Libertarian Endorses Bush


PDA






riverdog
October 27, 2004, 12:05 PM
Libertarian Pioneer Endorses Bush (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41116) Dr. John Hospers a "Former presidential candidate says too much at stake not to support 'W' " "I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year – more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party – I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans," he wrote in his letter.

"There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties – between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty."

Hospers goes on to decry John Kerry and his policies, saying the Democratic nominee is part of the "International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world."

The former candidate said if Kerry's party wins the presidency it could spell disaster for the nation:

"The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. … They will attempt to enact 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries."

Hospers continues his letter with more analysis of Kerry himself. ....

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarian Endorses Bush" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
riverdog
October 27, 2004, 12:13 PM
Concludes Hosper:

"Thus far, [leftists'] long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western Civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.

"When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a 'minor party' candidate who cannot possibly win, just to 'get the word out' and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning.

"The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical 'battleground' states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

"We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war."

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 12:44 PM
I was reading someplace that the authenticity of this statement is in question. I have no specifics, other than source documents were requested on freerepublic, and they never came.

Take my statement with a grain of salt, but try to find out the source of this if you can.

riverdog
October 27, 2004, 12:52 PM
WorldNetDaily's source (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181) I guess someone could challenge the bidinotto blog, but it seems to me that Dr. John Hospers would be crying foul if it was a hoax.

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 01:08 PM
here is what was said over at TCF. Looks like I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who..... well.... heresay is heresay:

Folks, before anyone gets too upset or disillusioned, I am hearing that there's a good bit of doubt as to the authenticity of the Hospers letter.

Copied from an LP discussion site:
It is becoming more apparent that the John Hospers's endorsement of "W" is a hoax.

1) Rather than being part of Free Republic's main web site, this letter was posted to their "Forum" by someone with the handle "Y2Krap".

2) Repeated follow-up requests to Y2Krap for source information have not been answered in the thread.

3) One thread poster swears that he has contacted John Hospers who has verified not only is it indeed genuine but that he (John Hospers) posted it himself.

4) The letter has not surfaced on any credible web site.

Now why John Hospers (a philosophy professor at USC and probably at least 70 years old) would be posting such a letter on a Forum that is dominated by young Republican ditto-heads is beyond me.

Also beyond me is why a distinguished gentleman like John Hospers would use the handle "Y2Krap", as well as the idea that he would post such an endorsement exclusively on an ultra-conservative web site.

Now, I haven't done any research myself into it, so if someone DOES find backup evidence, I'm sure we'll all want to know that. But it all sounds fishy to me.

And look at the kinds of tactics the Dems and Reps are eagerly stooping to in order to "win" - like calling a woman whose spouse is fighting in Iraq to express sympathy for his death, and when she replies that she knows he's alive and well, the caller comes back with "Well, vote for Kerry to keep him that way!"

Keep the faith, folks. If this is a hoax, the Republicans must really be scared of the LP this year.

riverdog
October 27, 2004, 01:47 PM
I find it very interesting that the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/) is ignoring the John Hospers letter issue. Not even a mention in passing on their website. Ignore it and it will go away?

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 02:09 PM
I find it interesting that worldnetdaily does not get any independent verification - they quote only the letter it’s self. Also, the blog you mentioned, the bidinotto blog, received the letter from a "mutual friend" and not from Hospers himself. I also note that this letter appears to have been posted several days before it appears on the bidinotto blog on yet another website dated 10-23-04 and there is no source, or explanation how it got there.
This letter is mentioned on Freerepublic, but that original post was on 10-25-04.

Where did the original come from? Who got it first?



original letter? (http://americanbacklash.com/)

riverdog
October 27, 2004, 02:33 PM
Good questions, but it would be very easy for the Dr. John Hospers or the LP to refute the letter and call it a hoax. They have not chosen to do so.

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 02:58 PM
But there is the crux. They have not denied it, and yet they have not confirmed either, and there is no real chain of evidence leading this to Hospers. I wonder why he would choose to release his endorsement, not to a newspaper, or through normal channels, but instead somehow slip it to someone at "Eddie's rants and raves" for distribution.

Of course, this could be my tinfoil hat talking. ;)

geekWithA.45
October 27, 2004, 04:08 PM
The Libertarians rebut here,

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/index.php?paged=3

and do not challenge the validity of the letter.


Summary:

Hospers point: As libertarians, our duty is to promote liberty, not necessarily the Libertarian party, especially when doing so sabotages our goal.

Spangler's point: Voting for a DNC/GOP candidate sells out your birthright, the only long term way to achieve Liberty is via the party, even if Bush wins, we continue the incrementalism towards loss of Liberty.

My Editorial Opinion:

Advantage: Hosper, who makes a clear point responsive to reality.


Spangler doesn't deal with the reality that Badnarick will not win, or propose a realist plan to deal with the aftermath, offering instead the heady theoretical pablum and moonbattery that inspired me to resign the big L party.

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 04:32 PM
Just found this on badnarik.org - I cant draw any conclusion - just putting this out there:



REPORT on DISCUSSIONs with Dr. Hospers.

I spoke with John from 9pm to 4:30 a.m. the night Oct. 25th-26th, 2004. He was on the phone speaking to a Libertarian from East Coast as I knocked on his Hollywood Hills Door. Only a young nephew is now living with John Hospers.

He can’t answer all the emails and phone calls. But he said tells all who inquire, that he did indeed author the letter. But he told me: Bush is better than Kerry, because Islamic [murdering] extremists are the greatest threat to Liberty. Hospers was bsolutely “fixated” on “Islamic extremists intent on killing
every non-Islamic person in the world".
This “threat trumps all other concerns".
I attempted to reason with Dr. Hospers from several angles of logic, but logic
seemed not to work. “Only Bush perceives
the great danger” was his reply.

After more than 8 hours of two way discussion, I concluded, that Dr. Hospers, has been isolated too long! He was unaware that David Cobb and Michael Badnarik had been arrested, unaware of several of the Patriot Act provisions, and numberous other factoids that most Libertarians knew for fact. He was not sure that Badnarik had been arrested at St. Louis, but was for the sake of arguement willing to take my word for it, without conceding it as a fact, known to be true.

My Conclusion:

Dr. John Hospers, is not in the same mental level of sharpness, he was even 3 years ago when I did a Tv interview for a documentary on the Libertarian Party with him at the 2001 San Jose Ca. State Convention. Randy Debber is more the author of the “Hospers” “Open Letter", than Dr. John Hospers, even though John
is quick to claim “credit” for it, while acknowledging “it probably won’t change many minds, least of all Libertarians".
Lastly, Dr. Hospers is now of somewhat fragil physical condition. He is certainly in a state of decline, but still wanting to not be forgotten… to have some impact … to save us all from
murdering Islamic extremists. Many elderly become obsessed with “security” as they become less able to care for themselves.

Therefore, even though a very aged Dr. Hospers accepts credit for the “Open Letter", I conclude Randy Debber used his knowledge of Dr. Hospers current condition and proclivities, and worries to put Dr. Hospers name on a document, that Debber coached out of Hospers. Dr. Hospers did indeed write his concerns in the letter, and will acknowledge that Dr. John Hospers considers Cheney the real brains, and Bush a bad debater and “not too bright", but still feels that “Kerry will not stop the Islamic Extremist intend on murder every non-islamic even in America".

He finally stated, that he did NOT think his “open Letter” would do much to bring Bush votes, but felt impelled to do it, when asked by a certain, Randy Debber. Finally, by way of long discussion, Prof Hospers let out that Debber had written the final draft, and Randy Debber had sent the email, because supposedly John is not computer savy [according also to what Mr. Debber emailed].

I indicated that since Kerry will sweep California, his letter will do no go whatsoEver since all CA electorial votes in the Electorial college will go to Kerry, even if Every BADNARIK supporter defected to Bush. Dr. Hospers agreed and acknowedged that, but stated he hoped it would reach Libertarians on “independant” voters in battleground states. Dr. john Hospers in the course of 8 hours stated, that the Libertarian Party was not even a blimp on the political radar screen as far as Presidential things go. then why bother to write a Open letter? John “hoped” it might do some good, while acknowledging, again, he probably did not change any votes.

For a man whose life was centered around rational thought, I felt I was talking only to a shadow of that mental giant. Logic, reason, were absent. The clich’es of logic and reason were there, but not the actual substance.

So I conclude, the Letter IS a FAKE, in that without Randy Debber, it would never have been. John Hospers has his own PC and is still capable of using it, and still answers some email, but DEBBER is the one who SENT the “open Letter".

Randy Debber, whom I have never met, and never heard of until I tracked down the Email author is in my view, the author of the John Hospers “OPEN LETTER”

John will stand there and tell you it is his, but I think what John Hospers wants most, is not to be forgotten, while he is still alive. He talks about Islamic Extremists, yes. But I think if he had met Mr. BADNARIK, and been invited to any discussion, Randy Debber would not have been able to get this aging elder philosopher to put his name on this letter. There is more to say, in detail, but this is my conclusion after more 8 hours of discussion.

What Randy Debbers motive was or is in this, I can only speculate, and that I won’t do.

William “B.J.” Wagener

geekWithA.45
October 27, 2004, 05:09 PM
When you don't like the message, impugn the messenger. :scrutiny:

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 05:15 PM
When you don't like the message, impugn the messenger.

Yup, thats what it looks like. Besides its human nature.

mattf7184
October 27, 2004, 06:15 PM
His letter seemed very well thought out for a crazy old man :rolleyes:

At least one Libertarian gets it...

cropcirclewalker
October 27, 2004, 06:16 PM
Trouble is......

getting Libertarians to agree on something is like trying to herd cats.

As much as I respect his memory, if Tom Jefferson himself was to tell me to vote for Bush, I would politely decline.

We have to be responsible for our own decisions. Hospers didn't say anything that I haven't heard before.

Felonious Monk
October 27, 2004, 06:27 PM
See sigline.

Well done, Dr. Hospers!
Crazy like a fox!
Stupid like...Dubya!

FM

publius
October 28, 2004, 08:24 PM
Thus far, [leftists'] long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide

When are the Republicans going to start stemming that tide?

Checking the most recent Economic Report of the President, I see the following:
1992:
1.3 trillion total federal budget, 298 billion defense
2000:
1.7 trillion total, 294 billion defense

That's 400 billion more in socialist boondoggles in 8 years of Clinton.

2001:
1.8 trillion total, 305 billion defense
2004 (projected, meaning it will be higher):
2.3 trillion total, 455 billion defense

That's 150 billion more for defense, 350 billion more for socialist boondoggles in 4 years. Given the historical rate at which they exceed spending projections, it's virtually certain that the 350 billion number will swell to over 400 billion, or twice the growth rate we saw under Clinton and gridlock.

How about total government spending as a percent of GDP? That's an important number as well. After all, it would be insane for me to spend as much as $50,000 on a security system for my house, but it would be similarly nutty for Bill Gates to spend that little.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject knows that government spending in the US has been around 15 to 20% of GDP since WWII.

In 1992, total federal spending was 22.1% of GDP. By 2000, it was down to 18.4%.

To quote Gomer Pyle, well gooooolleee! The GOP Congress didn't want that Clinton feller spending money, and they actually cut govt spending as a percent of what we've got to spend.

What have they done under W?

2001: 18.6%
2002: 19.4%
2003: 19.9%
2004: 20.2% (estimate, meaning it will be higher, if you'll recall the prescription drug boondoggle)

Any way you measure it, gridlock results in less government growth than one party rule. I have no reason to believe the Dems will take Congress, so I actually see some things getting better under Kerry.

For example, if Kerry decided that his authority as commander in chief of the military was superior to the civil authority (altering our very form of government), and he used it to toss a citizen in a military brig on secret evidence, to be charged or let out when John Kerry got good and ready to charge him or let him out, I think some of the Republicans might just decide that he had crossed a line, something they didn't seem to care much about when Bush did it.

If Kerry decided that a government takeover of a large part of our medical system was in order, some R's might just decide to block that idea. Not much protest when W enacted the largest expansion of socialized medicine in my lifetime.

If Kerry started going around saying that massively increasing federal spending and involvement in government schools was the cure to educational ills, there might just be a protest from the Republican congress. What have we seen under one party rule? Well, checking back in the Economic Report of the President again, here's an interesting item:

Education, training, employment, and social services. You might have already known that these things are federal responsibilities, since it says right in Article 1, Section 8 that, uh, everything affects interstate commerce so the feds have authority over everything. Anyway, back in 2000, we spent $53.7 billion on those things. This was drastically insufficient, so in 2003, we spent $82.6 billion. It's projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

At what point is enough enough?

publius
October 28, 2004, 08:52 PM
A shaky foundation for freedom...


http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/docs/iraq/30804interimconst.html

Article 7.

A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period.
.....
This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

(B) Iraq is a country of many nationalities, and the Arab people in Iraq are an inseparable part of the Arab nation.
.....

Yo yo yo, in da Arab street. What is that doing in there, anyway?

And speaking of things that don't necessarily belong in a Constutition:

Article 14.

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

That's not going to be a source of mischief.

Article 17.

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

Well, it's better punctuated than our Second, but otherwise I don't think it's quite as good.

Here's a quick quiz: which part of this did NOT make it into Article 1, Section 8 of our own Constitution?

(D) Regulating weights and measures and formulating a general policy on wages;

Here's a hint: it started with a W.

Harry Tuttle
October 28, 2004, 11:20 PM
Why This Libertarian Is Voting to Re-elect George W. Bush
By J. Neil Schulman









"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long



I've called myself a libertarian since January 10, 1971, when my mother, a diehard New York Sunday Times crossword-doer, said to me, "Hey your favorite author's picture is in the Times Magazine."



I rushed over and sure enough there was Robert A. Heinlein's picture illustrating an article entitled "The New Right Credo--Libertarianism" by Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto, Jr., and I said to myself, "So that's what the set-up in Heinlein's short story 'Coventry' is all about." I already agreed with the libertarian philosophy. I just needed a label for it.

Ten months later, in my first semester of college, I started a campus libertarian group. A few months later I began writing for libertarian publications. I've never stopped being a libertarian activist or writer over the subsequent 33 years.

I was one of the first to join the Libertarian Party in New York when it was organized in 1973, and I was one of the first to quit the Libertarian Party and oppose all participation in politics in 1974. I was a non-voter from 1975 to 1990, registering to vote in 1991 after years of political abstinence on the proposition that if voting was participating in State violence, and I could carry a gun to use in violent self-defense if necessary, then I could cast a ballot in self-defense if necessary.

From 1990 forwards I've registered either Libertarian or Republican, depending on whether there was anyone in Republican primaries I needed to vote for (or against), and I've cast my votes either for Libertarian or Republican candidates, except in the 1992 presidential election in which I voted for Ross Perot.

In the 2004 presidential election I will not be voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik. I will be voting to re-elect the Republican Party candidate, President George W. Bush.



I regard both Michael Badnarik and George W. Bush as decent men. I had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Badnarik on Cybercity Radio, August 28, 2004, and you can listen to that interview here: http://cybercityradio.com/cc082804.wma

The Badnarik interview is in Hour Two of that show.

Nevertheless, there are two reasons I will be casting my ballot for George W. Bush and not for Michael Badnarik. The first reason is simple reality: Michael Badnarik's prospect for being elected president is effectively zero. The second reason is that George W. Bush is qualified to exercise the executive authority of the presidency and Michael Badnarik isn't.

I realize that most libertarians vote for president not with the intent of electing a man suitable to execute that authority, but as an act of symbolic protest against a government we have considered malevolent and intrusive into our private lives.

When I believed in symbolic protests I refrained from voting entirely, investing my energy in efforts such as the 1976 Vote for Nobody campaign. If publicity was the goal, CounterCampaign '76 was far more cost-efficient in spreading libertarian philosophy than the Libertarian Party. For less than $300 invested we achieved national exposure for our print and radio ads, as opposed to the tens of thousands of dollars the Libertarian Party spent for equivalent exposure that year.



When I became a voter I gave up casting my ballot symbolically in any race in which I believed my ballot stood any chance whatsoever in effecting a preferable outcome. Purists have told me for years that "the lesser of two evils is still evil." I have learned to counter that argument with one taught to me by libertarian author Brad Linaweaver: "the lesser of two evils is less evil."

Let me make a better argument than even Brad Linaweaver's clever response to this libertarian duckspeak.

Good and evil do not exist as Platonic ideals. The tendency of idealists to reject the good alternative, because it is not perfect, is destructive of the achievable good. To the extent that libertarians adopt the Platonic ideal of absolute recognition of all our individual rights, rejecting any good that does not meet this standard even if it's the best existing choice, libertarianism reduces itself to just one more of the many utopian cults that have appeared and disappeared throughout history.

I have many ideological and policy disagreements with George W. Bush. I find his "compassionate conservatism" far too compromising with the institutionalized socialism in our public policy. I vastly prefer the libertarian conservatism of Barry Goldwater or even the National Review conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

But while I find George W. Bush not libertarian enough in his domestic agenda, I find him a strong defender of American values of freedom against the most serious threat against our civilization since the Cold War: organized Islamic crusaders who are willing to engage in systematic attacks on innocent civilians and private property in a hegemonic attempt to prevent free markets from carrying futuristic cultures into their fanatically preservationist societies. The War on Terror is a real war. It's a war against those who wish to make their past our future. It's a war against those who, in a competition between our culture and theirs, have decided to use violence, terror, and brain-numbing propaganda to prevent people – particularly their own people -- from freely choosing our culture over their own.



George W. Bush has correctly concluded that this war can't be won by even the most draconian assaults on our personal liberties in an attempt to create an impregnable "Fortress America," and he has instead decided to remove the war from New York City and Washington DC back to the region that spawned and supports the Islamic crusaders. In the long run, the only way to win is to go on the offensive, because no static territorial defense is ever perfect or permanent.

The only serious opposition candidate to George W. Bush is not Michael Badnarik but John F. Kerry, a man whose entire career has been devoted -- in every possible variant -- to eliminating the independence of the United States of America in favor of the global hegemony of the United Nations, two-thirds of which are one-party-rule dictatorships, theocracies, or kleptocracies.

If John F. Kerry is elected, he will work relentlessly to further damage the independence of the United States with submission to international courts, drawing their power over us from treaties that give foreign totalitarians power to control every aspect of our lives.

Consequently, the most important difference between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is that George W. Bush will not compromise with those international voices for compromise and appeasement with Islamic terrorists in the defense of American values of free trade and free expression … and John. F. Kerry has spent his life doing so and can be counted on to continue doing so.

Any American libertarians who don't think they would be made less free by the United States submitting to the World Court and the Kyoto Treaty are not worth arguing with.



That's not enough? George W. Bush has shown himself to be a man of his word. Contrary to spin, Bush didn't lie about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The 500 tons of yellowcake uranium and 1.8 tons of refined uranium that Saddam was holding onto showed that he was ready to resume a nuclear-weapons' program as soon as he'd bribed enough UN officials to get sanctions lifted. I'm happy that George W. Bush was farsighted enough to spoil Saddam Hussein's desires to upgrade from paying homicide bombers to blow up school buses in Israel to paying a nuclear homicide bomber to blow up Times Square.

And the last time I checked my notebook on libertarian morality, it's not imperialism when you remove a totalitarian dictator and turn the country over to its people. It's liberation. George W. Bush is the liberator of Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from Saddam Hussein. That also should be enough reason for libertarians to give him another four years.

In his twenty years in the Senate, John F. Kerry never met a gun-control bill he didn't eagerly support. George W. Bush, in his first term as governor of Texas, legalized civilian carrying of concealed firearms … and as president not a single law harmful to gun owners has received his signature.

And whatever you think of George W. Bush's economic policies, is there anyone who's looked at John F. Kerry's voting record as a United States Senator who believes he will give us less government controls – less taxes and regulations -- than George W. Bush?

Libertarians may continue to cast their vote symbolically, by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning. Or, if you're a conscientious objector to politics, you can continue not to vote at all. Admittedly, George W. Bush is not a libertarian by any absolute standard, and if you're afraid that registering to vote will just put you above the radar, you can continue trying to slip between the cracks, if that's your idea of freedom.



But if you think the President of the United States just might have power that could affect your life sometime in the next four years – if you take the State seriously as a threat to your freedom -- you might want to consider shooting off a ballot on November 2nd and voting for the president likely to injure you less.

George W. Bush is vastly more protective of libertarian values than the other guy who might be elected to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years.

President Bush is not the best of all libertarian candidates in some theoretical contest where actually having to be president doesn't count, but compared to John F. Kerry, George W. Bush is without question the more libertarian of the two presidents we will end up with.

That's why I'll be voting for him, and I urge you to do so as well.

J. Neil Schulman


October 21, 2004



J. Neil Schulman's novels have twice won the Prometheus Award for libertarian science fiction, and one of his Los Angeles Times opinion articles was awarded the James Madison Award from the Second Amendment Foundation. On Saturday's he's the West Coast Co-Host of Cybercity Radio (http://www.cybercityradio.com). His full bio is at http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/jnsbio.html and his personal website is at http://www.jneilschulman.com/.

davec
October 28, 2004, 11:37 PM
Why this libertarian isn't voting for George Bush: He doesn't share any of my values.

publius
October 29, 2004, 07:08 AM
Any American libertarians who don't think they would be made less free by the United States submitting to the World Court and the Kyoto Treaty are not worth arguing with.
Nor is anyone who believes either of those have any chance at ratification. Scare me with something real.

That's not enough? George W. Bush has shown himself to be a man of his word.
McCain Feingold.

George W. Bush is the liberator of Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
See the shaky foundation above.

And whatever you think of George W. Bush's economic policies, is there anyone who's looked at John F. Kerry's voting record as a United States Senator who believes he will give us less government controls – less taxes and regulations -- than George W. Bush?

Yes, that would be me. I've posted the numbers above. Clinton and gridlock resulted in LESS THAN HALF the government growth rate we've seen under one party rule by the GOP.

The GOP Congress seems completely incapable of saying NO to W, and he's lost his veto pen when they get out of control. We need somebody up there who is willing to say no to somebody else, and we get that only with gridlock.

By the way, if you got your Economic Report of the President, you know that GOP spending projections continue to skyrocket. It's not just me saying they'll grow the government faster than Clinton did. Their own projections show it.

publius
October 29, 2004, 07:19 AM
In his twenty years in the Senate, John F. Kerry never met a gun-control bill he didn't eagerly support. George W. Bush, in his first term as governor of Texas, legalized civilian carrying of concealed firearms … and as president not a single law harmful to gun owners has received his signature.

How could I neglect this item on this board?

The biggest harm W has done to us in the area of firearms is this: when they try to renew the mean looking weapons ban, they'll be able to say Hey, even George W. Bush thinks this is a good idea. His voters seem to agree with him in huge numbers.

publius
October 29, 2004, 07:28 AM
The only thing worse than a politician who taxes and spends is one who spends and spends, leaving the unpleasant task of taxing to someone else.

Did you know that federal debt has ranged from 32% to 122% of GDP since WWII?

It fell from 64% of GDP in 1992 to 58% of GDP in 2000. Gridlock at work.

2003: 62%
2004: 65%
2005: 68%

Those last two are estimates, so you know what we can really expect...unless maybe someone up there finds some reasons to block some things... hmmm...

Igloodude
October 29, 2004, 09:20 AM
Zrex, can you tell me where on badnarik.org that post was, and/or PM me a link to it? I can't find it anywhere on the that website.

Zrex
October 29, 2004, 11:03 AM
Igloodude:

Its on the following page, in the comments down towards the bottom of the page - I believe it is comment #41.

Source for confirmation? (http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/25/in-response-to-benedict-arnold/)

RealGun
October 29, 2004, 11:45 AM
We need somebody up there who is willing to say no to somebody else, and we get that only with gridlock.

Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? It is a desparate rationale why Kerry should win, i.e. a sad conclusion to yet another Bush bashing rant from a Democrat.

The reasons why Kerry should not be elected are so clear that there shouldn't need to be a debate on the details. I see nothing wrong with being critical after the election and setting ones goals for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, Bush is a good enough champion against John Kerry and all he stands for to be elected for four more years. There aren't any other realistic alternatives, if one wants to be relevant in this election.

I shouldn't pretend to affect what others do, but I can testify to my own reasoning and stand behind it.

Igloodude
October 29, 2004, 11:46 AM
Perfect, Zrex, thanks. :)

buzz_knox
October 29, 2004, 12:24 PM
Nor is anyone who believes either of those have any chance at ratification. Scare me with something real.

You do realize that in the modern agen, ratification is almost irrelevant. If sufficient countries adopt a treaty and a nonsignatory fails to specifically reserve itself from the treaty, then it can become customary international law. Over time, that can be effectively binding on even nonsignatories. We do the same ourselves, imposing customary limits on territorial waters even when a country claims more.

Further, a rather tragic trend in the American judiciary is to recognize international law (even if not specifically binding) as having value, and applying it to American law.

cropcirclewalker
October 29, 2004, 12:49 PM
Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? Of course the answer is NO.

Almost all of us agree that Badnarik has no chance of becoming president. Duh.

Gridlock is our only hope.

Since it is obvious that gun control laws will NOT be repealed by a republican congress with a republican president, and since a republican congress will NOT permit Kerry to do any of the socialist stuff that you fearmongering Bush apologists scream and since Bush WILL sign anything that gets put in front of him and since his handlers want to further trash what's left of our bill of rights Gridlock is about all that remains.

Since I firmly believe that anybody who would vote for a democrat let alone BE one has sold their soul, I am unable to vote for one. However, Gridlock is our only hope.

buzz_knox
October 29, 2004, 01:07 PM
I need you to explain again how you expect gridlock when you believe that both parties are essentially the same, with the same goals.

Forget it. I just found your explanation. You essentially think the parties appear to work against each other in a great conspiracy to deceive the American public into thinking they have a choice.

Nice thought, but the problem is that like most conspiracies, it's logically untenable. There are real differences at an individual level between the politicians that would make such a grand plan (that has to extend over decades) unfeasible.

RealGun
October 29, 2004, 01:09 PM
re gridlock,

I want to empower a Republican Congress to do more than hold a Democratic president at bay. Bush cannot be counted on to rubber stamp everything passed by Congress. In a second and final term with no concern for reelection, he will have less reason to pick his battles with Congress, should they present him with something he feels is bogus or ridden with non-germane amendments. In no case do I expect him to take great issue with something endorsed by the Republican leadership. Damning him for not getting a chance to sign an AWB renewal is kind of the ultimate irony. His lack of initiative is why it didn't get renewed.

I would be more concerned about what Congress is capable of passing and what Republican leadership will endorse. The "he'll sign anything" argument is old and tired in my opinion.

cropcirclewalker
October 29, 2004, 01:40 PM
is wishful thinking. Bush cannot be counted on to rubber stamp everything passed by Congress.

Since it's that time of the year, I see in my mind, Lucy, holding the football and telling Linus, "No, I won't jerk it this time."

IIRC, W holds the record for fewest vetos. You could double his vetos and he's still the lowest. You could triple them....You keep doin' what you done and you'll keep gettin' what you got.

Mr. _knox,

Please look at my posting from a few days ago. Asked and answered. :p

riverdog
October 29, 2004, 02:03 PM
One of the reasons Bush has so few vetoes to his credit is that he's worked with the House so that legislation would never reach Bush's desk. He did the same thing to the AWB just to make sure he'd never be forced to keep his word and sign it. Tom DeLay and the President work quite well together.

Zrex
October 29, 2004, 02:12 PM
Can anyone explain Campaign Finance reform? What happened there?

cropcirclewalker
October 29, 2004, 02:55 PM
He did the same thing to the AWB just to make sure he'd never be forced to keep his word and sign it. Tom DeLay and the President work quite well together. He'da signed it too. Fortunately, somebody found out about the (liability bill) shenanigans of the NRA and told us grass roots about it.

That's why the best we can hope for is Kerry in the white house and a congress full of "Dolittle and Delay" :p

I predict that if W gets reelected he WILL sign a new and improved AWB.

Mark the record.

publius
October 29, 2004, 03:07 PM
Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? It is a desparate rationale why Kerry should win, i.e. a sad conclusion to yet another Bush bashing rant from a Democrat.

Sorry, I didn't know one was called for in this thread. I mean, I'm basically responding to posts which say that Libertarians should vote Bush because he's the best imperialist warmonger and nation-builder. Are those Libertarian arguments?

I'm also responding to arguments that say pay attention to reality, your man can't get elected. Well, I posted the reality. One party rule results in twice the govt growth rate. The desperate argument is the one with no proof offered.

Your mind reading skills could use even more sharpening than your debating skills. I'm no democrat, have voted for every Libertarian since I voted for Ron Paul in 1988.

publius
October 29, 2004, 03:30 PM
I need you to explain again how you expect gridlock when you believe that both parties are essentially the same, with the same goals.


Two reasons: I've seen it before, and it just makes sense. While they are essentially the same, they also don't trust each other. The reason the GOP Congress says yes to anything W asks for (and the reason he signs anything they send his way, no matter how dripping with pork) is because they trust each other. I think we'd be better off with a Congress and Executive branch which didn't trust each other.

I've posted the results seen in recent history with that arrangement and with the current one. Oddly no one has disputed those numbers, but maybe they didn't tell enough of the story.

What were we talking about? Dripping with pork? Well the obvious place to go next is transportation spending. Flipping the Economic Report of the Prez open again...

I can't believe these last couple of bills haven't gotten more attacks from conservatives. They were so bad, I think they put an actual picture of a pork barrel on the front cover of the bill.

Back in 2000: 46.8 billion

Last year: 67.1 billion, and projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

In the next installment, we'll start talking about the really big numbers. The ones that WILL break the bank if not controlled, and the evidence that neither half of the duopoly has any intention of controlling them.

Bet ya can't wait!

publius
October 29, 2004, 03:36 PM
Damning him for not getting a chance to sign an AWB renewal is kind of the ultimate irony.

Who did that? I damned him for making the mean looking weapons ban something about which there is bipartisan agreement. It used to be the Clinton gun ban, a clear political dividing line. Yet another line smeared. Now it's the bipartisan mean looking weapons ban, because every time we try to make it a partisan Democrat issue, we're going to hear But even George W. Bush supports it! You fringe guys are just unreasonable.

The thing is, opposition to the mean looking weapons ban runs wide and deep. W had no reason to mainstream that stupid law, he should have derided it until everyone thought it was a big joke. He had virtually nothing to lose by doing that, but he didn't because by leaving it alone, he could get a few more lefty votes, and he seems to know what I'm seeing here: that R's will give him a pass for absolutely anything if you just tell them Kerry is worse.

Do I go too far? Maybe I missed where someone answered my question:

At what point is enough enough?

publius
October 29, 2004, 03:48 PM
And now, as promised, we'll start looking at the really big numbers, the ones that are going to break the bank if they are not controlled.

Let's start with income security.

Back in 2000: 253.6 billion. That's billions and billions of boondogglin' bucks.

But it wasn't enough.

2003: 334.4 billion

2005 projection: 348.1 billion, and I'll bet anyone here any amount of money it will be more.

This is what they're planning. This is what you're voting for if you're voting for them.

Now, some of you may be wondering just what "income security" is, and where the authority comes from for the feds to spend so friggin' much money on it.

Well, it's welfare. Taking money from some individuals, and giving it to others who are poor. Poor people, as we all know, can't engage in all that much interstate commerce, hence it's a federal job to try to buy all the poor people out of poverty.

Speaking of bad ideas that cost a lot of money, the next spending category in today's lesson is Health. As we all know, people who are not healthy can't engage in very much interstate commerce, so this is another federal job.

In 2000, we spent 154.5 billion dollars protecting interstate commerce in this way.

By 2003, that number was 219.6 billion, and it is projected to go back down to under 100 billion by early 2006.

HAH! Just kidding. Had you going for a second, didn't I. Of course, what it is really projected to do is continue skyrocketing, up to 252.6 billion by 2005. But we all know that won't really happen. The real number will be much, much larger.

publius
October 29, 2004, 04:15 PM
And then there's Medicare. Bet you thought that was covered under Health, didn't you? Nope. A whole different boondoggle.

2000: 197.1 Billion

2003: 249.4 Billion

(Those are with capital B's) ;)

2005 projection: 294.3 Billion

Do I dare bet that it will really be over 600 billion when the real number is released?

Then there's the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people, Social Security. The head of the Concord Coalition said it best: The Social Security Trust Fund is the ultimate government oxymoron, because it should not be trusted and it is not funded.

Instead of investing the money we pay in, they loan it to themselves and spend it on the things I've outlined above. Instead of letting that money grow over time, we're all paying interest on it over time. And when the time comes to pay it back, there will be nothing there to sell or redeem. Just taxes to be raised.

Back in 2000: 409.4 billion, though receipts were 652.9 billion, so that's how much actually went out the door.

In 2003: 474.7 billion on receipts of 713 billion, with the remainder again being borrowed and spent immediately.

It's a staggering drain on the economy, and will be until there are structural changes to the system.

Ignoring runaway trains does not make them go away.

publius
October 29, 2004, 06:22 PM
Competition is, of course, the only change that will help. That means that fixing Socialist Security will mean making participation in the system voluntary. That one step would pull the rug from under the whole scam, and force honest behavior on the megascam which funds all the other, lesser scams.

davec
October 29, 2004, 07:06 PM
Can anyone explain Campaign Finance reform? What happened there?

Bush gave a nice long talk about how the bill wasn't really all that good, and that he hoped the courts would overturn it.

Then he signed it into law.

The President swears and oath to abide by the CONSTITUTION.

So, color me a little skeptical when a president says how UN-constitutional a piece of legislation is, then SIGNS IT ANYWAYS.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.


George Bush: Bold leadership to say something is wrong, then to do it anyways and hope the courts fix it later.

RealGun
October 29, 2004, 08:38 PM
Your mind reading skills could use even more sharpening than your debating skills. - publius

As far as debating skills, there are better examples to follow than yours. I would suggest easing up on the pejorative, if your arguments are to be taken seriously. I woud also not post a bunch of statistics with no references and base arguments on them. Beyond that, we should try to stick to the facts and stay on the High Road.

publius
October 30, 2004, 08:37 AM
As I said on four occasions in this thread, all those numbers came from the Economic Report of the President. If you've never heard of that, go search for it on the net.


You'll probably find it about where I did.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

The section I wrote on the Iraqi interim Constitution had a link at the top.

Now that there's a basis, would you care to discuss those stats and the arguments based upon them?

publius
October 30, 2004, 08:39 AM
While we're busy asking for references and a basis for argument, what exactly was the basis for saying I'm just a desperate Bush bashing Democrat?

RealGun
October 30, 2004, 10:26 AM
While we're busy asking for references and a basis for argument, what exactly was the basis for saying I'm just a desperate Bush bashing Democrat?

My impression was that any rationale for voting for John Kerry could only come from a Democrat, especially among gun owners. The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future.

RealGun
October 30, 2004, 10:30 AM
Now that there's a basis, would you care to discuss those stats and the arguments based upon them?

No!

Rather than analyze ain't-it-awful statistics, it's easier to make a grander assessment that George Bush would make a better and more effective President than either John Kerry or Michael Badnarik. For me it's a done deal. Others are welcome to be lead into the woods and get lost in the trees.

cropcirclewalker
October 30, 2004, 11:28 AM
The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future. Somebody who might have been famous may have said something like this. "The chaos, dear RealGun, lies not in our libertarian stars, but in ourselves that you we an underlings." :p

What you described above in less acrid terms could probably be referred to as "Advocacy" duh.

Sometimes the truth hurts. That's when one tends to lean on the pejorative.

Publus, you da man!

publius
October 30, 2004, 11:36 AM
My impression was that any rationale for voting for John Kerry could only come from a Democrat, especially among gun owners. The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future.

Fair enough. I hope you can appreciate that I took being called a desperate Democrat to be character assassination substituted for argument, and didn't particularly feel that it belonged on The High Road.

If my posting of the facts creates chaos, blame those who created the facts.

I'd never invest in a company just because I like the guy running it without first taking a look at the actual numbers. Any voters who have not spent at least a half hour or so going over the official budget of the US government are negligent, IMNSHO.

Ieyasu
October 30, 2004, 12:32 PM
One reason I'm voting for Bush -- the Supreme Court. With Kerry we have Z-E-R-O chance of getting pro-2A justices appointed. With Bush there is a chance.

publius
October 30, 2004, 12:48 PM
I haven't forgotten, Ieyasu. I agree Bush would probably be better in that area, though I doubt he'd appoint anyone who disagreed with him about the mean looking weapons ban.

I'm also very concerned that in a couple of days, John Kerry could have the power to unilaterally declare a citizen an enemy combatant and lock him up indefinitely on secret evidence. Strikes me as changing the form of our government, invalidating habeas corpus, and assaulting parts of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution.

I doubt Bush will appoint people who disagree with him on that.

I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?

At some point, enough is enough. For me, we've past that point.

Ieyasu
October 30, 2004, 01:02 PM
I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?

I think it's highly likely. Bush has said he'd try to appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Guess who opposed McCainiac-Feingold;) I know you know this, but this is for the benefit of others. These are the four justices who opposed the decision:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia

Bush has said there were parts of the Act he didn't like. I doubt he'd use anything in McCain Feingold as a judicial litmus test.

Again, I know you know this Publius, but for others who may be wavering, the next prez may be able to appoint F-O-U-R new justices to the Court. That is a chance I do not want to take with Kerry. Is it 100% certain that Bush will appoint the "right" justices? Of course not, however I think the chances are likely enough, that as much as I thoroughly detest many of Bush's policies, the future direction of the Court is far, far too important to pass-up a fighting, and perhaps [edited to add] ONCE IN A LIFETIME chance!

publius
October 30, 2004, 01:53 PM
A good point, well made.

The extra baggage is just too stinky for me to want to ride along.

Continuing to reward these people will result in more of the same. It's amazing to me that people who see that the danger of appeasing a dictator is that he will just grow more powerful seem oblivious that the danger of appeasing statists is exactly the same.

In 10 or 20 years, how much worse will the lesser of two evils have gotten, if we already have to accept McCain Feingold and the mean looking weapons ban and all the other things I've mentioned?

A series of tactical retreats is not the path to victory.

Ieyasu
October 30, 2004, 02:16 PM
A series of tactical retreats is not the path to victory.

I look at this not so much as a retreat, but rather delaying an attack on one front because the opportunity to attack on another is so appealing, and it's an opening that may not present itself again anytime soon. Or to use another imperfect analogy -- taking a punch to deliver a bigger one.

Continuing to reward these people will result in more of the same.

I agree. What is being attempted in California is a "Political Human Sacrifice." A top-rated Southern California radio program is asking its listeners to punish the Republican Party for waffling on illegal immigration by sacrificing a selected California congressman — politically speaking.

I understand your frustration and I guess you feel you've already taken too many punches. I'm willing to take a few more for a chance to strike back.

publius
October 30, 2004, 03:41 PM
Well, good luck with that. :)

Ieyasu
October 30, 2004, 03:54 PM
Thanks, but I don't think I'll have a chance to see how that strategy pans out.

I see Bush losing by 1% of the popular vote. :(

publius
October 30, 2004, 05:02 PM
Really? I see Bush winning. Despite my comment about looking over the numbers and thinking about issues, it seems to me that elections are decided based on likability as perceived through a TV camera.

Nixon may be an exception, but other than that...

Ford: not particularly likable, Carter: big ol' grin. Carter wins.

Carter: big ol grin disappeared at some point, Reagan: very likable. Reagan wins.

Reagain: looking better after 4 years in office and being shot, Mondale: cold fish. Landslide.

Bush: not all that likable, Dukakis: utterly ridiculous even before the tank. Bush wins.

Bush: still not all that likable, Clinton: likable in a sleazy way. Clinton wins.

Clinton: still likable and sleazy, Dole: Dour on TV, though very funny if you give him a chance. Clinton wins again.

Bush: the TV cameras only loved Reagan more, Gore: an animated mannequin. Bush wins.

Bush: I wasn't sure the English language was going to survive the debates, but he's still likable on TV, Kerry: a mannequin without the animation.

We'll know in a couple of days, or maybe a couple of months. <shudder>

Unfortunately, there are no likable Libertarians. ;)

NIGHTWATCH
October 30, 2004, 05:26 PM
John Kerry, if elected, will not accomplish anything if the senate and congress are controlled by Republicans. His administration would face four years of political gridlock, with no hope of re-election come 2008. If anything, a Bush loss will be a step in the right direction come 2008. That is if the media reports Badnarik as the spoiler and brings the LP to light. What we may have is a republican party searching for ways to reform itself in order to gain the presidency again and face Hillary.

Could we have a LP member running on the Republican ticket in 2008?

Im voting Badnarik for president, and Republican the rest of the ballot.

publius
October 30, 2004, 05:51 PM
I voted for Porter Goss several times, didn't vote for him other times. It never mattered, I live in a safe R district.

I wrote to the new guy about the DC gun ban. Here's his reply:

Dear Publius (well, he used my real name),

Thanks for contacting me about a recent vote in the House of Representatives to repeal the ban on firearms ownership in the Nation's capital. I voted against this legislation, H.R. 3193.

This legislation was opposed by the mayor, Congressional delegate, police chief, city council, and school board of Washington, DC. I have always believed in states rights and self-determination. While Washington DC is not a state, it has been largely self-governed through its elected mayor and city council for nearly four decades. I believe that my vote is consistent with my views of federalism and the rights that are reserved by the people and the states.

Thanks again for writing on this issue.

Needless to say, we don't exactly see eye to eye on the rights of the people as they concern firearms.

The Congress clearly has the power:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States

Ieyasu
October 30, 2004, 07:48 PM
Really? I see Bush winning. Despite my comment about looking over the numbers and thinking about issues, it seems to me that elections are decided based on likability as perceived through a TV camera.
I'd substitute likeability for presidential. (I'd say likeability is a component of that.)

The reason for my pessimism is that as someone else said, the media is trying to do all it can to drag Kerry across the finish line. I don't think Bush can beat that. Further I think the polls show Bush in trouble. He can't break the 50% barrier (among the polls that fared well during Bush/Gore [eg. Harris]). Historically it's a miserable sign for an incumbent who can't break the 50% mark.

Unfortunately, there are no likable Libertarians.
Man, I know I should just keep my mouth shut, but I am frustrated! Libertarianism as a separate party is hopeless for all time and forever. Just the fact that we've had "Social Security" in its present form for so many years with barely a peep from the morons who meekly pay into it, tells me everything I need to know about where this society is ultimately heading.

Although I have a farely large libertarian streak, I'll hope the Repub party will change from within (lucky pot shots here and there). There will never be a majority of people in this country who truly want to live free.

Anyways, I just hope you're right with your presidential prognostication!

publius
October 30, 2004, 11:34 PM
Libertarianism as a separate party is hopeless for all time and forever.

True, and the reason I left a ;) with that reply.

So is socialism, I'd add, but the Socialist Party has done pretty well at getting their ideas stolen by the old parties. And, I might add, so are we. Long before it was acceptable in Republican circles, Libertarians were talking about things like vouchers, emissions markets, privatizing socialist security, contracting out govt services, etc.

OK, so maybe Milton Friedman is singlehandedly responsible for our best ideas, but we were still the only safe place to talk about them and promote them. And so it remains, actually. I just saw W's man Gillespie on Meet the Left emphatically explaining over and over that the President was NOT talking about privatizing Socialist Security. It seems the P word is still a dirty word, but W is actually trying to sneak a bit of our idea into the program.

Anyways, I just hope you're right with your presidential prognostication!

The number one reason to be of good cheer:
We live in the greatest country in the world, and that will be true in 4 years and in 8 no matter who is elected. No other country can grow Texans (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst083004.htm) like we do! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarian Endorses Bush" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!