For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

…but he’s still idiotic on some issues:

Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: “Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life.”

But of course, there is no risk to your life if you’re unarmed…

[Update on Monday morning]

As noted in comments, this thread got hijacked by the usual suspects, but here are some interesting thoughts on another Frenchman, Tocqueville, who was a lot smarter than Sarkozy on these issues. Also, on what happens when mass killers meet armed citizens, as was demonstrated over the weekend in Colorado.

…not universal health care. An essay by Lin Zinser and (Dr.) Paul Hsieh (of Geek Press).

Contrary to claims that government-imposed

“…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

“…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

“…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…