Greg O'Connor: Tim, give me a little history lesson because somebody asked me this question earlier in the week. What's the difference – Russia invading Georgia and us invading Iraq?
Tim Walberg: Well, the difference is that there was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11.
Okay. Tim Walberg isn't stupid. Really, he's not. But apparently he thinks you are.
Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nothing. But Walberg thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it.
This afternoon, a little after 3:00pm, I received a phone call... from Freedom's Watch. It was a robocall, repeating the same talking points from the deceptive and largely false radio ad they've been running (minus the RAND study citation).
These things are annoying, and frankly, I hope that bring out the robocalls this early in the election backfires on them. Nobody I've talked to has said that they like or appreciate these kinds of calls. At least when it's a person and when it's a campaign, you can voice your displeasure and be taken off the call list. These invade your privacy and threaten to repeat with no possible recourse.
Then, I got this press release in my inbox:
SCHAUER INVITES WALBERG TO JOIN HIM IN PLEDGE AGAINST ROBOCALLS Congressional candidate says it's time to hang up on divisive political tactics
BATTLE CREEK—Today Congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) sent a letter inviting Congressman Tim Walberg to join him in a pledge not to make political robocalls to voters in the 7th district for the remainder of the 2008 campaign. He also asked the Congressman to agree to publicly ask third party groups not to use robocalls for the rest of the race.
"People are tired of divisive political tactics, and out of respect for the democratic process, I think we should agree to offer voters something different by not bothering them with robocalls this year," said Schauer. "With all of the challenges facing our state, businesses and workers deserve an honest and open exchange of ideas between the two of us about our respective plans for turning Michigan's economy around. I hope the Congressman will accept my challenge and agree to hang up on robocalls."
Today the independent political group Freedom's Watch began making negative robocalls in the 7th district attacking Sen. Schauer's position on domestic drilling. The calls falsely claim that Schauer opposes drilling, even though he has offered public support for responsible drilling on numerous occasions.
"To set the record straight, I support responsible domestic drilling, both onshore and off," said Schauer. "Just this week I announced legislation that is specifically intended to spur oil production in Michigan. As I have said all along, what we need is a comprehensive energy strategy that includes protecting the Great Lakes, curbing speculation, temporarily releasing a portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief at the pump, exploring safe nuclear alternatives, ending tax breaks for Big Oil, and investing in renewable energy technology to create green collar jobs in Michigan."
# # #
Thank you, Senator Schauer, for rejecting these sorts of attacks and this waste of time.
Subscribers to the Walberg Watch Weekly E-mail Updates list already know a little bit about this. Obviously, this is a reason why you should subscribe.
Suppose you're an undecided voter. You don't know a lot about Tim Walberg, but you've gotten his glossy flyers in the mail. You've seen Mark Schauer's name somewhere, but really, you don't know much about either of them. What do you do?
For many, you type "Tim Walberg" and "Mark Schauer" into Google. Focusing on Walberg, what do you get? The first five results are all either pro-Walberg or neutral-- Walberg's House website, Walberg's blog, Wikipedia, Walberg for Congress, and a National Journal profile. (The old Walberg Watch address comes in at number nine, while the new Walberg Watch is rapidly rising, now nearing the top of the second page).
Many people will probably stick to those five results, too. Of those results, only the Wikipedia article even comes close to offering different points of view, but only in the context of controversies that have arisen for Walberg. It doesn't keep up with current issues.
So how do we fix that? How do we make sure that Walberg's side of the story isn't the only one being seen? One way, of course, is for Walberg Watch to rise in the Google page ranking, and that's happening slowly on its own. But, oddly enough, Tim Walberg gave us another way of getting opposing viewpoints into the top Google rankings, albeit not directly.
I'm talking about Congressman Walberg's official House of Representatives blog. It's usually the second result in a Google search, and it's featured prominently on Walberg's House website. Often, it's not much more than just reposting of press releases, but it has a comments feature that, to Walberg's credit, is fairly accepting of progressive views. Does everyone read the comments? No. But some people do, and that means it's an avenue for reaching more people.
With all of this in mind, I’ve got a project for Walberg Watch readers and the Michigan blogosphere.
Purpose
Tim Walberg and his press office state their positions and policy proposals without being challenged. They ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their chosen positions and highlight columnists and editorials that fit their views only. Indeed, they sometimes posts assertions that are misleading at best and outright untruths at worst. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—this is politics, after all, and everyone is guilty of spin—but going unchallenged is unacceptable.
Let’s fix that. Whenever Walberg’s blog makes a misleading statement, let’s make sure the first comment calls them out on it. Whenever he cites Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to justify his economic policies, let’s counter with real, honest-to-God economists. We talk about holding our elected officials accountable. This is one more way to hold them to the fire.
Why?
Someone is bound to ask, “But, Fitzy, what’s the point?” After all, the number of people that actually read Congressman Walberg’s blog isn’t that high, and the number that follow through to the comments is even smaller. Is this a good way of using the resources of the progressive netroots?
I say, yes, it is. If done effectively, it shows the organizing strength of progressives in a place that Walberg and his staff will see it, and in a place where other observers also have an opportunity to see it. It gives us a chance to practice and refine our arguments and, maybe, be challenged ourselves with counterpoints that we haven’t considered, which will make us better at this when we’re canvassing or phone banking. There’s nothing wrong with some good, old-fashioned political discourse. And it doesn’t cost us anything more than a few minutes every week.
And hey, we might even reach a couple of undecided voters.
But, Wait...
Walberg’s staff will just delete our comments, right? That’s what you’re thinking, isn’t it? It’s true, the comment system is such that new comments have to be approved before they’re posted, but they’ve been fairly accepting of opposing viewpoints. I’ve even had comments make it on that have been critical (though civil) of his conduct. This is one of the few redeeming qualities of Congressman Walberg.
But, yeah, Walberg’s office might start deleting our comments, leaving this whole project dead. What happens then? Well, we complain about how Tim Walberg silences dissent and isn’t willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments. So what if we wasted a couple of hours? In the end, it’s not that big of a deal. And it’s worth trying, because 1.) we could actually reach a couple of voters and 2.) democracy is about direct feedback from those represented to the representative.
Procedure
Every Wednesday, I’ll choose three recent Tim Walberg blog posts, and post them on Walberg Watch, Michigan Liberal, and Blogging for Michigan. With each, I’ll point out a few potential flaws—places where the truth is stretched or conclusions reached are questionable—and, if I remember anything off the top of my head, I’ll throw in links to articles that I think might be helpful.
This is where you come in. Chances are, you’ve read something recently on a given issue that perfectly refutes what Walberg says. Share a link to the article, editorial, or blog post in the comments, and then go and comment on Walberg’s post. We can discuss the best arguments in the comments, and then a few people can fill Walberg’s post with their ideas. If you haven’t got time to comment on his post yourself, just give us the link, and someone else will do it. If you see someone complain about Walberg elsewhere in the blogosphere, tell them about the project.
The next week, I’ll post an update on the previous week’s projects and link to the new posts of the week. The process repeats.
Caveats
I want to make a few things clear before this goes forward. The purpose of this is not to harass Tim Walberg and fill his blog with inflammatory messages. Frankly, that’s just dumb. We want to convince undecided voters and prove that our arguments are better. I heard someone call Walberg a “fascist neocon ideologue” a few weeks ago, and that does nothing but alienate people.
In other words, don’t be an asshole about it. When Walberg says something that’s wrong, don’t respond with “How stupid do you think we are?” Instead, respond with, “But, Congressman, the Detroit Free Press recently ran a story saying that...” I know that progressives are capable of well-reasoned, well-articulated, insightful arguments. Imagine if the comments on Tim Walberg’s blog were filled with those. It would embarrass him and make us look great.
Also, I’ll add that this isn’t limited to just residents of Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. Walberg’s votes have the potential to hurt the entire country, and he’s constantly an embarrassment to the people of Michigan. If you think he’s wrong, make sure he knows it.
Obviously, if there’s no interest in this, I’ll drop the project. But the internet offers so many phenomenal ways to communicate directly with your representative and make your voice heard. Why not use as many of them as possible?
Walberg Blog Comments Project - Wednesday, August 13, 2008
This is a collection of quotes from 7th District residents talking about how high gas prices are impacting their daily lives. Some of the stories are touching and painful, and, of course, none of them would be helped by Walberg’s “Oil Company Give-Away” drilling plan. What would help? It wouldn’t solve all the problems, but releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which Walberg opposed) would lower prices. There is already one dissenting comment, noting that domestically-produced oil will still be sold on the world market, and won’t help Americans all that much. This is a point which can be further emphasized.
Walberg’s office offers a series of links to newspaper editorials criticizing the Democratic strategy on high gas prices. Surely we can find some editorials that label the Walberg/Republican plan as the pointless idea we all know it is, right?
This is a big one. They cite a Washington Post editorial that claims to refute progressive arguments against offshore drilling. It’s worth noting that the same editorial also says that drilling offshore would have no immediate impact on gas prices, and that it specifically states that they support protecting ANWR, where Walberg wants to drill there. Further, where the article notes the need for a long-term, comprehensive plan, Walberg has opposed Democratic bills that would invest in alternative energies (example here). And add in his opposition to conservation through public transportation and other areas. Oh, and how about Paul Krugman’s recent op-ed reminding us about global climate change—which Walberg doesn’t believe in.
So, let’s get to it. How do we refute these? And who wants to be the first to comment?
And, of course, for you Republican lurkers out there, if we fall short on any of these, I assure you, it’s not some failing of the progressive movement. Rather, it means that we’re just not trying hard enough... yet.
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.
While Tim Walberg is staging a protest in Washington, D.C. and waving his energy plan around on television, Democratic challenger and state Senator Mark Schauer introduced a bill in the Michigan Senate to do what he can do to increase energy production and create jobs:
Highlights of Schauer’s “Drill Responsibly-Create New Energy Jobs” include:
Demand responsible oil production in currently leased land
If no production in five years, land goes back to state to be re-leased
Financial penalties for stockpiling land to profit from reserves without producing
No new leases unless current ones are used
Modernize lease system to make sure taxpayers and consumers benefit from production
Switch from the outdated 1/6 royalty system to a 50/50 "working interest" model - as the federal government and other countries are moving toward. Other states like Alaska, Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Louisiana all make more compensation for their taxpayers from production
Create fund where additional revenue is used to transition to renewable energy projects and job creation
According to Legislative Service Bureau estimates, there are approximately 4,187 active leases in Michigan on which oil is not being produced, 1,667 pending leases on which oil is not being produced, and only 3,773 that are actually producing oil. This legislation would force companies to make use of the resources they have or allow them to go to companies who will.
As far as I can tell, the text of Schauer's bill isn't online yet. I'll add a link as soon as I can find it. We'll have to wait another day for more in-district media coverage, but the Chicago Tribune gives us this AP article:
LANSING, Mich. - Oil and gas companies would pay Michigan higher royalty fees when leasing government-owned land under a plan by a top Democrat who wants to spend the extra revenue on renewable energy projects.
[...]
The "use-it-or-lose-it" approach is needed because oil companies are claiming leases as assets but letting the land sit dormant, said the proposal's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek. There are more than 4,000 active leases in Michigan where oil or gas isn't being produced, he said.
"They're making money on Wall Street, but they're not generating oil and not increasing supplies to reduce the cost at the pump," Schauer said.
I don't know enough about the proposal yet to speak intelligently on it. Chris Gautz at the Citizen Patriot seems to think investing the money in environmentally-friendly energy research isn't allowed by the state constitution, but I'm not sure if that's true or not.
Even so, this is a good contrast to the Walberg energy plan, which is a "give everything to the oil companies" plan. It'll be interesting to see the coverage this gets moving forward.
The committee is looking toward New York, where they scored big gains in 2006, with a small buy against Rep. Randy Kuhl; to Missouri, with a sizable $26,000 purchase in Republican Rep. Sam Graves' district; to Michigan, where Rep. Tim Walberg will be hit with the biggest buy, at almost $40,000; and even in Idaho, where cheap television rates mean the $11,000 spent against freshman Rep. Bill Sali could go a long way.
(Emphasis added.)
They're spending $175,000 across ten districts. Spending $40,000 in Michigan's 7th alone is significant. If you've heard either the Freedom's Watch ad or the DCCC ad, feel free to share what station and when in the comments.
Back in July, the Green Party of Michigan held its convention in Marshall, Michigan. As is often the case with minor parties, I completely forgot about it. Nevertheless, it is still worth reporting that at their meeting, they nominated Chelsea resident Lynn Meadows for Michigan's 7th Congressional District.
From what I can tell, Meadows is actually a fairly big name in the MI Greens, as the chair of the Tamarack Greens and having been their Secretary of State nominee in 2006. For that office, she won 70,218 votes statewide, or about 1.9 percent of the vote. Across the 7th District, she stayed fairly consistent, right around the two percent mark.
So how will she fare as a congressional candidate? As the Secretary of State candidate, she out-performed the rest of the Green ticket in 2006-- their nominees for Senate and Governor each got less than one percent. However, she was also the only minor party candidate running for that office, which meant that the 1.9 percent that she earned included those who were simply dissatisfied with the Republican and Democratic Parties and wanted to voice their frustration in a low-profile race.
The Green Party did not field a candidate in 2006, but in 2004, nominee Jason Seagraves took 1.3 percent of the vote, or 3,996 votes.
It'll be interesting to see if Meadows runs a strong campaign this year. I'm not expecting her to break two percent, but, then again, that's still two percent in what could be a very close race.
With this and Schauer's primary victory, we have our final November ballot:
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) Mark Schauer (D) Ken Proctor (L) Lynn Meadows (G)
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.
On the same day that "Freedom's Watch" released a radio ad attacking Mark Schauer on energy policy, Congressman Tim Walberg released a television ad touting his own energy "plan":
First, I think Tim Walberg is the first person I've ever seen wear an orange polo shirt while riding a motorcycle. I don't have anything against motorcycles, I just feel like if you're going to do it, especially on television, you should have a little style! It just looks as awkward as, say, John Kerry hunting.
Besides that silliness, it's an ad that plays to the base while trying to come across as moderate. It's pretty light on content, but hey, that's a television ad.
The big question is about timing. It's a logical time to release an ad-- right after the Democratic primary, to frame himself early before the general election coverage heats up. But it coincides exactly with the release of the "Freedom's Watch" ad and deals with the same subject. Energy is a big issue and the release of both ads makes sense. Even so, it's a little suspicious.
The Walberg for Congress campaign and the "Freedom's Watch" group are not allowed to coordinate their message and spending like that. It's illegal, and it's something that Walberg has been accused of in the past. Joe Schwarz filed an FEC complaint against Tim Walberg for doing exactly that with the Club for Growth in 2006:
The FEC complaint contends the Club for Growth coordinated expenditures from its political action committee and 527 organization, listing common political strategists and pollsters who were paid by the Club for Growth, Walberg and three other campaigns: Senate candidate Steve Laffey in Rhode Island, and congressional candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Bill Sali in Idaho.
And "Freedom's Watch" isn't exactly clear of such accusations, either. During a special election in Louisiana this year, the group aired an ad whose script appeared to be written by the NRCC. That was called an "innocent mistake," but, if actually written by the NRCC, is absolutely illegal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone has broken the law. I'm saying that this is something to watch closely as both Walberg and "Freedom's Watch" release more ads.
The DCCC Independent Expenditure (IE) today announced it will launch radio ads across the country responding to Freedom’s Watch latest bogus claims. Freedom’s Watch has put more deceptive radio ads on the air as part of the shady, soft money group’s plan to try to defeat Democratic congressional candidates.
Freedom’s Watch is operating as the cash-strapped NRCC’s de facto independent expenditure campaign. The organization has close ties to President George Bush and Senator John McCain and is funded, staffed, and guided by a “who’s who” of Republican operatives known for their win-at-all-cost tactics, including Karl Rove.
Michigan's 7th District is one of the 10 districts on the list. It's good to see someone call them out on their lies and distortions.
The DCCC also has a website exposing "Freedom's Watch" and it's unsavory backers.
"Freedom's Watch" is a 501(c)(4) group (website and DCCC counter-website) which has appeared this election year, mostly bashing Democrats and run by ex-Bush administration officials. Today, they released this radio ad:
"70% of Americans are in favor of exploring for off shore oil, but Mark Schauer says no. Mark Schauer is against a bill that would expand domestic oil exploration, build new refineries, and increase wind energy. And he's endorsed by a liberal special interest group in favor of high gas prices. Schauer said expanding the search for domestic oil wont do anything to lower gas prices, but a RAND study said that the US has at least three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Michigan is in a one state recession, we are losing jobs, families are struggling. As an elected official, Mark Schauer can do something, but he refuses to explore for oil here in the US. Call Mark Schauer at (517) 373-2426 and tell him to support domestic oil exploration and support American jobs. Paid for by Freedom's Watch."
Notice that they managed to work the word "liberal" in there. Will "JoeSchwarzIsALiberal.com" be replaced by "MarkSchauerIsALiberal.com"?
That sounds like a tough attack that might stick, except that we get this from Schauer in the Daily Telegram yesterday:
State Sen. Mark Schauer said Monday there needs to be compromise from both sides of the aisle on providing opportunities to assist Michigan’s economy.
“I support the efforts of Congress to break the logjam and work toward a bipartisan resolution toward the energy crisis,” Schauer said.
The state senator said the Republican from Tipton does not know how to reach a consensus in working toward energy solutions.
“Tim is there (protesting in Washington) apparently because they haven’t taken up his bill,” Schauer said. “He has voted against seven specific bills since February that would have provided real solutions to the energy crises we face. What Walberg is proposing will not bring relief to the economy in neither the short- or long-term.”
“I support offshore drilling,” Schauer said when asked about alternative actions to help relieve fuel prices. He said there is land available in both the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska that can be drilled, and that the option was in one of the bills Walberg voted against.
“What I will not support is drilling in the Great Lakes,” Schauer said. “We are one accident from devastating our natural resources.”
(Emphasis added.)
In other words, Schauer supports offshore drilling, just not opening up everything, everywhere, the way Walberg does. If Tim Walberg thought there was oil in the Grand Canyon, I'm sure he'd toss out the tourists and start drilling.
Unfortunately, in these sorts of debates, it's often the side that shouts the loudest that wins. Even so, Schauer has the much more reasonable position, and he's right when he says this isn't something we can drill our way out of.
UPDATE: In addition to fixing a couple of typos, I wanted to point something else out. The ad says:
As an elected official, Mark Schauer can do something, but he refuses to explore for oil here in the US.
So, wait a second... Schauer currently serves in the state Senate, which means that he can do something, but only in the state of Michigan. When we're talking about offshore drilling, we mean in the Atlantic or the Pacific, and, since Michigan doesn't have coastline on either of those (at least, the last time I checked), he can't do anything about drilling offshore in his current job.
That is, unless Freedom's Watch wants to drill in the Great Lakes. But everyone except for Tim Walberg agrees that drilling there is a horrible idea.
UPDATE II: Eric B. at Michigan Liberal also responds, doing the research that was next on my list of things to do:
Lies, plain and simple. Here is the RAND study citied. Please note that it's called "Oil shale development in the United States." That's because the the "proven reserves" the RAND study is talking about are all locked up in oil shale ... not lying about somewhere off shore or in Alaska.
You're probably wondering about oil shale, and why we haven't developed it. I mean, we have a lot of it. It's remained undeveloped since the 70s for the same reason why the United States has lost and not built refining capacity ... purely economic reasons. Processing oil shale into something usable is incredibly expensive, requires a great deal of energy (because it requires a great deal of heat), and because it's very water intensive (and most of the shale is where there isn't a great deal of water).
This is a deceptive ad. It cites a study that's not talking about offshore drilling to attack Schauer on offshore drilling, even though Schauer already supports reasonable offshore drilling.
Ahh! If this is what it'll be like until November, I might go a little crazy.
Someone, please, please, please, write a letter to the editor refuting this crap, before it goes unchallenged for too long.
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.
UPDATE II: For those curious, in the 2006 primary, the total Democratic vote was 19,753. Renier won with 10,402.
UPDATE III: As counties finish counting, they're updating the Michigan Secretary of State page with totals. I'm adding in final results in each county, with the county winner in italics.
UPDATE IV: The Schauer campaign claims victory:
SCHAUER WINS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, VOWS TO FIGHT FOR MICHIGAN JOBS Congressional candidate will challenge Bush Republican Tim Walberg in Michigan's 7th district
BATTLE CREEK—Today voters in south central Michigan elected Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) as the Democratic nominee in Michigan's 7th congressional district. He will challenge incumbent Congressman Tim Walberg in the general election on November 4.
Following his victory this evening, Sen. Schauer issued the following statement:
"Tonight marks the starting gun for our sprint to changing Washington in November. Voters now have a clear choice between someone who will roll up their sleeves to help turn Michigan's economy around, one job at a time, and the current Congressman who is making things worse. I have a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans to save and create jobs, I'll support an energy plan that puts the needs of consumers ahead of record profits for Big Oil companies, and I'll get started on day one fixing what's broken in Washington."
The Cook Political Report and Roll Call have both ranked this race as a tossup, which is their most competitive category. In a recent interview with the Detroit News, David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report said, "Walberg continues to be in grave danger of losing his seat."
UPDATE V: From the Jackson Citizen Patriot, Schauer and Renier react:
"This is just one step toward winning this seat back," Schauer said. "We need to take this seat back from someone who is extremely out of touch with this district and with the needs of our state."
and
Renier, of Munith, said her apparent defeat is a loss for the people of Michigan. "I believe people are sheeples and they will go wherever they think the feed is the sweetest," she said. "They will stand out in the rain but they don't realize that the big bad wolf is coming and that's too bad for them."
I understand that Sharon is frustrated, and I have nothing but respect for her and for the passion she brought to the race in 2004, 2006, and this year. I only hope that she eventually realizes that Senator Schauer is a solid progressive, a strong candidate, and a much better alternative than Tim Walberg.
Polls have been open since 7:00am and close at 8:00pm. For information on voting, click here. To find your polling place, click here.
I might be a little late with results tonight, but you can see them yourself here.
Share your primary election story. Did you vote for Walberg, Renier, or Schauer? If you're in Jackson County, who do you want to win the county clerk race? In Lenawee County, how about the sheriff's race? In Calhoun County, what do you think will happen in the state representatives candidates' primary?
This is an exciting day. I'll be voting soon myself.
UPDATE: For those interested, the Schauer campaign is holding a post-election party in Delta Township:
WHO: Mark Schauer 7th district supporters and volunteers
WHAT: Democratic Primary Election Party
WHEN: TODAY, August 5 Party begins at 8:30 p.m. Schauer to speak at 9:30 p.m.
WHERE: R-Club 6409 Centurion Drive Lansing, MI
WHY: The winner of the Democratic primary will take on Congressman Tim Walberg in the general election for Michigan's 7th Congressional district on November 4.
I'm not able to make it, but if any loyal readers are interested in going and reporting back, that'd be a greatuse of the "Submit Content" feature. No word yet about a Renier party.
July 7 - Deadline: Register to vote (Primary) July 17 - Independent Candidate Deadline August 5 - Primary Election October 6 - Deadline: Register to vote (General) November 4 - General Election
Subscribe to Posts [