|
|
Location: Blogs Jeff's Blog |
 |
| Posted by: Jeff Davis |
10/15/2009 |
Minnesota Representatives Erik Paulsen, John Kline and Michele Bachmann have all commented on their recent vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647). This is the bill that is used each year for appropriating funds for our military. This year, leaders in the House took the unprecedented step of attaching a “hate crimes” provision to the bill. This action resulted in considerable consternation, especially amongst Republicans, as to whether members of Congress should vote in favor of the legislation.
Representative Erik Paulson was the only Republican from the Minnesota delegation to vote in favor of the bill. In a letter addressed to Minnesota Majority, he offered an explanation for his vote.
Representative John Kline voted against the bill. This was the first time that Kline, a former Marine, has ever voted against a defense authorization bill. In a press release issued last week, he offered this explanation for his vote.
Representative Michele Bachmann also voted against the bill. Her reasons for doing so can be found here.
There’s no doubt this was a tough vote for many members of Congress. But that’s the job we have elected them to do. Review the explanations offered by these three members of Congress and decide for yourself who made the right decision. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (4)
Add Comment
|
Re: Different Perspectives on the Defense Authorization / 'Hate Crimes' Bill |
By Rick on
10/20/2009 |
Erik Paulson is correct, and John Kline is an embarrassment.
From what I know of Michelle Bachmann she will have voted no as Kline did. This is unacceptable.
Our troops come first regardless of what is perceived with regard to provisions in the bill. What is most important is that we stand together to fight the terrorists of Al Qaeda and those supporting them such as the Taliban. There is no more important event in our time, than this present circumstance. Therefore, regardless of what is perceived of the bill, the funding is and will always be of most vital import.
To oppose it for any reason is to fail our troops.
Sincerely,
Rick |
|
|
Re: Different Perspectives on the Defense Authorization / 'Hate Crimes' Bill |
By GArwin on
10/30/2009 |
I'm coming late to this party, but I agree with Rick, above, to the extent that the bill needed to pass. It did so without the help of Reps Kline and Bachmann. However, based on his response, I disagree totally with Rick as to whether Rep. Kline is an embarrassment or not. Maybe Rick bases his conclusion on other evidence.
I can see where their vote decision would be difficult. Especially if you hold principals regarding things such as free speech, as well as the funding of our troops. Personally I would look at it this way. I would vote for the bill, under protest. The ill effects to come as a result of the bill can be countered at a future date. The troops need the resources now. And, I would tuck this sleight of hand trickery away to use as a hammer at that future date.
Thanks, Garwin
|
|
|
Re: Different Perspectives on the Defense Authorization / 'Hate Crimes' Bill |
By Barb on
10/30/2009 |
Thank you so much John and Michelle. It is humiliating that legislation would put a petty word of a personal emotion as a crime. WHEN A CRIME IS A CRIME! OUR TROOPS COME FIRST. GET THE "HATE CRIME" LEGISLATION OUT! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! SEEMS ERIC PAULSON VOTED FOR MORE GOVERNMENT!
seems he thinks you need your hand held and your money better spent by him. |
|
|
Re: Different Perspectives on the Defense Authorization / 'Hate Crimes' Bill |
By eaglepower44 on
11/9/2009 |
| And the snakes that attach a completely unrelated peice of garbage legislation such as an expansion of hate crime are the real scum in this case. |
|
|
|
|
|