The American Spectator

p> CHOICE REMARKS br> Re: Geoff Brandt’s “Uneasy Independence” letter in Reader Mail’s Religious Differences : /p>

I’d like to thank Geoff Brandt/Deist for his splendid rehashing of tired old rhetoric:

“But I’m an Independent who feels just a tad more like a “Small-L” Libertarian, one who takes great exception to Ashcroft’s visit to Oregon about its anti-suicide law, the Anti-Choice rhetoric and the GOP’s Morality Police.

“No, I certainly am not pro-abortion, but I resent anyone — especially those obnoxious and venomous loudmouths who would try to tell my daughters what they can or cannot do with their bodies.”

I can’t seem to get through the day if I don’t get my dose of the lowest common denominator of silly one-liners being presented as enlightened thinking.

Let’s tackle the “Anti-Choice rhetoric” he hates so much and proclaims is the whole-owned subsidiary of the GOP.

Does he mean the GOP that wants choice in public education to create an environment of competition and accomplishment to benefit the students? Does he mean the GOP that wants employees to have a choice in the 12.4% of their hard earned money taken by force from them and their employers for Social Security? Does he mean the GOP that want to the choice not to have their children indoctrinated with pseudo-science and forced acceptance of homosexuality? Or maybe it’s the evil GOP that are trying so take away our choice to drive an SUV because they erroneously think their elimination alone will totally wipe out our use of foreign oil?

And Mr. Brandt earns my “Look at me ma, I’m smart” award for his predictable and tired argument about “what women can or cannot do with their bodies.” I’m now happy to know Mr. Brandt is against laws banning prostitution, heroin and other drug usage, public nudity, bestiality, etc.

p>Gotta love those “small-L” Libertarians who should change the name of their party to “Pot and Hookers for All”! br> —