Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative when it comes to Myanmar

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He's for smaller government, much smaller. He's for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He'd also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans -- regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers -- also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old OB/GYN, who reputedly has delivered about 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans -- albeit Myanmarese who are not registered to vote in Texas -- afflicted with a historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere, and that could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering "condolences and sympathy" to the people of Myanmar affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the doting grandfather, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote "No."

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would...

... have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It's a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don't even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Myanmarese vote around here anyway?

So Paul's symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out Paul's stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by a cyclone is not quite so principled, and that Paul is a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out that Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to laud the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn't want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait till the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

By the way, here's the latest update on the situation in Burma.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Tim, Minnesota]

Andrew,

I would expect more journalistic investigation from you. Ron Paul voted against the resolution because of one point. The Congress resolution demanded the Myanmar government postpone their general elections. This is interference in other governments affairs. Ron Paul stated he wanted to support the resolution except political positioning had to be incorporated into the legislation.

Please Andrew prior to you slandering Ron Paul GET ALL the facts correct. I look forward to your retraction and apology very soon.

[million]

hilarious, Andrew!! i'm enjoying all the way-too-serious comments above. folks relax, i think this was Malcolm's deadpan version of satire.

[MalcolmsBlogVomit]

This is the same focus on the superficial that we've come to expect from Mr Malcolm and the rest of the mainstream media while the real issues facing THIS country not Burma go completely ignored.

Who cares about Bushco raping the Constitution and setting themselves up as dictators? Who cares about the erosion of freedom? Who cares about the massive national debt? Who cares that the banking system is bankrupt? Who cares that the Fed is bailing out the banking system at the expense of the taxpayer? Who cares about the millions of killed or displaced Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9/11? Who cares if the US is hell bent on obliterating Iran as a proxy for Israel even though Iran has never been a threat to the USA and Israel has 300 more nukes than Iran's paltry zero?

What we really need to focus on is the lapel pins and Ron Paul's voting record on empty platitudes.

Thanks for advancing the cause of liberty and intellect Malcolm. You really are a renaissance man aren't you?!

Ha!

[Brandi]

To anyone reading this that might (somehow) think this article is not spin: Please read Ron Paul's book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom. These things are never just an ofference of condolences, they always leave a door open for further US involvement, and always have unintended negative consequences for us and the other country. "It's great to learn, cause knowledge is power!"

[Angela]

Andrew, I wish you had been prescient enough to wite this after researching Paul's reasons for the veto.

I really don't expect much from most journalists, but I generally consider you an exception. What were you thinking????

[mark]

Mr Malcom , your either a liar or very poor at research.
Fundementaly Paul's stance on things like is

"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money"

your lie is that this bill was authorizing 3.25 million to burma. It wasnt a sympathy vote as you claim.

the sybolic vote of the football team that was siged by Paul wasn't receiving funding.

I expect the paper to get some of the facts correct , ie your writing about an article that is about a specific bill. You then go on to show how each member of the house voted on the issue, but then somehow totally mis represent the fact of funding vs no funding and try to relate this bill to other "symbolic legislation" when one is gesture and the other is appropriations.

[D- In Las Vegas]

Andrew Malcom is the only writer I have ever had the displeasure or reading that consistantly outdoes his last piece by making every piece worse then his last. It must be the neocon inside his searing with displeasure everytime Ron Paul makes a good point as more and more people stand behind him. Or it must be his age, because every piece he writes, the gramitical errors grow.

You know what happens when America is ruled by 'Compassionate Conservatism?' George H. W. Bush. Thats what. Debt. Recession. A housing slump. More & more illegal immigrants. A national Id card. And writers like Andrew Malcom, too old and brainwashed by what the television says to muster up an original thought. Too old to write a piece relevant to the election. But just smart enough to get people to read it. If it werent for scum like you Andrew, I wouldn't know that there are others like me out there who whole heartedly believe that Ron Paul is good for America. If it werent for you Andrew Malcom, there wouldn't be comments about your story and how horrible of a person you are and what an amazing man Ron Paul is. So for that I have to thank you and appreciate your horrible work.

RON PAUL 2008

[David]

"The sharp-eyed folks at Radaronline.com"

That statement alone should tell you about the intellectual merits of this article.

Radaronline.com recently added Spencer Pratt as a columnist. Mr. Pratt is infamous for being the dimwitted, inconsequential, waste of space known as "Heidi's boyfriend" on MTV's The Hills.

One of Spencer's early columns on Radaronline was the intellectually stimulating piece: "When Is It The Right Time To Try Butt Sex?"

Yes, those are the sharp-eyed folks at Radaronline.com

-dave

[NCgirl]

I'm just sitting here laughing after reading that ridiculous article. Unfortunately, the Baaa Baaa Sheeples will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Do some research Sheeples before you fall off the cliff. I, for one, will NOT follow you.

WWW.RONPAUL2008.COM

[ck]

Good Lord Malcolm you truly are an asssss! And I don't care if you post this or not as I will never be back to your column again and I suggest the same to any other Congressman Paul supporters.

[Imperial]

Andrew, there is a difference.

Do resolutions that give a pat on the back to the NY Giants create a slippery slope. Its not like in the future we will then go and make a policy to repress other teams to ensure the NY Giants win.

However, these condolence resolutions for disasters do. Look at Lebanon, where step-by-step in the 1980s Ron Paul warned of controversial phrasing. He was right; it was used as justification for increased federal power and intervention in Lebanon, leading to a big barracks explosion among American marines if anyone remembers.

Or Iraq? Regime change advocation lead to justification for war as well.

So, he votes against them when they bring the chance of a slippery slope.

[Stephen Zurich]

What Malcolm should be furious about is a Congress that uses this terrible tragedy to make a political statement about the Burmese government. But poor Malcolm is too stuck in empty-headed sentimentality and would rather lash out than think.

Did you even read the bill, Andrew?

" Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
...
"(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people."

[Steve]

The folks who have drunk Ron Paul's magic Kool-Aid seem to be living in some sort of la-la-land. That kook will be lucky if he even gets 1% of the vote in November.

[voxpo]

Sounds like Ron Paul did fine on these trivial votes. Nice job.

[DJ]

How did I know you'd sink so low, Malcolm? I hope it was worth selling your soul. Guess those savings of yours just isn't keeping up with the inflation, eh? Oh, did you find out if Ron Paul ever broke any FEC rules? Ahh... didn't think so, sorry for your misfortune. At least the training of your four boy troll army is going well for you.

Good luck and fair well... Top of the Ticket. May your troll patrol educate themselves enough to regurgitate more then a couple lines of vomitous mental surrender. And may their welfare checks always be on time.

[Tony R.]

Government isn't supposed to be compassionate with other people's money. A government protects the people and their property so that THEY can be if they are able and so choose. Ron Paul correctly adheres to this philosophy... Andrew Malcolm is a sad and misinformed panderer who spouts anything and everything that should find its way from his ass.

[shel]

Ron Paul objected to this on the principle hat it interferes another Government's business? What about the Romanian Orphan referendum resolution that he did vote for? It urges the government of Romania to a)complete the processing of certain intercountry adoption cases b)amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease adoption barriers. Now, the wording isn't as harsh, but that looks just as interfering to me, yet Ron Paul voted for this referendum just fine.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that these resolutions are a big waste of time as well. If a Congressperson or Senator feels compelled to send a message to Burma, I'm sure they have stationary.

[mbviews]

My question is why did Congress spend so much time drafting such a long resolution. What is the point? Sometimes 1 person makes a difference by voting that enough is enough. Too many regulations. Too many taxes. AND, too many resolutions. Private sector institutions supported by private contributions can respond to Mynamar.

[nzer]

hello from nz. for me the biggest shock in this piece was hearing that your congress votes on resolutions to congratulate sports teams... is this for real?!? What utter nonsense. If this is true, you need to get your own 'government' system straightened out before you go telling other countries when to hold their referendums!

[Wesley]

If you really want to understand Congressman Paul's position on Burma and foreign aid listen to the recent NPR Talk of the Nation interview, in which his compassion is questioned.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90438900

Your silly story about Ron Paul's "mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side" is one of the most pathetic attempts to smear his character to date. His true character is present in the ironic photo your chose to use for the headline.

[Mark]

Normally Andrew takes the time to respond to some of the readers' comments. However, this time he realizes he's so off base he does not even try to defend himself.

You should retract the article.

(Uh, no. Why are you so troubled by actual facts? Our readership is growing so fast, can't keep up with all the comments. But couldn't let special Mark's go by unnoticed. Thanks again.)

[Malcom the Moron]

Shouldn't you be trying to smear a candidate that "will" win?!?

LOLOLOL.. you're clown... you ought to focus your efforts on keeping us posted on the latest britney drama... you win.. here's you traffic and clicks

[Joseph]

Ron Paul should be president. He does want to help Burma, but without the government printing paper money that doesn't really have value.

He said that we as individuals are very generous people and that we as individuals can donate our money to relief organizations. Billions of dollars if we choose to.

[John]

So I thought I would chime in. Basically it's a matter of principle, the federal government(congress), should not be making these resolutions. Ron Paul has talked about Burma as a private citizen, showing sympathy etc, but the federal government does not play a role in doing that. It's not authorized in the constitution.

Just like congress saying we symbolically agree with Kosovo's declaration of independence. Then our embassy is burned down, and someone inside burns alive.

The founders and the constitution's methods have lots of merit. It doesn't matter if it's a hurricane, or some natural disaster, private citizens can donate, say whatever they want. The federal government does not have a role. I consider Ron Paul to be the only one who payed attention to the constitution when voting on this resolution.

[blargen]

Andrew, you don't get it, the government shouldn't be wasting time on useless legislation. Are you happy to pay money for them to make this completely useless symbolic gesture? Personally i don't think they should do the football thing either. And as for sending money and aid, that is also not a responsibility of the government. Individuals should have the choice to send money if they want, through organizations such as the red cross, but the government should never be involved. Its called liberty, look it up.