PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul and his voting record



jimnyc
01-20-2012, 11:29 AM
I almost didn't want to post this, but other posts of late make me very curious to hear the collective excuses on this one. What if we had a President who reacted like this, and maybe vetoed things like this? Our nation would be a further embarrassment than it is now with Obama!


When Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced his most recent run for the White House back in May 2011, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews pressed him on the extent of his libertarian convictions. Would he have opposed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act had he been in office when it was considered, Matthews wanted to know.

It was a hypothetical question and Paul gave a fairly broad answer, saying he appreciated the intent of the law but disagreed with the specific language on property rights.

Left unmentioned was that Paul had -- in more than a hypothetical sense -- already cast a vote on the famous bill. On June 24, 2004, the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Four hundred and fourteen members voted yes, and 18 didn't show up to vote. Only one member said nay: Ron Paul.

And more:


Civil rights issues weren't the only areas where Paul was a man alone in Congress. On foreign policy matters, and those pertaining to Israel in particular, he has routinely isolated himself from all other lawmakers.

On July 30, 1997, Paul was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution titled "Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem market." Three-and-a-half years later, he was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution congratulating Ariel Sharon for his election as Israeli prime minister. In July 20, 2006, he was one of eight no votes on another House-passed resolution sponsored by now-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) condemning terrorist attacks against Israel.

The list goes on.

Paul's supporters have long argued that his posture towards Israel is driven not out of some latent anti-Semitism, but conviction that U.S. policy in the Middle East is imbalanced and over-engaged. And, indeed, a look at other votes on Paul's resume shows that he's been an equal opportunity offender.

In February 2005, he was the only member in the House to vote against a resolution "commending the Palestinian people" for conducting a "free and fair" presidential election. During the height of the Green Revolution, Paul was the lone House member to vote against a resolution "expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."


And more:


On September 7, 2000, Paul was alone in his opposition to a bill exempting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from limits established during the previous year's budget. The bill ultimately became law.

On March 10, 1998, he was one of two House members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which promoted better data collection and sharing on the topic. The bill ultimately became law.

On November 4, 1997, he was one of two members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill that would "require the Attorney General to establish a program in local prisons to identify, prior to arraignment, criminal aliens and aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States." The bill ultimately became law.

On October 27, 2000, he was one of two votes against the Assistance for International Malaria Control Act. The bill, which was sponsored by former Sen. Jesse Helms, eventually became law.

On February 1, 2000, Paul was one of two no votes on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, which provided more state grant funding for criminal justice and child welfare agencies to collect and share data on child abuse. The bill ultimately became law.

On December 15, 2009, Paul was the only member to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the "First Responder Anti-Terrorism Training Resources Act" which loosened restrictions on the type of financial help the Department of Homeland Security could get for the purpose of terrorism preparedness and prevention. The bill ultimately became law.

Paul was one of only three House members to vote against a conference report creating a commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks. One of the other two to vote against the measure (which became law) is former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), the current Secretary of Transportation.

On October 17, 2001, Paul was the lone no vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which dramatically heightened rules and enforcement on funds that went to terrorist or terrorist-connected organizations. The bill wouldn't become law but portions of it were put into the PATRIOT Act.

On November 8, 1999, Paul was the lone nay vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment to fund the Office of Government Ethics.

On July 1, 2010, he was one of four members who voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment that prohibited "any person from performing lobbying activities on behalf of a client which is determined by the Secretary of State to be a State sponsor of terrorism."

There are, of course, many more. Paul was one of two House members to vote against a September 2008 motion to adopt a bill extending a "grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers." That same month, he was one of two members to vote against suspending a rule and adopting a bill that would require group health plans to ensure that inpatient coverage and radiation therapy were provided for breast cancer treatment.

Paul was the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the families and victims of the February 2010 Chilean earthquake. He was also the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the victims of the Haiti earthquake. And when the House considered a resolution that would make any organ donor eligible for a Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life medal, in honor of the late congresswoman, he was, once again, the lone vote in opposition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/ron-paul-voting-record_n_1173255.html

Thunderknuckles
01-20-2012, 11:36 AM
I'm not up to speed on the details and not a Ron Paul supporter but it seems that a lot of No votes occurred in conjunction with suspending "the rules". Exactly what rules were being suspended?

jimnyc
01-20-2012, 11:39 AM
I'm not up to speed on the details and not a Ron Paul supporter but it seems that a lot of No votes occurred in conjunction with suspending "the rules". Exactly what rules were being suspended?

It's simply a procedure to pass any "non controversial bills" without going through the usual long process. For example, things to "recognize" or "honor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congr ess

jimnyc
01-20-2012, 12:59 PM
Don't want this thread to disappear so quickly and have the RP supporters ignore this AGAIN. Rev, wanna take a stab at your first line of excuses for this small sample of RP's votes?

Neo
01-20-2012, 08:08 PM
It's simply a procedure to pass any "non controversial bills" without going through the usual long process. For example, things to "recognize" or "honor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congr ess


Excellent answer! I always wondered what that meant. So we're in agreement, Ron Paul is nuts and a clear & present danger that must never get near the nomination, let alone the WH as our next POTUS. That idea scares the hell out of me, lol. :laugh:

Joyful HoneyBee
01-20-2012, 11:33 PM
An interesting thing about bills that make their way through is the way they get piled up with load of special interest baggage along the way. A bill is never as simple as its face value nor as squeeky clean as its original intent might have been. Bills, unfortunately, get laden with so much crap that whatever good might come from its passage is overshadowed by all the burdensome garbage that eventually makes up the content.

jimnyc
01-21-2012, 08:04 AM
An interesting thing about bills that make their way through is the way they get piled up with load of special interest baggage along the way. A bill is never as simple as its face value nor as squeeky clean as its original intent might have been. Bills, unfortunately, get laden with so much crap that whatever good might come from its passage is overshadowed by all the burdensome garbage that eventually makes up the content.

Can you show us that these particular bills fit under the criteria you describe? I'll give you a hint before you start your search, I wouldn't ask if I didn't know the answer already...

jimnyc
01-21-2012, 11:48 AM
Here are links to just a few of the things that RP has voted on. You can see, they are hardly stretched out, filled with other crap, no special interests - and they are in fact squeaky clean. So tiny that I think even all of us here can easily understand them. The only thing difficult to understand is why anyone would vote against this stuff. Unless the person voting is a kook!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.+Con.+Res.+46:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.56:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3978:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c106yUDUVd::
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5609
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6045/text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.1144:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3530/text

jimnyc
01-21-2012, 12:55 PM
Hey, Chloe, since you're online and are a RP fan - what are your thoughts on some of his votes?

jimnyc
01-21-2012, 01:28 PM
Maybe this is why I have such a hard time finding candidates to vote for. The votes above, alone by themselves, would be good enough reason for me to ignore the candidate and give him a "nay" vote himself. Are people getting so used to Washington's politics that voting like the above is just ignored as not important? Many, including RP himself, have used his long voting record as a reason why we should vote for him, that he is "different" than the others. But THIS different, where he is literally all by himself in la la land? I've brought this subject up on quite a few boards now, and many of those who are in favor of RP either ignore the votes, or state it's no big deal, or that he was sending a message. I don't think we should just 'ignore' the little things as if they never happened. EVERY vote counts, even those that are acknowledging things, or go to show support for others.

Abbey Marie
01-21-2012, 03:36 PM
Speaking of Paul, he was asked pretty squarely at the last debate what his beliefs were about abortion. He hemmed and hawed, and said, well, I am a doctor, and we were taught in Obstetrics that we are treating two patients. Which doesn't tell me his beliefs on abortion. Was this a dodge? (I would expect a Libertarian to say, hey, you want an abortion, whatever. You should be free to do so).

Or perhaps worse, the man doesn't even know how to express himself clearly. Just what I want in a President who will be speaking with all sorts of foreign leaders.