailspin. Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander
Cockburn summed it up nicely after Kerry's concession:
"Week after
week Kerry and his boosters displayed an unmatched deafness to political
tone. The haughty elitist from Boston probably lost most of the Midwest
forever when he said in the high summer that foreign leaders hoped he
would win. The applause of the French in Cannes for Michael Moore's
9/11 was the sound of the cement drying over the corpse of Kerry's chances
of carrying the Midwest. Soros's dollars were like flowers on the grave
...
"If there was
a visual premonition of why George Bush would achieve a popular majority
beyond challenge, it was probably the photographs of gay couples celebrating
their marriages outside San Francisco's city hall. America is a very
Christian country ... October surprises? No candidate was more burdened
by them than George Bush. Just in the last couple of weeks, headlines
brought tidings of US marines killed in Baghdad and other US troops
rising up in mutiny against lack of equipment to protect their lives.
The president's brother Neil was exposed as influence-peddling on the
basis of his family connections. The economic numbers remained grim
as they have been all year. And this was just the icing on the cake.
You can troll back over the past fifteen months and find scarcely a
headline or news story bringing good tidings for Bush. History is replete
with revolutions caused by a rise in the price of bread. This year the
price of America's primal fluid -- oil -- on which every household depends,
tripled.
"But Kerry
and the Democrats were never able to capitalize on any of these headlines,
a failure which started when Democrats in Congress, Kerry included,
gave the green light to the war on Iraq, and which continued when Kerry
conclusively threw away the war and WMD issues in August. When he tried
to do a chord change at NYU on September 20, it was too late, and even
then his position remained incoherent. He offered no way out. More tunnel,
no light."
When all the hype
about the "youth vote," "e-activism," "buses
to Ohio," and "house DVD parties" withered away so tragically
and so pathetically on Election Day 2004 -- and with devout Kerry-Edwards
supporters battling denial -- the only leftist forces remaining were
the Anti-Anybody-But-Bush crew. Not surprisingly, the anti-ABBers were
feeling vindicated.
Joshua Frank
is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush,
published by Common Courage Press. Visit www.brickburner.org
to order your copy today! Frank can be reached at [email protected]