Posted on 09/14/2010 9:43:38 AM PDT by WaterBoard
Rush Limbaugh today stated on his radio show that Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) voted in favor of House Resolution 1258 on June 11, 2008.
What was "On Motion to Refer: H RES 1258 The Kucinich Privilege Resolution"?
Answer: "Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors"
24 Republicans voted with the Democrat majority and that did include Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE).
Vote Record: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-401
Bill Information: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-1258
(Excerpt) Read more at govtrack.us ...
Maybe he lied.
Only to someone who doesn't understand the legislative process and the gamesmanship that is employed EVERYDAY in that process.
"What I do know is that today, because of his weak voting record on other issues that are important to conservatives, his vote on the Kookcinich bill raises serious questions."
Only in the minds of people who don't understand the process.
"Did Castle actually support impeachment? Was his vote calculated only to appease the Rat voters in his state? Or didn’t he have enough integrity to say “no” to his Republican leadership? Did he feel so secure in his position of power that he felt he could simply play the political game with no future consequences?"
Read the Geraghty piece. It was crystal clear to him at the time of the vote what was going on, as it's just as crystal clear now. Your questions are facially absurd.
I didn't hear any of the program. But, while Limbaugh clearly understands the big political picture, I have found that he sometimes gets a bit confused in the process that is the sausage making. I could see how he might, because of a lack of subject matter understanding, read a blog posting claiming just this accusation then look at the vote and think, "Yep, Castle wanted to impeach Bush".
Limbaugh, like so many here, might believe it because he wants to believe it.
Sure, if you want to say that the argument you’ve been making for the last 2 hours was a lie, but the truth also helps your cause, so it’s all good.
I could care less if you argue truthfully against Castle, in fact MOST freepers who are being castigated as “RINO-lovers” are really just wanting people to tell the truth and stop lying.
I have no doubt that if Castle is elected, there will be way too many times when he won’t go along with the leadership. I presume that O’Donnell will, so long as the leadership is doing what she wants. I also assume that if the leadership tries something conservatives don’t like, they will expect O’Donnell to OPPOSE the leadership, and NOT to vote with her party.
But knowing Castle isn’t conservative, and isn’t going to play with the team, doesn’t mean we should support lying about him. He didn’t support impeachment, he voted to STOP the impeachment bill.
Frankly, I think it was the right thing to do, because I don’t think playing politics with impeachment is a good thing; but it doesn’t matter, because his vote was meaningless, it was being killed by the democrats anyway.
But if he had voted YES to bring the bill to the floor, I have NO DOUBT that his opponents would be citing that vote to insist that he supported impeachment, and telling us that the other 166 republicans were just doing what they were told, but Castle wanted to impeach Bush and that’s why he voted to bring the bill to the floor.
And if he had skipped the vote like Tom Tancredo, his opponents would be saying he ducked the vote because he supported impeachment and didn’t want to go on-record about it.
That's not always true, the liberal republican senators will side with the democrats sometimes to filibuster conservative ideas, or to deny us a veto override.
I know Ron Paul loves anything that comes from Kucinich's tiny, demented brain and I assume he voted for it.
My argument has always been that building a senate majority based on Castle’s vote is an exercise in futility. He cannot be counted on to vote with us when the chips are down.
And he vote on this matter only reinforces that point.
I never said he was “for impeachment” per se, you can go search my posting history if you like. He is however, frequently for whatever the Democrats’ agenda happens to be.
I know its not “always true”. Sheesh. The larger our majority, the better our chances to prevail.
Just the 24 bright ones, right?
I frequently find that people will use the phrase "double talk when they read something they - because of their own intellectual shortcomings - can't understand. Just saying.
Gee, did Jim Gerhaty tell you that too? Again....A no vote on the motion to refer would have resulted in a final vote on the Articles of Impeachment, which would likely have failed (from the impeach Bush site). It didn't thanks to those tricky few republicans
No, he would have been with the majority of Republicans at the time , and if we are to believe this twist he would also be on the record as voting against impeachment.
Thank you.
The big concern is his fundamental conservative principles and importantly: his votes.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm
He’s a RINO ... in the Snowe, Collins, Grahmnesty and McCain corner.
I really don't see anyone claiming he voted to impeach, thats just Castle and his supporters trying to muddy the waters
No he did not. He voted with democrats to KILL a Bush Impeachment Resolution.
Most Republicans voted against killing the bill, because they wanted to debate it and vote on the bill. They were pretty sure they would win the vote on the bill, so their votes were also against impeachment, but only indirectly.
The more direct anti-impeachment vote was to kill the bill. Although most of the democrats voted to kill the bill to save themselves the embarrassment of losing the vote on the floor.
BTW, this isn't the only time in history this has happened -- it actually happens quite often. If the minority thinks they have enough votes to kill something Pelosi wants, they vote to bring it to a vote, and the democrats have a vote to take the bill off the floor. Although normally pelosi just pulls it off the calendar -- they couldn't pull this one, because Kucinich used a privileged resolution which has to be disposed of by a vote.
That the democrats threw it into the big freeze due to it being a lost cause is not the same as killing the bill, semantics. To vote for and justity the freeze rather than taking it to the floor with the very strong likelyhood of winning was a hedge that is now coming back to haunt him.
You say that Castle and 23 other enlightened Republicans did not want to play politics, and evidently 166 others, by inference, did want to play games.
It seems the House minority leadership decided to plant the flag and make the Dems take a vote on their spurious claims about impeachment issues.
Wow, imagine that, making Dems take a stand and be exposed for their hatred of President Bush!
And double wow, Mike Castle, dons his cape and stops what could be a damaging move by his leadership that could backfire against his party. What a guy!
Are you delirious?
Why would you vote for it to go back to Committee to avoid embarrassing Nancy Pelosi?
Why would you vote to let it go to Committee to “die”? Really? And how did you or Mike Castle know it would die? That’s a committee with a Dem majority—they could revive it anytime they wanted, and use it as a bludgeon against the GOP.
And why would you EVER, EVER vote for a Kucinich authored piece of legislation?
Even today on ABC news, Castle said, talking about Murkowski, that he talked with many DEM Senators that respected Lisa Murkowski—like that means anything except that he actually gives a crap about what Dems think.
Please—peddle your insane “Mike Castle is a political genius and knows better than his leadership” line somewhere else.
Castle believes in global warming and embryonic stem cell research and abortion—three touchstones of the liberal left that conservatives are trying to combat.
You're funny, but not in the good way.
I did not say I was smarter than anyone.
NRO and Weakly Standard have had the sharp knives out for Christine, since she is not a RINO, so color me NOT impressed by their hatchet job articles.
You want the same old, same old, vote for the fossil, Mike Castle.
If you want to change the country, vote for a conservative, Christine O’Donnell.
You do know this is a conservative website, right?
Powerlineblog, NRO and Weekly Standard aren't conservative websites? Good grief. Somewhere Bill Buckley is spinning in a grave.
BTW, this is what I said when responding last week to another poster who didn't think O'Donnell was the "smart" choice...
"I know Castle is a RINO, but he’s a Republican who can beat the Democrat. This Gal may have got some people excited, but she is a flake and would certainly lose to the Dem."Clearly, I'm hardly a Castle supporter. However, that doesn't mean I've checked my intellect at the door - unlike some others, apparently.O'Donnell is less than inspiring. She does seem a bit unqualified and more than a little flaky. And, unlike some othe5rs here, I am concerned with her past financial troubles, precisely because they are so recent. Having said that, if I was a DE resident, I'd still vote for her over Castle.
Nope, I don't think O'Donnel can win the general. BUT, I think Castle would possibly be worse than a Dem in that seat, and I RARELY say that about RINOs. First, he'd give "bi-partisan" cover to every hair-brained scheme the Democrats want to pass. And second, in a Senate - perhaps in 2012 - that was split 51-49 in favor of the GOP, Castle could EASILY be the guy who switched parties.
I think in rare circumstances, the enemy you do know, is better than the traitor you might know.
I’ve never really said which approach I liked better, although in general I don’t like political ploys. I don’t remember whether I was happy or not when this went down in 2008.
I certainly didn’t say Castle was enlightened. I merely stated what the reason was that “some republicans” reportedly gave for not being part of the 166.
I even suggested that others could complain that Castle didn’t go along with the ploy, although we have no way of knowing if the votes of the 24 were actually PART of the ploy or not — we know that the previous time, they specifically had their caucus vote for commital, only to start changing their votes a little at a time until the democrats stopped switching more votes.
It was just stupid that people were claiming that a vote to kill the bill was a vote to impeach the President. So stupid that it shocks me that any noted blogger or talk show host would have fallen for it.
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.