0 votes

Hilarious Hitpiece

From PolitiFact.com:

A few exceptions to his small-government principles

Paul's campaign Web site declares: “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

There is no hedging in that promise. Indeed, Paul has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he has a long history of standing against the tide on even very popular measures because he disagreed on principle. But “never” is a tough standard to meet, and 17 years in Congress covers an awful lot of votes. An examination of Paul’s record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that aren’t “expressly authorized” in the Constitution.

For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January.

More recently, he voted to change federal law governing organ transplants to make it easier for people to receive donated kidneys. He voted to designate the Ellis Island Library as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library.” And he voted to change federal law so the American flag would be displayed on Father’s Day.

The Constitution discusses many things, but there’s nothing that “expressly authorizes” organ transplant law, naming rights for libraries or flags on Father’s Day.

When we sent the Paul campaign an e-mail asking for an explanation of these votes, spokesman Jesse Benton declined to discuss them in detail. He quibbled over whether the measures technically could be considered legislation. “Your argument over semantics sounds more like a fishing expedition than good journalism,” he said.

Benton later e-mailed to say that one explanation for the NASA vote was that the agency “has a national security component.”

We checked with a congressional historian and two constitutional law professors who said they believe those votes do not meet Paul’s claim. A.E. Dick Howard, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said Paul’s claim “just doesn’t stand up. ...My guess is you could find a hundred other examples.”

So we find that Paul’s absolutist statement “never” is false.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Don't Let Jesse Benton Speak for Dr. Paul!

M. Raborn , My advice is don't let Jesse Benton or any of Dr. Paul's campaign staff speak for him. Don't even listen to those of us who write here, if we start to speak for Dr. Paul. We can all speak "about" Dr. Paul, but only he can speak for himself and his votes.
I know that he is not available to respond to every question, but I would guess in these cases you have identified, he would be able to explain to you just why he voted as he did, or I am sure he is man enough to admit that you are right and that he made an error. I would caution you not to wager much money on catching the good Doctor in an error, though it is possible. He is human.
I have supported him for nearly 20 year now and there have been times I have been sure that he was on the wrong side of an issue or voted as you say in error, but when I was able to talk with him about it personally, he had very good principled reasons for his vote.
I agree that the words "always" and "never" are hard to live up to and if they are on Dr. Paul's campaign web site, they were probably placed there by his staff and not by Dr. Paul. I imagine he is using his time to study bills, more than reading campaign material.
I would hope by your thorough research, you might be positively impressed
with Dr. Paul's voting record and his commitment to our Constitution.

M. Raborn

Congressman's Paul's "imperfections"

So what is your point? A few mistaken votes out of the thousands cast since 1977? A few compromises out of the thousands of public appearances undertaken in the past three decades? Is there anyone better? Haven't you, retrorepublican, or your friends, EVER waffled, equivocated, or compromised when you were confronting a skeptical or hostile audience? I certainly have, and compared to me, I suspect that you would be like Richard Nixon or Hillary Clinton when it comes to libertarian consistancy!

Count your blessings, encourage Dr. Paul in his commitments to liberty, peace and the Constitution, and work to maximize awareness of the alternative that he represents!

God Bless Ron Paul!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

Don't worry...

I posted the article because it was so ridiculously funny that this is the worst they could come up.

I have my own disappointment

I have my own disappointment in Ron Paul. He failed to raise his hand when asked if it was ok for a person to be openly gay in the military. He voted against gay adoptions. He used to think the INS was as evil as the IRS, now apparently he does not,....etc. But I must remind myself that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and when I look at my own self, there are quite a few possible improvements. Frankly, as politicians go, there is not much to complain about.

What bothers me most is Ron's Speechs never goes on and on about the GOOD BLOWBACK that will naturally occur with his own recomended policies. And he fails to speak glowingly like Ronald Reagan about a bright future ahead, the principled goodness of this country, and most of all,........provide a vision, an explain of what an America would look like without a dept of education, CIA, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, NATO, Federal Reserve, zero millitary presence around the world, and finally, NO Income Tax. Gee, what does that world look like? And will not millions of people suffer when their Corporatist Company and government jobs come to a crashing end? The phrase, "of course there is a transition period" does not cut the mustard with the average joe. Few of his supporters can "see" the world ahead, but trust Ron on faith that it will be "better".

There is no Honey and Carrots in his speeches, only Stick, Stick, stick.

Frankly, writing the rosy vision is a very challenging thing to do. George Gilder was good at it in Wealth & Poverty for Ronald Reagan. But few writers are really good at it. I would love the challenge myself, if he was to hire me as a speech writer,........oh well.

But it must be done. When millions of people in hundreds of industries will not be "getting up in the morning" and doing the same ol same old thing, people NEED to imagine themselves and their loved ones OK in the NEW world to come--day 1 after the Revolution.

So, just HOW POWERFUL is the new world Vision thing? Can you say Communisim? Socialism? These mass movements were great at it. Still are. Even today, many talk on and on about how easy it would be for Universal Health care. The vision is imagined, the path is taken. No one can imagine no Social Security, no medicare, no medicade, and life with no social security number.

Mmmmm now if I could just write the Vision thing for Ron Paul...... Lew Rockwell? You out there? There is a book in it!

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I see what your saying

Dr. Paul is a bit bookish, like James Madison. We also need a modern day Thomas Paine, or Patrick Henry. If we could find that, this movement would take hold even more.

Keep up the good work

"First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi


----------------------
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
who will guard the guardians?
R.I.P. Aaron Russo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXL5kYZ2bTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvtOzxt6uZM

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
who will guard the guardians?
R.I.P. Aaron Russo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXL5kYZ2bTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvtOzxt6uZM

Questionable votes

I know at least one of these was a small part of another bill, but anyone who uses ontheissues.org for a reference is bound to find these too:

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.
Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

Not that it taints him in my view...but, still.

Do you know ...

that Congress has power to make all the laws for Washington, D.C.? It is not a state. It is the seat of federal government; territory controlled by Congress under the Constitution. So it can be argued that banning gay adoptions in DC is entirely in keeping with the Constitution; whether you personally like the idea of gay adoptions or not does not bear on the authority vested in Congress to pass such laws.

As for the other issues, they bear some RESEARCH. Sound bites like this do not satisfy, and I am truly tired of our shallow culture, where no one stops to actually research these types of claims, and read the bills through. Many bills affect more than one area of law, and amendments completely unrelated to the main thrust of the bill are frequently added. Three to four-word characterizations of a bill often do not even come close to reflecting what the bill actually does, or what condition it was in at the time it was passed.

Again, while I have observed Ron Paul a long time, and am convinced that he is a man of character and principle, I do not expect him to always agree with my ideas, or even all my thoughts on the Constitution. But I can't find anyone else on Capitol Hill who does as much as he to fulfill his oath to our supreme law, nor who even makes an attempt to respect that law.

But finally, whosoever expects someone else to perfectly fit into all their own ideas is not dealing in reality, wouldn't you agree?

You should post the bill summary or actual bills

The Yucca Mountain website for example had to do prohibiting Federal funding for the project itself. Also from what I can remember the same goes for the so called "banning" of gay adoptions in DC.

And concerning the "funding for health providers" one, just take a look at the description:
"Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures."

It's a shame his voting record from the 70s and 80s doesn't seem to be available online.

come on....

Dude... if the only things you can find on this man after hours of searching his congressional votes is displaying the flag on fathers day, renaming a library, Martin Luther King holiday, nasa vote?? after all those years in congress thats all the "bad" votes you can find?? LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!!!! You are a complete moron! Go into all the other senators and congressmen who continually vote to sell this country down the river and bankrupt it! gees come on! I'm absolutly having a hard time to come up with words to describe how trivial,dumb and stupid the guy is who wrote this article... I think its getting to the establishment that they can't find anything in this Great Man's past to smear him with! now they resort to this kindegardenish crap!!! to dang funny! 1st they ignore you, then they slander you, then they fight you THEN YOU WIN! RON PAUL IN 08!!!!!

Constitution

Yah it seems pretty absurd to judge Paul based on this. These votes sound like they were for positive changes (although pretty insignificant). I feel like I can trust Paul to not vote for dangerous legislation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello, goodbye, sometimes we all just need to cry.

hello, goodbye, sometimes we all just need to cry.

He was a younger, less wise Ron Paul.

Oh, "In the 1970s and early 1980's...".

Maybe such horrible votes on NASA were merely youthful indiscretions. He knows better now. So vote for the candidate wizened with age instead of these foolish and impulsive whipper-snappers!

On another note, I think "W" would have turned on the green or red lights with the rest of the debaters. However when it came to saving Terri, all he could come up with is a Pontius Pilate paper. Ron Paul shredded the competition as he introduced something on Abortion the Republicans could have passed with a simple majority IF the president was anatomically complete enough to face down the likes of (using the term loosely) "justice" Ginsberg & Co.

This brings up another question I wish was answered with red or green (the first one was whether every abortionist should be declared an enemy combatant and waterboarded at GITMO - yes or no please). Will you continue to kow-tow to the nine nazgul on the supreme court even when their decisions are clearly unconstitutional, or will you tell them (LIke Madison did in Marbury v.s.) "it is their decision, let them enforce it".

LOL

Voting to reduce regulations that are not allowed under the constitution is a bad thing?? HAHA

This article is like someone buying the winning lotto ticket for a $300 million pot only to find that the actual proceeds were only $299,549,398. FRAUUUUUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure he's right

"Never" and "always" are incredibly hard words to justify. Dr. Paul is human and I'm sure he's failed to live up to his principles on occasion.

However, he's closer to the ideal than all of his colleagues by many orders of magnitude, so even if you disprove the absolutist statements, it's still irrefutable that he is nothing like the others.

I have a good excuse

Voting to change a law can be spun to say it's an alteration that saps some of the illegality from the previous one. Voting to name a library is not an exercise of power - it's just done out of convenience. Any collection of citizens could've done it.

Defend Liberty!