Before I do my post of a definition of Objectivism--

which I guess I had assumed was widely familiar, at least in the straw-man version most "liberals" portray, or the straw-man versions of William F. Buckley and Whittacre Chambers, or the new one by Justin Raimondo--let me advise you to read an Objectivist Bush Backer, and admit my relief in finding one among ARI aficionados.

First let me quote the Anger Management disclaimer:

I am neither a spokesman for, nor an authority on, Objectivism. I speak only for myself. If you wish to know Ayn Rand's actual views, I refer you to her works, and to the experts at the Ayn Rand Institute.

He has many links to Objectivist resources.

OK. Dipping into the article:

I mailed in my ballot last week. It was nice to be able to take my time and research just about every issue—I still can't bring myself to vote one way or the other about judicial performance.
...
The primary reason why I voted for Bush was because of his foreign policy. I've listened to Yaron Brook's lecture "The Morality of War" and I agree with it completely. I've read Victor Davis Hanson's excellent article "What Would Patton Say About the Present War" and I agree with it completely....
...
Conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and William Rehnquist offer opinions that I would agree with 80% of the time since they come from a strict constructionist perspective. Using the Constitution as a reference point is not the worst position that a conservative can take. They evince a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution's purpose, but the text itself is pretty compelling. Liberal justices like Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Hugo Black offer opinions that I would disagree with 80% of the time. They take the Constitution as a suggestion, a document to consider. Their activist perspective has led to sanctioning most of the welfare state and our current grave misunderstanding of rights. The prospect of another forty or fifty years of liberal activism was a little too daunting.
...
I made my decision after wrestling with these issues for months. I must say that I cast my vote with a heavy heart. George W. Bush is no friend of the free market: his compassionate conservatism is just the mixed economy reprised. The amalgamation of capitalism with socialism is the most devastating result of the welfare state and the philosophy of altruism that inspired it. Unfettered capitalism could remake our economy into the unstoppable powerhouse that it could be instead of the limping milquetoast it has become. The conservative is an enemy of capitalism as much as a socialist is—more so, in fact, because he concedes the rightness of the system to the socialist.
...
To be sure, we must conduct such interactions with the conservatives strategically. For example, I don't mind voting for Bush because I know that his second term will also be his last. I also know that there is currently a very substantial vacuum for a successor: Cheney will likely not run due to his poor health, age, and general unpopularity; Colin Powell never capitalized on his rampant popularity when he had the chance; and McCain is close enough to being a Democrat to have made it unlikely that he could mount a successful presidential campaign. It's probable that someone will step up to the fore in the four years of Bush's presidency and there's a good chance that it will be someone worth having as president: Steve Forbes, your time has come—please run in 2008! There is even some speculation that Donald Rumsfeld might try for it. If John Kerry won, the Republican nominee in 2008 would either be in the same mold as George Bush (if not Bush himself) or a McCain-style candidate that is basically a Democrat without being a liberal. We definitely don't need one of those (Bob Dole was quite enough, thank you).

Bush for four might lead to Forbes for eight. My heart sings at the thought.

I was (again) seriously considering voting for Badnarik, even though I actually think Kerry would be stronger on the War, because I can't abide Socialism. Though it was handy to be able to say something positive about Kerry this weekend up at the in-laws' place, where I'd rather not talk politics at all. (I think I may accidentally have admitted to owning a semi-automatic rifle to them in the heat of discussion. Since the cat's out of the bag, I'll go ahead and admit it to you.)

Now I will turn back to Bush.

BTW I've Trackbacked both BBrown and Anger Management, as is only proper, since I'm talking about them. Hopefully they can add some input as well.