Harry Browne, the presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, is asking for my vote, and I would love to be able to give it to him. I voted for Harry in 1996 and I still believe I'd made the right choice. This time, however, that will not happen. It's not Harry's politics, it's because of the political reality.

In the best of all possible worlds a Libertarian candidate would have at least a slim chance of winning the presidency. Perhaps some day one will, but that day is not here. Mr. Browne admits that his chances for victory are almost non-existent, but asks for my vote to show the major parties that they don�t own this country. "It's only wasting your vote if you choose the lesser of two evils," says the Libertarian party. In a way they're correct. If larger, non-presidential issues were not at stake I'd vote for Harry in a heartbeat. But that is not the case this time.

Here's a reality check: Only Gore or Bush will win this election. None of the smaller parties, not the Libertarians, Greens, Reforms or Socialists have a chance. The truth of the matter is that votes for their candidates would neither help them get elected or "send a message" to the major parties, but they can swing the election and turn the outcome from fair to truly awful. In this case, voting for Harry could help tip my state to Gore. Michigan is an important state this year and polls show it's a very close race. I'm afraid that not "wasting my vote" could help the worst of all possible outcomes turn into reality.

The Libertarian party has some things right about Bush. He is no foe of big government, as he is not opposed to any program now on the books. He is a compromiser, and his versions of tax relief and social security reform (while magnitudes better than Gore's) barely go far enough. Given all of these problems, why will I vote for him?

Bush has a strong record on protecting Second Amendment rights. He campaigned for and then passed shall-issue CCW in Texas, and strengthened it further by extending the right to carry into public buildings. HCI hates him for that. While no one can guarantee he won�t compromise on this once he's president, his record to date is excellent. Bush's Vice Presidential nominee, Dick Cheney, has been a longtime supporter of gun rights. Nominating him for this position shows that the country would be well served if the he were ever called upon to lead the nation.

Gore has publicly embraced the Million Moms and has pledged to push hard to get their agenda through Congress. If Democrats win there, you can count on that legislation being sent to the president within the first few months. Who would you rather have there to receive it, Bush or Gore?

I'm sure that Gore would not stop with the Million Moms version of "reasonable gun control" (an admitted oxymoron), either. He understands that his political support, and the money that goes with it, comes from unabashedly anti-gun organizations. No matter how extreme their next move would be, he would endorse it. Confiscation would be no problem for Mr. Gore if that was where the fund raising compass pointed.

Gun rights, however, encompass the smaller issue. The most important reason I'm going to support Bush is because at least three, and perhaps four, Supreme Court justices are expected to retire within the next presidential term. Bush is on record saying he will appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench. This is what the Founders of our country intended. Personal liberties are absolutes, recognized in the Bill of Rights, with almost no room allowed for the government to tread on them. It is essential that the judicial branch recognize that.

Libertarians say that the Constitution shows no support for Federally funded education and other things that Bush advocates. Someday the Supreme Court may have to rule on that, and strict constructionists will see the issue clearly and rule properly.

Gore said he believes that the Constitution should "grow" and change with the country, and that he would appoint jurists to support that view. That idea chills me to the bone. Publicly acknowledging that our civil liberties should change over time can only mean one thing: a downward spiral ending in tyranny.

This isn't "just" about gun rights. It�s the whole thing: freedom from searches, speech, assembly � you name it. A liberal activist Court will have an impact on this country that will last for generations. I cannot sit by and help that happen.

Yes, a vote for Bush is a vote for the lesser of two evils to this Libertarian. But this time, with all that we have at stake, I believe it is the only way to ensure we have a fighting chance to retain some semblance of the Republic.

Sorry, Harry, maybe next time.