“…it’s worth it.”

I haven’t said much about the Omaha mall shooting, either, but I agree completely with Glenn. No more “gun-free” zones. I, too, would like to see some lawsuits against those who (pathetically) attempt to establish them.

Because they’re a chimera, and a fantasy, and only enable the murderers and muckers.

[Friday update]

Scott Ott (in an uncharacteristically unfunny piece) has an alternate history:

As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.

By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins

A monument to Che Guevara, put up by the Chavez government, has been destroyed in Venezuela:

“We do not want a monument to Che, he is not an example for our children,” said a note left at the scene of the monument shattered by six gunshots, according to El Universal newspaper.

Can’t say that I blame them. I wonder if the people who did this were emboldened by Hugo’s poll defeat? And if and how the government will punish them?

Given Che’s methods, taking it down with six gunshots seems appropriate.

Ace says not to nominate another liberal“compassionate conservative” Republican for president.

And do we really want a man who was completely unaware of some of the biggest foreign policy news of the week?

I really think that a Huckabee nomination would result in some kind of third-party or independent run, by someone.

[Update in the early evening]

But not by Mike Bloomberg. By someone who actually has some sense of libertarian/conservative principles.

In fact, it strikes me that most viable third-party candidates are “centrists” (assuming for the sake of the argument that political positions really are simple enough to put on a one-dimensional left/right scale) who attempt to appeal to the so-called moderates (John Anderson, a liberal Republican in 1980, being a representative example).

In this case the cause for a new entrant wouldn’t be a perception of polarization, but from a sense that there was little choice between the two candidates. I mean, if you’re a Democrat, what’s not to like about Huckabee, other than his position on abortion and guns? I can imagine that in a Clinton/Huckabee race, he might very well pull a lot of the Democrat vote. Most Republicans would vote for him purely out of an antipathy to Hillary!, albeit while holding both nostrils tightly shut. He may, in that sense, be the most electable “Republican.”

The question is, if a true conservative ran, how much would he take from Huckabee? Would it be like Perot (who wasn’t really a conservative–he didn’t have any coherent beliefs whatsoever), who took enough votes from Bush to give the election to Clinton? Or would a charismatic conservative candidate manage to get a majority, and split the Dems between the two liberal candidates?

I don’t know, but this promises to be one of the most interesting (and probably depressing, for a classical liberal) elections in my lifetime. My guess is that Huckabee won’t get the nomination, for many reasons, like the ones that started off this post.

So sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it’s true in more than one sense of the word…

So sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it’s true in more than one sense of the word…

So sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it’s true in more than one sense of the word…

Bruce Bawer hasn’t caught Obama fever:

…on whom does Barack

Lileks:

I suspect that the impulse to bring all these untidy unhelpful examples of flagrant individualism under the steady hand of the Ministry of Rational Allocation has something to do with that fretful busybody insistence that people are simply not living right. If we had Star Trek replicators in every house that would conjure goods and meals out of boundless energy produced by antimatter teased from a three-micron fissure that opened into a universe populated entirely by unicorns who crapped antimatter in such abundance they were happy we used it up, and used their shiny pointy horns to poke more of it through the aperture into our dimension, columnists would bemoan the disconnect between labor and goods, and the soul-corrupting influence of endless ersatz vegetables. You can

Hillary seems to be quite confident that she will be the next president:

Couric asked, “How disappointed will you be” if she doesn’t win; Clinton replied: “Well, it will be me.” “Clearly,” the CBS anchor persisted, “you have considered” the “possibility of losing”? “No, I haven’t,” said Clinton. “So you never even consider the possibility?” “I don’t. I don’t.”

Really?

In that case, why not give up your Senate seat? You’ll have to quit next year, anyway, and you’d be able to devote full time to your campaign, and not short change the good people of New York of one of their Senator’s services. And the governor (at least until he’s indicted and has to resign) is a Democrat who would nominate another to replace you, so there’d be no change in the Senate party alignment.

What are you waiting for?

Or is it just an act?

The amusing thing is that it isn’t clear that such arrogant statements even help her. Novak, after all, calls it a gaffe (though I don’t know why he thinks it’s her first). I think that it will reinforce the negative feelings that a lot of people already have about her.

I have to say that, while I disagree with Mike Huckabee about almost everything, he is a good debater. He’s witty, and quick on his feet.

Unfortunately (and I don’t have a solution to this problem–it’s endemic to a republic) the qualities that are necessary to win the presidency are not necessarily those necessary to be an effective or good president. Bill Clinton is one of the most notable examples of this. Sadly, and conversely, Fred Thompson may be as well, though ironically, if he never becomes president, we’ll never get a chance to find out…