L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 294, October 24, 2004
"Scare the crap out of the statists!"
A Comparison of the Presidential Candidates
Exclusive to TLE
Looking at the news media, you would think there are only two presidential candidates, Bush and Kerry. Actually, there are dozens, but only three others are major contenders in the election, even though none of them presently have more than a bare mention in many polls. Those other three candidates are Ralph Nader (I), Michael Badnarik (L), and Michael Peroutka (C). Therefore, I will go over these five candidates, and compare them.
Please keep in mind that these are my personal impressions, based on published news reports, hearsay, public actions, and in one case (you'll know which one), on a conversation where I was present.
George W. Bush: current president of the United States. Considered by many to have stolen the 2000 presidential election, during his presidency we have been attacked by terrorists on American soil. As a consequence, a cowardly Congress passed, and George Bush signed, the so-called PATRIOT ACT, without even the most cursory reading of the law they were enacting, a law which completely and totally violates every single one of the amendments of the Bill of Rights. President Bush has sworn to veto any action to repeal or to bring the PATRIOT ACT into closer compliance with the Constitution. Hmmm, doesn't this constitute a violation of his oath of office? In addition, this is the president who appointed the rabidly fundamentalist neo-con John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. My conclusion: no.
John Kerry: a liberal's liberal. Even though he served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, my personal opinion is that this was done to enhance any similarity that was percieved to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He has changed his position on so many issues, so many times, that it is impossible to see the real person, except in his voting record. On just one issue, the Second Amendment and gun control, he has proven himself a complete foe of individual liberty. On every vote in his Senate history, he has voted against the rights of American citizens, even though he now attempts to portray himself as a friend of the Second Amendment and outdoorsmen.
My conclusion: no.
Ralph Nader: a Luddite. For those who don't know, a Luddite is one who rejects technology and innovation as damaging to tradition and traditional values. Ralph Nader attempts to portray himself as a friend of the average consumer and the environment. In actuality, his actions have caused more harm than any other single factor outside of government itself. My conclusion: no.
Michael Peroutka: I don't know that much about Mr. Peroutka, but the fact that he wants to return to the basic Constitution is a mark in his favor. In fact, if I had not met and admired another candidate, I would definitely consider voting for Mr. Peroutka, If that is, the party platform wasn't so religion based. My conclusion: maybe/yes.
Michael Badnarik: an intense, focused, determined man. Based not only on published remarks of Mr. Badnarik, but also on a speech presented at Ohio State University, and on his bearing and answers during the question and answer period, I consider him to be a consummate American, honest to a fault, and potentially the man who could teach America how to be free again.
My conclusion: a definite yes!
Again, these are my personal opinions, and I have no intention of telling you who to vote for. That is entirely up to you. It is up to you to decide who can be trusted to govern the nation that was once called the 'last, best hope' for freedom on Earth.
As always, I encourage each and every one of you to check out the facts for yourself, do the research, make your own decision. Never, ever take my unsupported word for anything, and still less that of any governmental or media outlet. You are responsible for your own freedom, not me, and definitely not them!