Ron Paul is Maverickier than John McCain

Like confusion? Check out these facts about Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul, from his website:

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

I like it. Very standing up to the President. Very I’m in public service to serve my country not for the free plane rides. Nice.

Also, at the second Republican presidential debate he got into a little bit of a heated exchange with Guiliani, when he offered up the ridiculous notion that America’s foreign policy doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Specifically, he said something along the lines of our 15 year track record of military presence in, and, uhm, bombing of, the Middle East may have been a part of the Sept 11 highjackers’ motivation. This is not an excuse for the attacks, or a way to blame America for the attacks, or blah blah blah. Which is what Rudy tried to make it out to be, even going so far as to say, “I don’t think I’ve heard that one before.” Seriously Rudy? He’s either lying, or has spend the last 6 years in a bubble with no periodicals. Paul’s comment was not of the kind reserved for conspiracy theorists and haters of Americans. It was the comment of an intelligent and concerned individual who is more concerned with actual National Security than ridiculous posturing. Are we seriously still having this conversation? It is patently ridiculous to say that any country’s military activities and foreign relations don’t affect that country’s reputation and people’s feelings about that nation. But GOP debates must maintain a high level of ridiculousness, so activists within the party are calling for Paul to be banned from future debates. Obviously the jump from ill will to terrorism is crazy, and nobody’s fault but the terrorists, but is it really so wrong to examine the source of the ill will? Or, uhm, is it really really smart and fucking necessary? I think the latter. And even FOX NEWS agrees with me about this, so I am going to consider the matter officially closed.

For those keeping score at home, it’s:
Team Me/Ron Paul/Fox News: 1
Team Giuliani/GOP Dudes: 0

So, Ron is mad Mavericky. I like it. But wait, he was at the GOP debate. Clearly we need to get to know each other a little better before I confess my undying love to him. More from the website:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

Oh. Mah. Gawd. I know what this is… he’s a LIBERTARIAN! He is a straight up Ayn Rand-reading, gun-toting, IRS-abolishing Libertarian. His car probably has a bumper sticker that reads something like “I Work Hard Because Millions on Welfare Depend on Me!”

Wait, wait, wait.

He is actually not a right wing nutjob. (Which might be why he is officially the least favorite candidate of The Rightosphere [this is their term, not mine]). He is also, clearly, not a leftwing nutjob. Might he be, actually, not a nutjob?

Yes. He said smart things at the first debate, like how cutting taxes is good, but that to do that you have to redefine the role of the government. This is true, and all I want to say to everyone who shouts and hollers about tax cuts this and tax cuts that is the following: stuff costs money. Streetlights, police officers, fire fighters, interstate highways, public schools, GOOD public schools, Medicaid, Social Security benefits. None of these are funded by leprechauns, nice as that might be.

Another smart non-nutjob, Andrew Sullivan, has this to say about Paul:

“From emails, it appears some of you think I’ve endorsed Paul. Please. I’m nowhere near as isolationist as he is. And he’s polling at zero percent. My view is simply that he is a particularly timely breath of fresh air in the fetid swamp that has become American conservatism. Anyone who loves democracy – who loves debate and and exchange of ideas – should be grateful he has expanded the range of thought within the primaries of the GOP. And it says a huge amount about the degeneracy of the current right that their response is to try and smear him and silence him. They don’t get liberty, do they?”

For the record, I’m not endorsing Rob Paul either. (Even if both of you readers out there voted how I told you to, I doubt that either one of you is voting in the Republican primary.) I’m just saying
(a) Libertarians can be kinda fun.
(b) Shut up, Giuliani and company, you’re being ridiculous.
(c) Rob Paul: not a nutjob.

iraq cash dot com

We are confused.

Recently I was trolling around some conservative sites on this interwebnet gizmo, just for grins, and I found a bunch of websites selling dinar (Iraqi currency). Apparently, pre-Gulf War the dinar was worth over $3 US. It is now about 1,450 dinar to the dollar. But, there is a cadre of [optimists/patriots/entrepreneurs/robber-barons - I'm really not sure which] that are dealing dinar to US and UK investors, in the hopes that it will some day pay off.

My confusion here has many layers. First, the motivation of the dinar dealers - many of whom are not professional financial type people – is this political? It remains unclear to me, even after reading this. Second, what is the story with buying currency? I am financially illiterate, as my overdrawn checking account can attest, and while I have friends who work in “finance,” my eyes glaze over when they describe their jobs and I don’t understand the first thing about why exchange rates change or anything else beyond counting back change (at which I excel, by the way). Apparently this is not like buying stocks, you are actually buying physical pieces of Iraqi currency that are shipped to you in the mail. Questions arise, like – how does this affect the Iraqi economy? Is it a good investment? A socially responsible investment?

So I will attempt to do my homework about this Iraqi cash issue and perhaps be back with an informed opinion on the matter. Meanwhile, if any of you out there are in the know about this business, do give us a holler…

Hell hath no fury like a warmonger scorned

I grew up sure of the fact that the United States had never lost a war. Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish-American, of 1812, WWI, WWII – we rocked the house in all of these venues. My certainty of our ability to win all wars all the time was largely due to the fact that in every American History class I ever took – from 5th grade through the end of highschool – we started with the founding fathers, moved chronologically forward and always ran out of time in the school year before learning anything about Vietnam. Then when I was 9 or 10 there was the Gulf War, in which we were treated to several weeks of American military dominance played out on network news in glowing green nightvision camera images of palm trees and domed buildings silhouetted by bombs. And, inevitably, we won.

And whatever else I think about war in general and the Iraq War in particular, I like this story: that we always win. That it is even our birthright to always win, because our Constitution is the best, and our governmental framework with the separation of church and state and the no taxation without representation and the freedom of the press and religion is also the best, and our Emancipation Proclamation manifest destiny liberation of concentration camps history is also the best, and all of this bestness entitles us to win. Everything. Every time. And while I am now able to analyze current affairs with a bit more sophistication than I could at age 9, I still have this feeling. And so, no matter how much I hate and resent the fact that we are now involved in a war that was entered into under a series of false pretenses and which continues to ruin our country’s international credibility and which has depleted our army’s resources and ballooned our national debt, I was still a little riled to hear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say, “This war is lost.”

That kind of talks stings even those of us who hate the war, because even though we hate the war, we like the story about being eternal, deserving, benevolent, winning winners.

And so it should come as no suprise that Reid was called “disrespectful and hate filled,” suffers from “foot in mouth disease,” and of course he has “turned his back on the troops” and “emboldened the enemy.” Republican House member and 2008 presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter has even called for Reid to step down as Majority Leader as a result of the comment.

This reaction is understandable, but let’s take a moment to think it through logically and not allow our bruised egos to shape our reactions, shall we, gentle readers? First, let’s look at the whole quote. Soundbites are tasty, but context is so much more nutritious.

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,”

So, he thinks the war is lost. In the same speech, he also said this:

“In short, there is no evidence that the escalation is working – and it should come as no surprise, because, as General Petraeus has said, the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one.

And General Abizaid said, ‘It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.’

Prior to this troop surge, President Bush had called for three surges – and each time they failed. Yet, despite this writing on the wall, he sent even more troops to battle — and asked again for our patience.

It has now been three months, and despite the President’s happy talk, no progress has been made. The time for patience is long past.”

This sucks! For the last couple of years I have been hoping that my thoughts about the war would be proven wrong, that Iraq would become a happy democracy and the troops would come home, having won the war and the hearts and minds and everything. But hold on, what sucks isn’t what Harry Reid said, it’s the situation that he was talking about. Is it really unpatriotic and hateful to point out that things have gone terribly wrong? Or is it unpatriotic and hateful to cause things to go terribly wrong, watch things go terribly wrong, and all the while sit back and assure yourself and others that “we are winning in Iraq ” (The National Review, May 2005), “the insurgency is in its last throes” (Cheney, June 2005), or that “We’re winning, and we will win” (GW Bush, March 2006)?

It certainly does suck to hear, in such clear language, that Senator Reid thinks the war is lost. But years and years of pretending to have won and to be winning have not worked. It might be time to stop stroking our national ego and coddling our collective sense of patriotism and say, “Wow. This has been a disaster. What the fuck are we going to do now?” It’s not fun. It’s not heartwarming. But it’s true, and that’s a nice change in our political discourse, and a good place to start.