We have a liberal for Bush, and a libertarian for Bush.
Polipundit is featuring a pair of Clintonites for Bush.
Interesting. Bob Bidinotto isn’t the only one, however. There’s a whole site for these guys:
Does Christopher Hitchens qualify as one of the growing number of “Lapsed Trotskyites for Bush”?
For the direct link to Libertarian Party founder John Hospers’ endorsement of “W,” go here.
I actually voted for Nader last time. (It was a vote-swap deal, and I did it because I support more open ballot access for third partys.)
As a libertarian in my heart, with an (I) on my voter registration card, I am glad to see more of the registered (L)
I’ve always happily voted libertarian for president and where ever else possible, because I believe in the ideals of personal liberty. Even realizing that the Libertarian candidates had no chance of winning and their vote total would be low, I’d rather have my drop of water go into the LP pond than either of the major parties’ oceans. While I don’t buy everything libertarian, I figured they were closer to what I believed than anyone else.
The one thing I can’t countenance however, is their ostrich approach to foreign policy. I want to debate ending the War on Drugs, income tax, and a whole host of other things, but first of all we need to be around to debate them. WE first of all need to deal with fascist terrorists and the corrupt, opressive culture that breeds them. Sticking one’s head in the sand is not a valid option.
While I agree with Bidinotto’s conclusion, I don’t like his argument. He appears to favor only voting for those who have a chance of winning. I have a couple problems with that.
First: if you are voting for people (and your a schmuck if you are), you need 50%+1 to win, but if you vote for ideals, you need only about 5% or 10%–if your ideals get that, then the major parties will adopt your ideals to try to buy your vote–it’s called “stealing the opposition’s thunder” and it has a long noble history in American politics.
Second: at the end of the book “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail,” Hunter Thompson is grousing about the choices in the election. He’s tired of holding his nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. “When do we get to vote FOR someone? When do we get a choice we like?”
Here it’s over 30 years later and we’re asking the same question. The answer is obvious: they will continue to give us chumps to vote for so long as we’re willing to continue voting for chumps.
Under normal circumstances, limiting your vote to those who have a chance to win is shortsighted. Personally, being on the winning team is not going to make me feel better about the fact that somone I don’t approve of is in the White House. Voting for a sure loser is a much better long-term strategy. It’s as close as we get to “none of the above,” and if enough of us are willing to do it, parties will be forced to give us better candidates. In my opinion, the truly wasted vote is one cast for a Republican or Democrat.
The real reason to vote for Bush this time around is because this is not a normal election. We’re at war and that means we have to be short-sighted. We have to vote for the guy who’s going to prosecute this war the way we want it prosecuted AND has a chance of winning.
Libertarian for Bush checking in. Read my blog
Ditto Eric; I voted for Nader in ’00. As a lifelong liberal I couldn’t stomach W. and I couldn’t stand Gore.
Given everything that has happened since I feel like a bit of a dork for voting that way.
I’m voting for Bush in ’04.
That makes me a Dork For Bush!
I have been scouring the web searching for a Communist or Socialist for Bush.
No luck yet
Obviously, you now have to line up a Libertine for Bush, a Librarian for Bush, a Libyan for Bush, a Libelist for Bush, and a Liberetto for Bush.
I suspect you can provide a Libation for Bush.
I’m a History Geek For Bush, if that means anything.
How about a lesbian Libertarian for Bush?
How ’bout Germans for Bush!
(Via the Bros Judd.)
To Ignatius Byrd’s comments:
I don’t regard elections as an educational forum. In fact, they’re a lousy forum for educating anyone about anything. A candidate (other than for a high-profile office, such as President) normally has the opportunity to give only a few sound bites worth of “message” to any given voter — if that. Thus voting for a “symbolic” or “message” candidate is utterly pointless, because almost no one will have a clue as to what that candidate or party represented, anyway.
If you truly want to educate, set up a think tank, magazine, blog or other communication forum. But elections aren’t about education; they are about populating government offices with people who will wield power and force of law. That’s serious business, folks — not a theatrical arena for registering quixotic “protests” that nobody will ever understand, and not an educational platform which doesn’t give you the time to get a serious message out, anyway.
Only in races where the stakes are not very serious, or where major candidates are barely differentiated, or where one candidate is shoe-in, does it make any sense to cast symbolic votes. In those instances, significant support for a minor candidate who can’t win might possibly “send a message” to the major party candidates or the winner…though it’s likely to be interpreted only as general dissatisfaction. Realistically, don’t expect even that much. (Does anyone believe that Ross Perot had any lasting impact on the major parties, or debates about the economy?)
To repeat: elections are a serious business, where individuals are selected to wield power over our lives. Use your vote as an opportunity, however small, for “damage control” — to try to minimize the harm that they can do to you. If you really want to change society, however, become an educator, not a politician.
How about an Irish-Cherokee-English-Dutch-German for Bush. I used to consider myself a libertarian but a lot of those guys are off the deep end and just want legalized drugs along with just about anything else legalized. I have some limits…
I am simply an independent that will never vote for another Democrat again after what I’ve seen this election season. I am sickened by the lies from John Kerry. I am also sickened that good Democrats would support anyone who runs under their banner. I have voted for Democrats before but never again. I think they have damaged themselves beyond repair.
I will vote for Bush because he’s the man for the job. But we still need another good party to replace the Democrats.
I am a librarian, plus I’ve had my libertine moments. Can’t help you with the Libyan, or librettist part.
I will vote for Bush because he’s the man for the job. But we still need another good party to replace the Democrats.
I wish I could vote for Scoop Jackson, but Scoop isn’t the Democratic nominee this year, and despite what a lot of Democrats seem to think, I doubt Kerry’s going to magically transmorgify into anything remotely resembling Scoop when he takes the oath of office.
W it is, then.
Librarians for Bush… do you mean that Laura doesn’t count?
I would have voted for Liberman over Bush, but not Kerry over Bush.
Candidates do stuff for a reason. W today made an overt appeal to Dems to vote for him. Couple that with this stuff Mr Green is giving us (shaken, not stirred), and it looks like the Dem base may not be the lock the MSM portrays.
Hard to say whether the liberal/libertarian votes for Bush really mean much of anything at all. Bush’s approach differed from his Republican predecessors, thus alienating some traditional Republicans and attracting some disaffected Democrats (and Libertarians).
To me, it seems like every conservative site touts its converted liberals and every liberal site touts its converted conservatives. I can’t get a sense of how that’ll play out on an aggregate scale.
I do know that calls for the demise of the Democratic party are vastly premature. There are a lot of us out there that are voting for Kerry for reasons other than “irrational Bush hatred”.
Can’t wait to see how it all turns out.
More liberal Jews for Bush.
Yet more liberal Jews for Bush.
As trollish as it sounds to say this, I’m puzzled as to just what is making Bush seem such an appealing choice.
If it really comes down to foreign policy, sure his approach makes more sense than Kerry’s, but it’s still overwhelmingly idealistic. They both expect too much of the world IMO, I’d personally prefer a Realist approach.
Actually, Christopher Hitchens has now come out for Kerry; see Slate.
I’m a conservative and a Kerry supporter since about 6 weeks ago. Those who intend to vote for Bush should really really do some research and try to separate the facts about Bush and his policies from the rhetoric.
I don’t think Kerry’s going to be so bad. And, especially note that we’ll have divided government. In races other than the presidential, I’d suggest voting Republican except for those who are as “compassionate” as Bush.
If you’re considering voting for Bush, try looking ahead a year or two. Imagine the problems caused by the flu shortage, massive illegal immigration, possible terrorist infiltration of our porous borders, al Qaqaa and Abu Ghraib times one hundred and repeated over and over, curtailed civil liberties, and all the rest. Like I said, imagine what 2005 and beyond is going to be like.
Lonewacho- we HAVE considered what 2005 will be like. That’s WHY we’re voting for Bush.
Imagine the problems caused by the flu shortage, massive illegal immigration, possible terrorist infiltration of our porous borders, al Qaqaa and Abu Ghraib times one hundred and repeated over and over, curtailed civil liberties, and all the rest.
And then imagine President Kerry trying to deal with those same problems. And when you’ve stopped twitching, vote for Bush.
(Though I’m not sure why a flu shortage is such a drama.)
Australian atheists for Bush!
RE: Another liberal for Bush. I just fwd
this to everyone in my address book.
I had a flu shot 20 years ago, and was sick for a week. Never again.
“Like I said, imagine what 2005 and beyond is going to be like.”
Elections in Iraq.
Continued peace in Israel.
Unemployment dropping to near 5%.
The last remnants of Al Qaeda being brought to justice.
The mullah-ocracy in Iran falling.
Looks great to me. To be a Kerry supporter, you need to look to the future and see darkness. Bush supporters look to the future and see light.
I voted for Bush yesterday.
Can you give me one shred of evidence that it would be better/different under Kerry? Your reasoning is flawed, in that except for a little fiscal restraint, what did divided govt give us under Clinton? Was our defense or reation to terror better?
I used to read your blog often, Lonewacko, but you just seem to have lost it. The House/Senate are not the CIC, and that is what we need to be worried about at this point in time.
I’ll be the first to admit that W is not my ideal candidate, but he is far and above better than the alternatives at this point.
Rebelled-Against-My-Parents-Registered-Republican-As-Soon-As-I-Turned-Eighteen for Bush here.
Probably not exactly worthy of the siren light at Drudge, though.
If it really comes down to foreign policy, sure his approach makes more sense than Kerry’s, but it’s still overwhelmingly idealistic. They both expect too much of the world IMO, I’d personally prefer a Realist approach
Given that only Bush or Kerry have a chance of winning the election, it’s kind of idealistic to hold out for a “Realist” at this stage of the game.
Obviously I’m not going to get anything close to what I’d see as worth a vote, I’ve resigned myself to that already — which is why I’m not voting for anybody for president.
If only Badnarik weren’t still clinging to staunch isolationism…
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000034