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.

Comments

metalgrid | October 26, 2004, 9:49am | #

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.

joe | October 26, 2004, 9:52am | #

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.

Patrick | October 26, 2004, 11:02am | #

What metalgrid said.

TWC | October 26, 2004, 12:25pm | #

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.

Curtis | October 26, 2004, 1:44pm | #

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.

gaius marius | October 26, 2004, 3:52pm | #

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.