PDA

View Full Version : Politico: "Rookie Republican votes present"




RyanRSheets
02-23-2011, 07:39 AM
Debated whether or not I wanted to post this at all
h xxp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50019.html

I thought the reasoning on Planned Parenthood was solid and nothing to fault Justin for, but I hope he responds to Politico on this.



A future political foe may have a difficult time nailing down where Rep. Justin Amash stands on some issues.

The 30-year-old Michigan Republican voted “present” five times last week on substantive questions, avoiding “yes” or “no” votes on such hot-button items as funding for Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration’s policy “czars.”

His predecessor, Rep. Vern Ehlers, had voted “present” just four times in the previous eight years — excluding quorum calls that required members to be recorded present or not.

So far, Amash has offered an explanation for just one vote, posting a Facebook message to explain that he refused to render a judgment on Planned Parenthood’s funding because the singling out of one entity was, in his mind, “improper and arguably unconstitutional.”

Amash’s office did not reply to several requests for comment, and several other Republican aides were unaware of the voting habits. Amash is a cosponsor of legislation that would deny so-called Title X family-planning subsidies to any organization that performs abortions.

In addition to votes on Planned Parenthood and the “czars,” Amash lit the orangeish-yellow “present” light on the House scoreboard on New Hampshire Republican Charlie Bass’s effort to increase funding to help poor folks with heating and cooling costs; Virginia Democrat Jim Moran’s attempt to restore money for a wetlands conservation program and North Carolina Democrat David Price’s amendment making it easier to obtain fire-safety grants.

He voted “present” twice on the daily House journal, a procedural motion that it typically approved with overwhelming support.

In total, Amash has voted present on roughly 4 percent of the legislation that has come to the House floor in the 112th Congress.

To be sure, there have been far more votes early in this Congress than in previous sessions. The House is voting. For example, the House voted 112 times during its deliberation on the continuing resolution to fund the government.

Justinjj1
02-23-2011, 07:43 AM
What's the point of breaking links?

This is the only place I ever see this done on.

RyanRSheets
02-23-2011, 08:02 AM
What's the point of breaking links?

This is the only place I ever see this done on.

Sorry, I should have posted the contents of the article. Generally, unless an article is favorable to us, it is better to break the link and deter clicking through to the article (both because increased traffic encourages the author to keep writing that kind of article and it might bump it up to a more prominent place) and prevent the receiving end of the traffic from seeing where the traffic came from, if the article is to be viewed.

sonofshamwow
02-23-2011, 10:10 AM
The article has since been updated to include some of Amash's reasoning:


"Amash’s office explained his voting record is in part because he has not been “given a reasonable amount of time to review the legislation,” his office said in an email Wednesday.

In an emailed response to POLITICO Wednesday morning, O’Neill said Amash will vote “present”when he does not have “reasonable” time to review the legislation — she mentioned a procedural vote to approve the House journal and “choosing between programs he hasn’t been given time to study” as examples. Amash will also decline to take a position when he has “procedural or constitutional concerns about a piece of legislation that has desirable ends,” and when he has a “substantial conflict of interest,” a situation that hasn’t occurred,” O’Neill said"

malkusm
02-23-2011, 10:13 AM
The article has since been updated to include some of Amash's reasoning:

Good to see that Amash's staff is on top of things.

RyanRSheets
02-23-2011, 11:41 AM
Good to see that Amash's staff is on top of things.

Agreed. If we want to keep sending Justin to Washington, it's critical that stuff like this be addressed. The article made it sound like he was just trying to avoid tough questions, when in reality the approach he is taking might resonate with Americans. Voting no on something because you haven't read it is generally better than voting yes, but ultimately voting on anything at all that you have not read is wrong, and if he sticks to this, he will have made a strong statement. When his next opponent comes out and says "Look how many times he voted present!" Amash can reply "Look how many times I was faced with a vote on a bill I did not have the time to read!"

I like it.