Amash is similar to Rand Paul (whose fan club now has buyer's remorse about him) is that they are both clip off the old blocks of the Ron Paul movement, though they successfully marketed themselves as Reagan Republicans. But even though Rand is a lot like daddy, I would place Amash as more extreme with the paleo-libertarian stuff and to the left of Rand on several issues. Amash's philosophy is indeed to pretty much vote how the way he thinks his idol Ron Paul would vote, and take the position that if a conservative bill is not 100% perfect for his tastes, he will side with Nancy Pelosi to kill it.
Amash's record doesn't have much in common with Ted Cruz at all. Cruz is a mainstream conservative Republican, NOT a Ron Paul worshiping paleo-libertarian. Feel free to call Cruz's office and see if they confirm he agrees with Amash of ANY of the following:
Amash was the only Michigan Republican to vote against a ban on gender selection abortions. Right to Life of Michigan noted that Amash’s vote was pro-abortion and cited it such on their scorecard.
Amash was the only Michigan Republican to vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Amash voted “present” instead of against funding NPR and Planned Parenthood because he believes the votes are "unconstitutional". Amash's votes earned him kudos from the New York Times, who did a gushing editorial about him.
Amash also voted "present" on the Keystone Pipeline, and was the only Republican who wouldn't support opening up drilling in Alaska. I believe his excuse also was that the bill was "unconstitutional".
Amash voted "no" on a GOP bill in 2012 that would have extended lower rates for student loans and pay for it with cuts to Obamacare. It passed the House despite a veto threat from Obama.
Amash voted against the Small Business Tax Cut Act, which would cut taxes by 20% for small businesses. Only 4% of Republicans voted “no”.
Amash voted against The Health Act, which would reduce lawsuit abuse and frivolous lawsuits. Only 6% of Republicans voted “no”.
Amash voted against Republicans on a bill to replace across-the-board spending cuts (the so-called "sequester") with other more targeted cuts, while lifting spending caps on the military.
Amash voted against the National Right to Carry Reciprocity, which would allow Michigan residents to exercise their second amendment right to carry beyond the Michigan borders.
Amash was one of just three Republicans (and 20 lawmakers in total) not to vote for more sanctions against Iran last July. At the time, the Obama administration was asking for "some leeway" from Congress to approach the newly elected Iranian regime with "alternatives".
Amash voted with the Democrats to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility. Only 1% of Republicans voted “yes” on the legislation.
Amash is of "Palestinian" ancestry and sympathetic to the "cause" of their "government" Among the things he campaigned on was “a Palestinian state with contiguous borders,” meaning that Gaza and the so-called West Bank should be connected.
Amash also voted against reaffirming Israel’s right to exist, calling on the Palestinian government to forswear terrorism, and threatening to stop U.S. foreign aid money to the Palestinian government if they continue negotiating with the terrorist group Hamas.
According to Congressional Quarterly, Justin Amash voted 51% of the time with President Obama’s position in 2012; triple any other Michigan Republican (The next highest Michigan Republican was 18%) and more than any Republican in the entire U.S. House.
Amash has also voted with Nancy Pelosi over 22% of the time, more than any more Republican in the House.
>> I would think that if Amash and Peter King voted alike, it would show up in the averages but they’re nowhere near each other. <<
Amash and Peter King are alike only that they have numerous gullible followers who drink the kool-aid about how they're "true conservatives" because they know how to work a crowd and beat their chest on TV about they are saviors for conservatives against the Washington establishment. Both of them go off the reservation and vote with the Dems routinely, but on completely different issues. King is reliably pro-life and loves to yell about how much he hates Muslims, but he's a gun grabbing big government Clintonite. Amash loves to scream about "liberty" and how much he opposes big government, but he leans libertarian-to-leftist on social issues and national security issues, and is a Hamas sympathizer who is cozy with Palestinian groups. Both men do not fit the traditional 3-legged stool of Reagan conservatism (traditional values, economic freedom, and strong national security) for opposite reasons.
>> The ACU has definitely gone round the bend. And their “lifetime ratings” are deceiving, and allow politicians to use their votes from 20 years ago to cover them for this year. <<
Agreed. Though in Amash's case he's only been in office two terms so it's not a Bob Barr type situation where he's using votes from 20 years ago to sell himself as a conservative. Replying on the ACU alone is not a guaranteed way to determine how reliable a GOP congressman is. That's why I look at numerous organizations (not just the five you cherry picked to make Mike Enzi look bad), and on many scorecards, Amash is repeatedly shown as one of the most Democrat-friendly Republican incumbents. Certainly he's the worst in Michigan, objectively looking at his voting record. He's "100% conservative from some organizations when it comes to cutting government, for example, but for numerous other conservative organizations (like pro-life and pro-national security organizations), his record is horrible
>> I think his “beef” with Amash is simply that Amash is on the GOPe’s “hit list” of conservative incumbents <<
No my beef with him is that he's a Palestinian Islamo-sympathizing NPR and Planned Parenthood supporter who votes with Nancy Pelsoi more than any Congressman in the House. If that's your idea of a "conservative incumbent", I'd hate to see what a liberal one looks like.
So what's YOUR beef against Brian Ellis? I thought challenging ALL incumbent politicians was GOOD no matter how conservative they are, isn't that what the "all incumbents must go" crowd has told us over and over again? Mike Enzi and Pat Roberts have MUCH more conservative views than insane Paulbot Justin Amash, and that didn't stop the anti-incumbent club from saying that they "must go" and that "anybody" else who runs would automatically be preferable to the incumbent, because he we need "new blood" and of course "they're not entitled to another term". But Amash is?
Why the exception for Amash? Because he screams "Tea Party" and tells you what you want to hear?
Why is Brian Ellis a "RINO"? Simply because he dares to challenge a self-proclaimed "Tea Party" incumbent? Marco Rubio is an incumbent who won office as a "Tea Party" candidate too. That doesn't magically make him a good conservative.
My, my, my ...... if Amash goes up in the next poll to 25 points ahead, you’ll likely post a 5 page posting.
How are things in the GOPe precincts?
Thanks for all the detail, in this post and in your message. That gives me more insight into why Amash may not be considered a conservative.
“That’s why I look at numerous organizations (not just the five you cherry picked to make Mike Enzi look bad), and on many scorecards, Amash is repeatedly shown as one of the most Democrat-friendly Republican incumbents.”
I didn’t cherry pick organizations to make Mike Enzi look bad. I compiled the averages based on the organizations that I knew of and Enzi was way down the list, based on his votes. And I wasn’t surprised since I’d seen so many stories about him constantly helping “his friend” Ted Kennedy as ranking member of the HELP committee. I thought he was still ranking member, but I found out yesterday that Alexander is now ranking member, which is worse. He’ll never repeal Obamacare and is for Common Core.
But I digress, can you give me a list of the organizations you use? I’d like expand my average as we gear up for 2016.
“So what’s YOUR beef against Brian Ellis?”
I really had no beef with him and don’t know anything about him. Every day I do a search on moderate republicans, to get insight and to see what they’re upset about or excited about. And what popped up yesterday, Pete Hoekstra, 2012 loser endorsed the candidate running against who John McCain called a wacko bird. And I remembered here and there that the Establishment wanted to take out Amash. Stories like this involving Steve LaTourette and others on Breitbart.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/11/former_rep_steve_latourettes_g.html
“I thought challenging ALL incumbent politicians was GOOD no matter how conservative they are, isn’t that what the “all incumbents must go” crowd”
You twist this constantly. As I’ve said many times, rotation in office is a key to liberty. I am against long term politicians. I believe their terms should be limited, but not to one or two terms. If a congressman votes poorly, by all means remove him, and if he votes well, by all means re-elect him, but only for so long, because eventually, they stop representing the people and only represent themselves, i.e. “what do I need to do to stay in office and keep this power.” We need some experienced legislators and yes, some fresh blood. And the people need to keep their eye on these people in EVERY election. Where’s the NRCC, which exists to reelect incumbents. Don Young can vote badly for forty years but Amash needs to be thrown out after 3??