It's hard to imagine it being less than a sure thing for Bush to be reelected next fall. I'd love it if another conservative candidate (or should I say an *actually* conservative candidate) stepped up and won the votes of the American people, but I don't think it'll happen. I'd like to see a Libertarian candidate have a real shot -- they would certainly stand out from Bush and anyone the Dems could nominate. And for all the liberal excitement over Howard Dean, I don't think he can win either. (Not that I'd want him to.)

Unforunately, libertarians tend to be phenomenally limp-wristed on national security issues. A consistent, hard-nosed libertarian views conscription as slavery and any foreign policy that deviates from strictly economic (and entirely free-market at that) policies to be imperialistic. This is a problem.

Well, I don't think Pat B's gonna run. Too bad. Bush isn't all bad though...it's nice that we finally have a president that won't sacrifice his country for the sake of political gain.

You think? Take a gander at his fiscal responsibility scores and check back. He's downright profligate in his expenditures.

I think that you have to take into account that the greatest task of any American president is dealing with bureaucracy and compromising. The reason I typically don't like libertarians as politicians is because they are completely unwilling to compromise. Sometimes you have to compromise your desires for the good of the American people (i.e. Bush had to give up a lot in his tax cuts, but he was willing to compromise to a degree b/c SOME cuts would be better than NO cuts for the people).

I can sit here and talk all day about how I love Pat Buchannan and would love for him to be president, but his unwillingness to compromise means that he will never have a shot.

His xenophobia could be a bit of a hassle, too.

Bush has compromised far less than Clinton ever did. He's gotten more of what he wanted than anyone since Reagan.