[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul's support...

[C. G. Estabrook]

Who you callin' bovine, bo?

John W. wrote:
> 
> Your intellectual subalterns may be barking up altogether the wrong 
> tree, Carl.  I have it on fairly good authority that you switched some 
> years ago from caprine cultivation to bovine husbandry.  :-)
> 
> 
> At 12:36 PM 11/12/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure how thoroughly my goat has been gotten, but the exchange 
>> has ventilated what I take to be the crucial point: Paul's surprising 
>> success in garnering money and support comes from his opposition to 
>> the war and his call for the restoration of civil liberties, not from 
>> his economic libertarianism.  People are supporting him because he's 
>> seen as not part of the malign Democrat-Republican collusion that has 
>> reduced Congress' approval rating below that of the president.
>>
>> Paul's bill to repeal the Military Commissions Act, restore Habeas 
>> corpus, prohibit extraordinary rendition, and the use of secret 
>> evidence and evidence obtained by torture (HR 3835) has yet to obtain 
>> any cosponsors, Republican or Democrat, altho' Kucinich and others 
>> have cosponsored other bills of Paul's.  --CGE
>>
>>
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, this is pretty reasonable.
>>> I was not really that outraged by Paul's vote. I just wanted to get
>>> Carl's goat. It was a base motivation, and I regret it.
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2007 8:24 AM, Michael Shapiro <mshapiro51 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is direct from Ron Paul about the impeachment.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=976
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House
>>>> Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the 
>>>> United
>>>> States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that
>>>> resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. 
>>>> I voted
>>>> to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from
>>>> Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle 
>>>> accountable;
>>>> but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established
>>>> protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in 
>>>> Congress, I
>>>> have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have
>>>> warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward 
>>>> war in
>>>> numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every
>>>> appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional 
>>>> oversight of
>>>> the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these
>>>> Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, 
>>>> that this
>>>> legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives 
>>>> following
>>>> regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the 
>>>> House
>>>> Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for 
>>>> a vote.
>>>> This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the
>>>> process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that 
>>>> the House
>>>> thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments 
>>>> of high
>>>> officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the 
>>>> legislation
>>>> had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation 
>>>> and
>>>> accompanying committee report.
>>>>
>>>> I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long 
>>>> supported
>>>> the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely 
>>>> political
>>>> reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional 
>>>> function of
>>>> this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.
>>>>
>>>> I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this 
>>>> legislation
>>>> to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to
>>>> examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2007 9:44 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Kucinich's impeachment bill against Cheney was voted twice on in the
>>>>> House today.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democratic leadership first tried to kill debate by tabling the
>>>>> Kucinich bill. This failed, because a substantial minority of
>>>>> Democrats was supported by a majority of Republicans in opposing the
>>>>> Democratic leadership motion to table. Ron Paul voted with the
>>>>> Democratic leadership and against both the Kucinich Democratic bloc
>>>>> and the Republican majority to kill debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the Democratic leadership sent the bill to die - at least so they
>>>>> hope - at the Judiciary committee. This vote was almost entirely on
>>>>> party lines. Overwhelmingly, Democrats voted to send the bill to
>>>>> committee. Only 4 Democrats voted with Kucinich not to send the bill
>>>>> to committee: Filner, Kaptur, Towns and Waters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against killing the bill
>>>>> by sending it to committee. Only 4 Republicans voted with the
>>>>> Democratic leadership to kill the Cheney impeachment bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who were those four Republicans? Well, one of them was Ron Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Paul - Democratic Party Hack.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st vote:
>>>>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> 2nd vote:
>>>>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss