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.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2006 Election, 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Green Party, Lynn Meadows

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've got a LOT of stuff I need to post about Tim Walberg and the 7th District, especially some voting record updates... But first, I want to write something that'll be a little more fun.

Jerome Armstrong, for the New Politics Institute, has written a strategy memo for political campaigns going into 2008 on how to interact with progressive blogs. As a progressive blogger, obviously this is a big thing for me, and I'd really recommend any candidate go and read the whole thing (.pdf here).

This really is a must-read for anyone interested in running an effective, modern campaign. I'm not just trying to make myself sound important. Blogs are a key part of engaging activists and informing voters.

At the end of the document, there's a set of six recommendations for candidates, all of which are great things to implement. I'd like to take this opportunity to take a look at the internet side of the Renier, Schauer, and Walberg campaigns. I'm not saying anyone is better or worse than anyone else. Rather, I'd like to take a moment to briefly point out what each candidate has done to use the internet and their relationship with bloggers.

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.

Renier: I started this blog in August of 2006, just as the general election campaign for the 7th District was starting. I followed the Renier campaign, as did diarists on Michigan Liberal. She even did an exclusive interview with Nirmal for his blog Who Got The Gravy (prior to Nirmal joining Walberg Watch). However, there was no coherent attempt to reach out to bloggers. She didn't seek me out (though, by the end of the campaign, we had been in contact), and she didn't seek out other bloggers, to my knowledge.

Going into 2008, Renier has yet to form much of a campaign, rejecting the idea of raising large amounts of cash and relying on a low-budget, grassroots model, like her previous campaign. Still, she and I have exchanged some e-mails, and I hope that she'll keep Walberg Watch and other Michigan blogs in the loop as she goes forward with her campaign.

Schauer: Mark Schauer has been great on this, even before he decided to run for Congress, with an account at Michigan Liberal and regular outreach efforts by the Senate caucus to Michigan bloggers.

When he first expressed an interest in running, I sent off an e-mail to his office, just to see what might happen. The next day, I got a phone call from his chief of staff, Ken Brock. When Senator Schauer announced, Ken Brock called me again to make sure I had heard the news, and we set up a way for Schauer to post something on Walberg Watch explaining his decision. Since then, I've had a chance to speak with the senator and the campaign regularly sends me press releases.

That's basically the best local blog outreach you could imagine. They've taken me seriously, shared information with me, and not cut me off when I've posted (or others have posted) negative items about the campaign or those involved. Schauer's campaign has been great on this.

(It's worth noting that the Nacht and Berryman campaigns were pretty good, too, but as they've withdrawn, I don't want to spend too much time on them.)

Walberg: Obviously, Congressman Walberg hasn't been all that interested in working with Walberg Watch (though, I have exchanged a few e-mails with his office). Currently, there's no corresponding pro-Walberg or anti-Schauer 7th District blog, nor have I seen the congressman reach out to Right Michigan or other conservative Michigan bloggers.

However, Walberg has had a pretty strong presence elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere. He's had guest posts on TownHall.com and Human Events, both conservative websites, and has posted his views on the Hill Blog for members of Congress. So, there's been an outreach effort of some sort.

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.

Renier: Sharon Renier's website was updated from time to time in 2006, and more frequently as it got closer to the election (mostly for major items, like her television ad, the fake robocalls, etc.). However, for most of the fall, her website was mostly static, and has not changed at all since election day of 2006.

Schauer: Mark Schauer's website is still in the "under construction" phase, and can't be judged quite yet. However, from what I remember of his 2006 Michigan Senate re-election page, it was fairly static, updated even less than the Renier website, as is his official Senate website. As Minority Leader, one can also look at the Democratic caucus website, which is regularly updated with lots of great content. Now, it's tough to tell how much of that is the work of Schauer's staff, but if he can replicate it in his campaign website, it would be a smart move.

Walberg: Tim Walberg's website didn't change much at all during the 2006 campaign. Like Renier, it hadn't changed since the 2006 election for several months, only recently changing to its current version.

However, Walberg also has his official House website. It's regularly updated with statements and press releases, which is good, and Walberg even has a blog, which is occasionally updated and has some actual content.

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.

None of the three campaigns I'm looking at have ever purchased ads on blogs, as far as I know. However, if any campaign is interested in advertising on Michigan blogs, information for Michigan Liberal is available here, and information for Blogging for Michigan is here.

There's really no mechanism for advertising on Walberg Watch, as I really don't want to deal with the hassle it would entail, and I'm certainly not looking to profit off of this blog. Still, if someone really wants to pay me to stick up a banner or something, contact me and we'll talk about it. But I don't think it'd be worth it.

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.

Renier: In the 2006 election, Sharon Renier posted a document on her website detailing Tim Walberg's voting record in the state House, which was about the sum of their opposition research. While the campaign didn't contact Walberg Watch about it, I did find it on my own, and posted most of it over the course of a month or so.

Schauer: I don't know what kind of opposition research the Schauer campaign has done yet, but I know I haven't seen any of it on this or other blogs. However, as noted above, they've been great about sending press releases and other information they want to get out there, which is a good sign for the future.

Walberg: I don't know what kind of opposition research the Walberg campaign did in 2006. All they really did was distort what Joe Schwarz and Sharon Renier stand for, and label everything they didn't like "liberal." So.

Others: Not other candidates, but other interested observers. There have been plenty of times where people have done their own research or noticed something peculiar and sent it along to me. So, there are certain people and groups that know how to use blogs to get their opposition research out.

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.

Renier: In hindsight, there are a lot of great ways Sharon Renier could have used video in the 2006 campaign. Maybe something like what Larry LaRocco is doing in the Idaho Senate race, where he's "working" to get in the Senate by visiting different sites and spending time with regular people. Similarly, Renier's regular-person appeal could have been shown with video of her on the farm, contrasting her with the professional politician Walberg.

Unfortunately, there was only one video produced by Sharon Renier that ever made it on the internet-- her television ad-- and I don't think it was put on YouTube by her campaign, but by someone else (I'm not 100 percent sure about that).

Schauer: When one does a search for video on Mark Schauer, there are seven results. One negative, produced by RightMichigan.com, five put up for the Senate Democratic Caucus, and one put up by Schauer for Congress (the pasty video). In addition to those, there are a lot of videos on the Senate Democratic Caucus' website, many of which feature Senator Schauer.

Although most of it wasn't produced for this campaign, Schauer will, presumably, continue producing videos as we move toward 2008. Overall, he's been very good about using video.

Walberg: When one searches for Walberg, there are twelve videos. However, of these, one is an independent video titled "Walberg Coddles Child Abusers," one is an AFSCME ad against him, seven are part of the WOCR conservative radio programs I mentioned last week, and one is a piece of the Rush Limbaugh show. There are also two videos put up by House Minority Leader John Boehner's office of Walberg's floor speeches.

Oddly, the videos of the Walberg press office don't come up when you search for his name. I sort of found them accidentally. But, there are two videos which his office has added which portray Walberg favorably.

Overall, it's an okay use of video, though I don't remember seeing anything during the 2006 campaign. If I were to give them a little advice, though, it would be that they need to tag their own videos better. It doesn't bode well for them when their own videos don't come up in a search for "Tim Walberg."

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.

Yeah, it should be numbered six, not another five. Obviously, Jerome didn't proof-read.

A quick search of Facebook and MySpace shows that none of the candidates have really utilized these tools. None of them have MySpace pages, and only one-- Tim Walberg-- has a Facebook profile, which has very little information on it (though he does have 166 supporters). There is a Schauer for Congress Facebook group, but as far as I can tell, it's not officially connected to the campaign.

What's the value of these resources? Well, with Adrian College, Siena Heights University, Albion College, Spring Arbor University, Olivet College, and Jackson Community College (plus branches of other institutions) all in the district, there's certainly the potential for a motivated youth vote. On top of that, Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, and University of Michigan are all just outside the district boundaries. So, there's a lot to draw upon. Youth outreach should be a priority, and these websites are a great way to start.

Those are the six recommendations. Do you have any creative ways for campaigns to use the internet?

Labels: 2006 Election, 2008 Election, Mark Schauer, Netroots, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, there are the independent expenditures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we come to the end of 2006 it is time to look back at the election. I have looked at the numbers for both Walberg v. Renier and DeVos v. Granholm in the 7th District. I was very surprised by what I found. In the 7th District Granholm defeated DeVos by 15,958 votes. Granholm won 4 of the 7 counties in the district and received better than 55% in Washtenaw, Eaton, and Calhoun. Granholm even won Jackson County by 914 votes.

In the 7th District Tim Walberg defeated Sharon Renier by 9,683 votes. As I looked at this my first thought was that it must be as a result of a large drop off of voters from the Governors race to the Congressional race. While there were 7,421 fewer votes cast for Congress than Governor that is still 2,200 short of what Renier needed to catch Walberg. I would even argue that most of those 7,000 voters were Schwarz Republicans who would not vote for Walberg. I believe that the drop off is a result of a race that no one was interested in. There were 300 more votes cast for State House than for Congress.

It is interesting to look at the percentages that each county voted for Renier and Granholm.

Branch: Renier 39.79% 5,572 votes, Granholm 47.98% 6,901 votes.
Calhoun: Renier 48.83% 21,260 votes, Granholm 57.83% 25,854 votes.
Eaton: Renier 49.51% 22,108 votes, Granholm 57.65% 26,611 votes.
Hillsdale: Renier 32.54% 5,000 votes, Granholm 40.83% 6,408 votes.
Jackson: Renier 45.82% 25,281 votes, Granholm 50.06% 28,450 votes.
Lenawee: Renier 42.36% 14,379 votes, Granholm 47.11% 16,295 votes.
Washtenaw: Renier 43.74% 19,065 votes, Granholm 55.89% 22,402 votes.

In every County Renier under performed.

There has been a lot of speculation that Walberg did not do as well as expected. What is interesting is that he out performed Dick DeVos in every County. In all 7 counties Walberg had a higher percentage and 5,385 more votes than DeVos even with fewer votes cast.

Branch: Walberg 55.30% 7,744 votes, DeVos 50.39% 7,248 votes.
Calhoun: Walberg 43.48% 18,930 votes, DeVos 42.17% 18,852 votes.
Eaton: Walberg 43.33% 21,135 votes, DeVos 41.11% 18,977 votes.
Hillsdale: Walberg 63.77% 9,798 votes, DeVos 57.38% 9,005 votes.
Jackson: Walberg 51.00% 28,140 votes, DeVos 48.46% 27,536 votes.
Lenawee: Walberg 55.20% 18,740 votes, DeVos 51.06% 17,662 votes.
Washtenaw: Walberg 46.60% 17,861 votes, DeVos 44.11% 17,683 votes.

I am not sure what this means. My gut reaction is that this district is trending Democratic. In Eaton Democrats took control of the County Commission. In Calhoun Democrats defeated an incumbent commissioner and now have a 5-2 majority.

There are 10 State House Districts that are at least partially in the 7th Congressional District (52nd, 54th, 55th 57th, 58th 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th, and 71st). There were no open seats. The only incumbents who lost were the two Republicans who lost in the 64th and 65th. When you add up the votes in all 10 districts Republicans won by only 3,255 votes 50.66% to 49.33%. The 58th district (Branch and Hillsdale Counties) inflated the Republican numbers. Bruce Caswell won by 13,392 votes 72.9%. If the Democrat in this race had received the same percentage as Renier Democrats would have received 7,000 more votes than Republicans. What these numbers tell me is that this district will support a Democrat if there is a strong Democrat running.

I will be interested to read what others make of these numbers.

Labels: 2006 Election

This post should have come a few weeks ago. It's far from comprehensive, and the way I look at the data isn't perfect. That said, it shows real gains made by Democrats, and the potential for more gains-- and victory-- in 2008.

In 2004, the Republican nominee (Joe Schwarz) emerged from a tough and nasty primary with a slight plurality, while the Democratic nominee (Sharon Renier) surprised observers by winning a majority of votes with little money in a largely ignored primary. The Republican went on to win in November 58-36 (plus minor party candidates).

In 2006, the Republican nominee (Tim Walberg) emerged from a tough and nasty primary with a slight majority, while the Democratic nominee (Sharon Renier) surprised observers by winning a majority of votes with little money in a largely ignored primary. The Republican went on to win in November 51-46 (plus minor party candidates).

What happened between 2004 and 2006?

The Numbers

In both years, the 7th District race was largely overshadowed by an up-ticket, big-spending race-- Bush versus Kerry in 2004, and Granholm versus DeVos in 2006.

Below are the Schwarz-Renier and Walberg-Renier race results for each county, 2004 and 2006 (I've omitted minor party candidates for simplicity-- see below). Also included the 2004 presidential and 2006 gubernatorial results. Italics indicate that the winning party for that county changed.

Branch

2004:
Schwarz - 10,554 - 62%
Renier - 5,487 - 32%

Bush - 10,784 - 60%
Kerry - 7,004 - 39%

2006:
Walberg - 7,744 - 56%
Renier - 5,572 - 40%

DeVos - 7,248 - 50%
Granholm - 6,901 - 48%

Calhoun*

2004:
Schwarz - 35,557 - 61%
Renier - 20,368 - 35%

Bush - 32,093 - 51%
Kerry - 29,891 - 48%

2006:
Walberg - 18,930 - 45%
Renier - 21,257 - 51%

DeVos - 19,726 - 42%
Granholm - 26,670 - 57%

Eaton

2004:
Schwarz - 31,600 - 60%
Renier - 19,087 - 36%

Bush - 29,781 - 53%
Kerry - 25,411 - 46%

2006:
Walberg - 21,133 - 48%
Renier - 22,105 - 50%

DeVos - 18,975 - 41%
Granholm - 26,608 - 58%

Hillsdale

2004:
Schwarz - 10,785 - 60%
Renier - 5,227 - 29%

Bush - 12,804 - 64%
Kerry - 7,123 - 35%

2006:
Walberg - 9,798 - 64%
Renier - 5,000 - 33%

DeVos - 9,005 - 57%
Granholm - 6,408 - 41%

Jackson

2004:
Schwarz - 39,007 - 58%
Renier - 24,736 - 36%

Bush - 40,029 - 56%
Kerry - 31,025 - 43%

2006:
Walberg - 28,138 - 51%
Renier - 25,280 - 46%

DeVos - 27,534 - 48%
Granholm - 28,450 - 50%

Lenawee

2004:
Schwarz - 22,837 - 53%
Renier - 16,726 - 39%

Bush - 25,675 - 55%
Kerry - 20,787 - 44%

2006:
Walberg - 19,036 - 56%
Renier - 14,344 - 42%

DeVos - 17,641 - 51%
Granholm - 16,502 - 47%

Washtenaw*

2004:
Schwarz - 25,713 - 57%
Renier - 17,896 - 39%

2006:
Walberg - 17,861 - 47%
Renier - 19,065 - 50%

*Part of Calhoun County is in the 6th District. However, as the vast majority of the county is in the 7th, and no major population centers are in the excluded section, full presidential and gubernatorial data are included.
**Only the western portion of Washtenaw County is in the 7th District. The rest is in the 15th District, represented by Rep. John Dingell. Only the congressional results have been included.

Sharon Renier made gains in every county, picking up anywhere from 3 to 16 percent of the vote, in Lenawee and Calhoun Counties, respectively. Perhaps worth noting is the fact that her smallest gain was in Walberg's home county and her largest gain was in Joe Schwarz's home county. In 2006, Renier won three of the counties of the district, having lost all of them to Schwarz two years earlier. Walberg's percentage of the vote was thus lower than Schwarz's in all but two counties (Lenawee and Hillsdale, where 2004 had strong minor party candidates).

However, Renier was not the only Democrat to make gains in a "Democratic Year." Nationally, Democrats took the House and Senate, as well as picking up six new governorships. In Michigan, Democrats took the state House and narrowed the gap in the state Senate, and re-elected a Democratic governor by 14 points. Were Renier's gains just Granholm coattails?

In both years, Sharon Renier underperformed when compared to the top of the ticket. Yet, the average difference between Kerry and Renier in each county (except Washtenaw) was 8 percent, a difference that narrowed to 6.5 percent between Granholm and Renier. Renier wasn't merely being carried by Granholm and other Democrats-- other factors were in play, whether they were Renier's campaign successes or Walberg's campaign blunders. Given the considerable difference in campaign funding-- Renier's final FEC report showed only $39,000 raised, compared to Walberg's $1,000,000+ -- Renier performed incredibly well.

Perhaps most striking, however, is Jackson County. In both 2004 and 2006, it proved to be the bellwether, accurately reflecting the Democratic and Republican percentages in both elections. Birthplace of the Republican Party, this is the center of the district and the most populous county. Renier showed considerable strength, but still finished four points behind Granholm. This was the only county that Granholm carried and Renier did not. It also included other significant Democratic gains-- two state House Republican incumbents were defeated by Democratic challengers in Jackson County. (For what it's worth, the Renier campaign blamed

What Does This Mean?

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer that I see. If Renier had picked up four or five percent more, she would have won (or been close enough for a recount). Such voters could have been gotten-- after all, they did vote for Governor Granholm over Dick DeVos. That said, she certainly wasn't just a weak candidate, being carried by Granholm's momentum. Her message was genuine (if unpolished, at times), and despite poor funding and little support, she reached a lot of people.

Nor can everything be attributed to Tim Walberg. He's certainly a weak candidate that alienates moderates, but he's got an (R) next to his name, and old habits die hard in a district like this one. Despite hopes to the contrary, plenty of Schwarz Republicans stayed with Walberg. Had Renier been nothing more than a "sacrificial lamb" candidate, she might have received a bump in support, but not much more.

In short, Sharon Renier was a legitimate (if not the strongest possible) candidate, yet Tim Walberg, despite alienating many moderates, still has a loyal base.

The sequence of events that made this race competitive were unlikely, and there's no one factor which shaped the race. Still, it's a race that can be won in 2008.

Labels: 2006 Election

Today is Thanksgiving Day, and we have a great deal for which we should be thankful.

Tim Walberg will be our next member of Congress. Yet it will also be a Democratic Congress, and the new majority will keep him in check. For this, we can be thankful.

We can be thankful that Democrats won on multiple levels, including winning state House seats (including two in Jackson County) and re-electing a governor and senator.

We can be thankful for local media which still has its eye on Congressman-elect Walberg. He won't get to pull much without someone noticing.

We can be thankful for the opportunity we have in 2008. Sharon Renier promises to run again and, with a stronger campaign (and more money), she's got a good shot at winning. Also a possibility is State Senator Mark Schauer, Democratic leader and rising star. And there are more names that will rise as we come closer. I won't make any endorsements with this blog, except to say that I'll endorse the eventual Democratic nominee.

We can be thankful for the hard-working men and women of this district, who are devoted to a fair and equitable future, with opportunity for all. For those that work to oppose harmful politics and seek a stronger America.

And we can be thankful for all the patriots of our district, state, and country-- of all parties-- who serve their country, through serving in government, serving in our armed forces, and working to benefit their communites.

I've really slacked off on the blogging lately, and that will improve. I really will have that post-election analysis sometime in the not-to-distant future, as well as new posts on what Congressman-elect Walberg does in Washington.

Until then, thank you. This blog has been quite an experience, and I look forward to continuing it through to 2008.

Labels: 2006 Election

I started to write a post-election analysis, but I just don't have the energy for it. Yesterday took out everything I've got and, despite Sharon Renier's phenomenal performance, I'm not sure if I can quite manage a post about Tim Walberg's victory. At least, not yet.

When Congressman Tim Walberg goes to Washington, I'll keep writing. This man is the face of today's Republican Party-- a party that forces out good men like Joe Schwarz and loses elections across the country. He's out of step with his district, his state, and his country, and I'll bet good money right now that he won't be going back to Congress in January of 2009.

Winning this district in 2008 (along with the White House and other races around the country) will start tomorrow. As I saw someone comment yesterday, "It ain't over 'til it's over, and then it starts all over again."

Tomorrow, I'll have two posts for you-- election analysis (sneak preview: Renier outperformed John Kerry and won places Democrats usually don't!) and a look back at my blogging (sneak preview: there's a lot I could do to improve). Then, it's back to work.

UPDATE: Right, so it's a couple days later and I still haven't written those posts. It's not that I forgot, it's that my life got busy. But they'll be up this weekend, I promise!

Labels: 2006 Election

Wed. Morning Update:

I couldn't quite last all of Election Night, but I'm back! I've updated all of the vote totals and percentages. These are the final numbers, unless there are any unforseen recounts.

Final Update for tonight:

If I don't go now, I'll fall asleep on the keyboard. I'll be back tomorrow morning. Until then...

CNN has called its 15th House race for the Democrats, meaning that, if correct, the Democratic Party has retaken the House!

Now, will we have Congresswoman Renier, productive member of the majority, or Congressman Walberg, irrelevant member of the minority?

CNN reports, with 100% precincts reporting the following.

The Battle Creek Enquirer has different numbers (is it just Calhoun County? Or just Battle Creek? I'm not sure), which include the write-in total for Joe Schwarz.

Final Results:
Vote Totals:
Tim Walberg (R)------ 122,640
Sharon Renier (D)----- 112,623
Robert Hutchinson (L) 3,787
David Horn (UST) ---- 3,664

Percentages:
Tim Walberg (R)----- 51
Sharon Renier (D)---- 46
Robert Hutchinson (L) 2
David Horn (UST)---- 1

County Breakdown:

(Bold denotes county winner)

Branch
Tim Walberg (R)------ 7,744
Sharon Renier (D)----- 5,572
Robert Hutchinson (L) 247
David Horn (UST)----- 272

Calhoun
Tim Walberg (R)------ 18,930
Sharon Renier (D)----- 21,257
Robert Hutchinson (L) 767
David Horn (UST)----- 662

Eaton
Tim Walberg (R)------ 21,133
Sharon Renier (D)----- 22,105
Robert Hutchinson (L) 538
David Horn (UST)----- 618

Hillsdale
Tim Walberg (R)------ 9,798
Sharon Renier (D)----- 5,000
Robert Hutchinson (L) 215
David Horn (UST)----- 334

Jackson
Tim Walberg (R)------ 28,138
Sharon Renier (D)----- 25,280
Robert Hutchinson (L) 794
David Horn (UST) ---- 850

Lenawee
Tim Walberg (R)------ 19,036
Sharon Renier (D)----- 14,344
Robert Hutchinson (L) 409
David Horn (UST)----- 439

Washtenaw
Tim Walberg (R)------ 17,861
Sharon Renier (D)---- 19,065
Robert Hutchinson (L) 817
David Horn (UST)---- 489

There may be some delays as I try to keep up, and Blogger might go down. If so:

• Michigan Liberal's key races
• Electoral-Vote.com
• Daily Kos Targeted Races: Governor, House (West, Midwest, Northeast, South), Senate (West, Midwest, Northeast, South)
• DKos Election Liveblogging: MI-Gov, -Sen, MI-07, -08, -09, -11
  
• CNN.com America Votes 2006
• Battle Creek Enquirer Election Results
• Election Magic
• MI Secretary of State Election Results

Labels: 2006 Election

Polls close at 8:00 PM. Get out there and VOTE!

... And share your voting stories in the comments.

UPDATE:

Just voted in Marshall (9:30am). Very big voter turn-out. The election workers were very surprised on how many people have shown up so early in the day. Go Sharon Go!

Indeed a big turn out in Sherwood as well. When I voted in the primary it was at 11:30 am and I was the 52nd voter. When I voted this morning at 8.30am I was 78!!!! The ladies were surprised at the fire hall needless to say. John, whom I work with voted in Athens and he said that he was the 174 voter and that was also around 8:30. Hopefully this is a good sign for Sharon and I will see all of you guys down at her Headquarters, although I have been invited to meet her in person at her bash in Jackson. Well best of Luck.

NICK SMITH
and I do approve of what I've said!

At 1:00 Chelsea Precinct One had over 500 voters already casting votes, that's nearly one third the registered voters. The Western Washtenaw County Dems had a little tent and were giving out donuts and hot cider. I stopped to chat and got the poll totals.

I'll be back with results as they come in. Meanwhile, a few links for you...

• Michigan Liberal's key races
• Electoral-Vote.com
• Daily Kos Targeted Races: Governor, House (West, Midwest, Northeast, South), Senate (West, Midwest, Northeast, South)
• DKos Election Liveblogging: MI-Gov, -Sen, MI-07, -08, -09, -11
  
• CNN.com America Votes 2006
• Battle Creek Enquirer Election Results
• Election Magic
• MI Secretary of State Election Results

Am I forgetting anyone?

By the way, beyond the comments above, it looks like turnout is incredibly high across the country. Not sure what that means, except that people are participating in the process. That's wonderful!

Labels: 2006 Election

First, hello to all the new visitors to the site! Traffic dropped down a little over the weekend, but today it's shot right back up and I have no doubt we'll see a record number of unique visits today!

I'd encourage all of you to come back here tomorrow night as the results come in. I'll be posting updates as they become available. For more Michigan races, check out Michigan Liberal, and, of course, a traditional media outlet of your choosing.

Also, just as a side note, this is the 50th post I've made since starting the blog after the August 8th primary. Crazy. Fifty blog postings isn't much if you're a phenomenally talented blogger, but for a novice like myself, it's a milestone worth celebrating.

The big news of the day is that Congressman Joe Schwarz has filed as a write-in candidate for the 7th District race.

"This is not trying to upset the race," Matt Marsden, Schwarz's chief of staff, told the Battle Creek Enquirer. "This is not trying to pull any last minute hijinks."

Marsden said Schwarz supporters have told the congressman, R-Battle Creek, they planned to write in his name on Tuesday. However, without filing as a write-in candidate, those votes would not have been counted. And so Schwarz filed.

"There's no reason not to file the paperwork to give people a voice," Marsden said.

I'd like to take this moment to encourage everyone to vote for Sharon Renier rather than write in Joe Schwarz. There is absolutely no chance for a Schwarz upset victory over Tim Walberg, and if you sincerely wish to defeat him, you should vote for Sharon Renier.

That said, I understand exactly why he chose to do this, and I support him. If you're a Republican out there that can't bring yourself to vote for Tim Walberg, but you still can't bring yourself to vote for a Democrat, don't leave that space on the ballot blank. Write in Joe Schwarz. Similarly, if you had planned on voting for Walberg out of party loyalty, but would prefer Schwarz as your representative, write in Joe Schwarz. Congressman Schwarz is the real Republican in the race.

Sound a little odd? After all, didn't Tim Walberg's primary campaign consist of phrases like, "Joe Schwarz is a liberal" and "Joe Schwarz is a Republican In Name Only"? That was the rhetoric, but the truth was certainly different. In fact, Schwarz was endorsed by President Bush, the House Republican leadership, and all the major Republicans of the state of Michigan. Who endorsed Tim Walberg? James Dobson, the Minutemen, and the far-right US Taxpayers/Constitution Party Candidate David Horn. It's clear that Walberg would be more comfortable in a fringe party, not the GOP.

Of course, as a write-in, Schwarz has little chance to win. So what does he say about the two major-party nominees?

"Tim Walberg is conservative in the extreme, and is not particularly well versed in a number of issues that he's going to have to bone up on," Schwarz said. "National security, homeland security, the military, health care come to mind right off the top of the head. Economic development also.

"We'll see how he performs."

We shall see indeed. Now, how about Renier?

"I got to know her a little bit two years ago," he said of Renier. "She's pretty bright and has a good grasp of a lot of issues — not all issues, but a lot of them. She's a very credible candidate."

And then there's this:

Schwarz says he has made up his mind -- and he won't vote for Walberg.

The congressman contended Walberg won the primary "by blatantly distorting my record and committing character assassination."

Schwarz's campaign last month filed an extensive campaign-finance complaint, contending Walberg illegally took more than $500,000 in contributions.

Schwarz also blasted his former foe for not backing "life-saving" embryonic stem-cell research and supporting intelligent design.

But the surgeon and former state senator has played coy about endorsing Renier or another candidate.

"Sharon is a woman of good character," Schwarz said. "As far as I can tell, her positions are fairly moderate."

Tomorrow, the most important thing is that you vote. The democratic process is what matters most, and is the institution we should cherish, regardless of the candidates.

The second most important thing is that you vote for Sharon Renier.

I'd love for you all to share your voting experiences, good or bad, in the comments. I'll be promoting a few to the front page, depending on how many I get. Until then...

UPDATE: I don't expect too many election hijinks in this district, but one must always be ready for voter suppression. If you feel you're being denied your right to vote or pressured away from voting or toward voting for some candidate when you go to your polling place tomorrow, don't leave in disgust. Stay there, and call 1-888-DEM-VOTE. That number will put you in contact with someone that can help and, if necessary, send an observer to your polling place to work out the issue.

Far less important-- today has totally blown away the daily site statistics, and it's only 9:30 PM.

Labels: 2006 Election

Without a doubt, Congressman Joe Schwarz is well-qualified for his position and reflects the values and views of his district fairly well. But Congressman Schwarz isn't on the ballot this year, having been defeated by far-right extremist Tim Walberg.

Despite his claims of a large victory, Walberg won narrowly in a low-turnout primary. So where will all of the Schwarz voters go on November 7th?

The Jackson Citizen Patriot asks that question in today's issue.

Will they move to Schwarz's left and pick Renier, who is trying for the seat again? Or will they veer right and select Tim Walberg, who ousted Schwarz in a contentious GOP primary?

Call it the Schwarz factor.

"Those of you who voted for Joe Schwarz should feel welcome here," Gov. Jennifer Granholm said last week while stumping for Renier in Jackson. "Those bread-and-butter moderates ... have been left behind by the Republican Party."

Moderates don't have a place in the modern Republican Party. Ask Jim Webb, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, who's running for Senate in Virginia as a Democrat. Ask Jim Marcinkowski, a former Republican who's running for the House in the 8th District as a Democrat. Ask Gil Ziegler, a former Republican candidate for Congress in the 1st District, who founded Republicans for Granholm.

And then ask Congressman Joe Schwarz about the place of moderates in the modern Republican Party.

The article continues:

Or will Schwarz supporters just stay home?

"Few people vote in the primary. People don't know who Tim Walberg is," said Ed Sarpolus, vice president of the Lansing-based polling firm EPIC/MRA. "And he's to the right of where the district is. But nobody knows Sharon Renier."

Schwarz says he has made up his mind -- and he won't vote for Walberg.

The congressman contended Walberg won the primary "by blatantly distorting my record and committing character assassination."

Schwarz's campaign last month filed an extensive campaign-finance complaint, contending Walberg illegally took more than $500,000 in contributions.

Schwarz also blasted his former foe for not backing "life-saving" embryonic stem-cell research and supporting intelligent design.

But the surgeon and former state senator has played coy about endorsing Renier or another candidate.

"Sharon is a woman of good character," Schwarz said. "As far as I can tell, her positions are fairly moderate."

(Emphasis added)

A woman of good character. Fairly moderate. In politics these days, that's about as close as you can get to a Republican endorsing a Democrat.

The 7th District is not as conservative as Tim Walberg might wish, and we've had the good fortune of being represented by a genuine moderate for the last two years. Shouldn't we continue that trend?

Sharon Renier

Labels: 2006 Election

From the comments...

The number from which those calls were made was reported by the "Battle Creek Enquirer" to be 877-686-7358. That number tracked back to a company called "Western Wats" on May 24, according to the site http://whocalled.us/lookup/8776867358

Western Wats is a private push polling/telemarketing/surveying company in Orem, Utah that works mostly for Republican candidates and draws a lot of business from the "Tarrance Group" a Republican consulting firm.

Search google for "western wats" and "republican" or "western wats" and "dirty tricks" and draw your own conclusions about who sponsored those calls.

Interesting...

Labels: 2006 Election

Sharon Renier's television ad has been available on her website for a while now, but I know a few people out there have had trouble getting it to play on their computers.

Finally, someone with more knowledge than I have has posted the ad on YouTube, which can be seen below:



(Thanks to Pohlitics, where I first saw the YouTube posting.)

This has been broadcast in the district, but with the small budget the Renier campaign is running on, it probably hasn't been seen by many people. Help out by sharing this video with friends, neighbors, and voters who are curious about Sharon Renier and want to hear her side, not just the NRCC and Tim Walberg's side.

Labels: 2006 Election

Four days until Election Day! Regardless of who wins in the 7th District race, I think this election cycle has been good for the district. True, well-respected incumbent Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz was defeated in a brutal primary by Tim Walberg, and both Walberg and Democratic nominee Sharon Renier haven't exactly had a cordial relationship.

But this year, it's become a real race, and not just a coronation for the Republican candidate. Both our political parties function best when there's a credible opposition in every district and for every seat, and this year, with no assistance from the national Democratic Party, Sharon Renier has given new energy to the 7th District Democrats. Even if we stay in the minority, this is a fantastic development, and I hope it carries forward into future elections.

Anyway, here's the latest:

• First Lady Laura Bush was in Battle Creek to campaign with Tim Walberg and Senate candidate Michael Bouchard. She's probably the most popular person in the Bush White House right now-- certainly more popular than Walberg's last visitor, Vice President Cheney-- and her visit is another sign that the national GOP is worried about the district.
• Both the Renier campaign and the Walberg campaign have distanced themselves from the fake "robo calls," in which a woman impersonates Sharon Renier and makes personal attacks against Tim Walberg. Read more here and here.
• The Jackson Citizen-Patriot endorses Tim Walberg. However, I still encourage you to read it, because the endorsement itself is telling. Rather than praise Walberg for his conservative record and "pro-life" stances, it's clear that they endorsed Walberg only because they couldn't bring themselves to endorse Renier. In their view, her rhetoric is too crude for Congress. I say, I'd rather have a crude representative that tells the truth and works for the district than a smooth, well-spoken career politician that works for the Club for Growth.
• Retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was in Jackson this evening, campaigning for Michigan candidates-- including Tim Walberg. Even if Frist's chances at winning the GOP presidential nomination don't look too good, he's still a powerful player. Why does he have to campaign in Jackson, the birthplace of the Republican Party?
• WLNS gave Walberg and Renier a minute each to describe their positions. An interesting, if short, read.

Now, tonight's sample of Tim Walberg's voting record in the Michigan Legislature:

HB 5888
Department of Agriculture Budget

Outcome: Passed 86-18

Tim Walberg: NO
5/5/98
Roll Call 327

Passage of MEGA (Michigan Economic Development Authority) which allowed the state to provide special tax breaks to recruit new job creation

Outcome: Passed 68-35

Tim Walberg: NO
4/4/95
Roll Call 285

Amendment requiring that no money allocated to the Department of Labor could be used to promote a "right to work" philosophy

Outcome: Passed 83-17

Tim Walberg: NO
3/26/96
Roll Call 259

Now, I haven't been as consistent as I had intended to be when highlighting these votes, and tonight is the end of the series, because I think I've made my point. Walberg voted repeatedly against common-sense measures that had the support of the vast majority of the state legislature in his quest against government spending. Some might call that principled. But then there are these votes:

HCR 12
Rejection of the SOCC recommended pay raise

Tim Walberg: NO
1/30/95
Roll Call 4

HCR1/HCR2
Rejection of the SOCC recommended pay raise

Tim Walberg: NO
1/30/97
Roll Call 14

Tim Walberg: NO
1/30/97
Roll Call 15

Just to be clear, these "NO" votes were votes in support of giving himself a pay raise. Meanwhile, he voted against raising the minimum wage.

I don't know about you, but that bothers me.

In the comments, feel free to mention the Walberg votes you find most revealing, after browsing the collection the Renier campaign has made available.

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

Sharon Renier (D) released a press release today. Apparently, someone's been impersonating her in the "robo calls"-- recorded phone messages-- that we've been flooded with this election.

November began in the Michigan 7th Congressional race with automated "robo" calls from a toll-free 800 number from a woman posing as Democratic candidate Sharon Renier. The calls contained nasty, unkind remarks about Renier's Republican opponent Tim Walberg.

Renier said, "Throughout the campaign I promised voters that I will not resort to these automated 'robo' calls. It disgusts me that someone or some group has stooped so low as to impersonate my voice while reciting vile comments. I did not authorize these calls, and I do not know who authorized this campaign dirty trick. I apologize to anyone who has been upset after receiving one of these filthy calls. I also call on my opponent, Tim Walberg to denounce them, especially if we find that the calls are from either Republican organizations in Washington or groups like the Club for Growth that used negative tactics in the primary against Congressman Schwarz."

The Renier campaign has contacted the Federal Elections Commission and the phone company to trace the calls.

This is a big deal. Hopefully more information will come forward soon.

Labels: 2006 Election

In These Times magazine describes itself as:

In These Times is dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice; to providing a forum for discussing the politics that shape our lives; and to producing a magazine that is read by the broadest and most diverse audience possible.

Frankly, I'm not familiar with the magazine, but the most recent issue includes an article which deals with Michigan and the 7th Congressional District.

The article is titled "Middle America Confronts Its Own Taliban."

Now, before I say anything more, I want to make clear that I object to this kind of rhetoric. What the article tries to say is that Tim Walberg is part of the Religious Right movement to impose narrow, strict definitions of lifestyle. Using the name "Taliban" is just as bad as President Bush implying that a vote for Democrats is a vote for the terrorists-- it's ridiculous, and lowers the level of debate in this country.

That said, the article is interesting for the angle that it takes, and is perhaps worth reading. Here's the lead paragraph:

Overshadowed by Ned Lamont’s Aug. 8 primary win for Senate in Connecticut was an ugly ouster the same day of a moderate GOP incumbent congressman from Michigan, Joe Schwarz. In his first term in Congress, Schwarz, a doctor, backed lifting the ban on stem-cell research and raising the minimum wage. But in the low-turnout primary, he narrowly lost to Tim Walberg, a minister who took money from the anti-immigrant Minutemen and had to deny involvement in an episode of antigay vandalism at Schwarz’s campaign office. Walberg’s win is the latest by a far-right insurgency in the state. Since 2000, this small group has shoehorned attacks on abortion rights, intolerance against gays, and even racist appeals into the strategy of the state Republican Party.

I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's interesting to read.

Labels: 2006 Election

Robert Novak, regardless of your opinions of his politics, is a fairly well-respected political analyst, with perhaps a Republican bias in his predictions.

So what does he have to say about the Michigan 7th District? The Evans-Novak Political Report (on Human Events, "The National Conservative Weekly") says:

Michigan-7: Former State Rep. Tim Walberg (R) may have taken a victory lap too soon after defeating Rep. Joe Schwarz (R) in the primary. He is now embroiled in a scandal involving a staffer who pleaded guilty to hitting his foster child. Republicans admit that Walberg, in standing by the staffer (who has now resigned), has not handled the issue well.

The Democratic candidate in this race, organic farmer Sharon Renier, has no money and the district is heavily Republican. If this seat goes to the Democrats, it is a sign of a tsunami. Leaning Republican Retention.

A tsunami? Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a sign that Tim Walberg is so out-of-step with the Michigan 7th-- a moderately conservative district-- that the district could elect a Democrat for the first time.

Sharon Renier is probably closer to Joe Schwarz's positions than fellow-Republican Tim Walberg, and it's certainly not because Schwarz is a "liberal." This district deserves to be represented by a moderate voice.

Sharon Renier
Volunteer
Contribute

Labels: 2006 Election

One week from Election Day!

• The Adrian Daily Telegram endorsed Tim Walberg, a Lenawee County native, for the 7th District race. You can read their endorsement here. Needless to say, I'm disappointed in my hometown paper, but not surprised.
• Governor Granholm was in Battle Creek today, appealing to both Democrats and Schwarz Republicans. Who else was there? Sharon Renier, Democratic nominee for Congress:

Granholm brought forward Democrat Sharon Renier, who is running against Republican Tim Walberg in the 7th Congressional District.

The governor said Walberg and DeVos represented the "hard right," and supporters of U.S. Rep Joe Schwarz — a moderate Republican from Battle Creek ousted by Walberg in the primary election — "should feel welcome" voting for her and Renier.

• CQPolitics.com has changed their rating of the 7th District from "Safe Republican" to "Favored Republican." CQ is famously cautious, and them changing the rating is a big deal. Go read what they have to say.
• The first YouTube contribution to the race:

Labels: 2006 Election

The Battle Creek Enquirer endorses Sharon Renier for Congress in the 7th District, the first major newspaper endorsement for her.

Below, they write:

In the 7th Congressional District, we wish we could be writing an enthusiastic endorsement for a moderate politician with a keen intellect and a thorough grasp of national and international issues. But U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz was defeated in the August Republican primary, leaving district voters with a choice on the far left or the far right of the political spectrum.

Given that choice, we endorse Democrat Sharon Renier, an organic farmer and paralegal who is campaigning on a platform of more jobs and better health care and education. We agree with Renier in her views that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in the surveillance of its citizens and is failing to uphold their constitutional rights.

Her opponent, former Republican legislator Tim Walberg, has taken many stands with which we disagree, including making President Bush's tax cuts permanent and instituting other tax reductions, drilling for oil in pristine areas to achieve national energy independence, deporting all illegal aliens, eliminating the U.S. Department of Education and more.

On the issue of Iraq, Renier thinks the United States needs to secure Baghdad and withdraw its troops, then help Iraqis to rebuild their nation and economy. Walberg believes U.S. troops should not leave until Iraq's democratic government is able to defend itself and its citizens.

Ultimately, we think Renier would represent the Battle Creek area better than Walberg, whose campaign has been heavily financed by out-of-district interests to whom we think, if elected, he would be more beholden than to his constituents.

The Enquirer has a circulation of nearly 25,000, so plenty of voters in the all-important Calhoun County will see this. Obviously it wasn't an enthusiastic endorsement-- they had been hoping for native son Joe Schwarz. But it's certainly a big gain for Renier, especially coming after the non-endorsements for Walberg in the Ann Arbor News and the Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit News endorsing the Libertarian.

Labels: 2006 Election

The Ann Arbor News is hardly a far-right newspaper, but it has its conservative leanings, from time to time. In 2004, for example, it endorsed George W. Bush over John Kerry, despite John Kerry winning Washtenaw County 63-35.

So one would expect the paper to follow the conventional wisdom and pick Tim Walberg (R) for the open 7th District seat, right? After all, he's just going to win anyway, right?

Well, maybe not. The Detroit News chose the Libertarian candidate, and now the Ann Arbor News chooses to endorse no one. That's right-- they couldn't bring themselves to endorse Tim Walberg.

Walberg's entrenched conservative stances on virtually every issue, from abortion to Iraq, offer no room for compromise - and that ideological rigidity should have no place in Congress. His unwillingness to engage in the necessary give and take of governance makes him an untenable choice.

To be perfectly fair, they didn't have kind words for Sharon Renier either.

Renier, an organic farmer from Munith, doesn't offer a palatable alternative. In meeting with The News' editorial board earlier this year, she touted job growth accomplishments on her part that bordered on absurdity and didn't seem to understand the basics of how government works.

Neither candidate deserves a ticket to Congress, and we are not endorsing in this race.

That said, while it might not be a victory for Renier, it certainly is a defeat for Tim Walberg. He's been running since the primary as if winning the general election is inevitable, and now more and more people around the district are realizing that there's another option.

The new question: Will any newspapers endorse Tim Walberg?

Now, tonight's Walberg Voting Record highlights:

I'll be honest, I'm tired tonight, so I'm going to take the easy way out. The following were three votes on the same issue:

SB 573-574
Change zoning laws creating PDRs allowing communities to purchase development rights thereby saving agricultural lands and controlling sprawl

Outcome: Passed 95-4

Tim Walberg: NO
12/12/96
Roll Call 1060

Outcome: Passed 98-4

Tim Walberg: NO
12/12/96
Roll Call 1061

Outcome: Passed 95-4

Tim Walberg: NO
12/12/96
Roll Call 1062

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

So, I did have a lengthy introduction to this post, with my thoughtful musings on the importance of the last week of a campaign, and Tim Walberg and Sharon Renier's relative positions going into it. And then Blogger decided to have a momentary collapse on me, and it was all lost.

Ah well. Such is life.

Here's tonight's highlighted votes from Tim Walberg's time in the state legislature. Six votes for your viewing pleasure, since I missed last night.

HB 4753
Funding to encourage child home care instead of institutionalization of severely disabled children

Outcome: Passed 96-7

Tim Walberg: NO
3/4/97

HB 4786
Create individual development accounts to help those who are eligible for FIA assistance to become first time home buyers

Outcome: Passed 98-6

Tim Walberg: NO

HB 4308
Budget for the Department of Education

Outcome: Passed 94-12

Tim Walberg: NO
5/21/97
Roll Call 374

SB 910
Budget for the Department of Education

Outcome: Passed 87-17

Tim Walberg: NO
6/17/98
Roll Call 659

SB 911
Higher Education Budget

Outcome: Passed 95-14

Tim Walberg: NO
6/10/98
Roll Call 591

SB 846
Community College Appropriations Budget

Outcome: Passed 83-19

Tim Walberg: NO
5/7/96
Roll Call 386

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

Matt at Michigan Liberal beat me to this story and, as always, he writes about it so much better than I could. Head on over and read his take. But first, a couple items. Quoted in the Jackson Citizen-Patriot article, Dick DeVos says:

"The individuals working with you are a reflection of who you are," DeVos said en route to Jackson, where he appeared at a political event. "Therefore, as a leader, you have a responsibility to make sure individuals on staff reflect our values, our views."

I agree, Mr. DeVos. (Wow!) The fact that Tim Walberg kept Daniel Coons on his staff after learning he had been charged on September 12, and then keeping him on his staff even longer after Coons pleaded guilty (September 18) says quite a lot.

Mind you, this is probably the only area where I agree with Dick DeVos. After all, he just said, "We have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation... That is unacceptable." I know, I know, it was a simple mistake. But still...

Anyway, enough of that. Go read what Matt has to say.

When you're done with that, here's tonight's sample of Tim Walberg's voting record.

SB 904 (Senate Bill)
Passage of the Clean Michigan Initiative

Outcome: Passed 94-4

Tim Walberg: NO
7/2/98
Roll Call 840

HB 5622 (House Bill)
Passage of the Clean Michigan Initiative

Outcome: Passed 94-5

Tim Walberg: NO
7/2/98
Roll Call 841

HB 5642
Require standardized certification for school administrators

Outcome: Passed 97-9

Tim Walberg: NO
3/19/96
Roll Call 203

That's it for tonight. Go Tigers!

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Staff, Walberg Voting Record

To start this post, I'd like to say there's no particular reason I've been mentioning so many Jackson Citizen-Patriot articles lately, except that they've been doing a great job reporting on this race. In fact, I'd like to say that I've been impressed throughout the entire campaign by the Citizen-Patriot, the Battle Creek Enquirer, and (especially during the primary) Adrian's Daily Telegram. These papers have been leading the way for local journalism.

As the Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports today, the Greater Jackson Chamber of Commerce held the "Party Politics mixer," highlighting Republican gubernatorial nominee Dick DeVos (Granholm didn't attend) and the two major-party candidates for the 7th Congressional District, Tim Walberg (R) and Sharon Renier (D).

Just to be clear, this wasn't an overwhelmingly Democratic event. In an unscientific straw poll held, DeVos defeated Granholm 54 percent to 44 percent among the 400 people that attended. So imagine my excitement when I read this:

Both 7th District U.S. House candidates were on hand.

In the straw poll, Sharon Renier, D-Munith, squeaked past Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, 48 percent to 47 percent. An uncommissioned poll this month gave Walberg an 8-point lead.

(Emphasis added)

Renier defeats Walberg! Not only that, but she was 4 percent ahead of Governor Granholm, the top Democrat on this year's ballot.

It's not a final result, of course, but it shows that November 7th is going to be an exciting night. My prediction: Somebody is going to be very surprised. Beyond that, I can't say.

Also: If you're in the eastern portion of the 7th District, some comments might be of interest to you.

Carol K. said:

I got polled yesterday evening. The questions were about Governor and Congress. I don't think they even asked about Senatorial. The call came from US Field Research or that's what my phone picked up - 801-226-1911. I'm in Chelsea. There are Renier signs starting to pop up. We're on Main St / M52, and we've been looking to get a sign. We have great exposure. I've noted the tendency of local Republicans to only endorse Ouimet for Commissioner, and no one else for anything.

The entire comment is important-- and I hope that the poll is public sometime soon. But I've bolded the portion relevant to the next comment, by mich:

carol k i live in adrian & if you need Sharon Renier yard signs e-mail me at lenaweeadrian[at]yahoo.com anyone else that also need yard signs feel free to email me as well

I haven't hyperlinked the e-mail address and you'll have to replace "[at]" with "@", since I don't want to make it too easy for the spam bots to target that e-mail address. If you want a sign before Election Day, now's your chance!

Labels: 2006 Election

I wish I had hard, quantitative evidence to back this up-- someone really needs to do another poll on the 7th District (and this time, include the minor party candidates)-- but the feeling I've got is that Sharon Renier has all the momentum. Earlier, I wrote about seeing lots of Renier signs here in Lenawee County.

An anonymous poster from the comments:

"I see a lot of Renier signs in Tecumseh and Adrian-- I can only imagine what Battle Creek and Jackson look like."

I can say with some certainty that there are many yards in Battle Creek and Calhoun County that are full of GOP signs, but NO Walberg signs. Likewise all the Dem years [sic] have Renier prominent. I've even seen a few clusters of GOP signs with Renier's in the mix...a very good sign!

(Emphasis added)

No Walberg signs in GOP yards, Democratic yards with Sharon Renier, and even Republican yards with Renier. Folks, I'm excited. (Though, I'll hope for all our sakes that the "a very good sign!" bit was not intended to be a pun. :-)

In the final week before the election, I'd like to try to do a major online push for Sharon Renier, on Michigan Liberal and any other Michigan blogs, plus national blogs like MyDD and DailyKos. If you're a blogger and are interested in doing some pro-Renier, anti-Walberg writing, let me know.

Finally, tonight's sampling of Tim Walberg's voting record while in the Michigan House of Representatives... I've got six votes for you, 'cause I missed yesterday.

HB 4739
State Police Retirement Act -- Would close a loophole which left some police officers without adequate pension coverage

Outcome: Passed 97-6

Tim Walberg: NO

Create a State Police Radio Network

Outcome: Passed 86-14

Tim Walberg: NO

HB 4860
Allow the National Guard to be used for drug enforcement activities

Outcome: Passed 72-31

Tim Walberg: NO

HB 4753
Funding to encourage child home care instead of institutionalization of severely disabled children

Outcome: Passed 63-44

Tim Walberg: NO

HB 4280
Passage of a mandatory seat belt use law

Outcome: Passed 63-44

Tim Walberg: NO

HB 4786
Create individual development accounts to help those who are eligible for FIA assistance to become first time home buyers

Outcome: Passed 98-6

Tim Walberg: NO

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

Susan Demas at the Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports today:

Congressional candidate Tim Walberg on Wednesday accepted the resignation of his volunteer coordinator, who faces sentencing for domestic violence.

Earlier Wednesday, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported that Daniel A. Coons, 30, of Eaton Rapids pleaded guilty last month to the misdemeanor and will be sentenced Nov. 13 in Eaton County District Court. He could receive up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.

By now, most people have heard about this. If you haven't, check out the initial story from yesterday here. While Tim Walberg himself was not involved, it does make one wonder about his choices for staffers. Coons stayed on the Walberg campaign payroll long after he was charged, and it was only after the guilty plea and the media exposure that he resigned.

The article continues:

Walberg, R-Tipton, refused to comment for the Wednesday story about Coons' court case. He said he hoped Coons' two foster children would be returned to him.

A minister and former Moody Bible Institute fundraiser, Walberg campaigns on family values, which he terms "the backbone of civilization."

By not firing Coons, "It raises questions about how seriously Walberg takes a conviction of what most people consider to be a serious crime," said John Chamberlain, a professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who specializes in political ethics.

As the "values" candidate, what kind of healthy family does Tim Walberg support, exactly? This kind?

The boy had the beginning of a black eye, finger marks on his face and trouble opening his jaw, according to the police report. After the incident, Coons' two foster children were removed from his home.

The children were removed, and Walberg says they should be returned to Coons. Now, this is a matter for the court to decide, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably a good move for the children to get out of that home.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Walberg condones child abuse. I have no doubt that he was good to his own children and sincerely hope he is as sickened as the rest of us at this sort of behavior by his staffer. But what about his "family values"? For some reason, I'm thinking that perhaps all the values talk is just political posturing to earn votes. I don't know why I'd think that, though.

It's funny, though, that the only "family values" he ever talks about are his anti-abortion crusades and his anti-gay marriage/anti-homosexuality crusades.

Mr. Walberg-- Could this incident have been prevented if same-sex couples weren't allowed to be married in Massachusetts?

Matt at Michigan Liberal says a lot of this and more all much more eloquently.

Oh, one last thing: Sharon Renier's statement, in full:

I was saddened to hear that a young boy was severely beaten by one of Tim
Walberg’s campaign staff members. As a mother, I would place the welfare
of a child over loyalty to the adult abuser. I am shocked to hear that
Walberg continued to employ him after he was charged with beating the boy.
But what outrages me is that Walberg attempted to convince authorities to
return the boy to this convicted child abuser. We cannot afford to send
him to represent us in Washington.

Walberg has seriously betrayed those who have relied on him for moral
guidance. Walberg, a former preacher, has also lost any moral authority
he may once have had by employing this known convicted child abuser. The
Republican leadership in Congress covered up their national sex scandal to
protect a child sexual predator. Walberg’s lapse of judgment is no better
behavior, and should disqualify him from running for any office, let alone
Congress.

Walberg’s actions were morally wrong for this child, and Walberg is
definitely wrong for the voters of the 7th District of Michigan.

This election will certainly be about sending a message to Washington. Do
we send to Congress the small businesswomen farmer or a morally bankrupt
politician who places his loyalty to a child abuser over the child?

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Staff

AHHHH!

That's been my reaction for the last two days. I got home yesterday, checked my e-mail, and that's when it all started. Unfortunately, just after reading my e-mails and managing to make one comment on Michigan Liberal, my internet connection revolted. Grr...

Now, I'm trying to do a rush post, but more'll come later, I promise. (and this time, I really mean it!) Unfortunately, I need to be somewhere in about ten minutes, so this is the quick take.

To start off, I got at least a dozen e-mails regarding the article in the Jackson Citizen-Patriot (and similar articles) about Tim Walberg's paid staffer that's been convicted on domestic violence charges. It's worth noting that he was kept on well after he was charged, and only resigned after being convicted. Funny, how no one heard about this before.

I also got a few e-mails noting that the Michigan 7th District and Tim Walberg have been added to the list of seats that the National Republican Campaign Committee is allocating last-minute funds for. These are basically the 33 seats that the GOP hasn't given up hope on but are afraid that they might lose. That's right-- the Republicans are seriously worried that they might lose. Sharon Renier has the momentum!

Add on to that the negative, anti-Renier ads that have been spotted around the district, both funded by Tim Walberg's campaign and the NRCC, and you know that Renier is making inroads. Driving around Lenawee County, my home and Tim Walberg's home, I see a lot of Renier signs in Tecumseh and Adrian-- I can only imagine what Battle Creek and Jackson look like. As Renier's name recognition goes up, expect her to do better on Election Day.

It's also worth noting a few things from Sharon Renier herself. On her website, they've added their television ad and the FEC complaint against Walberg and the Club for Growth filed by Joe Schwarz. Check 'em out.

I'm probably forgetting some stuff, but feel free to mention what I missed in the comments. Meanwhile, you should head on over to Sharon Renier and give her some love, money, and volunteer hours.

Tonight, we'll have a double dose of Tim Walberg's voting record highlighted, to make up for yesterday.

(By the way- yesterday, we set a new record for unique visitors to the site, and today, we're on track to match it!)

Labels: 2006 Election

Tonight's highlighted votes from Tim Walberg's 16 years in the state legislature:

HB 4041
Allow credit against taxes for anyone making a contribution to the Michigan Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Outcome: Passed 98-3

Tim Walberg: NO
2/27/97
Roll Call 53

SB 311
Designate an annual "Rosa Parks Day" in Michigan

Outcome: Passed 98-5

Tim Walberg: NO
5/15/97

SB 730
Strengthen laws which prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors

Outcome: Passed 83-23

Tim Walberg: NO
2/29/96
Roll Call 164

Is this the way you want your representative voting in Washington?

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

As promised in the Siena Heights debate, Sharon Renier has made Tim Walberg's voting record available on her website.

I suspect I'll be referencing this a lot in the future. Meanwhile, go check it out, and see all the things on which Walberg voted no.

From tonight to Election Day-- just 15 days away-- I'll be highlighting three of Walberg's votes while in the state legislature. Some might require explanation, but tonight's votes speak for themselves.

HB 4180

Increase the minimum wage to $5.00

Passed 94-12

NO 9/10/86 Roll Call 74

HB 4041

Increase the minimum wage to $5.15

Passed 93-13

NO 2/19/97 Roll Call 40

and

HB 4180

Allow for a $5000 per child tax deduction for child care

Passed 78-26

NO 3/4/97

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Voting Record

Sorry for going so long without any new posts... Life gets busy, from time to time, and last night, I had two choices. Either I could write something here, or I could watch the Tigers win Game Two of the World Series. Of course, like any true Michiganian, I picked the Tigers.

(By the way-- want to know why the Tigers lost Game One? It's all because of Dick Devos, Republican nominee for governor. Seriously, it's like a curse! Here and here.)

Nevertheless, plenty of things have been a-happening.

First off, the Detroit News announced their endorsements in all the congressional races around the state. Let's remember, the paper is the more conservative one in the Motor City, with Wikipedia noting that:

Editorially, the News is conservative. It has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and has only failed to endorse a Republican presidential candidate three times--twice during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era and once again during in 2004, when it refused to endorse George W. Bush for reelection.

Ordinarily, they endorse the GOP nominee for the 7th District. But this time, not so much.

In the open 7th District, the major party choices are the far-right Tim Walberg and the far-left Sharon Marie Renier. We'll shun the extremes and take our chances on the Libertarian candidate, Robert L. Hutchinson , a retired Air Force major from Dexter.

(Note: I don't think anyone could honestly call Renier "far-left," but the DN is a conservative paper...)

That's right, they endorsed Libertarian Robert Hutchinson. Let's remember, Hutchinson isn't running to win, but to make a point about foreign policy. When he found out, this was his reaction:

"Wow," said Hutchinson, a World War II veteran. "I hadn't heard, no. But the reaction is 'wow.'"

[...]

Hutchinson, meanwhile, said he didn't want his wife to find out about the endorsement. Even the remote chance that he might win the race and take her to Washington, D.C. — "that madhouse" — was cause for concern.

Now, if you're deciding between Walberg and Hutchinson, I'd urge you to vote for Hutchinson. He's a man of principle. But before you do, consider Sharon Renier.

Next up, we've got a Jackson Citizen-Patriot article by political reporter Susan Demas on Sharon Marie Renier. It's a nice piece, and worth reading. A few important excerpts:

It's the kind of endurance the Munith single mom showed during the Senior Olympics this summer in Kalamazoo, where she shattered the state record for the 200-yard breaststroke.

Now Renier is swimming upstream for the U.S. House 7th District seat. She hasn't seen one red-cent from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

And...

But Renier presses on. Describing herself as a "pro-life, gun-toting Democrat with a libertarian streak," she said her message also holds appeal for Republican and independent voters.

And...

At the same time, the Democrat said she supports "less taxes, not more" and would repeal levies on those making $20,000 or less. While Renier supports exterminating the estate tax, she said she's not in favor of the Bush tax cuts because they favor the rich over middle class families.

Walberg has slapped the "liberal" label on Renier during the campaign, just as he did to defeat U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Battle Creek, in the August primary. The GOP nominee has taken aim at Renier's call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in favor of an international peacekeeping force. Renier said her view is in step with the American public. A CNN poll released Monday showed 64 percent oppose the war.

State Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, describes Renier as a "moderate to conservative Democrat." Schauer said the "dynamic" Renier's biggest asset is connecting with voters.

"She's a tireless campaigner," he said.

Renier sloughs off Walberg's criticism, saying she's used to facing down adversity and winning. She's a five-time gold medalist, after all.

It's clear that she's working hard to earn the votes of the 7th District, and not buying them with out-of-state funds.

Which brings us to another Citizen-Patriot article. The Club for Growth is back:

After raising more than $600,000 for GOP challenger Tim Walberg in the primary, the Washington-based political action committee sent a fundraising plea Thursday to its 36,000 members, Executive Director David Keating said.

That was the same day the Washington insider magazine Roll Call put the race between Walberg, R-Tipton, and Democrat Sharon Renier in its "in-play" column.

(Emphasis added)

Yes, the money is rolling in once more for Tim Walberg, from all across the country. Just not Michigan.

That's all for now. If you see any good articles, let me know!

Labels: 2006 Election

Let me say again, the debate last night was quite a sight. It was a diverse set of candidates (as seen in the title), and very animated, in contrast to the debate immediately preceding it.

As the candidate's discussed their views on the issues, I was writing notes on each question and each answer at a frantic pace. Not quite live blogging-- there was no internet connection, but I didn't have a laptop anyway-- but it's the next best thing.

I've tried to keep my editorializing to a minimum, presenting the questions and answers as clearly and honestly as I can. Anything in quotation marks is an actual quote, with perhaps minor human error on my part. Questions are abbreviated, but the intent is preserved. It's not as nice as a transcript would be, but hopefully it'll give you a fair idea of how the debate progressed.

Questions came from two panelists, one from Adrian's Daily Telegram, the other from radio station WLEN. Each question was addressed to a specific candidate, who had three minutes to answer, and then each of the other three candidates were given one minute for a response or rebuttal. In addition, each candidate was given an opportunity to give an opening statement and closing comments, in most cases pre-written statements.

If you don't like my coverage or doubt my objectivity, feel free to check out the other media coverage:
The Daily Telegram - "Sharp lines drawn as Renier attacks Walberg"
The Jackson Citizen-Patriot - "Congress candidates square off in Adrian"

Now, the 7th District Debate:

Opening Statements

Robert Hutchinson
- Read personal resumé.
- Born in 1923, graduated high school in 1941 and joined the Army Air Corps. Distinguished career of service through World War II.
- Has been active in politics since high school, but this is his first run for office. Why now, at age 83? Service.
- Hates to believe that lives have been lost for nothing, and, rather than running against the other three candidates, is running against a failed, bipartisan 50-year-old foreign policy.
Timothy Walberg
- Described record of service, including 16 years in the Michigan House of Representatives, 57th District.
- Stands for low taxes, life, traditional marriage.
- Dedicated to "cutting spending that's threatening liberty."
David Horn
- [Note: Mistakenly thanked Spring Arbor College for hosting the event; actual host was Siena Heights University]
- Has witnessed a downward trend for the country over the last two years.
- Stands against curruption, spending.
- Believes the people ought to decide life, marriage issues, not the unelected courts.
Sharon Marie Renier
- Described herself as a farmer, businesswoman, and mother.
- Hopes to send a message-- American people are not satisfied with Iraq, corruption, the Foley scandal, and President Bush.
- Source of trouble is the protective attitude of Washington Republicans, protecting the "good old boys"; Walberg is just another one of them.

Questions

In order to combat the debt, what would you do and what programs might you defund?
Hutchinson
- Stop being the "policemen of the world"
Walberg
- "Well, where to begin?"
- Cut No Child Left Behind, eliminate the Dept. of Education as sources of wasteful spending (noted that local control of education was preferable)
- Cut earmarking, pork-barrelling
Horn
- Noted he had the same reaction as Walberg-- "Where to begin?"
- Would also cut corporate subsidies-- they don't benefit individuals
- Eliminate Dept. of Health and Human Services and Dept. of Labor (and, presumably, others) as there's no constitutional basis.
Renier
- Support a Balanced Budget Amendment
- Support a line-item veto-- especially with defense bills, unrelated pork is added to bills that will pass to "support our troops"
- "Get Iraqi politicians off American welfare."

Do Americans have a right to universal health care?
Walberg
- "Absolutely not. It's not a right, it's an opportunity we have."
- Get rid of third-party pay system [Note: get rid of insurance companies?], encourage personal responsibility.
- Tort reform-- fewer lawsuits
- America has the greatest health care known to the world
Horn
- Agrees with Walberg
- Universal health care would force health care professionals to work without adequate payment
Renier
- Notes the "amazing hypocricy" of Walberg-- the state of Michigan gives him free health care
- Pay for universal health care by eliminating Social Security cap of $87,000
- Admits that it's a tax increase, but only on the wealthiest 1 percent-- "Bill Gates has made $87,000 in the time we've been sitting here" and everything after that is currently untaxed.
Hutchinson
- Similar to No Child Left Behind-- "You can't make all students geniuses"
- Must accept that death, illness are a part of life.

Should the federal government work to ensure safe, secure housing for low-income and minority citizens?
Horn
- At the federal level, there's no authority for that
- State, local government offers an opportunity for such work
Renier
- Agrees that it's more a state issue than a federal issue, but feels that more must be done
- If Halliburton, etc. can profit off of war reconstruction, why not profit off of a positive endeavor?
- "Instead of making bullets, make nails to build"
Hutchinson
- States that he agrees with Horn.
Walberg
- Notes that he's always scared by those who want to redistribute wealth.
- From living in Chicago, saw project homes which were later torn down [audience led to believe he opposes housing projects]
- Nation thrives best when left to the private sector to solve problems.

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.
Hutchinson
- America should leave Iraq as soon as the American people want it.
- Wrong to blame everything on Bush-- the current situation is the result of a bipartisan foreign policy.
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
Horn
- As he sees it, two options face America-- commit to specific objectives, or immediately withdraw
- A timetable would be no different than withdrawal, but would put troops at risk
- Supports identifying specific objectives to be achieved.

Aren't taxes payment for living in a free country like America? (Audience-submitted, directed at Walberg)
Walberg
- No. In Constitution, the government is responsible for less than it does now.
- Current taxation goes beyond what the country was formed on.
- Rights have been given away
- Big government is all-powerful, and we depend on it for everything-- we shouldn't be "sheep"
- Taxes are a necessity, but current levels are too much; government abuses its money.
Horn
- States that he agrees with Walberg
- Adds that prior to the 16th Amendment, tariffs and excises funded the government, thus limiting power of the government by the strength of the economy.
Renier
- "No one wants taxes" but they're necessary
- Renier plan would eliminate taxes on all those who make less than $20,000 per year
- Notes that government must have a presence because everyone expects help after disasters like Katrina, which are too much for the individual
- Supports a "strong, silent government" that's there when you need it, but not intrusive.
- If Walberg has his way, "big, expensive government on the left will be replaced by big, intrusive government on the right."
Hutchinson
- Country was founded on "No taxation without representation"
- Only people taking part in the political process can stop high taxes
- Urges involvement in party conventions, policy-making

What should the government to help revitalize Michigan's economy?
Hutchinson
- Asks for clarification: "The federal government?" Moderator: "Yes, the federal government." Hutchinson: "Sounds to me like it's Michigan's problem!"
Walberg
- "He's almost exactly right"
- 49 other states are fine, only Michigan has problems.
- Result of high taxes, big government in Michigan
- Supports tax cuts, and letting the private sector act.
Horn
- States that he agrees with Walberg.
- Adds: eliminate all personal, business income taxes.
Renier
- Lived whole life in Michigan, loves the state
- Ought to protect jobs here before they're claimed by outsourcing.
- Personally working with an inventor/businessman (who's in the audience) to bring 2500 jobs to the district.
- Wants to work toward job retraining for those facing job loss.

Name one change you'd like to see in the current immigration policy.
Renier
- Wishes she could have warned us last year about the Katrina trailers, but heads up-- if you want to get back some wasted tax dollars, buy stock in the company contracted to build the fence with Mexico.
- Must prosecute those companies/businessmen that hire illegal aliens.
- Must allow citizenship to those who have followed the law and have waited first.
- Distinguishes between illegal aliens and her experiences with "wonderful" migrant workers-- American citizens and legal residents who "just happen to speak Spanish."
Hutchinson
- Just hit 300 million-- when will it be enough?
- You're not a citizen with rights until you're a citizen. [Note: I'm not sure exactly what his point was with this statement, but he said it with passion, so it must be important.]
- If you want a place in America, you must learn English.
Walberg
- Quotes Ronald Reagan [Note: 3rd time referencing/quoting Reagan], arguing for a fence/wall between US and Mexico.
- Must secure the border; no amnesty; reduce bureaucracy; promote English language.
Horn
- Agrees, and adds: don't just focus on southern border, northern border too.
- Canadian immigration policy is lenient, dangerous people may immigrate to Canada and come across the border.
- Fences both North and South.

Closing Comments

Hutchinson
- Repeats-- not running against the other candidates, but against US foreign policy
- Looking for a genuine debate on "the money, the lies, the war."
Walberg
- Notes his legislative experience-- quotes Alexis de Tocqueville: "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." [Note: Minor complaint-- Wikiquote says this wasn't actually said by de Tocqueville.]
- Supports life, marriage, and values.
- Claims a consistent record, not "bough and paid for by the good old boys"
Horn
- Lots of similarities between him, other candidates, but some differences.
- Are the differences important enough to you to vote for a candidate who may not win?
- Notes his differences with Schwarz in 2004, and his performance in that election.
- Asks that one vote for the candidate that reflects your values.
- Hopes to "restore America".
Renier
- Notes that she's a member of the NRA and pro-life-- not a "liberal," as Walberg would claim.
- Fiscally responsible-- has to be, considering the low income on which she raises her family.
- With her, "What you see is what you get."
- Walberg was "bought and paid for," only voted no in the state legislature except for his own pay increases-- voted against helping people, for "fattening his own piggy bank."
- Promises to put Walberg's voting record and Congressman Joe Schwarz's FEC complaint on her website.

With that, the debate concluded.

Labels: 2006 Election, Issues

So, I just got back a few minutes ago from the 7th District candidate forum in Adrian. Wow!

Tomorrow, I'll have a real post, based on the notes I took, each question and each of the four candidate's answers, and a real assessment of performances. But right now, a quick response.

David Horn - US Taxpayers Party - Tonight, he was the "me too" candidate, and the audience noticed. Each time Tim Walberg answered a question before he did, his response was something to the effect of "I agree with Mr. Walberg, and might add that..." He also didn't make too many friends when he thanked Spring Arbor College for hosting the debate, when, in fact, it was Siena Heights University that hosted it.

Robert Hutchinson - Libertarian Party - The only time I agreed with him was when he argued for more accountability on Iraq, but I loved him to death. I'd never vote for him, but he was fun. At 83 years old, this is the first time he's run for office, and he's running against America's "failed foreign policy." In every answer, he was frank and honest and true to Libertarian ideals. When asked what the federal government ought to do to help Michigan's economy and job market, he replied, "The Federal government? Sounds to me like it's Michigan's problem!"

Tim Walberg - Republican Party - Make no mistake, Tim Walberg is an experienced, polished politician and very skilled in debating. He spoke with that sense of sincerity that's practiced so hard that you can tell it's fake. I'll get into the issues tomorrow-- like, apparently, that we ought to get rid of health insurance and have people pay on their own. The man is a natural, career politician (it's worth noting, out of the 30 years he's spent in Michigan, 16 were spent in the state legislature, and even more has been spent running for office. Hmm...). Oddly enough, Jack Lessenberry's commentary today touches on the kind of politician Walberg is. Go check it out.

Sharon Renier - Democratic Party - Even though the debate rules specified that there would be no attacks on the other candidates, Sharon Renier did hit hard on Walberg on a number of issues. As she told me afterwards, "Someone had to!" She got a great deal of applause and support from the audience, and managed to give plenty of new and old supporters bumper stickers (including me). She isn't a polished performer like Tim Walberg, but she was prepared, she was real, and she connected with the audience in a way no other candidate did. Although I'm a bit biased, I do think she was the winner of the debate. (By the way- she's also got the endorsement of Esquire magazine! Thanks, Matt at Michigan Liberal.)

Best Moment of the Debate - When Iraq came up, Tim Walberg's response began with "Too easily, we forget 9/11..." First, someone in the audience said, "Oh, man," and then a series of boos were heard. Then, lots of booing, to the point that we couldn't hear his answer for a few moments. This is "conservative" Lenawee County rejecting the 9/11-Iraq link, just like the rest of the country.

I live here in Lenawee County. On the south side of my town, there's this odd intersection. Travelling south into it, there are three ways you can go. One way, you turn left. Another, you turn right, only to curve straight onto the next part of the road. Finally, you can turn all the way to the right, and travel east.

The result of this is that there are three traffic lights, labeled "Left", "Right", and "Right". I've always joked that the intersection represented the political biases of the county and the area. But here I was tonight, at a debate full of plenty of Republicans (who cheered Jim Koehn (R) in the debate for HD057 immediately before the Congressional debate). And they booed Tim Walberg. They responded when he was hypocritical, and they cheered Sharon Renier when she offered genuine, Democratic solutions to problems. They applauded when she exposed Tim Walberg's real record. Right here, in Lenawee County.

I think, perhaps, we need a new set of traffic lights, 'cause those ones don't work anymore.

Labels: 2006 Election

I missed Jack Lessenberry's interview and commentary when it was broadcast today, although Lessenberry is certainly my favorite radio personality. And I can't seem to get the audio file of his interview to play (help from those more technologically knowledgable would be appreciated). But his commentary following the interview is a must-read.

Why? Because Jack Lessenberry chose to interview the Michigan candidate with all the momentum in this election cycle-- 7th District Democratic nominee Sharon Marie Renier.

Go listen to the interview, and let me know how it went. But first, there's Lessenberry's commentary.

I think the only thing I didn't like about his essay was the title-- "Lost Opportunity". As the recent poll showed, the race is far from over, and I have confidence in the voters of the district, as well as in Sharon Renier, to reject Tim Walberg's far-right positions.

After the title, the rest of the essay is gold. (All emphasis added)

If Sharon Renier somehow manages to get elected to Congress next month, she won’t owe her Democratic Party a thing. And if she loses, they have only themselves to blame.

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean says he wants to commit his party to a strategy of trying to win at every level in every state of the country. That’s nice talk, but they certainly aren’t doing it.

It's true, the race would be a lot different if the DNC and the DCCC had been involved from the start. It's possible that Renier might not even be the nominee had that been the case. But that's part of the incredible race that's unfolding.

On one side, we have Tim Walberg (R), bought and paid for by out-of-state interests. On the other side, we have Sharon Renier (D), the home-grown candidate, farmer from Munith who's low-budget campaign reflects the real positions of the 7th Congressional District. Tim Walberg claims to be the "values" candidate, a slogan I'm certain has been tested by dozens of focus groups around the country. Sharon Renier, on the other hand, represents the real values we admire: hard work, dedication, and integrity.

While in the Michigan Legislature, Walberg was famous for voting “no” the vast majority of the time. He opposed raising the minimum wage. He voted against establishing a Rosa Parks Day, against a seat belt law, against a tax credit for donations to the Michigan Vietnam Veterans Memorial, against expelling kids who physically assault teachers and against tougher laws on tobacco sales to minors.

That's the real Tim Walberg. Is he the kind of person you want representing us in Washington?

When the primary election was over, the incumbent said this was the first time in his life he couldn’t congratulate and work with an opponent. Joe Schwarz called his fellow Republican a liar.

He said Tim Walberg wasn’t intellectually or morally fit to serve, filed unfair campaign practice complaints against him, and said he wouldn’t vote for him. Republican Schwarz then said that Sharon Renier, who he defeated two years ago, is “a very credible candidate.” He said “she is pretty bright and has a good grasp of a lot of issues - not all issues, but a lot of them.”

This can't be repeated enough. Joe Schwarz, respected Republican and veteran lawmaker says that Sharon Renier "is pretty bright and has a good grasp of a lot of issues". In the highly polarized political atmosphere we see in American politics, this is as close to an endorsement as anyone could reasonably expect. A Republican says a Democrat knows what she's talking about on the issues. That's a signal to stop and pay close attention.

It's certainly clear that Schwarz won't be supporting Tim Walberg on November 7th. Now, who do you think he'll vote for? David Horn, the US Taxpayers candidate (to the right of Walberg)? Robert Hutchinson, the Libertarian? Or Sharon Renier, the very credible candidate?

But apparently, the national Democrats can’t see it. They haven’t given Renier a dime, though she has asked. “We also asked them if they’d do some research for us, and they haven’t gotten back to us” she told me.

Democrats say they want to win back the House of Representatives. But here’s a race where the Republican candidate is against virtually everything Democrats stand for. The Republican Party is deeply split, and the Democrats have a candidate who is running fairly well in the polls, and wants very much to win.

And yet the national party won’t lift a finger to help her. If you can explain the logic of that, you are much smarter than me.

The DNC might not be interested in helping Sharon Renier, but you should be. Head on over to her website, and volunteer or contribute.

Labels: 2006 Election

Today's Daily Telegram (Adrian) had a front-page story on the latest FEC filings for Tim Walberg and Sharon Renier.

ADRIAN — Republican Tim Walberg spent about 45 times more than his Democratic opponent in the race to represent the 7th Congressional District during the period from July 20 to Sept. 30, according to documents filed Friday and Saturday with the Federal Election Commission.

He spent 45 times more than Renier? And yet, he's only leading by 8 percent. Hmm...

But Renier's campaign is anything but floundering:

“We have over 400 volunteers and we will be knocking on doors in these next four weeks and we will hit every single voter in the next four weeks,” she said in an interview Saturday.

Even though the poll showed her behind Walberg, Renier said she was “thrilled” by the results. She said her campaign would become much more visible in the next few weeks and would be putting up 3,000 signs across the district in the next few days. She said she is also planning television, radio and newspaper advertising.

(Emphasis added)

This has me really excited. Those of you who remember the 2004 campaign will recall that, despite her best efforts, Sharon Renier could never really break through and get her message out. This time, it will be different. (By the way-- you want to make that 500 volunteers? 600?)

Despite what Walberg may hope, the campaign is far from over.

Sharon Renier
Volunteer
Contribute

Labels: 2006 Election

Reprinted from the Adrian Daily Telegram:

ADRIAN — The Daily Telegram and radio station WLEN-FM, along with the League of Women Voters, will sponsor a debate Tuesday with candidates for the 7th Congressional District and the Michigan House seat representing most of Lenawee County.

The event is at Siena Heights University’s Francoeur Theater.

The debate starts at 7 p.m. with the two Michigan House candidates, Democrat Dudley Spade and Republican Jim Koehn. Following a 10-minute intermission, there will be questions for the Congressional race’s four candidates: Sharon Renier of the Democratic Party, Tim Walberg of the Republican Party, Robert Hutchinson of the Libertarian Party and David Horn of the U.S. Taxpayers Party.

Candidates will field questions from both the media and spectators. Admission is free.

If you're in the Adrian area, go cheer on Sharon Renier and ask the tough questions of Tim Walberg. I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it-- of all the days to hold it, they picked that one-- but I'd love to get someone there to give a post-debate report for the blog.

While you're there, tell Dudley Spade that he's been doing a fantastic job, too. Remember, Spade (a Democrat) represents the seat Tim Walberg once held. Both Dudley and his brother Doug before him have been much better legislators.

Labels: 2006 Election

I ain't no Deep Throat by any measure, but money and its sources tend to help put things in perspective. With the 3rd Quarter FEC reports due October 15 (tomorrow), I thought it might be interesting to look at where Tim Walberg's phenomenal fundraising came from.

Just as a note, primary challengers against incumbents don't get lots of funding in most cases. When Patrick Flynn challenged incumbent Congressman Mike Rogers (R, MI-08) this summer, he raised only $3,432-- and $2,672 of that was his own money. Rogers, on the other hand, had received $1,025,756. But Michigan saw two particularly well-funded primary challenges, with Pan Godchaux managing $467,170 against Joe Knollenberg and with Tim Walberg's challenge to Congressman Joe Schwarz.

Walberg raised $615,346 between announcing his candidacy and July 19, 2006-- the date of the pre-primary FEC report against Joe Schwarz's $1,347,103. But strikingly, Walberg narrowly out-raised Schwarz if one only counts individual contributions-- ordinary citizens contributing up to $2,100 to a candidate-- at $600,620 to $572,315. So Tim Walberg must have a strong base of support among average citizens, right? Well, maybe. But they weren't 7th District voters.

If I'm interpreting it correctly, the FEC data available online only includes contributions of $200 to $2,100, the maximum "hard-money" donation following the McCain-Feingold law. I'd say these are pretty substantial contributions, since not everyone has several hundred dollars to drop on a candidate. Even the most politically involved will often only donate $20 at a time. Of the $600,620 Walberg raised, $364,348 can be attributed to these donations, each of which are listed online by the FEC. That's 59.2 percent of contributions, coming from 655 donations.

That's a lot of people dropping a lot of money for Tim Walberg. But who were these people? A few notable names pop out here and there. I recognized at least two names related to prominent Lenawee County businesses. But as one looks down the list, it becomes clear that most of the contributions didn't come from the state of Michigan.

Of those 655 donations, only 116 came from Michigan residents. That's a mere 17.7 percent of his contributions.

Another way of looking at it: out of the $364,348 of major contributions, only $68,991 came from Michigan.That's just 18.9 percent of the money.

Mind you, this doesn't even make the distinction between in the 7th District and outside the district but still in Michigan. Plenty of money came from the Detroit suburbs or Grand Rapids or elsewhere, too. But it's striking that so much money came to Walberg during the primary campaign from so many people that don't even live in the state!

So why do so many out-of-staters like Tim Walberg? Or, perhaps we should be asking why so few people in Michigan support him!

As we all know, though, modern political campaigns rely on more than just individual contributors. A big part of campaign financing comes from non-party committees, often PACs, that are interested in the outcome of the race. Joe Schwarz got a majority of his money from them, $773,015. How about Tim Walberg?

Walberg received only $33,065 directly from such groups (Note: that figure does not include contributions more recent than July 19, despite their inclusion on the FEC page). I am somewhat confused, however; that value was found by adding all of the contributions labeled under "Walberg for Congress" and "Contributions". Yet the summary page of Walberg's latest FEC filing has only $12,000 listed as his total. Is there something I'm misunderstanding?

Regardless, it's a relatively small portion of his total financing. Even so, its sources are:

• Associated Builders and Contractors PAC - $5,000
• Campaign for Working Families - $5,000
• Citizens United Political Victory Fund - $1,000
• Club for Growth Inc. PAC - $16,065 (in 37 different contributions)
• Conservative Victory Fund - $500
• Eagle Forum PAC - $3,000 (in two contributions)
• National Conservative Campaign Fund - $1,000
• Republican National Coalition for Life PAC - $1,000
• Right to Life of Michigan PAC - $500.

Obviously, the big contributor there is the Club for Growth. But everyone's gone on and on about how much the Club for Growth influenced the primary, and all they contributed was $16,065? They must not have been a big factor, eh?

Well, not quite. See, that only covers the actual direct contributions those organizations gave to Tim Walberg's campaign committee. The Club for Growth and others, however, spent money independently of Walberg as well, while still acting in support of him or in opposition to Joe Schwarz.

A total of $227,334 was spent in this way, by three different organizations. That will be covered in Part II of this post, which should come sometime tomorrow. Until then, the questions for you to think about:

Why did so much of Tim Walberg's money come from out-of-state donors or PACs and similar organizations? Is his constituency really the voters of the 7th District? Or would he vote to protect the interests of his donors?

UPDATE: A little more information on how the Club for Growth raises money for candidates, thanks to Laura Packard, a wealth of information. Via e-mail:

Most of Walberg's money came from Club for Growth, but not from their
PAC directly.. what they do is they mail and email their whole big
list of donors, and those people all send individual checks. That's
why he doesn't have big PAC amounts showing up, yet his amount of MI
donors is small. This is also how Emily's List works, on our side. A
nationwide network of small donors, and bundling their checks
together.

Labels: 2006 Election, Club for Growth

It's competitive!

Many voters may not know who Sharon Renier is, but 35 percent in one poll would send her to Congress anyway.

The Munith Democrat and farmer, who has never held elected office, trails favorite Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, who garnered 43 percent in the first poll released since the August primary. With less than four weeks before the Nov. 7 election, 22 percent of voters remain undecided in the 7th District race.

The biggest surprise may be that Renier beats Walberg among independent voters, 36 percent to 33 percent, with 28 percent undecided. Of those polled, 32 percent identified themselves as independents.

(Details on the poll can be found here.)

Some might criticize me for celebrating an 8-point lead for Walberg. But this can only be seen as a good thing.

Some important facts:

• Sharon Renier only has a 23% name recognition. That's right, 77% of respondents don't know who she is. But even though she's only got 23% recognition, 35% are saying they'll vote for her.
• Renier is polling statistically even with Walberg in Calhoun county, is leading Walberg in Washtenaw county, and Walberg only has a majority of votes in very conservative Hillsdale county (though Lenawee county, his home and mine, is close at 49% for Walberg).
• Walberg is leading among women in this poll, 40-38. I'm not one to make broad generalizations, but the conventional wisdom is that a female candidate picks up more votes from women on Election Day, and I'd be surprised if Walberg actually led among women when voting comes.
• A pluarality-- 39% to 37%-- say Democrats should win the House rather than Republicans. Remember, this is a district that went to President Bush with 54% of the vote.
• Perhaps most importantly: Renier leads among the all-important independent voters, 36-33.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't more work to be done. But this is great news.

More in the coming days, I promise.

Labels: 2006 Election

On Tim Walberg's website, his biography page includes the following:

Tim served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 1983 to 1999,
gaining a reputation as a principled voice for less government spending, lower
taxes, and fewer regulations, and a compassionate voice for the culture of life
and traditional values.

That bold emphasis, by the way, is original from the page. It's clear that he considers himself a "principled voice for less government spending," and he wants you to know that. It's a constant theme from the first day of his campaign-- he's "pro-taxpayer" and anti-spending.

But is he really so principled? Will he stand and say no, with all his strength, to extra spending? Obviously it's something he feels very strongly about, that a minimalist, hands-off government is best. Does he put that into practice?

In the comments, a reader points us toward The Truth About Tim Walberg, a website operated by Republicans Who Care. Perhaps this was their answer to the "Joe Schwarz is a Liberal" website the Club for Growth created during the primary. I have to admit, I actually felt some sympathy for Walberg when visiting that website, because it showed there's a little more to him than the "Mr. No" he campaigns on. He really will spend some money when he thinks it's worth it, and, to a "tax-and-spend liberal" like me, I appreciate it.

Mind you, my sympathy didn't last long. Even someone like me might hesitate for a moment before voting to allow state spending on color television for prison inmates. That's just me, though.

If you're a conservative Republican that supports Tim Walberg because you feel he's an honest, fiscal conservative, you might want to read more about the Truth About Tim Walberg. The truth is, he's not the anti-spending advocate he claims to be. He'll spend just as much as anyone else, when he feels like it.

Labels: 2006 Election

When Tim Walberg (R) was looking for a fundraising boost, what did he do? He invited Vice President Dick Cheney to a fundraising lunch that, technically speaking, wasn't even in Michigan's 7th Congressional District.

Who attended? I don't know, but they must have really loved Tim Walberg and Dick Cheney, 'cause it was pretty expensive lunch:

Cheney pulled in about $150,000 at a luncheon for Walberg, R-Tipton, who is battling Sharon Renier, D-Munith, in the Jackson area's race for Congress.

[...]

Lunch cost $250 a plate. About 75 people shelled out another $1,000 for a private reception and photo opportunity with Cheney beforehand at the Hawk Hollow Golf Course.

(Emphasis added)

$250 a plate.

Now, what does Sharon Marie Renier (D) do when she's hoping to raise some money?

Have coffee, cake with Renier

Renier is holding a coffee-and-cake gathering with supporters Saturday.

The event will be at 9:30 a.m. at Renier's campaign office, 58 E. Michigan Ave. The event is expected to last about an hour.

A $7 donation is requested.

For more information call 660-1595.

You doing anything tomorrow? Got $7? Head on over to Battle Creek and have some cake.

Is Battle Creek too far of a drive, or is 9:30 AM tomorrow inconvenient? Why don't you consider giving her a few bucks anyway?

Despite all the "conventional wisdom," this can become a competitive race. Tim Walberg does not have the support of the many Schwarz-style moderates in the district, and Sharon Renier is out their working hard to get her message out and earn votes. But when Tim Walberg has somebody like Dick Cheney to help bring in the big money, who does Renier have to help her?

Sharon Renier
Contribute
(or via ActBlue)
Volunteer

Labels: 2006 Election

This isn't directly related to Sharon Renier (D) or Tim Walberg (R). Instead, it's just a general reason to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress.

The Associated Press, via ABC News, reports on what the beginning of a Democratic Congress would look like (thanks to Chris Bowers at MyDD):

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats in her fondest wish win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

Tired of a Congress that only focuses on Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, and flag burning? Want real progress on the issues instead of a Congress whose only major accomplishment was the torture "compromise"?

Democrats might not be able to accomplish all that in the first 100 hours, but I'll bet they can do it in the first 10 days, without a doubt. And if they can do that much good that quickly, imagine where our country could be a year from now.

Democrat Sharon Renier
Contribute
Volunteer

Labels: 2006 Election, Democratic Party

Some thoughtful insight, promoted from the comments:

I got an email invite to the VP visit. It came from Walberg's campaign. It says the event is "Honoring" Walberg. Makes no mention it any other candidates are going to be there. It goes on to claim the fundraiser is to benefit the "Michigan Congressional Victory Committee '06" which is describes as "a joint fundraising committee established on behalf of Tim Walberg for Congress and the Michigan Republican Party."

But, when I read the article which is online today, it sounds like Cheney is coming to help several Michigan candidates. Now, Walberg is the only one who needs any help, unless you count to sacrifical lambs thrown up against the Dem incumbents. So, why did the story change?

Walberg claimed the event is being held in Bath due to "security" concerns, but the VP came right into the 7th district to meet with Joe Schwarz at a town hall a year ago. Has the security of the heartland of Michigan gone to hell in the past year? If not, Walberg is fibbing.

Also, if the event was to raise funds for more than one congressional candidate, it would make sense that it might not be in the 7th. If that is truly the case, Walberg was inventing a reason to cover up the LIE that his campaign put out that the VP was coming to Michigan to honor Walberg.

See how the lies can snowball? He is not to be trusted. He does not have a grasp on some important issues according to Joe Schwarz, but Mr. Walberg seems to have only a loose grasp on reality and the truth.

Hm.

UPDATE: Out of fairness, another promoted comment...

Walberg was the only candidate on the stage with Vice President Cheney. Walberg introduced the Vice President and was the only candidate to whom the Vice President offered his endorsement. This event was exclusively about Tim Walberg. Now, who is lying?

I, of course, was not at the event. Part of it is that I do not support Tim Walberg or Vice President Cheney, and part of it is that I, frankly, can't afford a $250 lunch ($5 or less is my preference).

It could be that the previous commenter was wrong in his assertions, and shouldn't have been labeled "thoughtful insights". That said, there's still no answer to Sharon Marie Renier's question:

"Why are they bringing in Cheney against some little chicken farmer?" asked Renier, referring to herself. "Are they worried?"

UPDATE II: Should have mentioned this earlier, really... the Jackson Citizen-Patriot, as well as others, has coverage of the fundraiser.

One slightly disturbing quote:

Even the fundraiser's prayer took on a partisan tinge, led by the Rev. Ira Combs, head of the Greater Bible Way Temple in Jackson.

"God give us victory over Democrats and liberals -- and others who don't mean well for this country," Combs said.

Huh. With all due respect, I've always thought it was about the voters, and not God. Of all the many problems and crises around the world in which He hasn't intervened, I'd be really surprised if He chose to decide the outcome of a Congressional District in southern Michigan.

And I'd be really, really surprised if he decided in favor of Tim Walberg. But then, that's me.

Labels: 2006 Election, Dick Cheney

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. There are, of course, two forgotten candidates for Congress in our 7th District. Robert Hutchinson is the Libertarian nominee for Congress (in 2004, Libertarian Ken Proctor got 3,034 votes, or 1 percent), and David Horn is the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominee. Horn ran for Congress in 2004 as well, earning 9,032 votes, or 3 percent-- many of whom were disaffected Walberg supporters.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party is the state affiliate of the Constitution Party. I'll come back to that in a moment. But first, why won't David Horn campaign for Congress?

"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)

Yes, that's right. David Horn agrees with Tim Walberg on 90 percent of the issues. Or, conversely, one could say that Tim Walberg agrees with the Constitution Party on 90 percent of the issues.

So what do David Horn and the Constitution Party stand for? They say that they support returning to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a focus on Christian values as the basis for American laws. No Separation of Church and State for these folks. Let's look at a few issues.
Taxes:

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.

Not quite the same as Tim Walberg, who instead supports a national sales tax. But still, just as constricting and regressive.

How about "family values"?

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

That bit does sound a lot like Tim Walberg, actually.

Then, there's federal spending:

The Constitution assigns all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Domestic federal "aid" not authorized by the Constitution is not only illegal, it is immoral.

We call upon the states, therefore, to decline to accept all monies from the federal government for any purpose not specifically and clearly articulated in the Constitution, and reject all federal mandates and regulations which are unconstitutional, thus restoring the intended balance of power between the states and their creation, the U.S. Government.

While not exactly what Tim Walberg has said, it has the same tone to it. Walberg and his supporters advocate a small, disengaged government, which does as little as possible for its citizens. The Constitution Party, by the way, also calls for the elimination of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the gradual elimination of Social Security, and a host of other important government programs.

Feel free to browse the party platform and Horn's issue position. It's interesting, to say the least. Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the party.

And apparently David Horn, Constitution Party candidate, agrees with Tim Walberg on 90 percent of the issues.

To moderates in the Republican Party and Democrats unsure of Renier's chances of winning, I ask that one considers the type of government Tim Walberg and those like him hope to create. Religious intolerance becomes part of the law, government ceases to provide essential services, and state governments struggle to cover the needs of their citizens. True, we have strayed from the original text of the Constitution in some areas-- but then, a lot has changed since 1789. Do you really want to go back to that?

And to those who have been unsure whether to vote for Tim Walberg, a Republican, or David Horn, the U.S. Taxpayers/Constitution Party candidate, I say: go ahead and vote for Horn, the one who you agree with 100 percent of the time. Don't vote for Walberg.

Labels: 2006 Election

The Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports that next week will feature a visit from Vice President Dick Cheney, fundraising on behalf of Tim Walberg.

Despite endorsing Tim Walberg's opponent in the GOP congressional primary, Vice President Dick Cheney will fly into Michigan next week to collect cash for the Tipton minister's campaign.

Thursday's fundraiser comes on the heels of a Monday event in East Grand Rapids for Mike Bouchard, a Republican who's trying to unseat U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Walberg, who is squaring off against Sharon Renier, D-Munith, said the vice president's staff called him this month to offer Cheney's fundraising services. He and state Republicans confirmed the event, which a spokeswoman for Cheney would not do Thursday.

Now, at this point, there are a lot of things I could say about Vice President Cheney. Lots of jokes could be made at his expense. But I'm not going to do that, because it's just too easy.

As is always the case with this sort of thing, a lot of money will be raised by a lot of rich donors-- the same sort of folks that fund the Club for Growth. After all, who else would have the money?

The invitation-only shindig isn't cheap. It takes $1,000 to buy a photo with Cheney at an 11:30 a.m. reception. Lunching at noon will cost another $250.

(Emphasis added)

I don't know about you, but the last lunch that I bought cost a lot less than that. And I personally think that a $1,000 photo is a little overpriced, no matter who's in it. Compare this posh fundraiser to Democratic nominee Sharon Renier:

"I don't have any more pennies anywhere else," the congressional candidate said. "I took in pop cans and beer bottles yesterday to get gas. I'm poor. I'm very poor. But it doesn't mean I'm not smart."

Renier has experienced the country's economic woes firsthand and so, for the second time, the Munith resident is hoping to help Michigan's 7th Congressional District by representing it.

Of course, the Walberg-Cheney fundraiser isn't even being held in our Congressional District... which is perhaps troubling on its own:

The fundraiser also isn't in the 7th Congressional District. Walberg said security reasons forced organizers to move the locale from Jackson to Hawk Hollow Golf Course & Banquet Facilities in Bath, a Lansing suburb.

Sharon Renier offers her take on the fundraiser, noting that, as the weak candidate many consider her to be, the GOP seems to be working hard to defeat her.

"Why are they bringing in Cheney against some little chicken farmer?" asked Renier, referring to herself. "Are they worried?"

The Democrat called the swanky soiree a "wonderful thing" for her campaign, noting that President Bush and Cheney continue to flag in the polls.

Labels: 2006 Election, Dick Cheney

It's been a busy week in my personal, non-blogging life, so there are a few brief posts coming today. If you're interested in ensuring timely reporting of 7th District-related events and Tim Walberg (R) and his radical conservative policies, e-mail me if you'd like to start blogging.

From a few days ago, emptywheel has a diary on Michigan Liberal about Congressman Joe Schwarz filing a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission about Tim Walberg and his questionable relationship with the Club for Growth. Quoting from an AP article:

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.

It's up to the FEC to decide if Walberg and his allies violated election laws. However, it is worth pointing out that some of the Club for Growth's ads (thanks to the Adrian Insider) followed Tim Walberg's talking points pretty closely.

Read the whole article, and make up your own mind. Frankly, even if there weren't any violations of the law, the fact that groups like the Club for Growth support Walberg is enough to give Sharon Renier my support.

On another, completely nonpolitical note, I'd like to express my sympathy for former State Rep. Walberg, whose grandson passed away last Sunday following complications from a three-month premature birth (Battle Creek Enquirer; again, via the Adrian Insider). While I might have harsh words for Mr. Walberg's politics, this sort of tragedy is tough for any family to work through. If you're religious, consider including Walberg and his family in your prayers.

Update:
If I may, I'd like to also say that I'm disappointed with the Battle Creek Enquirer's Andy Rathbun for using Walberg's grandchildren's health as justification for Walberg's political positions, just as I'd be disgusted if someone were to use them to attack Walberg. There should be a line drawn between what should and should not be used in political discussions. Family members-- especially grandchildren-- are decidedly on the "should not" side.

Labels: 2006 Election, Club for Growth

Not much time tonight, but I promise a more in-depth look at this soon. Via the Adrian Insider, an article in the Battle Creek Enquirer in which Sharon Renier discusses the economy, taxation, and her own personal finances.

Just a nice little quote to get you interested...

While Renier said millionaires need to face more taxation, she said she doesn't support across the board tax increases. Rather, she would like to see some people get a break from paying Uncle Sam.

"Anybody that makes $20,000 dollars or less," Renier said, "I would like to see them have no taxes taken away from their check."

(Emphasis added)

Just a note: under the Renier plan, 18.3% of 7th District households would no longer have to pay taxes, as they earn under $20,000 per year. Who would have their taxes raised? Well, only 1.5% of households in the district earn more than $200,000 per year. (Based on 1999 statistics).

So who's really pro-taxpayer? Or is Tim Walberg (R) just for the wealthy?

Labels: 2006 Election, Issues

I'd argue that the most important part of blogging (especially political blogging) is the fact that readers can comment. Sure, anyone can stand out on a street corner with a "Walberg=Bad" sign, and anyone can go ahead and post that on the internet as well. But with blogging, there's instant feedback from those hearing your message, and that forces you to work harder-- either to convince those with negative comments or to keep up the good work for the folks with positive comments.

Now, I'll admit, this is an area I need to work harder on. What I ought to do is post well-reasoned, insightful responses to all of your comments in the comments section. And I hope to do that in the future. But lately, I've been kind of busy and kind of lazy. I haven't taken advantage of the dialogue opportunity.

There are, however, some really great comments from the last couple weeks that I'd like to point out. My one complaint: Why so many "Anonymous"'s? Come on, guys, give me a name to work with!

In my brief link to the Sharon Renier interview, there's been a bit of a discussion on Renier's message. One Anonymous writes:

This is the first of any "substance" I have found on Sharon Renier. So far her campaign has been lackluster at best, I was hoping for much more from her, especially facing a wingnut like Walberg. He can be defeated.

Two things I find troubling. She's one of those who support our troops, but not the war. Can't have it both ways. You cannot support the troops by opposing what they are doing. It makes no sense whatsoever, liberal cliche-ism.

"Tax cuts for the rich" is another cliche out of the liberal playbook. That's simply a class warfare slogan. If she's going banter about cliches like this I have touble supporting her. Using that term signals an incredible ignorance of economics.

I think she is right on about her assessment of Walberg and the lies he told about Schwarz (no T). From her orginal statement, she doesn't seem to have much regard for Schwarz which also troubles me. If I were her, I would be getting to know him and his supporters and learn all you can about what he has done and what she can continue for our District. There is a huge population like me that cannot morally vote for Tim Walberg after what he did and who he aligned himself with in the primary.

I'm really hoping she can beat Walberg, he's a disingenous, morally corrupt, ideologue who will do nothing for our district. She needs to be smart; bantering about liberal cliches will not attract the middle. She needs to understand the center and know what is important to the district, especially economically. She needs to run a smart campaign of substance not rhetoric.

I'm an independent, but I deeply admired Schwarz and zealously supported him in the primary although I didn't always agree with him, I trusted him. I'm sickened by that happend in this primary and the outside influences that meddled in the race. But having to make a choice between both extremes isn't appealing either.

I MAY vote for Sharon, but I know I WILL NOT vote for Walberg. She needs to look at what Schwarz has done and follow his lead...if she is serious about winning.

We face serious issues as a nation, especially in the arena national security, which is undoubtedly the keystone issue in the 110th Congress.

And another anonymous responds:

You guys are the ones who sound like a cliche machines, not Sharon Renier. How is supporting the troops but not the war a cliche? Maybe you're not old enough to remember the aftermath of Vietnam, but when those soldiers came back home, they were directly blamed for what had happened. They were shunned, spit on, ignored. Renier's point is that it is not the fault of the soldiers that they're fighting a destructive pointless war and getting killed for nothing, worse than nothing. She is a strong supporter of the military, including expanded access to jobs and education, for those coming home. If you call that having it both ways, fine.

The same is true for tax cuts for the rich. When an administration and Congress enacts massive tax cuts which only have any meaningful effect for people earning well into six figures, I call that a tax cut for the rich. It's true that these things get labeled in shorthand, but that doesn't make them cliches. Sharon's point is that she wants to see taxes cut for those who truly need the tax cuts, and that those at the very top should pay more. Is that being out on the liberal fringe? A cut from the Pelosi playbook? Sharon’s an NRA member, and strongly against any amnesty for illegal immigrants. Does that sound like Nancy Pelosi? You might want to look up cliche in the dictionary.

The other thing is that I know there are things that Joe Schwarz started that Sharon admired and would like to finish. She has great respect for him. But her name is Sharon, not Joe.

When Joe Schwarz launched an editorial attack on the far-right in the Washington Post, I asked anyone with links to some of the pre-primary attack ads to let me know. The Adrian Insider answered:

To see some of those ads, check out this page: http://adrianinsider.blogspot.com/2006/06/tv-radio-ad-wars.html

After Lincoln Chafee won his primary over a Club for Growth challenger, one anonymous commenter suggested that the Club was doomed to defeat nationwide, and MI-07 was the exception, not the norm.

CFG's defeat of Joe Schwarz was for all intent and purpose...a fluke.

A dismally low voter turnout got Walberg elected, it was not about ideology but pure numbers. Speaking of numbers with less than 18 percent of the voters going to the polls, less than 9 percent actually voted for Walberg.

I hope every other CFG candidate goes down in flames. Schwarz only lost because of voter apathy, he is far more mainstream and qualified than Walberg who borders on facist. If anything, Walberg won the primary because the GOP (and the media) was asleep at the switch.

Unfortunately, Michigan was a wake-up call for complacent voters. We all have lost big-time in this election, but hopefully the rest of the nation can learn from it and with Chaffee's win, I think they got the message about CFG.

I hope s/he is right... Incidentally, another commenter on the same subject reminds us:

Bouchard is also endorsed by Club for Growth.

That being Michael Bouchard, Republican opponent to Senator Debbie Stabenow.

When an article appeared quoting some harsh rhetoric against Tim Walberg by Schwarz, one anonymous commenter reminded us:

Let no one forget that Walberg refused to endorse Schwarz after the last primary. He encouraged people to vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2004 when he lost to Schwarz.

His campaign was based on hot-button wedge issues attacking homosexuals and hispanics.

This is not the republican party I want. Vote for the dem or write in someone with some common sense, Schwarz or otherwise.

With that, today's Comment Roundup concludes. If you're upset that yours wasn't included, don't take it personally. I have no doubt it was interesting and insightful.

Labels: 2006 Election

If one ventures over to Tim Walberg's campaign website, the endorsements page is an interesting read. In addition to naming supporting organizations like the Club for Growth and Right to Life, he includes a list of "community leaders" that support him:

Dr. James Dobson? A "Community Leader"? Considering he was born in Shreveport, Louisiana and broadcasts out of Colorado, the Walberg campaign has a pretty broad definition for "community." But obviously he must be an important leader, being at the top of Walberg's list. And Dobson must think Michigan is a pretty important state, too. From Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:

The Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group said it will mail a special election-year alert to all houses of worship in 11 states, reminding them that intervention in partisan political campaigns is a violation of the Internal Revenue Service Code.

The letters, totaling over 117,000, begin mailing today and will be sent to every house of worship in Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Missouri and Virginia.

Churches in those states are being targeted by James Dobson and other Religious Right leaders who want to build a church-based political machine on behalf of favored Republican candidates.

“Dragging churches into partisan politics is just plain wrong,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “It violates tax law, it damages the integrity of religion and it harms our democracy.

So let's take a closer look at James Dobson.

Dobson is best known for his "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast and published materials advising parents on how to, supposedly, build strong families and raise productive children. It sounds like a noble goal, and one that wouldn't necessarily be political in nature. However, the issues which Dobson focuses on (and the positions he takes) are cause for some concern.

Mind you, it isn't that he's not a compassionate man-- when it comes to corporal punishment, he says:

"It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."

Just hard enough to cause genuine tears. No more than that.

I admit, that wasn't entirely fair of me. Lots of parents have lots of techniques on raising children, and certainly firm authority is sometimes useful. That said, the quote is a bit troubling, I think.

Dobson, like many others in the Religious Right, has had his share of controversial statements. Perhaps most memorable was his feud with SpongeBob Squarepants and homosexuality. That subject in particular seems to be very important to him, having been quoted in the The Daily Oklahoman (Oct. 23rd, 2004) saying:

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."

Destroy the Earth? Really? Here I was, worried about weapons of mass destruction and bird flu. The real threat is that my neighbors might be gay.

According to Dobson, homosexuality is a condition which can be treated and cured with proper parental involvement throughout childhood. He offers a lot of "information" on the subject here (link found via the Wikipedia article). I would quote from it, but frankly, I don't know where to begin. I would wish, however, that we would become a society more tolerant of one another. If you don't want to let same-sex couples marry, that's fine. But to try to "cure" them? That's a little disturbing, in my humble opinion.

Of course, controversy surrounds more than just his stance on homosexuality. James Dobson also gained some attention for his opposition to stem cell research. On that subject, he commented:

But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

(From Media Matters; emphasis included from source)

Hm. Incidentally, Tim Walberg opposes stem cell research as well, being "100% pro-life". As a side note, Media Matters has all sorts of information on Dobson-- my personal favorite is when he compared the Supreme Court to the KKK.

But political involvement aside, Dobson still wants to promote strong families. That's why he advocates a household dominated by the husband, with the wife playing the "submissive" role. Wikipedia leads one to an article on his organization's website (though not written by him) that has some interesting thoughts on the subject:

This may be shocking news to you, but an overwhelming majority of wives in my survey said they want to submit to their husbands. They want their husbands to be the head of the home, and they have no desire to usurp that God-given position of leadership. They know what the Bible says on the subject, and discerning wives want to do what God wants because they understand that God’s ways work best.

And...

If you feel that your wife is not submissive, pray for her to have a submissive heart, first toward God and then toward you. Then ask God to help you love her the way He does. I guarantee that you will see her submission level rise in direct proportion to the unselfish love you exhibit for her. And let her see that you are seeking God for guidance. If she knows that you are asking God to show you the way, she will follow you anywhere.

Oh, and then there's the "Prayer Power" portion of it:

Lord, I submit myself to You this day. Lead me as I lead my family. Help me to make all decisions based on Your revelation and guidance. As I submit my leadership to You, enable (wife’s name) to fully trust that You are leading me. Help her to understand the kind of submission You want from her. Help me to understand the kind of submission You want from me. Enable me to be the leader You want me to be.

Where there are issues over which we disagree, help us to settle them in proper order. I pray that I will allow You, Lord, to be so in control of my life that my wife will be able to freely trust Your Holy Spirit working in me. Help me to love her the way You love me, so that I will gain her complete respect and love. Give her a submissive heart and the faith she needs to trust me to be the spiritual leader in our home. At the same time, help us to submit “to one another in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21). I know that only You, Lord, can make that perfect balance happen in our lives.

I don't know about you, but I happen to know certain women that would object to total submission to their husbands-- especially if that means giving up their careers.

Religious faith is an important part of American society, and helps define who we are as individuals. But men like James Dobson aren't interested in creating the loving, peaceful society faith should lead to. Instead, they exploit faith and use select passages from the Bible to advance their hateful political views.

And, of course, Dobson supports Tim Walberg.

Support Sharon Renier for Congress
Volunteer
Contribute

Labels: 2006 Election

Meant to mention this yesterday, didn't quite get to it...

Over at Who Got The Gravy? (part of Michigan's fantastic and growing progressive blogosphere), Nirmal interviews Sharon Renier, Democratic nominee for Michigan's 7th Congressional District, and opponent of radical conservative Tim Walberg (R).

I'm in a bit of a rush, so I'm not going to give you any highlights. Besides, it's an interesting interview, with plenty of candid thoughts on the race and issues facing America. Definitely worth reading in full.

Sharon Renier
Volunteer
Contribute

Labels: 2006 Election

Congressman Joe Schwarz picked up his pen once again for a column in Sunday, September 17's Washington Post (apparently available early online).

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

I can't tell you how important it is to read this column in full. I'm going to offer a few highlights and some commentary, but you really should go and read it yourself.

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

In my case, lose an election.

(All emphasis added)

Schwarz does not mention Tim Walberg, the radical conservative that defeated him, by name-- to do so would invite criticism that he's just a "sore loser"-- but we all know who he's talking about. The interest groups that helped Walberg win the nomination are not what the Republican Party once was. They are not the ones that knew how to govern through so many administrations since 1860. The religious right now controls the GOP, one of many reasons why a unified Republican government, with the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, can't govern effectively. They've alienated intelligent, dedicated moderates that knew how to get things done.

[...]
My loss had nothing to do with his popularity, or national issues such as the war in Iraq. What did me in was voter apathy, and moral absolutist groups supported by a vitriolic negative-ad campaign funded by organizations on the far right.

I'm sure everyone in the district remembers the ads that Walberg's associates ran during the primary. I wish that I had been forward-thinking enough to save a few of them when they were available online-- especially the ads run by the Club for Growth-- as evidence of their negative campaign. If anyone out there did save them, or might perhaps be able to find them online, let me know.

After 16 years in the Michigan Senate and service as mayor of Battle Creek, I was elected to Congress in 2004. But my moderate positions on Roe v. Wade (I do not support overturning it, believing that a woman has the right to choose) and embryonic stem cell research (I strongly support it), as well as my general feeling that religion and moral and ethical issues are private matters, did not sit well with those who would mix church and state in a way that is antithetical to the principles of separation on which our country was founded -- in other words, the hard right.

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

From a Republican endorsed by President Bush, John McCain, and prominent GOP interest groups like the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce, these are some pretty harsh words for the dominant forces of the Republican Party.

It was a classic example of a motivated minority -- just 7.8 percent of the Republican electorate districtwide -- nominating a congressional candidate. The moderates stayed home in droves, felt horrible the next day, and vowed never to miss another vote. They will. The hard right won't. And fewer and fewer sensible "let's take the broad view" candidates will have any chance of being elected.

But politics needs a middle. Communication across the aisle in Congress and in legislatures is the sine qua non of effective public policy formulation. The reluctance -- at times, the near-total unwillingness -- to consider the other side's position has hamstrung political bodies from coast to coast.

It isn't about seeking a "sensible center" as some Washington consultants seem to believe. Instead, it's about a willingness to work with others, regardless of party, in creating an effective government that works for all its citizens. For example, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) embodies many liberal values. Yet he is able to reach across the aisle on countless issues in order to get things done. Why? Because he listens to his constituents.

Tim Walberg and the extremists of the GOP don't do that. Instead, they listen to the groups that dump $50,000 into the campaign on their behalf just days before the election. Isn't it nice to know that there's an alternative?

If "Joe Schwarz is a liberal," then surely any 7th District Democrat must be wildly leftist, right? Well, let's look at Democratic nominee Sharon Renier on the issues.

Abortion:

SHARON RENIER, Democrat: Says she believes women should have a choice, but wants abortion to be as rare as possible. Renier says she has a different perspective on the issue than other candidates because she is a woman.

Energy and the Environment:

RENIER: Says she “absolutely” believes in tax breaks for alternative energy, and also wants to look at incentives to homeowners who use efficient technologies to reduce energy usage. Opposes drilling in ANWR, saying: “Can’t we just leave our hands off something?”

Iraq:

RENIER: Believes the U.S. needs to begin pulling troops out of Iraq and allowing the Iraqis to concentrate on rebuilding their country. Favors a staggered plan of withdrawal.

Guns:

RENIER: Says she is a card-carrying NRA member who supports gun rights.

... And so on. Is that really so radically liberal? Actually, it sounds like a lot of common-sense, moderate positions. It also sounds a lot like some of what Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz has said. So who's really out of step with Michigan's 7th District?

Joe Schwarz may be "the political equivalent of a woolly mammoth" in the Republican Party, but moderates are alive and well in the Democratic Party. Sharon Renier would be a fair representative of Michigan's 7th District, certainly moreso than the Radical Right's Tim Walberg.

Support Sharon Renier:
Contribute
Volunteer

Labels: 2006 Election

Lincoln Chafee is the kind of Republican that used to be common in this country. He's a social moderate, reflecting the views of his left-leaning state as best he can, and a fiscal conservative in the traditional, Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller sense.

Of course, this wasn't good enough for the Club for Growth. They spent a significant sum of money in support of Mayor Steve Laffey, a far-right conservative in the mold of Tim Walberg, in his bid to defeat Chafee for the Republican nomination.

Happily, there's still a place for moderates in the GOP... but only in Rhode Island.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans may not like moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an Iraq-war opponent and frequent foe of the Bush administration, but they love what he could do for them in November's battle to control Congress.

Chafee's win over a conservative challenger in Rhode Island's Republican primary on Tuesday kept alive the party's hopes of retaining his crucial Senate seat, one of six seats Democrats must pick up in November to regain a majority in the chamber.

The White House and national Republicans held their noses and poured money and political workers into Rhode Island to defend Chafee, believing his moderate views gave them their only shot at keeping the seat in the heavily Democratic state.

Chafee, who did not even vote for President George W. Bush in 2004, writing in Bush's father instead, still faces a tough November campaign against Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. But polls had showed Chafee's conservative Republican primary opponent Stephen Laffey would lose badly to Whitehouse in November.

Yes, Lincoln Chafee succeeded, defeating Steve Laffey by a significant margin. But who are the big losers?

Club For Growth: The Club made no secret that defeating Chafee was its No. 1 priority this cycle. And despite funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Laffey's campaign and spending similar amounts on advertising to knock off the incumbent, its efforts came up short. Laffey's defeat keeps the Club from claiming the prize it wants most -- defeating a sitting senator who fails to hew to its free-market agenda. That said, the Club has had an extremely successful run so far this cycle -- playing a major role in the loss of moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz (R) in Michigan and winning a number of contested Republican primaries in other states. Still, the group's inability to beat Chafee takes some of the shine off '06 cycle for the Club.

In the coming days, I hope to offer a detailed look at the Club for Growth and what they really stand for. But as good news as it is for Senator Chafee, it's not over by any means. The Club for Growth will still support Tim Walberg between now and November, and will presumably be taking an active role in Michigan. A quick look at their website will show who one of their other endorsed candidates is: Michael Bouchard, Republican nominee for US Senate.

As always, support Sharon Renier in the 7th District (contribute; volunteer), and support Senator Debbie Stabenow against Club for Growth candidate Michael Bouchard (contribute; volunteer).

In other, unrelated news, a major victory for tolerance and progress: the first Muslim member of Congress may soon be headed to Washington. Regardless of political leanings, State Rep. Keith Ellison's victory represents the best of America. After September 11, Muslims have been subject to harsh and terrible discrimination. One day after the five year anniversary, Minnesota primary voters chose him as their next representative. Racism has no place in America, and Ellison's victory is a step forward for our country.

Labels: 2006 Election, Club for Growth

Congressman Joe Schwarz, having been defeated by Tim Walberg (R-MI-07) in August 8th's primary, has been largely silent about his plans for the future. However, it's becoming increasingly clear what he does not intend to do:

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of his loss in the primary last month, U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz says he won't endorse or vote for the Republican pastor who defeated him and accused "right-wing intimidators" of running moderates like himself out of the party.

That's right. Joe Schwarz-- a prominent Republican from Battle Creek, who served in Michigan's legislature for years, served Michigan's 7th District in Congress, and even ran for governor in 2002-- will not even vote for his party's nominee, Tim Walberg.

The Detroit News article continues:

"The far right, the religious right are driving moderates out of the party. In the end, that can only hurt because it takes a critical mass to have a successful party," Schwarz said in his first extensive interview since losing the Aug. 8 primary to Tim Walberg.

The Battle Creek physician said several friends told him they plan to leave the party after watching him be hammered on social issues and then lose in spite of endorsements by establishment Republicans including President Bush and Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.

Schwarz said he could see circumstances under which he would join them.

...

Schwarz accused Walberg of running a "character assassination" campaign, which was aided by a series of "moral absolutist" votes on the U.S. House floor in mid-July -- three weeks before the primary.

While Schwarz has had some harsh criticism of Tim Walberg and the religious right before, this is the closest he's come publicly to switching parties. But just when you thought his criticism couldn't be more harsh, you read this:

Schwarz decried the growing role religion is playing in politics.

Schwarz, who at 68 hasn't ruled out running for elective office in the future, said, "There are people out there who believe that that this country should be a theocracy."

(Emphasis added)

This stunning statement is sure to catch people's attention, as it should. Tim Walberg does not represent the political views of Michigan's 7th District. He represents the views of a small yet influential minority of the Republican Party.

The race also earns the attention of Jack Lessenberry in a column for the Toledo Blade. The relevant portion:

Now, Mr. Schwarz is returning the favor. “I’ve lost elections before, and after each one I could invite my opponent out for a beer. Not this time. I can’t endorse Walberg. His campaign tactics were reprehensible, consisting of one lie and mischaracterization after another.”

During the race, Mr. Walberg painted Mr. Schwarz, a Vietnam veteran, former CIA agent, and strong supporter of the Iraq War, as a liberal who was far too left-wing for the district.

The congressman, who is also a medical doctor, complained that virtually all his opponent’s money came from not only out of the district but out of state, mainly from the shadowy Club for Growth, which funded a smear campaign against him.

Whether he will endorse the Democratic nominee, 50-year-old organic farmer Sharon Renier, is unclear. Two years ago, she lost to Mr. Schwarz, 58 percent to 36 percent, but had no money. The district, which includes Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties, is mainly Republican — but voted for Bill Clinton twice. Any Democrat is a long shot … yet keep an eye on this one.

(Emphasis added)

Help Sharon Renier defeat Tim Walberg-- contribute, volunteer, and tell your friends to support the candidate that really represents the district.

Labels: 2006 Election

Tim Walberg's plan for immigration is clearly extreme and misguided, and would lead to tough punishment of the wrong people. But what about his other connection with the immigration issue?

During the primary campaign against Congressman Joe Schwarz, Minuteman PAC (the "political arm of the Minuteman Movement") was a major presence in support of Tim Walberg. On their website, he is listed as one of their four endorsed candidates.

Their involvement didn't go unnoticed. As reported by The Adrian Insider on August 3rd (five days before the primary):

The Minuteman PAC plans to pour $150,000 into a media blitz on Tim Walberg's behalf to oust incumbent Joe Schwarz, R-Battle Creek.
Walberg says Schwarz supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and is siding with his friend, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, the senior Democrat from Massachussets.
Walberg's ads linking Schwarz to Kennedy are likely to enrage and presumably bring out the district's conservative base.
But now the Minuteman's political action committee is marching into the 7th District race, having already spent $29,000 in ads, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported Wednesday.

Although they now say they only spent $50,000, high spending in the final days of a tight election is more than a little significant. What do we know about the Minutemen?

The "founder" of the Minuteman movement is Jim Gilchrist. Gilchrist, a failed third-party candidate for Congress, is associated with the far-right Constitution Party, and has political views which largely match those of Tim Walberg-- "strongly pro-life," supports tax cuts, and opposes same-sex marriage. He also wants to boycott the Ford Motor Company because of a single television ad.

The head of Minuteman PAC and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is Chris Simcox. Under his leadership, the Minutemen have begun building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The "wall," and the leadership of Simcox, haven't been without controversy. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The pivot point on which Simcox's own kind turned against him is his refusal to account for the $1.6 to $1.8 million in private donations he estimates MCDC raised, including $600,000 for the "Minuteman Border Fence," -- a slick fundraising campaign with a stated goal of $55 million. Simcox pledged the money raised by the campaign would go to build a high-tech security barrier along 70 miles of private ranchland on the Arizona border. Mass-mailed MCDC solicitations and full-page color advertisements in The Washington Times since mid-April promoted the Minuteman Border Fence as an "Israeli-style" barrier "based on the fences used in Gaza and the West Bank." Fundraising illustrations depict a 6-foot trench and coils of concertina wire backed by a 15-foot steel-mesh fence crowned with bulletproof security cameras. Estimated cost: $150 per foot.

Construction began Memorial Day weekend with much fanfare. Since then, MCDC volunteers erected just over two miles of five-strand barbed wire attached to short metal posts. What they built is a standard cattle fence, costing about $1.50 per foot, or about one one-hundredth the cost of the advertised "Israeli-style" barrier.

So far, in other words, the Minuteman Border Fence hasn't come to much. "It wouldn't stop a tricycle," American Border Patrol's Glenn Spencer posted in a recent online tirade. "It's shameful that [Simcox] would deceive the American people in this way."

The Southern Poverty Law Center goes into considerable detail regarding the lack of financial accountability in the Minuteman organization-- the "wall" is just a small part of the problems Simcox faces. But what kind of people are motivated to join the Minutemen? Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center can tell us that as well.

The night of April 3, armed vigilantes camped along Border Road in a series of watch posts set-up for the Minuteman Project, a month-long action in which revolving casts of 150 to 200 anti-immigration militants wearing cheap plastic "Undocumented Border Patrol Agent" badges mobilized in southeastern Arizona. Their stated goal was to "do the job our government refuses to do" and "protect America" from the "tens of millions of invading illegal aliens who are devouring and plundering our nation."

At Station Two, Minuteman volunteers grilled bratwursts and fantasized about murder.

"It should be legal to kill illegals," said Carl, a 69-year old retired Special Forces veteran who fought in Vietnam and now lives out West. "Just shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die."

Carl was armed with a revolver chambered to fire shotgun shells. He wore this hand cannon in a holster below a shirt that howled "American bad asses" in red, white and blue. The other vigilantes assigned to Station Two included a pair of self-professed members of the National Alliance, a violent neo-Nazi organization. These men, who gave their names only as Johnny and Michael, were outfitted in full-body camouflage and strapped with semi-automatic pistols.

And...

"The thing to do would be to drop the bodies just a few hundred feet into the U.S. and just leave them there, with lights on them at night," he said. "That sends the message 'No Trespassing,' in any language."

The conversation stopped just short of decapitating Mexicans and putting their heads on pikes, facing south.

Of course, it's not just the immigrants they hate; sometimes, you can be anti-immigrant, but too soft on them:

The woman, who said she was with a Pennsylvania anti-immigration group, had outraged Johnny and Michael that afternoon by reporting for duty with a Star of David pendant dangling below the neckline of her "I Survived the Minuteman Project" t-shirt. She also squabbled with them over the morality of pit bull fighting, and expressed her belief in animal rights and no-kill dog and cat shelters. They started calling her "Jew bitch" behind her back.

But that's not all...

While Gilchrist is newly prominent on the anti-immigration front — he recently joined the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a hate group whose leader routinely describes Mexicans as "savages" — Simcox has been active since 2002, when he founded Civil Homeland Defense, a Tombstone-based vigilante militia that he brags has captured more than 5,000 Mexicans and Central Americans who entered the country without visas.

And...

The graphic on Michael's sign was almost identical to the imagery on a billboard the Alliance paid to put up earlier this year in a predominantly Latino neighborhood of Las Vegas and on Alliance fliers that were tossed onto driveways and lawns in Douglas and Tombstone in late March during a dead-of-night distribution drive.

"Immigration or invasion?" those fliers read. "Non-whites are turning America into a Third World slum. They come for welfare or to take our jobs. They bring crime. Let's send them home now!"

Johnny and Michael offered their last names to no one, and never spoke of their jobs, though Michael said he had fought in the first Gulf War with the 82nd Airborne Division. At the protest, he wore a desert camouflage vest over a black shirt emblazoned with a white fist and combat boots. There were other small clues to the pair's ideology. Driving to the protest, they blasted the white-power rock band Youngblood. Johnny made several references to the "14 Words," a white supremacist adage ("We must secure the existence of our race and a future for White children"). Johnny also had a National Alliance symbol tattooed to the back of his neck and "Born in the C.S.A." (referring to the Confederate States of America) inked below his left jawbone.

These are the people that support Tim Walberg enough to spend $50,000 on his behalf. I don't intend to accuse Walberg himself of anything. However, the policies he supports, which earn him the affection of the Minutemen, should be seriously questioned.

Labels: 2006 Election

This post relies heavily on Migra Matters: Progressive Immigration Reform, a blog dedicated to analyzing illegal immigration and the politics surrounding it. My selective quoting and not-so-witty commentary doesn't come close to the comprehensive information collected at that site, and anyone interested in the issue should spend a great deal of time there.

We all know Tim Walberg (Radical Conservative) is anti-abortion, anti-marriage equality, and anti-taxation. But what about the divisive issue of 2006, immigration?

The Adrian Daily Telegram reported this:

WALBERG: Says the proposal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives has been the closest to his ideal plan. First, Walberg says, borders need to be secured. No amnesty will be offered, but the legal immigration process must remain open. Immigrants must have clear documentation. “As we find them, then we must deal with the illegals that are here and deal with the employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens,” he says.

It sounds straightforward enough. Secure borders, but allow legal immigration. Then we "deal with the illegals" and their employers. He says it's all put together in the proposal passed already by the US House of Representatives, but that stalled in the Senate and the White House.

This is what the House bill would do (courtesy of Migra Matters, an immigration reform blog):

Increase security forces and surveillance along the border.


Give the power to immigration officials within 100 miles of the border to expel without a hearing anyone believed to be a recently arrived illegal immigrant.


Expand mandatory detention to apply to all non-citizens arriving at a port of entry or “along” the border.


Limit the basic rights of immigrants to judicial review, even by the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus.


Criminalize all violations of immigration law, even if the violation was unintentional or the result of processing delays


Give additional powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review, potentially placing many non-citizens in a legal black hole that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.

Sounds tough, right? But there are some problems with the bill, as outlined by Migra Matters. For starters, it gives border patrol agents broad powers outside of our judicial system or the current administrative process.

It would require the border patrol to pick up and deport, without any administrative hearing, anyone within 100 miles of the border that an agent thinks is an undocumented immigrant who has been present less than 14 days. How the officers are to determine the legal status of the deportees is not addressed in the legislation. The de facto result of this legislation is that anyone within 100 miles of the border (north or south) who is suspected of being here illegally could by deported without any sort of hearing or reviews.

Anyone can recognize the danger in this-- an agent's own prejudices and suspicions could lead to legal residents being deported without an opportunity to argue their case. But what about the rest of the bill?

The mandatory detentions?

Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

Any non-citizen, not just those without documentation, detained for any reason ends up in jail. That's quite a friendly welcome to the land of the free.

When the bill was passed, a great deal of attention focused on the provision making illegal immigration a felony. Many, I'm sure, would argue in support of that tough-on-crime stance, since they are, after all, breaking the law. Right? Well...

As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes.

(Emphasis added)

How is an "aggravated felony" usually defined? Here's a sample, but a full definition is available if you follow the link.

The term "aggravated felony" means

(A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor;

(B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code);

(C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of that title);

I'm a little old-fashioned, but I never thought of paperwork delays as quite this serious.

Migra Matters continues...

HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
  
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
  
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
  
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

Indefinite detention? Secret evidence?

Immigration reform is a serious issue facing the country today, and ought to be addressed. But the bill that Tim Walberg supports doesn't address the issue. It creates new standards for punishing immigrants without regard for guilt or innocence, and gives broad new powers to border patrol agents-- powers that police and the military aren't trusted with.

And on top of that, it counts on the government always having its information organized. Is that something you'd bet money on?

The problem with all of HR 4437 (outside of its possible unconstitutionality, racist overtones, and a lack of judicial checks and balances) is that all of these new programs are predicated on the government having a reliable, accurate and easily accessible information management system to ensure that those who don't "belong" here are kept out, while those who do belong are not penalized.

Currently immigrants can wait for months and sometimes years to have their paperwork handled. Often they will fall "out of status" for long periods of time while they wait for the government to process their paperwork. Work permits expire, TPS status expires, and immigrants must wait for their new cards to be processed. Under 4437 all of these immigrants would automatically be subject to prosecution.

Then there is the problem of the computer systems and record keeping. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service, a branch of Homeland Security, has come under fire from outside analysts and government auditors for having one of the most ineffective data management systems in the entire government.

This is the kind of immigration reform Tim Walberg wants. Is it really what Michigan's 7th District wants?

Labels: 2006 Election, Issues

Just a brief post today-- Head on over to Michigan Liberal to vote for Sharon Renier for the Michigan First! endorsement. (Out of fairness, here's Matt Ferguson's brief descriptions of each candidate.)

Right now, Renier is far from leading, but I'm sure we can turn that around. With current standings, ten more votes, and she's in third place. Twenty-one votes, and she's tied for the lead. But I think we can manage quite a bit more than that.

What will the Michigan First! endorsement get her? Thousands of dollars? Worldwide attention? The momentum to defeat Tim Walberg?

Well, maybe. It'll get her a reserved space on Michigan Liberal with her photo and links to her website and donation page. While no cash contribution is offered by the website, it'll make it easier to donate to her, and indicate to others that she has the support of Michigan bloggers and activists. More than that, it's just one more thing she can brag about. And let's face it, it sounds pretty good to say she received the Michigan First! endorsement!

Go vote (voting ends Monday), and help take one more step forward toward electing Sharon Renier and defeating Tim Walberg. You need an account on Michigan Liberal to vote, but you really ought to have one already. It's a great resource.

Labels: 2006 Election

No, I haven't forgotten about this blog... I've been a bit busy lately, but regular posting will resume soon.

Thursday saw the announcement by former congressional candidate Gil Ziegler of a new organization to support Governor Granholm's reelection this fall. Why is this important? Because Gil Ziegler was a Republican candidate for Congress, and the name of the organization is Republicans for Granholm.

But why is Ziegler supporting Granholm?

Ziegler said he disagrees with Republicans in Washington and Lansing who oppose embryonic stem cell research and who have turned many social issues into political litmus tests.

"I'm going to disappoint some people in the Republican Party. But those are the extremists in our party who want to block stem cell research and who turned out of office a good man like U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz," Ziegler said. He was referring to the 7th District incumbent who lost the GOP primary earlier this month to Tim Walberg, who said Schwarz was too liberal.

(emphasis added)

More and more Republicans are realizing that their party has been taken over by the far right. What once was a party devoted to fiscal responsibility and limited government has become a party of men like Tim Walberg, whose extreme social positions divide the country today. Rather than seeking to run an effective, responsible government, they seek to polarize voters with wedge issues.

Politics in America will improve when the GOP returns to the "sensible center," and Democrats and Republicans can honestly debate the issues. Until then, moderate Republicans who feel abandoned by their party should remember that there's a Democratic alternative.

Republicans for Granholm

Jennifer Granholm for Governor
Sharon Renier for Congress

Labels: 2006 Election

Just before the primary, the Adrian Daily Telegram provided issue positions for both Republican candidates and all four Democratic candidates. Taken from direct answers given from the candidates, it's interesting to see the contrast between Tim Walberg and Sharon Renier.

Below, the positions given to the newspaper (emphasis added):

Abortion: Candidates were asked for their positions on abortion.

TIM WALBERG, Republican challenger: Describes himself as 100 percent pro-life, saying “I believe that all life is a gift from God and should be treated that way.” Has been endorsed by numerous Right to Life groups.

SHARON RENIER, Democrat: Says she believes women should have a choice, but wants abortion to be as rare as possible. Renier says she has a different perspective on the issue than other candidates because she is a woman.

Environmental and energy policy: Candidates were asked whether they support tax breaks and incentives for alternative fuels like ethanol, and whether they support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

WALBERG: Says he supports tax breaks for alternative fuels, saying “I’m committed to giving tax breaks to all citizens, including business.” Supports drilling in ANWR and says it can be done “discreetly and safely.”

RENIER: Says she “absolutely” believes in tax breaks for alternative energy, and also wants to look at incentives to homeowners who use efficient technologies to reduce energy usage. Opposes drilling in ANWR, saying: “Can’t we just leave our hands off something?”

Iraq: Candidates were asked for their opinions on the war in Iraq, specifically the withdrawal of American troops.

WALBERG: Says America’s leadership should be able to work toward withdrawal in a clearly defined, but secret, way, so as not to aid the enemy by fully disclosing the plan. Believes troop removal should not occur until American goals in Iraq are accomplished. Says completing U.S. objectives will send a “statement to all death spots in the world” and “honor those who have died fighting.”

RENIER: Believes the U.S. needs to begin pulling troops out of Iraq and allowing the Iraqis to concentrate on rebuilding their country. Favors a staggered plan of withdrawal.

Canadian trash: The candidates were asked if they believe Congress should intervene in the importation of Canadian trash to Michigan landfills.

WALBERG: Says that “there should only be an intervention from Congress in the perspective of dealing with the safety, security and health standards of people.” Believes international importation of trash is a detail in the process of free commerce and trade.

RENIER: Wants to see policies adopted where garbage that is generated must be disposed of locally.

Death penalty: The candidates were asked if they support the death penalty as it is used today in federal cases.

WALBERG: Says that “I support the death penalty under clear circumstances.”

RENIER: Does not support the death penalty.

Gun control: Candidates were asked to describe their positions on gun rights.

WALBERG: Says he supports the Second Amendment and believes it was written to protect the rights of individuals. Has been endorsed by the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

RENIER: Says she is a card-carrying NRA member who supports gun rights.

Immigration: Candidates were asked to describe their opinions on immigration reform and say whether they had heard any national proposals with which they generally agreed.

WALBERG: Says the proposal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives has been the closest to his ideal plan. First, Walberg says, borders need to be secured. No amnesty will be offered, but the legal immigration process must remain open. Immigrants must have clear documentation. “As we find them, then we must deal with the illegals that are here and deal with the employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens,” he says.

RENIER: Says she has not heard the right proposal yet. Says employers that hire illegal aliens should be punished; that both the northern and southern borders should be secured, and does not oppose the use of the National Guard; and that she supports developing worker programs to let people legally cross the border for work. Does not support amnesty.

Gay marriage: Candidates were asked whether they support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would change the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

WALBERG: Supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying he doesn’t think “the Constitution should be easily altered,” but believes in this instance it is necessary to “control the activist courts.”

RENIER: Wants the government removed completely from defining marriage. Does not support any marriage-defining legislation.

Social Security: The candidates were asked for their thoughts on Social Security and whether they believe in President Bush’s proposals for partial privatization of the system.

WALBERG: Supports the president’s plan, including privatization of a portion of Social Security contributions.

RENIER: Does not support privatization.

Fiscal policy: Candidates were asked if they believe the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent.

WALBERG: Says the tax cuts should be extended and made permanent.

RENIER: Says the cuts should be repealed.

Illegal drugs: The candidates were asked if they support the legalization of illegal drugs or the liberalization of current drug laws.

WALBERG: Does not support legalization or liberalization.

RENIER: Says she supports legalization proposals because “the war on drugs doesn’t work.”

Labels: 2006 Election, Issues

In the Toledo Blade today, columnist Jack Lessenberry shares his observations on the 7th District race, Schwarz's loss, and Tim Walberg.

I always hate it when bloggers quote from a newspaper article and then include no original commentary or thought. But I think Jack Lessenberry, a talented writer, captures the situation quite well.

Below, some excerpts:

LANSING, Mich. - Jim Blanchard, the former governor of Michigan, is as partisan a Democrat as they come. But last week, he did something he once would have found impossible to imagine.

He recorded a "phone blast," an automatic call that was sent to thousands of homes in the Seventh Congressional District, which extends from Ann Arbor to Battle Creek. That call urged voters to support … U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, a Republican, for Congress in Tuesday's primary.

"Joe's a good guy, intelligent, a moderate guy," Mr. Blanchard said. "I knew Tim Walberg when he was in the Legislature," he added. The congressman's opponent, a former preacher and Bible salesman, was a rigid partisan "best known for voting no on everything. There is no way [Mr. Walberg] should be in Congress," the former governor said. "I am still a Democrat but this is a solidly Republican district, and Michigan's future is at stake."

(emphasis added)

I disagree that it's a "solidly Republican district," not with Tim Walberg as the nominee. But it is nonetheless remarkable that Blanchard came out against Walberg in the primary.

Later in the editorial...

Twenty years ago, when Jim Blanchard was re-elected governor and Joe Schwarz, then a young physician, was first elected to the state Senate, the idea that a narrow ideologue could defeat a respected congressman would have been unimaginable.

and

And if there is any remaining doubt that there is no room for moderates in the Michigan GOP, across the state, in prosperous Oakland County, another Republican congressman faced a different kind of challenge. If Joe Schwarz was too liberal for the Seventh District, 73-year-old U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg was seen as too conservative for his, especially on cultural issues.
He was challenged in the Republican primary by Pan Godchaux, a well-regarded school board member and former state legislator. Not only did she have high name recognition, she openly sought and received support from Democrats.

Godchaux, of course, lost by a wide margin, showing again that the Michigan Republican Party is dominated by the fringe elements that supported Tim Walberg.

Lessenberry closes with a nice little twist.

Electoral Footnote: The Club for Growth may think taxes are evil, but most millage requests around the state were approved in this week's voting, suggesting that even cash-strapped voters will pay up for services they need and approve.
And in Southeast Michigan, SMART, the area-wide bus service, had its funding approved by an unexpected landslide. That may reflect higher gas prices - but also perhaps an increasing willingness to think about mass transit solutions.

Clearly, Tim Walberg and the Club for Growth's narrow vision for government isn't what the voters really want.

Labels: 2006 Election

Following his loss in the August 8th primary, Congressman Joe Schwarz was interviewed by the Battle Creek Enquirer on his plans after leaving public office. It's an interesting article and worth reading in full, but one section in particular interests me:

For now, though, he'll be able to take a step back from that world, with a campaign no longer on the immediate horizon. Instead, he is in the role of observer. He offered his take on the Nov. 7 general election, which will find his rival in the primary, Tim Walberg, facing off against Democrat Sharon Renier, whom Schwarz bested in the 2004 general election.

"I got to know her a little bit two years ago," he said of Renier. "She's pretty bright and has a good grasp of a lot of issues — not all issues, but a lot of them. She's a very credible candidate."

Though Schwarz was gracious in defeat on Tuesday, he took a few swipes at Walberg on Wednesday.

"Tim Walberg is conservative in the extreme, and is not particularly well versed in a number of issues that he's going to have to bone up on," Schwarz said. "National security, homeland security, the military, health care come to mind right off the top of the head. Economic development also.

"We'll see how he performs."

(emphasis added)

Is this just a final post-primary swipe at Walberg? Perhaps. But it's unusual to see Congressman Schwarz have nothing but kind words for Democrat Sharon Renier and then go out of his way to criticize Tim Walberg. Why would he do this?

Because Schwarz, like the 29,000 other Republicans that did not vote for Walberg, saw that Tim Walberg campaigned on a narrow message and has no real plans for other issues. Walberg's primary message was, "I'm against gay marriage and abortion, against the income tax, and against 'liberal' Joe Schwarz." But what would he do for our district?

Labels: 2006 Election

Michigan's 7th Congressional District (indeed, the entire state) is gerrymandering as an art form. It looks like a simple, fair design, following the county boundaries for the most part, and avoiding the wild twists and turns seen in other states.

Despite its appearance, the district has been designed to protect Republican incumbents. Conservative-leaning counties line the southern portion of the district, and the border is careful to include conservative suburbs of Ann Arbor and Lansing without including the progressive cities themselves. Battle Creek and Jackson (the "bluest" cities of the district) are offset by more conservative areas, ensuring that these cities do not add to Democratic margins in other districts.

However, the design is not perfect; it is not an overwhelmingly Republican district. Senator John Kerry won 44.9 percent of the vote. Congressman Joe Schwarz drew only 58 percent of the vote against an underfunded and forgotten Sharon Renier in 2004.

Demographic information via Michigan Liberal:

TOTAL POPULATION 667,542

PERSONS BY HISPANIC ORIGIN AND RACE
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 21,113 3.2%
White 591,101 88.5%
Black or African American 37,403 5.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native 2,701 0.4%
Asian 5,331 0.8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 147 0.0%
Some Other Race 660 0.1%
Two or more races 9,086 1.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino 646,429 96.8%

HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999
Households: 250,574

Less than $10,000 16,655 6.6%
10,000 to $19,999 29,268 11.7%
20,000 to $29,999 31,773 12.7%
30,000 to $39,999 31,479 12.6%
40,000 to $49,999 28,948 11.6%
50,000 to $59,999 25,629 10.2%
60,000 to $74,999 30,615 12.2%
75,000 to $99,999 28,988 11.6%
100,000 to $149,999 19,650 7.8%
150,000 to $199,999 3,794 1.5%
200,000 or more 3,775 1.5%

INDUSTRY
Employed civilian population 16 years and over: 318,845

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 4,760 1.5%
Mining 5,411 1.7%
Construction 18,458 5.8%
Manufacturing 78,423 24.6%
Wholesale trade 9,129 2.9%
Retail trade 36,800 11.5%
Transportation and warehousing 10,103 3.2%
Utilities 3,685 1.2%
Information 5,457 1.7%
Finance, insurance, real estate 15,281 4.8%
Professional services 10,967 3.4%
Management services 7,833 2.5%
Educational services 29,053 9.1%
Health care and social assistance 35,698 11.2%
Arts, entertainment and recreation 3,219 1.0%
Accommodation and food services 17,519 5.5%
Other services 14,825 4.6%
Public administration 17,334 5.4%

Labels: 2006 Election

Even lifelong Democrats admitted that Congressman Joe Schwarz was a rare kind of Republican. Progressives and liberals can disagree with him on just about anything, have passionate debates, and then walk away respecting their opponent. He was a Michigan Republican in the mold of former Governor William Miliken and former President Gerald Ford. Principled, dedicated public servants that work for the benefit of their communities. (Photo: Joe Schwarz)

The Republican primary on August 8th showed that the Republican Party of today doesn’t have room for men like Joe Schwarz. Instead, outside interests have turned it into a party where ideological purity is more important than good government. It is a party where anyone that does not follow President Bush and the official party doctrine is forced out and labeled an enemy. It is now a party that supports men like Tim Walberg.

Tim Walberg, who opposes the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Tim Walberg, who panders to radically conservative elements of the pro-life movement.

Tim Walberg, who would blindly follow President Bush into unnecessary wars.

Tim Walberg, who opposes common-sense government spending.

Join us in rejecting Tim Walberg’s radical conservative beliefs. Vote for a dedicated individual who will represent the entire district, not just the fringe elements of one party. On November 7th, vote to send Sharon Renier to Congress.

Contribute
Volunteer
Events
Contribute With ActBlue

(Image: Sharon Renier)

This blog is not currently affiliated with or authorized by Sharon Renier or the Democratic Party. Instead, it is operated by residents of Michigan's 7th District who do not wish to see Tim Walberg elected.

Labels: 2006 Election