I was watching a little bit of Democracy Now! a while ago (as is consistent with my passing interest in abnormal psychology) and this craphound named Mark Crispin Miller comes on and tells Amy Goodman that John Kerry has told him that he now believes that the 2004 Election was stolen but can't come forward because of the sour grapes problem. (Naturally, Kerry confided all this to a pseudo-intellectual paranoiac whose powers of discernment are, shall we say, indiscriminate?)
It's been a year now, so I guess this is the traumatized Left's perverse anniversary celebration of some sort of alternate history.
Some other guy piped up during Miller's explanation of his grand unifying theory and said that Kerry lost because he had run such a poor campaign, but Miller was more interested in the theft angle and dismissed the idea. Or did he also advocate it, but couldn't keep his story straight?
I think George W. Bush won the election of 2004 because people trusted him to destroy our enemies ---and didn't trust Kerry to do it. The election was a referendum on Bush and his War for Iraq. He won it.
Today? He would not.
Why? Because he thinks too much of the old dictum of power: never complain, never explain.
The President needs to complain ---or, at least, get a little salty with these Leftist cowards and tell them how the cow ate the cabbage.
Hire it done, if you have to, sir, but do it. The wrong people are getting the upper hand and you're letting it happen.