Justin Amash

Justin Amash: The Candidate of the People vs. Cronyist Opponent Brian Ellis

|

Matt Naham writing at Rare gathers some data on how Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) seems with his comparatively radical libertarianism to be far more popular with more people than his GOP-centrist primary opponent Brian Ellis.

Seems Amash has so far outraised Ellis

$252,000 to a number below $100,000 in individual donations.

The Amash campaign released a statement that read "Ellis again couldn't break the $100,000 threshold for individual giving—a critical benchmark that separates fringe and serious candidates. Amash received donations from 1,416 individuals, with an average donation of about $154. Ellis reported 109 individual donors, with an average donation of $695."

Connie Lemmink commented on behalf of Amash that "over a thousand grassroots supporters stood up for liberty, the Constitution, and Justin Amash. Brian Ellis runs his campaign like he'd run our government: fueled by big spending, driven by lies, and loaded with debt. It turns out running on Obamacare expansion, Common Core, and NSA spying isn't a winning strategy."

PACs have more love for the challenger Elllis (who thinks Amash is Al Queda's best buddy for caring about American civil liberties and lives), including Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Michigan, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, Association For Advanced Life Underwriting, The Dow Chemical Company, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

I blogged about this uniquely ugly primary campaign the other day.

Advertisement

NEXT: I Saw a Man Get Arrested For a Sex Crime Because He Made a Scheduling Error

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Punches a whole in the ‘you can only win by promising free stuff’ line of thought.

    1. I live in the area, and there is definitely more broad-based support for Amash.

      Hell, if we go by the yard sign test, the only place where Ellis has *any* support is among the Blue Bloods of East Grand Rapids–and even that isn’t universal.

      1. There and on the parking meters anyway, right?

      2. I live in the area too – I’ve seen a few Ellis signs, but not many. As you said, mostly in EGR.

    2. A whole what?

      1. A whole hole, maybe?

        We don’t want none of those partial holes around here, Boy!

        1. The correct answer was enchilada.

  2. Your first paragraph is riddled with typos, Doherty. AND DON’T SECRETLY FIX THEM TO MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A DICK.

    1. THAT’S NO SECRET!

      1. That’s a dick though. I can spot a dick anywhere.

    2. But you are a dick.

      1. I don’t need reverse grammar nazis trying to make that point is the point.

  3. I feel like Reason is setting us all up for testicular torsion.

    “hey look Amash is polling way ahead and liberty is alive in MI and unicorns shit rainbow sherbert and OH NO Justin lost by half a percent”

  4. OT: Now that the Hobby Lobby money train seems to be winding down, Democratic Party organ HuffPo is circling back to AUSTERITY!!!!:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..92026.html

    Still with no actual data, but charts showing what would’ve happened if we had just spent more.

    1. One of the lulziest things ever written. They have a graph that measures “Real Potential GDP Lost” with this at the bottom:
      Source:’ Authors analysis of CBO data

      That’s possibly the funniest shit I’ve seen this side of The Onion. Yet their readers will accept it as the gospel,truth.

      1. Based on his,LinkedIn profile, he’s really earned his chops in the financial sector, what with that BA in Journalism from South Carolina and a staff writer slot at the WSJ where he wrote fluff pieces for Obama.

    2. “Broad spending cuts”

      and

      “Austerity”?

      WTF!

      Don’t you actually have to do something before you can attempt to show causation or even correlation?

    3. And the commenters are buying in completely:

      Phil Freihofner ? Top Commenter
      Excellent to see these facts reported, and people like Rick Santelli called for their repeated failures and mistakes. We need many more such stories, and more incidents of calling to task those that repeat the constant barrage of “think tank” generated anti-government propaganda.

      (Emphasis mine, because the lack of self awareness is hilarious)

      And, still drinking the koolaid:

      Gail M. Eppers ? Top Commenter ? Racine, Wisconsin
      Robert Lung It’s true, that when Obama has managed to get something his way, or even close to his way, the country has benefited. But imagine where we could be had the Republican obstruction machine been stopped in its tracks. Mitch McConnell should have been called out on his promise to make Obama a one-term President back in 2008 and either censured or drummed out of Congress for impropriety and unprofessionalism. If only.

      1. Mitch McConnell should have been called out on his promise to make Obama a one-term President back in 2008 and either censured or drummed out of Congress for impropriety and unprofessionalism.

        Remember the good old days when “dissent was the highest form of patriotism?”

        1. That is so last decade.

  5. I’m somewhat sensitive to the term “radical” today considering that I was called radical (and un-American) in the comments at Instapundit today. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit…..ent-784036

    Can someone please tell me what is so radical about Amash? I’ve followed him fairly closely and I’m just not seeing it.

    1. He does his own analysis of whether a bill would be constitutional, and votes against it if it isn’t.

      1. I see. So being a radical is a good thing, right?

        I can’t keep up.

        1. Being radical is a thing. It’s not inherently good or bad. It is most commonly used as a meaningless ad hominem, because stupid people seem to regard “moderate” as a good thing for some reason.

    2. Well as a libertarian leaning monster, he wants to force your children into indentured servitude.

      That is the third leg of libertarians around here; 1. Free Minds, 2. Free Markets, 3. Indentured Child Servitude!

      How else are we to get our monocle polished, or detrius removed from our spats?

    3. Well commenting at PJ Media was probably the first mistake.

      1. Remember, when you go to PJM, they all want cake.

      2. InstaPundit: Slightly more libertarian than Bill Maher.

        1. I would say that Prof. Reynolds is far more libertarian, and far more honest, than Bill Maher. And more and more the commenters are libertarian ‘leaning’. Unfortunately, those leanings tend to stir up a lot of animosity. FWIW, DT did apologize for calling me un-American, which was the part that really pissed me off. Under his definition of “radical” I guess I am a radical and that is fine by me.

          1. True, Reynolds is far more libertarian than Maher, but he’s also a closed border zealot and a big spending cheerleader when it comes to the “Defense” budget. I read Instapundit every day, but hardly ever wade into the comments. What pissed me off about DT’s comment was the absolute lack of substance. I wasted more time reading that fluff than he did thinking about it.

    4. Oh my God, that comment was sub-HuffPo.

      DT Florida
      What you call the “slow road to Hell” is what most Americans consider normal and OK and reasonable government. That you are not satisfied and demand radical solutions is very un-American … we Americans don’t do radical, and the last time we did it resulted in secession, a Civil War, and over 600,000 dead soldiers and a burned out south.

      Anything outside the status quo is radical and unAmerican and must be destroyed because civil war!

      1. I missed his followup. You couldn’t make this shit up:

        DT Florida
        The American way is built upon compromise and checks and balances. Nobody gets their way 100%. Nothing gets solved immediately – all solutions are a work in progress. There will be no grand climactic battle to the death between good and evil. America prefers moderation to radicalism. It’s what makes us stable, and not given to going off half-cocked and putting despots in charge because they have the “right ideology”, and to heck with everyone who has a different opinion. We deal with our political differences with elections, not guns and tanks and political prisons.

        He doesn’t seem to understand what “Checks and Balances” means. Actually, he sounds a lot like my high school US Government teacher, who was terrified of any discussion beyond rote repetition of the textbook. Not a principled pacifist, just a lazy statist.

        1. He is absolutely right that radical change is bad; the French Revolution, for example, proves that point amply.

          The problem is that, for him, “radical” means “anything that deviates from the accepted orthodoxy, no matter how slightly”.

          Cutting the rate of increase by 10% is nowhere near radical.

          Cutting the actual budget by 10% is still not radical.

          Storming the government’s offices and executing 10% of the employees, now that would be radical.

          1. The American Revolution, for example, absolutely disproves that point. Radical change is not inherently bad, especially if the status quo is creeping tyranny.

            1. While the act of revolution itself is radical, I would say that as far as revolutions go the American one was not very radical.

              The country from which we rebelled was already infused with liberal ideas and not only had flirted with the abolition of monarchy in the past but was already transitioning from absolute to constitutional monarchy.

              The most radical idea was the abolition of a powerful central government, and that idea was abandoned within a decade.

              1. King George was at the time reversing course back to absolute monarchy.

      2. So I’m not clear here, but is he saying slavery (the status quo) should have been preserved?

        1. He’s saying get your ass back on the GOP plantation and do what Boehner tells you!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.