Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks that Condoleezza Rice would make a strong candidate for President in 2008.  From all that I’ve heard this may be true.  Her credentials are certainly good, although she isn’t a politician.  I know that other politicians will make hay of this, but that doesn’t disqualify her (and it might give her an edge with parts of the population).  However, my evaluation of all candidates eventually comes down to one issue.  Those who know me will immediately know what that is.  It all comes down to guns.  Where a candidate stands on the issue of guns tells a lot about their political philosophy. 

While I may not embrace all of his anarcho-capitalist ideas, L. Neil Smith still speaks for me on this topic.  This is from a short essay of his entitled, “Why Did it Have to be … Guns?”:

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

So, call me a single-issue voter if you will.  I don’t mind.  But there’s a lot more to it, as noted above.

I’ve been digesting the President’s address.  It’s something of a mixed bag.  Tax cuts are always good (and that old dog about “tax cuts for the rich” just won’t hunt anymore).  He gives lip service to fiscal responsibility, but then he goes and loads up a bunch of pork (Medicare, AIDS in Africa, mentoring, hydrogen power, etc).  Then there’s the standard boilerplate about how “evil” drugs are.  Sometimes it’s so hard for people to admit when they’re wrong.  If he really wanted to be remembered as a truly compassionate conservative, he’d end this insane war on drugs.

On the positive side he made it clear that a bunch of kvetching from so-called allies won’t deter us from our course:

Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.

He also throws in support for the resistance in Iran and tells the North Koreans that we won’t be blackmailed.  Then he runs down the litany of evil in Iraq.

I guess I’ll just have to wait and see where all this goes, but I’d hoped for better news on government spending.  Actually, with all the focus on foreign events, I’d hoped he would focus strictly on that, but it appears that he had to address criticism from the Democrats on domestic affairs.

Update  I don’t pretend to be fair and balanced, so I didn’t bother to watch the Democratic response.  I’m so fed up with them and their class warfare, life’s lottery bullcrap that I can’t watch most of them without getting apoplectic (but don’t assume that I like the Republicans either).  Anyway, Vodkapundit has a few words on the topic.

Cold Fury brought this post by Brian Tiemann at Peeve Farm to my attention today.  I hadn’t read his site before, but I found it interesting to see the perspective from someone who was formerly a hard-core liberal:

But 9/11 and its aftermath made me turn around completely on many other issues. A deeper understanding of American history and the country’s founding ideals gave me a deep respect for gun freedoms, though I still don’t like shooting them or memorizing bullet dimensions or making things blow up.

He’s coming to this later than I am.  My political turnaround came between 1993 and 1995 (you can guess what events took place in those years, but don’t jump to conclusions about why my outlook changed; more on this later).  Except for the gun issue (I was part of the armed liberal camp), I would probably have been right there with him on a lot of things back in my younger days.

I think I will write about my political conversion and the events of 1993 to 1995, but just not right now.  I’m under viral attack and it’s sapping my energy.  I’m not good for much right now other than sitting here and staring slack-jawed at the screen.  I hope this is just one of those short-term decisive victories, rather than long, protracted trench warfare.

Mrs. du Toit has a great post up concerning some of the things for which we can thank Bill Clinton & Company.  This one, though, is the clincher:

16. The last and most important point—thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called “political prisoners.” However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn’t Americans know the real truth? What a guy!!

Update:  I’ve been told that this particular item is not true (according to Snopes, there are two different Mohammed Attas).  Anyway, there are 15 or so other items remaining, so the original point of Mrs. du Toit’s rant stands.

We computer geeks often use language in strange ways.  For example, if something is broken, it might be because it has absorbed a bogon (which is an elementary particle of “bogusness”).  When I read this headline over at Emperor Misha’s site I was immediately reminded of this.  I therefore propose a new term:

goron: (n) An extremely massive particle of cluelessness.  Capable of extreme damage to people and institutions.  Until the year 1992 was only thought to be theoretical.  Discovery was confirmed in Florida in late 2000.

Stephen Green’s thoughts on the matter of libertarians mirror my own:

Some worried that Libertarians might again prove the spoilers in a race or three, throwing tight races to the Democrats. But let me tell you something about (small-l) libertarians.

We come in two flavors. First, are the nutcases who want nothing less than to re-wire human nature as thoroughly as Stalin’s plan for a New Soviet Man. More practical are those like myself, who see no (or little) contradiction between a strong state to wage war abroad, and healthy civil liberties at home.

The former were far more likely to keep voting (big-L) Libertarian in today’s election. The latter were much more likely to hold their noses (literally, in the case of Arthur Silber) and vote Republican. All this explains, at least to a small degree, Sununu’s win in New Hampshire.

So don’t think your vote doesn’t matter.

My only quibble would be that while I support a strong military, I’d like to see us less involved in a lot of locations around the world.  Don’t misunderstand this position.  If we are attacked or in danger, then I’m all in favor of bringing overwhelming force in to solve the problem.  I just don’t think we need to have troops stationed in 140 countries during peace time (forgive me if I got the number wrong, I’m working from memory on this one).

For me, it’s been a long and winding journey from left-wing liberal Democrat to Republican to libertarian.  There are many things I don’t like about the Republican party, but in yesterday’s elections I tended to vote for a Republican if the race was close or in doubt.  If I thought that the race was likely to go to the Republican, then I voted for the Libertarian candidate to keep the Republicans honest and to remind them that my support is not unconditional.

Given the positions of the core of the Democratic party, I will not vote for one of them anytime in the forseeable future.  A lot of Republicans know this, which is why I vote as I do.