StrictConstruct

After voting against a resolution in Congress that was touted as one which would “express sympathies with the people of Myanmar” in the wake of Cyclone Nargis, Ron Paul has received a lot of flak from bloggers - and all along similar lines. Not only is Ron Paul heartless for not extending sympathies, but even if you want to justify his vote as one against “meaningless gestures,” he has been inconsistent in this regard, voting to congratulate sports teams for winning various national championships. But there is a problem in this criticism - not only was the resolution not one which merely extended sympathies, but Ron Paul gave a reason as to why he voted against, and it was not because it was a meaningless gesture.

Along with including measures which express sympathies, HR 1181 included language criticizing an upcoming referendum on a constitution, declaring it a “sham,” and then going further in including the following point:

(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.

This is a specific demand being made against Myanmar, and this is the stated reason, by Ron Paul’s spokesperson, why he voted against the resolution - it is an example of foreign interventionism. The resolutions congratulating sports teams did not include sections demanding they resign the same players next year to bring back a winning formula - and if they did, I don’t doubt he would have voted against them, too. But people love to play the game where voting against a bill that contains multiple things means that the person rejects everything in the bill. Its a form of condescending politics, and its nothing new.