Pete Hoekstra backs Brian Ellis over Rep. Justin Amash in primary race (Establishment loser)

GRAND RAPIDS, MI — Former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra has said he'll back U.S. Rep. Justin Amash's opponent in the upcoming August primary.

Hoekstra is endorsing local businessman Brian Ellis in the Third District race. Hoekstra, who served in the House from 1993-2011 and was chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in a statement said Ellis will be a "strong partner" with other Michigan Republicans to promote conservative ideas.

"Bottom line, I strongly endorse Brian Ellis because he will be an effective conservative voice and a consistent conservative vote for solutions that will help hardworking Michigan taxpayers," Hokestra said. "Brian Ellis will not just talk conservative, but he will vote conservative."

The last line has been a cornerstone of the Ellis campaign, which has continuously denounced several votes the libertarian-minded Amash has taken in Congress.

Ellis has racked up several big endorsements this cycle over Amash, R-Cascade Township, including Right to Life of Michigan, Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Farm Bureau's political action committee and others.

Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers snubbed Amash, too, by appearing at a $1,000-per-plate breakfast fundraiser for Ellis in June.

Sure, I'm sure the "GOPe" just LOVES all the posts I've done AGAINST Senators Lisa Murkowski, Richard Lugar, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Thad Cochran, Rob Portman, Arlen Specter, Lamar Alexnader, Bob Corker, Bob Bennett, and dozens of other Republican incumbents in Washington.

You can check my posting history if you don't believe me.

Sorry the facts that I'm vocally against numerous GOP establishment figures don't reflect your smear against me. In fact, I was against many of these slimy RINO insiders, like Peter King and Thad Cochran, long BEFORE the "Tea Party leaders" started opposing them. One of the GOP establishment figures they STILL haven't opposed is backstabbing elitist John Thune, and I've been trying to get people challenge him in a primary to no avail. A lot of fools wanted to give that party hack a promotion to veep.

But hey, since you can't refute any of the FACTS I've posted about Congressman Amash's liberal record, no longer you've decided to smear me instead. Attack the messager and not the message.

Have fun cheerleading for your pro-Hamas and pro-Planned Parenthood RINO. I'm sure that's "conservative" in your twisted mind.

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??

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.

It was political posturing that would not have saved a single baby. He stated abortion was an intrinsic evil regardless of reason. He was correct.

Amash was the only Michigan Republican to vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Had a problem with the wording and details. After reading his explanation I'm inclined to agree. He submitted his own version also

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.

you can't write legislation that selectively isolates and attacks specific organization. The entire "Equality before the law" thing.

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".

It gave an unfair legislative advantage for a single company. Again the entire "equality before the law" thing.

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.

And encourage more student debt? Stupid legislation.

Amash voted against the Small Business Tax Cut Act, which would cut taxes by 20% for small businesses. Only 4% of Republicans voted “no”.

One year cut. More posturing. I'll pass

Amash voted against The Health Act, which would reduce lawsuit abuse and frivolous lawsuits. Only 6% of Republicans voted “no”.

couldn't find info on this one

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.

Minuscule to non-existent cuts. Didn't go nearly far enough.

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.

Unconstitutional.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/justin-amash/statement-on-h-r-822-national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act/288761084496638

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".

They don't work and hurt innocents.

Amash voted with the Democrats to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility. Only 1% of Republicans voted “yes” on the legislation.

Damn right it should be shut down.

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.

Not enough knowledge to to make a comment on this issue

. 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.

Disagree with Amash here. Sounds like he had an issue with the language.

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.

What bills? That is what is important.

Amash has also voted with Nancy Pelosi over 22% of the time, more than any more Republican in the House.

Again, what bills? That is what is important.

>> I believe their terms should be limited, but not to one or two terms. <<

So, in your opinion, how many terms should an incumbent be "allowed" before its automatically "time for them to go" regardless of their record? Will be it be acceptable to challenge Amash in 2016 if he wants a fourth term?

>> If a congressman votes poorly, by all means remove him <<

Which applies to Amash. He now has a proven terrible record on national defense issues (being a Hamas and Palestinian sympathizer) and almost certainly the most liberal record on abortion of any self-proclaimed "pro-life" Republican incumbent, as well as other social issues. Brian Ellis would clearly be an improvement over Amash (unlike for example, replacing Mike Enzi with Liz Cheney and ending up with a more liberal Senator who votes to his left on gay rights and illegal aliens)

>> the Establishment wanted to take out Amash <<

The establishment wanted to take out RINO Alberto Gonzales, too. Does that mean we should automatically support him because several people in the GOP establishment demanded his head on a platter?

>> He stated abortion was an intrinsic evil regardless of reason. He was correct. <<

"I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others" -- Joe Biden

Joe Biden and Harry Reid have said the same thing as Amash -- they "personally" think abortion is murder and life begins at conception, and they would "never" recommend a woman get an abortion -- but its somehow "unconstitutional" not to vote the way Planned Parenthood tells them to on the issue and make it legal and government sanctioned to murder millions of babies a year for any reason.

In fact, virtually every pro-abortion legislator in office also claims to be "personally" against abortion. I don't see any politicians claiming they think abortion is a good thing and we need to have more of them. They just vote for abortion on demand why claiming their morally opposed to it.

Amash joins a long line of two-faced politicians who claim to be "pro-life Christians" and "morally against abortion" when they run for office, but then vote with Planned Parenthood to advance their agenda, claiming the constitution FORCES them to.

Joe Biden and Harry Reid have said the same thing as Amash

No. He. didn't.

Justin Amash:

When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby's gender but not okay if they have to do with a person's skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they're okay if it's an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn't care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the "wrong" reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the "abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child."

The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don't "report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities." Free societies do not criminalize inaction. I'm pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won't stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored.

“So, in your opinion, how many terms should an incumbent be “allowed” before its automatically “time for them to go” regardless of their record? Will be it be acceptable to challenge Amash in 2016 if he wants a fourth term?”

I think terms should be limited to twelve years. I think the house and senate should be equal so since the senate has six year terms, and two terms is enough (or three tops) that’s either 12 or 18 years for a congressman, and then out. Mark Levin suggests in his book that it should be twelve years total per person, but I don’t know about that. I’d prefer each house to be limited but limited to the same amount of time in each. I think we’ve had enough of the Don Young’s, Charlie Rangel’s, John Dingell’s, etc. and on the senate side, the Ted Stevens’, the John Warner’s, the Richard Lugars’, the Ted Kennedy’s.

I have no problem with Amash being challenged, since I prefer that ever incumbent be challenged and held accountable for their record. Then it’s up to the people. But I keep my eye on the elite arisocrats who protect a Don Young who votes in the 30th percentile of conservatism, while an Amash, who votes in the 90th is gone after with vigor. (based on the ratings I’ve been using, not yours)

>> an Amash, who votes in the 90th is gone after with vigor. (based on the ratings I’ve been using, not yours) <<

We're definitely using different criteria, that's for sure. I would rank Amash well to the left of so-called "RINOs" Mike Enzi and Pat Roberts (who do indeed vote reliably conservative over 90% of the time, although neither man is perfect and they'd both cast 1 or 2 "bad" votes)

Both are mainstream Reagan Republicans (again: traditional values, free markets, and a strong national defense). I can't imagine either would be caught dead voting with the Dems for the Palestinian cause, or arguing that they "personally" feel abortion is murder but they're voting with Planned Parenthood routinely because its "unconstitutional" to restrict it on the federal level in any manner. One of Amash's defenders here even admitted he totally agreed with the far-left position of closing Gitmo. Republicans who favor those issues are voting with the far-left frige of the Dem party on national defense issues (Kucinich type Dems). Even "moderate" Dems won't be caught dead supporting that stuff.

The bottom line is that Paleo-libertarianism, which Amash and Ron Paul promote, is NOT traditional conservativism, no matter how much some "Tea Party" groups have drunk the kool-aid that it is. (many of them are now whining that Rand Paul "betrayed" them so maybe its starting to sink in that his views are not the great conservative savior they thought he was). I also find it interesting that alot of these grassroots conservatives constantly claim that "Standing with Israel" is the "most important issue" and a "deal breaker", yet they have no problem with a Palestinian american who votes with Hamas on "our side"

Yes, Ted Cruz endorsed Amash. Does that make Amash a "Ted Cruz like" Republican? No more than it makes John McCain a "Sarah Palin like Republican" because she endorsed him. Rand Paul is supporting Lamar Alexander, that doesn't make Lamar's record "Rand Paul like", either.

I wouldn't place Amash as bad as say, a Lisa Murkowski type ultra liberal RINO, but he goes off the reservation of numerous MAJOR issues and we can simply do better than a terrorist-sympathizing, Ron Paul worshiping lunatic in that district.

Some of the "ratings" you ought to consider, if you haven't, is the NRLC (single issue pro-life organization, but their ratings are reliable unlike the NRA giving "A" ratings to people with mediocre pro-gun records), Concerned Women for America, Citizens Against Government Waste, Gun Owners of America, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and NumbersUSA.

A high rating from groups like the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) is also a big red flag when it comes to any Republican Congressman. The ADA is basically the ACU in reverse, they rate how "Progressive" an incumbent Congressman is. Republicans who vote with Pelosi and Obama, for whatever reason (in Amash's case, its because he thinks every GOP bill on the planet is "unconstitutional" so he joins the Dems to kill it) is a bad sign. I don't give a damn "why" they're voting with Pelosi, just as I don't give a damn why socialist Bernie Sanders voted against Obamacare. I'm just glad he voted against it and stabbed his side in the back.

Paulbots try to co-opt the Tea Party movement and know how to work a crowd and scream about how much they oppose tyranny and want to restore America to the principles the "founders" wanted, but a lot of them score poorly with traditional values and immigration because they have no problems with abortion on demand and open borders. They also tend to score high with far-left organizations like the ACLU, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Human Rights PAC, etc. That's because a lot them believe the "zionist bankers" control the world and other crazy leftist conspiracy theories. Non-Paulbots RINOs (the Lisa Murkowski and Mark Kirks for the Senate) aren't given a pass when they get high ratings from Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club, so why are Paulbots?

One of Amash's defenders here even admitted he totally agreed with the far-left position of closing Gitmo.

It isn't a far left position, and I noticed you didn't answer my question, not to mention repeated the same talking points just debunked.

He voted for:

H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or abortion coverage.

H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which prohibits the use of all funds distributed through Title X of the Public Health Service Act to support any entity, including Planned Parenthood, that performs or funds abortions.

H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, which prohibits the government from mandating that insurance companies provide and private employers offer health insurance plans that covers abortion. It also prohibits federal agencies from withholding funding to health care entities that refuse to provide abortions.

H.R. 1797, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits the abortions for unborn children aged 20 weeks or older..

The House on Friday passed a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline hours after a Nebraska court ruled in favor of the proposed route. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to be approves. The White House has warned President Obama would veto the legislation. Passage fell largely along party lines, 266-153, with 28 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans in favor. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted "present." That is short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. [House Approves Keystone XL Pipeline]

...legislation sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) which approved construction of the long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline... 31 Democratic representatives voted with every Republican member of Congress save Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted present, to approve construction of the pipeline. [31 House Democrats join GOP in vote to approve Keystone]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.