Marcy Kaptur owes us an explanation for voting against an audit of the Federal Reserve

I rarely agree with Marcy Kaptur. She first appeared on the ballot the first year I was able to vote and she's been my representative in Congress for all of my adult life.

She's a Democrat - and one of the most liberal ones - so it's no surprise that I disagree with her positions, policies and votes.

But I agreed with her support of a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. She co-sponsored legislation in 2009 to authorize an audit, though that bill was never brought before the House for a vote.

So it was a welcome relief when she co-sponsored H.R. 459 - a bill to 'audit the Fed' - that is essentially the same as the 2009 bill.

Last week, the House voted on H.R. 459 and it passed by a vote of 327-98. The 98 against the bill included one Republican and 97 Democrats.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that Kaptur - a sponsor - voted AGAINST the bill.

She's railed against the lack of transparency and the collusion of the Federal Reserve with the 'evil banksters' for years now. Why in the world would she vote against a bill she's supported for at least three years?!?

She wasn't alone - seven other Democrats, also sponsors, voted no as well. Dennis Kucinich, the primary opponent she defeated, remained consistent and supported the bill. I can only wonder what his supporters will say about this.

None of the eight flip-floppers have provided a statement.

Regardless of our political affiliation, one thing constituents should be able to count on is consistency in the positions of those we elect - even when we disagree.

Marcy Kaptur owes all of us an explanation and we should demand it now.

Here is a link to her contact page. Her Washington telephone number is (202) 225-4146. Her Toledo telephone number is (419) 259-7500. She also has a toll-free number (800) 964-4699.

If you find out why she flipped on this issue, be sure to let us know.

Evolving or flip-flopping?

Think about it: if a Republican had a position, then backtracked on the position, then modified the position, then claimed to be 'thinking' about the position and then, just before an election came back around to the original position, do you think the media - or anyone, for that matter - would be praising that?

But that's exactly what has happened with President Barack Obama's flip-flopping on gay marriage.

As the Weekly Standard's Elliott Abrams writes (emphasis added):

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

So he was for it, then he supported civil unions, then he opposed it, then he was 'evolving' and now he's for it again.

Really?

Do you actually believe he's suddenly seen the light? Or has he stuck his finger in the air to find out which way the wind is blowing?

And if he originally supported gay marriage, then said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and now says he supports gay marriage again, did he ever truly believe marriage was between a man and a woman in the middle?

If you supported him because he supported traditional marriage, did you not look at his record previously?

If you support him now because he supports gay marriage, do you think he will change his mind yet again?

Had this been a true change of heart, he wouldn't be full circle back to what he believed in 1996.

We all need to be honest with ourselves and call this what it is, regardless of our political parties, position on the issue, political philosophy or who we plan to vote for in November.

This is not 'evolving.' This is flip-flopping. To call it anything else is hypocrisy.