... I remain unimpressed. From the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

Tuesday morning I sat in with our paper's editorial board on a wide-ranging interview with Walberg and along with rising gas prices, the economy and healthcare, we got his take on this much-maligned vote.

His only concern was that it didn't exempt communities of faith from the hiring restrictions that other groups with Head Start classrooms must adhere to.

"It didn't allow communities of faith to hire who they wanted to hire," Walberg said. "I was called a racist several times, a bigot."

[...]

In other words, say a Baptist or a Catholic church wanted to continue to offer its Head Start program and a Muslim or "a Wiccan from a coven in Ann Arbor" wanted to apply for a job to teach there, now it couldn't discriminate based on religious grounds anymore, or vice versa.

He said he offered an amendment that would have made that change, but it didn't get any traction.

He said he doesn't oppose Head Start, but by keeping that provision in the bill, he said religious organizations might decide it's better to get rid of Head Start.

Walberg said he didn't initiate the efforts, but was contacted by people in his district that were concerned about this provision.

It would also open all of them to lawsuits, because the Wiccan, or the Catholic or the Muslim who wasn't hired, could say it was because of their religious beliefs, he said.

"You will take away programs potentially," he said. "That's a chilling effect."

First, I'd like to apologize to Chris Gautz for the amount of his post I'm quoting. I've probably exceeded "fair use" standards, but I think Walberg's full explanation is worth including here.

Next, I'd like to apologize to Congressman Walberg. Assuming that you presented your argument in the same way it is presented here, you didn't deserve to be called a bigot. That's a harsh word for what is just a political disagreement. Besides, there are better reasons for calling you a bigot than this.

But in the end, Congressman Walberg, you're absolutely wrong.

The bill to reauthorize Head Start was HR 1429, and the House floor debate can be found here. It's an interesting read, though it's worth noting that Congressman Walberg never once speaks to state his reasons for opposing the bill. After reading this, I encourage you to read the floor debate.

The problem with the explanation presented by Chris Gautz is here:

In other words, say a Baptist or a Catholic church wanted to continue to offer its Head Start program and a Muslim or "a Wiccan from a coven in Ann Arbor" wanted to apply for a job to teach there, now it couldn't discriminate based on religious grounds anymore, or vice versa.

(Emphasis added.)

Except, there is no "now" involved. Religious groups have never been allowed to discriminate the way Walberg wants to let them discriminate-- at least, not since 1972. From CivilRights.org:

Since 1972, agencies that receive government funding for Head Start â€" including religious organizations and houses of worship that host Head Start programs â€" have been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for positions within the federally-funded program. These existing non-discrimination requirements have a history of bipartisan support, and were originally signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The current anti-discrimination language was included in the 1981 Head Start reauthorization bill, signed into law by President Ronal Reagan. These same civil rights protections have been included in every Head Start reauthorization since then â€" in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. For 33 years, these fundamental non-discrimination protections have worked well, allowing thousands of Head Start programs in communities throughout the country to flourish while maintaining constitutional and civil rights safeguards against religious tests for employment in federally-funded programs.

(Emphasis added.)

That came from 2005, the last time someone tried to change the rules and allow discrimination. That attempt passed the House of Representatives, but failed to gain traction in the Senate and did not become law.

So, this isn't something new. Religious groups that run Head Start programs already operate under the nondiscrimination rules to which Walberg objects so strongly. There are already 86 faith-based Head Start programs in existence and following these rules. Walberg says:

He said he doesn't oppose Head Start, but by keeping that provision in the bill, he said religious organizations might decide it's better to get rid of Head Start.

[...]

"You will take away programs potentially," he said. "That's a chilling effect."

If there are already 86 faith-based programs that don't discriminate, do you really think they'll be so upset by the fact that they can't start discriminating that they'll get rid of Head Start?

If there are any religious groups who refuse to run Head Start programs because they can't discriminate, then they probably haven't been running Head Start programs any time in the last 36 years.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. The House majority decided to keep the same rules that have worked for decades. Even religious organizations were comfortable operating within those rules. Tim Walberg wanted to change the rules to allow discrimination.

Now, he's trying to protect himself by claiming that religious groups won't run Head Start programs anymore. Frankly, that's a pretty dumb argument.

UPDATE: See also the coverage to this given by James L. at Swing State Project.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Head Start, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

There have been two significant pre-primary endorsements, though both from out-of-district newspapers. First, the Ann Arbor News:

In the 2006 race to represent District 7 in the U.S. House of Representatives, Sharon Renier was the Democratic nominee going up against Republican Tim Walberg, who won that election. Now, Renier and state Sen. Mark Schauer are battling in the Democratic primary, with the winner taking on Walberg in November.

Schauer is by far the strongest candidate in this primary.

They also have some unkind things to say about Sharon Renier:

It's puzzling how Renier, an organic farmer from Munith, has done so well in past Democratic primaries. We can only assume it's because most voters don't have the opportunity to talk to her directly. We did, and were taken aback by her virulent hostility toward Schauer and her extremist statements. As one example, she said she fears for our nation's sovereignty because our government is secretly working to create a North American Union, similar to the European Union. That claim is the kind of conspiracy theory that gets great play on the Internet, but isn't taken seriously elsewhere - nor should it be.

Ouch. That seems... harsh.

Meanwhile, the Detroit Free Press has this to say:

District 7 (all or parts of seven counties in the south-central Lower Peninsula and the cities of Battle Creek, Jackson, Hillsdale, Coldwater, Adrian and Charlotte): State Sen. MARK SCHAUER of Battle Creek would be the strongest Democratic candidate against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, who was elected two years ago. Schauer, 46, is the Senate Democratic leader and a proven vote-getter in areas that lean Republican. He has been a thoughtful legislator, focused on protecting and creating jobs.

So far, these are the only pre-primary newspaper endorsements I know about.

Neither of these are all that unexpected, and I've got to think that these aren't endorsements Sharon Renier was really hoping to get. She's running an anti-establishment, "voice of the people" campaign that doesn't rely on traditional campaigning or endorsements from institutions like unions or newspapers. Endorsements like this reinforce the idea that Schauer is just "more of the same," as Renier claims.

At the same time, this has to hurt Renier... a lot. She's got a serious cash disadvantage, and without the ability to put out her own message, she needs free or low-cost alternatives to break through. I've already written about how she's not using the internet (though, apparently, she claims she is), and a major newspaper endorsement could boost her campaign significantly. If she can't manage any endorsements, she misses one of her few opportunities.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: 2008 Election, Democratic Party, Endorsements, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier

Bumped to the top, because this is more important than polling. -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg says this on his blog:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

(Emphasis added.)

From that, we get the impression that the patients Walberg spoke with mainly complained about having to pay for gas to get into the clinic. That's a frustrating problem, and perhaps increasing energy production could help.

There's just one problem: that's not what the patients were complaining about!

Covering the meeting, the Jackson Citizen Patriot brought us this:

Imagine having a four-hour dialysis appointment, then waiting up to three hours in the lobby, nauseated, for your ride home.

It can get tiring, especially for someone like Josephine Young of Summit Township, who has done it three times a week for nearly six years.

Young, 69, was one of a handful of patients at Jackson Dialysis, 234 W. Louis Glick Highway, who talked to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, on Tuesday about public transportation issues and the soaring price of gasoline.

Young, who uses either a wheelchair or walker, relies on Jackson Transportation Authority's Reserve-A-Ride.

[...]

``We have more than our share of transportation issues,'' Diane French, regional operations director, told Walberg.

``I don't care if it is cardiac, cancer, whatever chronic disease, public transportation is our biggest obstacle. If a patient's children tries to bring them, they may lose their job so that doesn't work either,'' said French, who oversees 15 dialysis centers between Ann Arbor and Ludington.

Jackson Transportation Authority only travels into more rural areas of the county on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, where an estimated 30 percent of Jackson Dialysis Center clients live. So those people must be scheduled those days for dialysis.

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, high gas prices aren't the problem. The problem is that patients without transportation are facing scheduling problems which are threatening proper treatment. These are patients who aren't looking for cheap gas and more oil. They're looking for more transportation options.

These are transportation options, of course, that Tim Walberg opposes.

Here's what Tim Walberg got from the meeting:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

...

Uh, Congressman? How will drilling for more oil help this problem?

Did you even bother to listen to what they had to say?

UPDATE: I got an e-mail reminding me about this from the Citizen Patriot last summer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's office sent out a press release this week that touted his work toward securing $350,000 in federal funding for the Jackson Transportation Authority.
However, the statement made no mention that Walberg actually voted against the transportation appropriations bill that included the JTA funding. The bill passed the House and will now go on to the Senate for consideration.

(Emphasis added.)

So... Congressman Walberg takes credit for helping JTA, while actually voting against it. Then, he visits people who say they want more help from JTA, only to ignore them and their needs and use them as a political tool.

Classy, Congressman.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation

Via Swing State Project, which was via Hotline, the Walberg campaign released an internal poll:

Mark Schauer (D): 31
Tim Walberg (R-inc): 47

Margin of Error +/- 5.7%, over July 8th and 9th, surveying 300 "likely voters" conducted by National Research.

I have a few thoughts on this poll.

For starters, it doesn't look good. Walberg leading by 16 points hurts. Obviously, we (meaning both the Schauer campaign and concerned voters in general) need to do a better job.

At the same time, there are some things that make me a little suspicious of whether or not this is actually the real state of the race. This is an internal poll, commissioned for Tim Walberg, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. It's not in their interest to get bad data. However, they do get to sit on it for as long as they want without showing it to the media, which they did. The poll was taken early in July, and they kept it quiet until they had a bad news cycle (with Schauer outraising Walberg again).

That means that this could be one of multiple polls they've commissioned over the last few months. It's in their interest to only release favorable polls, so they can just sit the results they're getting until they get one that looks good. It's not dishonest and it's still statistically accurate-- for those that recall their high school math classes, you know that one in twenty polls will be off by more than the margin of error. That's just statistics.

So, I don't doubt that Walberg is leading or that his campaign got that data in their poll. All I doubt is whether that's the only data they have. They probably have other polls taken other times that aren't nearly as favorable, but decided to release this one. I don't believe that Tim Walberg is leading by 16 points.

--------------------

So, I thought I posted the above last night. Apparently, Blogger disagreed, and I went to bed not knowing that it didn't show up, nor did other things I had written. Hrm.

I discovered this a few minutes ago, moments after I also discovered another internal poll in my inbox, this time conducted for the Schauer campaign. For this one, I have a little more information.

This poll was conducted by Meyers Research & Strategic Services over May 8 to 15, 2008, surveying 600 "likely voters." The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percent.

When asked about the Schauer-Walberg match-up, the poll found:

Mark Schauer (D): 37
Tim Walberg (R-inc): 40

When undecided voters were "allocated to candidates based on their self-described partisan leanings," it was:

Mark Schauer (D): 45
Tim Walberg (R-inc): 47

They also tested two other races. Incumbent Democratic Senator Carl Levin leads Republican Jack Hoogendyk by 15 percent and Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are tied in the district at 42 percent each.

Other findings, from pollster Andrew Myers:

On other key measures Walberg also proves wounded. Walberg’s re-elect is an abysmal 35 percent, with one-third of voters saying they would prefer someone new (33 percent), and perceptions of his job performance remain net negative as well, with just 34 percent saying he is doing an excellent to good job, while a plurality, 42 percent, say fair to poor.

Today, Schauer is identified by 42 percent of voters and continues to earn a better than two-to-one warm to cool ratio, 23 percent warm, favorable reviews, and 9 percent cool, unfavorable reviews. Walberg, on the other hand, remains far better known than Schauer from the start, with 74 percent able to identify him, but his warm to cool ratio is less than two-to-one, 36 percent warm, 23 percent cool.

While the contest remains generally unchanged, there is evidence that voters are ready for change. Specifically, while voters were sour to begin with in our survey in August, this electorate has soured further, and just two-in-ten voters today report that things in the United States are on the right track, while seven-in-ten say they are pretty seriously off on the wrong track.

Bottom line, this contest remains close despite Walberg’s significant expenditures on
incumbency protection, and Walberg remains critically wounded on every key measure for an incumbent. Voters appear more aligned for change today, and Schauer will have the resources to press the case come Election Day.

(Emphasis added.)

So, where does this leave us? Obviously, the same notes on the Walberg poll above apply here. The Schauer campaign sat on this until they needed it-- this time, for two-and-a-half months. As far as the actual state of the race, I'm inclined to think that it's closer to three points than sixteen. Chances are, Walberg's lead is somewhere in the five to 10 range.

But Eric at Michigan Liberal picks out the other significant finding:

I don't put a great deal of stock in polling, especially 100 days out and super especially internal polls. The story here, I think, is that not even Walberg's own internal polling has him above 50 percent, which is just not good news for him especially since he's being outraised.

(Emphasis added.)

He's right about that. An incumbent under the 50 percent has a metaphorical target painted on his back. If the national Republican Party is forced to prioritize which seats they're going to defend, they're not going to pick the guy whose own polls show him doing badly.

Now, what we really need is some independent and transparent polling. There are a lot of questions that could be asked about the candidates and the issues, and I'd love to see a county-by-county breakdown of the race. I'd do it myself, but I'm only one man!

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Mark Brewer, Poll, Tim Walberg

I'm leaving in a little while for Chicago and far more important things than politics, so posting is going to be light for a few days. To tide you over, here are a few significant items.

Fundraising

Senator Mark Schauer's pre-primary fundraising report can be found here. The numbers?

Raised (2Q+16 days): $427,714.16
Raised (Cycle-To-Date): $1,331,557.22
Contributions From Individuals: $262,844.48
Cash-On-Hand: $928,686.45

I will do a more complete post next week.

Housing

From the comments, we get a link to this story:

A sweeping housing bill passed the House yesterday that will aide people across the country trying to keep their homes, it also includes a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers and allow the Treasury department to extend a line of credit to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg voted against the bill.

Of course he did. I'll write more about that next week, too.

Iraq

From the Lansing State Journal, we get this passage from an article on Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier:

Both candidates said they oppose the Iraq war. Schauer said he would use the congressional power of the purse to change what he called a failed strategy from the Bush administration.

Renier, meanwhile, said she would demand that generals adopt her plan for Iraq and would vote to withhold funds if they don't. Pressed to reveal more details of that plan, Renier declined, saying, "If it's going to be on the front page, you might as well tell the enemy."

So... Sharon Renier has a secret plan to end the war. It's possible she was misquoted or misrepresented, but that sounds a little Nixonian to me.

Party Unity

Also from that Lansing State Journal article:

And while Schauer said he'd support Renier if he loses, Renier emphatically declined to return the favor.

"Hell no," she said when asked if she'd support Schauer against Walberg. "They're both about the same. They've not done anything for the state."

"I voted for Sharon Renier against Tim Walberg in 2006, so I have nothing against her personally," Schauer replied. "I don't think Sharon Renier knows me very well and I think she has a fundamental misunderstanding about me. I would hope she would have an open mind."

This I find troubling. Of all people, Sharon Renier should understand why almost anyone would be better than Tim Walberg.

Walberg Watch Video of the Week

For your enjoyment:



As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: Affordable Housing, Democratic Party, Environment, Fundraising, Global Warming, Iraq, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg, Video

Bumped. See update below. -- Fitzy

With the primary less than two weeks away, I thought I would briefly highlight the upcoming candidate events in the 7th District. Partly, this is to remind everyone of the nifty candidate event map now on Walberg Watch, but mostly, I wanted to let everyone know where they can find the three major-party candidates-- Walberg, Schauer, and Renier-- in the run-up to the election. There's no better way to judge a candidate than to meet him or her face to face.

That was the goal, anyway. Unfortunately, judging from their websites, the only candidate holding any events between now and the primary (August 5) is Mark Schauer.

Between now and the primary, Senator Schauer is holding seven eight town halls and one "meet and greet" with the Hillsdale Chamber of Commerce. From the Walberg Watch Calendar page (with addresses added):

July 28 - Schauer: Chelsea Town Hall (5:30pm) - Chelsea Depot, 125 Jackson St.
July 28 - Schauer: Adrian Town Hall (7:30pm) - Lenawee County Democratic Headquarters, 227 N. Winter St.
July 30 - Schauer: Brooklyn Town Hall (5:30pm) - Evelyn Bay Coffee Shop, 132 N. Main
July 30 - Schauer: Hillsdale Chamber of Commerce Meet and Greet (7:30pm) - 23 N. Manning St.
July 31 - Schauer: Saline Town Hall (5:00pm) - Saline District Library, 555 N. Maple Rd.
August 2 - Schauer: Delta Township Town Hall (5:30pm) - Delta Fire Station #1, 811 N. Canal Rd.
August 3 - Schauer: Jackson Town Hall (4:00pm) - King Recreation Center, 1107 Adrian St.
August 3 - Schauer: Dexter Town Hall (6:30pm) - Dexter Senior Center, 7720 Ann Arbor St.
August 4 - Schauer: Battle Creek Town Hall (7:30pm) - Burnham Brook Center, 200 Michigan Ave. W.

Sharon Renier's website still links to "Votestock," which was July 12, and here's what Tim Walberg's "Upcoming Events" page says:

Upcoming Events

I mean, I know that you don't have a primary opponent, Congressman Walberg, but you could at least pretend to care!

Meanwhile, Mark Schauer will be all over the district holding town hall events. These sorts of events are great, because it gives you a chance to ask about anything on your mind. Are you a Democrat who wants to know more? Come get to know the candidate! Are you a Republican and Schwarz supporter that doesn't like Walberg, but you're suspicious of Democrats? Come see if Schauer can reassure you! You can ask him anything you want!

Really, I'm a big fan of this sort of thing. I know I'll definitely be at the Lenawee County town hall.

UPDATE: I'm bumping this post back up to the top, because I really do feel that getting a chance to meet candidates is much, much more important than fundraising data. And, as if in answer to my post (though I doubt it very much), the Walberg campaign updated their "Upcoming Events" page:

Upcoming Events

07/26/2008
Chelsea Summerfest

08/07/2008
Jackson Campaign Kickoff!

Note that only the Chelsea Summerfest appearance is actually before the primary, so only it really falls under the subject of this post. He'll be in downtown Chelsea on Saturday from 2pm to 4pm.

Walberg's Jackson Campaign Kickoff, meanwhile, will be the Thursday after the primary from 7pm to 9pm. He promises ice cream, which means I may be forced to skip my other plans for that night and attend.

Meanwhile, Senator Schauer announced another town hall, which I have added to the original post above. This one will be in Battle Creek the day before the primary.


As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

Senator Schauer's pre-primary FEC report isn't on the internet yet, though I'm sure it will be by tomorrow. However, the campaign did send out this press release:

SCHAUER BREAKS OWN RECORD FOR FUNDRAISING IN 7TH DISTRICT
Congressional candidate eclipses Walberg's total haul for 2006 cycle

BATTLE CREEK—Today State Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) announced that his Congressional campaign raised more than $427,000 in the second quarter, which breaks the previous fundraising record he set earlier this year for the most money raised by a Democrat in the 7th district. Combined with the last quarter when he outraised his incumbent opponent, Schauer has now brought in more than $1.33 million and has more than $928,000 cash on hand.

"The people of south central Michigan are hungry for change and ready for a leader who will fight to turn our economy around, one job at a time," said Schauer. "I'm a strong believer in the power of grassroots organizing, and this overwhelming support will help us continue building momentum as we reach out to new voters in all seven counties of the seventh district."

In this quarter alone, the campaign collected more than 1,100 total contributions, with more than 83 percent of individual contributions from donors in Michigan. With just over 100 days to go before the general election, Schauer has now raised more than Tim Walberg brought in during the entire 2006 election cycle.

"Congressman Walberg has done nothing to improve Michigan's job climate since taking office, but we fully expect him to do whatever it takes to keep his seat in Washington," said Campaign Manager B.J. Neidhardt. "That's why it's so important for us to keep working hard to defend against the impending negative attacks from Walberg's wealthy donors."

# # #

It'll be interesting to see all the details. This really is an incredible amount of money for a challenger to be raising.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Mark Schauer

Rather than file a second quarter report with the FEC only to file again a week and a half later, both Congressman Walberg and state Senator Schauer chose to combine their reports. The following covers Tim Walberg's fundraising in the period from April 01, 2008 to July 16, 2008:

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	130352.26
(ii) Unitemized	27014.49
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	157366.75	644328.86
(b) Political Party Commitees	8902.80	8902.80
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	197172.20	535006.06
(d) The Candidate	0.00	500.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	363441.75	1188737.72
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	0.00	747.50
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	0.00	12872.89
15. Other Receipts	1482.75	5986.97
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	364924.50	1208345.08
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	114253.70	445699.68
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	0.00	0.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	0.00	2350.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	0.00	294.12
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	0.00	2644.12
21. Other Disbursements	0.00	0.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	114253.70	448343.80
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	604466.54
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	364924.50	1208345.08
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	969391.04
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	114253.70	448343.80
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	855137.34

Congressman Walberg raised $364,924.50 in the three-and-a-half months covered here. Of that, $157,366.75 came from individual donors, with the bulk of it-- $130,352.26-- coming in contributions of $200 or more. It's worth noting that over half of Walberg's receipts-- $197,172.20-- came from Political Action Committees, plus another $8,902.80 from other candidates.

For the entire election cycle, Walberg has raised a total of $1,188,737.72. After spending $114,253.70 in this period, Walberg has $855,137.34 cash-on-hand.

This period also included both NRCC chair Tom Cole's visit and the Livonia fundraiser with President George W. Bush.

Congressman Walberg's itemized receipts (over $200) can be found here. Here are some committee contributions that I found interesting:

• The Brad Smith for Congress Committee, left over from 2004, contributed $100. This was one of three contributions by that committee (the others were to a Michigan Supreme Court candidate and to the Hillsdale County Republican Party).
• Citizens United Political Victory Fund contributed $1,000. This is a right-wing group that actively and openly engages in push polls and attacks people like me as "ultra-liberal."
• CoalPAC contributed $1,500.
• Eagle Forum PAC, who stopped the ERA and are the creative minds behind "Conservapedia" and other projects, contributed $2,000.
• "Friends of John Boehner," House Minority Leader, contributed $2,000.
• Club for Growth PAC contributed $8,300.
• Midnight Sun PAC, the leadership PAC of corrupt Congressman Don Young, contributed $1,000.
• The NRCC contributed $3,500.

This is by no means a complete list, and since the deadline, Walberg has received another $4,000 from other committees.

Congressman Walberg's disbursements can be found here. For the most part, they all seem pretty straight-forward.

Overall, this was a fair quarter for Walberg. He took in $365,000, though most of that didn't come from individual donors. Unfortunately, he was out-raised once again by his leading Democratic opponent. That always bodes badly for an incumbent congressman.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Tim Walberg

In case anyone's looking for a different perspective, I thought I'd give a link to a relatively new blog I just discovered, which argues in favor of Congressman Tim Walberg: Walberg Country.

Thus far, it looks like it's fairly well-written and doesn't take the provocative stance other blogs take. There's no information given on who's behind it or how to contact him or her, but that's fine, too. I don't expect to agree with much of anything written there, but it'll certainly be worth following as we approach November.

Labels: Netroots, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

Big news today:

Patriot Majority, an independent progressive organization, will run a "multi-million dollar" television campaign against Republican congressmen and senators in the coming months -- an effort that begins today in Michigan's 7th district.

Craig Varoga, who managed former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's failed presidential bid earlier this cycle and is the president of Patriot Majority, called the ad against Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) the "first wave" of television ads that would be "airing ... over an extended period of time."

The group's first foray into the 2008 campaign, which is entirely funded by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, comes in the southern Michigan seat that Walberg, a conservative former state representative, won in 2006 by ousting Rep. Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary. Walberg faces a stiff challenge in the fall from highly regarded state Sen. Mark Schauer (D).

The ad, which you can watch below, attacks Walberg for voting against the reauthorization of Head Start -- the only member of the House Education and Labor Committee to do so.

This is, of course, something I've covered before, and I even dedicated a Walberg Watch Video of the Week to the subject. But it's always great to see a legitimate group go after Walberg on this issue. Here's the ad:


And, for my own ego, here's the Walberg Watch video:


Obviously, theirs is much, much better.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Education, Head Start, Tim Walberg

Given the fact that I started this website and am active in the Michigan and national blogosphere, I'm assuming that its pretty obvious that I think internet-based political campaigning is both important and an exciting development in politics. You can reach potential voters more cheaply than traditional mailings, you can do it without bothering people with "robocalls," and you can target voting groups that might not ordinarily be recipients of the standard direct mail and door-to-door campaigns (especially young people). It's simply too good of an opportunity to pass up.

Back in October of 2007, I wrote up an overview of the internet operations of Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, and Tim Walberg. That piece was in the context of something Jerome Armstrong wrote last year for the New Politics Institute, a memo which still serves as a strong set of guidelines for any campaign that wants to use the internet. While the whole thing is worth reading, I will share here only the six recommendations I mentioned last time:

Six Things You Can Do Now

Bloggers will be your frontline of defense against attacks. Having them as allies is an important focus for any organization. Here are six things that any progressive organization can do today:

1. Take the first step with outreach to local bloggers:

This is something that should already have been done, but it’s never too late start. If the relationship doesn’t exist, reach out today. Rather than focusing on national bloggers, focus on those within your state first, as many of the national bloggers look to the state-based blogs for identifying which races to target as highly competitive. Have the leaders of your organization or campaign touch base with local bloggers,. Set up a conference call with local bloggers asking for feedback, encouraging coordination, and providing updates.

2. Have a daily-updated website to engage and empower the bloggers:

If you are not putting out timely everyday information, then people who want to get involved are coming to the website and leaving empty-handed. The format is not as important as the information. Email your entire list, tell them to visit the website everyday for the latest news and ways that they can help. Event information, the latest news, resources to counter the opposition, all of this is important information to your supporters and bloggers. It keeps them stay engaged and fired up, willing to go the extra step in their volunteer activities. Your website should be an open door for volunteers and the blogs to engage with you.

3. Be on the blogs and advertise on the blogs:

Organizations and campaigns often have news, such as a poll or new campaign material, that will be of interest to your supporters. But it’s not enough to just put it on your website. You should also get it on the blogs. You can buy advertising on smaller local blogs for $100 or less per month, so there is no reason not to take advantage of this valuable resource. Having an ad on the blogs is also a good way to make your cause or campaign known to the blogger community. You can change any ads on blogads with your latest push too. Go to blogads.com and you will be able to search by state to find the blogs near you.

4. Get your opposition research onto the blogs:

Still got that dirt on your opponent that nobody knows? It’s useless if you don’t get it out to the people who make news. You probably have something a local blogger could use, but you’ll never know if you don’t get that info out of its manila folder and onto the web. By now, you ought to have local online allies that you can trust enough to give the scoop. Got a story that has a good hook? Feed it to the bloggers. Short stories that are personalized have the best chance at being posted. If the blogs cover it, then go to the more traditional news outlets, and press them to cover the story as well.

5. Use YouTube:

It is best if you are creating video for the web instead of re-produced television ads, but your TV commercials can also be put to good use on the web too. YouTube.com allows you to easily upload your commercials for free and then put them on your website, email them to bloggers, and send them out to voters. Chances are, your local bloggers will link to your ad or put it on their website, giving you broader coverage.

5. Create a web presence on Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites:

The most recent addition to netroots outreach is on the websites that have been used as social networking websites that have extended into activist networking around candidates and organizations. Having a presence on these websites is something that an organization should do, but maintaining one through the usage of the platform is what will engage the users of these platforms. Facebook and MySpace are two of the early movers in this space, and for those looking to do outreach into youth organizations and colleges, these sites are very important.

(Yes, he numbered them wrong. I'm sure that Jerome will proof-read more closely next time.)

Last time around, I went through and offered my thoughts on each candidate in the context of each recommendation. I'm not going to do that again, but it's important to have these recommendations in mind. This time, I'd just like to share the state of the internet race as it stands now, and offer some thoughts.

Ken Proctor - Libertarian Nominee

I'm starting with Ken Proctor because he has, by far, the worst website of the bunch. Why is that? For starters, it's still got the "thank you" message from his last run for office, when he ran against Bart Stupak in the 1st Congressional District. Unlike Ron Paul, whose supporters managed to tap into the strong libertarian leanings of many on the internet, Ken Proctor has done little to take advantage of that energy. Frankly, I'm not surprised. I just didn't want to leave anyone out.

Tim Walberg - Republican Incumbent (Presumptive nominee)

I can't figure Tim Walberg out. On the one hand, he's been quick to embrace all of the appearances of taking internet-based campaigning seriously. He has his own blog on his official House website, he's reached out to RightMichigan.com, Townhall.com, and uses The Hill's congressional blog. Now, he even has a Facebook page, which currently has 283 supporters. From all of this, it looks like he's taking the internet seriously.

... Then there's his campaign website. Honestly, it's horrible. It's not just the low-resolution .jpg images in the top sidebar, though that always bugs me. The design is counter-intuitive, the front page is kind of empty, and the content is lacking. (Only four issues, and each with less than two paragraphs of text? Only one press release? No photos?)

Really, Congressman? Is that the best you can come up with?

But it's worse than that. The campaign website has nothing of the "Web 2.0" innovations that have made online activism so interesting. There is no video, even though his press office has made an effort to put some videos on YouTube. There's no blog and there's nothing to allow any user or voter feedback. Every so often, they update their "Upcoming Events," but usually, that section is empty. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about it, and every page is static and, frankly, boring.

The purpose of the Walberg for Congress website is not to engage voters. Instead, it's designed to serve as a repository for press releases-- except that they haven't bothered to put any up yet.

Sharon Renier - Democratic Candidate

Sadly, as disappointing as Walberg's website was, Sharon Renier's is a step lower. Although she has written a great deal about the issues, she lacks the same features I mention above. Her "News/Press" page only has one story and her "Events" page is still a .pdf flyer for "Votestock," which is now over. Even Walberg updates his "Upcoming Events" some of the time!

For Renier, whose campaign doesn't have a lot of money to work with, a strong internet presence would be a valuable investment. Not only is it cheap, but it has the potential of bringing in more contributions. I just don't get why Proctor, Walberg, and Renier haven't put more time into this.

Mark Schauer - Democratic Candidate

Mark Schauer, on the other hand, has been doing it right. His website, though a little cluttered, is aesthetically pleasing and has plenty of pages linked from it. But it's not just content in the form of issue positions and press releases. There are numerous features that keep a casual viewer on the page-- video, action items, and even a form for you to share your thoughts on issues. This is in addition to the Facebook page (with 403 supporters as of today).

Simply put, Schauer's website isn't boring, and it'll keep people interested and on it. It sounds superficial, but the longer a regular voter stays on your page, the more likely they are to absorb the information you want to convey.

But it also doesn't have to be a one-way conversation. Today, the Schauer for Congress campaign announced the new campaign blog, which the senator promises to update regularly. Now, part of it is just that I'm a big fan of blogs, but it's not just that. In addition to creating and quickly updating content, it allows readers to give immediate feedback. While Senator Schauer himself might not see it right away, someone from his campaign certainly will, and can (hopefully) address concerns.

Now, there are still things Schauer could do. When Senator Chris Dodd was running for president, he and adviser Tim Tagaris experimented with live webcasts of campaign events and the senator backstage. The Obama campaign has merchandise that can be purchased and counts as a campaign contribution, and has the "MyBarackObama" section, so that supporters can have their own corner of the website. Innovations like that would be incredible.

Even so, MarkSchauer.com is light-years ahead of the other campaign websites. Politics has changed dramatically in even the last five years, thanks in large part to new technology. The Schauer campaign seems to get that fact, but the others haven't caught up.

As with the previous post on the subject, this is just an overview, but it's an important aspect of the campaign that deserves more attention. Will a pretty website win an election? No, probably not. But it's a smart investment, and it really doesn't cost that much.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Ken Proctor, Mark Schauer, Netroots, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

As a follow-up to my post last week about Libertarian Candidate Ken Proctor, I thought I needed to finish up the minor party field in advance of the Green Party convention this weekend in Marshall. In both 2004 and 2006, the U.S. Taxpayers Party, Michigan's branch of the Constitution Party, fielded candidate David Horn.

David Horn, for those that remember, was an interesting candidate. After Joe Schwarz won the 2004 primary over Brad Smith and Tim Walberg, I heard rumors that Walberg was telling people to support Horn-- the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominee-- instead of Schwarz, the Republican nominee. I never saw any proof of that, but if it were true, it might explain Horn's better-than-anticipated performance in 2004:

Republican Schwarz 176,053 59%

Democratic Renier 109,527 36%

Taxpayers Horn 9,032 3%

Green Seagraves 3,996 1%

Libertarian Proctor 3,034 1%

Now, three percent isn't much, but it's more than the other two minor party totals combined and came after a pretty much non-existent campaign. As an example, for the 2004 cycle, he raised a total of $9,838, which was less than Green Party candidate Jason Seagraves' $10,275. In getting three percent of the vote, Horn was the most successful third-party congressional candidate in Michigan that year.

In 2006, Horn was once again the nominee. However, he took an unusual strategy: he told people to vote for Tim Walberg. From my coverage two years ago:

More news this week from the Battle Creek Enquirer:

U.S. Taxpayer candidate David Horn is not making a serious run for office.

He does not intend on investing in his election efforts before the Nov. 7 election or doing much campaigning.

It's not often that you have a candidate that comes out publicly to say that he doesn't want the job he's running for, so of course this caught my attention.

[...]

"Basically, for anyone to want to vote for me, they'd have to be too Libertarian to vote for Walberg, and too conservative to vote for the Libertarian (Robert Hutchinson)," Horn said. "That's a pretty, pretty narrow focus there."

While Horn doesn't want Democrat Sharon Renier in office, he thinks it would be good if Walberg were elected.

"I'd probably be a Republican if more Republicans thought as he did," Horn said.

Horn said he agrees with Walberg's stances on "probably 90 percent of the issues."

(Emphasis added)

In that post, I then proceeded to describe some of David Horn's positions and those of the Constitution Party and the U.S. Taxpayers Party. Here's an example:

I support abolition of the income tax and repeal of the 16^th Amendment. I wish to restore taxation to that prescribed by our Founders: tariffs and excise taxes.

It's not quite Walberg's FairTax, but it's pretty close.

Given this near-endorsement of Tim Walberg, how did David Horn fair in the 2006 election?

Republican Walberg 122,640 51%

Democratic Renier 112,623 46%

Libertarian Hutchinson 3,787 2%

Taxpayers Horn 3,664 1%

Ah! He was back to where most minor parties belong.

Now that 2008 is here, has David Horn decided that the 10 percent of differences between him and Tim Walberg are too much? Will he or some other brave and conservative voice stand up and be heard? Will someone stand up to fight for the far-far-far-far-right of our district?

Well, no. The party did not nominate a candidate for Michigan's 7th Congressional District this year. Apparently, they decided Tim Walberg was already doing a great job representing the folks who are so conservative that they find the mainstream Republican Party to be too liberal.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: Edited, because on the first pass, I forgot this disclaimer.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2006 Election, 2008 Election, David Horn, Fundraising, Republican Party, Tim Walberg, US Taxpayers Party

I just have a couple of brief site notes that I thought I would share, for those wondering.

1. The "Walberg Watch Weekly E-mail Updates" will be starting next week and continuing through November. Prior to this, I was struggling with formatting issues and a lack of interest, but the number of people who have signed up for them has dramatically increased. (This is good!) If you haven't signed up, you really should.
2. Along the same lines, I'd like to encourage you to join the Walberg Watch group on PartyBuilder. In the future, I hope to be using it a lot, but the great part about it is that I don't have to do anything for it to be an effective tool. Instead, anyone can create and organize independently.
3. The content of the "About the Democrats" page and related pages and the "About Tim Walberg" page has been done for some time, but formatting issues, technical issues, and a general lack of free time has prevented me from finishing up that last piece of the site. This will soon change.

I do appreciate everyone's patience and support over the last month on the New and Improved Walberg Watch. I can't tell you how excited I am about the next couple of months!

Yesterday was the deadline for filing second quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Elections Commission. As I understand it, both Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer have waivers to combine their second quarter FEC reports with their pre-primary reports, which will be due on July 24. It saves them paperwork, and I completely understand the value of that.

Sharon Renier, however, filed her second quarter report at its regular time. The following covers the period from April 01, 2008 to June 30, 2008:

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	4800.00
(ii) Unitemized	997.00
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	5797.00	7627.00
(b) Political Party Commitees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	0.00	0.00
(d) The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	5797.00	7627.00
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	0.00	0.00
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	0.00	0.00
15. Other Receipts	0.00	0.00
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	5797.00	7627.00
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	6315.31	17681.18
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	0.00	0.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	200.00	200.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	200.00	200.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	0.00	0.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	0.00	0.00
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	0.00	0.00
21. Other Disbursements	0.00	0.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	6515.31	17881.18
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	45.04
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	5797.00	7627.00
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	5842.04
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	6515.31	17881.18
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	-673.27

Sharon Renier raised $5,797 last quarter, with $4,800 itemized (larger than $200). For the entire election cycle, she has now raised $7,627. In the last quarter, she spent $6,315.31 (and she also paid back $200 of a loan from herself), and she currently has a cash-on-hand balance of -$673.27. She also still owes another $5,000 on the loan she made to herself in 2006.

I'll say that it's never good when your cash-on-hand is negative, especially if she's planning any sort of primary-day push next month.

Renier's $4,800 in itemized contributions came from four individuals. I'm not going to state their names here, but I did notice one troubling item. There is an individual who contributed $1,000 (and $1,150 to date). When I checked his name on OpenSecrets.org, it seems that he hasn't made many contributions, but his company (of which he is president) last made a contribution in 2001 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Now, that's just one person, but I'd rather not have Republicans trying to play games in our primary. (Of course, I could also be wrong, and he could have had a change of heart. In that case, welcome to the party!)

Renier's disbursements are available here. Each seem fairly reasonable-- web hosting, bank fees, and advertising.

We'll see if Schauer and Walberg can beat Renier's $5,800.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: Edited, because on the first pass, I forgot this disclaimer.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Sharon Renier

There are a lot of things wrong with this article from the Wall Street Journal, most of which revolve around a dumb premise regarding Senators Obama and McCain. I'll also just mention that just because Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in Appalachia, that does not mean he won't win working-class white votes in November. Primaries and the general election are a different game, and pushing that narrative is just stupid.

Besides that item though (one of many dumb assertions in the article), there's one part that's actually relevant to this blog:

The opposite is happening with Republicans, whose toughest races are in Democratic-leaning or closely divided districts. Nevada Republican Jon Porter, who represents a Democrat-friendly district in Las Vegas, supports Sen. McCain and will attend the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., even though he isn't a delegate, his spokesman said. Minnesota's Tim Walberg, the sole Republican House freshman, also supports the senator and may attend the convention, although he can't vote there, said his spokesman.

This raises two obvious questions:

1. When did our district become "Democratic-leaning or closely divided"? The conventional wisdom was always that our district was so Republican that a Democrat will never have a chance.
2. When did Tim Walberg move to Minnesota?

Now, it might seem petty of me to be complaining about the Minnesota thing. "MI" and "MN" look roughly similar, so that could be what happened. Also, Minnesota does have a freshman in Congress named Tim Walz, but he's a Democrat, so the point of the paragraph wouldn't make sense. But darn it, this bothers me a lot!

This brings me to a larger point and a little bit of a rant. I hope you'll all forgive me, and I hope I don't just fan the flames of something that seems to have settled down for a little while. This is just something that's been bothering me.

I like Susan Demas a lot. She's a smart woman (and a much better writer than hacks like Maureen Dowd) and her analysis is generally pretty good, even when it's negative for the people I support. But I just don't understand her or the countless other journalists that get hung up on blogs. While there are many (especially in the D.C. pundit class) who are guilty of this, I'm going to stick with Susan Demas for the moment, though.

On her Capitol Chronicles page, Susan has written several columns deriding left-leaning bloggers. This website and myself have been more or less spared from this (and in the past, Susan and I have had a good private relationship, though I think I might have forgotten to reply to her last e-mail), but some of her targets are people for whom I have a great deal of respect. She has no qualms at all with calling out people who she feels have breached either journalistic ethics, shown poor judgment, or have simply made callous remarks (ie. 1 2 3 4 5 6 in the last month).

This in and of itself is not a problem. Sometimes, bloggers deserve to be called out, and we do it to each other all the time. In some of the instances I cited above, I even agree. But that's not what bothers me.

Journalists like Susan Demas spend an incredible amount of time trying to prove that blogs are an unreliable source of information. It seems as if they're trying to show their own value as traditional journalists by making the alternatives look bad. It's the same principle behind every political attack ad.

While they're busy with that, crap like the Wall Street Journal article I started with gets printed. Traditional journalists give one another a free pass, when they themselves are guilty of some pretty serious missteps. Why point it out when someone at Michigan Liberal spells says "wretch" instead of "retch," but ignore it when, say, the Tecumseh Herald spells "Monday" wrong? (It's not just the Herald, either. If you live in a town of 40,000 or less, you've seen the same mistakes.) Why question the journalistic integrity of bloggers when newspapers throughout the 7th District report without analysis Tim Walberg's claims that drilling in ANWR will bring down gas prices?

I have a question for all of the serious journalists out there. When you're getting ready to write another column talking about the horrible things you've found on the internet, do you even bother to read what your own publications are printing? You're in a position of trust that blogs still lack. The least you could do is hold yourselves to a higher standard.

I'm not at all religious, but I think the former Pastor Tim Walberg would probably tell us to cite this passage:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

So here's what it comes down to:

Although plenty of bloggers would disagree with me, I don't consider myself a journalist. I consider myself an activist, and a part of that involves conveying information via a different medium. I don't pretend to be a reliable source for unbiased reporting. I don't see myself in competition with them. Sometimes people like me screw up. It happens. We're amateurs. That doesn't mean the medium itself doesn't have value, it means that we're roughly on the same level as the traditional media, which is itself far from perfect. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you still have value, too.

That said, if journalists will continue deriding what I do, I don't have any problem with pointing out their own poor writing. The Wall Street Journal article above is a fine example. When Susan Demas, whom I greatly respect, is wasting her time writing about things that don't really matter, I don't mind pointing that out, either.

I can promise all of you that this will be the last time I rant like this, because I think it's bad form and a bad way to take care of disputes that ought to be settled in private. In the end, journalists like Susan Demas and bloggers like me or Eric B. or Christine are all interested in the same thing: better, more responsive government. I choose to accomplish that by working on the internet and in real life to support and oppose political candidates. Susan chooses to accomplish that by ripping apart public officials in print. These strategies don't have to be at odds with one another.

Before I get accused of turning my "venom" against Susan, let me assure everyone that this is not what I'm trying to do. I'm just tired of seeing otherwise intelligent people waste their time snipping back and forth. It's stupid. We're all better than this.

And, for all any of you know, you may have just been lectured at by a 12-year-old sitting in his parents' basement in his underwear. So what?

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: Ethics, Journalism, Susan Demas

Once again via Swing State Project, we get this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats have reserved millions of dollars worth of television advertising in 31 congressional races in all corners of the country, according to documentation that provides an early roadmap of the party's drive to strengthen its majority in the fall elections.

[...]

In all, the documentation obtained by The Associated Press shows the DCCC has reserved nearly $35 million in advertising to begin in September and October.

[...]

Political parties and candidates frequently reserve advertising time in advance to obtain a lower price from television stations than might be available later. Final decisions on spending are normally made closer to the elections.

According to SSP, Michigan's 7th District is getting $1.5 million of the $35 million total. That puts us in a tie with Florida's 16th District for the sixth largest amount being spent of the 31 races being targeted. This is, perhaps, because of the high cost of advertising in our district, as I've highlighted before.

Just because they're reserving $1.5 million doesn't mean they'll use all of it, and it doesn't mean that they'll only spend that much. This is just another indicator that we're going to be in a top-tier and very expensive race.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Advertising, DCCC, Media Markets

Last week, I briefly examined the media markets which cover the 7th District and commented on their cost, wondering what role it would play in the race. You may recall this handy map:


Inspired by the same FiveThirtyEight.com post, Swing State Project blogger Crisitunity created what he calls the "Bang-for-the-Buck Index" of House races. As he explains:

Time for the thrilling conclusion to the Bang-for-the-Buck Index, begun yesterday with the Senate installment. Follow the link for full methodological nitty-gritty, but the main thing that you need to know is that this index shows which races are the cheapest media-wise (and thus where one netroots dollar gets stretched the furthest). This list covers all House races that Swing State Project projects as Dem pickup opportunities.

The middle column lists every media market that needs to be utilized in order to blanket the district, and the number next to each market is the number of thousands of TV households in that market. The more TV households, the more expensive the market. (When a market only grazes a small part of the district where there's no major population center, I've deemed the market negligible, assuming that a smart media buyer wouldn't use that market.) The number in the right column is the sum total of the thousands of TV households in all markets in the district, which provides a relative number that indicates how expensive a media campaign in that district is.

As you'll see, there's a huge amount of variation, depending on the number of 'wasted eyeballs.' The wasted eyeballs problem becomes huge in suburban districts in major metropolitan districts, where you may be paying to advertise to people in the adjacent 10 or 20 districts as well.

In his index of competitive House races, his entry for Michigan's 7th District is:

MI-07

Detroit (1,936) Toledo (427) Lansing (257) Grand Rapids (732)

3,352

In other words, in our district, advertising in all four markets which cover us is the equivalent of advertising to 3.3 million television households. For comparison, the Philadelphia market is only 2.9 million television households, while Chicago's market barely edges us out, with 3.4 million television households. As he stated in his post, the more households, the more expensive it is.

This makes the 7th District the 15th most expensive district in Crisitunity's list (with about 80 districts on the list as possible Democratic pick-ups), mainly following districts covered by the New York (7.4 million), Los Angeles (5.5 million), and Chicago (3.4 million) markets.

As Crisitunity continues:

You may have also noticed a number of predominantly rural districts that should theoretically be cheap but in fact are very expensive; MI-07 and NC-08 are key examples, each of which are kind of located between major cities and wind up biting a corner out of a bunch of different markets. Poor PA-05 is the perhaps the worst example; it doesn't even have any TV stations in its boundaries, but it takes bites out of about 8 surrounding markets. Districts like these, again, are probably dealt with creatively, with buys in some TV markets and more focus on cable and other media.

As with the previous post on this subject, I don't have a profound conclusion on this, but it's something I find interesting.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Advertising, Fundraising, Media Markets

With the Michigan Green Party convention coming up in Marshall the weekend of July 26, I thought I would do a quick check of the other minor parties. First up: the Libertarians.

The Libertarian Party, arguably the most successful "third party" of the last few decades, has been getting a great deal of attention from the media following the presidential nomination of former Congressman Bob Barr. In Michigan, they consistently field candidates in most (if not all) of Michigan's political contests.

In 2002, the Libertarian nominee for the 7th District was Ken Proctor. He received 3,508 votes, or 2 percent.

In 2004, Ken Proctor was the Libertarian nominee once again. He received 3,034 votes, or 1 percent.

In 2006, Ken Proctor was not the Libertarian nominee for the 7th District. Instead, he was the nominee for the 1st District in the UP and northern Lower Peninsula. The 7th District nominee was Robert Hutchinson, who, despite the endorsement of the Detroit News, still only received 3,787, or 2 percent.

Now, in 2008, the Libertarian nominee for the 7th District is... Ken Proctor! He is apparently back from the 1st District, although it looks like his website is still focused on the 2006 election.

Proctor's website doesn't have any biographical information, but Politics1 describes him as:

Auto Worker, Vietnam War Veteran & Frequent Candidate

During the 2006 debate at Siena Heights University, I actually enjoyed listening to 2006 candidate Robert Hutchinson. I didn't agree with him, but he was honest, seemed friendly, and had some interesting ideas. I'll be curious to see more of Ken Proctor.

So, will this finally be the year Proctor and the Libertarians break out of minor party status and win some elections? Will the momentum created by Ron Paul carry over to Bob Barr and further down the ticket?

Maybe. But I'm predicting that Ken Proctor will probably get between 3,000 and 4,000 votes, and one to two percent. Then again, I could be wrong.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Ken Proctor, Libertarian Party, Robert Hutchinson

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:


This is one of the most troubling votes cast by Congressman Tim Walberg, in my opinion. It's certainly more serious than last week's video. Thank you to Congressman Dale Kildee for his leadership on this issue.

The video is a little choppy in a few places. I'll work on fixing that later today.

Walberg Watch coverage of his vote

Journalist Jack Lessenberry on the importance of Head Start

Office of Head Start

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Dale Kildee, Education, Head Start, Issues, Tim Walberg, Video, Walberg Voting Record

Since early 2007, I stated that Walberg Watch would not endorse a candidate prior to the Democratic primary. The purpose of this website is to oppose Congressman Tim Walberg and support the Democratic nominee as the most progressive and most viable alternative to Walberg. As the most prolific blogger on Walberg Watch, I decided not to use this medium to support the candidate that I preferred.

This will not change. However, in the interests of transparency, I decided that I needed to mention this.

Yesterday, I began volunteering with the Schauer for Congress campaign out of the Lenawee County office. Prior to the primary, I will not be using this as a platform to support Mark Schauer, and even after the primary, the main focus will remain on Tim Walberg, not the Democratic nominee. I will continue to write about Senator Schauer and Sharon Renier, but will include an end-note about this. I'm certainly not going to try to be biased one way or another, but it's up to the reader to judge if I've been successful.

I have enormous respect for both Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier, and wish them both luck. Besides that, all I can say is that I hope everyone remembers to go out and vote on August 5th.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fitzy, Mark Schauer, Volunteer

One of the most interesting political resources to emerge this year has been FiveThirtyEight.com, an election projection blog focusing on the presidential campaign. The site is run by Nate Silver (formerly blogging as "Poblano"), a professional statistician who took the tools of his day job-- analyzing baseball statistics-- and applied them to the presidential race.

Over the weekend, Nate took a look at television advertising in the presidential race, and whether or not it was efficient to advertise in certain states. As an example, suppose John McCain wanted to contest New Jersey. Because of the nature of television markets in that part of the country, McCain would need to spend money on ads in the New York and Philadelphia markets in order to cover the entire state. However, New York and Philadelphia are expensive and will cover a lot of non-New Jersey voters, so McCain would be wasting money on an inefficient state.

A similar problem faces Barack Obama with trying to win Virginia, as much of northern Virginia is covered by the Washington, DC market. However, that market also covers Maryland and DC itself, so a side effect of Obama targeting Virginia is unnecessary advertising in places where he shouldn't have to spend money.

This got me thinking about Michigan's 7th Congressional District and the challenges it presents for television advertising.

Of the 210 Designated Market Areas, there are four which cover the 7th District: Detroit, Lansing, Toledo, and Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek.


The map above shows each of the different media markets, with approximate boundaries of the 7th District drawn in. It's worth noting that there is some overlap. For example, in the Lansing market, Toledo's WTOL and WTVG are "significantly viewed out-of-market broadcast stations," as are WWMT and WOOD out of Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek. However, there's no one market which covers everyone in the district.

So how do you advertise in that? If you want to make sure you reach everyone everywhere, you've got to advertise in all four markets. But is it really worth it to have your ads also be playing in Muskegon, Michigan and Findlay, Ohio at the same time?

Normally, this is the point where I would find some sort of conclusion, but I don't have one. It could be that, because of the difficulty and cost to effectively advertise, the incumbent has the advantage. At the same time, if Mark Schauer is going to continue to out-raise Tim Walberg, any advertising war between them could lean toward Schauer, who might feel free to advertise in the Toledo or Detroit markets. But then, that's just speculation on my part.

Anyway, I thought I would share something I found interesting. I'll be eager to see how the candidates spend money on advertising closer to November.

Labels: Advertising, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Media Markets, Tim Walberg

As we get closer to Election Day, I'm hoping to spend some more time on other races that will be appearing on the ballot, and how they relate to the 7th District race. That is, I won't be arguing in favor of Barack Obama or against John McCain, but I will be writing about how the presidential race might have an impact on Tim Walberg's reelection bid. I gave a very general overview of state House races back in May for similar reasons. After all, this election isn't taking place in a vacuum.

When it comes to races that could have the biggest impact on the 7th District outcome, you have to list the presidential race at the top. Michigan is an important swing state, and both the McCain and Obama campaigns will be running massive voter turnout efforts. But today, I'd like to focus more on the role of Senator John McCain as a candidate and his relationship with Tim Walberg.

Let's start with what Senator McCain and Congressman Walberg have in common: they're Republicans. After that, it gets a little bit trickier. Recall this article from 2004 about Walberg and Joe Schwarz:

The 7th District is one of this year's most hotly contested Congressional primary races, where Congressman Nick Smith is retiring from his longtime seat. It is a secure Republican post, so whoever wins the August 3 primary will win the election. The six-way Republican race features three moderates with extensive legislative experience, a man without any sort of political experience, a man with a radically liberal record named Joe Schwarz, and a proven conservative statesman named Tim Walberg.

[...]

Schwarz, a former Michigan legislator and chairman of John McCain's victorious Michigan primary race in 2000, is a fiscal liberal and a social liberal. He has the touted endorsement of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a wealthy coalition of so-called RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — who identify themselves in their mission statement as the "pragmatic center." Even the League of Conservation Voters, left-wing endorser of Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, has wildly thrown itself behind Schwarz's candidacy.

All in all, Joe Schwarz does not belong in the Republican Party. He is a Democrat at heart, and a socialist at mind. At a recent candidate debate, Schwarz demonstrated that he is thoroughly pro-abortion, warmly in favor of universal federal health care, and enthusiastic about increased federal spending for higher education.

(Emphasis added.)

Most of that article was Schwarz-bashing, but it was fairly representative of the types of attacks we saw throughout 2004 and 2006. You introduce Joe Schwarz as the chairman of the Michigan campaign of John McCain in 2000, and then you talk about how horribly liberal he is.

To Michigan conservatives and Republicans, the fact that Joe Schwarz ran McCain's Michigan campaign brings back unpleasant memories of the 2000 primary. Then-Governor John Engler promised to deliver Michigan to George W. Bush. Instead, the opposite happened, and McCain won. As the New York Times reported:

Mr. Engler said today's results said ''nothing whatsoever'' about Mr. McCain's ability to attract Democrats. Instead, he argued that Democrats, glimpsing an opportunity after Mr. McCain won in New Hampshire, worked to make mischief in the Michigan primary. Mr. Engler's aides said their evidence of Democratic efforts for Mr. McCain was anecdotal.

[...]

There was evidence in the polls of voters as they left the ballot booth that Mr. Engler's endorsement hurt Mr. Bush as much as it helped him. Of the 15 percent of voters who said that Mr. Engler's endorsement had influenced them a great deal, fully seven in ten voted for Mr. McCain. Of the 15 percent who said Mr. Engler's endorsement had influenced them ''somewhat,'' 65 percent voted for Mr. Bush and 33 percent for Mr. McCain.

[...]

Mr. Engler is extremely popular among Republicans, having served all of the 1990's as governor and most of the 1980's as president of the state senate.

(Emphasis added.)

To many Michigan conservatives, it seemed as if John McCain had conspired with Michigan Democrats to embarrass their governor and their preferred presidential candidate. CNN exit polls showed that 17 percent of voters that day were Democrats, and 82 percent supported McCain. He also beat then-Governor Bush 67 to 26 among independents (35 percent of voters) and lost to Bush 29 to 66 among actual Republicans.

So, the evidence was there that McCain only won because of Democratic and independent mischief-makers. And who could they logically conclude was the architect of that strategy? Why, Michigan campaign chairman Joe Schwarz, of course!

Regardless of the truth to that allegation, it served as a reason to dislike both Schwarz and McCain, two men who were old friends who used (at the time) a similar, moderate rhetoric. And don't forget that McCain endorsed Joe Schwarz in both 2004 and 2006, and to Walberg's supporters, Joe Schwarz was and still is the enemy.

I don't want to spend too much time on this point, but it's worth emphasizing. Tim Walberg and Joe Schwarz each represented a wing of the Republican Party-- two wings that, for whatever reason, can't stand each other. McCain is closely associated with Joe Schwarz, and many of the folks that cheer on Tim Walberg will either never support John McCain or will only do so out of hatred of Barack Obama.

----

Now, let's jump forward to 2008. Senator John McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. Given the overall dissatisfaction with the Republican presidential field in this election's primaries, I wasn't surprised to see this in 2007:

RM: Real quick before you have to run, have you made an endorsement in the Presidential Primary? Will you make an endorsement?

CTW [Congressman Tim Walberg]: I have not. I probably will keep my powder dry until we have our nominee. The Republican side, there's much to respect with each of them. There are some who have issues that I would like to see changed but when I compare them to any on the Democrat side, people ought to believe me when I say this, it's not just because I'm a Republican, but their issues are so so different from the positions I take on almost anything I'm very encouraged that when we actually get a candidate on both sides the American people and my district, the 7th District people will make the right decision.

Walberg didn't endorse when it mattered, but

I vaguely remember seeing something about Walberg endorsing McCain, but I can't seem to find an article confirming that. If he did, it was only after McCain had secured the nomination, when he would have been expected to endorse.

But beyond that, can we find any other indication of what the political relationship between Tim Walberg and John McCain might be?

On this website and elsewhere, Tim Walberg's relationship with the Club for Growth has been well-documented. To make a long story short, Walberg received an enormous amount of money from the Club in 2006, and has voted pretty consistently in the interests of the Club. They specialize in purging the Republican Party of moderates and replacing them with, well, people like Tim Walberg.

Here's what John McCain says about the Club for Growth:


And here's what the Club for Growth says about John McCain:

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said this week that his economically conservative group might sit out the 2008 presidential election and focus on congressional races.

The Club has had an antagonistic relationship over the years with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP candidate for president. With the general-election match-up now set, Toomey is confronted with this dilemma.

This stings, and it's not just because the Club for Growth spent millions of dollars during the 2004 election cycle, largely bashing Democrats. The Club is a major Republican group, and is expected to endorse as a matter of courtesy, even if they focus on congressional races anyway. Not endorsing is a significant story about divisions within the Republican Party.

And, of course, Walberg is a favorite of the Club.

But that's just one organization. Are there any other prominent supporters of Tim Walberg who are a little hesitant to support John McCain?

Well, yes.

In 2006, then-candidate Walberg was proud to receive the endorsement of James Dobson. What does Dobson say about John McCain?

I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

... And that's when he's being nice about it!

So, Walberg's supporters aren't willing to do much for McCain. Is there any evidence that McCain will be willing to do anything for Walberg?

Nope.

John McCain has begun to raise eyebrows in Republican circles for his lack of fundraising help on behalf of his party’s House and Senate campaign committees.

The Arizona senator has yet to send a fundraising appeal for those committees nearly four months after becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, and he skipped out on a major fundraising dinner for them in recent weeks.

Obviously, this isn't a personal snub against Tim Walberg, but if John McCain isn't willing to do down-ticket fundraising, then it bodes badly for endangered Republicans like Tim Walberg. He would ordinarily be counting on the top of the ticket for support, but if the article from the Hill above is any indication, McCain will be focusing all of his attention on saving his own campaign, not someone like Tim Walberg-- especially someone whose supporters have had a history of hostility toward McCain.

In the end, Walberg and McCain will need each other, and if Walberg can cling to the McCain campaign, it might help him a lot. But Walberg's side very obviously hates McCain (or at least doesn't trust him). That doesn't bode well for a productive political relationship.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Club for Growth, Fundraising, James Dobson, John McCain, Tim Walberg

by Michael Motta

"The Green Party of Michigan's State Convention will be held July 26-27 at the
Franke Center for the Arts, 214 East Mansion Street, in Marshall, MI."

http://www.greenpartywatch.com/2008/06/green-party-of-michigan-state.html

I've been told by a fellow Marshall resident who is well-placed in the GPMI that there may well be, in addition to internal goings-on, some informational type stuff for the general public.

Since I live within walking distance, I plan on wandering down there to find out more about the Green Party "up close and personal" instead of just via the web!

Updates may be posted here: http://www.migreens.org/

Maybe I'll see some of you there!

Thanks to Michael Motta for being the first reader to submit content! I hadn't realized this would be happening in the 7th District, and I'm curious to see if they nominate anyone for this race. -- Fitzy

Labels: 2008 Election, Green Party

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:



On this Independence Day, what better way to show your patriotism than to demand better representation from your government? That's what it's all about!

For the original Walberg Watch coverage of the incident, click here. For an incident in which Mr. Motta actually had a good response from Congressman Walberg's office, click here.

For more information on the bills mentioned in the video:

HR 1415 (Restoring the Constitution Act)

HR 1070 (Stamp Out Gang Violence Act - 110th Congress)

HR 1070 (Constitution Restoration Act - 109th Congress)

HR 69 (Disability Benefit Fairness Act)

HR 699 (Pledge Protection Act)

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

United States Declaration of Independence (text)
United States Declaration of Independence (history)
Lee Resolution on Independence
1776 by David McCullough

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Issues, Tim Walberg

Between now and the August 5 primary, I'll be looking at several important issues facing our country and Michigan's 7th District, and I'll be trying to give you some idea of where each of the candidates stands on the issue. I'm going to do my best to be unbiased, but I hope you'll forgive me if a little bias creeps in.

The War in Iraq

There's less media coverage and slightly less violence, though it's worth noting that 29 American soldiers died in Iraq during June (up from May), and 712 Iraqi civilians died in the same period. Although less that in other periods, Iraq is far from peaceful-- certainly not as safe as Detroit. The decline in violence is largely due to the "surge," or increased troop levels proposed and enacted by President Bush in 2007. That policy was intended to give the new Iraqi government a chance to enact much-needed legislation and bring together its own country... something which has not happened. Of the 18 benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq, the Iraqi government had accomplished only three of them as of January of this year.

Meanwhile, as the Detroit Free Press reported last month, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their country in what is rapidly becoming one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world.

WASHINGTON -- A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday.

[...]

It said the Iraqi exodus "from the violence and instability of their homeland" constituted "the largest refugee crisis of 2007."

"While the Bush administration and the United Kingdom are busy trying to win the war, they have provided no leadership toward ensuring the rights and well-being of the victims of this war," the report said. "Europe, which for the most part warned of the dire humanitarian consequences of the war, has also done nothing to help the people they were so concerned about."

In the United States, meanwhile, media coverage of the war has declined. From a March 24, 2008 article:

Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic. Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

[...]

Experts offer many other explanations for the declining media focus, like the danger and expense in covering Iraq, and shrinking newsroom budgets. In the last year, a flagging economy and the most competitive presidential campaign in memory have diverted attention and resources.

Yet despite this, the war in Iraq remains one of the issues considered "very important" in public opinion polls. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted from June 26 to June 29, 2008, found that 84 percent of Americans labeled "the situation in Iraq" as either "very important" or "extremely important," making it the second most important issue, after the economy (94 percent) and above gas prices (77 percent) and health care (76 percent).

When asked to choose the issue that should be the top priority of the federal government in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (June 6 to June 9, 2008), 24 percent chose the war in Iraq, second only to "job creation and economic growth," at 27 percent.

The same CNN poll cited above found that 30 percent of Americans favor the war in Iraq and 68 percent oppose it. As far as future policy in Iraq, those polled were asked:

"If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?"

To that question, 33 percent said they would rather see the troop levels stay the same, while 64 percent said that they would rather see most troops removed from Iraq.

It's important to keep in mind that these are national numbers, and that the 7th District itself is likely somewhat different.

Tim Walberg (R)

On his campaign website, Congressman Tim Walberg says this under the header "Safe & Secure America":

Tim believes energy independence is essential to our national security. That’s why he supports expanding the use of alternative energies, and exploring for energy in Alaska to reduce gas prices and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Tim supports our troops and intelligence officials as they combat terrorism. Tim also knows the importance of securing the border, and opposing amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants.

This is all he has to say on anything even remotely resembling the war in Iraq. His official House website gets a little closer to taking a position, under the header "War on Terror":

As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

My wife and I pray for all men and women in uniform, and grieve for the loss of lives and injuries inflicted on these heroes who proudly serve our nation. I, as much as anyone else, want this war to be over.

I cannot support any resolution that says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can come home victoriously. It tells other nations that we are an unreliable ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

Read about my January 2008 trip to Iraq here.

In 2006, his campaign website read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

When Secretary Rumsfeld resigned in November of 2006 and Robert Gates was appointed to replace him, Walberg's website was changed to read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Gates and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

Also in 2006, from my coverage of the Siena Heights University congressional debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Walberg
- "We too easily forget 9/11" [Audience begins booing], "We too easily forget the bombing of the USS Cole"
- Terrorism still an important issue
- No cut and run, must stay in Iraq
- The Iraqi army is working

And, in an article published in today's Dexter Leader, Walberg says:

As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reach their sixth year, Walberg said he is committed to keeping high levels of U.S. troops in both countries.

"Sept. 11, 2001, fundamentally changed our world and placed America in a global war against terrorists, which we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "While our commitment in these countries is not endless, we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe. Additionally, the free world can not allow a terrorist-sponsored regime to control Iraq.

"America's soldiers are making progress and our troops are returning home as security is turned over to the forces of Iraq and Afghanistan."

In his response, Congressman Walberg repeats a common misconception about Iraq prior to the war, saying that "we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe." Although Afghanistan's Taliban government did provide a safe haven for al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden (here and here, for example), there is overwhelming evidence that the same is not true of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

For instance, from the Washington Post:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

and, on "60 Minutes," former CIA Director George Tenet said:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

In Congress, Walberg has voted in support of President Bush's troop "surge," against a responsible redeployment from Iraq, and against funding for troops in Iraq that includes a timetable for withdrawal. Walberg also voted against mandating longer periods of rest and recovery for servicemembers between tours of duty in Iraq.

Speaking in support of the "surge," Walberg said the following on the floor of the House of Representatives:

“I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

“As Abraham Lincoln said famously in his Second Inaugural Address, ‘Fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.’

“As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

“Without a doubt, mistakes have been made, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results. We must not retreat.

“At this critical time, the American people long for true leadership and resolve, and I urge my colleagues to put aside political posturing and partisanship and ensure our troops have the resources and support needed to complete their mission. Victory is the only option.”

Note that when Congressman Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

... he was apparently satisfied with meeting only three of the 18 benchmarks noted above.

Note also that, while Congressman Walberg says:

"Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

... that level of safety and security is apparently not sufficient to bring home the 154,000 American military personnel currently in that country.

Mark Schauer (D)

On his campaign website, state Senator Mark Schauer has this to say, under the header "The War in Iraq":

America needs a strong national defense, but, I don't believe that requires blindly following the Bush-Cheney Administration and its failed policy and flawed execution. More than four years after the President declared "Mission Accomplished", nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded. Still the President and his allies have no plan and no exit strategy--but continue to spend $400 million on this war each day.

One of my first official acts as a state Senator in 2003 was to vote against a resolution in support of President Bush's strategy in Iraq. Sadly, my fears and doubts about Bush's so-called 'strategy' were well-founded – and now our country continues to pay the price. Congress must work to find a new course that ensures our security here at home and honors the lives of the brave men and women who defend our freedom.

Schauer is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion above. He says that "nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded," when in fact, as of today, 4,112 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and well over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured.

Like Walberg, Schauer is asked by the Dexter Leader to share his preferred policy for the war in Iraq:

Addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Schauer said if elected, he would begin drafting legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

"Capturing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders who were responsible for attacking us should have been our No. 1 priority after Sept. 11, 2001," Schauer said. "The war in Iraq has been a tragic distraction, which I opposed from the beginning. I believe the time has come to safely and responsibly bring our troops home."

Schauer said he would like to see combat brigade withdrawals within 16 to 18 months.

"Of course, I also believe the plan must allow for a certain degree of flexibility based on ground conditions, and we should maintain a troop presence to protect our embassies and diplomats."

When I spoke with Senator Schauer last year, he said:

The Bush Administration has created a mess in Iraq. We need to be clear that by changing policy and beginning to withdraw troops, that doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be easy going in Iraq. It’s gonna be very difficult. But what I know is that a policy of staying the course and further long-term involvement of our troops in Iraq is not the answer, and I think will make things worse over a longer period of time. I would expect to be part of a Congress that will change policy, begin to reduce our military involvement in Iraq. I’m not going to commit to a specific timetable, but clearly we need to begin to reduce our military presence in Iraq and allow that to country to rebuild itself…

As a legislator in the Michigan Senate for the entire duration of the war in Iraq, Schauer has not had the opportunity to vote on funding or withdrawal bills as Walberg has. However, in 2003, shortly after being sworn into the Michigan Senate, he voted against this resolution:

Senators Cropsey, Garcia, Patterson, Gilbert, Van Woerkom, Stamas, Hammerstrom, Goschka, Cassis, Kuipers, Bishop, Birkholz, Jelinek, George, Brown, Allen, Sikkema, Hardiman, McManus, Toy, Barcia, Sanborn and Olshove offered the following resolution:

Senate Resolution No. 37.

A resolution to express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for our men and women in uniform and their families.

Whereas, While our nation has faced a wide range of threats to our freedom over the years, the unique war on terrorism in which we now find ourselves engaged demands an exceptional commitment. From our leaders and our military to our citizens and state and local governments, we all must work together to increase the security of our homeland. In the aftermath of September 11th, our country must deal with the entire range of terrorist threats before us; and

Whereas, The ongoing preparations for a military action to deal with threats from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are a direct and necessary response for the United States and our allies. As the world learns more about the links between the reign of hatred of Saddam Hussein and international terrorist organizations, including those affiliated with Osama bin Laden, the gravity of the world's situation has become increasingly clear. The smokescreen of misinformation that has hampered United Nations efforts in Iraq must not be permitted to jeopardize the homeland security of our nation or the stability of other parts of the world; and

Whereas, A number of Michigan citizen soldiers are engaged in the noble effort to defend our liberties. In addition to those already serving in the military, several reserve units have been called into duty. It is important to voice our support for all of them, as their courage and steadfastness in the face of war represents the highest standard of citizenship. For the families with loved ones in the military, the world's tensions take on much more intensity. Once again, we are reminded that the true cost of freedom is clearly beyond measure; and

Whereas, Unity in the face of adversity is essential for success in any grave battle. The people of this state, well aware of the high stakes of any military action, stand behind our President in his work to protect peace in our troubled world; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for the men and women of our military and their families; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Sharon Renier (D)

On her campaign website, Sharon Renier has a great deal to say-- more than can be quoted in this post. To get a complete picture of her thoughts on the subject, read her entire position, under the header "War and War Powers of Congress." I'd like to provide you with a few excerpts from that essay:

The war in Iraq is wrong. I've been saying so since it began. I was saying so when it wasn't fashionable to do so, which is why I bravely stood up and ran for US Congress in 2004 and 2006. I also have a way to get our troops out. One way is to bring Iraqi troops here to be trained. Currently, if you are an Iraqi troop, you get to go home at night to your family. Bring them here and let's get them trained in 8 weeks like we do our troops. The second part of the equation is covert, a secret, and I'll keep that to myself. In case we ever get to use my idea, I want to make sure that our troops remain safe.

[...]

And that, friends, is what we have here. Our government has gotten us into an endless war with an enemy with no face and taken away our basic rights and freedoms afforded us under the US Constutition. First, the face of terror and fear was Osama bin Laden; then it was the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Actually, the reason we dragged Iraq into the whole thing is because you can't declare war on a person, so you have to have a sovereign country to invade. Well, Sadam Hussein is dead, but we still have all of this terrorism out there, and frankly it doesn't seem like anyone in Washington is too concerned with Mr. bin Laden these days. So, darn it, just how can we protect ourselves from all of this terror?

In the issue of the Dexter Leader cited above, Renier is also asked about the war in Iraq:

Renier said some of her other top priorities would include placing a limit on federal deficit spending and finding a way out of the war in Iraq. Renier also said she has plans to restructure campaign finance reform laws, an area that separates her from most candidates.

"I don't support war, period. I support diplomacy. I can't go out and slug my neighbor without going to jail, so why is it OK to kill?" she said. "To bring our troops home, we need someone like me in office with moral courage and backbone to pull the purse strings on the war in Iraq. No money, no war."

In 2006, as the Democratic nominee for the 7th Congressional District, Renier had this to say at the Siena Heights University debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Renier
- Get Iraqis off American welfare
- Not a "cut-and-run Democrat" despite what opponent might say.
- Best thing to do is to get the American face out of Iraq-- we're polarizing figures in the region
- Bring in an international peacekeeping force
- Iraqis won't protect themselves because they know that we're there for them; they'll only take responsibility if they know we're leaving.

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

From RealClearPolitics:

National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole has had a rough few months, his party having lost three straight special elections and lagging seriously behind in fundraising. But the Oklahoman is back on his proverbial horse, using the Fourth of July recess to hit the campaign trail on behalf of endangered Republican incumbents and promising challengers in the upper Midwest.

[...]

Today, Cole is in Michigan to stump with endangered Rep. Tim Walberg in a district that encompasses Battle Creek and the Ann Arbor suburbs. Walberg's Seventh District is a top target for national Democrats, who have high hopes for State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer (For more on the race, see Greg Bobrinskoy's write-up from last week).

It's not a lot, but it caught my attention. I hadn't heard anything about this visit, and it's not listed on Walberg's campaign website. My best guess is that means Congressman Cole is here to raise money. He's a low-profile party leader, who can lean on local contributors but isn't a high enough profile to justify a public event.

How helpful is someone like Tom Cole to Tim Walberg? Well, actually, not very helpful at all. He might accomplish something on this trip, but Cole has fundraising problems of his own-- namely, that he's bad at it.

As of May, the National Republican Congressional Committee had $6.7 million on-hand. That sounds impressive, except that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $47.2 million cash-on-hand. This is a significant difference.

Unfortunately for Tim Walberg, Tom Cole just isn't that good at his job. His attempts to recruit top-tier challengers against Democrats in Congress have been called a "disaster" by fellow Republicans, he has had a public feud with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R), and Republican members of Congress aren't willing to raise money for the NRCC.

But Congressman Cole's problems don't end there. Under his watch, the NRCC was hit by a massive scandal, involving the committee's treasurer stealing $725,000 from the committee. That's not good, and, while it started prior to Cole's tenure as NRCC chair, it all came out under him. This is not the sort of thing that impresses potential contributors.

In fact, it's so bad for Tom Cole that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is actively looking for a way to get rid of him. From The Hill, via Swing State Project:

House GOP leaders spent Thursday trying to put the best spin on the disappointing defeat by publicly relaunching a legislative agenda they unveiled a day earlier complete with a new slogan: the “change America deserves.” Privately, however, GOP leaders were considering their options, as well as reaching out to possible replacements for National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not shut down speculation about Cole, opting against saying Cole will complete the cycle as NRCC chairman.

[...]

Finding an appropriate way to get rid of Cole, though, remains the primary obstacle, the source said.

“Leadership can’t fire Tom Cole,” the former staffer said. “If they could, yes, they would. It doesn't appear that the conference wants to self-initiate, but people at the leadership table think he needs to step down and he needs to step down soon.”

(Emphasis added.)

That's right. Tim Walberg is getting help from the guy that no one likes. If Walberg is hoping to impress the top Republican donors, especially former Schwarz supporters who might not be fans of Walberg, Tom Cole might not be the most effective strategy.

Of course, the very fact that Congressman Walberg needs Cole's help sends a worrying message for Walberg. It reminds local Republicans once again that he's in trouble this year, and that they made a horrible mistake by getting rid of Joe Schwarz.

Schwarz won an open seat election by a margin of 59 percent to 36 percent. Had he not been defeated by Walberg in the 2006 primary, he would have won reelection easily. Can we say the same about Tim Walberg? No.

A peculiar obstacle for Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg's reelection hopes is that he will likely face a Democratic opponent who can claim similar, if not more incumbent-like, advantages in fundraising, name recognition, and political experience within the district.

A top target of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Republican Walberg will face one of two experienced Democrats competing in the primary held August 3. Although Democrat Sharon Renier has reasonably high name recognition from running in the last two races, having barely lost to Walberg in 2006 despite being outspent $1.2 million to $56,000, State Senator and Democratic Minority Leader Mark Schauer is expected to win the primary and is a favorite of national Democrats.

With leadership experience, the support of party leaders, and a state senate district that covers about 40% of the Seventh Congressional District, which takes in Battle Creek and the western suburbs of Ann Arbor, along the Indiana border, Schauer has high name recognition and will make for a formidable opponent in November. Too, in the last three fundraising quarters, Schauer has not only dwarfed Renier in fundraising, but he has beaten out Walberg as well.

(Emphasis added.)

Ouch. RealClearPolitics paints a pretty hopeless picture for Walberg. Do you really think Tom Cole will be able to help?

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Joe Schwarz, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Republican Party, Tim Walberg, Tom Cole

Today is July 1, 2008. We have four months left before the general election (plus a few days). But before that, we have the August 5 primary, where Democrats will choose between state Senator Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier.

But before that happens, we have a very important deadline coming up in less than a week. July 7 (next Monday) is the deadline to register to vote if you still want to be able to vote in the August 5 primary.

I'm guessing that if you're reading Walberg Watch, you're probably already registered to vote. But if you're not, or if you know someone who's not but should be voting in this primary, here's some useful information, always available on our Action page:

If you're not already registered:

Register to Vote (Michigan Secretary of State)

Rock the Vote

Not sure if you're registered? Not sure where to vote? The state of Michigan can help! Click here to find out if you're registered or where you need to go to vote, including a map from your house to your polling place.

If you're already registered to vote and are interested in helping to register others, try the Obama campaign Michigan events page. As part of his presidential campaign, Senator Obama has launched a massive, nationwide voter registration drive, and there's a good chance you can find an event near you to help register new voters.

You can also register new voters yourself using the register by mail form. If you register by mail and are a first-time voter, please note that you must vote in person in your first election, and cannot vote absentee.

NOTE:

The deadline to register to vote for the primary election is

JULY 7, 2008

The deadline for the general election is

OCTOBER 6, 2008

You MUST be registered before the deadline in order to vote.

In the state of Michigan, you must now have a valid photo ID when you vote, or sign an affidavit stating that you do not have a valid ID.

For more information, visit the Michigan Voter Information Center.

Voting really is the most important action you can take as a citizen, regardless of whom you support.

Labels: 2008 Election, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier