Politico.com has a
story generating considerable interest about how Republican freshman Rep. Justin Amash (MI-3) has been voting "present" a number of times, even on some serious matters like de-funding the abortion provider Planned Parenthood:
In total, Amash has voted present on roughly 4 percent of the legislation that has come to the House floor in the 112th Congress.
Amash has voted "present" five times, which calls to mind
Obama's voting record as a state senator in Illinois, where he voted "present" 129 times, about 3 percent of the votes he cast.
Obama's record attracted the attention of
Nathan Gonzales in 2007 because Obama also had cast such votes on several controversial issues like partial birth abortion:
For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. ...
[I]n 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."
And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.
It's not like people weren't warned in Amash's case, either, since he had a famous reputation here in Michigan as a state representative for reporting his votes in real time on his Facebook page, and for voting "present" now and again.
Still, you'd like to think that a guy who graduated from law school could come up with a better excuse for voting "present" than not having "a reasonable amount of time to review the legislation." (Gee, I'm sorry, Professor, my dog slobbered all over my homework at breakfast). Besides, he's getting paid an awful lot of money if all he's going to do is "present" us. How about some "re-" in front of that?
In the Planned Parenthood case, Amash said he doubted the constitutionality of the language. Well, then didn't he have an obligation to vote "No" instead of "present"?
If most Americans could go back and listen to candidate Obama on the stump talking about how he and his supporters were going to transform America, I'm sure it would elicit a shudder now, knowing what they know about the carnage his policies have wrought in America. Which is exactly what I felt when I heard Justin Amash thank his supporters
on election night in November 2010:
In his victory speech at Kent County GOP election night headquarters, he said the party should work to bring more Democrats and independents into the party to "transform this state" and "transform this country."
Yep, just what we need. More transformers. More Democrats.
UPDATED Sunday February 27, 2011:
Unlike doctrinaire libertarians who think they are always right about everything but are in consequence thereof not free to admit it when they are wrong, we must retract the following:
[Amash] had a famous reputation here in Michigan . . . for voting "present" now and again.
Amash never voted "present" in the Michigan legislature.
But his voting record was noted for its "singularity." Of 1315 votes cast, there were 76 in which his was the lone vote against legislation which otherwise obviously overwhelmingly passed. That's 5.8 percent of his votes. It is useless to speculate how many of these would have been cast as "present" if he had been permitted to do so, as he is now in the US House, where, however, it is becoming clear that after just two months his record in Michigan is a kind of proxy for how his record in DC has already shaped up.
This does not mean Amash was wrong, of course, in every instance, but it does show that he marched to the beat of a different drummer. That drummer was distinctly libertarian. His singular votes often reflected an aversion to using legislative power to single out groups for special favors or penalties. Sometimes it appears to have courted the stoner vote. Other times it disdained regulatory intrusion on private industries, and otherwise steered clear of do-gooder legislation, such as protecting "endangered species" or senile old women in danger of freezing to death in their homes because they forget to pay the gas bill.
In Michigan Amash's record meant that he went against his own party almost 36 percent of the time (472 votes), which makes perfect sense of the rhetoric to get more Democrats and independents into the Republican Party (without the singular "libertarian" votes, Amash voted against his own party 30 percent of the time). His election night remarks in that regard were jarring and startling in a year marked by one of the biggest
partisan Republican victories nationwide in decades, but play well in a district full of Democrats and independents and union members. The clarion call of the Tea Party was not bipartisanship, but that's often the ploy of libertarians, whose small numbers keep them forever in need of allies. It's smart politics, not but it's not principled conservatism.
Methinks thou dost protest principle too much.
With the "present" vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood, one suspects Amash is taking a page out of Obama's unprincipled playbook.
"Suddenly" coming to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional, Obama has instructed the DOJ not to defend it in court. But at the same time he is going to enforce this "unconstitutional" law until the courts have done with it. Instead he should be using his own Executive power to preserve, protect and defend the constitution as one of its co-equal representatives by
not enforcing DOMA, which he views as a threat to it. In this Obama plays a cowardly slave who is in thrall to the courts, and doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He is a weak president, of very poor character, but it does shore up his street cred on the left.
Expressing doubt that voting to de-fund Planned Parenthood would be constitutional, Amash was content to let de-funding pass unopposed by him, hiding in the half-way house of "present" and putting the constitution at risk. He too is guilty of ceding his co-equal authority, in this case of the Legislative power in which he shares. It was a moment of weakness. He may have escaped the anger of the left in his constituency, but his so-called conservative principles were sacrificed.
I say it was cowardly.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
