Minster: Republican caucus: tiger cages, scripture and free trade reform

The gist of things: A prisoner of war, a pious politician and economic brouhaha.

By Brandon Minster

Monday, February 11th, 2008


I attended this weekend's Republican caucus, where I chose between Sen. Tiger-Cage, Gov. Jesus and Dr. No-Trade. (The actu- al ballot said their names were Sen. McCain, Gov. Huckabee and Dr. Paul, but I think that was a typo.)

The first thing I heard when I walked into the assembly room was McCain's spokesman saying, “And I said, 'Senator, this must have been a tough week for you.' He said to me, 'Son, being beaten and kept in a tiger cage, that’s a tough week! This week is just something we'll work through.’ ”

(Just in case you haven't heard Sen. McCain yell it at you lately, he's a war hero. He was kept in a tiger cage. Vote accordingly. Tiger cage.)

There are lots of reasons to support a presidential candidate.Whether the candidate was a war hero is a pretty weak criterion. McCain's campaign is taking a page from the Rudy “9/11” Giuliani playbook, since it worked out so well for the former mayor. Any question for McCain is answered in terms of his war service. I fully expect the following exchange at the next debate.

Moderator: Senator, the American people want to know why you were a member of the Keating Five.

McCain: I didn't know it was wrong to take bribes, since I spent so many years not seeing money in a tiger cage. I didn't know it was actually money, on account of the tiger cage.

Moderator: And campaign finance reform? Doesn't your legislation violate the First Amendment?

McCain: I guess I'm used to having speech restricted, since the Viet Cong didn't let me talk too freely in the tiger cage.

Moderator: Senator, any closing remarks?

McCain: Yes. Firstly, I'm not Hillary Clinton. And secondly, tiger cage.

Meanwhile, Gov. Huckabee will be on the other side of the stage, flipping through a Bible, looking for another scripture he can paraphrase in his next response.

By the time the moderator asks him about carbon emissions, Huckabee will be ready with, “For Mike so loved the environment, he gave his only-begotten emissions standard, that whosoever might live by a coal power plant might breathe forever.”

As a devout Christian, I find Huckabee's entire campaign offensive. He's taken my Savior and turned Him into a talking point, something that is worth two additional percentage points in the backwoods every time it is mentioned. Ask Huckabee why he's still in the race and he'll answer with a scripture.

When asked why he produced an unfair attack ad against Mitt Romney and then had a press conference to make sure it was seen the weekend before the Iowa caucus, he answered with scripture.

So the scriptures support unethical behavior now? That can be helpful in my bid to poison schoolchildren.

(I've got it! “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man.” Thanks for the tip, Mike!)

Last is Dr. Ron Paul, a man who stands apart from the field by his complete ignorance of the last 80 years of economic history. At a time when about 90 percent of surveyed economics agree that free trade benefits both participants, Paul rails against NAFTA, 16 years too late.

As the dollar has weakened imports have become more expensive for Americans while our exports have become more affordable to the world. Why this is a good time to restrict trade is unclear.

The Republican party is picking its candidate based on the assumption that the opponent is Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama is winning more than he's losing. And no Republican has an answer for him. There's no real reason to wait until November to start saying, “Wait until 2012.”

Minster is a Lawrence senior in Economics.

Discussion

All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.

11 February 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is truly sad that you would discount the economic and free trade policies of Ron Paul without bothering to understand them. NAFTA has little to do with free trade. Heres a good place to start: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/290/regulation-free-trade-and-mexican-trucks/ If that doesn't satisfy you his book (A Foreign Policy of Freedom: "Peace, Commerce, And Honest Friendship") is fabulous.

11 February 2008
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ron Paul has said many times NAFTA is not free trade. It's managed trade. He believes in truly free trade, not 900 pages of bureaucracy that picks winners and losers in "free trade." If every congressman would be as disciplined with their Aye votes, we wouldn't end up with such awful compromises and actually have free trade.

11 February 2008
at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
eredin and GO_UK: The Ron Paul spokesman at the caucus said Paul was anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA, anti-free trade. However, on the link supplied by eredin, Paul says, "Free trade is not the problem." His position is more nuanced than his caucus spokesman gave him credit for, and I'm sorry my article didn't make that distinction. Paul's position on the website makes more sense than my article would suggest.

14 February 2008
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brandon: Thank you for taking a moment to understand Ron Paul's position. Unfortunately, many people--especially those in the media--tend to latch on to a buzzword rather than taking the time to truly understand a candidate's position. I'm quite confident that if every voter actually understood the full platform of Ron Paul (and the tremendous historical failure of interventionist foreign policy) he would be our next president.

Share your 2¢

Requires free registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: