Here Is The Deal On November 2nd

[ReadyontheRight]

Respectfully -- The time to push the libertarian agenda is the 4 years between elections, not on election day 2004.

John Kerry would dim the star of our nation.

George Bush will, unfortunately, likely expand the Federal government. He will also pursue a very simple, straightforward, non-nuanced strategy regarding terrorism -- we win, they lose.

On November 2, I ask you to vote for George Bush.

On November 3, you have a number of options:

1. You could sit back for 4 years and complain that "the lesser of two evils is still evil".
2. You could work hard to build the strength of your favorite 3rd party -- you maybe even could work to form a coalition of "small government" 3rd parties -- you have FOUR YEARS.
3. You could get involved with either of the major parties to push them back toward a government by, of and for the people -- based on Liberty and limited government powers.

In 2004, my vote WILL count, so will yours. This is the most important election I can remember.

We can choose to fight against those who would change the course of our lives by killing innocents or we can choose to make America a larger, more violent France.

It's up to you.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'll vote Bush, of course. That sKerry creature is too scary. And then, either way, I'll spend the next four years trying to build my pet project, though any presidential candidate would take much longer than a mere 4 years. As usual, click the Sig link...

 

[HankB]

if 13,550 High Roaders vote for Bush, and 29 High Roaders vote for Lurch, and Mr. James votes for Peroutka, how many votes has Bush? How many votes has Lurch? My vote for Peroutka or Badnarik or Nader won't add or subtract one vote from either of the Skull-n-Bones twins.

Mr. James, we differ on this. If there were a state called TheHighRoad, I don't believe it would be a battleground state - the numbers you chose to use in your own example suggest it wouldn't even be close. By all means, in that case go ahead and vote for a third party - I would likely do the same myself, as I'm no fan of Bush. In such a case, you can make a statement without fear of unpleasant consequences.

However, if "TheHighRoad" state polls predicted 6789 for Bush, 6789 for Lurch, with a margin of error of two . . . then casting one's vote for a third party rather than casting it - however reluctantly - for Bush could well be decisive in handing the victory to sKerry. Battleground states are different.

Standing on principle is well and good, so long as you understand and appreciate the consequences, and - preferably - refrain from complaining about the outcome afterwards.

This debate reminds me of a commercial I saw for a TV show. A retiree, speaking to his daughter and son in law (or son and daughter in law?) says words to the effect of "Always speak your mind and never take garbage from anybody - I never did when I was your age, I always said what I meant and didn't care who heard!"

The response is "Yeah, which is why today you have no pension, no benefits, and you live in our basement."

 

[bogie]

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

I thought airline pilots are armed now?

Doesn't really matter, because if someone tries a hijack now, the passengers will tear 'em to pieces. I won't be pretty.

As for the AWB renewal - He knew it'd never make it to his desk. And I'm sure he told most of the congresscritters that he didn't want it to make it to his desk. Works for me.

 

[Sam Adams]

Lone Gunman and Molon Labe

Here's some more stuff for you to consider:

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000111.html

And from Kim DuToit http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php [This is the 11:59AM posting]

I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote tomorrow. Suffice it to say that before you punch that hanging chad, please bear in mind what a vote for any Democrat would entail. This is the party whose platform can be summarized as follows:

* High Taxes
* Gun Control
* State ownership of capital
* Constitutional reconstructionism (that pesky "living document")
* Nanny government and oppressive regulation
* A weak, impotent military
* Inept foreign policy
* Trial lawyers
* Liberal Supreme Court judges
* Socialism
* Gun control
* Internationalist subservience to the United Nations
* Socialized medical care
* Labor unions
* Racism (hiring- and college enrolment quotas)
* Teachers' unions
* Class warfare
* Voter fraud
* Gun control
* Lax immigration controls
* Wealth redistributionism
* Hostility towards business, and capitalism in general
* Over-aggressive environmentalism
* Support for failed social programs
* Love of the French
* Did I mention "gun control" already?
* Supporters who include: Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, the entire faculty of UC Berkeley, Willie Brown, Barbra Streisand, Dan Rather, A.N.S.W.E.R., Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ed Asner, Alec Baldwin, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jim McDermott, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Noam Chomsky, etc.

...and the French, and Osama, and Arafat, and Kim Jong Il....

 

[rbrowning]

"Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?
"

Lonewolf,
Are you the only one that doesn't realize that when GWB made that statement he was campaigning for votes and he could afford to say it, knowing full well that there was no way in the world that the AWB would ever come back to his desK? He was posturing, pure and simple. He wanted to appear a little softer to the "reasonable gun control" crowd. The Democrats had learned how popular it was the first time when they lost control of the house because of it. The Republicans learned from their example.

 

[Mr. James]

Hello, HankB,

I owe you an apology. You're right about using the THR "state" analogy - I was trying to be flip, using the actual numbers of THR members, and our decided leanings towards one of the two major-party candidates. I did not, in any way, mean to understate the importance of votes in those battleground states. I stand by the proposition, however, that if I vote FOR one candidate, that cannot be read as a vote AGAINST another, unless that was my intention in casting the ballot all along.

As for the more-realistic numbers you suggest, rather than looking to polls, let's suppose these are actual votes: 6789 for Bush, 6789 for Lurch. If I, benighted soul that I am, have the temerity to stumble into a voting both and press "PEROUTKA," how many votes has Bush? How many has Lurch? I refuse to decide my vote based on the margin of error. God, this entire election is an error, a farce.

Please, I entend no slight to you or the thousands who will, in fact, vote for Bush because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, and a few cycles ago, I'd have been right beside you. I certainly don't presume to know the answers, and it may well be that when Madame President Clinton sends me to the gulag, and I'm in the camps counting my bed lice ("AVENGE ME, BOY!!!"), I'll have enough time before I'm sent to the wall to contemplate that misbegotten vote for a principled candidate.

As for complaining about the outcome, the visceral response is to join you. But suppose I vote for Bush and he loses? Do I thereby waive my right to form opinions upon and speak out about the performance of the resulting Kerry administration? Of course not.

So, too, the voter for a Peroutka or Badnarik does not renounce his citizenship. I reserve all rights to yowl, pee & moan, rend garments, gnash teeth, etc. irrespective of the outcome on 3 November (or 3 April if the Demo lawyers have their way).

Sam Adams, I have, indeed, considered all those things. Give me a few minutes and I could produce a remarkably similar list under President Bush's name, to include, inter alia higher taxes (stay tuned - someone's gonna pay for NCLB and Great Society, Jr.), gun control, socialized medicine, half-stepping leadership in Iraq, racism, teachers unions, gun control, lax immigration controls (Asa Hutchinson, pick up the white courtesy phone...), gun control... All that would be lacking would be the roster of America-lasters, freedom haters, has-beens, fellow-travelers and useful idiots who swarm like flies to dung to the Kerry camp.

Whether by bullet train or electric-deisel, both parties are taking us to the same place. The only way to fix it is to work for change, either within the elephant party (as the Liberty Caucus is attempting), or without.

As for "Tweedledum is a mouthbreathing ignoramus but Tweedledee is Beelzebub," this election I am voting FOR someone, rather than against.

All I can say, is pray, and pray hard. Fasting may be in order, too. I'll close with a quote from another Adams, John Quincy:

Duty is ours; results are God's.

 

[Gordon Fink]

You could work hard to build the strength of your favorite 3rd party—you maybe even could work to form a coalition of “small government†3rd parties—you have FOUR YEARS.

We will continue to work hard, but at best we have only one year until the next “most important election in our lifetime.â€â„¢

~G. Fink

 

[BenW]

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?
Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

I suggest you read Clayton Cramer's article posted on another thread here for perspective on your statements.

 

[R.H. Lee]

We will continue to work hard, but at best we have only one year until the next “most important election in our lifetime.â€â„¢

That should be enough time to get some 3rd party member elected somewhere. Get crackin'

 

[Gusgus]

I still find it hard to believe, but this is one Libertarian of 12 years that's voting Bush tomorrow.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I find it interesting that no one is willing to just answer my questions "No".

Instead, what I get is a series of convoluted explanations why its ok for Bush to support the AWB, but its not OK for Kerry to support it.

Someone cited that Bush had made it legal for cargo pilots to carry guns. When I asked if he had made it legal for airline pilots to do the same, someone answered that it did not matter if pilots carried guns. So which is it? If it doesnt matter if they carry guns, then it doesnt matter if Bush eliminated barriers to cargo pilots doing it.

I know Bush is not perfect, so that doesnt need to be explained to me. I figured that out just a few months after he took office.

He signed the largest increase in government welfare since LBJ. He has expanded government bureaucracy in ways we have not seen in years. He has limited the First Amendment by signing campaign finance reform, despite saying he thought it was un-Constitutional. In a particularly sickening orgy of bi-partisanship he and Teddy Kennedy gave us "No Child Left Behind". We have clearly found out that "compassionate conservative" and "neo-conservative" are just synonyms for liberal.

The fact the the greatest nation on earth can field candidates for its highest office who are no better then Bush and Kerry is astounding to me. There is no hope for the Republic if our choices are Bush and Kerry.


Yes, I agree Bush is better than Kerry. So what?

And for everyone's information, I am not a third party proponent. I am a life long Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000, and donated money to his 2000 campaign. He's had four years, and has been nothing but a disappointment. I am not telling anyone not to vote for him. I agree he is better than Kerry, and if that is your only criteria for selecting a President, then I guess go for it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

There is no hope for the Republic if our choices are Bush and Kerry.

That's just temporary. Both the LP & CP are developing viable, electable candidates as we speak.

 

[one45auto]

I'm definitely going with Bush, as nothing short of a direct commandment from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ descending to earth accompanied by hosts of angels will persuade me to vote for John Kerry. Heck, even then I'd be doing it reluctantly and with my one hand holding my nose.

 

[Sam Adams]

Lone Gunman,

As you well know, Bush is a politician. Being a successful politician requires being elected to office, and staying there for a long enough time to do anything worthwhile usually requires getting elected again (at least for the President). As such, Bush attempted to disarm (pun intended) the rabid anti-gunners by saying that he'd sign the AWB renewal IF it got to his desk. Notice that it didn't get there, and notice that even a dimbulb like Kerry called him on it - Bush didn't push for it at all. I'd go further: I'll bet that Bush told Tom DeLay and the rest of the Republican leadership in the House that the bill had better not reach his desk. Bush isn't stupid, and he is certainly aware that he's not merely a retired governor because of the fact that Al Gore pi$$ed off gun owners by talking about registration and thereby losing his own home state, West Virginia and Arkansas. Bush isn't so stupid, therefor, as to have pushed for the bill and to have wanted to sign it. He hoped to get rid of some criticism from the lunatic anti-gun fringe while not upsetting us...otherwise known as walking the tightrope. To come out at any time before the election tomorrow and to say "I won't ever renew the AWB" would be the height of political folly. He might gain a few thousand or tens of thousands of votes from the likes of you, but he'd give the Kerrys and the Sarah Bradys of this world the biggest PR gift that they could imagine. Most people understand that Bush is limited in a practical sense in what he can say, at least until after tomorrow. I wish that you did, because every vote will count. Heaven help us if Kerry wins.

Again, this is politics (or part of it). I don't really give a damn what someone says, I care about what they DO. Which is why Kerry can never be allowed to be President - he'll say anything and look reasonably sincere in doing so, but his record speaks to the opposite of any sensible thing that he actually says.

BTW, I have a question for you: Will President John Kerry be better, the same or worse for the rights of gun owners than the Presidency of George W. Bush has been? The answer is obvious, but I'll let you ponder it for a while.

 

[confinedbythecurtain]

Im in the PRK, so my Bush vote wont matter... I ve seemed peeve all the tree hugging hippies out here though!

 

[Sam Adams]

Lone Gunman

By the way, if you're in a state where the outcome is in little doubt, then by all means vote your conscience. In that case, 1 vote more or less for either Bush or Kerry would be meaningless. My other comments only address those like Molon Labe who live in "Battleground" states. My vote in TX is nearly meaningless, as Bush will get at least 60%, and yours may well be as meaningless if you're in any one of most other southern states.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Will President John Kerry be better, the same or worse for the rights of gun owners than the Presidency of George W. Bush has been? The answer is obvious, but I'll let you ponder it for a while.

I already know we are going to be in disagreement on the answer Sam, but I am willing to engage in discussion.

I think Kerry and Bush will have exactly the same effect on gun ownership. The rhetoric will be different, but the effect will be the same.

The only time Congressional Republicans grow a spine and act like conservatives is when a Democrat is in the White House.

If Bush decided to push for AWB renewal (which I realize is unlikely), I have no doubt the Republicans would roll over and give it to him.

However, if Kerry asked for the same, I think the same Republicans would fight like hell to keep it from happening.

I think partisan politics of having the executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties would be very beneficial to the Republic. The only time we are safe from either side is when they are fighting against each other.

Finally, Sam, don't lose any sleep tonight about me not voting for Bush. I live in Georgia, and I assure you he is going to win massively here.

 

[Sam Adams]

If Bush decided to push for AWB renewal (which I realize is unlikely), I have no doubt the Republicans would roll over and give it to him.

Possibly. However, the probability of him asking for it is between slim and none. How does it benefit him or his Party? Also, many Republicans would oppose it, and possibly kill it. One that comes to mind is Coburn of OK. Assuming that he wins tomorrow, the Senate will have a one-man Republican filibuster machine in place, and I expect him to kill a lot of lousy bills. I agree that if Kerry proposed the same bill, the R's would grow a pair and fight it (but maybe not, after all, look at Bob Dole's actions in the mid-'90's).

I think partisan politics of having the executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties would be very beneficial to the Republic. The only time we are safe from either side is when they are fighting against each other.

I also prefer divided government, as a general rule, and for the same reason. I'm sure that you'd agree that the only reason we had some control over spending in the '90's was that Slick Willie and Hitlery so frightened the public that the R's won the Congress, thereby killing the Dem's dreams. However, it is highly unlikely that we're going to have a Democratic Congress this time around, and Kerry will be SO bad on foreign and defense policy (where the Congress has a LOT less to say, if anything) that this outweighs my normal preference. Divided government is great, but not at the expense of our security.

Glad to hear that you're from a safe Bush state - vote for Badnarik or whomever with a clear conscience and no squawking from this gun owner.

 

[Gordon Fink]

How does it benefit him or his Party?

Because being “a successful politician requires being elected to office, and staying there for a long enough time to do anything worthwhile usually requires getting elected again.…†G. W. Bush must continue to make the Republican Party appear “moderate,†so that it can attract more voters in 2008. By engineering a renewal of the “assault-weapons†ban, he could further “disarm … the rabid anti-gunners.†In fact, if he doesn’t push for “reasonable†gun-control legislation, he risks giving “the Kerrys and the Sarah Bradys of this world the biggest PR gift that they could imagine.€

~G. Fink

 

[GSB]

I cannot think of a more selfish, impractical, anti-social point of view than voting for the worst available realistic alternative, and hoping for lots of pain, repression, etc., so as to advance the likelihood and timing of a civil war.

Well said. I don't find the whole blaze-of-glory fantasy to be very appealing -- but I'm hovering around middle age now, and I think the youthful passions tend to moderate a bit over time.

There are certainly more constructive ways to nudge the system right or left than hoping for bloody revolution -- we're not living in China or Stalinist Russia after all. Historically, revolutions tend not to be particularly glorious, nor have particularly pretty outcomes. America is a rarity. Heck, even France, center of the Enlightenment, celebrated its revolution on the edge of guillotine blade and ended up with that nice Napoleon fellow in charge not long after (he didn't get every male in France killed, you have to give him that -- although it does appear he culled most of the courageous ones out of that particular gene pool).

For Pete's sake, if you look at the whole sweep of human civilization, the United States in the year 2004 is a pretty darn good place to be, warts aplenty and all. Actively hoping for it to fall into ruin so I can play at being Light Horse Harry just doesn't really do it for me anymore.

 

[RealGun]

We never give up justifying our thinking and dissing other choices. I would be interested in knowing how many were swayed by any of this stuff over the last year, starting about April, as I recall. I think it's interesting and frequently educational to read other's views, but I also think those who tried to sway votes more than simply express themselves were spitting into the wind. In the end, voting is essentially partisan, I think.

The thing that's interesting to me is how when major parties are well matched, third party voters and the formerly undecided seem to really determine the outcome. That's kind of a mix between the elegantly knowledgeable and the politically ignorant or gullible.

My hope is that third party voters will get some attention but not create consequences for electable parties that will be extremely regrettable, both to me and all gun owners as well as in light of what those third party platforms really represent. As a conservative, I wouldn't welcome any sudden change in course for this country. I wouldn't endorse "gridlock" either, because I expect Congress to be productive and uphold the Constitution, silly me.

What is disturbing is how many seem to be against the whole system, experts at criticizing candidates and other's choices. A closer look reveals to me that they are actually revolutionaries in many cases, anti-establishment in general, representatives of radical notions. I would want to make it clear that such does not represent me and that I would not want to see that represented as the most intelligent position for a gun owner. I will not be intimidated. I freely accept the need for change, but I would want it to occur in a stable society and economy. Incremental change would need to be the norm, so I would not support any overnight successes by relatively radical third parties. To me, they would be welcome to gradually gain more positions throughout government, but fielding Presidential candidates prematurely, long before they have the faintest hope of winning, is very counterproductive for lots of reasons, in my opinion.

 

[griz]

Although I understand and even agree with the third party voters, I can't fathom how voting for a foregone loser is going to gain you anything.

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted?

 

[RealGun]

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted?

That reasoning (to vote third party in NY) seems valid enough. I can think of a couple problems with it. Number one, much will be made of how close the nationwide popular vote is. We have seen that before. Number two, the point spread between first and second place in NY will be greater, allowing more meaning to be imparted to it. The saying "every vote counts" applies everywhere.

 

[TearsOfRage]

If a conflict is inevitable, as some say it is, I’d rather have it happen sooner than later.

It makes me sick to my stomach to vote for our current oppressors, but it's making more and more strategic sense.

If I'm gonna have to fight tyranny, I'd rather do it with guns than without.
And I'd rather have the liberals & Democrats with me in opposing King George than against me... they're good at getting people to show up at demonstrations, etc.