Posted on 03/06/2006 3:57:05 PM PST by AZRepublican
Ron Paul voted against the small budget cuts in December because they were actually annual appropriations, but were scaled back from previous annual bills. His vote was definetly needed on those bills (seeing it took a couple times before they were passed), and the Democrats were obstructing them 100%, but he voted against them because he opposes all spending. This is not a productive action, he needs to stop making political statements and actually work to get stuff done instead of hurting Republican chances of making any reform. I agree with his role of government, but i disagree how he goes about it. He is no Republican, he is no Liberal, hes a Libertarian in Republican clothing, or a Republican in Name Only.
Ron Paul is my congressman. I like that he puts principal above party, even though I don't always agree with the principal. I'm sorry that his behavior irritates you.
Its not so much irritation, he just frustrates me sometimes. I have nothing wrong with Libertarian leaning Republicans, after all most conservatives today believe that government has taken too much liberty in the name of social justice, welfare, and Medical entitlements. I just wish he would vote more with the party on key votes, and support our troops already deployed in Iraq. He's not my Congressman, and I'm sure you'd understand him better than I.
I think you have to look at the entire spectrum of votes instead of some.
I do not know why Ron Paul would not vote for lower spending, it may have been a poor decision on his part, or maybe he was voting against them because he saw them as being cosmetic and not substantive.
I am not going to defend every vote he took, nor would I defend every vote Tom Delay took, who I also support.
I think however before we start throwing around the term 'RINO' we need to be more careful.
I take a RINO to be a 'moderate' Republican, who usually votes for more, not less gov't.
I do not think Ron Paul falls into that mode.
Yes, he is a libertarian, and he is independent, but on many issues he is a solid vote with the Republicans.
Delay also received a strong recommendation from the GOA.
Well, you seem to be very confident that Delay was guilty of some ethic violations, but haven't actually listed any.
From what I remember it was the Democrat accuser (it might have been Lampson, but I cannot be sure) was himself rebuked for bringing trival charges against Delay.
And it was because the Democrat had been redistricted out of office.
As I said, whatever the ethics committee found against Delay (and it is bipartisan), it was on technical, not ethical issues.
Now, if you have a link that shows that Delay was guilty of some ethical issues, please link me to them.
I truly believe there is a cult of personality surrounding DeLay. The fact that the Ethics Committee has found DeLay guilty on several occasions yet some Republicans insist that this isn't true reminds me of the over the top excuses Democrats made for Bill Clinton's behavior.
As I said, Delay was not convicted of any ethical issues, only the 'appearance' of impropriety.
As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules. The House Code of Official Conduct broadly requires that every House Member, officer and employee “conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” It is particularly important that members of the House leadership, who are the most publicly visible Members, adhere to this requirement scrupulously
Delay was not guilty of any crime or even violating some explicit rule of the House.
He was just 'guilty' of giving the 'appearance' of violating some arcane rules.
The standard used *is* the appearance of impropriety. When DeLay gave the appearance of impropriety, he violated House rules. That's why the Ethics Committee admonished him.
Seriously, the cult of personality surrounding DeLay reminds me of the cult of personality surrounding Clinton. Democrats refused to believe Clinton was immoral and unethical.
I had hoped that Republicans were better than Democrats.
As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules.
I don't care what DeLay asserts any more than I care what Ronnie Earle asserts.
With regard to the solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions, the Committee has clearly stated that a Member may not make any solicitation that may create even an appearance that, because of a contribution, a contributor will receive or is entitled to either special treatment or special access to the Member in his or her official capacity. This point is made on p. 34 of the Campaign Activity booklet that the Committee issued in December 2001.
When DeLay made a solicitation that created the appearance of impropriety, he violated House rules.
And as I said, he was admonished over some technical issues, nothing substantive.
Seriously, the cult of personality surrounding DeLay reminds me of the cult of personality surrounding Clinton. Democrats refused to believe Clinton was immoral and unethical.
Clinton was found guilty of perjury, not violating some appearance of probibity.
He pled guilty and had his law licence revoked for it.
Do not compare apples and oranges.
All you are doing is looking for an excuse not to vote for Delay and still claim to be a good Republican.
I had hoped that Republicans were better than Democrats. As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules. I don't care what DeLay asserts any more than I care what Ronnie Earle asserts.
The Rules committee did not disagree that no laws or rules had been violated.
They were admonishing Delay for the appearance of impropriety.
The violation was giving the appearance of improperiety not actually doing anything unethical.
The article is about Cunningham.
DeLay has been assassinated by the Democrats and the press. Do we allow them to run the Republican Party?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.