... Primaries!

Nope, this isn't a candidate endorsement, but rather an endorsement of the process. I wanted to take an opportunity to share a few thoughts and set down some ground rules for Walberg Watch between now and the primary in August 2008.

This can be a great time for us, but only if we do it right.

I've tried to write this post three of four ways now, and nothing seems quite right. I started this blog in 2006 after the primary had already passed, meaning I didn't have to blog about the race between Renier, Strack, Campbell, and Ream. My readers came in three types: staunch Democrats, disaffected Schwarz voters, and pro-Walberg trolls. The third group went away after a while, so I focused on writing for the first two.

Now, it's different. Bloggers and readers alike are still fairly united in our goal of defeating Tim Walberg, but now the Democratic nomination has to be decided first. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing! It means we've got a lot of talented people eager to stand up against Tim Walberg's rigidly conservative ideology. But it also comes with a whole new dynamic for this blog.

For me, it means I've got to learn a whole new type of blogging, in which I try to critically analyze people that are on my side. I don't want to burn any bridges with a potential nominee, but I also want to put forth the facts and provide some service to the voters. I'm still trying to figure out how to do that.

In my interview with Mark Schauer (transcript coming sometime early next week, I promise), I faced that challenge. Without a doubt, a lot of people will be upset I wasn't tougher on him. But I don't want to play the game of "gotcha" politics. I want to allow him, Jim Berryman, Sharon Renier, and anyone else a chance to make their case, and then let voters make up their minds. I'll ask questions to get more information, and I'll do that to the best of my ability. If you don't think I do a good enough job, forgive me for being new at this, and give me a chance next time around.

That's the fine line that I have to walk and that the other Walberg Watch bloggers face. But for those of you that read and comment here (and that will vote in a little less than a year), you have responsibilities, too.

You need to keep an open mind. Be willing to take a deep breath and say, "I might have been wrong about him/her."

You need to be willing to listen to others.

You need to argue your position well. Don't just make an assertion, but offer some facts.

You need to be respectful. Don't accuse people of being trolls because they disagree with you, don't speculate on their "real" identities. And most of all, don't forget that we're all on the same side.

Arguing is an important part of the democratic process and the Democratic Party. We're Democrats, which means we can disagree with each other on thirty different issues before lunchtime. An open and frank discussion is vital to the process. But when it turns into bashing each other, you've stopped discussing. People are convinced by persuasive arguments, not by the loudest guy in the room.

I usually don't delete comments, and so far, nothing has gotten to the point where I've felt that necessary. But I'm trying to pre-emptively put some rules in place. Simply put, be nice to each other! That won't hurt democracy, I promise!

Primaries are great! They give candidates a chance to practice on a friendly audience, test their messages, and build organizations. We should forget about who's going to win the nomination, and use this time to build up our candidates, not tear them down.

Do you think Candidate X has some problem that would prevent him/her from winning? Get out there and do something to help him/her out! Contact the candidates and share your concerns in a constructive way. Educate them on issues or tactics. Tell them what message will appeal to voters, and help them overcome their negatives.

Do everything you can do to make sure every candidate in the race has a strong chance to beat Walberg, and when the primary comes, make your decision on whom to support. It is possible to be satisfied no matter what the outcome, even if your guy doesn't get the nomination.

That's my post for tonight. I'm taking the weekend off to enjoy the opening of the college football season and some time with friends and family. Plenty more will be coming next week.

UPDATE: Just one other item to round out the rant for tonight. I wanted to share this Sitemeter chart of Walberg Watch traffic over the last 12 months. This was taken from 11:55 PM, just before September started. Compare August of 2007 to August of 2006...

Labels: 2008 Election, Democratic Party, Jim Berryman, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

I haven't given this nearly as much time as I should have, but some of you might remember Chris Simmons. He's a radio host on Battle Creek's conservative talk radio station WBCK, and he gets Congressman Tim Walberg to appear from time to time (most recently, on August 9th-- you can find the audio here).

Walberg must enjoy their little chats, because it's a friendly audience. It gives him a chance to complain about the "Democrat majority" without being challenged on any factual points, implying that those mean, nasty Democrats want to take away your cars and force you to ride bicycles everywhere. (Really, I'm not joking, that's what he implies in the first segment of the August 9th interview. In fact, the first caller spoke of the "socialists in our government." Yeah.)

Although he runs a biased program, Simmons is a good interviewer. He presents himself professionally as an objective reporter. But there's a problem: he's not.

Chris Simmons is also Tim Walberg's field representative in Calhoun and Branch Counties. That's right-- Chris Simmons is a member of Walberg's staff. Can anyone say "conflict of interest"?

But that's not going to be a problem anymore, at least not for a little while. Simmons has decided he wants to run for a Battle Creek City Commission seat, and his unfair advantage was immediately recognized by his opponents:

Following his filing as a Battle Creek City Commission candidate on Aug. 14, Chris Simmons announced this week he is taking a leave of absence as the host of WBCK’s radio shows “Hotline” and “The Saturday Morning Show.”

Simmons was last on the air on Aug. 18, according to WBCK General Manager and Program Director Tim Collins.

and

Simmons, 34, also is a field representative for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton. Simmons is running for the nonpartisan Ward 1 seat against Robert Sutherby, owner of the Nationwide Insurance agency in downtown Battle Creek, and Jarrite Wine-Jackson, client service specialist with Employment Group.

The Federal Communications Commission requires radio stations to afford equal opportunity to all candidates in an election.

After Simmons filed as a candidate, officials with Jackson’s campaign said they filed a formal request with the station to remove Simmons from the air during the campaign.

A follow-up request for compensatory air time has not yet been filed, campaign officials said.

Labels: Chris Simmons, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

This comment was left on Walberg Watch:

david has left a new comment on your post "Questions For Mark Schauer":

This is David Nacht. I am withdrawing from the race because I do not believe I have a realistic likelihood to defeat Sen. Mark Schauer in a Democratic Primary. I cannot in good faith ask for donations to support such a long odds effort.

I want to thank my wife and sons, my parents, my friends, volunteers and staff for the support over the past several months. Over 300 people made generous financial contributions. These will be returned to the donors on a pro-rata basis.

I intend to do whatever I can to assist the Democratic nominee in this race.

I am humbled by the outpuring of support. I have learned a great deal in the past several months. I will continue to be active in civic life, although I look forward to spending more time with my loved ones.

David Nacht

I was looking forward to seeing David in action next year, but he has to do what he feels is best. Thank you, David, for your hard work and enthusiasm in taking the fight to Tim Walberg.

Labels: 2008 Election, David Nacht, Mark Schauer

I just got an e-mail from Jim Carr, leader of the effort to recall Congressman Tim Walberg.

The court hearing this morning in Lenawee County surprised me but then I am more of an optimist than a realist. I am attaching a copying of the remarks that I made to the judge during the hearing, that appeared to fall on deaf ears.

Walberg's attorney presented his continuing campaign citing constitutional issues which the judge accepted with little or no comment. Rendering his decision, his eyes were on Walberg's attorney and he smiled occasionally as he ruled for the relief that they had requested. He did mention my arguments in a sentence or two, but as he read from his own notes, it was evident to me that he had his decision already made before I made my presentation.

The recall is over! I am contacting everyone that has petitions or discs with petition copies on them and asking them to dispose of them and cease any activity regarding this effort. I believe it is unrealistic and unfair to ask people to circulate petitions which, while legally sanctioned by the state of Michigan, will not be counted when sufficient signatures are turned in to the Secretary of State.

Labels: James Carr, Recall, Tim Walberg

This is going to be an exciting week for Walberg Watch. In addition to plenty of Walberg-related content and the next installment of the "Better Know A County" series, I'll be conducting the first candidate interviews. All four Democratic campaigns-- Berryman, Nacht, Renier, and Schauer-- have either approached me about this or been contacted by me, and I hope to get a chance to talk to all of them in the coming weeks.

But someone had to come first, and it ended up being the latest candidate to enter the race, Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. I'll be speaking with him later this week. If you've got any questions you'd like me to ask, leave them in the comments.

Just remember, I won't be asking him anything like "When did you stop beating your wife?" If you really want your question to be answered, make sure it's a serious, fair question.

UPDATE [August 30, 11:33AM]: Thank you to everyone that offered questions. I'll be speaking with Senator Schauer this afternoon and, in order to prepare, I'm not going to take any more questions. Remember, if I don't ask your question, it doesn't mean I hate you. If anything, it probably means we didn't have time to talk about it or it means that I felt the issue was addressed by some other question I ask.

I may also re-word some questions to get the same information, but in a less confrontational way. For instance, I received these "questions" on the diary I posted at Swing State Project:

I have a few questions

1. You lied to your party, your caucus and your constituents in your on the record statement when you promised that you would not seek this elected position until you had served your full term as a Senator. This proves you can not be trusted

2. You lied on two separate occasions about having polling numbers that does not exist. He even claimed that the DCCC polled for him when they did not. By the way there is no such thing as intern polling for congressional race.

3. He voted in opposition in every case for refroms that would save hard working Michigan families from having to pay higher taxes?

4. You failed to secure Majority in the Senate in 2006 despite racking up major debt for your party?

5. What make you fit for Washington Mr. Schauer?

The user who posted that seems to have opened an account for the sole purpose of making that comment. In other words, it was probably a Republican troll. I might ask about polling and his time in the state Senate, but I most certainly will not phrase things in the same manner. I don't know if you've noticed, but even when I'm writing about Tim Walberg, I try to maintain at least a certain level of civility. If I were interviewing Walberg today, I would treat him with the respect any man in public office deserves.

So. I'll hopefully have a transcript of the conversation some time tonight or tomorrow.

Labels: 2008 Election, Interviews, Mark Schauer

Last week, the Jackson Citizen Patriot had a story about Congressman Tim Walberg's new blog:

Anonymous bloggers aren't the only ones writing about the legislative work of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg.

Walberg recently launched a Web journal on his official Congressional Web site, walberg.house.gov/Blog.

Walberg has written two of the 10 articles since the site launched Aug. 9. The rest were from his press office.

But what about those of us that've been blogging about Walberg before August 9th?

Since taking office in January, Walberg's activities have been tracked by anonymous bloggers at a Web site called "Walberg Watch."

[Walberg chief of staff Joe] Wicks said Walberg, R-Tipton, is too busy to pay attention to the blog, at walbergwatch.blogspot.com.

Too busy? Bummer. But I suppose life goes on...

It's interesting, though, that Congressman Walberg is too busy for this blog, but he spends plenty of time writing for the website TownHall.com, blogging for The Hill (here, here, here, here, and here) and reaching out to conservative bloggers. But then, once you throw in his Congressional Prayer Caucus, I'm surprised he even has time to vote on legislation! He's obviously a very busy man.

So, Congressman Walberg, if you're reading this (which you apparently aren't), I understand. But if you ever do stop by, we'd love to ask you a few questions.

Labels: Netroots, Tim Walberg

Today's Jackson Citizen Patriot provides another example of why Tim Walberg is not our man in Washington. His most recent claim is that he voted against the 2007 farm bill because it ostensibly raises taxes on manufacturers. Strangely, as someone who pays quite a bit of attention to the news and follows these issues, I have not heard one iota of a complaint from Michigan manufacturers on the farm bill. John Engler, the former governor who is now head of the national manufacturing lobby, hasn't uttered a word as well. And, of course, Democrats say it's not true.

Oh well, I guess I should be used to this by now. Walberg peddles the usual B.S. that Club for Growth feeds him. Further proof of how ineffective he is. I'm sure the farmers are none too happy.

"When you put on a 600 percent tax increase on any company in Michigan,
something's going to happen," Walberg said. "I'm not going to say all the jobs
will go, but surely some of them will."

Spoken like a true economist. Somebody save us from this guy.

UPDATE: I missed this on my first read of the article, but an anonymous commenter was kind enough to point out what I had missed: a .pdf file of the poll. I've got to agree with the commenter, the Enquirer article wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, given the data available.

I'm going to take a few minutes to digest all the numbers, and then I'll have a new update.

____

UPDATE II: I've changed the title of the post. The poll doesn't so much show the district "turning blue," but it does have valuable-- and encouraging-- data.

Really, just ignore the original post below. The poll was conducted by the Glengariff Group, Inc. July 24-28, 2007, so Mark Schauer isn't mentioned. It has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.

Here are some significant findings:

Job Approval

President George W. Bush: Approve-- 25% Disapprove-- 74%
Congress: Approve-- 15% Disapprove-- 85%

Favorable/Unfavorable/Never Heard Of

Tim Walberg: 42% - 33% - 25%
Joe Schwarz: 43% - 25% - 32%
Jim Berryman: 15% - 12% - 73%
David Nacht: 4% - 8% - 88%
Sharon Renier: 11% - 9% - 80%

Walberg Re-Elect

Re-Elect Tim Walberg: 22.8%
Consider Someone New: 35.7%
Definitely Someone New: 18.7%

Generic Congressional Ballot
(Note: NOT a party identification, as suggested in the Enquirer article.)

Democratic Candidate: 36%
Republican Candidate: 29%
Independent Candidate: 12%

Iraq
If a candidate supported President Bush's "stay the course" policy in Iraq, would you:

Strongly Support: 22.8%
Somewhat Support: 14.5%
Somewhat Oppose: 9.2%
Strongly Oppose: 47.8%

Hypothetical General Election

Two-Way Race
Schwarz (D): 43.9%
Walberg (R): 40.5%

Three-Way Race
Walberg (R): 37.4%
Schwarz (I): 23.5%
Berryman (D): 23.4%

Hypothetical Democratic Primary

Schwarz: 46.4%
Renier: 12.0%
Nacht: 7.1%

(Note: Berryman doesn't appear to have been offered as an option.)

There's more in there, too, but this is a lot of data I've listed, and what I believe are the most important findings. Now, my thoughts:

This is a very Schwarz-centered poll, meaning that either Schwarz asked for it to "test the waters," or someone urging Schwarz to run commissioned the poll. There's nothing anywhere in the document I saw stating who commissioned it.

Also, it's worth noting that Jim Berryman was not listed when the Democratic primary was polled with Schwarz as a candidate. Is that based on the assumption that Berryman would drop out in favor of Schwarz? It's possible.

Also worth noting is the bit about Iraq. As long as Walberg stands by Bush, it hurts him with a majority of the electorate. Any Democratic candidate would be wise to make an anti-war message central to his or her campaign.

Overall, Democrats appear to be in good shape, though the other candidates will have to work hard on name recognition. If they can define themselves with the voters, rather than letting Tim Walberg label them as evil "liberals," they could easily build upon that generic ballot lead.

Of course, a lot of this changes with Mark Schauer's entrance into the race.

____

The Battle Creek Enquirer is reporting on a new poll conducted by the Glengariff Group, Inc. of Michigan's 7th District. I'd love to see a copy of the poll and its results, if there's anyone out there reading that would be willing to share. From the Enquirer article, there were three items polled: the presidential race (Clinton vs. Giuliani only), one congressional match-up (Schwarz as a Democrat vs. Walberg), and partisan self-identification.

Presidential results:

Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, would edge out in the 7th District U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., 45 percent to 43 percent, the poll showed.

Congressional results:

If Schwarz, a Battle Creek Republican, were to run as a Democrat, the poll shows him beating U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, 44 percent to 41 percent.

Now, those are two hypothetical scenarios that really don't have a lot of value, in my opinion. Clinton and Giuliani have yet to win their respective nominations, and a lot can happen before either of them do. As for the hypothetical Schwarz-as-a-Democrat, it is significant because it shows that someone-- perhaps Schwarz himself-- is interested enough to do polling.

The surprising result from the poll, however, was this:

The poll, taken July 24 to 28, showed 36 percent of voters in the seven-county district identified as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 12 percent independent.

If the poll is accurate, the district went from solidly Republican to lean-Democratic.

Wow.

Labels: 2008 Election, Tim Walberg

Most of you have probably heard about the tragic deaths of three college students in New Jersey and the controversy that has ensued. One of the six suspects, Jose Carranza, was found to be an illegal immigrant from Peru. He had been out on bail for other crimes when the murders took place.

As would be expected, the cable news channels jumped on the story, examining the New Jersey laws that could have prevented this. In New Jersey, immigration officials are notified after the conviction, not after the arrest, of an illegal immigrant. This may change in the near future and, admittedly, could perhaps have prevented this one incident.

The media coverage is understandable, if a little inappropriate. However, I didn't expect Congressman Tim Walberg to mention it:

Washington, Aug 24 - Though the immigration debate may have cooled for now in Congress, immigration issues continue to affect most Americans every day.

On August 4, four young college students were held at gunpoint in Newark, New Jersey by an illegal immigrant. Three of the students were killed, while the fourth escaped with injuries.

Sadly, news broke that the shooter came to America illegally from Peru, and, despite prior arrests in 2007, including one for the rape of a young girl, the shooter was not forced to leave American soil. This is simply unacceptable, yet communities across our country are forced to deal with similar situations involving illegal immigrants every day in their schools, hospitals, police stations, etc.

Illegal immigration poses an unacceptable threat to our national security and must not be allowed to continue. It is my belief that any and all attempts to enact immigration reform must not include amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I simply cannot believe that he brought this up. How do you go from three tragic deaths to "national security" to "reform must not include amnesty"? Reading what he writes, one would get the idea that there are roaming gangs of illegal immigrants planning to attack, and the only way to prevent it would be defeating the "guest-worker program"!

Walberg implies that illegal immigrants are a primary source of violent crime in this country, but that is simply not true:

"The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth," said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine. "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The incarceration rate of U.S.- born men 18 to 39 years old in 2000 was 3.5 percent — five times higher than the incarceration rate of their immigrant counterparts, the study found.

The report — which analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau, police records and other sources — also shows that a large increase in illegal immigrants has not resulted in a rise in crime. Since 1994, violent crime in the United States has declined 34 percent, and property crime has fallen 26 percent. At the same time, the illegal immigrant population has doubled to around 12 million.

Tim Walberg's position on illegal immigration is a valid opinion, which I can agree or disagree with. But when he cites one tragic incident, involving one person out of 12 million, and embraces false, potentially racist stereotypes, he crosses the line.

There are plenty of violent criminals in this country legally, and most of them were born here. Crime is a serious problem that needs our government's attention, but it's dishonest to try to blame illegal immigrants.

Men and women are murdered every day in this country, and each time it happens, it's a tragedy. Those deaths and other crimes justify more police, or tougher sentencing, or working toward better education and economic opportunity.

They do not justify tougher immigration laws or border patrol. That is simply an unrelated issue. Congressman Walberg ought to apologize.

Labels: Crime, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Issues, Tim Walberg

The attempt to recall Congressman Tim Walberg continues... From the Adrian Daily Telegram:

ADRIAN — A hearing on a court challenge to the recall effort against 7th District Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, is shaping up to be a one-sided constitutional argument.

Recall leader James R. Carr of Jackson said he will not be available for a Sept. 4 hearing scheduled in Lenawee County Circuit Court. And he is not planning to argue the case before a judge anyway.

Carr says that as far as he's concerned, he's following Michigan law to the letter. It's Walberg that needs to present an argument, because it's him that doesn't think state law applies.

Lenawee County Prosecutor Irving Shaw is defending the Lenawee County Election Commission in the lawsuit filed last week on Walberg’s behalf. But Shaw said he and the election commission have no position on the constitutional issues raised by Lansing attorney Eric Doster.

The election commission took no stand on whether the United States Constitution allows the recall of members of Congress when it approved Carr’s petition language on Aug. 6. “All the state law and one attorney general opinion says is the (election) commission discharges its duty when it determines whether a recall petition language is clear,” Shaw said. The election commission has no authority to decide legal questions on conflicts of state and federal laws, he said.

The county election commission will follow whatever direction is given by the court, Shaw said.

In other words, Walberg will present his case-- that state law and the Tenth Amendment do not apply in this situation-- and the judge will rule solely on the merits of that argument.

And since Carr can't make it to the September 4 hearing:

Doster said Wednesday he is asking Judge Harvey A. Koselka to move up the hearing date on the motion for a preliminary injunction to allow Carr to attend but is opposed to any delays.

“I want this expedited. I want this decided yesterday, and Mr. Carr wants it decided yesterday,” Doster said.

Labels: James Carr, Recall, Tim Walberg

The Battle Creek Enquirer reported today on the same vote I mentioned last week:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, supported an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill (HR 3043) that would have cut off Title X federal funding to Planned Parenthood, including its South Central Michigan chapter serving Calhoun and six other counties.

Walberg said in a weekly e-mail report that because Planned Parenthood performs abortions for its clients, he was opposed to any federal government support of such organizations.

(Emphasis added.)

Ah, "pro-life" Tim Walberg felt compelled to vote for the amendment because he doesn't want to fund abortions. Except, there's a problem. As the article continues:

Title X funding, however, supports family planning services such as contraceptives, sexually transmitted infection treatments, breast and cervical screenings, pregnancy tests and education programs, said Megan Zapinski, public affairs manager at Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan.

“Title X does not cover any abortions,” she said. “Nothing comes from the government for that. ... This (funding) is all to prevent unintended pregnancies.”

Abortions provided by Planned Parenthood are paid for by the client, the insurance provider or through private donations, said Meg Smillie, chief operating officer at the South Central Michigan chapter.

The amendment was defeated in July. Walberg voted against the final version of the bill last week.

“The overall bill was too expensive,” said Walberg spokesman Matt Lahr.

It's not like Walberg's ideology gets in the way of the facts or anything.

Labels: 110th Congress, Abortion, Family Planning, Issues, Planned Parenthood, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

In a few moments, Senator Schauer should be posting here on Walberg Watch about the announcement reported below.

UPDATE: Here's what Senator Schauer had to say to Walberg Watch, its bloggers, and its readers:

Today I created a committee to become a candidate for the 7th Congressional district. I did so because Tim Walberg is the wrong person for this district, and he’s not working for us in Washington. And I did so because I believe that my passion for public service can make a real difference in Washington for the people and issues I care about.

As you’ve noted in thorough detail on this site, Walberg continually obeys the extreme Republican agenda in DC, instead of the practical views of the constituents who depend on him. He has voted against a minimum wage increase, but for privatizing social security. He opposed expanding health care to more than 4 million uninsured kids, and he refused to support recommendations from the 9/11 commission that would help keep us safe. He didn't have a problem putting out a press release claiming credit for critical local funding, but couldn't bring himself to actually vote for the bill.

The people of the 7th district deserve better.

I’ve always put my community first and done whatever it takes to make sure we get results for south central Michigan, so I won’t stand for anyone who abandons our district time and time again. I will continue serving as state Senate Democratic Leader and fight to the finish the effort to put Michigan on sound financial footing for the future. In fact, the encouragement I've received and support I’ve been offered from my constituents, friends and colleagues is what makes this effort possible. I also owe so much to my amazing wife, Christine, and my understanding family for being willing to accept the sacrifices that this kind of undertaking will require.

With that said, I believe I am the strongest candidate to take this seat back from Tim Walberg. No one will work harder than me, and no one will knock more doors than I will. When the national Republican machine kicks in to try to save this seat, I’ll take them on and win because I have a history of building the kind of broad, bipartisan coalitions necessary to win in tough Republican districts. My experience raising the level of funds a race like this demands will make sure we can stay competitive with the deep pockets of the Club for Growth and others.

There are honorable public servants and friends who have also expressed interest in this race. I have a great deal of respect for each one of them, and I’ll work hard to make sure we all come together to achieve our shared goal – replacing this incumbent. I have a proven track record of bringing people together, and that’s what I would do with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in this district, because one thing the current Congressman doesn’t seem to understand is that this job means you represent everyone. You're not there just for the folks who think exactly like you do, or the special interests that fund your campaign, or George W. Bush and his cronies in DC. The interests of the district, the state and the nation come first.

Thanks again for all that you do and all you're going to do throughout this campaign. Your great research and the time you spend raising awareness of the importance of this race and the failures of the incumbent are not going unnoticed. I plan to be a regular visitor to this site and look forward to working together to return this seat to the people of the 7th district.

Thanks for stopping by, Senator.

Labels: 2008 Election, Mark Schauer, Netroots

From the AP:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer said Thursday he will seek the Democratic nomination to challenge freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in the 2008 election after declining earlier overtures to enter the race.

"Tim Walberg is not doing the job," Schauer told The Associated Press on Thursday. "He is serving a very narrow interest. He's really been a servant of the Bush-Cheney administration and the extreme special interests in Washington."

and

Schauer filed paperwork to run in the 7th District, which includes parts of seven counties in south-central Michigan. It has been targeted by Democrats because Walberg, of Tipton, failed to capture 50 percent of the vote in last year's election.

Schauer, who had pledged to Senate Democrats to serve out his full four-year term as minority leader through 2010, said he will keep being the Democratic leader while running for Congress. He said he changed his mind about running after being approached by both rank-and-file constituents and party leaders.

The push by others for him to join the race "almost became deafening," Schauer said.

Now that Senator Schauer is in, the "should he run" debate is clearly over. Let's move forward through this primary in a civil, open, and honest way. This is our chance to learn more about all of the candidates, hear what they have to say, and decide which among them would be the best suited for defeating Tim Walberg and serving in the United States House of Representatives.

We're Democrats, which means sometimes we suffer from "circular-firing-squad" syndrome. Let's try to avoid that and remember than any one of the four declared candidates would be an improvement on what we have now.

Four viable candidates, all of them better than Walberg. This is exciting!

UPDATE: Here's the press release:

MARK SCHAUER TAKES IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS BID FOR CONGRESS

Creates candidate committee for possible 7th Congressional District race

BATTLE CREEK - State Senate Democratic Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek), today created a candidate committee for a 7th Congressional district bid. The filing is an important first step in becoming an official candidate in the race.

"The people of Michigan's 7th district deserve a Congressman who will put their best interests ahead of his own, or that of special interests," said Schauer. "Unfortunately, the incumbent has been more concerned with the extreme agenda of George W. Bush and Washington Republicans, but that type of party politics doesn't reflect the values of our district, and it needs to change."

Schauer has a long history of serving south central Michigan. He was elected to represent Battle Creek in the State House of Representatives in 1996. After serving three terms, he was elected to the 19th State Senate district covering Calhoun and Jackson counties in 2002. Schauer has worked to help companies such as Kellogg's, Duncan Aviation, Sparton Corporation and Eaton Aerospace retain and add local jobs. Schauer also partnered with former Congressman Joe Schwarz to help save the Battle Creek Air National Guard base.

Prior to his service in the Michigan Legislature, Schauer was a Battle Creek City Commissioner and worked as the executive director of the Community Action Agency of South Central Michigan. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Albion College, a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Western Michigan University and a Masters Degree in Political Science from Michigan State University where he is also all-but-dissertation in Political Science & Urban Studies. He is married to Christine and has three stepchildren.

"The needs of the communities I serve have always been my top priority," said Schauer. "I will continue to work towards securing jobs, improving health care, and creating better educational opportunities in my current role or as a candidate for Congress."

A number of critics have pointed out that the current Congressman has failed working families by voting against an increase in the minimum wage, even though he supported a 38 percent salary increase for himself while a state representative. He has also opposed expanding health care to more than 4.1 million uninsured children and advocated for the privatization of social security. He recently went so far as to vote against a budget bill, yet tried to take credit for local projects included in the legislation.

# # #

Labels: 2008 Election, Mark Schauer

Data below has been updated. On the advice of an anonymous commenter, I have reposted this. After all, you can't repeat yourself enough on this. It's clear that Tim Walberg works for the Club for Growth, not Michigan's 7th District.

Congress is on its break for the month of August, but there's still plenty to talk about. Today, I'd like to take a closer look at Congressman Tim Walberg's relationship with the Club for Growth.

The Club for Growth is not a nice organization. They claim to stand for lower taxes, pro-business policies, and "economic freedom." In practice, they stand for purging the Republican Party of those that don't follow their rigid ideology. Here's what former Congressman Joe Schwarz said of their role in the 2006 primary:

The effort was funded, probably to the tune of $1 million or so, by the Club for Growth, a Washington outfit supported by plutocrats nationwide who apparently have nothing better to do with their money than give it to an organization that stands for nothing -- though it says it's "anti-tax" -- and likes to play in elections in which it has no logical interest.

And it wasn't just Joe Schwarz. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) also saw a Club for Growth challenger in 2006. But most interesting, perhaps, was in 2004. The Club challenged Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in the primary, with their hand-picked candidate Pat Toomey (now president of the Club) losing in a close, 51-49 election.

Senator Specter, of course, has served Pennsylvania as a Republican in the Senate for nearly 30 years. He even supports a flat-tax system-- a favorite of conservatives-- but that's not enough for the Club for Growth. Their ideological purity tests somehow determined that conservative Arlen Specter wasn't good enough.

But let's get back to Tim Walberg. What did the Club for Growth do for him?

First, there are the independent expenditures.

The Club for Growth spent $191,952 on behalf of Tim Walberg. I had to check that number a few times because the FEC listed so many expenditures, I was afraid I might have missed one-- and I still might have. (Fun facts: The largest expenditure was $110,727 for an ad buy; the smallest was just $2.00 for "internet communication.")

The Club for Growth spent $326,994 against Congressmen Joe Schwarz. That was probably those ads you might have seen claiming Schwarz was "a liberal."

What about Walberg himself? He spent $1,225,137 out of $1,260,111 raised for the campaign. That's a lot of money. Where did it come from?

Well, some of it counts the independent expenditures of the Club and other PACs. But of his individual contributions-- $947,745-- much of that came from Club for Growth members. See, the Club will send out fundraising letters to all of their members encouraging them to give directly to the candidates. Tim Walberg doesn't really have supporters across the country. Instead, he has a bunch of rich people send him $2,000 checks because he's on the Club for Growth's endorsement list. It's a nifty set-up he's got there.

So how much of that $950,000 came from Club for Growth members? It's hard to say. But Walberg did have 73 percent of his contributions come from out-of-state. So that's something.

So what does that kind of money buy you? Well, for the Club for Growth, it buys you a reliable voice in Congress. It's just too bad that voice doesn't represent the 7th District.

The Club for Growth issues "Key Vote Alerts" whenever an issue comes before Congress that they've chosen to care about. In each alert, they offer the proper instructions for their followers in Congress. That is, they state whether one should vote "yes" or "no." I've created a table to track these:

Club for Growth Key Votes
Bill/Amendment	CFG Position	Walberg Vote
HR 800	No	No
Sessions Amdt HR 1401	Yes	Yes
Ryan Sub. Amdt H Con Res 99	Yes	Yes
HR 401	No	No Vote Taken
HR 1257	No	No
Campbell/Ryan Letter	Sign	Signed
Bachus/Biggert Amdt HR 1427	Yes	Yes
HR 1252	No	No
Amdt #57 HR 2638	Yes	Yes
HR 2734	Co-sponsor	Original Sponsor
Amdt #10 HR 2771	Yes	Yes
Campbell Amdt HR 2829	Yes	Yes
P-F-H Amdt HR 2829 (Fairness Doctrine)	Yes	Yes
"Fairness" Amdt HR 2419	Yes	No
Rule for HR 2419	No	No
HR 2419	No	No
HR 3221 and HR 2776	No and No	No and No

Now, there are two blank spots on that table, corresponding with the "Vote Alerts" here and here. I can't seem to find how Walberg voted on those in any of the usual databases I search. If anyone else can find what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it.

____
UPDATE: A very kind anonymous commenter found those two missing votes for me, and the table above has been updated, as has the analysis below.
____

After removing HR 401, which has yet to be voted on, there have been 17 Club for Growth "Key Vote Alerts." Tim Walberg voted with the Club 16 out of 17 times, or 94.1 percent of the time. In contrast, Walberg voted with the House Republican Caucus just 90.7 percent.

Clearly, Congressman Tim Walberg has been just about the best representative that money can buy.

What would you do if you could buy a member of the United States House of Representatives?

Labels: 110th Congress, 2006 Election, Club for Growth, Fundraising, Tim Walberg

Submitted by TheMaverick09, cross-posted from To Play the King.

In the '70s, independents started aligning with the GOP. In the '80s, a slew of conservative Democrats (led by now former Sen. Chuck Robb) wooed them back. The '90s saw the Republicans take advantage of the Democrats moving slightly too far left to win four out of five major races. Now the Democrats are on their own winning streak, thanks to putting on a more practical governing face and a Republican Party that's lost touch with the independents.

Michigan Democrats could learn a great deal from the Virginia political landscape as detailed by NBC news analyst Chuck Todd in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal.

The lesson for Michigan Democrats is two-fold: First, recognize the political importance of the independent voter in deciding the outcome of elections. I argue that the independent voter will be especially relevant in the 2008 election because the Republican Party has taken such polarizing positions on critical issues such as stem-cell research, the war in Iraq, the environment and health care. Second, the Democratic Party in Michigan must remember that its candidates for office represent a “practical governing face” and not a partisan governing face.

At this early stage of the political discussion for 2008 it is clear there is a real swing toward Democratic candidates. With this swing will come pressure on candidates to accept the entire platform of the Democratic Party and then present him/herself as the “best Democrat” among the candidates. This tendency will prove a dangerous position for a would-be Democratic nominee in 7th Congressional District of Michigan.

For a number of years now, the 7th has been viewed as a staunchly conservative district and that is simply untrue. A general election victory is only achievable with broad voter appeal. In general elections, the majority of voters look to the candidate and the qualities he brings to the office and do not simply vote for someone based on their political affiliation. There is something to be said for cross-over appeal.

Mr. Todd offers up Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia as an example of an elected official who has never failed to appeal to his district’s independent voters.

What's fascinating is that from a 30-year perspective, Mr. Warner hasn't lost touch with Virginia ideologically. The two parties ebbed and flowed past him, while he's continued to appeal to independent voters. Over the past four decades, they've traded dominance in statewide elections, with one party or the other winning three or four major races in a row. In this state, each party has been able to hold the upper hand, through the support of independent voters, for about a decade at a time.

The Democratic candidate for the 7th Congressional seat must follow a mold similar to Senator Warner if the party wishes to win and maintain this seat. The candidate should be intelligent, secure in his/her convictions, possess an understanding of his entire district and not be beholden to a rigid party platform. More importantly, we must have a candidate capable of appealing to the independent voters. Some of these independent voters have always been fiercely independent. However, in 2008 many independent voters will be moderate Republicans disgusted with the direction their party has taken of late. These newly independent voters will not be comfortable supporting an anointed partisan who fails to understand the broad spectrum of political issues that are important to them.

Michigan is often divided along regional lines-- East, West, and North. The 7th Congressional District serves as a bridge between East and West, stretching from Ann Arbor to Battle Creek, and from the Lansing area south to the state line. It's not often that those in one part of the district visit (or even think about) those on the opposite end.

Let's get to know each other.


Branch County

Branch County serves as the southwest corner of the 7th District and as the smallest-population county. From Wikipedia:

As of the census² of 2000, there were 45,787 people, 16,349 households, and 11,575 families residing in the county. The population density was 35/km² (90/mi²). There were 19,822 housing units at an average density of 15/km² (39/mi²). The racial makeup of the county was 93.37% White, 2.63% Black or African American, 0.47% Native American, 0.42% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 1.39% from other races, and 1.69% from two or more races. 2.98% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Branch County was named for John Branch, the Secretary of Navy in Andrew Jackson's administration, making it one of the Cabinet Counties. (Jackson was president when Michigan became a state.) Branch County also had a vessel of the United States Navy named for it, the USS Branch County, a World War II tank landing ship.

Coldwater

The county seat of Branch County, Coldwater is the largest city of Branch County, at 12,697 at the 2000 census. It was hometown to Harriet Quimby, the first woman to get a pilot's license in the United States.

Politics

From his official website, Congressman Tim Walberg visited Branch County for a Farm Bill listening session in April and visited the Tibbits Opera House in Coldwater in February. From what I can find, these have been Walberg's only visits to the county so far this year.

Walberg also had one appropriations request for Branch County, which he announced in June. The request was a $217,632 grant for the Branch Area Transit Authority, which was to be spent on buses, radio equipment, and facilities upgrades.

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Branch County is Jerry Fair, while the Republicans are led by Ken Delaney.

Branch County Election Results

2006 General Election:

Tim Walberg (R): 7,744 (55.3%)
Sharon Renier (D): 5,572 (39.8%)
Joe Schwarz (Write-in): 169 (1.2%)

Jennifer Granholm (D): 6,901 (47.98%)
Dick DeVos (R): 7,248 (50.39%)

Links

Branch County Government
Branch County Tourism Bureau
Attractions and Entertainment
Festivals and Events
City of Coldwater
City of Bronson
The Coldwater Daily Reporter

Next time: Calhoun County!

Labels: Better Know A County, Branch County, Tim Walberg

(Cross-posted from To Play the King, Submitted by TheMaverick09).

We should keep in mind the big political picture for 2008. Animosity-laden posts of late are really unproductive and only serve to undermine the success of Democrats in the 7^th. The questioning of blogger’s motives and conspiratorial quips is ridiculous.

The Democratic candidates in the 7^th District present an interesting aspect of the 2008 election. However, the infighting is beginning to resemble the inner-party squabble that has kept Democratic candidates from defeating Republicans and, in the past, prevented a Democratic majority.

I fear our conversation has lost its focus. I see the 7^th District race as more of a test for the Democratic Party and the extent to which we are capable, at a state and national level, of making smart candidate choices and properly allocating resources behind the most viable candidate in the race?. The blogosphere is an important new addition to politics and campaigns and is destined to reshape politics forever. However, Democrats ought to keep in mind that politics is a science. And when it comes to the 7^th Congressional race and how the 08 election is shaping up, certain candidates will be stronger than others. No matter how passionate one may be about one candidate or another, there will be one who is the best bet to oust the Republicans. It is also a fact that a messy and expensive primary race does not help the cause. I have said it before and I will say it again and again, in many cases primary races serve only to hurt a party when it comes to the general election.

My hope is the conversation here is not founded only in emotion, wild speculation and calls for censorship of opinions. Rather, lets try to elevate the conversation and have discussions in the Netroots based on political science and strategy. In doing so, the party will be better able to help clear the way for a Democrat who is most likely to defeat Walberg.

I'm resposting this past Sunday's post at To Play the King to remind us all of who we're up against.

Tim Walberg stands side by side with President Bush on almost every issue and couldn't be more proud to do so. This rubber stamping is never more evident than when it comes to the War in Iraq.

To trust Tim Walberg to exercise good judgment on the Iraq war is folly. While he claims to supports the war, he clearly does not support the troops fighting in this conflict.

Case in point: U.S. military leadership has been unambiguously clear about the danger of the armed forces reaching a critical breaking point. Troops are stretched dangerously thin and many are serving their third tour in the combat zone. Furthermore, we are finding more and more veterans affected by PTSD when they come home and are not receiving adequate treatment in the short time before being redeployed.

H.R. 3159, as passed by the House on August 2, would allow our troops a longer break between tours of duty. The legislation would "mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom."

Walberg voted NO on this legislation. It is safe to assume that while the 7th District's congressman is in favor of The War, he is opposed to giving our troops the time they need to mentally and physically recover from the rigors of combat. He is opposed to legislation that would guarantee that our troops have time with their families to reconnect and make sure their family lives are in order. He is opposed to legislation that would give children and spouses time to reconnect with a parent who serves this fine country overseas.

This cavalier attitude toward national security is a disgusting and unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform. He ought to ask what kind of family values deny troops a guaranteed amount of time with their loved ones before packing up their Kevlar and heading back into the combat zone. I would challenge Walberg to ask any veteran or active service member if they would object to a break before returning to war. Ask any of them if it would be of benefit to them personally – and to our military -- to have this time? Ask them if this break would make them more effective in the field upon their return? I doubt there would be any NO votes on that question.

Tim, it's a break, pal. You weren't ending their service in the military or heaven forbid ending the war. The bill was just giving the troops a little breather. But then again, I guess someone who has never been shot at and only poses with guns wouldn't understand why someone in combat might need a designated break before heading back in.

Below is a brief summary of the bill passed in the House despite Republican Tim Walberg's opposition.

Roll Call Vote 796. H R 3159 RECORDED VOTE 2-Aug-2007 1:53 PM

Explanation (from Library of Congress):

Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force ( Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment. Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.

Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years. Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.

Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

From an anonymous poster at WalbergWatch and To Play the King.:

I think everyone-especially when they post here, needs to remember that the focus is beating Walberg.

I like Mark Schauer and think he is doing a good job in the Senate.

I think Jim Berryman was a good State Senator and fought a good fight against Smith in '98.

As Republican's go, I think Joe Schwarz was a good Congressman and if he switched parties would do an excellent job.

So, ironically, after so many years of wandering the wilderness of nobody to run or having a nobody run against "Do Nothing Nick"-Reiner, Crittendon, etc, we seem to have too many qualified candidates to run against Walberg.

The logical thought then, seems, to boil it down to who is doing what now.

Sen. Schauer is a sitting Senator, currently serving the largest poplulation centers in the 7th. Then, along with that, the complex and important role of leading one of the four caucus' and (presumably) preparing the caucus for both the 2010/12 re-districting fight and 2010 election.

Jim Berryman is fighting for teachers benefits with the MEA.

Joe Schwarz is working on Health Care issues and (I assume) continuing his medical practice.

We can debate the relative importance of Congress/State Senate, but it is irresponsible to suggest that either isn't or is more important than the other. Maybe to you, one is bigger than the other, but they are both big. It matters who is serving and the policys they promote.

At the end of the day, I return to my opening line, focus on beating Walberg.

If Berryman continues to run or Schwarz jumps in as a Dem, then I think it is probably better to have Schauer stay in the Senate. Both Berryman and Schwarz are credible, realistic alternatives to Walberg.

Ultimately, I think any of the 3 (S,S,B) can beat Walberg, but lets say Schauer does. Then we are left with a special election in the 19th.

Would Simpson run? Griffin? Whomever-hopefully-the Dems in Calhoun have elected to replace Nofs?

The bets on all of the above are long. All are/would be important to keeping the Dems in charge of the State House.

What would likely happen? Probably the first of an 8 year run in the Senate for Mike Nofs.

Now, how bad can that be? Well, doing the math on the Senate today, the Dems have 17 seats. Ultimately, when the budget and the rest of the important decisions are made in Lansing, the Senate Republicans have two marginal seats-Kahn and Richardville. Both will have to be very careful how they vote btwn now and the next election. So, they are the most likely to join with the Dems on a "mission critical" vote (Education, taxes, cuts, etc.) With the two of them today, that gives you 19, with the Lt. Gov breaking a tie.

Take the 19th/Schauer off the table, put in Nofs, and you drop to 18. Or, to put it another way-wave goodbye to getting anything done during the last two years of the Granholm administration.

I like Schauer. I like what he is doing, but I would also like him to stay in the Senate.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

I've got a few things today that didn't seem like they were worth an entire post themselves, so I'll combine 'em.

Bush Approval

There was a diary at DailyKos.com which had maps showing President Bush's estimated approval rating by state, congressional district, and county. Here's the map for congressional districts, July 2007, and here's the map from November 2004. The 7th District is looking a lot bluer lately.

This matters, of course, because Congressman Tim Walberg has made it clear that he stands with President Bush on nearly every controversial issue. If folks don't like Bush in the district, let's remind them that Walberg's been right there with him on everything.

Walberg Recall

The Battle Creek Enquirer reports on Tim Walberg's lawsuit to stop the recall. At the risk of seeming like I'm bragging, I do believe Walberg Watch reported on the lawsuit before anyone else!

Francis Pepper

The latest blogger to join Walberg Watch-- Francis Pepper-- seemed to cause quite a stir with his first two posts, and there were some very negative comments. I'd like to address all that now.

I really doubt that Francis is a Republican troll planted here to help Walberg. From what he's written elsewhere and from private communications with me, I think he's sincere in his desire to see a Democrat elected. Now, he's been vocal about his feelings that Senator Mark Schauer shouldn't run. Similarly, Doug has been vocal in his support for Jim Berryman. My policy has been that this blog won't take a position, but individuals are welcome to share their views.

I knew that when I asked him to join the blog, and I thought he might shake things up a bit by saying things a lot of us-- including myself-- might disagree with. We ought to be talking about who would be the best candidate, and we ought to be examining every aspect of them. Now, Francis has been vocal on this on several different websites, but he's not just "the anti-Schauer guy."

All I ask is that you give him a chance. He might surprise you.

If you don't think Mark Schauer's being given fair treatment, I'd love to add another blogger to make the case. For that matter, if anyone wants to join the blog to advocate on behalf of any candidate (besides Tim Walberg), I'm all for adding new voices. Just so long as you can write about more than just Candidate X, too.

Ah geez. That was longer than I wanted it to be.

Better Know A County

I was thinking earlier about how little some parts of the district have in common with others. What kind of interest might there be in a "Better Know A County" series of posts? More importantly than that, could I get any local insight from folks around the district? I hate to admit it, but I don't spend a lot of time in Branch or Hillsdale counties, for instance.

Something Fun

It's the end of the week, and I'm done with being serious. I want something totally, completely non-political to bring in the weekend. So here's a YouTube video of one of the finest musical groups I've ever seen: the Northwestern University Kazoo Choir.

Labels: Mark Schauer, Recall, Tim Walberg

I had missed this vote, but, thankfully, others were paying attention.

Congressman Tim Walberg has done a very good job of casting himself as a "pro-life crusader," but rarely do we get a chance to see what that really means. We got that chance on HR 3043, the Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, a bill on which Congressman Walberg voted No.

Prior to final passage, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) attempted to add an amendment:

Amendment No. 67 offered by Mr. Pence:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __X. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Services Act.

Planned Parenthood, of course, is a regular target of the religious right. Among other things, they provide abortion services which, though many have moral qualms, is a perfectly legal service. But that's not all Planned Parenthood provides. As Lori Lamerand from Planned Parenthood's Mid-Michigan Alliance explains:

His appalling vote would have wiped out financial assistance at our health center in Jackson for some of our most fundamental services, such as annual exams, cancer screening and birth control for our low-income patients.

Fortunately, the amendment failed. But it's beyond ironic that Rep. Walberg claims to be so concerned about abortion rates when he voted to restrict the very funds to help women prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. In fact, it's unconscionable.

(Emphasis added.)

"Pro-life" Tim Walberg? Apparently not...

As is noted above, the Pence Amendment failed, 189 to 231. How many people could it have affected? From Planned Parenthood of Georgia:

Each year, more than five million women receive comprehensive family planning services at family planning clinics that are funded by Title X. These women are predominantly poor and uninsured -- two-thirds have incomes at or below the federal poverty level. Title X provides a critical safety net for these women, and without it, many women would go without the health care they need and deserve. For many of these women, Planned Parenthood is the only provider they know and trust.

Rather than try to offer my own thoughts, I'll go back to Lori Lamerand:

Planned Parenthood knows firsthand the positive impact that federal family-planning funds have on the lives of low-income women and families. Women and couples can plan strong, healthy families when they have access to affordable birth control and the information they need to make responsible decisions. This is just common sense -- but I guess Rep. Tim Walberg never got the memo.

Labels: 110th Congress, Abortion, Issues, Planned Parenthood, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

The plot thickens... Congressman Tim Walberg has filed a lawsuit to stop the recall. Before I share the text, I think it's worth noting once again that Walberg and his lawyers are doing an awful lot to prevent a recall election that they claim wouldn't be valid anyway-- a recall they shouldn't have to be afraid of, given the Republican lean of the district.

In an e-mail, James Carr also notes:

I am surprised that Walberg is trying to stop the recall before signatures are collected. Another facet of this suit is that instead of enacting laws in the legislature they are asking a judge to "make law". Quite a switch from the party line, don't you think.

Here's the text (there are some errors due to changes in formatting).

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF LENAWEE

TIMOTHY WALBERG, Plaintiff,
LENAWEE COUNTY BOARD C ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, official capacity, and JAMES R. CARR, Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INTUNCTIVE RELIEF, WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND OTHER RELIEF
Timothy Walberg ("Plaintiff), for his Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief Writ of Mandamus and Other Relief, states as follows:
1. This lawsuit seeks a declaratory ruling from this Court declaring that pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,1 the recall provisions under Michigan law (similar to term limits2 and one-year waiting period for judicial officers to run for partisan office3) are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress, and related relief to the foregoing. Since no Member of Congress in our
1 See Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
Article II, Section 10 of the Michigan Constitution invalidated by US Term Limits, Inc. v Thorntan, 514
US 779 (1995). f
See Article VI, Section 21 of the Michigan Constitution rendered inapplicable to Members of Congress by Op. Atty. Gen. 1943-44, No. 24417, p. 25.

nation's history has ever been recalled, if such limitations are to be imposed, they must be adopted by amending the United States Constitution itself.
TURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Pursuant to MCL 600.601 and MCL 168.952 (6), this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action for equitable relief related to the Lenawee County Board of Election Commissioners.
3. MCR 3.305 allows the Plaintiff to seek a writ of mandamus in the circuit court.
4. Because there exists an actual controversy otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs requests for mandamus and a declaratory judgment pursuant to MCR 2.605(A).
5. Pursuant to MCL 600.1615, MCL 600.1621, and MCL 168.952(6), venue lies in Lenawee County.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Timothy Walberg is the duly elected Member of Congress representing the citizens of the 7th Congressional District of the State of Michigan, with his present term of office having commenced in January, 2007 and being for a term of two (2) years pursuant to the United States Constitution.
7. Defendant Lenawee County Board of Election Commissioners (the "Commission") is the duly and legally constituted body for the purpose of determining the clarity of a recall petition filed against an elected officer serving under the authority of the Michigan Constitution, who are situated within Lenawee County, Michigan.

8. Defendant James R. Carr is a resident of Jackson County, Michigan, and is the individual who, on or about July 10, 2007, filed a recall petition against Timothy Walberg, who is a Member of Congress serving the citizens of the 7th Congressional District in Michigan.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9. On or about July 10, 2007, a petition (the "Petition") was filed with the Commission to recall Timothy Walberg, a Member of Congress representing the citizens of the 7th Congressional District in Michigan. See Attachment A.
10. The Petition was filed exclusively under the provisions of the Michigan law.
11. No Member of Congress has ever been recalled from office in the history of the United States. Why? The answer is unequivocal: The United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officials such as United States Senators, Representatives to Congress, or the President or Vice-President of the United States. This is not an oversight. Recall provisions were hotly debated by the Framers, but were eventually rejected in favor of the present United States Constitution.
12. The document attached as Attachment B to this Complaint (beginning on page 5 and hereinafter referred to as the "Report for Congress") entitled "Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office" (March 20, 2003) published by the United States Congressional Research Office, demonstrates that Members of Congress are not subject to recall.
13. Article I of the United States Constitution creates a national legislature and comprehensively regulates its composition and selection. For example, Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution indicates that the "House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States... ." It does not say that
3

the "House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States or earlier, if the Member is recalled pursuant to State law." In fact, the only delegation of authority to the States over congressional elections is the authority to conduct the "Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections" but even this authority is limited by granting Congress the extraordinary power to make or alter state election laws.4 Since the authority to conduct the "Times, Places, and Manner of holding the Elections" gives States the authority to prescribe procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections, the Michigan recall provisions, which are substantive in nature, are not a lawful grant of this authority.
14. With respect to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the "reserved" authority of the States, the United States Supreme Court has clearly explained that determining qualifications and terms for federal offices, created within the United States Constitution, were "not part of the original powers of sovereignty that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the States," and thus whatever authority States have over the terms, qualifications and elections of federal officers must be a "delegated" authority from the United States Constitution.5 Such authority could not be a "reserved" power of the States, since the States could not "reserve" a power it did not have as part of its original sovereign authority, that is, a power relative to something that did not exist before its creation in the United State Constitution.
15. Accordingly, pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the recall provisions under Michigan law (similar to term limits and the one-year waiting period for judicial officers to run for
4 See Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.
5 US Term Limits, Inc v Thornton, 514 US 779, 802 (1995).
4

partisan office) are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress. If such limitations are to be imposed, they must be adopted by amending the United States Constitution itself.
16. On July 23, 2007 and again on August 6, 2007, the Commission met for the purpose of determining whether the Petition satisfied the requirements of MCL 168.952, i.e., whether the Petition stated clearly each reason for the proposed recall.
17. At the July 23, 2007 Commission meeting, the Plaintiff filed objections to the proposed recall proceedings (being conducted pursuant to Michigan law) on the basis that a Member of Congress may not be recalled pursuant to United States Constitution. The Plaintiff also filed his objections to the proposed recall language set forth on the Petition as failing to satisfy the clarity requirements of MCL 168.952. See Attachment C.
18. In order to allow Defendant James R. Carr the opportunity to respond to the Plaintiffs objections, the Commission ordered that briefs be filed with the Commission by August 3,2007, prior to the next scheduled meeting of August 6, 2007.
19. In accordance with the Commission's instructions, the Plaintiff filed his brief dated August 2, 2007, which conclusively demonstrated that a Member of Congress is not subject to recall. See Attachment D.
20. At its meeting dated August 6, 2007, the Commission determined that the Petition contained a clearly stated reason for the recall and approved the language of the Petition pursuant to Michigan law. See Attachment E.
21. Significantly, at its August 6, 2007 meeting, the Commission indicated that its sole authority was to determine the clarity of the Petition under Michigan law, not the "standing of this body to hear this matter," but that it did "encourage the parties to seek review of their other issues" presumably before a court of competent jurisdiction. See Attachment E, page 5.
COUNT I - DECLARATORY RELIEF
22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs.
23. Timothy Walberg is a Member of Congress representing the citizens of the T Congressional District of the State of Michigan.
24. The text and structure of Article I of the United States Constitution set forth a uniform and exclusive set of qualifications for Members of Congress.
25. The ability to recall Members of Congress was expressly rejected by the Framers of the United States Constitution.
26. The ability to recall Members of Congress is prohibited by the text of the United States Constitution.
27. The ability to recall Members of Congress is not a "reserved" power of the States.
28. The States' exclusive delegation of authority over congressional elections is under the so-called "Elections Clause", and a recall provision falls outside that limited grant of authority.
29. The ability of a State to recall Members of Congress would destroy the uniformity of a national legislature.
30. The recall provisions under Michigan law constitute additional qualifications on a Member of Congress which are meaningless.
31. The Petition was filed exclusively under the provisions of Michigan law. See Attachment A.

32. As the Plaintiff demonstrated in his August 2, 2007 Brief filed with the Commission, a Member of Congress is not subject to recall. See Attachment D.
33. A declaratory judgment is an appropriate remedy in this case. The availability of declaratory judgments in Michigan is governed by MCR 2.605. The court rule provides in pertinent part:
(A) Power to Enter Declaratory Judgment.
(1) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, a Michigan court of record may declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a declaratory judgment, whether or not other relief is or could be sought or granted.
(2) For the purpose of this rule, an action is considered within the jurisdiction of a court if the court would have jurisdiction of an action on the same claim or claims in which the plaintiff sought relief other than a declaratory judgment.
34. In the present case, there is no realistic basis to dispute that the present "actual controversy" (the continuation of recall provisions under Michigan law against a Member of Congress in violation of the United States Constitution) submitted by an "interested party" (the Plaintiff), is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the availability of a declaratory judgment in the present matter is certainly permitted by MCR 2.605.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court declare that pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the recall provisions under Michigan law are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress. COUNT II - PERMANENT AND PRELIMINARY INIUNCTION - DEFENDANT CARR
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs.

36. If Defendant James R. Carr were allowed to file the Petition pursuant to Michigan law, then Plaintiff Timothy Walberg would suffer irreparable injury because a Member of Congress is not subject to recall.
37. Conversely, Defendant James R. Carr would not be injured by complying with the terms of the United States Constitution.
38. Given the nature of the Plaintiffs injury, there is no adequate remedy available at law.
39. An injunction is an appropriate remedy in this case. As evidenced by the undisputed facts to date, the Defendants are willing to allow recall proceedings under Michigan law to proceed against a Member of Congress in violation of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is necessary in order to dismiss or discontinue these unlawful recall proceedings.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carr is currently gathering signatures on the Petition with the intention of filing the Petition with the appropriate filing official.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction precluding Defendant James R. Carr (and all persons in active concert or participation with Mr. Carr): (a) from taking the next step in the recall process under Michigan law, that is, filing the Petition with the appropriate election official; and (b) once this Court determines that a Member of Congress is not subject to recall, then from taking any further action to recall the Plaintiff as a Member of Congress.
COUNT III - MANDAMUS
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs.

42. Pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the recall provisions under Michigan law are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress.
43. Once it received the Petition, the Commission had a clear legal duty to discontinue or dismiss these proceedings because a Member of Congress is not subject to recall.
44. The Plaintiff has a clear legal right to a discharge of this duty by the Commission.
45. The correct decision by the Commission, that is, to dismiss or discontinue these proceedings, is a ministerial act because the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.
46. A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this case: In Wayne County v State Treasurer, 105 Mich App 249, 251; 306 NW2d 468 (1981), the Court of Appeals outlined the well-known standard applicable to mandamus actions:
"Generally, mandamus lies only where there exists a clear legal duty incumbent upon the defendant and a clear legal right in the plaintiff to the discharge of such duty. The legal duty must usually be a specific act of a ministerial nature, although occasionally mandamus will lie though the act sought to be compelled is discretionary."
In the present case: (1) the Commission has a clear legal duty to comply with the United States Constitution; (2) the Plaintiff has a clear legal right to the discharge of this duty; and (3) this legal duty is ministerial in nature. Accordingly, the elements for a writ of mandamus are satisfied in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing that the Commission dismiss or discontinue all proceedings relating to the Petition, and to not take action with respect to any future recall petition filed against a Member of Congress.

COUNT IV - INJUNCTION - DEFENDANT COMMISSION
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs.
48. Pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the recall provisions under Michigan law are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress.
49. Nonetheless, instead of dismissing or discontinuing these proceedings, on August 6, 2007 the Commission determined that the Petition satisfied the clarity requirements pursuant to Michigan law, thereby continuing recall proceedings under Michigan law which violate the United States Constitution.
50. Given the nature of the Plaintiffs injury, there is no adequate remedy at law.
51. An injunction is an appropriate remedy in this case. As evidenced by the undisputed facts to date, the Defendants are willing to allow recall proceedings under Michigan law to proceed against a Member of Congress in violation of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiff is necessary in order to dismiss or discontinue these unlawful recall proceedings.
WHEREFORE, because a Member of Congress is not subject to recall, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to direct the Commission to rescind any action that it has taken with respect to the Petition, to dismiss or discontinue any proceedings whatsoever relating to the Petition, and to not take any action with respect to any future recall petition filed against a Member of Congress. COUNT V * APPEAL OF CLARITY DETERMINATION UNDER MICHIGAN LAW
52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs.
10

53. As illustrated by the earlier counts of this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks equitable relief from this Court to declare that pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause, the recall provisions under Michigan law are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress, and relief related to the foregoing. Consequently, this Count V of this Complaint addresses only the Michigan law aspects of these proceedings which should never be reached since the Petition should have already been invalidated and the recall proceedings dismissed by operation of one or all of the previous four counts to this Complaint.
54. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Plaintiff has expressly objected to the Michigan recall proceedings against the Plaintiff as being in violation of the United States Constitution; however, even if a Member of Congress were subject to recall, the recall language in the Petition is insufficient pursuant to Michigan law. See Attachment C.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court reverse and overrule the sole determination made by the Commission in this matter (which was as to the clarity of the Petition), and declare that the Petition does not contain a sufficient statement of the reason for recall under Michigan law and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of Michigan law even assuming that a Member of Congress were subject to recall.
Respectfully submitted,

FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH. P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 15, 2007 By:
Eric E. DosterfP41782) 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933-2193 517-371-8100
S:\266\Doster\Walberg\Complaint. wpd
11

Any lawyers out their to make sense out of this?

Labels: Recall, Tim Walberg

At a town hall event in Adrian Township last night, Congressman Tim Walberg received this coverage from the Daily Telegram on his views on health care.

Health care was foremost on the mind of several people at the meeting. Lenawee County Commissioner Ralph Tillotson told of the differences in the cost of his medical procedure and the same procedure with another man.

“It is a very big problem,” Tillotson said. “I have Blue Cross and they negotiated the cost of my surgery down to $40,000. But Keith Brown, who has no coverage and had the same surgery, is charged $80,000. He’s going to be paying for the rest of his life. There doesn’t seem to be any negotiations. The privately insured have no bargaining power.”

Walberg said the U.S. is faced with two choices for medical care. One is socialized medicine and the other is free market concept.

“I like the idea of associated health plans as opposed to one insurer — the government,” he said. “Competition has to be brought back to health care.”

I'll say that since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quotes. Still, I think it'd be worth it to look closely at this.

First, Ralph Tillotson came to Walberg to speak about the price discrepancy between those with insurance and those without. Walberg's response? From the looks of it, he avoids the question, because he doesn't have an answer. His only thought is that we need to embrace the free market.

No surprise, really. Remember this exchange from the debate last fall?

Do Americans have a right to universal health care?
Walberg
- "Absolutely not. It's not a right, it's an opportunity we have."
- Get rid of third-party pay system [Note: get rid of insurance companies?], encourage personal responsibility.
- Tort reform-- fewer lawsuits
- America has the greatest health care known to the world

Congressman Walberg seems to be a strong believer in the "on-your-own society," so of course he won't support universal health care coverage. That isn't the story today.

No, far more interesting is this part of the Telegram article:

Walberg said the U.S. is faced with two choices for medical care. One is socialized medicine and the other is free market concept.

“I like the idea of associated health plans as opposed to one insurer — the government,” he said. “Competition has to be brought back to health care.”

Anyone else see the flaw in that?

Walberg sees the issue as a choice between two opposites-- socialism or capitalism. And that would be accurate, if it weren't for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' care, military care, and government employees. Those that benefit from any of the programs I just listed are already recipients of that socialized medicine that Walberg criticizes. In fact, 44.6 percent of health care costs are already paid by the United States government (versus 69.9 percent in Canada or 85.7 percent in the UK).

Does that mean the US has gone socialist without anyone noticing? No, though Tim Walberg might say so. It means that the proper solution might just be a blend of public and private health coverage. That's the competition built into our system, which Walberg ought to embrace.

Unlike Congressman Walberg, however, I can answer Ralph Tillotson's concerns.

“It is a very big problem,” Tillotson said. “I have Blue Cross and they negotiated the cost of my surgery down to $40,000. But Keith Brown, who has no coverage and had the same surgery, is charged $80,000. He’s going to be paying for the rest of his life. There doesn’t seem to be any negotiations. The privately insured have no bargaining power.”

Tillotson was absolutely right about not having bargaining power, though I think he meant if you don't have insurance, not the privately insured. The difference between the United States and other industrialized countries is that we don't have price controls, a phrase which probably gives Tim Walberg nightmares. Other nations have recognized that government involvement is sometimes necessary to prevent undue cost inflation.

Price controls are a tough pill to swallow, I admit. But for those with coverage, and for those with government-supported coverage, it would certainly be reasonable to negotiate lower prices, right?

Not according to Tim Walberg. He voted No on allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

Mr. Tillotson, you took your concerns to the wrong person. Congressman Walberg has made it clear that he's not interested in lowering medical costs. Instead, he'd rather live in a fictitious world where socialists are plotting to give you free medicine, and cast himself as a defender of free markets.

Walberg is also hoping you don't notice that he's a recipient of that socialized medicine. His government health insurance and pension will keep him healthy for decades to come, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Labels: Constituent Services, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(Cross-posted from To Play the King.)

The Battle Creek Enquirer's Susan J. Demas hits the nail on the head with her column from today, "Schauer should sit this one out."No one questions Senator Schauer's abilities as a state legislator. That's not the issue. The issue is where he can best serve us, and that's in the Michigan Senate. Some highlights from the column:

Yes, everyone was shocked, shocked this month to learn Mr. Schauer wants to go to Washington. Ever since former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz fell to Tim Walberg in last summer’s bloody GOP primary, Dems have sounded an anguished cry: “If only Mark had run.”
Maybe that’s why his political machine didn’t do battle for Sharon Renier, the ne’er-d-well turkey farmer who last fall came within four points of beating Walberg anyway. …
Michigan is facing its worst crisis in history, between the hemorrhaging auto industry, embarrassingly low college-graduation rates and a state government that lacks the dough to keep the lights on. Schauer can’t possibly accomplish more for the state as a freshman congressman — one out of 435 — than as minority leader of Michigan’s upper chamber. He’s Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s go-to guy and the Dems’ strongest voice on budget matters.

Demas' column reinforces the view of one very astute commenter at To Play the King. I'm reposting it virtually in its entirety here:

We need Senator Schauer doing the good work he’s doing in the Senate. When he’s there, good things happen (or bad things--like censorship--stop). When he’s not there, we lose our leader.

Case in point: Schauer has taken Senate Republicans to task for not getting the job done. A few days ago, he held a press conference to raise hell, and raise hell he did. “My caucus members are sick and tired of being part of a do-nothing Senate.” Well said and good job, Senator.

That’s why we need him in Lansing. But now, Republican partisans are taking him to task for leaving the country for an Israel trip. They note Granholm press secretary Liz Boyd’s statement that "Every day the Legislature is on vacation and not working on the budget hurts the state.”

Schauer should have stayed in Lansing in his office, demonstrated how hard Democrats are working and continued to fire away at the irresponsible, let’s-take-a-break legislators. Instead, he went to Israel and undercut the governor’s message. He’s allowed the Republicans to say, “Well, Mark, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You weren't here either.”

Senator Schauer should be in Michigan giving the Republicans hell, not in Israel giving them a pass. I think your concerns about a Schauer congressional run are well
founded. He should focus on the task at hand and spread the Democratic love. Good Democrats can’t afford distractions, neither can the state.

Jason Seagraves entered 7th Congressional District politics as a Democratic candidate in 2004. He dropped out of the race and endorsed Sharon Renier, but, feeling she wasn't as strong a candidate as was expected, he re-entered the race as the Green Party nominee. He received 1.3 percent of the vote.

Seagraves wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in today's Daily Telegram, sharing his thoughts on Congressman Tim Walberg and the recall effort. In it, he is... harsh. Well, read it for yourself:

To the editor,

Our esteemed congressman, Rev. Tim Walberg, is opposing an effort to recall him from office, not because he has done an adequate job as our representative, but because he says the recall is “unconstitutional.” His reasoning is that since the Constitution does not lay out a process for recalling congressmen, then it can’t be legal. This is the philosophy of the mullahs in Iran, wherein everything not expressly legal by state decree is therefore prohibited. While Walberg may prefer to inhabit the dystopian religious dictatorship of his own mind, fortunately, the rest of us still get to live in the United States.

Rev. Walberg considers himself a “constitutionalist,” but apparently he’s never read the Tenth Amendment — my guess is that he stopped at No. 2. The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The state of Michigan has made its own laws for recalling congressmen, just as it has its own laws for administering elections. I thought conservatives like Walberg were for “states’ rights”?

The truth, of course, is that Walberg is no more a “constitutionalist” or a “conservative” than George W. Bush, or for that matter, Ted Kennedy. Walberg is a career politician, a welfarist parasite who’s been feeding at the government trough for the better part of 30 years. Like all career politicians, he puts his own ambition ahead of country, party, ideology, and especially the Constitution. In Walberg’s world, anything not expressly prohibited to the government by the Constitution is legal — and if those few remaining restrictions are inconvenient, then the Constitution can simply be ignored.

Removing Walberg from office will happen soon enough. If the recall is unsuccessful, then he will surely be ousted in the 2008 election. The following January, when we have a new congressperson aligned with President Hillary Clinton and Madam Speaker Pelosi, the “conservatives” of Lenawee County and the rest of the 7th District can blame themselves for supporting unprincipled self-aggrandizers like Rev. Walberg, who wrap themselves in the flag but desecrate the Constitution at every turn.

Jason Seagraves

Adrian

In other news, Tim Walberg filed a lawsuit to stop the recall. I'll have more when I get permission to share the text.

Labels: Jason Seagraves, Recall, Tim Walberg

(Cross-posted from "To Play the King" at http://toplaytheking.blogspot.com)

I’ve been giving more thought to the recent news that state Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) is considering entering the primary for the nomination against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Here’s why:

Mark, you were elected to lead our party in the Senate for the next four years. That’s where we need you. The governor has laid out an ambitious plan to rescue our state from an economic depression. The other side holds the majority in the Senate and is more interested in obstructing and pandering than getting the job done. We need to hold their feet to the fire until they help approve the necessary revenues to get the job done, and after that to make sure they don’t succeed in obstructing good policies. The pressure applied by the governor’s office, public opinion and Schauer is finally yielding results. Bishop acknowledged today that a tax increase is “inevitable.” That’s progress.

We expect our legislative leaders to do two things: 1) speak for the caucus and make sure the group votes together, 2) lay the groundwork, do the fundraising and campaigning to gain/retain a majority in the next election.

So far, Schauer has done a respectable job in the first area. We also need him there for the second one. We need to retake the Senate in 2010. It is essential that we have control of legislative and congressional redistricting, and we need the Senate to do that.

To retake the Senate, we have a good shot in 2010, if someone can lead us there. At 17-21, we are only two seats away from gaining control (with a Democratic lieutenant governor breaking the tie). But we make this achievement much less likely if our leader is absent from his post when he should be leading the charge.Why do I say this? Let’s look at how House Democrats languished in the minority until they had a leader who put her ambitions aside.

At a 52-58 disadvantage in 2001, the House Dems elected Kwame Kilpatrick as their leader. But by year’s end he was gone after a successful run for mayor of Detroit. As his mid-term replacement, they chose Buzz Thomas. But instead of focusing his efforts on returning the House Democrats to majority, Thomas (like Kilpatrick) had other plans. He was running for the Senate and gaining a House Democratic majority fell a few places on his to-do list. What was the result? In 2002, Democrats lost another three seats, falling to a 61-49 disadvantage, their worst working arrangement since the Great Depression.

How could this happen? Simple. House Democratic leaders weren’t focused on getting a majority.But after 2002 along came Dianne Byrum as House Democratic leader. Other than seeking reelection to the House (which wasn't in question), she remained focused on helping her caucus. In 2004, under Byrum’s leadership, they retook those the three seats they lost in 2002, bringing themselves back to three seats shy of majority, 52-58. Byrum was term limited in 2006, yet continued to lead the Democrats campaign efforts. With a well-coordinated effort in 2006, Byrum’s work yielded success: a three-seat majority, the first time in 10 years Democrats controlled either legislative chamber.

Now, consider what Schauer would have to do as a congressional candidate: Fly out to Washington all the time for endorsement meetings, strategy meetings and fundraisers. He’d also be driving all over the rural seven-county district, leaving a lot of Senate Democratic business unattended to. In other words: With the Democrats rudderless, Senate Republicans would haveno check on their power and our efforts to retake the majority would fail again.

From another angle: If Schauer had the good fortune to win, a special election would be held, most likely to be won by a Republican (they get their people to the polls in low-turnout elections). We’d be back to a 16-22 disadvantage, now three seats short of a majority (assuming there’s a Democratic lieutenant governor).

We need good Democratic leadership in the Senate. We need to help the governor get her agenda through. We need to get back more seats. We need to keep the out-of-control Republicans in check. To do that, we need not unstable and distracted leadership, but stable and focused leadership.

Mark, I’m not saying you’d be a bad congressman, I just think we need you to “right” the ship that is the Senate. Help us now, and we’ll remember that down the line when it’s time for Congress.

UPDATE by Fitzy: And, a welcome to the newest Walberg Watch blogger, Francis Pepper! As the comments have shown thus far, I have no doubt his posts will spark some great discussions!

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Former Adrian mayor and former state Senator Jim Berryman wrote a letter to the editor in the Adrian Daily Telegram today. In it, he expresses his opposition to the recall effort being led by James Carr.

Berryman, of course, is a candidate for the Democratic nomination and hopes to oppose Walberg next November. Here's the letter:

To the editor,

I have been approached many times over the past few weeks and asked how I felt about the recall attempt on Mr. Walberg. I feel very strongly that the recall is misplaced energy. If the gentleman from Jackson who has initiated the recall was sincerely upset with the voting record of Mr. Walberg, then he should direct his energies toward the 2008 election.

I too agree, that Mr. Walberg’s votes do not reflect the majority of the district that he represents. But, it does not rise to the level that deserves the efforts of a recall election. If the citizens of the 7th District do not agree with the representation they are receiving from Mr. Walberg, then they have an opportunity to make a change in the 2008 election.

It doesn’t seem to make a difference which political party you associate yourself with, either way, once they get there (Washington D.C.) they seem to have an agenda of their own, or should I say an agenda that truly does not reflect the people they are supposed to represent.

I am very proud to call myself a Democrat, but it seems to me that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed to listen to the people back home. It seems, at least to me, that the “far left” and the “extreme right” have an agenda that does not represent the majority of us in the middle. There are many of us feel that we have no party, no direction and no faith that it is going to get any better.

If the gentleman from Jackson believes that Mr. Walberg has failed to adequately represent the people that live in the 7th District, then I would encourage him to file petitions and run against him in the next election, that is what I intend to do.

Jim Berryman

Adrian

A few things I noticed. First, it's no big deal that Berryman has come out against the recall, and I expect the other candidates or potential candidates will probably do the same or remain silent on it. They're not going to endorse a tactic that could be used against them in a few years, and vocally supporting the recall detracts from a candidate's primary message-- that he or she is the best person to represent the district. In other words, for a candidate, it can't be all about Walberg. They have to sell themselves to the public, too.

Of course, Berryman coming out against the recall helps Jim Carr, too. Carr has maintained from the start that his recall effort is a grassroots campaign without the support of any party apparatus. If a host of Democrats came out and endorsed the recall, it would undercut that position. Berryman's opposition reinforces Carr's image as a grassroots crusader.

But the most interesting part of this letter has nothing to do with the recall. Re-read this part:

It doesn’t seem to make a difference which political party you associate yourself with, either way, once they get there (Washington D.C.) they seem to have an agenda of their own, or should I say an agenda that truly does not reflect the people they are supposed to represent.

I am very proud to call myself a Democrat, but it seems to me that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed to listen to the people back home. It seems, at least to me, that the “far left” and the “extreme right” have an agenda that does not represent the majority of us in the middle. There are many of us feel that we have no party, no direction and no faith that it is going to get any better.

These two paragraphs are filled with so much that I'm not sure where to begin.

For starters, remember that Berryman writes: "I am very proud to call myself a Democrat." That's important. As has been reported elsewhere, the Pew Research Center found that Democrats lead Republicans nationally in partisan self-identification. Fifty percent of respondents consider themselves Democrats, while just 35 percent consider themselves Republicans. I don't know what the numbers are for this district, but the "Democratic brand" is doing well.

However, Berryman doesn't just label himself as a Democrat. He labels himself as a moderate and an outsider. One more time, that last bit:

I am very proud to call myself a Democrat, but it seems to me that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed to listen to the people back home. It seems, at least to me, that the “far left” and the “extreme right” have an agenda that does not represent the majority of us in the middle. There are many of us feel that we have no party, no direction and no faith that it is going to get any better.

(Emphasis added.)

You know who that sounds like, right? Joe Schwarz:

I am the political equivalent of a woolly mammoth, a rarity heading for extinction. Yes, I'm a moderate.

Our plight today is dire. Even though more than half of all American voters consider themselves centrists, the Republican and Democratic parties are finding themselves controlled to an ever-greater extent by their more extreme elements. On the Republican side, the "religious right," the quasi-theocrats, are infiltrating the party power structure quite effectively. On the left, the moneyed Eastern establishment and California liberals shrilly tell Americans that the sky is falling, that the world hates us and that Republican policies are all wrong. Yet they offer no viable alternatives. As a result, they have managed to alienate much of the traditional working-class Democratic base, good people caught between Republicans they don't like and Democrats who have abandoned them. What's a moderate to do?

Former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz wrote that last September, a little over a month after losing the Republican nomination to Tim Walberg. Schwarz claimed to represent the voiceless middle, the same claim Berryman implies in his letter.

Will Berryman's appeal to disaffected Schwarz Republicans work? He could certainly pull it off. He's a moderate from a conservative corner of the district, has a friendship with Joe Schwarz, and has a rivalry with Tim Walberg from long before Schwarz was smeared by his Club for Growth friends.

Of course, it's tough to predict an entire campaign strategy from one letter to the editor. But from where I sit, I think it could be a winning message.

Labels: Jim Berryman, Joe Schwarz, Moderate Republicans, Recall, Tim Walberg

Congressman Tim Walberg has been a vocal supporter of President Bush's failed strategy in Iraq, and his views of Iraq have gotten him in trouble from time to time.

I certainly hope that everyone is aware of the human cost of the war in Iraq-- 3,699 American soldiers killed as of today-- but there are other resources that have been wasted on the endeavor as well. What could we have achieved if we had focused those resources on more constructive projects?

The National Priorities Project issued a report answering that question, with a breakdown by state and congressional district. Here are the numbers:

The war in Iraq has cost Michigan's 7th Congressional District $804.85 million. How else could that money have been spent?

From just this district, 137,528 children could have been provided with health care for the entire length of the war.

Or, 6,488 affordable housing units could have been built.

Or, 72 elementary schools could have been built.

But remember, as James Carr has pointed out in the recall effort, the funds that have been spent on this war were not supported by actual tax dollars-- it's borrowed money, placed on the "national credit card." We'll be paying this off for decades to come, and yet we won't have those elementary schools or housing units. Instead, we have a crippled country in a volatile region of the world.

Tim Walberg would never dream of voting to fund children's health care or affordable housing or building schools. He's an anti-tax advocate and fiscal conservative. And yet, here he is, proudly standing with President Bush and voting to continue the war.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Apparently there's a robocall going around announcing that Congressman Tim Walberg will be in Tecumseh tomorrow, August 15, at Cal Zorn Park on Russell Road, 6 to 7 PM. (My source didn't sound sure on the time, so you might want to contact a district office if you're planning to attend.)

Stop by, enjoy the great outdoors in one of Tecumseh's largest parks, and ask Congressman Walberg some tough questions.

Also, for your reading pleasure, here's a letter to the editor that appeared in the Battle Creek Enquirer. I enjoyed it, so maybe you will too.

I think Tim Walberg must have had a very easy childhood. Apparently his mother, or anyone else for that matter, never explained to him that he can't have his cake and eat it too.

In a recent press release available on his Web site, Congressman Walberg "secured" funding ($500,000) for the Battle Creek airport in a transportation bill. The congressman must have thought, "Wow! What a nice cake to present to Calhoun County. Maybe they will vote for me the next time around."

Then Mr. Walberg must have thought, "Oh shoot! I need to be tough on government spending or else budget hawks in my district will throw me out as quickly as they threw out Joe Schwarz!"

Then perhaps he called his district aide, Chris Simmons, and asked, "Help Chris! I don't know what to do." Chris must have replied, "No need to worry representative. You can say that you support the funding, then vote against it. I do similar stuff on my radio show all the time!"

The congressman may have then replied, "Great idea, Chris! If anybody calls us out, we'll just blame the Battle Creek Enquirer for not being fair like we always do."

And so began the latest escapade with the Battle Creek Enquirer after they simply told Mr. Walberg that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Perhaps Congressman Walberg always got two cakes for his birthday - must be nice to live by a double standard.

Scott Brown,

Albion

UPDATE: In addition to being in Tecumseh tonight, Congressman Walberg will be in Adrian Township.

ADRIAN TWP. — U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, will host a town hall meeting from 8 to 9 p.m. today at Adrian Township Hall, 2907 Tipton Highway. According to a news release from Walberg’s office, the congressman will take questions and listen to constituents’ concerns.

Labels: Budget, Constituent Services, Tim Walberg

The effort to recall Congressman Tim Walberg continues with the launch of RecallWalberg.com. From the website:

Welcome to the Recall Tim Walberg web page! Recall efforts began in July 2007 after close examination of Representative Walberg’s voting record and comments regarding the war in Iraq including his continued behavior of ignoring the voice of many people in the Michigan 7th Congressional District. Representative Walberg unconditionally supports the war in Iraq while refusing to pass a tax to pay for it. He has contributed to the deficit by his vote in favor of the war, which in turn directly contributes to the economic burden Michigan residents continue to experience each day.

Since March 20. 2003, our nation has spent and continues to spend an amount in excess of $451 billion dollars, none of which has been funded by taxes. The use of the nation's credit to fund this expense transfers this burden to future taxpayers, many of whom have not reached the legal voting age. The children and families of the 7th district deserve better representation.

The website includes contact information if you'd like to join the effort or give your feedback.

Labels: Iraq, National Debt, Recall, Tim Walberg

One year and three days ago, Timothy Walberg defeated the well-respected incumbent Congressman Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary. One year ago today, the blog Walberg Watch was started.

This post won't be about Tim Walberg and it won't be about the people who hope to defeat him next year, though I promise there will be plenty of posts about those subjects in the future. Instead, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the last year, and take a deep breath before beginning the next one.

I started Walberg Watch because I was worried that the 7th District would go completely unnoticed by the world, and that Tim Walberg would walk to an easy victory. I certainly don't claim any credit for the attention the 2006 race received-- Tim Walberg's radical positions and statements led to that-- but I am proud of the website I built.

Since August 11, 2006, there have been 240 posts (including this one) and more comments than I can count.

Walberg Watch has inspired others to start their own congressional watch blogs (though, to be fair, the 4th and 9th district blogs came first).

The blog has expanded from one person-- some guy called Fitzy-- to five contributors reflecting a variety of backgrounds. Don't ever think that this is a one-man show, just because I post the most often. There's more going on backstage.

There have been dozens of incredible, insightful comments made by readers. You all have educated us, pointed out important inconsistencies or events we might have otherwise missed, and critiqued the arguments made on this blog. What's more, you've done so in a civil manner-- rare on so many blogs-- that contributes to the quality of this website's content.

Reporters from multiple newspapers have contacted Walberg Watch, and the blog was featured on the front page of the Jackson Citizen Patriot.

I have spoken with or been in e-mail contact with three announced Democratic challengers, their campaign managers, and individuals at a variety of levels of state and national government and in the Democratic Party.

Setting aside all modesty, I'll even go so far as to say that Walberg Watch has become a trusted source for information on Michigan's 7th Congressional District, its representative, its candidates, and the day-to-day events of election campaigning.

And, last night, on the eve of this anniversary, Walberg Watch received its 20,000th visit. Here's the screen shot of the Site Meter statistics:


And traffic is trending upward. After just 176 visitors in August 2006, July 2007 saw the most visits to date-- 2,665. August 2007 is already on track to beat it.

Folks, I'm happy today. Yes, Tim Walberg is still in office, and yes, it'll still take a lot of hard work to defeat him. But after a year of blogging the adventures of the 7th District, I feel good about what we've done and where we're headed.

So, I'm going to relax today and leap back into blogging tomorrow. Share your thoughts in the comments. Want to see anything new on the blog? Candidate interviews? (We're working on that, but got a little sidetracked.) Video? Podcasts, even? Let us know.

Labels: Netroots

The Hill is the insider newspaper of Washington, DC. It gets all the DC gossip and inside news, and has a special blog on its website for members of Congress.

Yesterday, it featured an article on the effort to recall Congressman Tim Walberg.

Activists in Michigan are trying to recall Rep. Tim Walberg (R) for his support of the Iraq war, but the effort is destined to be a symbolic one with no authority to actually remove Walberg from office, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) attorney.

And

No member of Congress has ever been recalled, and the U.S. Constitution does not allow for it, said CRS attorney Jack Maskell, who in 2003 drafted a report on recalling members of Congress.

And

According to Maskell’s report, the framers of the Constitution considered a recall provision during the drafting stage in 1787 but decided against it. In 1807, a Senate Committee found that the Constitution “has not authorized the constituent body to recall in any case its representative.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on recalling members of Congress, but its casework makes it clear that states may not change the terms of office for federal officials, the report says.

In Burton v. United States, the court ruled that the only way the Constitution allows for removal of a member of Congress is by term expiration, by death, or by expulsion, which requires a two-thirds majority of the respective chamber.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton holds that states do not have broad authority to institute term limits or change qualifications or length of terms for members of Congress.

I covered a lot of these arguments in a post here. There's certainly a case against being able to recall a member of Congress. However, with the conservative outlook of the current Supreme Court, a case brought to them today might (ironically for Walberg) result in a ruling supporting the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.

With the difficult task of getting over 50,000 signatures, then the difficult task of winning a recall election, and then the inevitable court challenges, there's probably a very low chance that this recall effort will actually result in Walberg leaving Congress. But to the political junkies like me, watching the process-- and getting a definitive answer on the recall question from the Supreme Court-- would be kind of fun.

And you have to wonder how frightened Walberg might be of a recall election if he's trying to fight it before the petitions have even gone out. Is this a battle he thinks he might lose?

Labels: Constitution, Recall, Tim Walberg

It looks like Walberg Watch isn't the only blog in town anymore... Congressman Tim Walberg has started his own official blog!

So far, it looks like it's mostly the same recycled talking points and links to his op-ed pieces, but maybe he'll include some legitimate posts someday. Anyway, head on over and comment away. I'll warn you, though, that it looks like the comments are moderated and filtered by Walberg staffers.

Be civil, everyone. We can disagree and debate with kindness and respect.

By the way, here's the comment I left on his first post, which is currently awaiting moderation:

1. Fitzy Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
   August 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

   Welcome to the blogosphere, Congressman Walberg! Although I disagree with you on nearly everything, it’s good to see public officials embracing the internet as a way to communicate with their constituents.

Labels: Netroots, Tim Walberg

Since Senator Schauer hasn't announced whether or not he'll run for Congress, I thought I'd post samples of the two most common and most compelling cases for and against a Mark Schauer candidacy that I've heard.

I'll preface this with two statements and explanations of each.

I like Mark Schauer.

Senator Schauer, I think, has been a phenomenal leader in the state Senate, despite being shut out of just about everything by Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Schauer's been reaching out to bloggers like me, campaigned hard for Democrats across the state, and has represented Calhoun County well. Schauer would be a great addition to the race, and he'd run a fantastic campaign.

I like Jim Berryman, David Nacht, and Sharon Renier, too.

The other three announced Democrats are all great candidates, too. They're smart, dedicated people who would be more than willing to work hard to defeat Tim Walberg in 2008, and they'd work hard for our district in Washington (unlike Congressman Walberg, who's more interested in the Club for Growth's agenda). I'm absolutely satisfied with the three candidates we have. I'm undecided for the Democratic primary, but I'd gladly vote for any of them in the general election.

With that out of the way...

Mark Schauer should run for Congress.

From the comments:

Ken said...

Schauer is the complete package as far as I am concerned:
1) Progressive
2) Smart
3) Politically Savvy
4) Willing to stand on principle
5) Established Base -- His Senate District is wholly contained within the Congressional District
6) Proven vote getter -- won three times in a 50/50 House seat, twice in a leaning Repub. Senate Seat.
7) Proven Fundraiser -- raised over $6 million for the Senate Dems last cycle.

We should do everything we can to encourage him to run. Spread the word in the online community, and talk it up in the broader political community. Let Schauer, and the "powers that be" know, that we, in the online community, are ready to help win this and help in a big way.

Mark Schauer should not run for Congress.

From an e-mail I received, which also appeared as a comment on a Battle Creek Enquirer story:

We need to calm down a little about this one.

While it would be great if Senator Schauer ran, it would also be bad for these reasons:

1) Schauer would have to vacate (or spend much less time at) his post as Senate Democratic leader, leaving us rudderless in the Senate when he's needed most.

2) If Senator Schauer were to beat Walberg, that would create a vacancy in his Senate seat. At least temporarily, that gives Republicans a larger majority in the State Senate.

3) Worse, there would have to be a special election for his senatorial seat. The sad truth is that Right to Life and conservative zealots are much more effective about getting their core people to the polls during special elections. Given that he holds a Republican seat, it is more than likely that a Republican will regain that seat in the special election. Since it would be less than half a term (4 years) until the next election – 2010 – that Republican could run for reelection in 2010 and 2014. You would have Republican control of the seat for almost 10 years!

I say this not to take a shot at Schauer. But we need to slow down a second before the "Run Mark Run" hysteria takes control of our reason. There are two impressive candidates in the field already.

Now, I don't make the claim that either of these are necessarily the complete arguments for each position, and neither comment on his merits as a candidate for Congress. Rather, this seems to be representative of reasons why he should or should not run for Congress.

There's a poll on the Enquirer's website, if you'd like to voice your opinion to a larger audience.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, David Nacht, Democratic Party, Jim Berryman, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

State Senator Mark Schauer, a Battle Creek Democrat, was mentioned quite a bit last fall and early this year as a potential candidate for Congress in the 7th District. He's been a fantastic party leader in the legislature, supporting the netroots and working to solve the Michigan budget crisis. His name was even tossed around by supporters of Joe Schwarz in 2006 as a reason not to vote for Tim Walberg, suggesting that Walberg in 2006 would inevitably lead to a Schauer victory in 2008.

Schauer and his staff quashed most speculation this spring, promising to stay on as leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate until the end of his term in 2010. Most observers-- including Jack Lessenberry-- thought he would have been a formidable candidate, but Schauer seemed determined to sit this election out.

But all of that might be changing.

Starting last night, I started hearing rumors that Schauer might be reconsidering his previous decision. Then the subscription-only MIRS News service reported that Schauer would contact Jim Berryman and David Nacht sometime today to let them know whether or not he would "seriously consider" running in 2008. Then the AP picked it up:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, may challenge U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in the 2008 election after brushing off earlier overtures to enter the race.

Schauer, who had pledged to Senate Democrats to serve out his full four-year term through 2010, said Wednesday he is discussing a bid for Congress with family, colleagues and constituents before making a "final decision."

"I would bring the same commonsense, results-oriented approach to this role as I have to my entire career in public service," Schauer, 45, said in a statement.

Schauer said it had become "painfully clear that Tim Walberg cares more about what's best for Republican leadership in Washington than what's best for Michigan's 7th district."

[...]

Former Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Battle Creek, said Wednesday he spoke to Schauer earlier in the day and the state senator told him "he was looking at" the congressional race. Schwarz said Schauer did not indicate when he would make a final decision.

Schwarz, who was defeated by Walberg in last year's Republican primary, said he had not made a decision on whether he would re-seek his old congressional seat.

Schwarz, a physician, is chairing a task force on health care needs in southeast Michigan and said he would not announce any plans on the congressional race until his task force releases a report in September.

(Thanks to Michigan Liberal.)

Schauer has not announced whether or not he'll run, and likely hasn't made a final decision. As is suggested by the article above, we're now in a period where he may be watching to see what kind of support he may have. "Testing the waters," as it were.

In other words, if you want Mark Schauer to run for Congress, now would be the time to let him know about it.

This came as a big surprise to me. What are your thoughts?

UPDATE: A quick update to cover some stuff I missed the first time around. I've been sending and receiving e-mails and making phone calls all day trying to find out what's been happening.

First, Michigan Liberal's lpackard discovered that the domain schauerforcongress.com was registered on August 3rd.

Second, a sample of today's MIRS story (the article is subscription-only and, while I'll share a couple paragraphs, I don't want to post the whole thing):

Some members of the Senate Democratic caucus would give serious consideration to removing Senate Minority Leader Mark SCHAUER (D-Battle Creek) from his leadership post if he decides to run for Congress. Those members say he couldn't serve the caucus and his congressional ambitions effectively at the same time.

And

But Schauer is now revisiting that pledge based on polling from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that shows him beating U.S. Rep. Tim WALBERG (R-Tipton) in a head-to-head match-up in the 7th Congressional District by three percentage points, according to one source. Once positives and negatives are read to those polled, Schauer's margin grows to as much as eight percentage points.

Any new thoughts?

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Democratic Party, Mark Schauer

On August 8th, 2006, former state Representative Timothy Walberg defeated Congressman John "Joe" Schwarz in the Republican primary. It's been one year since Walberg defeated a well-respected, reasonable, independent-minded public servant.

Feel free to discuss your favorite Walberg moments from the last year.

Labels: Joe Schwarz, Open Thread, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

It looks like being anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-environment, and anti-abortion, Congressman Tim Walberg has found his new niche in Congress: anti-affirmative action.

Not to debate the merits of affirmative action programs (that's a controversial issue I'm not gonna touch on this blog), but it's interesting to see that Walberg's picked this as his issue to champion. And really, that's fine. Everyone needs a hobby. But it's sort of odd to see how he's decided to pursue his cause.

First was his very confusing amendment to the Department of Transportation bill, which read:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

That amendment, by the way, passed on a voice vote because, basically, no one could figure out what it would actually do.

After his apparent success with one amendment, Congressman Walberg tried again on the Defense Department appropriations bill with this amendment:

An amendment numbered 6 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective contractor.

As with the previous amendment, I'm not quite sure whether this would actually have much of an impact. However, the amendment failed, 126 to 284.

We'll see if Walberg tries again on the next bill.

Labels: 110th Congress, Affirmative Action, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

I just got an e-mail from James Carr:

The board of election commissioners of Lenawee County met at 1:10 pm this afternoon and approved the clarity of the language of the Walberg Recall Petition. Petitions are at the printer now and the recall will begin as soon as the necessary administrative tasks have been completed.

Now comes the gathering of 50,000 or so valid signatures, an incredibly difficult task. However, I've got a feeling that Carr and his supporters will attack the problem with enthusiasm. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Here's the letter to the editor that Carr sent to several area newspapers explaining his motivations:

To the editor,

As the petitioner who presented the recall petition for Congressman Tim Walberg to the Lenawee County Board of Election Commissioners, I would like to explain my motivation and purpose.

Congressman Walberg was elected with an obscene amount of campaign funds, a sizable percentage of which came from outside the 7th District. Further, he won the election with less than a majority of the votes cast in our district in November of 2006.

He had vowed, during his campaign and since, that he will oppose any increase in taxes, yet, each time that he votes for any bill in Congress that is not supported by sufficient tax dollars to pay for its enactment and promulgation, he is supporting the raising of taxes and passing that tax burden on as a tax increase on all of our citizens.

He voted against an effort to bring the troops home, thereby continuing the slaughter and maiming of one our our most important assets, our young soldiers. This conflict has been instigated and conducted without the approval of Congress, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. It has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them women and children. It has destroyed that land, its infrastructure, its industry and its economy. It is time that this insanity by our federal government be brought to a vote of the people, which is not influenced by the money of special interests.

A recall petition by a citizen is the purest form of democracy that exists in this land. It is sanctioned by the US Constitution (Amendment X) and by the laws of the State of Michigan, namely Secxtion 168.149, Act 116 of 1954, Michigan Election Law.

This petition was written by me. Neither the Republican nor Democratic parties has had any influence on this action, and nor will they. The hiring of a lawyer to confuse the election board with a sheaf of papers only delayed the inevitable, which is that a recall petition will sooner or later be approved and circulated in the 7th Congressional District of Michigan.

Finally, the irony of this effort to stymie the recall petition is that in order for such a recall to come to fruition, the signatures of at least 45,000 voters will need to be gathered. I certainly cannot do that myself and I do not intend to do so. This is the challenge of the voters of the 7th District. Do you want to continue to be represented by Congressman Walberg or do you want to effect a change in our district’s representation? If you want to change, sign the petition; if not, ignore the opportunity and continue to line up for parades for our fallen soldiers and continue to pay an excessive amount of taxes solely to fund a destructive and poorly conceived conflict far from our shores.

James R. Carr

Jackson

... And, in the interest of fairness, here's the anti-recall editorial from the Citizen Patriot:

No doubt James Carr is sincere in his desire to see U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg leave office. The Jackson resident disagrees with the congressman politically, particularly with Walberg's support for the Iraq war. Fine. Lots of folks don't agree with the congressman. But that's not reason enough to back Carr's effort to recall Walberg.

The Lenawee County elections board Monday may approve a recall petition, although Walberg's campaign maintains the Constitution should block that from happening. However that board rules, what should concern everyone is the idea of a recall in the first place. This shouldn't be about politics, but about doing right by democracy.

Since the Republican Walberg was narrowly elected in November, he has done little other than what he said he would. He is a fiscal and social conservative, and he has voted as such. He said during the campaign that he supported having U.S. troops in Iraq, and he still does.

He hasn't deceived the public. He hasn't been accused of a crime. He hasn't engaged in tawdry behavior that has disgraced his office. In all, Walberg doesn't deserve a recall effort.

Carr, who explains his recall petition on today's Opinion page, wants to put the Iraq war on the ballot. But if the war is your chief concern, you've had two chances to vote on the issue -- in 2004 and 2006. Republicans who supported the war won this area's congressional seat both times. Like it or don't, the voters had their say.

A recall raises other issues, too. Even if enough people sign the petition, a vote to oust Walberg wouldn't take place until next year. But as things stand, he will be challenged in the November 2008 election.

The congressman's critics will get their chance to give him the boot soon enough. There's no need to rush into things with an expensive recall, financed by taxpayer dollars.

As it is undeniably a Walberg-related story, I'll certainly be reporting on the progress of the recall as it moves forward.

However, just as Walberg Watch will not endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary, this blog will not take a position on the recall effort. I invite my fellow contributors and readers to share their thoughts, both for and against the effort.

UPDATE: The Battle Creek Enquirer has a poll on their website about the Walberg recall. When I checked it just before 1:30PM on August 8th, this is what the result was:

Interesting...

Labels: Recall, Tim Walberg

The House of Representatives recently addressed two related pieces of legislation. I'll cover them in one post.

First up is HR 3221, the "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act." It wins the prize for having the longest title I've seen lately, but it looks like it does a lot of good things. It's self-description:

Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

I'll admit, I haven't read the bill, but you can feel free to do so. It's 700 pages long. From a Washington Post editorial:

We've lauded the good things in this bill before. The investments in renewable energy, the incentives for manufacturers to make and for taxpayers to purchase appliances and vehicles that "push the boundaries of efficiency," and the federal government leading by example in the drive to cut carbon emissions are all good. What's especially good are the funds made available to demonstrate the commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration. The United States sits atop the world's largest reserves of coal, a chief source of greenhouse gases. Finding a way to pump and lock the heat-trapping gas underground would not only be an enormous environmental breakthrough, but it would also be a technological advance that could then be sold overseas, particularly to China, which is overtaking the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

The Post notes, however, that fuel efficiency standards are not increased, calling that omission the bill's major flaw.

HR 3221 passed, 241 to 172.

Now, will the self-proclaimed environmentalist Congressman Tim Walberg support this bill?

Well, no. Tim Walberg voted No. Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers, Joe Knollenberg, and Fred Upton joined a united Democratic delegation in support of the bill.

With that bill passed, the House then addressed HR 2776, the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007." Having passed the first bill, this one will provide the funding.

Think Tim Walberg will support this one?

Democrats moved forward with their energy tax bill (HR 2776) despite concerns from oil-state Democrats upset about treatment of the oil and gas industry. The $16.1 billion package would raise taxes on the oil and gas industry and redirect the proceeds to tax breaks for renewable energy sources; no amendments to the tax portion will be considered Saturday.

The bill passed, 221 to 189.

Tim Walberg predictably voted No. All of Michigan's Republicans opposed the second bill, while all Michigan Democrats supported it (minus Congresswoman Kilpatrick, who did not vote).

Meanwhile, as is so often the case, the White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Oil, Taxes, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

By now, you've probably heard that the House and Senate passed the "Protecting America Act of 2007," which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Depending on who you ask, this piece of legislation is either a needed fix to reflect new technology or a terrible failure on the part of Congress to stand up to the Bush Administration.

A quick review:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act grants the government various powers to spy on foreign powers and their agents in the United States. It includes emergency provisions to allow electronic surveillance-- that is, wiretapping-- without a court order, but with limitations and under the supervision of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

However, the Bush Administration ordered the National Security Agency to conduct secret, warrantless wiretapping outside the authority of FISA. Thus ensued a long debate over the constitutionality of the program, with the Bush Administration arguing that that FISA is antiquated, failing to take into account new technologies. Congress eventually passed an amendment making the NSA program illegal (which Congressman Walberg, shockingly, voted for), but the issue was never resolved.

Which brings us to this most recent bill. After Democratic versions failed, the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed a six-month "fix" that addresses the concerns of the Bush Administration.

From Congressional Quarterly:

The bill would immediately allow the administration to begin conducting warrantless surveillance of foreign targets, regardless of whether the target is communicating with someone in the United States. It would require the attorney general, in consultation with director, to write procedures on how the executive branch collects that information. Those procedures would be subjected later to the FISA court for approval. The bill would expire after six months, giving Congress a window to work out a longer-term FISA overhaul in the fall.

[...]

Others said they had concerns about the Republican legislation, but voted for it anyway.

“I’m not thrilled,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “There are some changes we need to make to make sure that American citizens are protected. But it’s a lot better than a lot of things that have been forced down this Congress’ throat right before recesses that trampled on American’s liberties.”

Still, several Democrats opposed to the Republican bill said it would endanger the civil liberties of Americans too much.

[...]

But Democrats said their bill gave the intelligence community all the tools it needs while protecting the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. “Do you want to fix the problem, or do you want it as a political issue?” asked House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 227 to 123.

Tim Walberg voted Yes. Joining him were 41 Democrats (though none from Michigan), while two Republicans voted against the bill.

Of course, no one can really claim a complete victory or a complete failure. This issue is going to come up yet again in six months.

Labels: 110th Congress, Intelligence, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record, Warrantless Wiretapping

Sorry the blog has been so quiet the last few days... It'll get a bit busier soon enough.

But since there's nothing new to read on Walberg Watch, you'll probably wander away from your computer, unsure of what you should do with your time. You might find yourself watching television, perhaps.

If that's what happens, make sure you're watching ABC's World News, and watch for their report on the YearlyKos Convention. Rumor has it that you might see Michigan blogger and Walberg Watch contributor Nirmal being interviewed.

If ABC isn't to your tastes, try NBC, where the talented Liberal Lucy might be spotted. Progressive bloggers are just popping up everywhere!

Labels: Democratic Party, Netroots

Just a quick post right now, but I hope to talk about this a lot more soon.

The House is currently debating the renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program provides health care coverage for nearly seven million American children, with better benefits than many private alternatives and at a lower cost.

I was listening to National Public Radio a little while ago, and in their story on the renewal of the program, they quoted our very own Congressman Tim Walberg. He said:

The bill is an absolute train wreck that will lead to a nanny-state government-run health care system.

You can listen to the NPR story here (the SCHIP part starts around the two-minute mark of the audio clip).

Comments?

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg