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.
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.