People keep talking about Pete Hoekstra and honestly I haven’t researched him much yet. However, now that I saw the outcome of the DISCLOSE Act and how he didn’t bother to vote on it, I’ll do the same as he did – not bother to vote…for Hoekstra. Not voting at all on something as unconstitutional as HR 5175 is inexcusable …and unforgivable. He also voted for the bank bailouts, for the USA PATRIOT Act and two renewals of the USA PATRIOT Act. As always, please be an informed voter and know your candidate’s voting record before taking the plunge.
A reply to this by a Facebook friend:
Sorry, but the USA PATRIOT Act expanded government with the Department of Homeland Security and all of the provisions that allow the government to be all the more intrusive on U.S. citizens. The bank bailouts would also hardly be considered a “conservative” vote either. His voting record can clearly be seen on http://thomas.loc.gov.
I’m not saying he isn’t a nice guy – I’m sure he probably is. I also like some of the bills he has created and put forth. Others I don’t like. Doing a quick 2 minute search for Hoekstra at thomas.loc.gov came up with these:
For example: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.70: – this is very dangerous. It states that 3% of the total population in 10 states can start the process to add an amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? I understand what he’s getting at, but he’s going about it the wrong way. Think about that for a moment – think of the 10 states with the lowest population. Do you think it’s fair for that small of an amount of the population to put forth an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Scary stuff if you ask me. Up it to all 50 states and a much higher percentage of the total population, then you might have my interest.
Another example: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1717: – this allows further intervention of the Federal government (via the U.S. Dept. of Education) into our kid’s classrooms. Sorry, but I fully believe the U.S. Dept. of Education should be abolished – it serves no purpose other than to allow the Federal government to dabble in the affairs of our LOCAL schools that we already pay for through property taxes. Thanks, but no thanks.
…and another: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2069: – Why should I have to subsidize somebody else’s purchase of a new car? This is just as bad as “cash for clunkers”. Not only that, it only requires the vehicle to be “assembled in the United States”. So not only are you asking me to subsidize somebody else’s purchase of a new car, you’re saying it can be manufactured somewhere else? How do you define “assembled”? Installing the drive train into an already built car? Installing a set of windshield wipers? I see this as another bailout.
Anyway, I just don’t agree with his past voting record. It doesn’t match his words. I’m sorry if you disagree.