Paul can’t bring himself to vote for resolution condemning China over Tibet

posted at 11:09 am on April 10, 2008 by Allahpundit

413-1, with America’s freest-thinkin’ patriot the lone dissenter. A Bircher, soft on the ChiComs? Doubtful. I’m sure this was another “principled” isolationist vote, in which the most toothless criticism of another sovereign nation is impermissible “meddling” even if it’s directed at a form of occupation much more egregious than the one Paul himself regularly rails about vis-a-vis Iraq. Commenter JohnTant raises a curious anomaly in the comments to the Headlines item about this, though: If it’s all about minding our own business or not deigning to vote on meaningless hortatory resolutions, why’d America’s Greatest Patriot cast a yes on an old measure regarding intercountry adoptions in Romania? Or on one condemning jihadist attacks in Egypt? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that makes that a necessary and proper power of Congress — but only with respect to countries other than Israel, because when it came time to condemn a terror attack there, the Paulnut politely declined. On principle, I’m sure.

I’ve been wondering ever since Adam Gadahn listed AQ’s grievances for us last year just how far this tool would go to address them if elected, since he’s all about the root causes. Iraq, occupation, imperialism: That’s the Ron Paul read on jihad, which conveniently dovetails with Paul’s own objections to U.S. foreign policy. Notably, though, it’s not the Adam Gadahn read: Not only did Gadahn go out of his way to emphasize that pulling out of Iraq “will get you nowhere,” but he specifically justified future attacks on the U.S. if, in the course of AQ establishing a caliphate, we dared breathe a word of criticism about them. Would Paul play ball on that one time? Based on this vote, maybe, yeah.

Update: Headlines comments imported.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I was thinkin’ Sheila Jackson Lee, but she’s not in Congress anymore.

Tony737 on April 10, 2008 at 8:37 AM

I knew it’d be Ron Paul. He’s always the “1”. I think there was another house vote calling for condemnation of Palestine for the rocket attacks, and he was the “1” that time as well.

jimmy the notable on April 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Self serving contrarian who likes the attention.

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM

As soon as I heard this on the radio last night, I just knew…

bikermailman on April 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM

At least he is consistently nuts.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 10, 2008 at 8:57 AM

but Resolutions praising the Louisville Cardinal football team for winning the Orange bowl are perfectly fine with Paul, worhty of a Yay vote.

even he contradicts himself on such resolutions.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Damn…I guessed Kucinich.

flipflop on April 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM

I like his no vote.

I get tired of all this symbolic crap. WTF business does the state of Ohio have recognizing the “armenian genocide?” I am sincerely tired of this sort of thing. Even when Senate Republicans jousted with Democrats over the English language. Was it our unifying language or official language? No matter which one got more votes neither would have made English the official language nor overturned the provision the the Civil Rights Act that forces states to provide voting materials in every language under the sun. I was hoping for something more meaningful from Republicans.

I’ll say this, Ron Paul does no how to tap some of the many raw nerves amongst many a disenchanted conservative. Republicans would be wise to throw the Ron Paul crowd a bone by, you know, shrinking government vs. slowing it’s growth or worse yet adding drug coverage to Medicare and balooning our responsibilty to seniors by 40%, thanks Bush! I would be wise for the GOP to blunt Paul’s influence. The GOP becoming more influential and getting more Congressional seats (in the future I know we don’t look good now) the more his influence grows. Alot of his supporters (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists) have the potential to do to Republicans what the Kos Kids and Huffington Post crowd has done to the Democrats. We have real issues that the GOP is ignoring such as the the tsunami of spending that is coimng our way, it’s called the babyboomers. Republicans better start talking about real issues lest they give Ron Paul more raw nerves to step on…

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM

This will anger his Hollywood fans no doubt!

saltydogg14 on April 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM

I was going to go with Cynthia McKinney, but, then realized that that nutjob is out of Congress.

There is a difference between the armenian genocide and Tibet. One is happening now, the other happened damned near 100 years ago.

He’s still a crank.

William Teach on April 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Um, hes right folks.

Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations… not the Congress.

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Hey Ron Paul, the 18th Century called…even they think your foreign policy is outdated.

CP on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM

and to further make my point… the Constituion clearly lays out Congres’s powers, and anything NOT laid out in the Constitution goes to the STATEs.

So please, someone show me where it enumerates that Congress shall condemn foreign governments?

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Ron Paul.

Yakko77 on April 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM

the State Dept. isn’t in the Constitution…is it thus “unconstitutional” and a matter for the states?

Foreign Affairs is a grey area to say the least, the Executive Branch lost alot of power after Nixon that Congress stripped it of(which was probably unconstitutional). Bush has tried to get some of it back and has been vilified for it. the Paultard himself states that Congress makes ALL POLICY, including Foreign(while claiming he would end the Iraq war as President at the same time contridicting himself). You can make a strong case that its Executive in nature given the language of Montisqeu on the subject.

See this posting on Paul’s idiocy related to Foreign Affairs: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863

given what Paul has said, nothing is wrong with Congress doing this. Its simply he thinks the United States should abide to MOral Relativism and never, ever take sides….ever. We should never make a Public statement condeming terrorist groups like Hezzbollah against Free Democracies and allies like Israel for example.

from link:

1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America’s Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. “Policy is policy,” Paul wrote in 2006, “and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.” But there’s almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul’s thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM

It goes both ways. If you want to invoke the theorem that this resolution is out of bounds because it’s dealing with a foreign government, than what to make of Paul’s yes vote on H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”

What’s the HoR doing “supporting” those governments….?

Or H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”

And those are from just a cursory scan of the 1st Session’s roll calls.

Where is the Constitutional Mandate for supporting a foreign government independent of the State Department?

As long as we’re talking Constitution, what authority does the Congress have in telling the Commander In Chief what troop levels he should use? H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

Paul is voting for notoriety, not out of principle.

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM

edit, Never take sides unless its to praise one College Football team over another as one example.

the truth is he’s a Rothbardian Pacifist(potentially anti-semitic), and thinks the key to staying out of war is taking stupid and self-contridicting philosophies such as Moral Relativism to our policy, thus never “taking sides”, etc. This way, we would never go to war, the world would leave us alone and without war the “Empire” and “Big Govt.” can’t expand….

jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Romeo has it right.

Change the law, but he voted right as the law is written.

Ask if he personally agrees or disagrees with the call, and I bet he will support it.

(Disclaimer: I didn’t vote for Rue Paul, and I think he is wrong on all his foreign policy stances.)

Tim Burton on April 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM

There’s another side to this being overlooked, the Lew Rockwell groupies view China as the model Govt. in the world right now….as hard as that is to beleive. Because they have a “free market”….who cares about the authoritarian nature, lack of human rights, torturing Tibetans…they got a free market man!!!

seriously, check out some of their views on China sometime.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
– Ron Paul, 2006

jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Good point, and thanks…

I didn’t know Paul’s “reasons” for doing this… trust me, I’m NOT a Paulian…

I’m just wondering why the Congress is wasting its time doing a Non constituionaly enumerated function when things like FISA still isn’t on the books…

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Now, now Ron Paul is just a kook, nothing he says can have any value, remember it is Ron Paul. So much easier to dismiss him then think about an issue. /sarcasm

The longer the GOP acts like Ron Pauls support exist for no reason the larger his following will become.

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:

H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM

A valid criticism, but wondering why dumb resolutions are coming up instead of FISA authorization is a Pelosi issue. She’s the one setting the agenda.

OTOH, I would kind of rather have Congress voting to commend the New York Giants instead of, oh, figuring out how to implement a gun ban. :)

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Um, hes right folks.

Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations

logis on April 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Import the headline comments

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM

logis on April 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Nice snark, but I notice you did not answer my question. What Congresional power from the Constitution gives CONGRES the power to do this?

Remember, unless it is specified in the Constitution that Congress HAS that power, then it DOES NOT.

Congress has seriously overstepped its mandate for many years now, and continues to abrogate more and more power unto itself… because no one calls them on it.

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM

So I thought to do a bit of research on Ron Paul’s district; 14th congressional district in the great state of Texas.

For a quick and dirty, back of the envelope, first approximation I checked Wikipedia and found:

“TX-14” redirects here. For the nuclear bomb with the designation TX-14, see Mark 14 nuclear bomb.

rockhauler on April 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM

A congressional resolution is as tootless as a UN resolution so whats the fuss ?

William Amos on April 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Can we send him to the opening ceremonies then? It’s a lot cheaper to fly a lone congressman over in a small jet than sending POTUS and everything/everybody else that travels with him.

funky chicken on April 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM

William Amos on April 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM

It’s mainly humorous that some people are willing to go to the mat for Paul here; but ignore his other votes that totally contradict the basis for their defense of him. It’s pretty funny, really.

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM

It’s mainly humorous that some people are willing to go to the mat for Paul here; but ignore his other votes that totally contradict the basis for their defense of him.

Precisely. He’s an abject hypocrite when it comes to the constitutional principle at stake, and when he finally straightens up — in so doing, letting China off the hook for cracking heads in Tibet — you guys sit there and dumbly applaud. His re-conversion to the Framers’ model couldn’t wait until after this vote, huh?

Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM

its not so much its “meaningless”, its not, its a Moral Statement by the American People against what the Chinese have done to the Tibetans over the years. So while its not a resolution to take any physical action, it is making a moral statement…and of course its political as well.

as for the “constitutionality”, I’d be shocked if there weren’t similar resoltuions in the first 100 years of our nation. atleast against the slave trade, but I’d wager some that go back to the first several congress as well.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Paul is a tool of the Lew Rockwell cult…spend some time reading their love of China. I wouldn’t doubt if some of that is connected to this vote.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM

I’m fine with Paul voting against this kind of crap. I want my Congress to limit their “symbolic” votes. It’s not what we pay them for.

Karol on April 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM

One of Congress’s Constitutional mandates is to “define and punish offenses against the law of nations.” So… what’s his beef?

Akzed on April 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM

I’m tend to be most vicious when I attack Libertarians and their delusions about Islam and the environment. Please keep that in mind when I defend Ron Paul here. It is my understanding that Ron Paul votes no on all symbolic votes in the House. He thinks the House should do what he considers real work. I have no problem with him doing that. I applaud Ron Paul for not caving into group think.

In fact, Ron Paul’s consistent “no” votes make complete sense given that Libertarianism will lead to some symbolic bad stands. This way Ron Paul doesn’t have to explain some of the weirdness of libertarianism to the voters in his district. He just has to say he votes “No” all the time and thus does an end-run around any opponent trying to demagogue a symbolic importance of low importance. It is a clever strategy for him and if others followed it would improve the quality of public discourse.

thuja on April 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM

It is my understanding that Ron Paul votes no on all symbolic votes in the House.

You should readjust your understanding. Because he does not vote “no” on all symbolic votes. He picks and chooses. Just as he picks and chooses what he is libertarian on.

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM

funky chicken on April 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM

I have it on good authority that Ron Paul refuses to go because the Olympics is not mentioned in the Constitution.

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM

In fact, Ron Paul’s consistent “no” votes

They’re NOT consistent. Did you read the post? Did you read Tant’s comments? He’s a miserable hypocrite on this issue.

Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM

I’m fine with Paul voting against this kind of crap.

Why is it crap, any more than people protesting is? I posted something the other day about how all the Olympics protests are making the Chinese nervous. A high-profile vote in Congress gives the issue even more attention. Also, are you against expressions of solidarity with Israel after Palestinian terror attacks?

Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM

and to further make my point… the Constituion clearly lays out Congres’s powers, and anything NOT laid out in the Constitution goes to the STATEs.

or is retained by the people.

Spirit of 1776 on April 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM

How do you say moonbat in Mandarin?

Moo-goo gaipan?

profitsbeard on April 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I heard that China just bought a used blimp.

Hummer53 on April 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM

I’m surprised that he didn’t take the Barry O route and vote “Present”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Why is it crap, any more than people protesting is? I posted something the other day about how all the Olympics protests are making the Chinese nervous. A high-profile vote in Congress gives the issue even more attention. Also, are you against expressions of solidarity with Israel after Palestinian terror attacks?

I’m not against shows of solidarity in either case, I just don’t need Congress making these kinds of symbolic votes. It’s a waste of time. The Chinese are getting nervous? About what? That they’re going to get some bad press? They know we’re not going to do anything at all to actually free Tibet, we won’t even acknowledge a free Taiwan. I don’t think the Chinese are worried at all.

Karol on April 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM

How do you say moonbat in Mandarin?

Moo-goo gaipan?

profitsbeard on April 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Sorry, dude. It’s spelled as follows.

Mor-on gai-idiot

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM

He’s in the senate. Not the house.

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Ron Paul is the true troll of the United States Congress.

MadisonConservative on April 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Now, now Ron Paul is just a kook, nothing he says can have any value, remember it is Ron Paul. So much easier to dismiss him then think about an issue. /sarcasm

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 10:30 AMat 10:15 AM

Nevermind the fact that he selectively casts “No” votes on these and actually believes Congress should have a role in foreign policy.

It is my understanding that Ron Paul votes no on all symbolic votes in the House…

In fact, Ron Paul’s consistent “no” votes make complete sense given that Libertarianism will lead to some symbolic bad stands.

thuja on April 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Except that he’s cast “Yea” votes on other symbolic pieces before.

amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Why vote for the China resolution? If some of you wish to show your condemnation toward China stop giving them all your money. Buying from Wal Mart? You are helping to build and strengthen infrastructure that oppresses Tibet. These useless resolutions aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Why put your finger in their eye if you aren’t really serious about it?

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

There’s another resolution that I think distills another aspect of Paul’s schizophrenia (I’ll include the link to the roll call vote this time…sorry, Allah, for making you look all those up):

H CON RES 408: “Commending the Government of Canada for its renewed commitment to the Global War on Terror.”

Paul voted to commend the Canadian government, which is a good vote. However, would governments that sponsor terrorists not have a problem with Canada committing to fight against their proxies? By commending Canada, this vote sends a tacit criticism to those actors. This is kind of what I was trying to get to in my earlier comment…that a commendation is just as likely to anger another country as a criticism is.

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Why put your finger in their eye if you aren’t really serious about it?

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania�s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”

As opposed to all the romanian orphans Ron Paul has running around his house, right? :/

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

I’m not against shows of solidarity in either case, I just don’t need Congress making these kinds of symbolic votes. It’s a waste of time. The Chinese are getting nervous? About what? That they’re going to get some bad press?

Karol on April 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Yes. The Chinese have one major concern: Saving face.

amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Yes. I know. But couldn’t Paul vote “Present” or not vote all in the House?

Separate note: It seems that on substantiative issues Obama has a track record of merely voting “Present”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

These useless resolutions aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Why put your finger in their eye if you aren’t really serious about it?

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Apparently he has a really deep concern about those Romanian kids.

amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Heh. Looks like some people need to watch McCain’s Tolerance ad again!

Spirit of 1776 on April 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM

In fact, Ron Paul’s consistent “no” votes

They’re NOT consistent. Did you read the post? Did you read Tant’s comments? He’s a miserable hypocrite on this issue.

Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM

I feel weird defending Ron Paul, but I’ll do it. Perhaps, I am too generous about the motives of others, but I always assume the sincerity of other people’s politics–no matter how absurd or silly. My guess is that it is sometimes emotionally difficult for Paul to be a lone crank. He may give up at times and go along with the majority. So, it’s not really him being a hypocrite.

thuja on April 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM

lorien1973 on April 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM
amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

The childish snickering aside.

I think Ron was wrong to vote for those other useless resolutions, but once again China hold a lot of our debt. What good is this useless piece of paper that will not help relations between the two countries when we continue to give them our money? Our corporations vigorously support them with what used to be American jobs. What is the point of this condemnation when we actually support their actions with our wallets?

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Also if people like Allah were just as hard on the consistency of other so called “conservatives” as they are over Romanian adoption we wouldn’t be in the mess we currently are in since many “conservatives” will be voting for amnesty and liking it in November.

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM

but I always assume the sincerity of other people’s politics–no matter how absurd or silly.

Some people are sincerely stupid. And it’s still a virtuesomehow, huh? Btw, I’m not referring to Ron Paul. He’s not stupid.

JiangxiDad on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Congratulations, Allah.

doubleplusundead on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

The Man Of Unbending Principle was a selling point of the Ron Paul campaign. Makes sense to examine it.

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Gets you to wondering what life would be like now if Paul had been around and in charge during October of 1962, when I believe we were having some sort of disagreement with the then Soviet Union on some nuclear missiles they wanted to have placed in Cuba, and aimed in our general direction. I would have loved to see how Paul would have handled that one.

pilamaye on April 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Yep, but that’ll never sway the hardcore Paulnuts. But it is fun to make ’em squirm.

doubleplusundead on April 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Why is it crap, any more than people protesting is? I posted something the other day about how all the Olympics protests are making the Chinese nervous. A high-profile vote in Congress gives the issue even more attention. Also, are you against expressions of solidarity with Israel after Palestinian terror attacks?
Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Don’t you get it? The Constitution grants every American citizen freedom of expression – except members of Congress who, according to the Constitution, must remain silent.

Therefore, what the House did was an unconstitutional userpation of power that will doubtless lead to tyranny and a collapse of the Republic.

And, at the exact same time, it was a completely useless “symbolic” gesture which accomplished absolutely nothing and was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Ergo, Ron Paul could not in good conscience abstain; instead he had to vote in support of China’s atrocities in order to avoid officially expressing any opinion whatsoever on foreign affairs.

More importantly – and there is no way to stress this strongly enough – Ron Paul is most definitely NOT totally batshit crazy!

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM

So, snark aside…

Is it your position that the Logan act is Unconstituional?

That there is no seperation of Powers in the US Government?

Or, that the US Government should not speak with ONE voice when dealing with foreign Nations?

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Not surprised… he’s basically a moron and an idiot. Funny thing though… I clicked over to Andy Sully’s site and Not One Word about his hero’s support for totalitarianism.

Why so quiet, Andy?

Gartrip on April 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I’m fine with Paul voting against this kind of crap. I want my Congress to limit their “symbolic” votes. It’s not what we pay them for.

Karol on April 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Big mistake. The more time Congress spends on symbolic votes, the less time it has to engage in malevolent schemes — or benevolent schemes that turn out to harm us. Appropriations and symbolic votes. Then go home.

Yeah, I’m kidding, but only a little.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM

More importantly – and there is no way to stress this strongly enough – Ron Paul is most definitely NOT totally batshit crazy!
logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM

So, snark aside…
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Snark aside?

Dude, get a clue. I’m not saying your knowledge of Constitutional law is imperfect; I’m saying you are a psychotic idiot.

You’re only debating yourself; and that field is already way too crowded for me to get involved.

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Ah, very eloquent response on the subject…

Did you come over from KOS?

I see the typical Leftard personal attack, without of course, any actualy answering of the questions, or debate of the postion…

Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Yes. I know. But couldn’t Paul vote “Present” or not vote all in the House?

Separate note: It seems that on substantiative issues Obama has a track record of merely voting “Present”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I made this point about this before in regards to the Israel/Hezzbo “NO” votes of Paul. If he was truely “Neutral” he would either not vote or vote “present”. A “No” vote recognizes the merits of the Resolution just as much as a “Yay” vote.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Not that it really makes any difference, but the original story by CNN said that Ron Paul had dropped out of the race, the newer version says that he hasn’t dropped out.

This reminds me of the question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody to hear it, does it make a sound…

cat-scratch on April 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM

but I always assume the sincerity of other people’s politics–no matter how absurd or silly.

Some people are sincerely stupid. And it’s still a virtuesomehow, huh? Btw, I’m not referring to Ron Paul. He’s not stupid.

JiangxiDad on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

No, no. I don’t hold that sincere stupdity is a sign of virtue. I hold sincere stupidity is a bull’s eye.

And I agree Ron Paul is not stupid. I went to him speak recently and was impressed, even if I only agreed with 10% of what he said–about the same amount of the time I agreed with Hilary when I heard her speak recently. Amusingly enough, I was the sole person in Ron Paul’s large audience to clap when he Paul advocated abolishing the Department of Education.

thuja on April 10, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Not that it really makes any difference, but the original story by CNN said that Ron Paul had dropped out of the race, the newer version says that he hasn’t dropped out.

he’s refusing to officially drop out. He wants a speaking gig at convetion, absent that he’ll probably lead protest outside against the GOP

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:31 PM

If he was truely “Neutral” he would either not vote or vote “present”.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM

That is incorrect. If you advocate Neutrality, you obviously would be against the resolution. You are voting against the resolution itself, not voting for or against either party mentioned in the resolution. That is like voting on “No Child Left Behind”, if you are a true conservative who believes the Federal Government should stay out of matters involving education you vote against the bill, not “present” or not vote at all.

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM

If you beleive the resolutions shouldn’t be voted on ever, are “unconstitional” and so forth(Which he has argued) then I think you would ignore the vote and resolution altogether, espeically when you know it will pass overwhelmingly. Instead he’s voting “NO” to condeming Hezzbollah for example against Israel, claiming we should be “Neutral” on the matter of Terrorist groups vs. Free Democracies and allies.

but of course, he’s a lying hypocrite that has no problems with these type of Resolutions which has been shown in this thread. So he cleary doesn’t think that they are “Unconstitional” and outside of COngress authority. He’s just against taking the side of Freedom, whether in Isreal or Tibet.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM

so point being, he’s obviously not against all resolutions as such. He is against condemning taking the side of Tibet or Israel as two examples. In other areas he has no problem taking sides.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Just looking at Paul’s lugubrious paleocon countenance (he looks like Mr. Death) gives me the creeps.

Hilts on April 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I don’t think he believes them to be unconstitutional. His votes on many of these resolutions reflects his view on foreign policy.

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Paul is old guard Libertarian. Neo-Libertarianism is now the way to go, old guy.Neos don’t have problems bombing pre-emptively……….New Libertarian Party..Bring back the real America……………..

adamsmith on April 10, 2008 at 2:45 PM

amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I also said:

The longer the GOP acts like Ron Pauls support exist for no reason the larger his following will become.

I am not giving a compliment to Ron Paul. I am admonishing conservatives not to ignore the reasons that he is popular. He does have the ability to draw dissatisfied conservatives not just kooks. If we have to deal with McCain signing left leaning legislation for the next four years Paul will become all the more popular. Simply dismissing his popularity as Palestinians and kooks is unwise. Do we need another Ross Perot like defection of conservative votes in a general collection? Is our memory that short? What if the primary field had been McCain, Romney, and Ron Paul? McCain’s campaign was DOA, it would have been Romney vs. Paul for months, imagine how much more influence and stage time he could have had. Simply saying “HAHA the kook speaks” is unwise.

Simple conservatism, cutting federal spending, not rehiring the government employee infrastructure that is retiring, lowering the coporate tax rate, these things will help keep otherwise sane people from glomming onto Paul. If McCain is as “conservative” as Bush has been count on Paul becoming more popular and becoming more of a problem in primaries.

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I don’t know so much about the popularity of Paul. He has been distorted and marginalized by the MSM. He will remain in congress, make speeches, and sell books. What I do see is congressional candidates inspired by his brand of limited government conservatism and opposed to the big government policies of current mainstream “conservatism”. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party is shrinking. The “look over there” tactic to scare and shame voters into voting for the pitiful Republican candidates is now obsolete though many do not realize it yet.

The only way to win majorities again is to return to the principle of 1994, of course many loyalists might not like it. During the 90s we fought Clinton on policing the world, loosening warrant oversight on wiretaps, and worked with him to balanced budgets. All these things scare the crap out of the current crop of kool aid drinkers.

LevStrauss on April 10, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

If you judge a man by the company he keeps (Jeremiah Wright) or his devoted followers and acolytes(Alex Jones, the misnamed “The American Conservative” magazine, even Jesse Ventura) – then Ron Paul is a flipping nut job. Trying to parse his reactionary insanity is not going to do it.

Hilts on April 10, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Simple conservatism, cutting federal spending, not rehiring the government employee infrastructure that is retiring, lowering the coporate tax rate, these things will help keep otherwise sane people from glomming onto Paul. If McCain is as “conservative” as Bush has been count on Paul becoming more popular and becoming more of a problem in primaries.
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I don’t think you’re giving McCain enough credit. He’s fully capable of losing this election without Ron Paul’s help.

The Democrats will not be openly running as Socialists anytime in the near future, so the soft votes aren’t going to be fiscal conservatives. The die is cast for this election; Democrats will be campaigning primarily on an anti-war platform.

That’s where the (pardon the expression) battle lines are drawn. Throwing in a third-party candidate who’s even MORE rabidly anti-war than the Democrats will not help them. Sure, McCain’s middle-of-the-road approach is going to soften his support in general. But Ron Paul would be at least as likely to steal anti-military supporters from either Obama or Hillary as he would be to steal anti-social spending votes from McCain.

If the Democrats want a third-party candidate, it would be somebody who’s pro-family and also pro-war. That keeps them off the Democrats’ table.

My guess is we’ll know more about that in exactly four days, 20 hours and 16 minutes.

logis on April 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM

It just goes to prove that you don’t have to be sane to be right once in awhile.

john1schn on April 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM