« A hero endorses Bush | Main | Kerry flip-flops on reconstruction contracts »

October 25, 2004

Libertarians for Bush

Who is Dr. John Hospers?

If you're a Libertarian, you can easily answer without following the link. John Hospers was the first Libertarian Presidential candidate. He's also the only Libertarian ever to receive an electoral vote. As might be expected, he was very active in the party, writing its Statement of Principles in 1972 as well as writing the first book on the topic of libertarianism.

And he's for Bush, laying out his reasons in a compelling indictment of the modern Democratic Party.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe.
...
If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" 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.

Read the whole thing.

The Republicans, of course, are not perfect. But the Democrats are a genuine danger to liberty.

October 25, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d83432a23153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libertarians for Bush:

Comments

Well, I read the whole thing and I must admit, I was very unimpressed. Libertarianism reminds me of communism in this way, It sounds great in theory, but does not work very well in reality. I can't recall knowing of any thriving libertarian societies. can you?
The one thing I found to be very telling in the rant of Dr. John Hospers was this quote,"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 most favorable chance of winning!!! LMAO
You can boil Dr. Hospers rant down to one main point, he wants to vote for Bush because he thinks Bush has the best chance of winning!!!
This is the most pathetic reason for voting for ANYONE that I have ever heard. If you want to vote for Bush because you like him, think he would make a good drinking buddy, or would be great to chat with at a backyard BBQ that's fine, also pathetic reasons to vote for someone, but fine nonetheless. Come on Dr. Hospers, can't you give a better reason than that to vote for Bush?

Posted by: Bubba | Oct 25, 2004 3:21:40 PM

Can I still cast a Libertarian protest vote in a nonswing state?

Posted by: ShadowHawk | Oct 25, 2004 7:37:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.