OK, this isn’t what I had in mind as an alternative.

Though I have to say, if all you care about is the war, there would be a lot worse tickets…

This is for “Hillary Supporter.” Glenn Reynolds disputes someone who still fantasizes that it’s about the national guard.

[Late Sunday update]

For those who have already read Glenn’s post, you might want to do so again–he has an update:

…it’s important to understand that to the Framers the “militia” wasn’t some specialist unit of government employees, but a group consisting of the armed populace; one that, though in some ways organized by the government, was also in some ways set against the government, as a check. As Akhil Amar says, think jurors, but with guns. Thus, any reading of the Second Amendment that would allow the government to extinguish that militia is impermissible, since it would lead to a state that is insecure, or unfree.

Also, on his comment that “…the ‘militia’ was said to consist of ‘the body of the people’) was essential as a check on government power, the government couldn’t be allowed to disarm it by neglect.”

Doesn’t that imply that we should have federal subsidies for firearms for US citizens?

You know, an affirmative action program for gun purchasers? Wouldn’t anything less be neglect? The more firepower, the bigger the check you get from Washington?

Leave no gun owner behind? 😉

I’m reminded by a commenter that today is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. I had never really thought about the date before–it hadn’t occurred to me that it took place in the winter in Boston. What did Narragansetts wear in that clime?

Anyway, sometimes, particularly given how little difference there is between the two parties, I think we’re overdue for another one.

This little counterfactual (for people who came here via Instapundit) is one of the reasons.

As Mark Steyn notes, here’s a good example of “liberal” fascism.

[Update about 5 PM]

Heh:

They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, fearmongering would be the end of democracy. And they were right!

As Mark Steyn notes, here’s a good example of “liberal” fascism.

[Update about 5 PM]

Heh:

They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, fearmongering would be the end of democracy. And they were right!

As Mark Steyn notes, here’s a good example of “liberal” fascism.

[Update about 5 PM]

Heh:

They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, fearmongering would be the end of democracy. And they were right!

…by Fred Thompson. I don’t really care that much about pro-life issues, myself, but I suspect that will leave a mark for a lot of people.

This bad. Glenn Reynolds:

I think I’d vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I’d feel dirty the next morning. And I’d be even more likely to vote for Hillary or Obama.

Of course, Glenn was a Democrat for a long time (and even worked on Gore’s campaign in 1988, about the time I first met him). He apparently wasn’t as put off by the party in the nineties as I was.

I think I’d just write someone in.

[Evening update]

In response to a commenter here, Glenn expands on his reasoning:

Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards’ programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee’s programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty. The main thing Huckabee has, policy wise, that Edwards doesn’t is that he favors Second Amendment rights, but I wonder if he wouldn’t jettison them in some sort of “for the children” compromise at a crucial point, knowing that he’d get media adulation for doing so. Plus, the more I watch him [in] operation, the more Clintonian his campaign seems. Edwards’, on the other hand, is just inept, which suggests that he wouldn’t be very scary in office. And both would probably be equally Carteresque in foreign policy.

Do we really want another Arkansas governor “from Hope”?

Of course, this argument assumes that the Democrats will retain Congress…

I don’t always agree with Dick Morris, but I think he’s right here, and he knows the Clintons very well:

The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary

That’s what Freeman Hunt thinks that Mike Huckabee would be. Sounds about right to me. I think that if the choice is another big-government Republican against a big-government Democrat, it opens up a huge opportunity for a new party.