Ten reasons to fire George W. Bush.

The short-sightedness of libertarians like Jesse Walker ("Ten Reasons to Fire George W. Bush," October) never ceases to amaze me. Granted that George Bush is no prize from the libertarian perspective, but when it comes to the most important issues for libertarians--namely those having to do with the size and scope of government--there should be no question that the Republican Party presents the best alternative for libertarians.

Of course, the Republican commitment to limited government often is more rhetorical than real, but the Democrats don't even offer rhetoric. Is there any doubt that the Democrats' solution to every problem involves a greater role for government?

The next president will likely name as many as four Supreme Court justices. Does anyone really think that the libertarian cause would be better off with the likes of four more big government activist justices like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as opposed to a Clarence Thomas, who is the closest thing to a libertarian to be found in authority anywhere in the federal government? Bush is the only rational choice for any thinking libertarian.

Anthony Conte

Winchester, MA

One can empathize with Jesse Walker's rationale for firing President Bush. However, given the alternative, it might he more amusing to keep the same team in office so they can continue to handle the chicken, geese, and assorted fowl returning to roost. As things deteriorate it wouldn't be nice to saddle a President Kerry with the blame.

John Michaels

Parsippany, NJ

There are ample reasons for disappointment with the Bush administration, and I agree with many that Jesse Walker outlined. I disagree that John Kerry would be even slightly better. He would be disastrously worse in almost all policy areas, not only for his term, but also by setting up statist structures that might endure for decades.

The steel tariffs were just bad policy; they clearly cost more jobs than they saved. But John Kerry demonizes outsourcing of service jobs to places like India. The Bush administration has overseen massive increases in domestic spending. John Kerry attacks the aggregate amount of spending, but demands more spending for each specific program.

The controversy over whether the war in Iraq was a necessary part of the "war on terror" will not be settled soon. But now the U.S. has an obligation to try to build a country in the heart of the Middle East that will not be a sanctuary for terrorists bent on attacking our interests, will John Kerry pursue this goal as forcefully as George Bush? I do not think so.

Walker also overlooked a couple of important areas where George Bush does have a perspective at least compatible with libertarian ideas.

George Bush wants to partially privatize Social Security, empowering people through ownership of their own assets. John Kerry is against this, which implies a massive tax hike or benefit cut to keep the program going. Despite the Medicare prescription drug fiasco, George Bush is advocating Medical Savings Accounts to try to rein in the costs of health care. John Kerry would opt for a single payer socialized medicine scheme. George Bush wants to make tax reduction permanent while John Kerry wants to take more of our property for public use.

Libertarians should think long and hard about which candidate is more in tune with free minds and free markets.

Bill Kingston

Bethel, OT