Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Confusion by the Paulbots? "She said Romney's past pro-abortion-rights positions bother her."

Clearly, it takes a certain amount of delusion to be a Paulbot.  After all, how many months have they been lying to themselves... and us... that their cult leader had a chance at getting nominated at the convention?

So, when I read about an effort I knew to be doomed to failure at rapprochement between Romney and Paulbot delegates, I was puzzled to read this:

"I don't want to divide the party. The nominee is dividing the party," said Katja Delavar, a Paul delegate from Washougal, Clark County. She said Romney's past pro-abortion-rights positions bother her
But Ron Paul's vote in favor of gender-based abortion is just swell... right?

Delusion isn't that great of a platform plank.  And it's just one of the many reasons why I will do everything I can to oppose the Paulbots.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think he meant to take that vote...I think he's just senile.

Haven said...

After seeing you mention several times that Ron Paul voted in favor of gender based abortion I went and read the Paul campaign explanation and am glad I did as it seems pretty consistent to me.

He thought the whole bill was unconstitutional, he clearly said so out load to the Speaker. He won't vote for things he thinks are unconstitutional regardless of what is in the bill. He seems very consistent in that regard. I have never voted for Paul, but was already of the belief that he was a pretty strict Constitutionalist. On his website explanation he goes on to list many anti-abortion laws he supported and even one he authored, but he will not vote for things he thinks are unconstitutional.

The bill didn't have anything else in it except this one thing that he thought was unconstitutional. What's there to amend?

To say nothing of my opinion of Paul in general, abortion, or the Constitionality of the bill, I will say that I think saying Paul supports gender based abortion because he won't vote for things he thinks are unconstitutional on its own does not add up.

Paul clearly explaining his positions and maintaining consistency in the face of adversity is better than anything I've seen from Romney's convenient changes of heart.

Just a guy said...

Here's the problem I've go with that:

First, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I've taken it myself... enlistment, reenlistment and commissioning.

So, he voted FOR a bill he KNEW to be unconstitutional?

Really?

That might work for you... but not for me.

Second, During the 6 years or so I was on legisative staff, I must have watched thousands of votes counted on the floor. The counting machine has 4 options: yes, no, abstain or absent.

There's no provision for a "I'm a yes, but here's how I justify it: I'm really a "no" but because of this reason or the other thing, I'm voting 'yes.'"

A "reluctant yes" is counted the precise same way the most enthusiastic possible "yes" is counted. The voting machine, you see, don't care.

In short, I don't give a damn WHY he voted yes, the only issue is DID he vote yes?

Of course he did. He voted for a bill that you indicated he believed was unconsitutional.

That alone should be enough to get him kicked out of Congress particularly and politcs generally.

But in this case, what he voted FOR is gender-based abortion.... period. And to use concerns over Romney's position on the matter of the Life issue (and if you've read this blog long then you know damned well I'm no fan of Romney's) as a reason to divide the party when your hero has just... recently... voted FOR gender-based abortion... inexcusably... voting for a bill he KNEW was unconstitutional?

Sorry. I will oppose someone with my dying breath that either voted for gender based abortion or for ANY bill that he acknowledges to be unconstitutional.

No reasons... no excuses... nothing justifies voting "yes" for such a bill or ANY bill a representative or Senator believes to be unconstitutional.

In short, your response just serves to strengthen my resolve to oppose Paul... or his apparently mindless followers trying to take over... not to weaken it.