Why hasn't Ron Paul signed on to co-sponsor his good friend Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against George Bush? I've been getting a lot of flack about this as of late from people, and I really have no response to them. People are saying that Ron Paul is just sticking with his party rather than doing the right thing. I honestly can't believe that, but it's certainly how things look!
Why won't Ron Paul cosponsor bill to impeach Bush?
- Thread starter Zarxrax
- Start date
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
He doesn't want to. 
If he did, he would. For more information, ask Ron.
If he did, he would. For more information, ask Ron.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,487
I would be inclined to guess that he considers starting a process that could never be wrapped up in the seven months remaining to Dubya's lame duck term to be a horrible waste of money--and we all know how he feels about wasting money. But if you want more than a guess, listen to TW:
L
loveshiscountry
Guest
"ask Ron" lol thanks for the helpful info.
A guess. The process would take too long and he'd already be out. It's not worth it to send a message to others crooks like Bush that they cant exceed their authority IF they can't be booted from office.
A guess. The process would take too long and he'd already be out. It's not worth it to send a message to others crooks like Bush that they cant exceed their authority IF they can't be booted from office.
evilfunnystuff
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,880
he voted aye
not sure why he didnt cosponser it shoot him an email if this is a big concenn to you but the aye vote clearly shows he is not just towin the party line
not sure why he didnt cosponser it shoot him an email if this is a big concenn to you but the aye vote clearly shows he is not just towin the party line
teamrican1
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 344
My thoughts
I reckon that Ron probably viewed the legislation as little more than a publicity stunt and waste of time. He's been fighting just to get the Democrats to do simple things like stop funding for the war and not sell out to Big Telecom and give them immunity over the illegal spying they did on all of us. If the Dems won't even do that, what possible hope is there that they'd impeach Bush? Other practical considerations would be the fact it is way too late in the game (Bush will be gone before this process could even finish) and even if there was still enough time in Bush's term to do it, the end result of a successful impeachment would be President Dick Cheney. Yikes!
You have to pick and choose your battles. In the same week Dennis pushed this hopeless bill, the Dems were colluding with the GOP and Big Telecom to screw all of us over on the domestic spying issue. Focusing on that issue, which we had a small chance of winning, would have been a lot more productive than a distracting, pie in the sky, look at me impeachment bill.
I reckon that Ron probably viewed the legislation as little more than a publicity stunt and waste of time. He's been fighting just to get the Democrats to do simple things like stop funding for the war and not sell out to Big Telecom and give them immunity over the illegal spying they did on all of us. If the Dems won't even do that, what possible hope is there that they'd impeach Bush? Other practical considerations would be the fact it is way too late in the game (Bush will be gone before this process could even finish) and even if there was still enough time in Bush's term to do it, the end result of a successful impeachment would be President Dick Cheney. Yikes!
You have to pick and choose your battles. In the same week Dennis pushed this hopeless bill, the Dems were colluding with the GOP and Big Telecom to screw all of us over on the domestic spying issue. Focusing on that issue, which we had a small chance of winning, would have been a lot more productive than a distracting, pie in the sky, look at me impeachment bill.
Todd
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 7,863
A very liberal aquaintance of mine believes that is exactly what it is. They are very upset with Kucinich. Here is a link to a story he sent me. Forgive me for the site...it is his.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/impe-j12.shtml
I don't believe for a minute that it's a PR stunt. Dennis Kucinich has put his neck on the line. What does he need a publicity stunt FOR?
RP stated many months ago that he was against impeachment. IIRC it was because he thought it was a waste of time, but don't quote me on the reason.
RP stated many months ago that he was against impeachment. IIRC it was because he thought it was a waste of time, but don't quote me on the reason.
NH4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 609
Stupid!
How about because he's not STUPID enough to shoot himself in the foot?
You don't file impeachment against the president that is in the party in which you are running and want support!
D'UH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And not to mention, it's a waste of time and partisan posturing. It won't prove or improve A DAMNED THING.
You people have to get over your 1960's hippie mentality and grow up and learn how to play the game...
How about because he's not STUPID enough to shoot himself in the foot?
You don't file impeachment against the president that is in the party in which you are running and want support!
D'UH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And not to mention, it's a waste of time and partisan posturing. It won't prove or improve A DAMNED THING.
You people have to get over your 1960's hippie mentality and grow up and learn how to play the game...
NH4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 609
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr121998.htm
"The fact that president Clinton will most likely escape removal from office I find less offensive than the Congress' and media's lack of interest in dealing with the serious charges of flagrant abuse of power, threatening political revenge, issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders, sacrificing US sovereignty to world government, bribery, and illegal acts of war, along with the routine flaunting of the constitutional restraints that were placed there to keep our federal government small and limited in scope."
Switch "Clinton" to "Bush". Ron Paul is being a hypocrite here...
"The fact that president Clinton will most likely escape removal from office I find less offensive than the Congress' and media's lack of interest in dealing with the serious charges of flagrant abuse of power, threatening political revenge, issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders, sacrificing US sovereignty to world government, bribery, and illegal acts of war, along with the routine flaunting of the constitutional restraints that were placed there to keep our federal government small and limited in scope."
Switch "Clinton" to "Bush". Ron Paul is being a hypocrite here...
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,487
I don't see why. I might agree if Rep. Paul had introduced those articles of impeachment, but he didn't. He hasn't said that Dubya is any better than Clinton in that regard that I know of.
He thinks there's stuff going on that is far, far more heinous than having something resembling sexual relations then lying about it. I tend to agree, and remember thinking the same thing at the time as well.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
If Bush is no better, where is the passion to remove him from office as well? I see it as the definition of hypocrisy. Asinine or not. The Clinton Impeachment was asinine.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,487
I agree. I just don't see where Rep. Paul deserves to be hung with the charge at all, much less singled out for it. Because he had an R next to his name when it happened? Guilt by association? Or what--I'm lost. That quote proves he wasn't just another opportunist singing in the G.O.P. choir, I think.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
WHy not call his office and ask them? Then post the answer here.
Similar threads
