The US House of Representatives urged the UN Security Council Wednesday to charge Iran’s president under genocide conventions.
The non-binding resolution, initiated by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) and Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey), passed by 411-2. It cites an October 27 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” … Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a long-shot contender for the Republican presidential nomination, were the only votes against.

Both Paul and Kucinich feel that this is laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran. They are probably right.

Paul talks about his affinity with Kucinich in the following video, this is the second time I’ve heard him talk about this:

Sorry for missing the spelling on Kucinich’s name. At some point I’ll try to get some of his views on Asia posted into this blog.

Ron Paul makes me realize that, in the end, honesty, consistency and an open mind may be fundamentally more important than a person’s actual political positions on specific issues of the day.

I also find the point about Kucinich (not Kunichi, btw) very very interesting. I suppose they’re both branded as “radicals”, but really nothing could be further from the truth in my mind.

He’s huge on the internet, but so far that has not translated into very much media attention. It very well might. So perhaps it’s not what do you think will happen, but what do you think should happen. We can each make a difference.

There’s perhaps one exception, Dennis Kunichi, but all other Democratic candidates for president will keep America in Iraq. So where’s the choice?

Aside from Ron Paul, no Republican wants to fundamentally change the income tax system or social security, so where’s the choice?

And the media constantly talks about who will be a strong president, a kind of tough guy who can stand up for America. But stand up for what?

What do these candidates really stand for?

I found it really interesting that when asked which candidate aside from himself he found appealing, Ron Paul chose his philosophical opposite in many ways, Dennis Kunichi. This was because despite the fact that Kunichi would increase the size of government exponentially, he’s genuinely principled. (And he’d actually bring troops home from Iraq.)

People look at Ron Paul as a kind of radical, but I would say that invading Iraq was more radical than anything Ron Paul proposes. He’s very healthy for the system. Perhaps like dietary fibre if he can get enough support he can clean the bilge out of the Republican party.