Quote from james_bond_3rd:
1. Called for a complete dismantling of all environmental laws.
2. Voted against Rosa Parks Medal (single no vote in congress, popular anyone?)
3. Voted against border security (4 times in past 6 years). And called for generosity for illegal immigrants.
4. Voted against line-item veto.
5. Voted against welfare reform.
He is called Dr. No for a good reason - he sometimes votes unpopular "no" for reasons beyond common sense. Isn't that a definition of a "nut?"
Here's the problem with a list like the above (for any candidate, not just RP) ... votes are taken in Washington on bills that have *dozens* or even *hundreds* of issues tacked on/in them.
For instance (hypothetical), there could be a bill that doubles your taxes, calls for the death penalty for jaywalking, puts handicapped children on the front line of the war and forces all poodle owners to register as possessing a lethal weapon -- oh, and it includes a line for welfare recipients where they have to sign saying they really, really really, need the money to buy smokes.
Vote "No", and you end up on a list somewhere where it claims you "voted against welfare reform".
For it to mean anything but crap to me, I have to know what was in the bill *in entirety*, and I also have to know what sorts of deals were cut (vote exchanges) before the vote.
JB
PS: It's a continuum, and of course the above is extreme.