When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
— Johnathan Swift

I don’t know about genius; I do know that George W. Bush cannot be both the complete and utter buffoon that the left believes him to be, while also being that criminal mastermind puppeteer controlling a massive worldwide conspiracy that the left simultaneously believes him to be. I do know that the basic premise holds; when all of the anti-Americans are in confederacy against a candidate, then that is a sure sign that he is a fine American. ANSWER, the Wobblies, the Bucannanites, the Klan, the Hippies, the NAACP, the Anarchists, the Communists, the Socialists, the Islamists and the French are all against him. They can’t all be right.

I’ve had influences. There are a lot of people thinking the same way that I was thinking, like Geek with a .45. First, the disclosures. I have never voted for a Republican. I did vote for a Democrat (Laura Miller for mayor) with the sly plan of putting in a mayor who could get absolutely nothing done. I learned my lesson. Other than that, I have always voted Libertarian, or not at all. Until recently, I have always been a big L libertarian. I’m not anymore, because this election is too important for pompous partisanship.

I don’t say that with the normal “partisanship BAD” idiocy you hear from politicians. Partisanship is good. When you join a party, you should toe the party line. When you don’t agree with the party, you try to change the party, not just stab your allies in the back. R.L. Heinlein makes an excellent argument for partisanship in Take Back Your Government and I agree with it. When your differences with your party are so divisive, so fundamental that you can no longer toe the party line, then it is time to break off and move on. That is what I did.

For this election, I am a single issue voter. It’s the War, Stupid. This is a war for the survival of who we are. This is a war of survival on all levels. It is a war for my individual survival, and yours. It is a war for the survival of freedom. It is a war for the survival of the free market. It is a war for the survival of social liberty. If we are to keep doing the things that made us free and wealthy and healthy and American, we must fight and we must win this war.

Kerry will not win this war. He won’t lose it, I don’t think. We will lose it without direction. Kerry will put the war off, the same way Clinton did, the same way Bush 41 did. Bush 43 isn’t putting the war off. He is winning it. I have no confidence whatsoever in John Forbes Kerry as commander in chief of a wartime USA. His voting history speaks for itself. He has taken every chance offered to try to weaken the ability of the United States to defend itself. I don’t have a problem with taking a principled stand; I admire it. I do have a problem with a principled stand that ends with me being dead before my time.

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
— Samuel Adams

“The economy is bad.” “Gas is expensive.” “There aren’t any jobs.” I could forgive people for being cowards, because that is what this mentality is. Someone who would value material possessions over a war for freedom is a coward. These arguments go far, far beyond that. Not only is it cowardice — it is cowardice based on false premise. The economy is not bad. The recovery is well established. Gas is not expensive. It is cheaper in real dollars than in 1980, without figuring in the improved efficiency of higher mile per gallon vehicles. The jobs are plentiful — the number of new jobs since the start of the year have exceeded the “10 million jobs in 4 years” rate that Kerry has promised. It isn’t bad enough to be a rat; the people clinging to these lines are wrong rats.

I disagree with Bush. I have a burning hatred of the War on Minorities the Poor Drugs, which he supports. He doesn’t seem to realize that he has a veto power. He is costing American lives by his irrational stand on stem-cell research. I am not happy with his FCC, his FDA, his EPA (too regulatory), his BATF, his DOA, and pretty much any other alphabet soup agency you can think of. I am happy with his DOD, and his armed forces. That one issue is enough to outbalance all of the others.

Bush is no friend of personal liberty. He spends other people’s money too freely, and is the sort of person who is all for liberty, as long as you use it the way he wants you to. John Kerry, on the other hand, has absolutely no use for you having any freedom no matter how you use it, and in fact finds it damned inconvenient that he hasn’t already been able to do something about that. Neither man is going to advance the cause of freedom in America, but Bush will allow us to hold the line. In fact, Bush will let us advance the cause in other countries, making our line even stronger here. John Kerry will not.

Given this regrettable reality, this is now a Blog for Bush. My brother, 24, summed up the vote well. Last March, we were both watching TV when Dub made his speech on the opening night of the campaign. When he appeared on TV, everything was uncertain. We would probably attack, but nothing was certain. I wanted the attack as soon as possible. We were ready, and I saw no point in allowing Hussain more time to ferret away what he could and fortify what he couldn’t. My brother said, “Well, if we are going to do it, then do it and stop pussyfooting around.”

“Well, Dub isn’t going to pussyfoot around. He might wait a little while to get his ducks in order, but we aren’t going to have any “No bombing Hanoi” Vietnam crap.”

“I’ll tell you this — when he gets on TV in a couple of minutes, all I want to hear from him is ‘the bombs are dropping, bitch.’ If he gets on TV and he has that green picture with explosions in Bagdhad beside him, he’s got my vote.” He got on TV, got as close to “the bombs are dropping, bitch” as a US President can, and Fox News supplied the green explosions. I’m sure Bush secured more than one Jacksonian vote that night. It will be the first election my brother votes in.


  1. The Sicilian says:

    Great post. Very much agreed. I may have my issues with George Bush, but they’re not strong enough for me to vote against him when this country needs him so badly.

  2. Kevin Baker says:

    (Psssst! Robert Anson Heinlein.)

    And I agree with everything else you have to say.

    It’s a sad fact to realize that Bush is the best of the poor candidates we have to choose from, and that we have to thank whatever forces that managed to thwart Gore in 2000.

  3. Neil says:

    Good point. Bush is the best candidate right now and that makes my stomach hurt.

  4. Dennis says:

    Incompetent to lead the military, obviously. But worse for liberty than someone who doesn’t even believe in trial by jury, judicial oversight, or access to lawyers? I don’t think that case has been made.

    Far as I’m concerned, it’s time for the Republicans to take some punishment for this sort of thing, so they stop thinking they can get away with it. I’m voting Libertarian.

  5. Phelps says:

    The president’s most vital constitutional function is to lead the military. Mike Badnarik has shown that he is incompetent to lead the military in his insane stance that we should withdraw from Iraq “as safely as possible”. The only safe way to do it — the only way that won’t cost more American lives than the alternative — is to not withdraw at all.

  6. Dennis says:

    So you’re proposing a permanent garrison in Iraq?

  7. Phelps says:

    Permanent? No. Indefinate? Hell yes. Abandon Germany as our primary foreign forward basing and move it to Northwestern Iraq. Build the bases and the airfields. Build the infrastructure to support it (which will also feed the rest of the country). Do for Iraq what we have been doing for Germany the last 50 years.

  8. Dennis says:

    Interesting idea, but even Bush isn’t going that far…at least, that’s not what we’re telling the U.N.

    Whether it’s wise is probably worth thinking about, but I will point out that Rumsfeld’s idea was to remove Hussein and his minions and get out, leaving the Baaths and Iraqi Army in place to keep order. That’s why he figured on only 130,000 troops…then Bremer was given charge of the country and he had other ideas. I don’t think all this makes Rumsfeld incompetent to lead the military.