Here’s a brave college student, defending his right to defend himself, even on campus.

Heh:

When a cat is affectionate towards you, he really means it. With a dog he’s merely sucking up. Cats are like Britons. Dogs are like the French. Dogs expend insane amounts of useless energy yet never accomplish anything – they are like liberals. Cats conserve their energy and pick their fights – they are like conservatives. Please keep up the good fight.

Why, yes, I did in fact have trouble categorizing this post.

Arnold Kling lays out his issues. I agree with almost all of them. I laid out my own problems with Bush a few days ago. One would have to be deranged (Bush deranged, that is) to think that I’m a big fan of this president.

I also agree with Arnold that Al Gore is much more responsible for the current divisiveness, going back to 2000, than Bush is. Bush is not a “divider.” If anything, he has been much too willing to compromise with the Democrats. As I’ve noted before, he’s no conservative.

I should also note (as I have in the past) that the president’s approval rating, and “right track, wrong track” polling tells one nothing useful about who will win the next election (even if Bush himself were still running). I have never approved of Bush’s performance, but I remain damned glad that Kerry didn’t win.

People who simplistically think that those who are unhappy with one party means that they’ll simply switch to the other are apparently unfamiliar with the concept that there are some, even many (and I think the numbers are growing) people who are unhappy with both major parties. It’s also foolish to try to guess about the source of the unhappiness.

Democrats delude themselves that they won last fall because people wanted out of Iraq, which is why they are having their idiotic slumber party tonight, and why Cindy Sheehan thinks that she can run against Nancy Pelosi on an “impeach Bush and withdraw from Iraq immediately” platform. No, Dems won because a lot of the Republican base stayed home, because they were disgusted with a White House that didn’t seem to want to win in Iraq, and a Congress that had forgotten that Republicans were supposed to be responsible spenders. Similarly, the media and the left fool themselves if they think that McCain’s campaign cratered over Iraq, rather than the other “I” word.

Amusingly, I suspect that many of the donkeys idiotically think that their low approval rating on the Hill is because they haven’t surrendered fast enough. I wouldn’t bet at all that the public won’t tire of them much faster than it did the Republicans, and there could be another turnover in ’08, particularly if there is a strong candidate at the head of the ticket (e.g., Fred Thompson), and a sense that the Republicans learned their lesson. That would be in keeping the the “Feiler faster thesis,” in which a political party in power wears out its welcome with increasing rapidity.

Arnold Kling lays out his issues. I agree with almost all of them. I laid out my own problems with Bush a few days ago. One would have to be deranged (Bush deranged, that is) to think that I’m a big fan of this president.

I also agree with Arnold that Al Gore is much more responsible for the current divisiveness, going back to 2000, than Bush is. Bush is not a “divider.” If anything, he has been much too willing to compromise with the Democrats. As I’ve noted before, he’s no conservative.

I should also note (as I have in the past) that the president’s approval rating, and “right track, wrong track” polling tells one nothing useful about who will win the next election (even if Bush himself were still running). I have never approved of Bush’s performance, but I remain damned glad that Kerry didn’t win.

People who simplistically think that those who are unhappy with one party means that they’ll simply switch to the other are apparently unfamiliar with the concept that there are some, even many (and I think the numbers are growing) people who are unhappy with both major parties. It’s also foolish to try to guess about the source of the unhappiness.

Democrats delude themselves that they won last fall because people wanted out of Iraq, which is why they are having their idiotic slumber party tonight, and why Cindy Sheehan thinks that she can run against Nancy Pelosi on an “impeach Bush and withdraw from Iraq immediately” platform. No, Dems won because a lot of the Republican base stayed home, because they were disgusted with a White House that didn’t seem to want to win in Iraq, and a Congress that had forgotten that Republicans were supposed to be responsible spenders. Similarly, the media and the left fool themselves if they think that McCain’s campaign cratered over Iraq, rather than the other “I” word.

Amusingly, I suspect that many of the donkeys idiotically think that their low approval rating on the Hill is because they haven’t surrendered fast enough. I wouldn’t bet at all that the public won’t tire of them much faster than it did the Republicans, and there could be another turnover in ’08, particularly if there is a strong candidate at the head of the ticket (e.g., Fred Thompson), and a sense that the Republicans learned their lesson. That would be in keeping the the “Feiler faster thesis,” in which a political party in power wears out its welcome with increasing rapidity.

Arnold Kling lays out his issues. I agree with almost all of them. I laid out my own problems with Bush a few days ago. One would have to be deranged (Bush deranged, that is) to think that I’m a big fan of this president.

I also agree with Arnold that Al Gore is much more responsible for the current divisiveness, going back to 2000, than Bush is. Bush is not a “divider.” If anything, he has been much too willing to compromise with the Democrats. As I’ve noted before, he’s no conservative.

I should also note (as I have in the past) that the president’s approval rating, and “right track, wrong track” polling tells one nothing useful about who will win the next election (even if Bush himself were still running). I have never approved of Bush’s performance, but I remain damned glad that Kerry didn’t win.

People who simplistically think that those who are unhappy with one party means that they’ll simply switch to the other are apparently unfamiliar with the concept that there are some, even many (and I think the numbers are growing) people who are unhappy with both major parties. It’s also foolish to try to guess about the source of the unhappiness.

Democrats delude themselves that they won last fall because people wanted out of Iraq, which is why they are having their idiotic slumber party tonight, and why Cindy Sheehan thinks that she can run against Nancy Pelosi on an “impeach Bush and withdraw from Iraq immediately” platform. No, Dems won because a lot of the Republican base stayed home, because they were disgusted with a White House that didn’t seem to want to win in Iraq, and a Congress that had forgotten that Republicans were supposed to be responsible spenders. Similarly, the media and the left fool themselves if they think that McCain’s campaign cratered over Iraq, rather than the other “I” word.

Amusingly, I suspect that many of the donkeys idiotically think that their low approval rating on the Hill is because they haven’t surrendered fast enough. I wouldn’t bet at all that the public won’t tire of them much faster than it did the Republicans, and there could be another turnover in ’08, particularly if there is a strong candidate at the head of the ticket (e.g., Fred Thompson), and a sense that the Republicans learned their lesson. That would be in keeping the the “Feiler faster thesis,” in which a political party in power wears out its welcome with increasing rapidity.

Randy Barnett, on anti-war libertarians.

Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”

I agree.

Randy Barnett, on anti-war libertarians.

Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”

I agree.

Randy Barnett, on anti-war libertarians.

Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”

I agree.

An interview by Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Why did Fitzgerald, do you think, in your opinion, continue on with the investigation once Armitage had revealed it was he who was the leaker?

RN: Because

It’s a little long, but that’s my bumper sticker slogan. I think it’s refreshing to have a candidate so open about his bribe policy.

I want to jump on the Burge bandwagon, while the slot for Space Czar remains open. Normally, the Vice President is in charge of that kind of thing, but Goldstein doesn’t know anything about it.