For the first time in my life, I have moved past the contemplative excersize of moaning and commenting on Americas political process and cast my vote to indicate my feelings in a Federal election.

My vote for president in this election was not so much a vote FOR a candidate but rather a vote AGAINST... just in the mode of giving it to another candidate. So often in this election I have heard the phrase "lesser of two evils" in choosing a vote, even driving a few of those I know to not vote this year just to avoid having to make that choice. I bet one would be surprised just how many votes Mickey Mouse DID get in this year's election. All Mickey cares about is hitting the club with Goofy and Donald and banging Minnie on the side. Unfortunately, I dont think either Bush or Kerry is any more fit to determine US foreign and domestic policy.

Kerry cant make up his mind and has more positions than the Kama Sutra. Of those positions which he does state consistently, he espouses that he would work with the UN on the iraq issue... which Bush tried before taking action. The UN had 17 resolutions between 1991 and 2003 charging specific changes Saddam was to make backed by a threat of force... none of which were enforced. Kerry has stated that he would like to provide an egregriously expensive government-controlled healthcare system in the name of affordable healthcare. Socialism anyone? France? As I cant rely on his stated platform, I had to examine his senate record for a better indication of his intentions as President. On such a basis Kerry would appear to be worse than Clinton... yeah the female one too... Kerry has consistently been absent from senate votes, has missed 76% of select intellegence hearings, has voted more than 100 times to raise taxes, voted consistently to expand gun control legislation, and has voted 8 times to slash intellegence budgets. If John Kerry is elected, I personally feel that the United States will lose creditability on the world stage with him at the helm as he is unable to provide a consistent values platform in talks with other leaders. I personally feel that the return of the ineffectual yet restrictive Assault Weapons Ban will return. I personally feel that Kerry would hurt the level of government healtcare in America by imitating British, French, and Canadian public healthcare failures.

On the same token, Bush has certainly been no picnic for America. He has been almost entirely ambivalent on domestic issues, has fostered the emergence of largely existing anti-american sentiment world-wide, has managed to lose the united culture of american politics that surrounded his swearing-in, has been singularly unable to provide a successful exit strategy from the Iraqi conflict, and has placed america in a fiscally challenging position in terms of national debt, currency devaluation, and inflation.

This election really has been Evil vs the Lesser Evil. Bush may be a dumbass but he is a consistent dumbass who, if anything, will simply ignore domestic policy. You dont know what Kerry will do and Kerry has the real potential to mess up healthcare, national security, and public healthcare. I am not voting FOR Bush. I am voting AGAINST Kerry.

As usual, per my seeming obsession with election-year politics AND news, I took several hours out this evening to closely follow the election progression on three different major television networks and was surprised by the variation in coverage on all three. Each of them entertained different thresholds as to whether a state's electoral votes should be considered "decided." All night long, the three networks would have different Electoral Vote counts for the candidates, some networks granting states and then taking them back when more votes came in and they realized that they may be too close to call. Even now, when most states are projected to one cadidate or another, the electoral playing field has shaped Ohio into the key state to determine the President of the United States for the next several years on two networks while a third has acknowledged that the race in Ohio is close but has given a win to Bush based on statistical analysis and probability.

As for the Democrats, already patterns from the 2000 election have begun to emerge... however under more intellegent guise. Kerry sent out Edwards this evening not to concede to Bush as the numbers would indicate according to some models, but to make a clear statement that they do not feel they will have election resolution tonight and "are committed to making every vote count". This, of course, is diplo-speak for "we cant admit defeat and this is the opening pawn move in a chess game of lawsuits we are about to begin." Statistically speaking, there is not yet cause for a challenge to any election at present, save only New Hampshire, which Kerry won. Any challenge at this point should be brought forward by the republican party on the basis of the close contest in that state.

I fear for a painful progression of electoral hi-jinks which will involve numerous challenges to the new provisional balleting rules, the status of said ballots, eligibility requirements, and so forth. This time, the lawyers will have 2000 precedents, and will have learned from earlier electoral experience with the judicial system, allowing a more focused and difficult set of expedited legal challenges.

Learn to say its enough. Analyze the numbers, determine if you REALLY realistically can actually overturn the results of target states, and challenge only if you have no other choice.