If you haven’t been paying attention, I’m very happy about this. I’m also somewhat surprised and relieved that John Kerry conceded. Even given the numbers, Kerry could have done his best to turn this into another 2000 election; things could have become really ugly. I have to give credit to Kerry for not dragging this election out.

So, what are your thoughts on the election?

Edit: Almost forgot to thank British newspaper The Guardian; their letter writing campaign, intended to sway voters in Clark County to vote for Kerry, no doubt played at least some small part in swinging the state to Bush. Thanks guys!

In the meantime, Osama bin Laden has resurfaced just days before the election. In his most recent video tape appearance, bin Laden borrows a lot of his talking points from John Kerry and the DNC.

This one covered domestic issues (though the war was brought up a fair amount). Overall, this one was a big win for Bush: domestic issues were supposed to be Kerry’s strength, but he just didn’t come off well at all. And of course, bringing up Cheney’s daughter wasn’t exactly tasteful. Not nearly as bad as Edwards, but still: can’t he just leave Cheney’s daughter out of it?

I really don’t have a whole lot to say about this final debate. Bush finished strong, and Kerry just didn’t do nearly as well as he needed to. I still disagree with Kerry on a lot of issues, and just can’t imagine him as president. He certainly didn’t sway me, but then again, I don’t think too many people were swayed by these debates, either way.

I think that, in the end, you could call it a win for Bush. Both candidates came off really well, but the simple fact that Bush did so much better than the last debate make’s his appearance all the more stronger. Not to mention that, despite Kerry’s considerable showing, I still just can’t understand where he’s coming from with some of this stuff.

Kerry spoke about a fairly large number of things he wants to do (health care, education, etc.). He also brought up taxes a lot (as questions permitted, at least), and talked about how he wouldn’t be raising taxes on the middle class and the poor. As the president said, it doesn’t work that way. You can’t just tax one tax bracket. And even if he was able to just tax the wealthiest 1% of Americans, is that really going to pay for all the things he’s talking about? I can’t imagine it would.

Not to mention the small-businesses issue Bush brought up: Kerry’s tax plan would almost certainly cause a sizable loss of jobs from small business owners. Draginol, aka Brad Wardell, owner of Stardock (a small business which makes some of the best Windows customization software ever, among many other great things), has written a number of articles about how small businesses work and how Kerry’s proposed tax cuts could really hurt them. I recommend checking at least one of them out if you’re interested.

Anyways, I can’t say if this will seriously help Bush. It couldn’t hurt him, though. Unless you work for ABC, of course.

I’ll admit that I’m not a big fan of John Kerry. Prior to last night, that was based on the fact that he had, thus far, presented himself as a pompous, flagrant opportunist. He’d say anything he felt would get the cheer, taking no sides and all side of any given topic at the same time. This too, I believe, is one of the big reasons that so many people aren’t so much “for Kerry” as they are “against Bush.” How can you be “for” someone like Kerry when you don’t even know what he stands for?

Well, last nights debate (boring sham that it was) revealed a goodly amount about Kerry, and I can’t say I’m terribly excited about it. Here are some of the more interesting things I caught from it (in no particular order):

• Bilateral talks with North Korea: Kerry’s all for them. He doesn’t seem to realize that we’ve already been down this road, and North Korea didn’t think twice about shafting us while we sat around, twiddling our thumbs. As Bush said, “I can’t tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea.”
• Nuclear Proliferation: Kerry’s definitely against nuclear proliferation, and I have to agree with him on that. I don’t think anybody except, say, North Korea wants North Korea to get nukes. But his big plan for Iran? Let’s give them the nuclear fuel they need. Does he even realize what he’s saying here? He want’s to stop nuclear proliferation, in part by practically giving Iran nukes?
• Gaining Allies: This one I don’t even understand. Kerry keeps talking about how he’ll bring new allies to the table. What allies? Thirty nations are already working with us in Iraq. France and Germany (the only nations I can think of that he could possibly be talking about) have already made press releases stating that they won’t be helping, regardless of a Kerry win in November.
• World Leader: Speaking of gaining allies, how can Kerry talk about allies while at the same time bad mouthing them? His campaign called Allawi a puppet, he keeps referring to the nations currently helping us in Iraq as “the coerced and the bribed,” he says “help is on the way” to our troops while touting “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” and voting against the proposed 87 billion dollar supplemental for equipment and supplies in Iraq. What the hell?
• Global Test: Kerry’s taking a lot of crap for this one, and it’s well deserved. Kerry talks about “passing the global test” prior to doing something like using American troops to defend America. As Bush replied (in not nearly so many words): what the hell does that mean? What’s this “global test?” Despite what he says prior to it, it sounds like Kerry wants to be popular all over the world and wouldn’t make a move without the approval of other nations (thus subordinating our defense to other nations whims). That’s a scary thought.

Prior to last nights debate, I wasn’t a big fan of Kerry. Today, the prospect of this man in the White House is somewhat disturbing. Could he do a good job? Maybe, but I don’t think so. He continues to dance around the issues, continues to pander to international “allies,” continues to be unimpressive in every respect.

He’s even big in France, but I won’t hold that against him.

Update: Another thing I forgot to mention–Kerry (much like the UN) keeps calling to “internationalize” Iraq and bring “legitimacy” to it. But he’s all for going it alone in North Korea? Why don’t we need any “internationalization” or “legitimacy” there?

Meanwhile, CBS is pulling another “phony memo” with a report citing bogus e-mails claiming that Bush and company will be instituting a draft. They even take time to mention two bills in Congress supporting the draft, but fail to mention that both were proposed by Democrats (i.e. not Bush and Co.).

Do they have any credibility left?

According to this article an independent election observer team has been dispatched to the US by the UN. Apparently, they’re hear to check up on us and make sure everything goes ok this November by monitoring election preparations in five states.

The article raises a few questions: why, exactly, is the UN observing our election’s this year? They’re certainly welcome to, and I have nothing against constructive criticism. One can’t help but wonder at possible ulterior motives, though. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but come on, it’s the UN. The headline touts the inspection team as impartial, but that’s pretty unlikely (as CBS has proven, no one’s impartial these days). And as we learned prior to the Iraq invasion, a lot of countries in the UN don’t particularly care much for America these days. Or, at the very least, a Bush-lead America.

I’m really hoping the team is impartial, does quietly observe, and (should the need arise) politely offers some constructive criticism should things be found wanting in one of the five monitored states.

I can’t get rid of the sneaking suspicion, though, that anything but a Kerry win is going to create a lot bitching in the UN and a lot of claims about the elections being completely unfair from these observers. The article doesn’t state it flat-out, but it sounds like the observers think that the popular vote is how the election is decided (it’s not, if you’re wondering). If that’s the case, and Kerry gets the popular vote but loses the election, a shit storm of whining could be coming our way. A Bush victory on both fronts would almost certainly lead to the same thing, if not more whining accompanied with claims that the people of the US were mislead or confused in some way (because you know, we just can’t be trusted to do things for ourselves).

Of course, should Kerry win both, or should Bush get the popular vote and Kerry take the win anyways, we’ll get a passing bill of health and all will be well. I’m really hoping that’s not what this is about, but something tells me that’s how it’ll end up,

The good news, of course, is that the UN has proven, time and time again, that it has no power. From the closing days of World War II to today, the UN has proven itself woefully ill equipped to handle international disputes, and this won’t be any different. Hell, it’s not even an international dispute (you could argue it, but I won’t go into that here). Regardless of how the elections go, we can all sleep soundly, knowing that the UN is now, and will remain for the foreseeable future, completely and utterly useless.