colbert nation

Ron Paul made a stop on Colbert. Free and Alive!, at least until that robot toddler in Japan grows up. (Patriot Act) is a big dog on my list of things that bother me greatly (I'm hoping nobody notices I complained about it, that's why I'm writing in whisper mode here). He's making a bigger fan at least of me. I haven't seen a major candidate that impresses me at all. There are certain points on which I'm not really convinced. I happen to like less trade barriers and some international operations to make some semblance of order out of the chaos that is international relations. But his understanding of our foreign policy and its intentions toward our own public (fear mongering, war on drugs, war on terror, war on communism, etc) seems more intensive than any of the other buffoons running. Of the things I've written on Iraq, one thing which perhaps hasn't been mentioned is that I'm not at all convinced we should be there (probably because nobody cares what I think anyway). I've written much on the whining and bickering, because that very much annoys me, and the bungling, because I'm convinced I'd have done better at conquering a country.. (wait, did I say that out loud, forget I mentioned that, yes). But if we're going to fight wars, there really should be a better reason than the 'energy war' as Cheney calls it. 'Spreading Democracy'? Not so much. It's like the adage in the Qo'ran on spreading faith by the sword. It doesn't work. Why we (and they) try it, I don't know.

Based on my impression of what a president should be, our president should be a projection of American interests (all of them, not just the ones that happened to buy enough votes) and an arbiter of those interests on the international arena. In other words, all those excerpts of 'values' and 'character', whatever that means, aren't very important. I don't want another sound byte president, but the way our country is designed, we're going to be getting one. We shouldn't and probably won't agree 100% of the time with whoever is office, but we as a public should get someone we have some philosophical agreement with and who will still be able to represent us on the grander arena of foreign entanglements, rather than someone who intones on about freedom and terror.

This isn't the 18th century anymore. We aren't isolated. Our corporate entities and the evolution of a mobile society have made it impossible to go back to our isolationist roots. We are now part of a global society. Paul, of all the candidates (the dems don't seem to get it at all, they seem to be against the war simply because bush is for it, that's not ideological or sensical), at least seems to recognize our impact on the various players on that stage, but doesn't seem to want us to be on that stage ourselves. Which is at least understandable, if impossible. I don't think he has a chance, simply because the republican base is composed of evangelical morons, but if he runs independent, I have a definitive candidate. I always vote 3rd parties for major offices anyway.