Why did O'Rourke vote against the Ukraine Support Act?

[SCNCmod]

So is the accusation here that Beto voted to Support Russia over Ukraine?  

1. Beto's vote had nothing to do with supporting Russia.

2. His vote was mainly a symbolic anti-war vote ... given that the measure passed 399-18.

...Not to mention (as the previous post pointed out) that the vote was 4 years ago.  If the vote was taken today, it would take on a bit of a different dynamic....and Beto would prob be less likely to use it as a symbolic vote against getting over involved in too many armed conflicts.  But again, at any rate, the vote had nothing to do with support for Russia.... and certainly would not be a weakness for Beto in the general election- as its not an issue for which Trump can criticize Beto on any level.

---------------
Here is part of an article from SFGate during the Senate election...

“Congressman O’Rourke was one of the fringe on the far left who refused to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, another sovereign nation,” Cruz said.

O’Rourke, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, defends the vote, saying he would not approve sending “lethal” aid to Ukraine and further involving the U.S. in another global conflict.

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”
--------------

As for some of the other issues mentioned above (Israel, Immigration, etc) regarding Beto's votes... his "against the grain" votes were almost always symbolic (when measured were passed almost unanimously) ... and those votes were not aimed at opposition to the main goal of the measure.

[SCNCmod]

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”

Wow, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the Ukrainian conflict. Abstract pacifism is an incredibly naive position to take, and certainly should not be the position of the person at the head of the most significant player in maintaining the world order.

This is really disappointing. I guess I'd still have to take him over Trump, but hopefully the nominee is someone with the barest understanding of international policy, given that that is the sphere in which the executive branch has the greatest influence.

Again- I think the timing being 4 years ago... and more importantly- the vote being almost unanimous (leaving room for an anti-war protest vote of sorts) ... should be kept in mind.  His statement was explaining his mindset at the time of the vote... not necessarily his mindset now.

[SCNCmod]

And respectfully, unless I'm mistaken, he hasn't commented on this since, so arguing that he might have changed his mindset is a really pointless and disingenuous argument, like all the people promising the 'Trump pivot' after his election. I'll consider believing he changed his mind if he shows some indication of that; as now this statement is the most recent information we have on this issue.

This is from during the Senate campaign....

O’Rourke, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, defends the vote, saying he would not approve sending “lethal” aid to Ukraine and further involving the U.S. in another global conflict.

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”

[SCNCmod]

His voting record is idiosyncratic and he has several REALLY bad foreign policy votes. He was the only voter against Iron Dome funding who probably doesn't like the thought of Israel getting hit by rockets, too.

It seems like all of his against the grain votes... only come when the measure is almost unanimously going to be approved anyway- Which is why it seems most logical that they are simply protest votes against some aspect of the measure.

Are there any "against the grain" type votes that have had any meaningful affect on the measure being voted on?  From what I can tell (granted I don't know all of his voting history)... the answer is no.

I'm not saying this is good or bad- just that such votes seem to be only when he is almost a lone wolf in the vote (and thus he knows his vote is nothing more than a protest vote of some kind).