No More Bush

|

Walter Olson, a Reason contributing editor and proprietor of the invaluable Overlawyered.com, isn't voting for Bush in a week. Part of the reason:

I'm among those who believes George W. Bush doesn't merit re-election, though I supported and in fact actively advised his campaign the first time around. For some of the reasons, check the links in this Oct. 5 post. Foreign policy and defense blunders aside, the last thing I wanted was an administration combining aggressive social conservatism with uncontrolled spending and big new government programs.

Whole thing here.

Is this one more sign that Bush's base–at least among libertarians–is shakier than John Hospers' pro-president rhetoric is apocalyptic.

Advertisement

NEXT: Take That, Bob Barr!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


  1. the last thing I wanted was an administration combining aggressive social conservatism with uncontrolled spending and big new government programs.

    Thank you. That about summed up the whole administration in a nutshell.

  2. I would have thought he’d be a single issue voter. It’s interesting that he doesn’t seem to base his decision on the candidates’ vision for legal reform at all.

  3. What metalgrid said.

  4. Hospers is a bright guy and I am surprised and disappointed that he is stumping for GWB. One can agree with his sentiments about JFK without pulling the lever for the current occupant of 1600 Penn Ave.

  5. And Kerry would be *much better* than Bush? Why can’t Kerry convince me of that? Is it because his supporters make a better case than he can? Will his eloquent supporters be in positions of power to advise him if he’s elected? Kerry is *totally dependent* on his supporters to make the case for him. I find that pretty spooky.

  6. And Kerry would be *much better* than Bush?

    mr curtis, as a midwestern conservative voting for kerry, i can only tell you what i think: that kerry is unlikely to be “much better” — but neither does he have bush’s dramatic possible downside. even if he tries to operate further to the left than he has indicated in his campaign, he will be a democratic president opposed by a vehemently republican congress.

    bush, on the other hand, has shown himself to be a neoconservative tool capable of incredible damage with the help of same.

    given the bush adminstration’s *thoroughly* documented (thanks to woodward, suskind and hersh) incompetence and unaccountability in prosecuting the wars in iraq and afgahanistan — against what may or may not be kerry’s possible incompetence — makes voting against the incumbent an easy choice for me despite my long record of libertarian and republican voting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.