Also, Dr. Michael Hurd, who is an Objectivist and thus a critic of President Bush, has endorsed a candidate in the presidential election:
President Bush is a flawed candidate representing the right of America to defend itself, pre-emptively if necessary, against dangerous enemies. John Kerry, if elected, will stand for outright appeasement and pacifism. He says that he will defend us if we are attacked, but (1) there is absolutely nothing in his voting record to suggest this would ever be the case (note his vote against the first Gulf War and every major weapons system proposed during the Cold War, etc.); and (2) his promise defies the fact that we have already been attacked and will be attacked again if we don't continue to take action against our known enemies. How are we supposed to believe that John Kerry will retaliate when we are next attacked when he won't properly defend us after the first attack?
We don't have the luxury of sitting around and waiting for the perfect President to come along. These times are too dangerous. Given a choice between a President who will use force to defend us and a President who will not do so, there's no question about whom to select.
Read the whole article here.
The MN-GOP site has linked to a story about a leftist-activist who is being prosecuted for not turning in more than 300 completed voter registration cards.
An activist? I wouldn't think so.