Ron Paul casts lone vote against House resolution honoring heroic Chinese dissident

posted at 7:37 pm on December 8, 2010 by Allahpundit

The roll: 402-1. The dissident in question is Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo, whose existence so upsets the totalitarians in Beijing that on top of locking him away and making his wife disappear, they’ve organized a boycott of the Nobel ceremony and introduced their very own “Confucius Prize” as an alternative. (Pelosi, to her great credit, is attending the Nobel ceremony to show her support for Liu.) Shouldn’t a proud libertarian want to recognize a guy doing his level best to strike a blow for freedom against a giant, vicious state machine? No, ostensibly for two reasons: The House resolution is purely hortatory and therefore a meaningless waste of taxpayer time and money, and of course we shouldn’t be so arrogant as to meddle in other nations’ internal affairs. Even if that meddling consists of saying, “Hey, please don’t kill that guy for writing some stuff about democracy.” But give Paul this — at least he’s consistent.

Except, actually, he’s not. If he’s opposed on principle to meaningless House resolutions, how come he voted yes on this one during the summer to honor golfer Chi Chi Rodriguez for his contributions to Latino youth programs? And if he’s against telling foreign nations how to conduct their business — even when it comes to standing up for core libertarian values — why’d he vote for this one a few years ago urging Romania to relax its rules on intercountry adoptions? That’s proof enough that he’s not above rhetorically pressuring other countries, but if you need more, you can always revisit his floor speeches and YouTube videos criticizing Israel.

Any Paulnuts want to help me square the circle on this? I notice that he was also the lone no vote two years ago on a resolution expressing condolences to the people of Burma after they were hit by a devastating cyclone, which is hard to jibe with the fact that (a) he voted yes on resolutions congratulating various football teams on big wins and (b) saying “sorry all those people died from bad weather” doesn’t constitute “meddling” in anyone’s affairs. Is this a simple matter of Paul not wanting to antagonize our Chinese trading partner, even if it means politely betraying the values for which he stands? Clue me in.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ouch… sides… splitting… Confucius Prize… gotta be kidding.

Smiles on December 8, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Yep. And as Allah notes, Paul isn’t against honorary resolutions or even resolutions meddling in foreign affairs. He’s voted for both.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Probably depends on his blood sugar level then. Bit like all of us, ahem…

Fortunata on December 8, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Not a Paulnut, but he got weird foreign policies/ideas/nightmares

Kini on December 8, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Sphati getting sexually aroused in 5… 4… 3… 2…

Seven Percent Solution on December 8, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Also, on the cyclone bit.. the Burma vote isn’t real big in Texas. What is, however, is the football vote. Alienate at your own risk.

Smiles on December 8, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I think maybe in his case, it just depends on how good the blood flow is on vote day.

Tim Zank on December 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Clue me in.

Don’t worry, they won’t be able to. In fact, you will have blood on your hands, as I expect several Paulnut heads to explode with the overwhelming amount of evidence you’ve provided pointing to Paul’s abject hypocrisy.

I’m a libertarian at heart, and Paul’s nothing more than a crass opportunist. He doesn’t represent libertarianism at all.

nukemhill on December 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Dinner at Thomas Friedman’s house for Ron on Friday night…

jon1979 on December 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Isolation Ward for Dr. Paul.

Where he can dream of the Age Of Sail, before we had a Navy to meddle with those poor, misunderstood Muslim Babary pirates.

profitsbeard on December 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM

It all depends what Dow Chemical, BASF, BP et al told him to do, along with Lew Rockwell.

Kermit on December 8, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Maybe Paul thinks Liu Xiaobo deserves better than to be lumped in with the likes of Arafat, Gore, and Obama.

malclave on December 8, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Does the Nobel committee get $$ from the Federal Reserve? We’ll never know…

SouthernGent on December 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Liu Xiaobo must be a Joooooooo!11!

portlandon on December 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Maybe he thinks China is a victim of the Fed? Enemy of my enemy is my friend…..?

Who the heck knows? No rational explanation.

SteveMG on December 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Confucius say: Baseball all wrong — man with four balls cannot walk.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Maybe he just doesn’t want to make Thomas Friedman angry?

18-1 on December 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM

WOW! 18 of the usual suspects side with China.

Russia and Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Cuba and Venezuela
Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Sudan
Iraq and Afghanistan
Pakistan
Colombia [?]
Philippines and Vietnam [??]
Saudi Arabia and Iran
Serbia [???]

Kini on December 8, 2010 at 7:55 PM

This is getting old… can we stop railing on Ron Paul? When it comes to fiscal responsibility and being reliably honest… he is the gold standard.
He has talked about why he votes no on this kind of stuff before… he might agree with the resolution but its a waste of taxpayer money and accomplishes nothing. There is no reason for the House to have these kinds of resolutions brought up…

therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

On second thought, this is a Nobel

Kini on December 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Ron Paul is a hater

conservador on December 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM

I hope his son don’t wind up as crazy as he is.

Big Orange on December 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Confucius say: Baseball all wrong — man with four balls cannot walk.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Nice job; it takes a lot for an Internet post to actually make me LOL!

therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

The problem is that Ron Paul is like Ann Coulter when it comes to facts. When he’s correct – which is usually on economic matters in this case – he really hits the bullseye. But when he’s not…he really goes off into looney la-la land.

It is the latter instances make him an easy whipping boy for the right. And I have to acknowledge that there are more than a few.

Dark-Star on December 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Ron paul is just stupid. He doesnt think America should meddle but completely ignores that all countries meddle.

Ron Paul wants a Whig domestic policy and a Swiss foreign policy.

William Amos on December 8, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Game – Set – Match for AP

jp on December 8, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Any Paulnuts want to help me square the circle on this?

I hate to break this to you AP, but squaring a circle is impossible by ruler and compass.

Goldenavatar on December 8, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Ron thought they were ORDERING Chinese. He doesn’t like fried rice.

Sugar Land on December 8, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Clue me in

Would you have written about Paul if he had voted in favor of the Resolution?

Basilsbest on December 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM

the reality is that in the real fallen world we live, Paul and his views are in the end very anti-Liberty.

As an aside, since Russia Today video was shown in previous blog post today, Ron Paul is one of the key US Politicians regularly interviewed to bash America by the Kremilin effectively. They know their Useful Idiots.

jp on December 8, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Is this a simple matter of Paul not wanting to antagonize our Chinese trading partner, even if it means politely betraying the values for which he stands?

It’s a simple matter of Paul starting the car with the garage door closed again.

Ronnie on December 8, 2010 at 8:07 PM

This is getting old… can we stop railing on Ron Paul? When it comes to fiscal responsibility and being reliably honest… he is the gold standard.

“reliably honest” and Ron Paul do not go together. He is one of the most Deceitful congressmen we have.

The man is an Anarcho-Capitalist whose key idol was anarchist we blackballed out of Conservatism a long time ago. A man who rejected Classical Liberalism, allied with the Far-Left loons and wanted Reagan tried for War Crimes and Impeached. Paul followed his idiocy to this day, starting with calling Reagan a traitor and leaving GOP of Reagan to run against it as a LP nominee.

jp on December 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM

ok, Paul is a nut

Sigh, and yes, if he’s a nut then we must look at everything he says knowing that he’s a nut

So maybe the Rs are right to be concerned about him being a chairman. Really, we can’t have a nut going after the Fed…even tho there may be good reason to do so

r keller on December 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM

This is getting old… can we stop railing on Ron Paul? When it comes to fiscal responsibility and being reliably honest… he is the gold standard.
He has talked about why he votes no on this kind of stuff before… he might agree with the resolution but its a waste of taxpayer money and accomplishes nothing. There is no reason for the House to have these kinds of resolutions brought up…

therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Says the commenter who apparently didn’t read any of the above.

catmman on December 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM

ok, Paul is a nut

Sigh, and yes, if he’s a nut then we must look at everything he says knowing that he’s a nut

So maybe the Rs are right to be concerned about him being a chairman. Really, we can’t have a nut going after the Fed…even tho there may be good reason to do so

r keller on December 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM

all we need to do to the Fed is end the “Dual Mandate” idiocy congress imposed under Carter I beleive, and build the computer program to do the daily operations and adopt the Taylor Rule.

jp on December 8, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Do we really need Herr Doktor to tell us, again, how bad the Fed is?

We know its a POS. So is Paul.

catmman on December 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Easy. He is an incoherent mental case.

echosyst on December 8, 2010 at 8:22 PM

As much as Ron Paul may be appealing because of his views on limited government and sound fiscal policies, Ron Paul is a disaster concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security.

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I loathe Ron Paul.

nickj116 on December 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I cease to try to understand this guy. I like his son, but dad is just baffling.

ted c on December 8, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Wait until China comes out with the Sun Tzu award.

BDU-33 on December 8, 2010 at 8:31 PM

When it comes to fiscal responsibility and being reliably honest… he is the gold standard.

therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Hahaha … I see what you did there!

kbfntc on December 8, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I loathe Ron Paul.

nickj116 on December 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I had that all typed out and then I looked up and you had posted it already.

So let me echo nickj116.

Boxy_Brown on December 8, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Confucious say: He who stand on toilet seat is high on pot.

(or thinks they can replace the Nobel prize because one of their dissidents won one.)

moc23 on December 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Both Paul and Pelsoi live in an alternate reality

GarandFan on December 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Confucious say: “He who go to bed with itchy butt, wake with smelly finger”

Henny on December 8, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Xiaobo is anti-blimp!

Clownballoon on December 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM

allah what are you trying to say that Paul is a racist against asians?

unseen on December 8, 2010 at 9:18 PM

He may be a fool, but…yeah, I got nothin’

Knott Buyinit on December 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Just WOW!!

canopfor on December 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Ron Paul.
Shark tank.
Add water.

Some disassembly required likely.

Y-not on December 8, 2010 at 9:56 PM

When it comes to economic issues, Ron Paul is the man. When it comes to everything else, he’s kind of koo koo.

Sleeper on December 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Clue me in.

He’s a self-absorbed idiot. Plain and simple.

Rod on December 8, 2010 at 10:30 PM

I loathe Ron Paul.

nickj116 on December 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM

So do I.

Texas should be embarrassed that he represents them in Congress.

Conservative Samizdat on December 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM

When it comes to fiscal responsibility and being reliably honest… he is the gold standard.

therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

$31 Billion+ in pork for his district says he’s neither.

Rebar on December 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Liu Xiaobo must be a Joooooooo!11!

portlandon on December 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM

…who collaborated with the neo-cons to bring down the Twin Towers and blame it on peaceful muslims in planes.
///sarc

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I just cannot get upset about this. These symbolic gestures to me, are a waste of congressional time. Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Do I have bigger fish to fry? Yes, and yes.

Theworldisnotenough on December 9, 2010 at 12:31 AM

I just cannot get upset about this. These symbolic gestures to me, are a waste of congressional time. Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Do I have bigger fish to fry? Yes, and yes.

Theworldisnotenough on December 9, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Hmm. So why did you make the above comment rather than frying those bigger fish?

unclesmrgol on December 9, 2010 at 1:53 AM

I notice that he was also the lone no vote two years ago on a resolution expressing condolences to the people of Burma after they were hit by a devastating cyclone, which is hard to jibe with the fact that (a) he voted yes on resolutions congratulating various football teams on big wins and (b) saying “sorry all those people died from bad weather” doesn’t constitute “meddling” in anyone’s affairs.

He is an extreme isolationist. You have to understand it from a “mind your business” perspective. Now, I am no Paulinista and believe he is nuttier than a fruitcake but I do understand, I think, his position. You can have a personal opinion about what is going on, but as a government, we should not express opinions about what other governments are doing inside their own countries no matter if we think that is horrible or not. We should mind our own business.

Probably, from his perspective, over the long haul, our way will prove out. We don’t need to go actively meddling or “evangelizing” our way. We should be an example, but it isn’t up to us to lecture others on how they should or should not be. This is sort of along the lines of a George Washington approach to things. Trade with all, ally with none.

crosspatch on December 9, 2010 at 4:13 AM

You can have a personal opinion about what is going on, but as a government, we should not express opinions about what other governments are doing inside their own countries no matter if we think that is horrible or not.

But the Nobel Prize is not conferred by a government, so congratulating an individual for receiving the award is not expressing an opinion on what other governments are doing.

And conveying sympathy to people who happen to live in other countries and who died from a natural disaster has nothing to do with governments, either.

Plus, as AP pointed out, Paul freely expresses his POV on Israel.

Y-not on December 9, 2010 at 7:55 AM

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a variety of issues, but you have to give him his due – he sure has the Fed’s number. And he has had it a long time.

Angry Dumbo on December 9, 2010 at 8:24 AM

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a variety of issues, but you have got to give him his due-the propellor on his beanie sure looks cool!

Really Right on December 9, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Washington DID create alliances…and many other ver non ron paulnut things. Its a huge myth he was an isolationist…none of the founders other than quakers were.

HAMILTON wrote washingtons farewell address. The misquoted section about alliances.was a political attack on Jefferson who was talking up allying with France against England…this was after controversial Jay trwaty. Ended up having the alien and seditions acts bc many of.the.founders.were.convinced jefferson and company were plotting a coup with france

jp on December 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I didn’t realize what great supporters Hot Air readers are of the Nobel Committee. Is this the same Committee that gave President Obama the peace prize? I’m certain Europe is pleased to see American conservatives finally accepting the leadership of the Norwegians regarding how the U.S. conducts its foreign policy.

If Congress wants to send a message to China regarding its human rights record, I think it can do so without help from the Nobel Committee. Pass a resolution condemning China, not one implicitly endorsing the Nobel Committee.

An Objectivist on December 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Ron Paul – because Washington just isn’t nutty enough!

“Confucius Prize”? You were serious about that? Hahahahahaha!

Pablo Snooze on December 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Confucius say: Baseball all wrong — man with four balls cannot walk.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Irrelevant and off topic…but still my favorite comment in this thread!!

LOL

landlines on December 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM

This Ron Paulis getting old… can we stop railing on Ron Paul?
. . . .
therambler on December 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

There. Now it makes much more sense, and not in the chronological sense either!

The answer to your question is “no” . . . not as long as he insists on attempting to grab attention with this sort of silly action.

Slightly over 30 members did not vote on the resolution for whatever reasons they may have had.

In order to make his point that such votes are meaningless, why wouldn’t he instead just join that group by simply refusing to vote either way? That would actually make the point.

It’s pretty obvious the reason he wouldn’t do that is because it would not get him any of the attention he wanted.

Voting “no” just makes the point that he is little more than a political gadfly. But, it got him the attention he craved.

Therefore, I say Ron Paul really is getting old!

Trochilus on December 9, 2010 at 1:56 PM