With "Anybody But Bush" now presumably having a name and a political history in John Kerry we face the prospect of voting for the sort of "Lesser of two Bushes" situation which originally inspired the Nader/Green treachery in 2000. That whole dark chapter in American democracy is of course the direct cause of both the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, and underscores the importance of electing "Anybody But Bush Whose Name Is Senator John Kerry." Anybody with doubts should understand that with both the Neocons and the Naderites united against him, Kerry felt he had no choice but to vote for not only the Patriot Act and the Iraq Invasion, but Bush's "education" plan and pretty much everything else he strongly disagrees with.

But not everyone will be satisfied that the most important thing now is for the left to unite to put the liberal wing of Skull and Bones in the White House.

One of them, big surprise, is America's most leftist Bush supporter himself, Ralph Nader, who says he's running for President again. I certainly am not going to vote for him this time, simply out of concern for his personal safety.

I'm thinking that it might be wisest to simply skip the President box altogether and let the Diebold voting machine fill in the numbers for me. That way my vote for Nader won't be the cause of the second Bush administration and I won't be responsible for Kerry debasing himself further by voting for everything Bush wants.

I've also been considering a write in campaign for Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. According to international law scholars, who don't recognize the legality of coups (unlike the ones advising Bush and Kerry), Aristide is still the legal President of Haiti. Since the current US President drove him out of office, putting Aristide in the White House has a certain uncomfortable harmony that I like. And why shouldn't I vote for "uncomfortable harmony?" Likeability is out as a make or break issue.

Another idea would be to just cut to the chase and write in "Dick Cheney." Of course, soon the chants will go up. "A vote for Aristide is a vote for Bush!" or "A vote for nobody is a vote for Bush, " or my favorite, "A vote for anybody but Bush except John Kerry is a vote for Bush." and of course the perhaps overlong and redundant "a vote for anybody but Bush who is not John Kerry and especially is Ralph Nader is a vote for Bush." Which illustrates why Bush is such a formidable candidate. He gets a lot of votes not intended for him, even before the Diebold voting machines have done their magic.

If a vote for anybody but Kerry who is not Bush is in reality a vote for Bush, then that means that the best strategy might be to write in "Pat Buchanan," and hope that Bush loses anyway. Maybe then the Right Wing would embark on the sort of witch hunt the Democrats have been pursuing these last four years.

This at least relates to the competency question as an important distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Clearly, as the Iraq quagmire shows, the Bush administration and Ralph Nader are ignorant of the latest "overwhelm and subdue" tactics. The Democrats on the other hand, as their stunningly successful scorched earth campaign against their own left wing demonstrates, are in fine form, when they want to be.

And they are going to have to be to win. Electability isn't really an issue, or at least wasn't until "Anybody But Bush" got a face and a name. Immediately Bush's prospects improved from where they had been when he was opposing the hypothetical "unnamed Democrat"--the true electoral powerhouse of this election. Howard Dean was doing great until he wasn't hypothetical anymore.

But nevertheless, it doesn't seem like Kerry can lose. He was chosen solely on the basis of his very electability after all. He really just needs to follow through on that one thing and he's got a free hand for four years. Bush certainly isn't any more popular than he was four years ago, and the Naderites have mostly been properly reeducated. As long as the Diebold voting machines uphold the deep core of integrity which holds our American Democracy together, there should be no problem with Kerry getting enough votes. Why worry?

It's getting those votes past the Supreme Court that is gong to be a problem. If he's smart, Kerry will pick seasoned trial lawyer John Edwards as his running mate or probably even better, that tenacious pit bull Ralph Nader. That Kerry will want to arrange a hunting trip with Justice Scalia goes without saying.

For those of us who are guaranteed to lose this election no matter what, an entertaining diversion might be to start up friendly betting pools based on how many days and hours before the election Tom Ridge raises the Homeland Security Threat level. And whether he will make it simply Orange or jump immediately into full on Red (for a clue, watch Bush's poll numbers).

Since the Presidential elections are almost sure to inspire terrorist "chatter" even if it's only laughing out loud, there will probably be valid reason to raise the alarm, if just to remind voters that Bush, and not "anybody but," is the authentic Wartime President.

Red alert might make it somewhat difficult to reach certain polling places through the National Guard lines and Homeland Security check points, especially in largely Democratic districts, where most terrorist sleeper agents are presumably registered to vote. A word to the wise, vote early by hand delivered absentee ballot and hire a couple of armed Dyncorp security contractors to accompany you to the elections office.