Skip to comments.Ron Paulís Diem Mirabilis
Posted on 12/03/2010 12:29:06 PM PST by OldDeckHand
In the space of 24 hours, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has voted for tax hikes, against censure for Charlie Rangel, and defended Julian Assange.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I stand corrected in the specifics and not in the general issue of where he will be if this goes into the new Congress. I am assuming that the Nancy vote today is the one that extended all the tax cuts except added back the old rate on the $1,000,000 and above.
While the lame duck congress with have this go through the House and fail in the Senate, the new Congress will have a total extension made permanant in the House which will still fail in the Senate. The bill today probably isn’t that much different from what we will see actually gets through and signed as a retroactive compromise in February — I can hardly fault the old fart for that.
My position is that Ron Paul is not due any leadership or nomination for anything. I do, however, respect that he is elected by his district, that he caucuses with the Republicans and he deserves to be slammed with accurate description (which the article failed to do) or we are in-fighting and promoting the Obama Administrations ability to run wild.
Nope. The higher income taxes weren’t in the bill.
I thought that as well at first, however, checking on what actually happened, he is correct. Paul even jumped over to join Pelosi in her bill to raise taxes on those making over $250K.
Oh, get over yourself.
For instance, I want to know about all the GOP senators' support of the ObamafoodCare act.
Did he give a reason for voting for the reprimand over censure? It was only Paul and Peter King who voted that way, right? I heard the Peter King speech, but missed Paul’s if he gave one.
He's right. We could prosecute Assange for Espionage which would be the correct charge.
No the higher income taxes weren’t in the bill. I get what you are saying, you should get what I’m saying. Paul makes it a point of pride that he never votes for a tax increase. To vote against the continuation of the middle class tax cuts would have been to vote for a tax increase.
I think this is really about trying to deny Paul his chairmanship where he can question the Fed. I think he’s right for that position, one of the few positions most Republican voters would agree he’s right for. The leadership may try to stop that.
That's what you call "a full throated defense?" It sounds like he's making a point to me. Where is the hew and cry to prosecute Cong. Jim McDermott? Or John Kerry? Or Bill Clinton? Or, as Ron Paul asked, the NYTs?
Hey! I'm just a political maverick.
He’s right. We could prosecute Assange for Espionage which would be the correct charge.
True that. Execute Assange though. From what I’ve been reading about his proclivities he might enjoy prison more than the average guy.
I don't know why the title doesn't read Dies Mirabilis. If the noun is going to be in the accusative case, the adjective has to agree with it--so diem mirabilem--but I don't see any reason for the accusative case here instead of the nominative case.
It's either a full-throated defense, or he's a bumbling moron. It is alleged that Assange was in contact with Manning well-before any data breach occurred, making Assange part of the conspiracy.
No one alleges that the New York Times engineered the release of the classified materials they came to be in possession of - either during the Pentagon Papers fiasco, or the the Swiss banking/intelligence scandal more recently. Paul's either too stupid to understand that distinction, or he doesn't care. Take your pick.
You’re correct, which is why it doesn’t bother me unless there’s an attempt to peel off the Libertarians and split the movement. Other than that, it doesn’t bother me.
That’s got to be the only way he can keep getting re-elected from Texas! Those darn kids.
Now there you go offering facts again... don’t you know that the RP slimers have much more fun with lies?
You think that's the only reason they don't like the guy?
The Corner offers some pretty varying opinions from inside the conservative movement. You'll see disagreement between their own contributors. I wouldn't call it a neo-con website, by any stretch.
"For instance, I want to know about all the GOP senators' support of the ObamafoodCare act."
I'd have to look, but I remember an article posted in the last several days on that very subject (on NRO).
Youre not seriously going to put up facts against an internet bloggers one and a partial sentence opinion are you?
I wish people would be a little fairer about the ins and outs of votes. To say he voted against censure when he voted for it is an out and out lie. Same to say he voted for a tax increase when he voted against one.
Hmmm...Does it come in Hot Pink?
That's what you let the NYTs skate on? No comment on the other traitors?
When it comes down to it, he may never become more conservative and less Libertarian. I can only think of one thing that might make him more sensible. If we could convince him, he would greatly benefit from having three tex-mex luncheons with you a week and having you beat some sense into his head. I would start with the Habenaro sauce, if I were you.
He voted specifically to strip "censure" from the resolution condemning Rangel.
Quit yer lyin.
Same to say he voted for a tax increase when he voted against one.
Paul voted with Nancy Pelosi on a huge tax increase.
Since Lowry took over, it's all children of the Partisan Review, all the time. Kristol, etc etc.
When the TP got moving, you heard all kinds of squeaking from the cocktail party circuit at NR. Oh, mercy me, don't carry offensive signs!
There I was, risking making an idiot of myself in the heat of the summer and fall of 2009 trying to make points to my elected officials, and the effete little Ivy crowd at NR were sweating being embarrassed. They can't lead or follow, but love to be in the way. (As long as they get to use a lot of big words and emphasize how smart they are.)
They need to find real work.
People don’t like to work to find the truth. They just want someone to tell them what to think.
Who's letting the NY Times "skate"? This isn't about whatever other "alleged traitors" you're referring to. This is about Julian Assange and did he do anything criminal?
If what is alleged to have occurred is accurate, then yes. Assange violated perhaps several US statutes, not the least of Which is the Espionage Act of 1917.
Paul, apparently thinks that someone who conspires to steal and disseminate classified US materials shouldn't be prosecuted. I disagree.
NR jumped the shark before Lowry, unfortunately. I've found that I have to go to religious journals to find a publication that doesn't flounder all over the place.
But of course. Who can't compartmentalize their ethics?
If that's what you think, don't let me stop you. ALL HAIL RON PAUL, DEFENDER OF AMERICAN FREEDOMS.
I get it. You love Paul.
Gotta be. That and the pork he hauls in...
I’ll give it a try. I’m trying to figure out what I can sprinkle on it. Something mind-altering could make him saner.
Thanks. I didn’t know that.
Orwellian. He voted against censure but voted for censure and voted for a tax increase by voting against a tax increase. Ingsoc doublespeak.
I don’t particularly like Ron Paul. He says some really crazy things. I guess you saw a shark and had to jump it though.
Again, if you think that means something, don't let me stop you.
And I won't stop you while you're making your most lucid posts.
Candor requires that I disclose that, if and only if all the other tax cuts could be preserved only by chucking the 4.5% cut on top bracket income, I would say vote for the compromise. Of course, I don't believe that Congress will not extend all of the tax cuts and so those three do not get a pass under the actual circumstances prevailing.
That the paleosurrenderman lies while posing for various holy pictures as though he were conservative goes without saying.
so what’s new????
Get your facts straight. Paul was the Libertarian Candidate in 1988. He ran against Bush41.
I agree with the comments at the end of that article NOT with Newt. Assange is an Australian “opportunist” and the creep who leaked the docs may be up for treason.
And why do we honor the NY SLimes when they leak things but now we seek to punish these guys.
After all, lots of what is coming out is damaging the left. Keep it coming I say. This govt needs to be brought to its heels. The State Dept needs to be thoroughly scrubbed and heads there roll.
I cannot stand the hare-brained idiocy, among other things, of Ron Paul but I will agree that he should be given the opportunity to chair an investigation of the Federal Reserve given this week’s revelations about the secret $3 trillion currency printing party of Bernanke and Company to empower Santa Dubya and Santa Obamao to obscenely fund their establishment elitist pals in American business (GE, NBC, etc.), and the investment banks of New York and Europe at the expense of what little viability remains in American currency. OTOH, given PaleoPaulie’s well-earned reputation as an absolute loose cannon on deck, his leash should be verrrrrry short to confine him to Federal Reserve issues only and prevent him crossing over into the rest of his beliefs which are essentially delusional and dishonest. Any misbehavior by PaleoPaulie in chairing a Federal Reserve investigation and he should be hounded from public life and promptly be replaced in the investigation. Big opportunity. Big responsibility. That rare area wherein Paleopaulie has some actual expertise. Failure is not an option.
60% of the Republican party has rejected Romney. But here is the problem, he has about 30-40% of the GOP who like him and would support him. And if half the Tea Party supports Palin and then a significant number of the libertarian wing goes to Ron Paul, that could be just enough for Romney to squeak out the nomination.
That’s exactly what happened in 2008. McCain won most of those states in the primaries with only about 35-40% of the GOP vote. That RINO vote is tough to beat when it is united.
I dont care what anyone says, that 2012 primary will be very, very ugly. There will be a fight over candidates and a fight over agenda. Keep in mind that the RINOs especially HATE Palin. They are going to try and sabotage her. You know this...
Old Deck Hand, you are most disingenuous and naive if you don’t think its better to vote for keeping some taxes instead of keeping none.
If you want to argue that Paul voted for a TAX INCREASE because this bill only kept tax cuts for the middle class,
then are you willing to argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted AGAINST this bill don’t really favor the TAX CUTS for the Middle Class?
From the American Spectator (hardly Paul fans):
“But if you also favor retaining the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, are you supporting tax hikes if you vote first for the stand-alone middle-class tax cut bill? Especially when the Democratic majority leader publicly admits the partial tax cut has no chance of becoming law and all three Republicans voted for the original full tax cuts and say they favor their retention? Paul in particular has defended the tax cuts for the wealthy for some time:
I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes - rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”
The most problematic provision of the bill Paul and company voted for is Section 102, which explicitly excludes “high income individuals” from the tax cuts and defines who doesn’t qualify. Left alone, that would be a tax increase on those individuals come January. But the legislation also explicitly continues the tax cuts for everyone else. Could you argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted against this bill don’t really favor the tax cuts for the middle class?
Also, Ryan Ellis of the anti-tax increase Americans for Tax Reform comments below:
“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”
Actually, this is wrong. Peter King (NY) and Don Young (AK) were the only two Republicans to vote against censure once it came up for a vote. Paul, however, did support before the censure vote reducing the penalty from censure to reprimand.
I agree with you 100%. He’s a loose cannon. Chain him down and point him at the Fed. They are out of control and this is the time to do it.
Heh, I had a rabbit once that I named Elwood P. Dowd! Elwood for short of course. Norwegian giant. He died attacking a German Shepard.
Or, I'm not an idiot and understand that if you vote to raise taxes on anyone YOU'RE VOTING TO RAISE TAXES.
The only way Republicans are going to get things done, is to stand as a united front against the Dems. They did that, except for a few idiots, like Ron Paul.
Increased taxes on the job creators will mean increased unemployment. We can't handle more unemployment. Republican leadership understands this, but "rogue contrarian" Ron Paul doesn't
And I'm the "naive" one?
Yeah, like you said!