By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 10:08 pm
Filed under: Society/Culture: Civil Unrest, Society/Culture: Law/Order, Society/Culture, US Politics

33 Responses to “Why Did Ron Paul Vote Against Impeachment?”

1. He voted to move it to the Judiciary so that it could proceed. There is no way in hell it would have passed on the house floor. Besides, this was all a bunch of childish GOP tactics, see here:

   http://rawstory.com/news/2007/GOP_troublemakers_save_impeachment_measure_1107.html

   I applaud Ron Paul for not participating in such nonsense.

   disinter
   11/7/07 at 11:10 pm
   

2. Kucinich and other progressive lawmakers implied that Judiciary Chairman John Conyers assured them he would move forward on impeachment, despite his previous reticence to do so.

   “I’ve spoken to Mr. Conyers, and I’m quite confident that the bill is in good hands,” Kucinich told reporters at a press conference in his office after the vote.

   disinter
   11/7/07 at 11:13 pm
   
3. 

   @disinter

   I’m not as optimistic about Conyers as Dennis is, given his previous reversal on impeachment. I hope you and he are right, but as AfterDowningStreet said the day of the resolution: “This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.” Even if Kucinich had a conversation with Conyers about an investigation taking place, there was a general consensus in the congress that referring the resolution to committee would essentially kill it. This is why the same Democratic leadership which insists that impeachment is off the table wanted it referred to committee. Again, childish GOP tactics are irrelevant if you’re making your decision based on the constitution rather than the politics.

   Manila Ryce
   11/7/07 at 11:25 pm
   

4. […] By Manila Ryce The Largest Minority Published Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 10:08 pm […]

   Why Did Ron Paul Vote Against Impeachment? By Manila Ryce « Dandelion Salad
   11/8/07 at 2:13 am
   

5. At least Conyers has some ‘cover’ now to run with Impeachment. Before he claimed it would have just looked likea partisan issue. Now he can say “Hey, the republicans and the dems sent it to me to concider.” I hope he does… and way to go Wexler! Way to stand up and be counted!!!

   Dr Paul I’m afraid is just a media construct of what a repuglican should look like. I don’t have any faith in him.

   NAndo
   11/8/07 at 6:48 am
   

6. This is quite surprising to me. I definitely thought Ron Paul would stay true to his own words and seek justice for crimes against our Constitution. Unfortunately the spineless Democrats created the scene where impeachment was taken from the closet and shook out and put right back where it was.
   If we do not enforce our laws when it comes to the executive branch, what checks and balances are there today.

   There is evidence everywhere for impeachment.

   Thanks for all you do!

   Danielle
   11/8/07 at 7:39 am
   

7. Of three people running for president, whom I believed to have some integrity, Ron Paul is moved to the question mark list, anyway he was below Gravel and Kucinich before this, so what is the difference?

   It would be great to send in overwhelming public support of impeachment, so it can be disregarded again, because it was never on the table anyway.

   Leefeller
   11/8/07 at 8:27 am
   

8. I am surprised that anyone would look at this and even think that Ron Paul is a turncoat, or whatever other term you care to slap him with. Your title is completely misleading and not at all acturate to the fact. Ron Paul did not vote against impeachment. Like any great moderator he moved the bill to where it needed to be, the house judiciary comittee. There are also a few problems with the terminology of the actual legislation. So before you quickly turn tail and run from the one man who has stood fast against the modern political system you might want to take the time to learn about the workings of our government, maybe then you would understand that what he did was critical to even give the bill a shot at passing. With its current structure it would not have recieved the required votes to pass. Now that the bill is in the committee and will be hatched out and will come out in much better shape. I am sick and tired of flakey Ron Paul supporters always wanting to run away at the sound of a little breeze, let alone a hugh storm. It almost seems like some people are looking for a reason to say “I knew it all along. no one could be that great.” Drop that crap, this is the only man who could fix this country. We are now slipping further and further into a depression. The depression will be in full force come the general election. Kuchinich is not capable of fixing our economic problems and for that matter no other candidate besides Ron Paul could do it either. All of the would keep in place the very institutions that have lead our country’s economic future into the gutter. Don’t lose heart and keep the faith. Ron Paul is the man who can fix our nation. He will vote for impeachment when the bill goes through the commitee, like all bills are supposed to. Hardly any bill is ever passed without going through the committee first. I would also like to make this request, that you change the title of this post for it is far from the truth of the matter. Ron Paul did not vote no to impeachment, he voted yes to try to get it passed.

   Locke
   11/8/07 at 8:47 am
   
9. 

   @Locke

   Thanks for all that, but you still didn’t explain why he voted the way he did or why you think the title is misleading. You simply wrote an endorsement for Paul. If you want to kill the messenger then fine, but facts are still facts. His first vote was to table the resolution. That means to kill it without debate. The second vote was to refer it to committee.

   Manila Ryce
   11/8/07 at 12:09 pm
   

10. Says a friend in the know: “Because it is improper for the House to consider something as important as impeachment without having had hearings and without a report from a committee or an independent counsel. It was appropriately done this way with Nixon and Clinton. If you look at the vote, you will notice the majority of war-mongering Republicans voted with Kuncinich as a cheap stunt to embarrass the Democrats and the anti-war movement by rushing an impeachment resolution to a vote with only an hour’s debate.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016733.html

    disinter
    11/8/07 at 3:52 pm
    
11. 

    @disinter

    So he’s basically saying that the reason Paul voted to kill the resolution wasn’t because it was unconstitutional, or even because he felt there wasn’t enough evidence, but because it was “improper” and didn’t exactly mirror the impeachment proceedings before it? Different strategies are needed for different administrations. How do you have hearings when the Vice-President refuses to show up or even testify under oath? The cases are wildly different, and there is nothing which says an impeachment must be done that way. That’s another fairly weak excuse.

    As far as who voted for what: The question shouldn’t be “Why did the Neocons vote for impeachment?”, but rather “Why should it matter?”. If you plan on making a vote you believe in do you change your mind because people with ulterior motives may vote the same way? If the Neocons suddenly decide they want to give free healthcare to children does that mean we need to vote against it now? No, you call their bluff. Yet another ridiculous excuse.

    Manila Ryce
    11/8/07 at 5:31 pm
    

12. Manila,

    Ron voted against this bill partly because the whole thing was
    just a sideshow. It is good that Rep. Kucinich was able to bring the
    issue to people’s attention, but a weighty matter such as impeachment
    deserves more debate than just a couple of hours. We’re talking
    about impeaching the Vice-President of the United States! It may be
    warranted, but it needs to be discussed in committee. It needs to be
    debated over days, and it needs to be approached seriously and
    decently. Members in the House weren’t even serious about this bill
    Tuesday. Those who supposedly voted to continue the bill did it for
    no other reason than to put Democrats on the spot. If you look at
    who voted for the bill, you’ll find it was a lot of hawkish people.
    A bill for impeachment should never be rammed through the House in a
    couple of hours. Again, good for Rep. Kucinich that he brought it
    up. The vote was a vote to send the bill to committee, where it
    should be discussed. It’s only a vote to kill the bill if the
    Democrat House leadership does nothing with it from here on out.

    disinter
    11/8/07 at 6:34 pm
    

13. The bills was already in committee before this vote. Putting it into committee again was just an attempt by the cowardly, two-faced democratic leaders like Pelosi to sweep it aside.

    There is absolutely no way to defend Ron Paul’s votes. He voted to TABLE the bill, to kill it without discussion. Whatever he may have voted afterwards, his first vote to table shows his true intentions.

    I personally think he compromised his principles because he believed a vote for impeachment at this point would create a media frenzy and be detrimental to his presidential bid. So much for Paul being an honest politician.

    Andy
    11/8/07 at 7:11 pm
    

14. Ron Paul did vote for impeachment!

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00799:@@@L&summ2=m&

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1038.xml

    Kelly
    11/8/07 at 7:19 pm
    
15. 

    @Kelly

    No, he voted to table it, then send it to committee. Notice his vote is opposite that of Kucinich on both accounts. The proper links have already been provided in the article.

    Manila Ryce
    11/8/07 at 7:28 pm
    

16. Was a proper House investigation concluded?

    Kelly
    11/8/07 at 9:05 pm
    

17. “In order for the House to perform its duty, it must conduct an investigation to determine if there is evidence to support whatever charges come to its attention and if that evidence supports a conclusion that the person or persons charged have committed an impeachable offense.” - U.S. Constitution; According to Section 2026 of the 1974 House Judiciary Committee print on IMPEACHMENT

    Kelly
    11/8/07 at 9:22 pm
    
18. 

    @Kelly

    It’s hard to tell whether you actually don’t understand the process, or if you’re trying to purposefully mislead. Impeachment in the House is the indictment. An investigation is done AFTER impeachment is introduced. Charges must first be made prior to a House investigation. According to Thomas Jefferson’s Manual on Parliamentary Practice and Rules of the House of Representatives, even rumors are sufficient information with which to introduce impeachment.

    Manila Ryce
    11/8/07 at 9:48 pm
    
19. 

    Well, as disappointed as I am that Paul voted the proceedure into committee, I can easily understand his reasoning.

    Remember, my little snowflakes, that Ron Paul, as Constitutionalist as he is, is not a man of rash action, nor is he anything close to resembling a Democrat. His standard reservations notwithstanding, I personally believe that he knows exactly why the ReDUHblicans were so gung ho about bringing the issue to debate, and, ironically, the Dems were not.

    In other words, he knows that the Democrats are PUSSIES!

    This is the only reason why the Republicans seemed so eager to talk about this issue, while the the Pussocrats seemed so eager to kill it. They knew that the Dems don’t have their shit together, and, despite the laundry list of impeachable offenses that could be used to knock this administration on its ass, (the outting of the identity of one of our country’s covert operatives on national television immediately springs to mind), they seem to utterly lack the backbone and ballsacks needed to make such a move, a move that, by the virtue of the above mentioned evidence, should be in the fucking bag!

    You’re right, Manila, the investigations could conceivably be done after Impeachment is voted on. But given that there is still such a strong and vehement opposition in the form of the Republican minority, Paul’s assertion that a solid and organized case is necessary to sway the necessary votes is a correct one.

    The fact that Paul is not taking a more active, direct role in the advancement of Impeachment, again, saddens me. But, as I said, he’s not a Democrat, and it’s clear that, among Republicans, he is in a dreadful minority. However, when he says that all he needs a clear, concise case on the part of the Democrats in order to win his vote, I believe him. Again, you are correct that, technicallly, they could vote for Impeachment and Then put the case together, but unfortunately, the Pussocratic majority is nowhere near big enough in the House for this to work. In this case, the investigative report must be done first. And as much as this sucks, the sheer volume of Executive Branch fuck-ups coupled with the fact that you have the workhorse Kucinich spearheading the movement means that putting this case together is simply a matter of time and elbow grease. No tap-dancing required!

    So in closing, as sad as I am in Paul’s apparent reticence, I understand completely, given the Pussocrat’s modus operandi of taking seemingly no-brainer tasks and completely fucking them up. If you’re really looking to blame someone for the tabling of this proposition of Impeachment, I think it’s a little shortsighted to focus on Ron Paul and not on the Democratic Party, who, in so many ways, have abandoned their one true champion.

    PapaFigue
    11/9/07 at 4:25 pm
    

20. No one is blaming Ron Paul for tabling the resolution. We’re just pointing out his apparent hypocrisy. Whatever reason he may have had to vote for tabling the reason, I think everyone can agree it was purely political. If in principle he agrees that Cheney should be impeached, then there should be no circumstances that he would vote to table such a resolution.

    Also, Kucinich has already done his own investigation and as he stated on Tucker’s show he was prepared with a three-inch thick binder to argue his case.

    I think half the people in the country could offer ample evidence of why Cheney needs to be impeached, even without an investigation.

    Andy
    11/9/07 at 7:09 pm
    
21. 

    @Andy:
    Again, you wanna talk hypocrisy? Take a look a the Democratic Party’s actions. They took an even more traitorous role in tabling the proposal than Ron Paul, who is, need I remind you, a Republican.

    I don’t agree with his decision, but I think the reasoning he used to make that decision, which is the liklihood that the Dems will completely puss out and fuck this chance up, is, judging by their recent performance, more than rational.

    If you think I’m wrong, and think that the Dems will do just fine with this, believe me, I hope and pray that you’re right.

    But I, like Paul, and anyone else with a lick of reason for that matter, seriously doubt it.

    PapaFigue
    11/9/07 at 7:41 pm
    
22. 

    @PapaFigue

    I don’t think I, Andy, or anyone else is defending the Democrats. In fact, the reason I posted this about Ron Paul is because I expected more out of him than the Democratic leadership. Being a Republican doesn’t excuse him from his vote, because more importantly he claims to be a constitutionalist. We expected the Dems to capitulate as they always do. Nobody is surprised there. They may be misleading assholes, but they’re not hypocrites. That’s what they do. That’s what they’ve always done. What we didn’t expect is the same from Ron Paul. His party affiliation is besides the point. To claim that he made his decision based on politics and not the constitution only supports the argument I made in the article.

    Manila Ryce
    11/9/07 at 7:51 pm
    

23. From Lewrockwell.com blog:
    According to campaign insider -

    “Because it is improper for the House to consider something as important as impeachment without having had hearings and without a report from a committee or an independent counsel. It was appropriately done this way with Nixon and Clinton. If you look at the vote, you will notice the majority of war-mongering Republicans voted with Kucinich as a cheap stunt to embarrass the Democrats and the anti-war movement by rushing an impeachment resolution to a vote with only an hour’s debate.”

    Reference URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016733.html

    smallgovisbest
    11/10/07 at 9:19 am
    
24. 

    @Manila
    Yes, I see your point. But you have to look at the fact that the Dems, in all probability, WILL fuck this up, just like they’ve done and have been doing. So what’s the point of voting for a resolution that, due solely to sheer incompetence, has no chance of succeeding? Symbolism? Perhaps, but I’m a little over shit being done as symbolic gestures.

    Of course, if Paul really wanted to get the ball rolling, he should be taking a more active role in putting a case together, rather than waiting on Kucinich to get the stuff done first. That’s what really disappoints me about Paul. I mean, if you want something done right….

    PapaFigue
    11/10/07 at 11:30 am
    

25. Ron Paul is a dead duck that keeps flying only
    because he hasn’t heard the shot. A thouroughly
    dishonest populist with no backbone and manners.
    Also again a brimming amount of black supporters!
    (whoa whoa - also pro-rp ladies would lack pride)

    He is interested in the constitution - oh yeah - i.e.
    the constitution of major stocks he holds of at least
    three gold mining companies, this explains comedy
    attempts of drooling jealously after the federal reserve.

    Daniel
    11/10/07 at 12:33 pm
    
26. 

    @Daniel:
    That’s funny, because that’s exactly what a lot of the NeoCon Wackjobs are saying about Kucinich, except for the whole gold mining thing.

    Way to separate yourself from the morons.

    PapaFigue
    11/10/07 at 3:39 pm
    

27. http://ronpaullibrary.org/documents/976.php

    Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney

    Ron Paul Speech to Congress

    November 6, 2007

    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.

    @Manila Ryce ,

    Thanks for such a great blog/resource. Even though on occasion I disagree(strongly) with your perspective the effort is intelligent, accurate, and appreciated.

    @PapaFigue,

    I always look forward to your comments.

    Thanks,

    Seth

    SAME_TEAM?
    11/10/07 at 4:40 pm
    

28. Ron Paul didn’t vote against impeachment, he voted to table the issue. I subscribe to many news letters on the issue and they were happy because they said this is just what the wanted.

    Impeachment is in review, it doesn’t mean it was voted down. They have said now is the time to start righting everyone and they’re dog, start making calls, and bug the heck out of Nancy Poloci or how ever you spell her name.

    Here’s what Ron Paul has to say on the issue.
    http://dailypaul.com/node/6857

    Sue
    11/11/07 at 10:25 pm
    

29. @ SAME_TEAM?

    Thanks! Perfect response.

    Didn’t know this website ( http://ronpaullibrary.org/documents/976.php) existed and is exactly what I was looking for to read more about domestic issues… mostly environmental and land preservation stuff; although I think foreign policy is by far the determing factor for Presidential voting.

    Mr. Krik
    11/26/07 at 12:50 pm
    

30. Dec 21, 2007 8:35 AM
    When congress votes to impeach it is not a final judgement, it is a legal statement of charges. To my knowledge there is nothing in the constitution that says that impeachment legislation has to go to the Judiciary Committee. If congress votes on impeachment, then by law it must me voted by another body of government. If that follows through it goes to court. If congressman Paul believed that the charges needed to be brought to court, he should have voted yes. I honestly think he was just trying to make a statement to his party, which he says he disagreed with how they were voting. He doesn’t have the integrity to act on what he believes. He has stated that this war is illegal, and the evidence was brought before him, why didn’t he vote to have it brought to court???

    There are even other ways to impeach such as the “Jefferson Manual” which allows citizens of america to vote for impeachment. Any citizen can partake at this website: http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

    starladeda
    12/21/07 at 3:18 pm
    

31. I think it’s a little bit crazy that you are pointing out Ron Paul in your site here when most DEMs didnt even press the issue. If you ask me it makes them look weak, This whole two party system is whats dragging our country down. I dont believe that only 2 major party represent the nation at a whole

    Frank
    02/14/08 at 12:58 am
    
32. 

    @Frank
    And I think it’s a bit crazy that you would assume that my criticism of Paul has anything to do with loyalty to the Democratic Party. This is not a Democrat blog, it’s a liberal blog. We’ve heavily critiqued the Democrats on this issue as well. Parties have nothing to do with it. Paul is being judged for his inaction, not his party affiliation.

    Manila Ryce
    02/14/08 at 1:16 am
    

33. A good man would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by evil means.

    Chicago
    05/20/08 at 5:40 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>