Why won't Ron Paul cosponsor bill to impeach Bush?

[Zarxrax]

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!

[Truth Warrior]

He doesn't want to. :rolleyes: If he did, he would. For more information, ask Ron.

[acptulsa]

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:


For more information, ask Ron.

[loveshiscountry]

"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.

[RSLudlum]

maybe his constituents asked him not to sponsor it...remember, he is elected to represent them, not the entire country. :(

[evilfunnystuff]

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

[teamrican1]

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.

[Printo]

He has more important shit to do like run CFL than to impeach a lame duck.

[Todd]

I reckon that Ron probably viewed the legislation as little more than a publicity stunt and waste of time.

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

[freelance]

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.

[ItsTime]

K is not a nut. He has balls. This needed to be done, however late it is, but will show that a dem controlled congress is really useless.

[NH4RonPaul]

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...

:confused::confused::confused:

[NH4RonPaul]

K is not a nut. He has balls. This needed to be done, however late it is, but will show that a dem controlled congress is really useless.


Kucinich IS a NUT. Best to leave the nutcase things to the nutcases.

[acptulsa]

Did Kuchinich even ask him to?

[Kade]

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...

[yongrel]

Probably because it's asinine.

[acptulsa]

Switch "Clinton" to "Bush". Ron Paul is being a hypocrite here...

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]

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.

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]

I see it as the definition of hypocrisy. Asinine or not. The Clinton Impeachment was asinine.

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]

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 not call his office and ask them? Then post the answer here.

[Kade]

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.

No, because of this: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr121998.htm

[acptulsa]

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

But he's bipartisan about it.

[Mongoose470]

My quasi informed and unsolicited guess:

He is more concerned with impeaching ideologies that have dominated and perverted Washington rather than wasting valuable resources on particular individuals. You'd have to impeach our entire government.

I'd rather impeach the far more dangerous ideologies of empire building, the police state, unsound currency, pre-emptive war and the welfare state. Forgive me if I left other ideologies out.

[LibertyEagle]

"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.

Actually, if you called his Congressional office, you'd probably get an answer pretty quickly.

[klamath]

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...

Maybe since you are so quick to call RP a hypocrite you ought to check out how kucinich voted for the Iraq liberation act when Clinton was pushing for the intervention in that area. It was this very act that made it the offical U.S. policy to remove Sadamn from power. Then check out RP's vote against it.
If an impeachment vote was held for Bush I am sure RP would vote for it but he sure isn't going to cosponser articals of impeachment when it wouldn't get voted on before a whole new congress is elected and Bush is out of office.

[V-rod]

Ron Paul won't co-sponsor such a bill because he isn't a foaming-at-themouth liberal loon who blames Bush for everything wrong in the world. We heard more Bush bashing from McCain this year than the good doctor. Congressman Paul doesn't go after people individually unless they really deserve it. He confronts the system and philosophies he disagrees with.

[V-rod]

No, because of this: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr121998.htm

Clinton was caught outright lying under oath. The case against Bush is pretty sketchy with different sources claiming different scenarios. Most of the "he took us to war" criticism is mostly against the Bush cabinet than himself.

[Alex Libman]

(Q) Why won't Ron Paul cosponsor bill to impeach Bush?

(A) Because he's not as much of a sucker for lost causes as his supporters are. ;)

Paul is a (big-R) Republican politician, and he refused to make the sacrifice of leaving that party. He wants to be re-elected until he can call Robert C. Byrd a short-timer...


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here! :eek:

[Kade]

Clinton was caught outright lying under oath. The case against Bush is pretty sketchy with different sources claiming different scenarios. Most of the "he took us to war" criticism is mostly against the Bush cabinet than himself.

Bush won't even testify, the case against him is anything but "sketchy".

[nobody's_hero]

If money is a problem, I'll gladly throw in $20 to get the "Bush Trial Chip-in" going.

EDIT: I think the only reason Ron Paul isn't on this wagon is because it will never get the votes it needs. It would mean that a whole lot of congress critters would have to hold Bush accountable for something they actually encouraged.

[tribute_13]

Kucinich himself voted against it passing. Weird, but he did, seeing how he proposed it but the roll say clearly that he voted against keeping it alive.

[acptulsa]

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here! :eek:

:rolleyes:

Why are you so intent on leaving us, Mr. Libman?

Not that I'm wishing it or that I consider you the most likely person here to gratuitously degrade people. None of the above. I'm mostly trying to figure out why you are so proud of that questionable quote of yours...

[sophocles07]

Ron Paul won't co-sponsor such a bill because he isn't a foaming-at-themouth liberal loon who blames Bush for everything wrong in the world. We heard more Bush bashing from McCain this year than the good doctor. Congressman Paul doesn't go after people individually unless they really deserve it. He confronts the system and philosophies he disagrees with.

This is not the answer to the thread question. Impeaching the engine responsible for slaughter would do something. You’re being reactionary.

[garrettwombat]

ron paul doesnt believe in impeachment

[LibertyEagle]

Kucinich himself voted against it passing. Weird, but he did, seeing how he proposed it but the roll say clearly that he voted against keeping it alive.

Weird. I wonder what the reason was.

[Peace&Freedom]

ron paul doesnt believe in impeachment

To the contrary;

Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306bushimpeachment.htm

Paul Says Bush Should be Impeached:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm

Ron Paul Votes for Bush Impeachment and Resolution Passes 266 to 155:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll401.xml

[mediahasyou]

He realizes that it is not likely. And has taken that into consideration. So he prioritizes and works on more important issues. Bush will be gone in a 6 months anyways.