An interesting choice of words

In the final paragraph of her latest column about the upcoming political conventions, "They're paying attention now," Peggy Noonan chooses a word I'm not used to seeing in what has come to be known as the mainstream media.

Of presidential candidates, Noonan writes: "The thing that makes them want to rule America is the thing that stops them from thinking of prudent limits."

The word I'm talking about is rule. Usually a pundit or reporter will write about someone who wants to serve America as president, to represent his/her district, or simply to "be" whatever the position might be.

Rule suggests power over the people, as opposed to whatever it is that a public servant serves. Rule suggests that the office seeker wants to be in charge of our lives. Rule, in short, is a more accurate description of what exactly it is these men and women want and plan, if elected, to do.

It's a perfectly adequate word, much more appropriate as the federation that had been the United States of America settles into middle age as the American Empire. I'm just not used to seeing the word out there in the "mass media."

Won't get fooled again

I have a couple of reasons for not getting too excited over the Ron Paul for President phenomenon.

One is that I'm fresh from the one-two punch of Murray N. Rothbard and Frank Chodorov, so my faith in the American system of elections is at a low ebb. Even if a miracle were to occur and he became President Paul, there's only so much he could do. Ronald Reagan was the closest thing to a limited-government Constitution-respecting president we'll probably have in my lifetime, and the government got bigger, more intrusive and more imperial under his watch. However, a strong showing by Paul could give a boost to the notion that Americans have begun to notice how un-American our State has become over the past 100 years or so.

The other reason is Serenity. No, really. I remember the huge Internet buzz that accompanied the pending release of the best movie of the 21st century so far. I remember telling my friends that Firefly/Serenity was the next big science-fiction franchise, based on the incredible enthusiasm I found everywhere I turned on the Internet. I was astonished and disappointed when the film's actual box office numbers weren't good enough to debut at No. 1, couldn't even beat a lame Jodie Foster movie. (Hey, I love Jodie Foster sometimes, but this wasn't her finest hour.)

So I do not put a lot of stock in the huge Internet buzz for Ron Paul. I'm glad he's out there making noise, and it's fun watching the grass-roots volunteers at work, holding signs at highway overpasses and such. But after Serenity flew in on all that Web buzz and barely earned back its cost, I'll need more than Web buzz to be optimistic.

An internal gut check and reformation is going to have to happen before the United States becomes a free country again. Ron Paul can be a catalyst, but politics isn't going to solve what ails us.

Pick a president

I found the link to this "Presidential Candidate Selector" at Independent Country and decided, oh what the heck. To my surprise it tells me it's 100 percent sure that Ron Paul fits my profile of a good president (is "good president" an oxymoron in our present crisis?).

A little more troubling is that next up are the likes of Sam Brownback (75%) and Newt Gingrich (70%). Newt lost me entirely with his "World War III" talk of a few months back. I've had my fill of presidents who invoke the war machine at the drop of a hat.

I'm back in comfortable territory at the bottom of the list, when the quiz tells me not to bother with Rudy Guliani (28%), John Edwards (28%), Mitt Romney (28%) or Hillary Clinton (26%).

Bottom line, though, the quiz reminded me that Paul is the only thoroughbred on this field of nags.