From 7:00pm to 9:00pm, I'm going to be away from a computer-- and, in fact, away from any televisions, radios, or other devices which report election results. During arguably the most exciting portion of the night, when Virginia may be called for Obama, or when the returns start coming in for the Georgia Senate race, or when our own district begins reporting, I won't be able to be a part of it.
For a political junkie like me, that's like missing the World Series, the Rose Bowl (Go 'Cats!I believe in you!), and the World Cup all at once, which, by the way, are also on Christmas. Tomorrow could be a really amazing day, and I’m disappointed that I’ll be missing a big part of it.
But when I do get to a computer, I’ll be looking for a few things. I don't claim to have a secret formula or know which tiny town will be the bellwether, and I'm definitely not a Grebner-like expert. But I can tell you what I think a Schauer victory might look like, and where I’ll be looking for it.
Turnout in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties
With 98 percent of Michigan's voting population registered, there are a lot of people who could show up to vote. That’s got to worry Tim Walberg, whose victory in the 2006 GOP primary was thanks to what former Congressman Joe Schwarz called a "motivated minority" of 7.8 percent in a low-turnout primary. (Schwarz also called them "quasi-theocrats... infiltrating the party power structure"). Granted, a general election is very different from a primary, but a Walberg victory will depend on certain people not showing up, namely in Calhoun County, where Mark Schauer could run up the margin.
But Walberg has someone working against him: Barack Obama. The Obama campaign has done a phenomenal job of registering new voters who are trending Democratic. But they didn't ask prospective voters for a partisan affiliation before they registered them, nor should they have. In a Republican-leaning district, is it possible that the Obama campaign might have just registered a bunch of new Republicans?
Maybe, but judging from where the new voters are coming from, probably not. With help from the Detroit Free Press (who got the data from the Michigan Secretary of State), here's a fun table:
Note that both Calhoun and Washtenaw Counties have portions not in the 7th District. This is especially important in Washtenaw County, where Ann Arbor (and the University of Michigan) probably accounts for most of the voters and most of the growth. However, Battle Creek, which is in the district, is the major population center for Calhoun County, and is probably responsible for most of that growth. So for our simplified purposes here, let's ignore Washtenaw County but keep Calhoun County.
As you can see, the most new voters were added in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties (both in absolute number of voters and in proportion to their populations). Calhoun County is generally considered safe territory for Mark Schauer, who has represented the voters there in the state House and Senate since 1996 and is generally very popular. Jackson and Eaton Counties, meanwhile, are the major "battlegrounds." Not only are they vote-rich, but they were divided pretty evenly in the 2006 election (Eaton: Renier 50 Walberg 48; Jackson: Walberg 51 Renier 46). Although Schauer currently represents much of Jackson County in the state Senate, I’m expecting it to be a major battleground again. Neglected in the voter registration drives were the Walberg strongholds of Branch and Hillsdale Counties, and to a lesser degree, Lenawee County (more on it in a minute).
I don't have solid data behind me, but I'm going to guess that if they turn out to vote, the new voters in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties will break Democratic. If they were registered by the Obama folks, they were probably targeted as students or underrepresented populations, which is probably good news for Mark Schauer. At least, that’s what I'm hoping.
In 2006, Calhoun County had 47.5 percent turnout, Eaton County had 59.9 percent turnout, and Jackson County had 51.8 percent turnout (data here and here). If turnout is higher than that in those three counties (and especially Calhoun County), new voters and Schauer loyalists could run up enough of a margin to offset losses in the southern part of the district. If the turnout is really big in Calhoun County, that might be the whole ball game.
Is that a possibility? Could central-west Michigan see a massive surge in turnout? I don’t know, but it sounds like Kalamazoo County (one west from Calhoun County) is getting ready for one:
KALAMAZOO -- Bracing for a very long and very busy Tuesday, area election officials say they're "as ready as we'll ever be" for the 2008 presidential election.
"We're in good shape," Kalamazoo County Clerk Tim Snow said. "We've been preparing for this all year. We knew this was going to be big."
A surge in voter registrations and predictions of a higher rate of participation means the county could have as many as 144,000 voters this year, compared to the 120,000 who cast ballots four years ago.
The city of Kalamazoo, in particular, has taken steps to avoid long lines Tuesday, putting in a minimum of 14 voting stations at each precinct and substantially increasing the staffing.
[...]
On Tuesday, polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. People who are in line at 8 p.m. will be allowed to vote. The forecast calls for sunny skies and a high near 70 degrees.
Lenawee County
This is where Tim Walberg should win. He represented Lenawee County for 16 years in the state House of Representatives, and the mostly rural county is famous (or infamous) for its conservative politics and sometimes frightening tendencies. (Anyone else remember "Radio Free Lenawee"?) This is where I'm from, and I can say that it is a conservative place.
At the same time, though, people don't really like Tim Walberg all that much. Oh, sure, some do. Whenever I was canvassing, I was bound to run into someone who would say, "I plan to vote for Tim, I’ve known him for years" or something like that. But I'd also meet someone who'd say, "Walberg? I can’t believe we keep electing that guy!" The solidly-Republican state House seat Walberg vacated has been in Democratic hands (albeit moderate ones) for ten years. With state Representative Dudley Spade basically guaranteed reelection, it'll stay that way for at least two more years.
Meanwhile, the county is changing. Before the economy got really bad, a lot of people were moving out to Clinton or Tecumseh from Ann Arbor or metro Detroit for the cheaper properties, willing to put up with the couple-hour commute. They don’t have a relationship with Tim Walberg, and some of them are even (gasp) Democrats.
And the Schauer campaign has taken the county seriously, opening an office in downtown Adrian and hiring a full-time field organizer to staff it and coordinate with the Obama and Spade campaigns. Whenever he's in the county, Mark Schauer is certain to mention his great relationship with Doug and Dudley Spade, both of whom carry a lot of weight. (Side note: Their secret to success? They're actually really good representatives. If you go to Dudley Spade with a problem, he'll do everything he can to solve it.) Throw in the Obama organizers, and you've got a real chance for 2008 to be a year of Democratic revival in Lenawee County.
Will Mark Schauer win it? ... No. It just won't happen. But he can keep it close. Governor Jennifer Granholm managed to take 47 percent of the vote in 2006, and if Schauer can get a similar share of the vote and hold Walberg to 51 or 52 percent, it could mean a lot. If Schauer opens up a big lead in Calhoun County and Washtenaw County, then there just aren’t enough voters in Branch and Hillsdale Counties to make up for it. Walberg needs to win Lenawee County convincingly. If Lenawee County is as tight as the other "battlegrounds," it's going to be a rough night for Tim Walberg.
And what if Mark Schauer wins Lenawee County? Then short of something really unexpected happening, Schauer will win the district. But like I said, Schauer won't win Lenawee County. I'm not going to let my hopes get that high.
Obama
Barack Obama is going to win the state of Michigan. The only question left is "How big?" Since John McCain pulled out of Michigan, it's started to look pretty big. Here's the Pollster.com chart for Michigan:
That's quite a sight, isn't it? The final Pollster average puts it at Obama +16, which would be a bigger margin than Bill Clinton’s +13 win in 1996. That year, with the help of Ross Perot, Bill Clinton carried four of the counties that currently make up the 7th District: Calhoun, Washtenaw, Lenawee, and Branch. Calhoun and Washtenaw are to be expected, but Lenawee and Branch surprised me when I looked back at them. After all, these are supposed to be the conservative parts of the district.
Supposing Obama has similar success, picking up Calhoun, western Washtenaw, and at least one other county, is there any way Mark Schauer can lose? I'm not sure what the Obama-Walberg voter looks like, and I'd be shocked to see Obama carrying Jackson County by a wide margin but Schauer losing it. Maybe it's possible, but Mark Schauer has done a good job presenting himself as a moderate and a hard-working, dependable public servant. If Obama wins big, I can't imagine any reason for the Obama voter to choose "more of the same" and Tim Walberg.
*****
Upon re-reading all of that, I'm worried that I'm being too optimistic and tempting fate for another disappointing election night. It's possible. Even so, and despite not having any idea of what I'm doing, I think that most of my reasoning has some foundation to it. I think one of the three factors above (if not all of them) could contribute to a Schauer victory.
That's what I'll be looking for, sometime around 9:15pm Eastern Time. It's possible that there will be a clear leader by the time I arrive on the scene. We'll see soon enough if any of this is right.
Ouch. It's got to hurt when Fox News, always willing to put a more optimistic spin on things for Republicans, says Tim Walberg will lose:
MI 7: Rep. Tim Walberg (R) is one of the most-endangered Republicans this cycle in a contest against Mark Schauer. Expect a Democratic win. Especially after McCain pulled out of Michigan.
(Thanks to the multiple people that e-mailed me about this.)
On his "Crystal Ball" website, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, published his "next-to-last" predictions for Election Day 2008. They're pretty good for the Democrats all around, but here's the part that matters to me the most:
I don't know if you can see it on there, but "MI-07 (Walberg)" is under the "Democratic Pick-up" column. Yeah, it's just one prediction, and it won't matter at all in five days. But it's good to see anyway.
Mind you, this is no time to get overconfident. Mark Schauer is going to need everyone's help to get out the vote.
US News & World Report: GOP Thinks Walberg Will Lose
This showed up all over the internet, but is definitely worth repeating here. A Republican memo leaked to U.S. News & World Report had the expected losses for the GOP on Election Day:
The document provided to Whispers is no gag: It comes from one of the key House GOP vote counters. The source called it a "death list." The tally shows several different ratings of 66 House Republicans in difficult races or open seats held by retiring Republicans. "Rating 1" finds 10 Republicans "likely gone." Those districts are New York 13, Alaska, Arizona 1, Virginia 11, New York 25, Illinois 11, Florida 24, Michigan 7, Nevada 3, and North Carolina 8.
(Emphasis added.)
Ouch. Congressman Walberg, your party says you're going to lose!
Mind you, now isn't the time to be overconfident. Go sign up to volunteer to get out the vote!
Democracy Corps Puts MI-07 Close, Possibly Democratic Advantage
Democracy Corps is a group founded by Bill Clinton adviser James Carville and pollser Stanley Greenberg which advises Democrats and analyzes elections. Every so often, they release a "battleground poll" surveying the most competitive congressional races in the country. Although they don't give any information broken down by district, they use this to analyze national trends.
In 2008, Michigan's 7th District is listed in "Tier 1" of Republican-held seats, along with 19 others. In total, 50 districts were included in the survey.
The whole report is worth reading if you're a political junkie. I thought I'd share a few interesting items. Remember, this isn't a poll of the 7th District, but it's a poll that includes the 7th District.
The financial crisis, which had not yet reached its peak when this survey was in the field, is driving a deepening anger across the country and in these Republican districts. Just 14 percent of likely voters believe the country is heading in the right direction, the lowest number we have seen in our Democracy Corps congressional polling, even in this Republican battleground. The intensely negative mood is more directed at Republicans, who are seeing their brand continue to erode. President Bush remains toxic and the Republican Party is now significantly less popular than the Democrats, even in this more conservative battleground.
and
Democratic candidates are taking advantage of this favorable environment and now hold a 49 percent to 45 percent lead in the 40-seat Republican battleground.>[2] This is a broad lead – with Democrats holding equal 4-point cushions in the top tier of races, the 20 most vulnerable seats, and in the second tier, the next 20 districts.� If the election were held today, Democrats would be poised to win, perhaps, well upwards of 20 Republican seats.
and
... In fact, Republican incumbents are losing further ground, being dragged down by the toxic environment and unpopular GOP brand. As disdain for Washington has increased, the Republican incumbents have failed to establish their independence from Bush or their party. Since May, the percent saying Republican incumbents are not independent has risen from 45 to 53 percent while the percent saying these incumbents follow Bush’s direction too much has jumped from 40 to 49 percent.>[3]
and
Meanwhile, 48 percent now disagree that Republican incumbents are “on your side,” up from 40 percent four months ago. This key attribute is another important driver of the vote in our regressions. As a result of this poor performance on so many attributes, a near majority of 48 percent of voters in these 40 Republican districts now say they simply can’t vote to reelect their incumbent congressman and in a named matchup, the Democratic challengers lead these incumbents 49-45.
(Emphasis added.)
By now, I've probably exceeded fair use guidlines, but there's a lot more in the full report that's worth reading. It doesn't mean that Tim Walberg will lose to Mark Schauer, but it does mean that we're part of a nationwide trend toward the Democrats this year. If you're a Democrat, you've got a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
While you're all watching Senators McCain and Obama, I thought I'd finally get around to writing more about the poll the Schauer campaign released. Just for a reminder, here's what the poll found:
Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg
Mark Schauer (D) - 42 (37) Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 36 (40)
Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg (Plus Undecideds, allocated based on stated partisan leanings)
Mark Schauer (D) - 48 (45) Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 41 (47)
Name Recognition
Mark Schauer (D) - 67 (42) Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 76 (74)
Walberg Job Performance
Positive (Good or Excellent) - 34 (34) Negative (Fair or Poor) - 46 (42)
So, what does all of this mean? Schauer's pollster, Andrew Myers, picks out one important finding:
This survey demonstrates that Schauer’s communications are clearly taking root. Today Schauer is known by 67 percent of voters, a substantial 25 point jump in identification since May
That's the big one, much more than the 42-36 headline. It shows that Schauer's breaking out of his Senate district and getting more attention elsewhere in the district. This is good-- it means the money they're spending on television ads and field organizing is working. It shows that the overall strategy of introducing Schauer to more voters is working. Remember, Schauer doesn't have to win Lenawee County or Hillsdale County to win the election, he just has to not lose too badly, and then perform well in his base. Man, I'd love to see a geographical breakdown of the results.
Of course, by running mostly attack ads, Walberg might be helping to increase Schauer's name recognition. Walberg's attacks might drive up some of Schauer's negatives, but it also makes sure people know that there's an alternative to Tim Walberg. Oh, the irony.
But let's get back to that headline. Schauer leads, 42 to 36. But it's also an internal poll, commissioned by Mark Schauer through a Democratic polling outfit. It must be rigged, right?
No. Just like Walberg's internal poll released a couple of months ago, I don't doubt that the poll was conducted with fair, legitimate polling practices. It's not in anyone's interest to pay for inaccurate polling-- the Schauer campaign probably cares a lot more about getting useful information than about sending out a good press release and having a favorable news cycle.
Does that mean that this poll is accurate? No, not necessarily. A 95 percent confidence level means that 95 percent of the time, the poll will be correct to within the stated margin of error (in this case, 4.38 percent). Schauer's lead is within the margin of error, though it's better to be leading and within the margin of error than losing. But it's also possible that this is one of those 5 percent polls (like I think Walberg's was), where it's not accurate by more than the margin.
Supposing Schauer's poll is absolutely correct, this is a big deal. There are still a lot of undecideds-- and a lot of people who are paying close attention to Obama-McCain, but haven't thought about Schauer-Walberg. But among those that are decided, Schauer is leading a sitting congressman by six points. That's a tough thing to do.
I don't know that I'm saying anything new or interesting tonight, I just wanted to share a few thoughts. It's a good poll for Schauer.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced in July that it would be reserving $1.5 million in advertising time in Michigan's 7th District. The Politico.com brings us the response from the National Republican Congressional Committee:
The Republicans' campaign arm in the House has reserved another round of television ads to prop up their vulnerable GOP colleagues this fall.
[...]
With this latest round of reservations, the NRCC will be playing defense in 21 of the 26 races where the committee has secured airtime. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has secured time in many of these districts - a strong sign that the party in power could pad its majority in the House this fall.
[...]
In Michigan, the NRCC has reserved $618,000 to protect veteran Rep. Joe Knollenberg and $832,000 to help freshman Rep. Tim Walberg.
(Emphasis added.)
There's really not much more to say here. The GOP is playing defense, and, for now, has decided that Tim Walberg is worth fighting to protect. But when the DCCC has more cash-on-hand than the NRCC ($56,456,584 to $14,233,074 as of the end of July), they'll be able to push hard across all 21 districts that the NRCC is defending and more. When faced with limited resources, I still say there's a chance the Republican leaders may choose to protect an older incumbent (and longtime friend) over the freshman from Michigan.
Of course, Walberg has the Club for Growth and now Freedom's Watch on his side, so there'll still be plenty of money available to rush to his defense.
UPDATE: Full poll results are at the bottom, via WXYZ.
For the Detroit News, EPIC-MRA brings us a new poll:
Walberg of Tipton leads Schauer, a state senator from Battle Creek by 43-40 percent, which is within the poll's 4.9-point error margin. A decisive 14 percent of voters in the district are undecided.
[...]
The Knollenberg-Peters poll was conducted from Aug. 21-23; the Walberg-Schauer survey was done from Aug. 20-22. Each was conducted among 400 likely voters.
[...]
Walberg, 57, and Schauer, 47, are battling over a district that includes all of five counties -- Eaton, Jackson, Lenawee, Hillsdale and Branch -- and most of Calhoun and Washtenaw counties.
Voters, by 43-32 percent, give Walberg negative ratings for his job performance.
Pollster Porn said a finding in the poll shows Schauer must go on the attack if he is to win. When voters were read the biographies of both candidates, they favored Walberg 46-44 percent.
"Schauer needs to run an aggressive, hard-hitting campaign against Walberg," Porn said. "If Schauer thinks he can run a positive campaign, that will not be enough for that district, because it is too Republican. He needs to contrast with the Walberg record."
Walberg knocked off a less conservative Republican incumbent, Joe Schwarz, in 2006, and some Democratic strategists believe he is too conservative for a majority of voters in the district.
B.J. Neidhardt, Schauer's campaign manager, said the poll numbers come as Walberg has had a TV ad up since Aug. 6, while his candidate has yet to air an air.
"The numbers show voters aren't buying what Congressman Walberg is selling," Neidhardt said.
(Emphasis added.)
The Schauer campaign sent out a press release:
NEW INDEPENDENT POLL SHOWS DEAD HEAT IN MICHIGAN'S 7TH DISTRICT
Walberg trails in fundraising, losing ground after several weeks of paid advertising
BATTLE CREEK—Tonight a new poll released by EPIC-MRA for Detroit News/WXYZ indicated that the race between state Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and Congressman Tim Walberg in Michigan's 7th Congressional district was a statistical dead heat. The news represents a huge fall in standing for Walberg, who has been advertising on television for more than three weeks and spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars communicating with voters through automated robocalls, on the radio, in newspaper inserts, and in the mailbox.
"This poll reflects the momentum we've been seeing on the ground for the past several months," said B.J. Neidhardt, Campaign Manager for Mark Schauer's campaign. "People simply aren't buying what Tim Walberg is selling, and Mark has the message and the momentum to win this race in November."
The independent poll released tonight showed a statistical dead heat with Schauer at 40% and Walberg at 43%, well within the 4.9% margin of error. The complete story can be found at:
In the second quarter, Schauer's campaign out-raised incumbent Tim Walberg for the fourth straight filing period, bringing in more than $427,000. Over the course of the campaign, Schauer has brought in more than $1.33 million and raised more than Tim Walberg's total contributions for the entire 2006 election cycle.
Background:
• The previous EPIC-MRA poll, released in March, showed Tim Walberg leading 51-40.
# # #
This really does look bad for Walberg. He's still leading, and, contrary to the Schauer press release, it's not a "dead heat," but it is within the margin of error. That's a lot closer than it should be for an incumbent in a lean-Republican district. It's certainly a lot closer than the internal poll the Walberg campaign released last month.
As the Schauer campaign points out, this also comes after a few weeks of Walberg being on the air, yet he's losing ground against a challenger who has yet to really advertise. Both sides are the beneficiaries (and victims) of independent attacks.
Perhaps more significant than the Walberg-Schauer result is the job performance result. Recall:
Voters, by 43-32 percent, give Walberg negative ratings for his job performance.
That's ridiculously awful. A net 11 point disapproval means that even the Republican base is disappointed in him. I'd be interested to see where Schauer stands on name identification. If it's still relatively low, combined with Walberg's negative ratings, then we can expect to see the race tighten further. Maybe this isn't a conservative district after all!
Overall, would you say that things in the United States are generally headed in the right direction, or have things pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?
8% Right direction 78% Wrong track 14% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused
How about in Michigan – Do you think that things in Michigan are generally headed in the right direction, or are things pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
10% Right direction 82% Wrong track 8% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused
Now, I would like to read a list of several political figures. For each one, please tell me if you recognize the name, and whether you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of that person.
George W. Bush - Favorable - 32% - Unfavorable - 61%
Jennifer Granholm - Favorable - 40% - Unfavorable - 52%
Mark Schauer - Favorable - 25% - Unfavorable - 15%
Tim Walberg - Favorable - 39% - Unfavorable - 29%
Overall, how would you rate the job being done by George W. Bush as President -- would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?
TOTAL POSITIVE - 24% TOTAL NEGATIVE – 73% Overall, how would you rate the job being done by Jennifer Granholm as Michigan’s Governor – would you give her a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?
TOTAL POSITIVE - 26% TOTAL NEGATIVE - 71%
How would you rate the job being done by Tim Walberg in the United States Congress – would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?
TOTAL POSITIVE - 32% TOTAL NEGATIVE - 43%
Over the next six months to a year, do you think Michigan’s economy will improve, get worse, or remain about the same?
18% Improve 29% Get worse 48% Remain about the same 5% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused
In the election for President, if the election were held today, would you vote for John McCain the Republican, Barack Obama the Democrat, Ralph Nader the Independent, or Bob Barr the Libertarian?
TOTAL OBAMA - 39% TOTAL McCAIN - 43% TOTAL NADER - 3% TOTAL BARR - 3%
If the November general election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Jack Hoogendyk the Republican, Carl Levin the Democrat, Harley Mikkelson of the Green Party, Michael Nikitin of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, Scotty Boman the Libertarian, or Doug Dern of the Natural Law Party?
TOTAL LEVIN - 46% TOTAL HOOGENDYK - 28% TOTAL MIKKELSON - 1% TOTAL NIKITIN - 0% TOTAL BOMAN - 2% TOTAL DERN - 0%
If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?
TOTAL WALBERG - 43% TOTAL SCHAUER - 40% TOTAL MEADOWS - 1% TOTAL PROCTOR - 2%
Now I would like to read a brief description of the two major party candidates running for congress.
Tim Walberg is 57 years old and the incumbent Republican. He was born on the south side of Chicago. After graduating from high school he became a member of the U.S. Forest Service. To pay his way through college, he worked as a union steel mill worker, attended Western Illinois University, Taylor University, Moody Bible Institute, where he was trained as a minister, and Wheaton College Graduate School, where he earned his B.S. and M.A. degrees. He was a pastor for 10 years, then served in the Michigan House of Representatives from Lenawee County for 18 years. In the 2006, he defeated the incumbent Republican by campaigning on a platform of support for President Bush’s war on terror and opposition to pork barrel spending. Walberg is a social and economic conservative, taking a strong pro-life position on abortion and supporting traditional marriage. He and his wife Sue have been married for 34 years, raised three children and live in Tipton in Lenawee County.
Mark Schauer is 47 years old and the Democratic leader of the Michigan State Senate, representing Calhoun and Jackson Counties since 2003. Before that, he served in the Michigan House of Representatives. Born in Howell, he was his class Valedictorian and then graduated with honors from Albion College. He worked as an urban planner for Calhoun County while continuing his college education, earning Masters Degrees in Public Administration from Western Michigan and Political Science from Michigan State. He worked for and later became the Director of the Community Action Agency in Battle Creek, was a founding member of the Battle Creek Habitat for Humanity, and an active supporter of the Food Bank. He has been a strong advocate of quality schools, early childhood development, job training, economic development, access to quality health care, and he is pro-choice on the abortion issue. He and his wife Christine live in Battle Creek with his three step children.
After hearing these descriptions, let me ask you again, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?
TOTAL WALBERG - 46% TOTAL SCHAUER - 44% TOTAL MEADOWS - 0% TOTAL PROCTOR - 1%
Join us at Next Diesel 1571 W. Beecher Rd. Adrian, MI 49221
Congressman Walberg as well as several community leaders will be speaking.
Come on out, pick up your yard sign, and show your support for your Congressman!
Recall that Lenawee County is Walberg's home county. He's lived in Tipton for years, knows everybody, and won the county with 55 percent of the vote against Sharon Renier, won it with 69 percent in the 2006 GOP primary against Joe Schwarz, and won it with 57 percent in a six-way primary in 2004. In other words, this is his base.
I spoke earlier with someone who attended Walberg's kickoff rally. How many people showed up?
10.
Including staff.
Contrast this with Mark Schauer's town hall in Adrian a couple of weeks before the primary, which had somewhere between 60 and 70 people attend.
Walberg's still got the advantage, but he can only draw a crowd of 10 in Lenawee County? If that's true, then he's got plenty of reasons to be worried about November.
I've repeated a number of times that the internet is still the best untapped resource for political campaigns to reach out to supporters and win over undecided voters. Mark Schauer has been doing a fantastic job, with a number of innovative ideas and embracing dynamic content. Up until the primary, Tim Walberg's attempts at using the internet were disappointing.
This may be changing. Tim Walberg's campaign has significantly increased his internet operation, now with a website, a blog, a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, and a YouTube channel. So far, this is impressive-- though, it's worth noting that Mark Schauer had all of these long before Walberg, with the exception of the Twitter feed.
So does this mean that Tim Walberg is pulling even with Mark Schauer on the internet? Well, no, not yet.
On the brand new Walberg for Congress blog, there is exactly one post as of today. It's very nice, with photos and whatnot, but it came last Wednesday, and so far, there hasn't been any indication of any more activity. Contrast this with the Schauer blog, where Senator Schauer and his communications director have something new to say every day, including information that might actually be useful for supporters.
On the Walberg for Congress YouTube channel, there is only one video, the first Walberg campaign ad. That's fine, because it'll get greater exposure for your ad and its message. But Mark Schauer's YouTube page has 16 videos so far. Of those, eight are of Schauer speaking directly to viewers and to voters, and another six are of public appearances where he's speaking about policy. Rather than five scripted lines and a motorcycle, Schauer is talking about the issues that people care about, and he's effectively using the medium.
The point this, of course, is to show that Walberg's internet operation is still lacking compared to Schauer's. But it doesn't have to be. As much as I want to see Mark Schauer elected, I'd also like to see candidates in both parties effectively use technology to reach voters. Schauer's team is doing that. Walberg's team has all of the pieces in place, but hasn't bothered to use them yet. If they do, then we could have an exciting race on our hands.
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.
Margin of Error +/- 5.7%, over July 8th and 9th, surveying 300 "likely voters" conducted by National Research.
I have a few thoughts on this poll.
For starters, it doesn't look good. Walberg leading by 16 points hurts. Obviously, we (meaning both the Schauer campaign and concerned voters in general) need to do a better job.
At the same time, there are some things that make me a little suspicious of whether or not this is actually the real state of the race. This is an internal poll, commissioned for Tim Walberg, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. It's not in their interest to get bad data. However, they do get to sit on it for as long as they want without showing it to the media, which they did. The poll was taken early in July, and they kept it quiet until they had a bad news cycle (with Schauer outraising Walberg again).
That means that this could be one of multiple polls they've commissioned over the last few months. It's in their interest to only release favorable polls, so they can just sit the results they're getting until they get one that looks good. It's not dishonest and it's still statistically accurate-- for those that recall their high school math classes, you know that one in twenty polls will be off by more than the margin of error. That's just statistics.
So, I don't doubt that Walberg is leading or that his campaign got that data in their poll. All I doubt is whether that's the only data they have. They probably have other polls taken other times that aren't nearly as favorable, but decided to release this one. I don't believe that Tim Walberg is leading by 16 points.
--------------------
So, I thought I posted the above last night. Apparently, Blogger disagreed, and I went to bed not knowing that it didn't show up, nor did other things I had written. Hrm.
I discovered this a few minutes ago, moments after I also discovered another internal poll in my inbox, this time conducted for the Schauer campaign. For this one, I have a little more information.
This poll was conducted by Meyers Research & Strategic Services over May 8 to 15, 2008, surveying 600 "likely voters." The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percent.
When asked about the Schauer-Walberg match-up, the poll found:
Mark Schauer (D): 37 Tim Walberg (R-inc): 40
When undecided voters were "allocated to candidates based on their self-described partisan leanings," it was:
Mark Schauer (D): 45 Tim Walberg (R-inc): 47
They also tested two other races. Incumbent Democratic Senator Carl Levin leads Republican Jack Hoogendyk by 15 percent and Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are tied in the district at 42 percent each.
Other findings, from pollster Andrew Myers:
On other key measures Walberg also proves wounded. Walberg’s re-elect is an abysmal 35 percent, with one-third of voters saying they would prefer someone new (33 percent), and perceptions of his job performance remain net negative as well, with just 34 percent saying he is doing an excellent to good job, while a plurality, 42 percent, say fair to poor.
Today, Schauer is identified by 42 percent of voters and continues to earn a better than two-to-one warm to cool ratio, 23 percent warm, favorable reviews, and 9 percent cool, unfavorable reviews. Walberg, on the other hand, remains far better known than Schauer from the start, with 74 percent able to identify him, but his warm to cool ratio is less than two-to-one, 36 percent warm, 23 percent cool.
While the contest remains generally unchanged, there is evidence that voters are ready for change. Specifically, while voters were sour to begin with in our survey in August, this electorate has soured further, and just two-in-ten voters today report that things in the United States are on the right track, while seven-in-ten say they are pretty seriously off on the wrong track.
Bottom line, this contest remains close despite Walberg’s significant expenditures on incumbency protection, and Walberg remains critically wounded on every key measure for an incumbent. Voters appear more aligned for change today, and Schauer will have the resources to press the case come Election Day.
(Emphasis added.)
So, where does this leave us? Obviously, the same notes on the Walberg poll above apply here. The Schauer campaign sat on this until they needed it-- this time, for two-and-a-half months. As far as the actual state of the race, I'm inclined to think that it's closer to three points than sixteen. Chances are, Walberg's lead is somewhere in the five to 10 range.
But Eric at Michigan Liberal picks out the other significant finding:
I don't put a great deal of stock in polling, especially 100 days out and super especially internal polls. The story here, I think, is that not even Walberg's own internal polling has him above 50 percent, which is just not good news for him especially since he's being outraised.
(Emphasis added.)
He's right about that. An incumbent under the 50 percent has a metaphorical target painted on his back. If the national Republican Party is forced to prioritize which seats they're going to defend, they're not going to pick the guy whose own polls show him doing badly.
Now, what we really need is some independent and transparent polling. There are a lot of questions that could be asked about the candidates and the issues, and I'd love to see a county-by-county breakdown of the race. I'd do it myself, but I'm only one man!
As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.
NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.
Given the fact that I started this website and am active in the Michigan and national blogosphere, I'm assuming that its pretty obvious that I think internet-based political campaigning is both important and an exciting development in politics. You can reach potential voters more cheaply than traditional mailings, you can do it without bothering people with "robocalls," and you can target voting groups that might not ordinarily be recipients of the standard direct mail and door-to-door campaigns (especially young people). It's simply too good of an opportunity to pass up.
Back in October of 2007, I wrote up an overview of the internet operations of Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, and Tim Walberg. That piece was in the context of something Jerome Armstrong wrote last year for the New Politics Institute, a memo which still serves as a strong set of guidelines for any campaign that wants to use the internet. While the whole thing is worth reading, I will share here only the six recommendations I mentioned last time:
Six Things You Can Do Now
Bloggers will be your frontline of defense against attacks. Having them as allies is an important focus for any organization. Here are six things that any progressive organization can do today:
1. Take the first step with outreach to local bloggers:
This is something that should already have been done, but it’s never too late start. If the relationship doesn’t exist, reach out today. Rather than focusing on national bloggers, focus on those within your state first, as many of the national bloggers look to the state-based blogs for identifying which races to target as highly competitive. Have the leaders of your organization or campaign touch base with local bloggers,. Set up a conference call with local bloggers asking for feedback, encouraging coordination, and providing updates.
2. Have a daily-updated website to engage and empower the bloggers:
If you are not putting out timely everyday information, then people who want to get involved are coming to the website and leaving empty-handed. The format is not as important as the information. Email your entire list, tell them to visit the website everyday for the latest news and ways that they can help. Event information, the latest news, resources to counter the opposition, all of this is important information to your supporters and bloggers. It keeps them stay engaged and fired up, willing to go the extra step in their volunteer activities. Your website should be an open door for volunteers and the blogs to engage with you.
3. Be on the blogs and advertise on the blogs:
Organizations and campaigns often have news, such as a poll or new campaign material, that will be of interest to your supporters. But it’s not enough to just put it on your website. You should also get it on the blogs. You can buy advertising on smaller local blogs for $100 or less per month, so there is no reason not to take advantage of this valuable resource. Having an ad on the blogs is also a good way to make your cause or campaign known to the blogger community. You can change any ads on blogads with your latest push too. Go to blogads.com and you will be able to search by state to find the blogs near you.
4. Get your opposition research onto the blogs:
Still got that dirt on your opponent that nobody knows? It’s useless if you don’t get it out to the people who make news. You probably have something a local blogger could use, but you’ll never know if you don’t get that info out of its manila folder and onto the web. By now, you ought to have local online allies that you can trust enough to give the scoop. Got a story that has a good hook? Feed it to the bloggers. Short stories that are personalized have the best chance at being posted. If the blogs cover it, then go to the more traditional news outlets, and press them to cover the story as well.
5. Use YouTube:
It is best if you are creating video for the web instead of re-produced television ads, but your TV commercials can also be put to good use on the web too. YouTube.com allows you to easily upload your commercials for free and then put them on your website, email them to bloggers, and send them out to voters. Chances are, your local bloggers will link to your ad or put it on their website, giving you broader coverage.
5. Create a web presence on Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites:
The most recent addition to netroots outreach is on the websites that have been used as social networking websites that have extended into activist networking around candidates and organizations. Having a presence on these websites is something that an organization should do, but maintaining one through the usage of the platform is what will engage the users of these platforms. Facebook and MySpace are two of the early movers in this space, and for those looking to do outreach into youth organizations and colleges, these sites are very important.
(Yes, he numbered them wrong. I'm sure that Jerome will proof-read more closely next time.)
Last time around, I went through and offered my thoughts on each candidate in the context of each recommendation. I'm not going to do that again, but it's important to have these recommendations in mind. This time, I'd just like to share the state of the internet race as it stands now, and offer some thoughts.
Ken Proctor - Libertarian Nominee
I'm starting with Ken Proctor because he has, by far, the worst website of the bunch. Why is that? For starters, it's still got the "thank you" message from his last run for office, when he ran against Bart Stupak in the 1st Congressional District. Unlike Ron Paul, whose supporters managed to tap into the strong libertarian leanings of many on the internet, Ken Proctor has done little to take advantage of that energy. Frankly, I'm not surprised. I just didn't want to leave anyone out.
Tim Walberg - Republican Incumbent (Presumptive nominee)
I can't figure Tim Walberg out. On the one hand, he's been quick to embrace all of the appearances of taking internet-based campaigning seriously. He has his own blog on his official House website, he's reached out to RightMichigan.com, Townhall.com, and usesThe Hill's congressional blog. Now, he even has a Facebook page, which currently has 283 supporters. From all of this, it looks like he's taking the internet seriously.
... Then there's his campaign website. Honestly, it's horrible. It's not just the low-resolution .jpg images in the top sidebar, though that always bugs me. The design is counter-intuitive, the front page is kind of empty, and the content is lacking. (Only four issues, and each with less than two paragraphs of text? Only one press release? No photos?)
Really, Congressman? Is that the best you can come up with?
But it's worse than that. The campaign website has nothing of the "Web 2.0" innovations that have made online activism so interesting. There is no video, even though his press office has made an effort to put some videos on YouTube. There's no blog and there's nothing to allow any user or voter feedback. Every so often, they update their "Upcoming Events," but usually, that section is empty. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about it, and every page is static and, frankly, boring.
The purpose of the Walberg for Congress website is not to engage voters. Instead, it's designed to serve as a repository for press releases-- except that they haven't bothered to put any up yet.
Sharon Renier - Democratic Candidate
Sadly, as disappointing as Walberg's website was, Sharon Renier's is a step lower. Although she has written a great deal about the issues, she lacks the same features I mention above. Her "News/Press" page only has one story and her "Events" page is still a .pdf flyer for "Votestock," which is now over. Even Walberg updates his "Upcoming Events" some of the time!
For Renier, whose campaign doesn't have a lot of money to work with, a strong internet presence would be a valuable investment. Not only is it cheap, but it has the potential of bringing in more contributions. I just don't get why Proctor, Walberg, and Renier haven't put more time into this.
Mark Schauer - Democratic Candidate
Mark Schauer, on the other hand, has been doing it right. His website, though a little cluttered, is aesthetically pleasing and has plenty of pages linked from it. But it's not just content in the form of issue positions and press releases. There are numerous features that keep a casual viewer on the page-- video, action items, and even a form for you to share your thoughts on issues. This is in addition to the Facebook page (with 403 supporters as of today).
Simply put, Schauer's website isn't boring, and it'll keep people interested and on it. It sounds superficial, but the longer a regular voter stays on your page, the more likely they are to absorb the information you want to convey.
But it also doesn't have to be a one-way conversation. Today, the Schauer for Congress campaign announced the new campaign blog, which the senator promises to update regularly. Now, part of it is just that I'm a big fan of blogs, but it's not just that. In addition to creating and quickly updating content, it allows readers to give immediate feedback. While Senator Schauer himself might not see it right away, someone from his campaign certainly will, and can (hopefully) address concerns.
Now, there are still things Schauer could do. When Senator Chris Dodd was running for president, he and adviser Tim Tagaris experimented with live webcasts of campaign events and the senator backstage. The Obama campaign has merchandise that can be purchased and counts as a campaign contribution, and has the "MyBarackObama" section, so that supporters can have their own corner of the website. Innovations like that would be incredible.
Even so, MarkSchauer.com is light-years ahead of the other campaign websites. Politics has changed dramatically in even the last five years, thanks in large part to new technology. The Schauer campaign seems to get that fact, but the others haven't caught up.
As with the previous post on the subject, this is just an overview, but it's an important aspect of the campaign that deserves more attention. Will a pretty website win an election? No, probably not. But it's a smart investment, and it really doesn't cost that much.
As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats have reserved millions of dollars worth of television advertising in 31 congressional races in all corners of the country, according to documentation that provides an early roadmap of the party's drive to strengthen its majority in the fall elections.
[...]
In all, the documentation obtained by The Associated Press shows the DCCC has reserved nearly $35 million in advertising to begin in September and October.
[...]
Political parties and candidates frequently reserve advertising time in advance to obtain a lower price from television stations than might be available later. Final decisions on spending are normally made closer to the elections.
According to SSP, Michigan's 7th District is getting $1.5 million of the $35 million total. That puts us in a tie with Florida's 16th District for the sixth largest amount being spent of the 31 races being targeted. This is, perhaps, because of the high cost of advertising in our district, as I've highlighted before.
Just because they're reserving $1.5 million doesn't mean they'll use all of it, and it doesn't mean that they'll only spend that much. This is just another indicator that we're going to be in a top-tier and very expensive race.
As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.
Last week, I briefly examined the media markets which cover the 7th District and commented on their cost, wondering what role it would play in the race. You may recall this handy map:
Time for the thrilling conclusion to the Bang-for-the-Buck Index, begun yesterday with the Senate installment. Follow the link for full methodological nitty-gritty, but the main thing that you need to know is that this index shows which races are the cheapest media-wise (and thus where one netroots dollar gets stretched the furthest). This list covers all House races that Swing State Project projects as Dem pickup opportunities.
The middle column lists every media market that needs to be utilized in order to blanket the district, and the number next to each market is the number of thousands of TV households in that market. The more TV households, the more expensive the market. (When a market only grazes a small part of the district where there's no major population center, I've deemed the market negligible, assuming that a smart media buyer wouldn't use that market.) The number in the right column is the sum total of the thousands of TV households in all markets in the district, which provides a relative number that indicates how expensive a media campaign in that district is.
As you'll see, there's a huge amount of variation, depending on the number of 'wasted eyeballs.' The wasted eyeballs problem becomes huge in suburban districts in major metropolitan districts, where you may be paying to advertise to people in the adjacent 10 or 20 districts as well.
In his index of competitive House races, his entry for Michigan's 7th District is:
MI-07
Detroit (1,936) Toledo (427) Lansing (257) Grand Rapids (732)
3,352
In other words, in our district, advertising in all four markets which cover us is the equivalent of advertising to 3.3 million television households. For comparison, the Philadelphia market is only 2.9 million television households, while Chicago's market barely edges us out, with 3.4 million television households. As he stated in his post, the more households, the more expensive it is.
This makes the 7th District the 15th most expensive district in Crisitunity's list (with about 80 districts on the list as possible Democratic pick-ups), mainly following districts covered by the New York (7.4 million), Los Angeles (5.5 million), and Chicago (3.4 million) markets.
As Crisitunity continues:
You may have also noticed a number of predominantly rural districts that should theoretically be cheap but in fact are very expensive; MI-07 and NC-08 are key examples, each of which are kind of located between major cities and wind up biting a corner out of a bunch of different markets. Poor PA-05 is the perhaps the worst example; it doesn't even have any TV stations in its boundaries, but it takes bites out of about 8 surrounding markets. Districts like these, again, are probably dealt with creatively, with buys in some TV markets and more focus on cable and other media.
As with the previous post on this subject, I don't have a profound conclusion on this, but it's something I find interesting.
As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.
Presidential Politics - Tim Walberg and John McCain
As we get closer to Election Day, I'm hoping to spend some more time on other races that will be appearing on the ballot, and how they relate to the 7th District race. That is, I won't be arguing in favor of Barack Obama or against John McCain, but I will be writing about how the presidential race might have an impact on Tim Walberg's reelection bid. I gave a very general overview of state House races back in May for similar reasons. After all, this election isn't taking place in a vacuum.
When it comes to races that could have the biggest impact on the 7th District outcome, you have to list the presidential race at the top. Michigan is an important swing state, and both the McCain and Obama campaigns will be running massive voter turnout efforts. But today, I'd like to focus more on the role of Senator John McCain as a candidate and his relationship with Tim Walberg.
Let's start with what Senator McCain and Congressman Walberg have in common: they're Republicans. After that, it gets a little bit trickier. Recall this article from 2004 about Walberg and Joe Schwarz:
The 7th District is one of this year's most hotly contested Congressional primary races, where Congressman Nick Smith is retiring from his longtime seat. It is a secure Republican post, so whoever wins the August 3 primary will win the election. The six-way Republican race features three moderates with extensive legislative experience, a man without any sort of political experience, a man with a radically liberal record named Joe Schwarz, and a proven conservative statesman named Tim Walberg.
[...]
Schwarz, a former Michigan legislator and chairman of John McCain's victorious Michigan primary race in 2000, is a fiscal liberal and a social liberal. He has the touted endorsement of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a wealthy coalition of so-called RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — who identify themselves in their mission statement as the "pragmatic center." Even the League of Conservation Voters, left-wing endorser of Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, has wildly thrown itself behind Schwarz's candidacy.
All in all, Joe Schwarz does not belong in the Republican Party. He is a Democrat at heart, and a socialist at mind. At a recent candidate debate, Schwarz demonstrated that he is thoroughly pro-abortion, warmly in favor of universal federal health care, and enthusiastic about increased federal spending for higher education.
(Emphasis added.)
Most of that article was Schwarz-bashing, but it was fairly representative of the types of attacks we saw throughout 2004 and 2006. You introduce Joe Schwarz as the chairman of the Michigan campaign of John McCain in 2000, and then you talk about how horribly liberal he is.
To Michigan conservatives and Republicans, the fact that Joe Schwarz ran McCain's Michigan campaign brings back unpleasant memories of the 2000 primary. Then-Governor John Engler promised to deliver Michigan to George W. Bush. Instead, the opposite happened, and McCain won. As the New York Timesreported:
Mr. Engler said today's results said ''nothing whatsoever'' about Mr. McCain's ability to attract Democrats. Instead, he argued that Democrats, glimpsing an opportunity after Mr. McCain won in New Hampshire, worked to make mischief in the Michigan primary. Mr. Engler's aides said their evidence of Democratic efforts for Mr. McCain was anecdotal.
[...]
There was evidence in the polls of voters as they left the ballot booth that Mr. Engler's endorsement hurt Mr. Bush as much as it helped him. Of the 15 percent of voters who said that Mr. Engler's endorsement had influenced them a great deal, fully seven in ten voted for Mr. McCain. Of the 15 percent who said Mr. Engler's endorsement had influenced them ''somewhat,'' 65 percent voted for Mr. Bush and 33 percent for Mr. McCain.
[...]
Mr. Engler is extremely popular among Republicans, having served all of the 1990's as governor and most of the 1980's as president of the state senate.
(Emphasis added.)
To many Michigan conservatives, it seemed as if John McCain had conspired with Michigan Democrats to embarrass their governor and their preferred presidential candidate. CNN exit polls showed that 17 percent of voters that day were Democrats, and 82 percent supported McCain. He also beat then-Governor Bush 67 to 26 among independents (35 percent of voters) and lost to Bush 29 to 66 among actual Republicans.
So, the evidence was there that McCain only won because of Democratic and independent mischief-makers. And who could they logically conclude was the architect of that strategy? Why, Michigan campaign chairman Joe Schwarz, of course!
Regardless of the truth to that allegation, it served as a reason to dislike both Schwarz and McCain, two men who were old friends who used (at the time) a similar, moderate rhetoric. And don't forget that McCain endorsed Joe Schwarz in both 2004 and 2006, and to Walberg's supporters, Joe Schwarz was and still is the enemy.
I don't want to spend too much time on this point, but it's worth emphasizing. Tim Walberg and Joe Schwarz each represented a wing of the Republican Party-- two wings that, for whatever reason, can't stand each other. McCain is closely associated with Joe Schwarz, and many of the folks that cheer on Tim Walberg will either never support John McCain or will only do so out of hatred of Barack Obama.
----
Now, let's jump forward to 2008. Senator John McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. Given the overall dissatisfaction with the Republican presidential field in this election's primaries, I wasn't surprised to see this in 2007:
RM: Real quick before you have to run, have you made an endorsement in the Presidential Primary? Will you make an endorsement?
CTW [Congressman Tim Walberg]: I have not. I probably will keep my powder dry until we have our nominee. The Republican side, there's much to respect with each of them. There are some who have issues that I would like to see changed but when I compare them to any on the Democrat side, people ought to believe me when I say this, it's not just because I'm a Republican, but their issues are so so different from the positions I take on almost anything I'm very encouraged that when we actually get a candidate on both sides the American people and my district, the 7th District people will make the right decision.
Walberg didn't endorse when it mattered, but
I vaguely remember seeing something about Walberg endorsing McCain, but I can't seem to find an article confirming that. If he did, it was only after McCain had secured the nomination, when he would have been expected to endorse.
But beyond that, can we find any other indication of what the political relationship between Tim Walberg and John McCain might be?
On this website and elsewhere, Tim Walberg's relationship with the Club for Growth has been well-documented. To make a long story short, Walberg received an enormous amount of money from the Club in 2006, and has voted pretty consistently in the interests of the Club. They specialize in purging the Republican Party of moderates and replacing them with, well, people like Tim Walberg.
Here's what John McCain says about the Club for Growth:
And here's what the Club for Growth says about John McCain:
Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said this week that his economically conservative group might sit out the 2008 presidential election and focus on congressional races.
The Club has had an antagonistic relationship over the years with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP candidate for president. With the general-election match-up now set, Toomey is confronted with this dilemma.
This stings, and it's not just because the Club for Growth spent millions of dollars during the 2004 election cycle, largely bashing Democrats. The Club is a major Republican group, and is expected to endorse as a matter of courtesy, even if they focus on congressional races anyway. Not endorsing is a significant story about divisions within the Republican Party.
And, of course, Walberg is a favorite of the Club.
But that's just one organization. Are there any other prominent supporters of Tim Walberg who are a little hesitant to support John McCain?
Well, yes.
In 2006, then-candidate Walberg was proud to receive the endorsement of James Dobson. What does Dobson say about John McCain?
I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
... And that's when he's being nice about it!
So, Walberg's supporters aren't willing to do much for McCain. Is there any evidence that McCain will be willing to do anything for Walberg?
John McCain has begun to raise eyebrows in Republican circles for his lack of fundraising help on behalf of his party’s House and Senate campaign committees.
The Arizona senator has yet to send a fundraising appeal for those committees nearly four months after becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, and he skipped out on a major fundraising dinner for them in recent weeks.
Obviously, this isn't a personal snub against Tim Walberg, but if John McCain isn't willing to do down-ticket fundraising, then it bodes badly for endangered Republicans like Tim Walberg. He would ordinarily be counting on the top of the ticket for support, but if the article from the Hill above is any indication, McCain will be focusing all of his attention on saving his own campaign, not someone like Tim Walberg-- especially someone whose supporters have had a history of hostility toward McCain.
In the end, Walberg and McCain will need each other, and if Walberg can cling to the McCain campaign, it might help him a lot. But Walberg's side very obviously hates McCain (or at least doesn't trust him). That doesn't bode well for a productive political relationship.
Update: Oops. As pointed out in a comment, the decision was already made, a couple of days before I posted this. See, when I see an interesting article, I bookmark it to come back to later. This one (as with many lately) I came back to a couple of weeks later, and failed to check my facts before hand.
Don't worry, "Schwarz Watch" doesn't mean I'm planning on starting another blog. However, while not necessarily connected with Congressman Tim Walberg's adventures in Washington (and the need to end them this November), I thought this was worth mentioning. Susan Demas brought us this earlier this month:
President Joe Schwarz?
Could be, if Wayne State University taps him to take the reins from outgoing President Irvin Reid. Schwarz, a former Battle Creek congressman, confirmed today he is a finalist for the top job at Michigan's third-largest university.
A former Senator, WSU School of Medicine graduate and mediator in the ongoing feud between the med school and Detroit Medical Center (DMC), Schwarz is considered by legislators and insiders to be a nontraditional but formidable candidate.
[...]
Given the fact that Wayne State has gone to the Legislature for financial assistance, the university may be in the hunt for an experienced legislator to help, which could give Schwarz a leg up.
"He is the only person in the candidate pool being considered with the breadth of experience to fulfill the job," said Democratic former Sen. John Kelly, also a former WSU regent. "The No. 1 issue for Wayne State with its ever-reliance on government funding . . . is getting a respectful hearing from the Legislature and only Sen. Schwarz can provide that."
But the Democratic WSU Board of Governors reportedly has reservations about Schwarz, who was elected in the Legislature and Congress as a Republican but who is now an independent.
However, Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm said, "the Governor has always spoken very highly of Sen. Schwarz." Granholm appointed Schwarz to the 2007 Emergency Financial Advisory Panel on the state's budget crisis.
Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, chair of the WSU Warrior Caucus, said Schwarz would be a "tremendous" president.
"Having Dr. Schwarz in any room is helpful," Condino said today. "He has an ability to break down an issue. Both he and I share the sentiment to passionately support Wayne State."
[...]
Schwarz said he was "honored to be considered," describing himself as a "loyal and proud graduate" of the medical school in 1964.
"Higher education was my passion and forte all my years in the Legislature," said Schwarz, the former Senate Appropriations Higher Education Subcommittee Chair and a member of the Department of Defense's blue-ribbon panel on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "I have been intimately involved in a multiplicity of activities in Michigan. But higher education was the most important reason for my time in the Legislature for many, many years."
Regardless of the outcome of the search, Schwarz said Wayne State and his other alma mater, the University of Michigan, "will always have my time."
Schwarz also confirmed DMC had asked him to be president of Harper Hospital, but he felt he "wasn't exceptionally qualified to be president of a large urban hospital." The WSU presidency is a much better fit, he said.
(Emphasis added.)
I've mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating that I have an enormous amount of respect for Congressman Schwarz. I never voted for him, as I'm a progressive Democrat and he's a right-leaning moderate Republican-turned-independent, but he's more than qualified for just about any job he would want. More than that he is (or at least comes across as) a genuinely decent person. I started Walberg Watch in part out of disgust for the way Walberg and his friends at the Club for Growth treated an honorable public servant.
Of course, Demas brings politics into the article at the very end. It makes sense, and is also my justification for posting this story here.
Although Democrats don't think Schwarz will run as an independent in the 7th Congressional district this year, some see that as a possibility. If Schwarz were to get the WSU job, a 7th Congressional District run would be taken off the table, which would arguably benefit Democratic challenger Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek.
Schwarz was quoted by Tim Skubick as saying he wouldn't run, but I'm sure there's that tiny little piece of him that wants to get back into the race. So, yeah, there is the partisan Democrat piece of me that hopes he gets the Wayne State University job to prevent him from making an independent run and splitting the anti-Walberg vote.
But mostly, I hope he gets the job because he deserves it, and, while I don't know much about these things, I think he'd be good at it.
Goodluck, Congressman Schwarz, regardless of what you choose to do.
Yesterday was the filing deadline, meaning that the candidates we already knew about-- Tim Walberg (R), Sharon Renier (D), and Mark Schauer (D)-- will be the only major-party candidates in the 7th District. I was so hoping for a GOP primary, but it appears to have been wishful thinking.
Over the next few days, I'd like to spend some time looking at the other races which might have an impact on the congressional race. It's important to remember that this isn't happening in a vacuum, and what other Democrats and Republicans running in our state do will have an impact on the contest which this blog follows. The big one, obviously, is the presidential race, followed by U.S. Senator Carl Levin's reelection bid. I hope to talk about other races, too, from county commissioners to the state Supreme Court, always through the lens of the 7th District.
Tonight, however, I'd like to begin with the Michigan House of Representatives.
The 7th Congressional District includes all or part of eight state House districts. The individuals who represent each district may not themselves live in the 7th District, but their political strength as they run for office has an impact. (Note: the Michigan Senate is not up for reelection this year, nor is the governor.)
Listed below are the state House districts which comprise the 7th Congressional District, and my (brief) take on the 2008 elections in each.
Pam Byrnes (D-Chelsea) represents this district, which makes up the majority of Washtenaw County (essentially, everything except Ann Arbor and the far east and south-east portions). Her district, which includes areas not in the 7th, is not solidly Democratic, having been represented for a long time by Gene DeRossett (R-Manchester), who was also a candidate in the GOP primary in 2004.
In 2002, Byrnes defeated David Nacht (one-time 2008 candidate for Congress) in the Democratic primary, only to lose to DeRossett 53 to 47. When DeRossett retired/ran for Congress in 2004, Byrnes was back, winning the seat over Republican Joseph Yekulis 55 to 45. She was reelected in 2006 with about 63 percent of the vote.
So, it's a lean-Democratic area (and growth of Ann Arbor only helps), but 2006 could have been a fluke in a wave election, and 2002 and 2004 were reasonably close. Byrnes is in good shape to be reelected to her third and final term (term limits). In a situation like this, one might expect the Republicans to field a reasonably strong candidate to run, build name recognition, and come back to win in 2010. It's exactly what Byrnes did and what many others have done before.
Unfortunately for the GOP, that's not what they did. Representative Pam Byrnes (D) was the only candidate to file in the 52nd House District. What does this mean? There's now a popular Democrat who is more or less guaranteed reelection this fall. The vast majority of voters will be checking at least one box with a "D," and Byrnes will likely be working hard to convince the voters in her district to check a few more.
In 2006, Sharon Renier only won the Washtenaw County portion of the district 50 percent to 47 percent. In 2008, I'm guessing Byrnes could help us improve that margin.
The 57th District (my own district) is represented by Dudley Spade (D-Tipton). The district encompasses all of Lenawee County except for Cambridge Township in the north. Now, some history. For 16 years, a man named Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) represented Lenawee County in the state House of Representatives. It was a conservative county, and it fit him quite well and liked reelecting him. Then, in 1996, a popular WLEN radio host named Doug Spade (D-Adrian) challenged Walberg for his seat. Spade didn't win, but he performed surprisingly well.
When Walberg retired in 1998, Doug Spade was back, and won the seat. He was subsequently reelected in 2000 and 2002 by increasing margins-- he got 69.4 percent of the vote in 2002. Spade was a perfect for Lenawee County, representing its interests well while gently nudging it away from the far-right conservatism of Tim Walberg. More than that, Spade connected with the people of his district.
In 2004, Doug was term-limited out and his brother Dudley Spade ran for the same seat. It's a sign of the strength of the Spade brand that he won his first term with about 59 percent over David Abraham (R-Tecumseh) in a year where John Kerry only got 45 percent. In 2006, Spade was supposed to get a strong challenge in Jim Koehn (R-Adrian), and ended up winning about 67 percent.
Going into 2008, Spade's challenger will be Emma Jenkins (R-Adrian), who filed Monday. Jenkins hasn't held elected office since the early 1980s (on a township board), but she's active in the local GOP as a "footsoldier." Still, she lacks the name identification Abraham (a county commissioner) and Koehn (a prominent travel agent) had, and Spade is still pretty popular. Indeed, it's a bad sign for your candidacy when the worst thing you can say about your opponent is:
Jenkins said she is looking forward to carrying the party banner in this year’s election against an opponent whom she also considers a friend.
“He’s just in the wrong party,” Jenkins said.
She is running, Jenkins said, because she believes it is important to work for a Republican majority in the state House. In holding the seat as a Democrat, she said, Spade strengthens Democrats’ efforts in Lansing on such issues as Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s Great Start pre-school programs.
Or, in other words, "I'd vote for you if you were a Republican, and I don't like that you're helping educate children!" The problem is, the people of Lenawee County aren't partisan enough for this to be a motivating factor. They might lead Republican, but they like Dudley Spade. He should win reelection pretty easily.
Depending on how popular Spade is and how good of a relationship he has with the Democratic nominee for Congress, he might have coattails similar to Byrnes. This could be a big deal, especially if Mark Schauer is really polling even with Walberg in Lenawee County. If Walberg can't count on Lenawee County, he's in trouble.
Bruce Caswell (R-Pittsford) was first elected in 2002, representing a district spanning Hillsdale and Branch Counties, the two most reliably conservative counties in the 7th District. Caswell was elected and reelected by increasing percentages (66.9, 72.7, and 72.8 percent), but he's term-limited out for 2008.
There are four Republicans hoping to replace him-- Kenneth Kurtz (R-Coldwater), Frank Plodzik (R-Coldwater), Don Shemel (R-Coldwater), and Steve Vear (R-Hillsdale). I'll admit right now, I haven't got the foggiest idea how this primary will turn out, but if it's particularly divisive, it might give the only Democrat running a chance.
Her name is Jean Anne Kennedy-Windsor (D-Reading). I know very little about her, except that she was a candidate for uncommitted delegate at the 7th District convention earlier this year and that she was formerly known as Jean Elinor Perego. Still, I'm hopeful that she can put together a strong campaign and take advantage of Republicans who will be largely ignoring her. The better she can build the Democratic brand, the better her chances in November and the better our chances of ousting Tim Walberg.
Ah, Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek). He's the foe of Calhoun County Democrats, winning Mark Schauer's seat when he moved from the House to the Senate. He won three elections (2002, 2004, 2006) with roughly the same share of the vote (53.2, 53.4, and 53.6 percent, respectively) in a district that went to John Kerry by 50.1 percent. But while Nofs might be eying Schauer's Senate seat if Schauer wins, Nofs can't run for reelection in 2008.
This will probably be one of the hardest-fought state House districts in Michigan, with Susan Baldwin (R-Battle Creek) and Gregory Moore (R-Athens) facing Tim Nendorf (D-Battle Creek) and Kate Segal (D-Battle Creek). Being from the opposite end of the district, I don't have a good read of the primary for either party, but I have no doubt that all four are potentially strong candidates. Segal is currently chair of the Calhoun County Commission, and Nendorf is a young law student (23 years old) who has interned with Mark Schauer and Carl Levin.
Regardless of the nominees, there will be a lot of energy put into this race, which will probably drive turnout up. But then, if Schauer is the Democratic nominee, one would hope he doesn't have to worry about turnout in Calhoun County.
Although based in Kalamazoo County (and not in the 7th District), Lorence Wenke (R) represents a portion of Calhoun County. He's the Republican who, in 2006, got a little bit of attention by pointing out that the DeVos campaign was "plain dishonest." He's also not up for reelection, after winning in 2002, 2004, and 2006 with 57, 59, and 55 percent, respectively. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the vote.
Those hoping to replace Wenke are James Bolger (R-Marshall), Jerry Vander Roest (R-Galesburg), and 2006 nominee Phyllis A. Smith (D-Vicksburg). Smith managed 45 percent against Wenke and held him to his smallest margin of victory, impressive against an incumbent. Smith is also the recording secretary for the Kalamazoo County Democratic Party, which (hopefully) indicates some party support.
Like other districts, I don't have a good read of how it might play out. However, we can once again hope for a tough GOP primary that will allow Smith to get her name out and contact voters. It's a winnable district and an open seat, and she should have some name recognition from the 2006 election. With any luck, this will be one more reason for Calhoun County Democrats to turn out in November.
Now we're into Jackson County, which has been the source of lots of excitement. Martin Griffin (D-Jackson) represents the western portion of the county and the city of Jackson, a district that had been solidly held by former Representative and 2004 congressional candidate Clark Bisbee (R-Jackson). In 2004, Rick Baxter (R-Concord Twp.) beat then-Jackson Mayor Martin Griffin 49.9 to 48.9. For those who have been paying attention, you may remember that Baxter was the state representative who said that the day they raised the minimum wage was "the worst day" of his term.
Griffin came back in 2006 to win the district about 53 percent of the vote. Baxter went on to become Tim Walberg's district director and then to leave unexpectedly, which I've covered before. He's not trying to win back his old seat, though, instead aiming for Jackson County treasurer. Baxter also serves as chairman of the Jackson County Republican Party.
So who is running against Griffin this time? Surely, after narrowly losing the seat, the GOP would recruit a top-tier challenger, right? Apparently not.
Leland Prebble (R-Spring Arbor) is the only candidate to file against Griffin. He's a retiring construction contractor, who, as far as I can find, has no previous political experience. The Citizen Patriot ran an editorial today commenting on this:
The fact that a political unknown is the only candidate Jackson County Republicans could find to run against state Rep. Martin Griffin speaks volumes about the state of local politics.
Republican Leland Prebble faces a steep climb against Griffin, the well-known former Jackson mayor. This is a strange situation when you consider this county's strong Republican heritage.
[...]
But this is not just about term limits. The local Republican Party seems to have weakened in recent years, while Democrats are gaining strength.
There is still a Republican majority on the county Board of Commissioners, and there are some Republicans running in high-profile county races: Rick Baxter for treasurer and Mickey Mortimer for clerk.
Nevertheless, in a county that has always favored Republican candidates, it's fair to question what has happened to the party that was born here more than 150 years ago.
Griffin is popular, well-known, and has a no-name opponent. Without knowing anything more, I'd put him about on the same level as Dudley Spade-- safe, soon-to-be reelected, and in a good position to help turn out voters who probably won't be voting for Tim Walberg.
This is another Jackson County district, covering essentially everything in the county that Griffin doesn't represent, plus tiny pieces of Lenawee and Eaton counties. This district has been changing representatives a lot lately-- Jerry Kratz (R) beats Sharon Renier (D-Munith) in 2002, then Mickey Mortimer (R) is elected in a 2003, and then Leslie Mortimer (R) is elected in 2004, beating 2002 7th Congressional District candidate Mike Simpson (D-Brooklyn) about 51 to 49. Simpson then returned in 2006 and won the district with about 53 percent.
In 2008, Simpson will be challenged by Ray Snell (R), the Blackman Township supervisor. I don't know anything about him, but he could potentially be a strong candidate. Simpson isn't helped, either, by two primary challengers-- Russell Severance (D), a 77-year-old who recently lost a school board election and tried to recall Simpson (the language wasn't approved), and Steven Godbehere (D), a paramedic. I don't know the details of either candidacy, though apparently Severance really doesn't like Simpson.
This is a district where the state House race might not offer any assistance to the Democratic nominee for the 7th District. The Republican could potentially be a strong opponent, and the eventual Democratic candidate might be weakened by the primary. But the district is Sharon Renier's home turf, and Mark Schauer has represented much of it in the state Senate.
This is the last state House district which falls within the 7th Congressional District's boundaries. Since 2004, it has been represented by Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge), elected in 2004 with 59 percent of the vote and reelected in 2006 with 58 percent. I don't know much about Jones (Eaton County is far away from me), nor do I know much about his challenger, Mark Eagle (D-Lansing).
Lacking any further knowledge, I'd say that Eagle has the potential to turn this into a top-tier race, but right now I'd say Jones is probably safe. Regardless of whether that's good or bad, it doesn't do anything for my primary goal, which is turning out Democratic-leaning voters for the 7th District race. Even so, Sharon Renier won Eaton County 50 to 48, which should mean there's a lot of potential for further Democratic gains.
----
So where does all of that leave us?
None of this, obviously, has been comprehensive. Instead, it's just been my first impressions as all the Michigan races begin to develop. Right now, I'd say that Democrats in the district are in a great position relative to their Republican counterparts. There are three Democratic incumbents (Byrnes, Spade, and Griffin) that I would say are very safe, and could help tremendously in building the Democratic brand and helping the Democratic nominee for the 7th District. There's one district (62) that will have a lot of activity and excitement anyway, which could help in a lean-Democratic year. Two districts (58 and 63) could potentially turn into hot races for their Democrats, depending on how they organize and how the GOP primaries play out. And two districts (65 and 71) I don't see having a major impact at all.
With all of this, I could be wrong. That said, I feel that right now, Byrnes, Spade, and Griffin are some of the best resources Mark Schauer or Sharon Renier could have for reaching out to local voters in areas where they can (and should) perform well. If those three can take advantage of their non-competitive races and help the 7th District nominee, we could be well on track for defeating Tim Walberg.
Hopefully, I'll have plenty of reason to write about all of these candidates and more as we get closer to November. I know that many of you aren't Democrats, and are here more out of a dislike of Walberg than a support for my party. Even so, I'd encourage you to learn more about some of the candidates I've talked about. We're Democrats, which means we're always eager to hear from you and convince you that we've got the right ideas.
Replacing Congressman Walberg is the primary objective of this blog. However, as the congressional race is connected to the other races going on around it, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little party-building.
In the Adrian Daily Telegram, there was an article about Congressman Walberg's appearance at the Lenawee County Republicans' Lincoln Day Dinner. It's a pretty standard article, letting Walberg repeat his regular talking points:
“It is our duty as Americans, as Republicans and as patriots to live up to the ideals of our party,” Walberg said. “People respond to leadership, but it mustn’t flow from airy slogans of hope and change.”
That there was a swipe at Senator Barack Obama, and a subtle suggestion that if you vote for a Democrat, you don't love America.
“It’s as bad as you read about. It is broken,” he said. “The Democrats are working on a strategy of defeat in Iraq.”
That's just a lie, plain and simple. Democrats are not working on a "strategy of defeat," and Congressman Walberg knows it.
He criticized the Democrats for favoring entitlements and working to roll back the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He vowed to continue the fight.
That's heavy spin.
“It has been a privilege to serve, and my second term will be even better,” Walberg said.
... And that's wishful thinking.
As fun as that was, the part that caught my attention was this:
The congressman, who is seeking a second term in Washington, D.C., this year, is unopposed in the Republican primary at this time. The Democratic side is led by state Sen. Mark Schauer, who is opposed by Sharon Renier in the primary. State Sen. Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Twp., urged the party faithful to support Walberg.
(Emphasis added.)
It might not seem like much, but just a few words in that paragraph say a lot. David Frownfelder, the reporter for the Telegram, has covered the local GOP a lot over the last few years, and I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he added "at this time" to the end of that sentence. I don't know if he knows of anyone that's getting ready to run, but it's clear that he knows there's a lot of dissent in the 7th District Republican Party right now. The fact that Cameron Brown had to urge his party to stay loyal to Walberg says a lot.
I'll admit, I have partisan reasons for wanting to see a primary challenger. If Walberg has to defend himself, then that means he has to spend money attacking someone other than Democrats. If he has to defend himself, he will be weakened in November and, once again, will be the candidate of a divided party. And if he has to defend himself, it's much less likely that he will send his supporters to vote in the Democratic Party to cause mayhem, as Republicans seem to like doing lately.
But it's not just partisanship. It's pretty clear that I run a left-leaning blog here, and I mostly seem to attract Democratic readers. Even so, I've heard from a lot of dissatisfied Republicans in the comments and in e-mails, who can't stand Democrats like me, but prefer people like me to the guy they accidentally nominated in 2006. As I've written about before, Congressman Walberg has split the 7th District Republican Party. Republicans in the district deserve a real choice and a real chance to save their party.
There's just one problem for would-be challengers: Your time is running out. The filing deadline is May 13, which is just eight days away.
With that in mind, I have a challenge and an offer to any member of the Republican Party that is thinking about challenging Tim Walberg in the primary: come to me for help. I can publicize your name, I can put you in touch with local media, I can help you get support from the many moderate Republicans that read this blog, and I'll expect nothing in exchange. All I want is for you to publicly speak out and say that you're willing to take on Congressman Walberg, and then work as hard as you can to get on the ballot. (Clark Bisbee, I'm knocking on your door... But I'll take anyone else, too!)
The Republican Party has a proud history and has helped this country grow and develop in countless ways. It was born in Jackson, Michigan way back in 1854. Don't let it die with Tim Walberg in 2008.
It was a political lifetime ago, but many of you may remember the race for the 2004 Republican nomination in the 7th Congressional District. It was a big deal, and completely overshadowed the Democratic contest, in which Sharon Renier won her first Democratic nomination. Let's play "where are they now" and see what happened to the Republican field.
Here are the results of the 2004 Republican 7th District primary:
Joe Schwarz (R), 28% Brad Smith (R), 22% Tim Walberg (R), 18% Clark Bisbee (R), 14% Gene DeRossett (R), 11% Paul DeWeese (R), 7%
Where are they now?
Joe Schwarz, no longer in Congress, is teaching at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, in addition to serving on any number of commissions at the state and federal level. We already know that he doesn't like Tim Walberg at all.
"I would love to be in Washington right now," Bisbee told MIRS. "I'll put it that way."
Bisbee said Walberg's "voting record could be better."
"He's kind of split the party here (in Jackson)," Bisbee said. "I don't know that he's endeared himself to everyone."
He does have concerns Walberg's seat won't hold this fall.
"My contention three years ago was that if I didn't win or Joe didn't win, there could be a big fight," Bisbee said. "And we could lose that fight."
So, it's pretty clear that Bisbee isn't a Walberg fan, either.
The MIRS article I quoted continued:
Other names being floated are the two other also-rans in the '04 primary, former Reps. Gene DeROSSETT and Paul DeWEESE.
I haven't heard anything about DeRossett, but it turns out Paul DeWeese might not be an option anymore for Republicans looking for an alternative to Walberg... From MIRS, via Michigan Liberal:
Former Rep. Paul DeWeese of Williamston, a one-time Republican Senate and congressional candidate, said he's changed parties and is now a Democrat.
For a number of years, the emergency room physician said he's watched a growing disconnect between the needs of people and the Republican Party's narrow "bankrupt ideology."
On one hand, Michigan has crumbling, potholed roads, yet the Legislature can't hold a reasonable discussion on investing in infrastructure improvement. The Michigan State Police (MSP) has DNA analysis technology, but so little funding that its multi-year waiting list keeps the innocent needlessly in jail, he said.
Instead of investing in mental health courts, the Republicans seem content to pad the state's region-high prison population rate. Instead of addressing health care, the Republicans' hand-off approach is causing emergency rooms to "burst at the seams."
(Emphasis added.)
Hmm. While he doesn't name Congressman Walberg specifically, the bit about "narrow 'bankrupt ideology'" sounds a lot like Tim.
DeWeese is sort of an odd fit for the Democratic Party, but I'm more than willing to welcome him with open arms. And Dr. Schwarz, too, if he'd like to come all the way and join the party.
So, that's Schwarz and DeWeese driven away from the GOP by the Walbergs of the party. Bisbee is ready to challenge Walberg in a primary, if he can find the support. Has anyone heard anything about Brad Smith or Gene DeRossett?
By the time Tim Walberg leaves office, will the 7th District have any Republicans left?
Promoted back to the top... It's in the subscription-only MIRS today, but you can read a longer, (presumably) earlier draft of the article at Tim Skubick's blog. - Fitzy
It really didn't look very likely that Joe Schwarz would run again, but for those of you still holding out hope, journalist Tim Skubick brings us this:
Although the drop-dead date for filing for office is not until May, former Michigan Congressman John Schwarz is politically dropping dead before that.He will not run to regain his seat he lost to conservative Tim Walberg last time out in the Battle Creek area.
Caught on the state senate floor on Wednesday, Schwarz was asked if he would run?
"I don't think so. My plate is pretty darn full right now.It would probably be inappropriate to get in a congressional race now," he reveals for the first time.
and
He notes that the democrats have "a candidate" and as for an independent bid he laughs, "The road to higher office is strewn with the bodies of people who have run as independents."
Schwarz says he "came close but not close enough" to re-entering the contest but in the end, what he termed his "philosophical difference" with the core republican party in Michigan, kept him out of the hunt.
Schwarz says his dream job is to be Secretary of the Navy in a McCain administration."I've thought about it, but not talked about it" with his buddy McCain who is the GOP nominee for president.
So, from the looks of it, Joe Schwarz just isn't interested in going through it again. And who can blame him? After decades of service, conservative members of his own party trashed his record and defeated him in a bitter, divisive primary. A life-long Republican, Schwarz now says he has trouble calling himself a member of the party.
As for Schwarz as Secretary of the Navy, I have no doubt he'd be well-suited to the role. However, given the condition that John McCain is elected president for that to happen, I'm kind of hoping he doesn't get that dream job. But that's presidential politics, and not what this blog is about.
This more or less settles the race into Walberg versus Schauer/Renier, with no other likely variables. However, this could change if someone like Clark Bisbee decides to challenge Walberg in the primary.
Clark (and other potential challengers), you have until May 13 by 4:00PM.
Love her or hate her, Susan Demas always has interesting things to say about the 7th Congressional District. Today, she doesn't disappoint.
On a subject I've touched upon, Demas writes about the growing civil war in the Republican Party, specifically as it relates to Tim Walberg. Go read the whole article. If you're too busy or lazy for that, here's an excerpt.
It's the electability, stupid.
Conventional wisdom says ideology is king and Republicans must wheezingly lurch to the right to win in November. John McCain better pick Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity or Tom DeLay (if he's not in the slam) as veep if he wants to perk up the base.
The same debate is bobbing up in the 7th Congressional District. In the most overlooked story last week, some Michigan GOP poobahs are fishing for a candidate to knock off freshman U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in a primary.
The preacher's problems evidently go beyond the congressional cafeteria mucking up his coffee, as he recently whined to the media. The darling of the Religious Right is a top 10 Democratic target, has burned through a lot of green and is desperately struggling to raise more.
Walberg just might be able to accomplish a feat no one thought possible: He could lose the blood-red 7th District.
Though there are several good prospects - popular former state Rep. Clark Bisbee of Jackson is rarin' to go - a primary remains unlikely.
Why? Just look at 2006, when Walberg handily defeated then-U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, an almost universally respected public servant of four decades who had won his seat with almost 60 percent of the vote.
"Republican powerbrokers can't go to the right of Tim and still be Republican," says former state Sen. Phil Hoffman, a Walberg supporter. "And Tim's shown that if you go to the left of him, he can beat you."
Hoffman knows more about the 7th District than just about anyone I know. And primaries tend to be orgies for extremists.
This is obviously a pro-Democratic, rather left-leaning blog, but I'd love to hear from any disaffected Republicans out there. Who would you like to see run? If Joe Schwarz doesn't get into the race (which, at this point, he probably won't), is there someone else you'd support? Between Walberg and Schauer or Walberg and Renier, would you pick a lesser of two evils, or would you stay home?
If you're a Republican Party leader, would you like to see Tim Walberg step aside for the good of the party? Or is it too late?
There's a lot that I want to write about, but I'm having a hard time finding the energy and free time to blog about the 7th District. (Those of you that know me can probably guess why.) But I couldn't pass up this.
I don't like to re-post entire articles-- especially from the subscription-only MIRS-- but hopefully they'll forgive me. A friend sent me this:
A Primary For Walberg? When now-U.S. Rep. Tim WALBERG (R-Tipton) launched his insurgent campaign to oust Joe SCHWARZ in the 2006 primary, he said he was the true Republican in the race. Now top party officials are privately saying Walberg's real accomplishment may be losing the 7th Congressional District seat, once a GOP stronghold.
Sources close to National Republican Committeeman Chuck YOB and Committeewoman Holly HUGHES tell MIRS the pair are losing hope in Walberg, who raised almost $200,000 less than his chief Democratic challenger, Sen. Mark SCHAUER (D-Battle Creek), last quarter (See related story).
When reached today, Hughes insisted Walberg is "doing a good job."
"He's doing more fundraising than before," Hughes said. "He's making an improvement and I think you'll see over the next few months he'll be light years above where he was."
So far, the free-market Club for Growth (CFG) lobby, which helped raise more than $1 million for Walberg last cycle, hasn't opened its wallet for Walberg, but did endorse the freshman Congressman Jan. 25. Though he faced a poorly funded challenger, Walberg narrowly won the 2006 general election with less than 50 percent of the vote.
Some party officials have buyer's remorse for allowing a primary in 2006, figuring the seat would always stay red. Many conservatives in the leadership privately preferred Walberg, who shared their views against abortion, gay marriage and taxes.
Now they're saying the GOP would have been better off sticking with Schwarz, who won the 2004 general with 58 percent, thanks to his appeal with independents and Democrats.
"I would not disagree with that at all," said former Sen. Philip HOFFMAN, a Republican who represented part of the 7th District for years and supports Walberg. "If Joe won in 2006, it would be a safe seat today and Mark Schauer would be concentrating on being a good Senate Minority Leader."
That's led some Republican Party activists to quietly go hunting for a candidate to knock Walberg off in a primary. Brad SMITH, an Addison attorney who finished second in the 2004 GOP primary (Walberg came in third) won the CFG's blessing and cash in that race.
The son of former U.S. Rep Nick SMITH, who held the seat until 2004, said several people have approached him about running this year. The younger Smith said he was "flattered," but wasn't planning to be a candidate.
"How is it that more experienced politicians say it? I have no intention of running," Smith said.
Smith said he's "heard Democrats have put up a formidable candidate" against Walberg but still thinks Republicans can have a good year.
"I sense the base is starting to wake up more," he said. "The presidential election will rouse us from our sleep."
But Smith acknowledges there are some Republicans who may stay home if the more moderate U.S. Sen. John McCAIN (R-Ariz.) is the nominee, which "could be the margin in congressional races." He's also concerned that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) might not have enough cash to help its members.
Former Rep. Clark BISBEE said no one's knocked on his door, but he'd answer.
"I would love to be in Washington right now," Bisbee told MIRS. "I'll put it that way."
Bisbee said Walberg's "voting record could be better."
"He's kind of split the party here (in Jackson)," Bisbee said. "I don't know that he's endeared himself to everyone."
He does have concerns Walberg's seat won't hold this fall.
"My contention three years ago was that if I didn't win or Joe didn't win, there could be a big fight," Bisbee said. "And we could lose that fight."
Other names being floated are the two other also-rans in the '04 primary, former Reps. Gene DeROSSETT and Paul DeWEESE.
There's also Rick BAXTER, a former state rep who stepped down last year as Walberg's district director. But Baxter said today he's not given a run any thought and questioned how successful a primary could be against Walberg, who is strong with the conservative core of this southern Michigan district.
Schwarz has mulled another go-around, and has been approached to run as a Republican, independent and Democrat, but said he's focused on putting McCain in the White House.
Still, Hoffman doubts a primary will happen and thinks "at the end of the day, it's still a safe Republican seat."
"Republican powerbrokers can't go to the right of Tim and still be Republican," Hoffman said. "And Tim's shown that if you go to the left of him, he can beat you."
He also notes Yob and Hughes "don't live in the district."
Another Republican Party official also questioned if another Republican could put the organization together to knock off the sitting Congressman, whose voting record is not inconsistent with the beliefs of many of the Republican voters in this still predominately Republican district.
Evidently, Walberg has been burning up the phone lines to Yob and Hughes for months, telling them he can't raise any money.
That's borne out in Federal Elections Committee reports, which show Schauer raised $338,258 during the last quarter to Walberg's $151,741. Even though Schauer jumped into the race in August, he still has $60,000-plus more in the bank than Walberg.
Still, Walberg's campaign isn't worried.
Walberg Spokesman Joe WICKS said the Congressman's focus in 2007 was on improving health care, protecting the Great Lakes and creating jobs in the 7th Congressional District and Michigan, in general.
"Congressman Walberg is doing his job trying to turn the economy around and doing the job the people of his district elected him to do, which is represent them and fight for the issues that are important to them."
As far as the CFG goes, Wicks noted the pro-economic growth organization did endorse Walberg in late January, and there isn't any immediate concern they won't be willing to contribute to the campaign, if need be.
CFG did indicate to MIRS it could still come through for Walberg this year if he's in trouble. (See "Will CFG Be There For Walberg?" 11/18/07).
"With his excellent record, we are confident Rep. Walberg will emerge victorious again," said CFG President Pat TOOMEY in the group's endorsement.
Right now, the group's No. 1 target is taking out U.S. Rep. Wayne GILCHRIST in Maryland (just as Schwarz was in 2006). It's worth noting the Club usually only helps candidates get into office and is busy with the presidential race, running a number of ads against Mike HUCKABEE. CFG had $565,830 cash on hand as of Dec. 31.
One place Walberg may not get as much help is the cash-strapped NRCC, which last week asked the FBI to investigate fraud within its own organization. It's struggling with only $2,628,254 in cash on hand, subtracting its debt. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has about 15 times as much cash, with $33,735,554, minus its debt. And Republicans have 28 open seats to defend, thanks to retirements.
There's a lot to digest there, but first, here's a quick "I told you so" moment for me. I didn't mention it here, but in a comment on the blog Swing State Project, I wrote this about Mark Schauer's fundraising total:
That's pretty impressive, and probably more than Walberg raised. It'll solidify Schauer as the presumptive Democratic nominee, and if Walberg's weak this quarter, I think it might be enough to encourage a Republican primary challenge. That's just a gut feeling on my part.
Well, it was more than Walberg raised (a lot more), and now the primary challenge speculation is beginning.
So, what do you all think? Will we see a "Draft Clark Bisbee" campaign spring up?
On Tuesday, December 11th, voters in the Ohio 5th Congressional District chose a new member of the House of Representatives. The incumbent, Congressman Paul Gillmor, was found dead on September 5th, leaving the seat open for a special election. The Ohio 5th is located in the northwest corner of the state, just to the south of Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties in the Michigan 7th.
Having lived in Michigan my entire life, I know the danger of ever suggesting to anyone that Michigan is anything like Ohio. It’s just not done. That said, I feel that the results from Tuesday and the overall course of the campaign leading up to those results offer us a glimpse of what might, perhaps, happen in the Michigan 7th come November 2008.
The Ohio 5th shares certain characteristics with the Michigan 7th. It’s a geographically large district, stretching across northwest Ohio, while being careful to exclude major Democratic-leaning population centers. Like the Michigan 7th, it’s gerrymandered to be an easy Republican win. It’s PVI is R+10, while the Michigan 7th’s is R+2.5, so it is more Republican than the 7th District, meaning that it should be easier for a Republican to get elected there than here. President Bush carried the mostly rural district with 61 percent of the vote, and in 2006, Congressman Gillmor was re-elected with 57 percent over under-funded Democratic challenger Robin Weirauch.
In the special election, Weirauch was the Democratic nominee once again, with no real opposition in the primary. Her opponent was state Representative Bob Latta, who had to overcome a fierce primary over a Club for Growth-sponsored Steve Buehrer. Sound familiar? Still, Latta is no Joe Schwarz, being more conservative and a much worse campaigner. After some grassroots energy and some encouraging polling, it looked like Weirauch might have a chance at winning, capitalizing on bitter Republican voters withholding their support from Latta.
I’ll spoil the ending for you, in case you didn’t already know it. Latta won, Weirauch lost, and the margin was roughly the same as the 2006 election (Latta 57 percent, Weirauch 43 percent). There were several Michigan bloggers doing work for the Weirauch campaign—most notably lpackard at Michigan Liberal—and if you’re interested, read what she wrote about her experience during the final days before the election (here, here, here, here, and here). It’s definitely worth checking out.
But the Democrat lost. Bummer, eh? Is it a sign, perhaps, that running against Walberg is a hopeless cause, because he’s got the advantages of incumbency and a gerrymandered district? Well, not so fast. In addition to the $508,000 that now-Congressman Latta spent, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $537,038.24 in order to pay for a status quo victory.
So why is the amount that the NRCC spent so significant? Well, simply put, that was 21 percent of their total cash available, $2,513,816. The DCCC, in contrast, has $29,212,545 available to spend, and used less than one percent of their cash available (about $244,000) on this election.
In the past eight years, there have been 25 special House elections. Of those 25, only three resulted in a change of party. Special elections generally reflect the composition of the district, with a lower turnout and less attention paid to the national issues that could lead to a “wave” election as in 2006. While immune from the “wave” forces, however, they do potentially predict such waves in the election cycle which will follow. When Paul Hackett nearly won in the Ohio 2nd in 2005, it was a sign that even the most Republican seat could be in play.
Bob Latta didn’t almost lose the way that Jean Schmidt did in 2005. However, he did show us the price tag that comes with just an ordinary win. Unfortunately for the GOP, there just isn’t enough money to spend that much on every competitive district. When the NRCC is looking at which Republican-held districts are vulnerable, they’ll see the Michigan 7th. They’ll look at Tim Walberg’s lack-luster fundraising, they’ll look at Mark Schauer’s campaign, and they’ll look at Walberg’s performance thus far.
Does anyone think the NRCC would be willing to spend $500,000 to save a freshman in a blue state when there are so many open seats and senior members with strong Democratic challengers? Is it possible that the NRCC might do the math and count Tim Walberg as a loss?
I’m not saying Walberg won’t get any support from his party, but when their resources are so limited, is it worth it to put up a big fight to save one of the least important members of the caucus? With no sign of improvement in the NRCC’s finances, there’s a very real chance that Walberg could find himself on his own. Will the Club for Growth bail him out again?
Meanwhile, the DCCC is still targeting the Michigan 7th, and Mark Schauer had no trouble at all raising money in the third quarter. Walberg still has a big advantage as the incumbent in a gerrymandered district. But his advantages are slowly dwindling.
For those interested, Chris Bowers offers his explanation for why Weirauch lost. It’s good advice for messaging and issues in 2008, which any Democratic candidate should read—especially one in a district like ours.
I haven't been doing a great job here lately, but hopefully that'll change in the near future. After a couple of stressful weeks, I took a bit of a blogging vacation. But I'm back.
I'll have plenty of Walberg Voting Record updates coming up, but for now, here's some stuff that should be posts on their own. Instead of giving all the topics the time they deserve, I'm going to try to run through them all in this post.
____ The DCCC has been kind enough to put me on their press release e-mail list. Here's some of what they've been sending me lately.
Representative Tim Walberg Puts Big Oil Ahead of Middle Class Americans
‘Gas Prices Hit a Record High’ is a headline Americans are all too familiar with these days. Rather than join the bipartisan solution to lower energy prices and end America’s dependence on foreign oil, Representative Tim Walberg voted yet again for Big Oil.
“Hardworking Americans are being squeezed by skyrocketing gas prices, high health care costs, and increasing college costs. Rather than relieve Americans’ pain at the pump, Representative Tim Walberg voted to keep spending our tax dollars on subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil making billions of dollars in profits,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Representative Walberg opposed a common sense, bipartisan energy plan that reduces America's dependence on foreign oil, lowers gas prices, and creates jobs.”
Background
· The Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6) will take groundbreaking steps toward ensuring America’s energy independence and national security, including the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency in a generation [H.R. 6, #1140, 12/6/07].
· The measure will increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This is the first increase in the fuel economy standard by Congress since 1975 and will reduce American oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day (roughly half of our current oil imports from the Persian Gulf).
o According to the American Automobile Association, drivers in Michigan currently pay an average cost of $ 3.01 per gallon at the pump [http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp]. This increase to the fuel economy standard will and save America’s families between $700 and $1000 per year at the pump and reduce America’s output of greenhouse gases equal to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road.
· The measure will repeal the Bush Administration’s tax breaks for Big Oil companies and invest those savings in renewable sources of energy.
· The bill is supported by a wide range of leading business, labor, and environmental advocacy groups including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, The United Auto Workers, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters.
and
Representative Tim Walberg Opposes Middle Class Tax Relief for 23 Million Americans
Late last night, Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on more than 23 million middle class families across America, including 771,200 Michigan taxpayers who will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.
“Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on 771,200 hard working middle class families in Michigan already squeezed by expensive mortgages, growing credit card bills, and skyrocketing gas prices,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This holiday season, Representative Walberg has given middle class families a giant tax bill to look forward to. Clearly, Representative Walberg values rubber stamping President Bush more than the middle class families he represents.”
Background
* The Temporary Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3996) would cut taxes for 23 million middle-class Americans by providing them relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). [H R 4351, #1153, 12/12/07].
* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, an estimated 771,200 taxpayer’s in Michigan will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.
* Additionally, the Temporary Tax Relief Act will expand the Child Tax Credit to provide tax relief to 12 million families with children
* Middle class tax relief is paid for in this measure, rather than the Republican plan that leaves it to future generations to pay for tax cuts.
and
Representative Tim Walberg Voted Against Community Policing
Despite the FBI reporting that violent crime has increased for the first time in a decade, Representative Tim Walberg opposed giving law enforcement in Michigan the resources they need to fight crime in our communities.
“Even with violent crime on the rise, Representative Tim Walberg voted against giving police and prosecutors the vital resources they need to keep Michigan’s communities safe,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Keeping Michigan’s communities safe should be Representative Walberg’s highest priority, not Rubber Stamping President Bush’s proposed cuts to state and local law enforcement.”
Background
* The Consolidated Appropriations Bill includes $2.7 Billion to help state and local law enforcement fight crime and keep communities safe [H R 2764; Roll Call Vote 1171]
* The measure also rejects the President’s proposed 94% cut to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and instead provides $587 million to fund COPS. This includes $20 million for the “COPS on the Beat” program, which hires more police officers and has not been funded since 2005.
· According to the FBI, violent crime in America increased in 2005 and 2006 for the first time in a decade. [LA Times; 12/19/06]
That's the DCCC's take on his votes. Perhaps biased? Maybe. But I am glad to see they're keeping the pressure on him as we approach November 2008.
____ Susan Demas has a column in a recent issue of the Battle Creek Enquirer that's kind of harsh on all fronts, criticizing both Congressman Tim Walberg and Michigan Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. It's worth reading, even for those of us that might not agree with everything she says. Francis Pepper mentioned the column in a post below, but I wanted to point out something from the last couple of paragraphs:
Both candidates play the part of the principled politician to the hilt - Walberg as the über-conservative, anti-abortion warrior and Schauer as the bright-eyed, progressive reformer.
In reality, modest Mark takes his marching orders from the governor and the reverend's soul is the property of Club for Growth.
But wait, some of my liberal friends will yelp. You can't be saying Schauer would be as bad as the congressman.
Policy-wise, Schauer would certainly be a step up if he could manage to pen press releases without lying about snaring money for the Battle Creek airport that he voted against.
What I find revolting is that both men swim the sewage of politics and don't retch - they actually seem to feed off the stench.
It's still early enough for other candidates to jump in. Lord knows, we deserve better.
While acknowledging that Schauer would be a better congressman, it's more than obvious that Demas wants a third alternative. Is she talking about Sharon Renier? I can't speak for her, but I'm guessing probably not. Is there another candidate that Demas is hoping will jump into the race?
____ That question brings me to former Congressman Joe Schwarz. He had a fascinating interview with Jack Lessenberry on WGTE's "Deadline Now" program, and I've wanted to write about that for a while now. I even went so far as to get a copy of the interview from the very friendly folks at WGTE (Toledo, Ohio's public broadcasting station), though the interview is now available online (you've got to scroll down the page a bit to the October 19 broadcast).
The whole thing is worth watching, but I want to look at one exchange in particular. In the interview, Lessenberry asks Schwarz whether he'll run again, and Schwarz says:
I don't know yet, it's one of the things that I've decided not to decide. It is a purposeful choice, not to decide. What candidates do at this stage of the game is go out there and vie for name recognition. I don't perceive myself as having name recognition problems in the 7th Congressional District, first. And secondly, quite frankly, the mechanism by which the Congress operates is seniority and whether you're a junior member of either the majority or the minority in the U.S. Congress, you're not pulling a lot of strength. Decisions are made by committee chairs, ranking members, senior members, so the status of a junior member, especially a junior member of the minority party, whichever party that may be after 2008, isn't going to be much.
Schwarz then continues to talk about the things he would like to still work on in the committees he served on, but says that while it was a privilege to serve in the House, "it's not the be all and end all."
It's always dangerous to read too much into statements like this, because politicians can and do change their minds (as they should). But to me, I'd say that right now, I don't think Schwarz will run. If that's who Susan Demas and others are looking toward as a viable third option, it doesn't look like it'll happen.
It looks like Jack Lessenberry reached about the same conclusion I did. If you watch the end of the program, he offers his own commentary, in which he compares Joe Schwarz to Al Gore. Both, he explains, are politicians who lost close elections and then went on to do a great deal of good work outside of elected office.
As for me, I thought I'd throw in my own thoughts on Joe Schwarz. If Schwarz were to challenge Tim Walberg and win the Republican nomination, I would not vote for him, I would vote for the Democratic nominee. If Schwarz were to run as an independent against Walberg and a Democrat like Mark Schauer, I would not vote for him, I would vote for Schauer. If Schwarz were to run for the Democratic nomination, I probably would not vote for him in the primary.
Why? Because, despite the lies Walberg espoused, Joe Schwarz is a conservative man. He and I disagree on countless issues, and if he ran as a Democrat, he'd certainly not represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But he's a thoughtful, honest conservative, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have nothing but respect for him, even when we disagree, because hearing him speak, you can tell that he truly believes the things he says, and he's thought them through.
Of course, maybe I'm just easily fooled by politicians that look and sound genuine. After speaking with Mark Schauer, I was left with the impression that he was a genuine, hard-working progressive reformer, but according to Susan Demas, that's not true. Interesting.
____ And now, the last item is a challenge for all of you loyal Walberg Watch readers. About six months ago, I got a new computer, and discovered Windows Movie Maker was pre-installed on it. Now, it's not much compared to the high-quality video production software available, but to a novice like me, this is new and exciting.
After a while, I started making some videos related to Tim Walberg. Not so much attack ads as informative videos, showcasing some of Walberg's votes and finer moments (like, drilling for oil in the Great Lakes, or "Iraq is as safe as Detroit"). But they're a little dry... Before they can go on YouTube, they need background music!
That's where you come in. I can't just stick in music from my own collection because that runs into copyright violations. I may, in fact, be the only YouTube user that cares about that, but nevertheless, I want to avoid phone calls from lawyers. Does anyone know of a good resource where I can get high-quality, public domain audio recordings? MP3 files would be best.
I hope everyone's holiday season is off to a good start.
Before I begin this post, I want to be clear that it's not an endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. That's not a pro- or anti-Schauer statement, either, but merely a reaffirmation that I'm not endorsing anyone on this blog in the Democratic primary, because I don't want to be accused of bias one way or another. Sure, I have my personal preference, but I can and will enthusiastically support either Mark Schauer or Sharon Renier.
All of that said, right now, there's a very strong chance that Senator Schauer will be the Democratic nominee. In terms of money and name recognition, he's certainly the strongest Democrat the district has seen in the last 15 years. He's in a pretty comfortable position to win his party's nomination.
So, assuming Joe Schwarz does not run as an independent, what would a Walberg versus Schauer campaign look like? It would certainly be a contrast in ideology and a contrast in style, but there's another aspect that I'd like to look at: geography.
Here's Michigan's 7th District, with the hometowns of Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer indicated.
Walberg-- the red dot-- is Tipton/Franklin Township, while Schauer-- the blue dot-- is Bedford Township/Battle Creek. The map above really isn't necessary, I just wanted a visual way of showing that Walberg comes from the eastern, southern part of the district and Schauer comes from the northern, western part. You all knew that already, but I like maps.
So what's the significance of that? Well, it's not just that Walberg's end of the district makes refrigerator compressors and Schauer's end makes cereal. There's a significant population difference:
The map above shows the percentage of the total 7th District voters who voted in the last presidential election year that came from each county. (I used 2004 because, like 2008, it will be a presidential election year.) For example, 19.2 percent of 7th District voters in 2004 cast their ballots in Calhoun County. The data that produced the map:
From this, we see that Schauer is from and has a history representing the more populous parts of the district, while Walberg's strength-- primarily Lenawee County, which he represented in the state House, and the conservative southern tier of counties-- has fewer people. When we draw onto the map Senator Schauer's current Michigan Senate district, we see:
From this, we see that Senator Schauer's current district already covers nearly 40 percent of the district's voters, including Battle Creek and Jackson, the two largest cities. In 2002, he was elected with 55.1 percent, and in 2006, he was re-elected with 61.2 percent. (In 2004, John Kerry received 46.4 percent in the Senate district.)
That's not a bad base to start off with. There are a lot of voters who know Schauer's name, know the work he's done for their communities, and are used to voting for him. They know him and, based on the previous election results, they seem to like him.
So what does that mean for Schauer?
In 2006, Sharon Renier won Calhoun County, Eaton County, and Washtenaw County, while Walberg won everywhere else. Let's assume that Mark Schauer can do the same, while perhaps increasing the margin in Calhoun County (Renier's 51 percent in Calhoun County was well below Schauer's 61 percent and Granholm's 57 percent, suggesting room for improvement). Absent an enormous victory in Calhoun County (as in, >70%) or in Eaton County, the key to winning, as I pointed out about a year ago, is Jackson County.
In addition to having the largest population on my map above, Jackson County is the only county that Jennifer Granholm carried in 2006 and Sharon Renier did not. Walberg won Jackson County 51 to 46. Could Schauer do better? Let's look at that map again.
Most of Jackson County is in Schauer's Senate district, including the city of Jackson. Schauer carried the Jackson County portion of his district with 56 percent in 2006, but in 2002, he lost that portion of his district, 47.7 percent to 52.3.
So, really, what does all this mean? I really wish I could say, in big bold letters, "Schauer wins!" but I can't. There are a lot of things I haven't taken into account, but here's what it comes down to:
In a Schauer versus Walberg election, Schauer will probably win Calhoun, Eaton, and Washtenaw Counties. Walberg will probably win Branch, Hillsdale, and Lenawee Counties.
Jackson is and has been the "battleground county" and could easily go Democratic or Republican. It appears to be trending Democratic (see 2006, with Granholm, Griffin, and Simpson), but that may have been a 2006 fluke.
Schauer is in a good position to perform well in Jackson County, already representing most of its residents. He's a known quantity, and showed improvement from 2002 to 2006.
But there are some obvious criticisms of all that, too:
Presidential election years are different. More and different people come to the polls and you really can't compare them to midterm years.
We don't elect a member of Congress based on how many counties he wins, we elect based on the total number of votes. It's entirely possible that Schauer could win big in Calhoun County and underperform everywhere else and still win. It's also possible that Walberg could lose Jackson County but increase his margins elsewhere and make Calhoun and Eaton Counties closer and win.
So, really, it could be argued that this post is an exercise in futility, but I don't think so. Schauer has a real geographic advantage by being from the more populous part of the district, which is already slightly more Democratic than the southern and eastern parts. He has a history with the voters of all-important Jackson County, which will prove beneficial. And, like Schwarz before, he's the "local boy" in Battle Creek, which means he has a chance to build on Renier's showing in Calhoun County.
All in all, I think Schauer starts off with the geographic advantage, which may be enough to blunt Walberg's incumbency advantage. But that's just my gut feeling.
And I got to make some nice maps. So, there's that too.
This has been reported elsewhere, but is worth mentioning here. Former Congressman and Doctor Joe Schwarz will be a guest speaker tomorrow, November 27th, on the topic of embryonic stem cell research.
The event will be hosted by the Livingston County Democratic Party.
Michigan’s restrictive laws block: • Research that can lead to cures • Job creation • Research companies from moving to Michigan
Learn the truth from experts
Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures
Presents
Former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, M.D Marcia Baum, Exec. Dir. MCSCRC
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7 p.m. Livingston County Democratic Hdqrs 10321 E Grand River, Suite 600 Brighton, Michigan 48116
RSVP: 810-229-4212 or livcodems@sbcuc.net
This event is free but donations are welcome. Dessert, coffee, and tea will be served.
Schwarz doing an event with Democrats? Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to his future electoral plans. As of an October interview with Jack Lessenberry on WGTE's "Deadline Now," he said he was still undecided.
For those that have forgotten, Congressman Tim Walberg is against embryonic stem cell research, which Dr. Schwarz supports.
Jack Lessenberry is probably my favorite Michigan political journalist. I don't always agree with him, but he's smart, honest, asks good questions, and regularly churns out good analysis. I don't always get the opportunity, but I always try to listen to his segment on Michigan Radio every day.
In today's segment, Lessenberry interviewed former Congressman Joe Schwarz, asking him about running for office again as a Democrat or an independent. The interview, of course, is worth listening to, but so is the essay that came afterward. I haven't decided whether or not I agree with him yet, but it's an interesting perspective.
Traditionally, it has been seen as improper for journalists to give advice to elected officials. This is, however, a tradition which gets violated all the time, and which I intend to violate again today.
Actually, my conscience is clear on this issue, since to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever listened to me anyway.
So I would like to say to Congressman Joe Schwarz -- if you are thinking of switching parties and running for your old seat as a Democrat, don't do it. I mean it -- don't. Here's why.
(Emphasis added.)
You should really read the whole thing, but I'll give you excerpts of Lessenberry's reasons:
First of all, you wouldn't be comfortable, by and large, as a Democrat. Yes, you are closer to Democratic positions on some issues, but by no means all. You wouldn't be fully accepted by them.
And you would be reviled by your fellow Republicans. Your enemies in the party would say this is proof they were right all along. That you were nothing but a RINO -- a Republican in Name Only.
And...
Lately the Republican party has gotten more narrow and rigid. If it stays on that course, my guess it is cruising for a fall.
The one time the GOP has ever flirted with extinction was during the Great Depression. Narrow, bitter opposition to change had left the Republicans with only 89 seats in the entire House of Representatives in the year you, Joe Schwarz, were born.
Three years later, a charismatic new presidential candidate named Wendell Willkie helped move the party back to the center. He didn't win, but he may have saved the Republican Party.
Even if it feels like the barbarians pushed you out, it ought to be worth a wrestling match to try to take back the ring.
In short, Joe Schwarz has a chance to "save the soul" of the Republican Party. He can work within the party, and perhaps run again against Walberg in the GOP primary, to talk them back to common sense.
I'm a Democrat and a progressive, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome the day that the Republican Party returns to policies of responsible government and fiscal conservatism.
I think everyone-especially when they post here, needs to remember that the focus is beating Walberg.
I like Mark Schauer and think he is doing a good job in the Senate.
I think Jim Berryman was a good State Senator and fought a good fight against Smith in '98.
As Republican's go, I think Joe Schwarz was a good Congressman and if he switched parties would do an excellent job.
So, ironically, after so many years of wandering the wilderness of nobody to run or having a nobody run against "Do Nothing Nick"-Reiner, Crittendon, etc, we seem to have too many qualified candidates to run against Walberg.
The logical thought then, seems, to boil it down to who is doing what now.
Sen. Schauer is a sitting Senator, currently serving the largest poplulation centers in the 7th. Then, along with that, the complex and important role of leading one of the four caucus' and (presumably) preparing the caucus for both the 2010/12 re-districting fight and 2010 election.
Jim Berryman is fighting for teachers benefits with the MEA.
Joe Schwarz is working on Health Care issues and (I assume) continuing his medical practice.
We can debate the relative importance of Congress/State Senate, but it is irresponsible to suggest that either isn't or is more important than the other. Maybe to you, one is bigger than the other, but they are both big. It matters who is serving and the policys they promote.
At the end of the day, I return to my opening line, focus on beating Walberg.
If Berryman continues to run or Schwarz jumps in as a Dem, then I think it is probably better to have Schauer stay in the Senate. Both Berryman and Schwarz are credible, realistic alternatives to Walberg.
Ultimately, I think any of the 3 (S,S,B) can beat Walberg, but lets say Schauer does. Then we are left with a special election in the 19th.
Would Simpson run? Griffin? Whomever-hopefully-the Dems in Calhoun have elected to replace Nofs?
The bets on all of the above are long. All are/would be important to keeping the Dems in charge of the State House.
What would likely happen? Probably the first of an 8 year run in the Senate for Mike Nofs.
Now, how bad can that be? Well, doing the math on the Senate today, the Dems have 17 seats. Ultimately, when the budget and the rest of the important decisions are made in Lansing, the Senate Republicans have two marginal seats-Kahn and Richardville. Both will have to be very careful how they vote btwn now and the next election. So, they are the most likely to join with the Dems on a "mission critical" vote (Education, taxes, cuts, etc.) With the two of them today, that gives you 19, with the Lt. Gov breaking a tie.
Take the 19th/Schauer off the table, put in Nofs, and you drop to 18. Or, to put it another way-wave goodbye to getting anything done during the last two years of the Granholm administration.
I like Schauer. I like what he is doing, but I would also like him to stay in the Senate.
I’ve been giving more thought to the recent news that state Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) is considering entering the primary for the nomination against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Here’s why:
Mark, you were elected to lead our party in the Senate for the next four years. That’s where we need you. The governor has laid out an ambitious plan to rescue our state from an economic depression. The other side holds the majority in the Senate and is more interested in obstructing and pandering than getting the job done. We need to hold their feet to the fire until they help approve the necessary revenues to get the job done, and after that to make sure they don’t succeed in obstructing good policies. The pressure applied by the governor’s office, public opinion and Schauer is finally yielding results. Bishop acknowledged today that a tax increase is “inevitable.” That’s progress.
We expect our legislative leaders to do two things: 1) speak for the caucus and make sure the group votes together, 2) lay the groundwork, do the fundraising and campaigning to gain/retain a majority in the next election.
So far, Schauer has done a respectable job in the first area. We also need him there for the second one. We need to retake the Senate in 2010. It is essential that we have control of legislative and congressional redistricting, and we need the Senate to do that.
To retake the Senate, we have a good shot in 2010, if someone can lead us there. At 17-21, we are only two seats away from gaining control (with a Democratic lieutenant governor breaking the tie). But we make this achievement much less likely if our leader is absent from his post when he should be leading the charge.Why do I say this? Let’s look at how House Democrats languished in the minority until they had a leader who put her ambitions aside.
At a 52-58 disadvantage in 2001, the House Dems elected Kwame Kilpatrick as their leader. But by year’s end he was gone after a successful run for mayor of Detroit. As his mid-term replacement, they chose Buzz Thomas. But instead of focusing his efforts on returning the House Democrats to majority, Thomas (like Kilpatrick) had other plans. He was running for the Senate and gaining a House Democratic majority fell a few places on his to-do list. What was the result? In 2002, Democrats lost another three seats, falling to a 61-49 disadvantage, their worst working arrangement since the Great Depression.
How could this happen? Simple. House Democratic leaders weren’t focused on getting a majority.But after 2002 along came Dianne Byrum as House Democratic leader. Other than seeking reelection to the House (which wasn't in question), she remained focused on helping her caucus. In 2004, under Byrum’s leadership, they retook those the three seats they lost in 2002, bringing themselves back to three seats shy of majority, 52-58. Byrum was term limited in 2006, yet continued to lead the Democrats campaign efforts. With a well-coordinated effort in 2006, Byrum’s work yielded success: a three-seat majority, the first time in 10 years Democrats controlled either legislative chamber.
Now, consider what Schauer would have to do as a congressional candidate: Fly out to Washington all the time for endorsement meetings, strategy meetings and fundraisers. He’d also be driving all over the rural seven-county district, leaving a lot of Senate Democratic business unattended to. In other words: With the Democrats rudderless, Senate Republicans would haveno check on their power and our efforts to retake the majority would fail again.
From another angle: If Schauer had the good fortune to win, a special election would be held, most likely to be won by a Republican (they get their people to the polls in low-turnout elections). We’d be back to a 16-22 disadvantage, now three seats short of a majority (assuming there’s a Democratic lieutenant governor).
We need good Democratic leadership in the Senate. We need to help the governor get her agenda through. We need to get back more seats. We need to keep the out-of-control Republicans in check. To do that, we need not unstable and distracted leadership, but stable and focused leadership.
Mark, I’m not saying you’d be a bad congressman, I just think we need you to “right” the ship that is the Senate. Help us now, and we’ll remember that down the line when it’s time for Congress.
UPDATE by Fitzy: And, a welcome to the newest Walberg Watch blogger, Francis Pepper! As the comments have shown thus far, I have no doubt his posts will spark some great discussions!
Since Senator Schauer hasn't announced whether or not he'll run for Congress, I thought I'd post samples of the two most common and most compelling cases for and against a Mark Schauer candidacy that I've heard.
I'll preface this with two statements and explanations of each.
I like Mark Schauer.
Senator Schauer, I think, has been a phenomenal leader in the state Senate, despite being shut out of just about everything by Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Schauer's been reaching out to bloggers like me, campaigned hard for Democrats across the state, and has represented Calhoun County well. Schauer would be a great addition to the race, and he'd run a fantastic campaign.
I like Jim Berryman, David Nacht, and Sharon Renier, too.
The other three announced Democrats are all great candidates, too. They're smart, dedicated people who would be more than willing to work hard to defeat Tim Walberg in 2008, and they'd work hard for our district in Washington (unlike Congressman Walberg, who's more interested in the Club for Growth's agenda). I'm absolutely satisfied with the three candidates we have. I'm undecided for the Democratic primary, but I'd gladly vote for any of them in the general election.
Schauer is the complete package as far as I am concerned: 1) Progressive 2) Smart 3) Politically Savvy 4) Willing to stand on principle 5) Established Base -- His Senate District is wholly contained within the Congressional District 6) Proven vote getter -- won three times in a 50/50 House seat, twice in a leaning Repub. Senate Seat. 7) Proven Fundraiser -- raised over $6 million for the Senate Dems last cycle.
We should do everything we can to encourage him to run. Spread the word in the online community, and talk it up in the broader political community. Let Schauer, and the "powers that be" know, that we, in the online community, are ready to help win this and help in a big way.
Mark Schauer should not run for Congress.
From an e-mail I received, which also appeared as a comment on a Battle Creek Enquirer story:
We need to calm down a little about this one.
While it would be great if Senator Schauer ran, it would also be bad for these reasons:
1) Schauer would have to vacate (or spend much less time at) his post as Senate Democratic leader, leaving us rudderless in the Senate when he's needed most.
2) If Senator Schauer were to beat Walberg, that would create a vacancy in his Senate seat. At least temporarily, that gives Republicans a larger majority in the State Senate.
3) Worse, there would have to be a special election for his senatorial seat. The sad truth is that Right to Life and conservative zealots are much more effective about getting their core people to the polls during special elections. Given that he holds a Republican seat, it is more than likely that a Republican will regain that seat in the special election. Since it would be less than half a term (4 years) until the next election – 2010 – that Republican could run for reelection in 2010 and 2014. You would have Republican control of the seat for almost 10 years!
I say this not to take a shot at Schauer. But we need to slow down a second before the "Run Mark Run" hysteria takes control of our reason. There are two impressive candidates in the field already.
Now, I don't make the claim that either of these are necessarily the complete arguments for each position, and neither comment on his merits as a candidate for Congress. Rather, this seems to be representative of reasons why he should or should not run for Congress.
There's a poll on the Enquirer's website, if you'd like to voice your opinion to a larger audience.
State Senator Mark Schauer, a Battle Creek Democrat, was mentioned quite a bit last fall and early this year as a potential candidate for Congress in the 7th District. He's been a fantastic party leader in the legislature, supporting the netroots and working to solve the Michigan budget crisis. His name was even tossed around by supporters of Joe Schwarz in 2006 as a reason not to vote for Tim Walberg, suggesting that Walberg in 2006 would inevitably lead to a Schauer victory in 2008.
Schauer and his staff quashed most speculation this spring, promising to stay on as leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate until the end of his term in 2010. Most observers-- including Jack Lessenberry-- thought he would have been a formidable candidate, but Schauer seemed determined to sit this election out.
But all of that might be changing.
Starting last night, I started hearing rumors that Schauer might be reconsidering his previous decision. Then the subscription-only MIRS News service reported that Schauer would contact Jim Berryman and David Nacht sometime today to let them know whether or not he would "seriously consider" running in 2008. Then the AP picked it up:
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, may challenge U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in the 2008 election after brushing off earlier overtures to enter the race.
Schauer, who had pledged to Senate Democrats to serve out his full four-year term through 2010, said Wednesday he is discussing a bid for Congress with family, colleagues and constituents before making a "final decision."
"I would bring the same commonsense, results-oriented approach to this role as I have to my entire career in public service," Schauer, 45, said in a statement.
Schauer said it had become "painfully clear that Tim Walberg cares more about what's best for Republican leadership in Washington than what's best for Michigan's 7th district."
[...]
Former Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Battle Creek, said Wednesday he spoke to Schauer earlier in the day and the state senator told him "he was looking at" the congressional race. Schwarz said Schauer did not indicate when he would make a final decision.
Schwarz, who was defeated by Walberg in last year's Republican primary, said he had not made a decision on whether he would re-seek his old congressional seat.
Schwarz, a physician, is chairing a task force on health care needs in southeast Michigan and said he would not announce any plans on the congressional race until his task force releases a report in September.
Schauer has not announced whether or not he'll run, and likely hasn't made a final decision. As is suggested by the article above, we're now in a period where he may be watching to see what kind of support he may have. "Testing the waters," as it were.
In other words, if you want Mark Schauer to run for Congress, now would be the time to let him know about it.
This came as a big surprise to me. What are your thoughts?
UPDATE: A quick update to cover some stuff I missed the first time around. I've been sending and receiving e-mails and making phone calls all day trying to find out what's been happening.
First, Michigan Liberal's lpackard discovered that the domain schauerforcongress.com was registered on August 3rd.
Second, a sample of today's MIRS story (the article is subscription-only and, while I'll share a couple paragraphs, I don't want to post the whole thing):
Some members of the Senate Democratic caucus would give serious consideration to removing Senate Minority Leader Mark SCHAUER (D-Battle Creek) from his leadership post if he decides to run for Congress. Those members say he couldn't serve the caucus and his congressional ambitions effectively at the same time.
And
But Schauer is now revisiting that pledge based on polling from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that shows him beating U.S. Rep. Tim WALBERG (R-Tipton) in a head-to-head match-up in the 7th Congressional District by three percentage points, according to one source. Once positives and negatives are read to those polled, Schauer's margin grows to as much as eight percentage points.
(Thanks to an anonymous commenter in my last post...)
This hardly seems worth mentioning, but after the post on David Nacht's website, I thought I'd be consistent. Jim Berryman's campaign now has a website, at http://www.goberryman.com... which, right now, is this:The good news? No where to go but up. I understand the need to put up a simple placeholder, I'm just hoping that something like this is the precursor to some excellent content.
Anyway, that means that all three announced Democratic candidates have websites. The next step is to get some campaign blogs going.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, "jimberryman.com" is already taken, by someone else with that name. But "GoBerryman.com" works just as well.
I promised my thoughts on former Adrian Mayor and former State Senator Jim Berryman's entry into the race.
First, to preface this: Walberg Watch will not make an endorsement for the 2008 Democratic primary. So far, we have three candidates that have stated their intent. I am satisfied with this field-- all three of them would be an improvement over Congressman Walberg-- but would also welcome the entry of a fourth, fifth, or sixth candidate, provided they brought something new to the field, and were serious about their objective.
This blog will work to help elect the Democratic nominee-- whomever that is. I would, however, welcome all potential candidates (and other public figures not running) to contribute their thoughts. Blogs can become an extraordinary way to share information and ideas, and I think everyone will benefit from that.
Now, as for yesterday's announcement...
As a Lenawee County resident, I've heard about Jim Berryman for years, even though I didn't live in the county while he held public office. He's the Uniserv director for the teachers at my town's schools, most people remember him, and no one that I've talked to has a strong dislike of the man. That's good, and it's something that Tim Walberg doesn't have, even here in Lenawee County.
Berryman offers the resumé that Sharon Renier and David Nacht don't have. A business owner, mayor of a city, member of the Michigan Senate, and active in the community, Berryman is the sort of candidate that looks great. Oddly enough, his record is similar to that of former Congressman Joe Schwarz-- doctor, then mayor of Battle Creek, then the state Senate.
He's got the experience to mount a legitimate challenge, and, without a doubt, he has the connections to put together a good campaign team and a good congressional office. And perhaps most important for modern campaigning, he seems ready to raise the big money-- up to $3 million, he says.
Those are some definite positives right there.
I've taken the time to speak with a few people I know who have met Berryman professionally, and it's been interesting. One, for example, sounded like the president of the Jim Berryman fan club, and had nothing but praise. Another seemed to have had a personality clash with Berryman at some point, and was hoping that he wouldn't be the nominee (but that he was still preferable to Tim Walberg). But for the most part, he comes across with a net positive.
Does that mean he'll be the nominee? Well, no. It means, he has a legitimate shot at becoming the nominee, but he's got to prove himself to the voters first. I wish him luck in that, just as I wish the others luck as well.
But even if he doesn't win the nomination, Berryman's entry into the race is a good thing. It brings a great deal of attention to the Democratic side of the 2008 election, attention which was sadly lacking the previous two election cycles. With that attention and with Berryman's experience, it forces all the candidates to campaign on a higher level than has happened previously, with solid ideas and serious fundraising.
If Berryman raises lots of cash, other candidates will have to get to work in order to be competitive, and that helps in two ways. First, it sets the stage for the general election, where money will be needed to compete with Tim Walberg. Second, it energizes the Democrats in the district. I'm not a fan of nasty primaries, but if Jim Berryman, David Nacht, and Sharon Renier get into an ad war, it'll remind Democrats in the district that they've got a shot at winning.
The right combination of money and energy wins elections. In 2006, Sharon Renier was absolutely motivated to win, but she fell short because she lacked the campaign apparatus to transfer her energy to the general public. In 2008, hopefully this will be different.
I didn't know anywhere else to put this, but has there been any news about the other candidates in the race? Not much, if anything, has been put on this site about Reneir or Nacht in a while.
... To which I basically said there was nothing new to report. It turns out I was wrong-- David Nacht launched a campaign website, at http://www.nacht4congress.com/.
It's not much yet, but it's a great start, and I look forward to watching all the candidates' internet presence grow. As I've told all of them at some point, it'd be a great idea to start a campaign blog.
Of course, Sharon Renier already has a campaign website, from her 2004 and 2006 bids.
(Thanks to the Daily Telegram for noticing this in their article on Jim Berryman.)
UPDATE [Thursday, May 03, 2007]: The Battle Creek Enquirernoticed this too. But just a quick word to folks at the Enquirer-- if you're going to put on a headline like "Nacht launches Web site, campaign committee to unseat Walberg," it might help to actually mention what the address for the web site is.
I'll talk about Jim Berryman's announcement later, but I thought I'd hit on this one first. As Zach points out in his "Wednesday Coffee Talk" thread on Michigan Liberal, the AP report on Berryman's announcement includes this interesting bit about former Congressman Joe Schwarz.
Schwarz said in an interview he would decide this summer whether to challenge Walberg for the GOP nomination or run as a Democrat. He said he would not run as an independent, noting the "the path to higher office is strewn with the bodies of independents."
Schwarz said he had spoken with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democrats' campaign committee, and has been encouraged by Democratic leaders in Michigan to run as a Democrat.
"I have some basic, some seminal, differences in policy positions on critical issues in the Republican party, both foreign and domestic. I suspect there would be some significant differences with some issues where the Democrats have a party position as well," Schwarz said.
That's interesting. The last time anyone really talked about this, reporter Tim Skubick included this quote:
The list of those who want the affable Dr. Schwarz to change include U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and his younger brother, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin. The wife of veteran U.S. Rep. John Dingell, Debbie, has been pushing Schwarz to flip for more than two years.
But he is not there yet. He confesses there is less than a 50-50 chance he will change. And for some other Democrats, that's fine with them.
(Emphasis added.)
"Less than a 50-50 chance"? It might just be selective quoting in two stories by two different reporters, but his comments from the AP story on Berryman seemed to make a Democratic run sound much more likely.
Let's look at that again.
Schwarz said in an interview he would decide this summer whether to challenge Walberg for the GOP nomination or run as a Democrat. He said he would not run as an independent, noting the "the path to higher office is strewn with the bodies of independents."
In other words, no Joe Lieberman moments, and (unless a big name emerges soon) the 2008 general election will primarily be a Republican versus a Democrat, without any serious independent challenge. Similarly, there will probably be no significant splitting of the conservative base or liberal base between two candidates. That makes it a simpler race.
Schwarz said he had spoken with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democrats' campaign committee, and has been encouraged by Democratic leaders in Michigan to run as a Democrat.
Congressman Van Hollen and the DCCC have said that the 7th District would be a top target, and this shows that he means it. The party campaign committees are less concerned with ideology and more concerned with picking a winning candidate, and helping him or her win votes. Schwarz certainly looks like he'd be a strong candidate-- an impressive resumé, high name recognition, cross-over appeal-- and it doesn't surprise me that Van Hollen has talked to him. Mind you, that's not to say the DCCC has endorsed Schwarz, or that he would necessarily be the best candidate. What it shows is that they mean it when they say 2008 will be different from 2006.
"I have some basic, some seminal, differences in policy positions on critical issues in the Republican party, both foreign and domestic. I suspect there would be some significant differences with some issues where the Democrats have a party position as well," Schwarz said.
This is a big change from the "50-50 chance" statement from before. Schwarz seems to be setting himself up as an "independent-minded Democrat" if he runs on that side, just as he was supposedly an "independent Republican." What should Democrats think of that?
It's tough to say. Schwarz had a solidly conservative voting record in the U.S. House from 2005 to 2007-- enough to earn President George Bush's endorsement-- but he has shown that he can and will think independently of his party label and leaders from time to time.
As a Democrat, he would be under significant pressure to vote with his new party. The question becomes, how often? It would probably end up being a case-by-case sort of thing, but I suspect his voting record would end up being a little more progressive if he were a Democrat. I have no evidence, though... this is just my own supposition.
Now, for Democratic primary voters, would that be enough? Would a Democrat but not necessarily a progressive be acceptable? It's tough to predict, especially without a complete candidate field or any clear statements by Schwarz.
I wish I had a clear conclusion to reach, but I don't. To me, it sounds like Joe Schwarz is taking the idea of running as a Democrat more seriously, but I haven't got any idea how what that might mean for the Democratic primary.
Walberg won the 7th Congressional District seat last year after unseating first-term Republican Joe Schwarz in the primary. Although some Democratic leaders have reportedly approached Schwarz about running against Walberg in 2008 as a Democrat, Berryman said he doesn’t think that will happen.
“I’ve talked with Joe over the past few weeks and I don’t think he is going to switch parties,” Berryman said. “I would be awfully surprised if he switched parties. He’s a Republican and if he runs again, it would be as a Republican.”
Berryman and Schwarz are good friends. But then, in politics, when has friendship ever trumped ambition? I'm just sayin'...
I'm in a little bit of a hurry, but someone passed this along to me... This is the press release sent out this morning to all the local media:
Berryman For Congress
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jim Berryman
May 1, 2007 (517) 902-8330
Berryman Declares Candidacy
for Michigan’s 7th Congressional District
Former Mayor & Senator Berryman to campaign on message of
economic opportunity and good jobs for Southern Michigan
ADRIAN – Jim Berryman (D-Adrian) announced today that he will run for Michigan’s seventh congressional district. As a former Mayor and State Senator, Berryman has a proven track record of bringing people together to provide opportunity and prosperity for the communities he represents.
Berryman said he made the decision to run for Congress after several months of enthusiastic encouragement from citizens throughout southern Michigan.
“I have demonstrated that I have the ability to bring people together to create jobs; jobs that will allow an individual to maintain a roof over their head and put food on their table,” said Berryman. “I will do my best to continue to bring business and labor together to create more good jobs and strengthen southern Michigan’s economy.”
David Munson, the recently retired CEO of the Lenawee Chamber for Economic Development, said that Berryman has the leadership skills to get southern Michigan’s economy back on track.
“Jim Berryman is a true leader. He has helped to resolve strikes in ways that benefited business, labor and our community,” said Munson. “In the Senate, he worked with former Republican Governor John Engler to create the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA), which brought many new businesses and job opportunities to Michigan and specifically to the 7th congressional district.”
Berryman was born in Flint in 1947 and attended Adrian College. He was Mayor of the City of Adrian from 1985 to 1990 when he was elected to the Michigan Senate, where he represented a largely conservative district until 1998. Berryman, a former small business owner, mounted an impressive campaign for Congress in 1998 but ultimately fell short to a well-funded incumbent. He currently works as a Uniserv Director for the Michigan Education Association. He is married to Susan and has three grown children: Steven, Eric and Julie.
“Southern Michigan needs new leadership – and a member of Congress who will focus on bringing good jobs and more economic opportunity to our communities,” said Berryman.
Berryman is planning a formal campaign kickoff that will take him across the 7th district, which includes Branch, Eaton, Hillsdale, Jackson and Lenawee Counties, as well as parts of Calhoun and Washtenaw Counties.
[UPDATE] The article included below was just Thursday's preview of the full column, which is now on the Enquirer's website. Go check it out. My favorite part:
It's not personal. It's just a bad public relations move, typical of a staff composed of 20-something "Jesus Camp" counselors who almost managed to lose the general election to Sharon Renier, a chicken farmer with $1.03 in the bank.
They're not ready for primetime.
Ouch. ___
Susan Demas (now at the Battle Creek Enquirer) was probably the most prolific and professional journalist in the 7th Congressional District to cover the 2006 election. She's always been fair to all candidates-- even when I might wish she were a little more harsh on Walberg. Her articles on Tim Walberg have been cited on this blog again and again, and, at one point, she and I were briefly in contact for a possible story that never ran.
In hindsight, I suppose it was only a matter of time before Tim Walberg saw that she was, you know, reporting the truth about him. We can't have that, can we?
An anonymous reader was kind enough to include this in the comments. I hope Susan Demas and the Enquirer won't mind if I repost the whole comment-- which includes the text of an article that appears in today's issue.
Anonymous said...
I know Fitzy is on a trip, so I figured I'd bring this to everyone's attention. It is an article today discussing Walberg's fundraising for the first part of the year. For those of you in other parts of the District, you will still be getting news coverage, but those of us who read the Enquirer are finally free from the daily embarassment---
Article published Apr 19, 2007 Demas: Walberg haunted by specter of Schwarz Susan J. Demas The Enquirer
Truth is, I was dying to read about U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg’s Black History Month legislation, even though the press release didn’t arrive until March.
But alas, I’ve now been stripped of the privilege of at least 23 Walberg e-mails clogging my inbox each day. That means, loyal Enquirer readers, that I may not be able to apprise you of the Tipton Republican’s valiant scraps to lower taxes, protect traditional marriage and restore the Great Lakes.
It seems a recent story hit a nerve. Not when I quoted Walberg insisting Iraq is just as safe as the body armor-free streets of Detroit. That was kosher.
This was the remark by Walberg’s aides didn’t want you to read:
“Our goal is to make a real strong (financial) showing in the first quarter, so people like Joe Schwarz back off.”
Well, he didn’t. And the specter of Schwarz, whom the conservative preacher edged out in the 2006 GOP primary, still seems to be breathing down his neck.
Schwarz, 69, has returned to his surgical practice and is playing coy, saying he’ll decide this summer whether to take another stab at Congress. The Battle Creek native has been busy with stuff like investigating Walter Reed as a member of the blue-ribbon Pentagon panel.
But he clearly remains the No. 1 threat to Walberg’s job security.
My punishment from Fort Walberg was swift and severe.
“I took you off the (media) list,” his spokesman informed me this month, “because the congressman has decided he will no longer talk to you.”
That hurt. Congress’ 423rd most powerful member and I have been through a lot together since last year’s venomous, cash-chucking race. Walberg even posted some of my stories on his campaign Web site, which was even better than seeing them hang on my mom’s fridge.
Once, a grandmotherly supporter mistook me for the 56-year-old’s trophy wife. Good times.
"The congressman has decided he will no longer talk to you." Hm.
That, my friends, is certainly the reaction of a mature, seasoned politician that is perfectly secure in his seat. Obviously he's not worried at all.
Really, this is going to be a problem for him somewhere along the way. I mean, if he won't talk to people that report, you know, facts, getting his message out is going to be a lot harder. If the local press is against you, it doesn't matter how much help the Club for Growth gives you.
Needless to say, while Walberg might not want to talk to Susan Demas anymore, I do, and I'd encourage every candidate considering running in 2008-- Democrats, Republicans, or others-- to take their stories to the Battle Creek Enquirer first.
Unlike Tim Walberg, I support freedom of press and good, honest journalism (which is more than just reprinting press releases). Walberg is punishing Susan Demas and the Enquirer. Potential candidates, I think you should reward her for doing a good job. The same goes for the DCCC, the MDP, and all the various groups that may be hurt if Tim Walberg's ideas ever made it into law.
(By the way-- I'm back from Chicago, but I'm busier than ever. I promise regular posting to resume... sometime soon.)
I was about to leave my computer and head off to Chicago when I realized it was April 15. You know what that means? It means Tim Walberg's 2007 First Quarter fundraising numbers are available on the Federal Election Commission's web site!
Yeah, I get excited about this sort of thing. It's kind of sad, really.
If you recall, following Walberg's Iraq comments, this is what he had to say regarding fundraising:
Political analysts have said Walberg’s remarks could hurt his 2008 election fundraising, something the congressman shrugs off.
“Our goal is to make a real strong showing in the first quarter, so people like Joe Schwarz back off,” Walberg said after Rove’s remarks.
Now, I don't think Joe Schwarz is the only one they need to worry about. But more importantly, did Walberg scare anyone off? From the FEC:
I'm not a big fan of Tim Skubick, but last Friday's column in the Lansing State Journal is worth checking out. In it, he ponders the possibility that former Congressman Joe Schwarz may run again... and as a Democrat.
Schwarz may switch parties. As a Democrat, he could theoretically run for his old 7th Congressional District seat, which he unceremoniously lost to GOP right-winger Tim Walberg last summer.
The Battle Creek physician is a moderate dinosaur in the GOP that stopped embracing moderation when former Gov. Bill Milliken left town 30 years ago.
Skubick is absolutely right, there. Tim Walberg and his allies in the Republican Party have shown that moderates are no longer welcome. Democrats, meanwhile, even the "left-wing blogger fringe," have been embracing both progressives and moderates. (If you didn't watch it in January, check out moderate Democratic Senator Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union. This is a good sample of what the Democratic Party stands for.)
Anyway, Skubick continues...
The list of those who want the affable Dr. Schwarz to change include U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and his younger brother, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin. The wife of veteran U.S. Rep. John Dingell, Debbie, has been pushing Schwarz to flip for more than two years.
But he is not there yet. He confesses there is less than a 50-50 chance he will change. And for some other Democrats, that's fine with them.
Skubick proceeds to mention Jim Berryman, a likely Democratic candidate and friend of Joe Schwarz.
Schwarz says he and Berryman are "close friends" but that does not mean Schwarz will automatically step aside. He'll make his decision on party affiliation in June.
Personally, I don't think he'll switch, and I'm not convinced that he'll run, as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. But if he did run as any of those, it would be interesting to watch.
Now, I'm off to Chicago for a few days, and won't have much computer access. Congressman Walberg, try not to do anything too newsworthy!
Later today, I'll write a post on last night's town hall. Turnout was more than I expected, but the event was kind of disappointing... I didn't get a chance to ask any questions, for one, and Walberg definitely took advantage of the friendly audience. I'm guessing a town hall in Battle Creek or Jackson would have gone a little differently.
Today, the Battle Creek Enquirer brings us two articles of interest.
U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg has almost nowhere to go but up in Congress, based on the “power rankings” of a nonpartisan Web site.
Walberg, R-Tipton, tied for 423 with U.S. Rep. Bill Sali, R-Idaho, out of the 435 House members on the list compiled by Congress.org. Among the 52 freshman representatives, the two tied at 40.
That's to be expected, of course, since Walberg is a freshman. The full rankings are here, and Walberg's page on Congress.org is here.
Bill Sali, who is tied with Walberg, is an interesting character himself. He was another Club for Growth candidate, winning the primary and the general election with their help. His politics are very similar to Walberg's.
I don't want to change the focus of this from a Walberg blog to a Sali blog, but there are a few things worth sharing. For instance, this is what the Republican Speaker of the House in the Idaho state legislature had to say about Bill Sali:
"That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn't have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. And you can put that in the paper."
The Club for Growth knows how to pick its candidates, eh?
Now, from that to a more hopeful article. Former mayor of Adrian and former member of the state Senate Jim Berryman is in the news once again, discussing a possible campaign in 2008.
ADRIAN — An old Democratic foe of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg is considering a 2008 run against him for Congress.
Former state Sen. Jim Berryman of Adrian said he has begun talking with supporters to see if he can raise the $2 million to $3 million necessary to challenge the freshman lawmaker.
(Emphasis added.)
If Berryman can raise that kind of money, that'll definitely make this the race to watch. I don't think that much money would be absolutely necessary to win-- after all, Sharon Renier almost won on $60,000-- but that's the kind of money I'd love to see a Democrat raise (especially if it were from in-state sources, unlike Walberg's $1.2 million last time).
Can Jim Berryman raise that much? We'll just have to see.
The article continues:
Berryman, 60, who lost a 1988 state House race to Walberg, said a basic philosophical difference separates the two men.
"Tim will tell you less government, less government, less government," Berryman said. "... I don't believe in abuse and waste, but I do believe there's a role for government."
Asked about Berryman's possible run, Walberg spokesman Matt Lahr said his boss has other concerns, such as tax relief, Great Lakes restoration and education reform.
"We're all focused totally on 2007," Lahr said.
(Emphasis added.)
"Focused totally on 2007"? Then why did Tim Walberg himself say that first quarter fundraising was important to try to scare off Joe Schwarz? I think maybe they're a little more worried about 2008 than they let on.
UPDATE: The Adrian Daily Telegram has a front-page article on Jim Berryman in today's issue, alongside their coverage of last night's town hall. Unfortunately, the Telegram has the worst website for a daily newspaper I've ever seen, and the article probably won't be available online until tomorrow.
That said, it's a fairly good read, which is surprising, given the soft coverage they've given to Walberg.
UPDATE II (8:12 PM): Perhaps my criticism of the Telegram was a little harsh, but I still think an article ought to be available online by the time people are reading it in print. But that's just me. Here's their piece on Berryman.
Some excerpts:
ADRIAN — Former state senator and Adrian mayor Jim Berryman says he will decide in two or three weeks whether to run in 2008 against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton — the man who defeated him in a 1988 bid for the Michigan House.
“I’m looking very seriously at it,” Berryman said Tuesday. “I look forward to that. Tim and I have a long political history and we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.”
Berryman served as Adrian’s mayor from 1985 to 1990, before being elected to the state Senate for eight years. He defeated incumbent Sen. Norm Shinkle, R-Monroe, for the seat and served in the Senate while Walberg was representing Lenawee County in the state House.
...
“It would really be a genuine debate between two political philosophies,” Berryman added. “I just don’t think his views reflect the majority of people in the district. Tim is trying to take us too far to the right.”
Also, there are a couple factual inaccuracies elsewhere in the article. Walberg is beginning his fourth month as a member of Congress, not completing his fourth month. Also, Nick Smith represented the 7th District up through the first days of January, 2005-- while he might have announced his retirement in 2003, he didn't actually retire in 2003.
But now I think I'm just being picky. The Telegram is a fine paper for what it is, despite the occasional error and a little conservative bias.
(Thanks to lpackard for bringing this to my attention... You're a very valuable resource for progressives in Michigan!)
One of the times Tim Walberg defended his comments comparing Iraq and Detroit, he did so while introducing a guest speaker at the Jackson County Republicans' Lincoln Day dinner. That guest was Karl Rove, the infamous political advisor of President George W. Bush. Now, Jackson may be the birthplace of the Republican Party, but could there have been a bigger reason for Rove's visit? Could it be that Bush's top advisor might be worried about holding the 7th District in 2008?
That's all pure speculation on my part. But now there's a little more evidence that perhaps the national GOP-- or, at least, the White House Office of Political Affairs-- is worried about Congressman Tim Walberg's ability to hold the seat for the Republicans.
But first, the back story. Thanks in advance to DownWithTyranny for some good blogging.
Wikipedia describes the General Services Administration (GSA) with this:
The General Services Administration (GSA) is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1949 to help manage and support the basic functioning of federal agencies. The GSA supplies products and communications for U.S. government offices, provides transportation and office space to federal employees, and develops governmentwide cost-minimizing policies, among other management tasks. Its stated mission is to "help federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services and management policies."
Basically, they help make our federal government operate more efficiently and smoothly by organizing resources. It sounds like a great idea. And it's supposed to be nonpartisan, too, based on the 1939 Hatch Act, which sets limitations on what political roles federal employees and agencies may play.
So, suppose there's an event held for the GSA described as a "teambuilding" event, and a slideshow produced by the White House Office of Political Affairs is presented. It seems a little suspicious, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Now, suppose that slide show reviews the data from the 2006 elections, with historical comparisons. Kind of an odd thing for "teambuilding," I guess...
Then, suppose the slide show proceeded to include slides titled things like "2008 House Targets: Top 20" (oddly enough, featuring only Democrats) and "2008 House GOP Defense". Are you starting to get suspicious?
Are you even more suspicious if the head of the GSA, Lurita Doan, is quoted as saying, "How can we use different GSA projects, building opening and the like, to further aid other Republicans?" or "How can we use GSA to help our candidates in the next election?"
Nah, there's nothing about that at all which could be seen as improper or unethical.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been looking at that, and there's an excellent 10-minute video from it here. It's a little scandal that might not get noticed with everything else going on, but you should know about it. You can see the slide show for yourself here (.pdf).
But we're straying from the focus of this blog, and I apologize for that. Where does Congressman Walberg come in to this?
Walberg's name is on the slide titled "2008 House GOP Defense" (page 10 of the slide show pdf), under the column "Secondary Defense".
Let's see if we can make them bump him up to "Priority Defense" by the time November 2008 comes around.
(For those curious, two more Michigan Republicans-- Vern Ehlers, MI-03, and Joe Knollenberg, MI-09, are also listed, with asteriks suggesting they might retire.)
The Jackson Citizen Patriotreports today that former Adrian mayor and state senator Jim Berryman is considering challenging Congressman Tim Walberg.
Berryman, a Democrat who lost a race for Congress in 1998, said he is assessing whether he can raise the money needed for a competitive campaign against Walberg, R-Tipton.
"I am not going to form an exploratory committee or anything like that," Berryman said. "I expect it's only going to take three or four weeks to make a decision."
Berryman has been privately communicating with people across the district about a possible run for a little while now. He would be an impressive candidate, and it'll be interesting to see what his final decision will be.
7th District Representative in Congress 2 Year Term (1) Position
TOTAL Nick Jim COUNTY BY Smith Berryman CODE/NAME COUNTY REP DEM =============== ============== ============== ============== 08 BARRY 2,780 1,706 988 12 BRANCH 10,761 7,117 3,517 13 CALHOUN 38,706 21,247 16,585 23 EATON 36,055 21,187 13,727 30 HILLSDALE 12,234 8,499 3,586 38 JACKSON 46,449 27,016 17,997 46 LENAWEE 28,765 14,302 14,042 81 WASHTENAW 6,377 3,582 2,556
Totals 182,127 104,656 72,998
Remember, the district boundaries changed following the 2000 census (current district map). More of Washtenaw County is now included, and Barry County is no longer in the district. Most significant, I think, is Berryman's strong performance in Lenawee County against the incumbent Nick Smith. A race in 2008 where Lenawee County isn't solidly for Walberg would be interesting.
UPDATE: I was in a hurry earlier when I posted this, so I'll expand on my post a little.
Jim Berryman served as mayor of Adrian, Michigan from 1985 to 1990, and then served in the Michigan Senate from 1991 to 1998. He currently serves as the Michigan Education Association Uniserv Director in Lenawee County, representing teachers from about half of Lenawee County's school districts.
As an anonymous poster in the comments pointed out, his vote totals in 1998 wasn't the only item of significance:
it says that he raised $459,000. That is a lot of cash for a race that no one thought he could win. That tells me he can raise cash.
Now, obviously 1998 is different than 2008, but this is impressive. It's also nice to know that, unlike Tim Walberg, the vast majority of individual itemized contributions to Berryman in 1998 came from in the state of Michigan (91% in-state for Berryman, 27% in-state for Walberg).
In today's Ann Arbor News, Democratic candidate David Nacht is profiled under the headline "Race shaping up in 7th District". I wouldn't say it's a fluff piece, but it doesn't have much substance not already covered on this blog. If anything, it's a good way for Nacht to introduce himself to the voters of western Washtenaw County.
What caught my eye, though, was this paragraph at the end:
Unseating Walberg won't be easy, though. The anti-tax conservative raised and spent more than $1.2 million in the last cycle, and dedicated his first few months on Capitol Hill to constituent outreach and legislation on tax reform, worker's [sic] rights and Great Lakes preservation.
For starters, I wouldn't characterize his term thus far quite like that. He apparently dedicated himself to workers' rights by voting against pro-labor legislation, and Great Lakes preservation has only been a leading issue for the last two weeks or so, at most. (Even if Walberg has always been an advocate for the Great Lakes, most of January and February were spent on other issues.)
I attribute this to the slightly conservative bias of the Ann Arbor News-- after all, they endorsed George W. Bush in a county that voted 63-35 for John Kerry. Either way, it's a minor quibble. Far more important was this:
The anti-tax conservative raised and spent more than $1.2 million in the last cycle
I know we all remember the money spent by Walberg, versus the money not spent by Sharon Renier, and Renier's stellar performance as the underfunded underdog. But this is something that's worth talking about constantly.
According to the FEC, Tim Walberg spent $1,225,137 on the 2006 campaign, and has another $38,000 or so left over-- plus independent expenditures by folks like the Club for Growth, Right to Life, and the Minuteman PAC. Sharon Renier spent $55,794 but still managed to make the race the closest in the state of Michigan, out-performing every Democrat in the district since 1992. (By the way, it's also worth remembering that most of Walberg's money came from outside the state of Michigan.)
But be careful, because you might draw the wrong conclusion. Renier proved that it's possible to run a competitive campaign on less than $60,000, but that doesn't mean anyone should. Imagine if Renier had spent, say, $500,000-- still less than half of what Walberg spent. I can't know this for sure, but I've got to think that money like that could easily have closed the gap and defeated Walberg by an impressive margin.
Next time around, Walberg's going to have the full support of the Club for Growth and co., plus all the advantages of incumbency (which inevitably leads to money connections, it seems). And if Joe Schwarz or some other credible Republican doesn't challenge him in the primary, he'll be able to focus all his attention on the Democratic candidates and eventual nominee. I think it's certainly possible that we could see him spending $2 million or more. That's what we're up against.
But, the DCCC is interested, right? So they'll help out! Well, maybe. Like anyone else, they don't like being associated with losing candidates, and they won't want to spend everything they have on increasing the majority by just one seat. If Walberg raises a lot of money and the best the Democratic candidates can do is 2006-level fundraising (or worse, 2004-level), then they might choose to pass on the race yet again. In other words, the DCCC won't make a candidate viable, it'll only help those that are already viable-- and viability often means money.
I wish I could offer some sort of three-step strategy to raising large amounts of cash, but I can't, and I'm just a lowly blogger. The candidates will have to figure that out. Instead, I'm just reminding the candidates that they'll need the money if they want this to become a first-tier race. Don't take any candidate seriously if they aren't already implementing a fundraising strategy by the filing deadline, May 19th, 2008.
So maybe State Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) isn't planning on running against Tim Walberg. But he's still in the 7th Congressional District, and he still makes some people's lists of potential candidates.
Regardless of what his future plans are-- Congress in 2008, or Governor in 2010, or Emperor of the Universe-- this is the sort of thing that helps to win support of the Michigan netroots (thanks to Flatwheel at Michigan Liberal).
It's not just that he thanks bloggers (though that's nice, too). It's that he's willing to reach out, taking advantage of technology to speak directly with us. Other candidates, keep this in mind as you begin your campaigns.
It would be wrong to say that the 2006 Republican primary in the 7th District was a battle between two wings of the Republican Party. Like the Democrats and others, the GOP is a lot more complicated than just two wings. You've got the libertarians (Ron Paul), the religious activists (Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc.), the fiscal conservatives, the "drown the government in the bathtub" folks (Grover Norquist), the foreign policy hawks, and so many more. And then the moderates, who embody some of these groups but never completely, and even the occasional Lincoln Chafee. And most of the time, individual candidates are a mix of multiple groups.
That being said, I think most people would agree that in 2006, Joe Schwarz was the moderate, with support from the Republican Main Street Partnership, and Tim Walberg was the religious activist/"drown the government in the bathtub" candidate, with support from Right to Life and the Club for Growth.
So, imagine my surprise when I see that the Club and RMSP are, perhaps, joining together to fight the new Democratic majority. Could it be true that the two organizations that fought so bitterly last year have decided to make peace? Apparently so, according to The Politico.
Now, before taking it too seriously, check out two posts by Jonathon Singer here and here regarding the publication and this story. Still, there are some interesting things in the article.
The war of words reached its apex in the aftermath of the Michigan primary between Schwarz and Rep. Tim Walberg. Schwarz filed a complaint alleging Walberg used the same pollster as the Club for Growth -- an alleged violation of Federal Election Commission rules because the organization was supposed to be an independent expenditure. The Club for Growth countered by accusing Schwarz of colluding with the RMSP.
With former Rep. Charlie Bass (N.H.) now at RMSP's helm, relations may well be improving. Bass said he is eager to put past primary battles behind him and develop a constructive working relationship.
"Now that Republicans are now in the minority, we both agree it's best to cooperate and coordinate with each other," Bass said.
That's the key argument of the article-- that it's better to fight the Democrats than each other-- sounds like sound political reasoning on their part, but I have trouble believing it'll happen. There's too much separating the Joe Schwarz's and the Tim Walbergs, and too much anger left over from that and other races.
The article continues:
Bass said that the RMSP will not challenge Walberg in the Republican primary, even if Schwarz runs again. The group's policy is never to challenge an incumbent, regardless of the incumbent's ideological position.
In contrast, the Club for Growth has actively targeted Republicans who strayed from a tax-cutting agenda. Its financial firepower makes the group a looming threat -- its PAC spent about $2.7 million to favored candidates in 2006.
(Emphasis added.)
That's important. The Club for Growth has perfected the art of challenging moderates, and I find it hard to believe they'll change their ways next election cycle, not after proving their power here. Any truce between the Club and the moderates is short-lived at best.
More significant, though, is that if Schwarz runs again, the Main Streeters won't help him.
If Schwarz runs, he's got three options. He could run as a Democrat, leaving the party he's been part of for decades and alienating some of the folks that supported him the two previous races. He could run as an independent, still leaving his party and also having no party structure to support him, but without the mess that is the GOP primary. Or, he could run as a Republican challenger to Walberg in the primary. But to do that, he'd go against a different Tim Walberg-- one with all the powers of incumbency plus the Club's backing. With the RMSP staying out, Schwarz would have... himself.
I like Joe Schwarz a lot, even though I disagree with him often. This is a tough position he's in, and makes his choices this year all the more interesting to watch.
As for the Democrats who are looking to run against Walberg, here's what this means: don't count on a moderate-conservative split in 2008. Walberg could go into November with the full support of his party, and all the out-of-state money the Club for Growth can give him. He can certainly be defeated, but it'll take a lot of hard work.
Yesterday was the Michigan Democratic Party convention in Detroit, where the 7th Congressional District received plenty of love and attention from the state party. The Associated Press (through the Detroit News) brings us this:
Some GOP lawmakers who won their congressional districts faced tougher-than-expected challenges that underscored a tough climate for Republicans nationally. That got the attention of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is targeting districts won by GOP Reps. Tim Walberg of Tipton and Joe Knollenberg of Oakland County's Bloomfield Township, Brewer said.
"The Democrats in those two districts demonstrated without any national help that those two districts are winnable," Brewer said.
I couldn't make the convention, nor could any other Walberg Watch contributors, unfortunately. [UPDATE: Apparently, Doug was at the convention. My mistake.] If any readers were there (and attended the 7th District caucus), I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it went.
Perhaps more important, though, is that a new Democratic candidate emerged: David Nacht.
In south-central Michigan's 7th District, potential candidates include state Reps. Mike Simpson and Martin Griffin in Jackson County, former Rep. Doug Spade in Lenawee County and organic farmer Sharon Renier, who lost to Walberg in November.
Though many Democrats attending the convention didn't say whether they're considering a run, one did: David Nacht, an attorney and township trustee outside Ann Arbor, said he will run in the 7th District.
"The district is in play for Democrats," said Nacht, who called himself a moderate Democrat. "I'm someone who will fight for workers' jobs."
This is the first time I've heard his name as a candidate. He's got an impressive biography, from his law firm's website:
David Nacht, the firm founder, holds degrees from Harvard College ('87) and The University of Michigan Law School ('92), where he served as an editor of the Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Nacht served as a staff member to former U.S. Senator John Glenn on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, where he organized committee hearings and assisted the Senator in negotiating the passage of multiple pieces of legislation.
Mr. Nacht started the firm in January 1996 in Ann Arbor, after previously practicing law at Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. - Michigan's largest law firm. Nacht also clerked for a federal district judge, Stewart Newblatt, in the Eastern District of Michigan. Mr. Nacht has published articles on employment law and a book chapter on ethics in government. He often speaks locally on legal and ethical issues, and speaks regularly as a guest lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School. He has served as faculty for the American Bar Association Health Law section and formerly chaired the Washtenaw County Bar Association Employment Law section.
Currently Mr. Nacht serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the boards of several non-profit organizations and community groups, and is an elected Scio Township Trustee.
Nacht is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and is admitted to practice before federal district courts in Michigan, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court. He is also member of the American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, Michigan Bar Association, and the National and Michigan Employment Lawyers' Associations. David specializes in Employment Law, Sexual Harassment, ERISA, Commercial Litigation, Education Law, Constitutional Law, and Land Use disputes.
(Emphasis added.)
Nacht was elected as a Scio Township Trustee in 2004 with 4,891 votes-- the second-highest total for the four elected trustees. Fellow Scio Township Trustee Chuck Ream ran for the Democratic nomination in 2006. In 2002, he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Michigan House, 52nd District, losing to Pam Byrnes by less than 1,200 votes. Byrnes lost in the fall of 2002, but won in 2004.
That, plus his history of campaign contributions, is what 15 minutes of Google searches could find. He looks like a good person and could be a strong candidate. If you know more about him, please feel free to share in the comments.
UPDATE: The Battle Creek Enquirer now has an article about David Nacht up. Also, thanks to everyone in the comments and especially those of you that contacted me via e-mail with your thoughts on his candidacy.
I'm a big believer in the power of blogging and internet-based activism to promote positive, progressive change, especially through political campaigns. The goal is for this humble little blog to be a major source of information for the 2008 Democratic nominee for the 7th District, and for anyone eager to elect someone besides Tim Walberg.
Simply put, I feel that this medium has a great deal of potential.
Rep. Tim Walberg was the featured guest at today’s Conservative Bloggers’ Briefing at the Heritage Foundation. Walberg, who toppled liberal Republican Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary last year, is one of only 13 Republican freshmen elected last November. He brings to Washington a solid record as a state legislator and businessman.
Although he’s only been a member of Congress for one month, Walberg has made it a point to reach out to bloggers. He spent time with a group of us at the Heritage Foundation’s Conservative Members Retreat in Baltimore, and he reached out a larger group today.
Walberg said bloggers played an important role during his campaign — in both the primary and general election. He said he reads blogs daily, and his aides, Chief of Staff Joe Wicks and Press Secretary Matt Lahr, regularly circulate material from blogs to him. Walberg urged the group to embrace the technology as a way of keeping the news media in check and the Republican Party focused on conservative issues.
That's from the blog of Robert Bluey, who is the director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, according to his biography.
So Tim Walberg is reaching out to conservative bloggers? And meanwhile, liberal bloggers are taking an interest in the district as well, at large sites like MyDD, Swing State Project, and Daily Kos? Could Michigan's 7th be the place where the left- and right-wing blogospheres battle it out in 2008?
In a recent article in the New York Times about our little district and the possibility of a Schwarz/Walberg rematch in '08, there was an interesting quote I found near the bottom of the article from Joe Wicks, Walberg's chief of staff: “He [Walberg] is going to work on increasing access to health care and move toward energy dependence” Why is this such an interesting quote? Well frankly because of what Walberg has said in the past about health care, and Walberg's main backers, The Club For Growth's views on health care.
As reported by Fitzy right here, when Walberg was asked was asked if Americans had the right to universal health care in last cycle's debate he responded: “Absolutely not. It's not a right, it's an opportunity we have." How do you get more access than universal health care? Then in an op-ed in the Lansing State Journal, he wrote “Medicare changes look like Hillarycare,” in response to the bill that passed the house (which Walberg voted against) to allow Medicare to bargain with drug companies to get lower prices. In this article he states the good ol' Pro Big-Pharma line on this bill that it will limit drug choices for seniors. Oh, and his idea to lower health care costs, tort reform. (Haven't we heard that before?)
When I first had an the idea of writing a post on Walberg views on health care, I found little online about Walberg's views on this ever increasing issue in our country. Then I realized I could search for the next best thing, how The Club For Growth views health care. I figured an organization that backs Walberg so aggressively, must think that he represents their views. So what does The Club say about health care?
Here are a few quotes I found from Steven Moore, The Club's Founder:
“…Every American taxpayer knows full well the fiscally catastrophic impact of programs like Medicare, Medicaid and other blank-check redistribution programs.” on Medicare
“There is no excuse for creating an entitlement for prescription drugs; it will inflate federal debt, rob money from future generations and socialize health care.” on prescription drugs.
On the main page of their web site, The Club today criticizes John Edward's universal health care plan in an article titled: “John Edwards Wants to Raise Your Taxes.”
Health care is a major issue in this country and it is goint to take more than changing the out come of health care lawsuits to fix this problem.
By the way, Walberg's Issue's page only has a Press Release about blood drives filed under Health Care.
If anyone knows of any more information on this topic please let me know!
I know this has lots of other postings at other sites like Michigan Liberal. As has been posted here and on other Blogs Tim Walberg is a marked man. Today for the first time DCCC Chair, Chris Van Hollen specifically mentions Tim Walberg and the 7th District. This was first reported at Hotline on Call.
As discussed in last week's memo, we are aggressively on offense and working to put a large number of Republican seats in play. We are in the process of targeting districts where Republicans won by less than 5%, seats won by Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, districts occupied by ethically challenged incumbents and Republican seats likely to open. By challenging incumbent Republicans we can win additional seats and force them to expend resources defending their incumbents that would otherwise be directed at our most vulnerable members.
Tim Walberg and the 7th District fit this criteria.
Also, at the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen has announced his recruitment team.
Democrats have charged out of the gate by lining up a strong Recruitment Committee led by Congressman Artur Davis (AL-07). The team will include Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Rahm Emanuel (IL-05), Steve Israel (NY-02), Ron Kind (WI-03), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Mike Ross (AR-04), Tim Ryan (OH-17), Adam Schiff (CA-29), Hilda Solis (CA-32) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20).
These are the people that we need to keep updated on what is going on in Michigan's 7th.
All of our work will be pointless if we do not have a viable candidate in 2008.
Looks like the presidential quest isn't the only 2008 race abuzz in the blogosphere, punditocracy and Washington insider press.
Daily Kos, Inside Michigan Politics and Roll Call have deemed the 7th District congressional contest one of the hottest in the country -- and U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg,
R-Tipton, was sworn in only today.
"One of the hottest in the country"! And no, I don't mind that they didn't mention another blog that's interested in the race...
Former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz and lawyer Brad Smith are rumored Republican challengers. State Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, has swatted away speculation about his candidacy but is still considered his party's front-runner. And two-time Democratic nominee Sharon Renier says she's in.
As for Walberg, he says he's just focused on his new job.
But he does want to clear up one rumor about 2008.
"I'm not running" for president, he laughs.
Schauer's out (though, expect to see him pop up elsewhere after his term ends... he's a rising star in Michigan's Democratic Party), but there are plenty of strong candidates out there. Most interesting for me, I think, is the possibility of Brad Smith launching a primary challenge. Smith (son of former Congressman Nick Smith), though losing to Schwarz, got more votes in the 2004 primary than Walberg, and knows all the right people to run a campaign.
There are other things worth reading in the article, including a mention of a speech by Joe Schwarz and a Jackson Party fundraiser for the Democratic Party.
But, you know what? Congressman Walberg is right, he ought to be focusing on his job now, not the next election.
Walberg's Agenda
Once again, we turn to the Citizen-Patriot. What does Walberg hope to push in the new, Democratic Congress?
Michigan's only first-term congressman confirmed he plans to co-author legislation in line with his support of a flat tax and elimination of the Internal Revenue Service.
Ah, tax reform. I'm sure we'll be writing an awful lot about that over the next few weeks. Walberg has previously advocated the "FairTax" national sales tax, which would be about 23 percent on all goods and services. Never mind that lower-income families would pay proportionally more than upper-income families, or that, without the IRS (or similar agency), the burden of collecting the tax falls upon the state governments. And we all know that the state of Michigan has plenty of free time on its hands. _________ UPDATE:Cordelia at Michigan Liberal picked up on this as well, and offered this explanation of why the national sales tax is a bad idea. Once Congressman Walberg introduces a bill, I'm sure I'll have plenty of posts on the subject, but the short version is that taxes shouldn't be viewed as a punishment, but rather an investment in America. The amount you pay in ought to be based on ability to pay, and that's what the graduated income tax does.
For a different view, see Chad Sargent in the comments, and, out of fairness, www.FairTax.org. (Just one minor complaint: cute names like "FairTax" really bother me. Give it a simple, unbiased and descriptive name, like "National Sales Tax." This goes for both sides of the aisle.) _________
What do some of Walberg's supporters hope for?
That's the conviction supporter Kathy Potts is counting on. As vice president of Jackson Right to Life, Potts said she's confident Walberg will champion anti-abortion bills.
Will his anti-abortion proposals simply seek to outlaw abortion, or will he support the 95-10 initiative of Democrats for Life-- a plan of reforms to reduce abortion by 95 percent over the next ten years? We shall see.
Of course, since 45 percent of Americans want action on Iraq (according to a CBS poll), more than any other issue, it will certainly come up. What are Congressman Walberg's thoughts?
Walberg also will have to weigh in on the Iraq war -- whose unpopularity helped swing Congress to the Democrats in November's election. While Walberg supports President Bush's policies, he said he hasn't decided if sending more troops to Iraq is the best course to take.
The congressman said Saddam Hussein's hanging last week could be a "first step" to stabilizing democracy in the insurgent-infused country.
"Maybe it will be like the pardoning of Nixon by Gerald Ford with getting the issue off the scene," Walberg said. "Saddam Hussein is no longer the poster child of captivity and repression by outside forces."
Saddam Hussein... Richard Nixon? Well, not the connection I expected, but it's nice that Walberg has our 38th president on his mind.
Still, as the article observes:
However, most of his work will probably be voting on the Democrats' first 100-hours agenda, which includes hiking the minimum wage and cutting student loan rates.
... which brings us to:
The Democratic Agenda
Here's what the new Democratic leadership has planned:
Democrats say the first 100 hours will emphasize protecting middle-class jobs, pushing health care reforms, breaking the ties between lobbyists and lawmakers and investigating the Bush administration's relationship with big corporations.
At the top of the legislative agenda are:
raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour;
banning lobbyists from providing free meals and gifts to members of Congress;
slicing interest rates on college student loans in half;
allowing federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research; and
repealing federal tax breaks for the oil industry.
"We need to end subsidies for Big Oil," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee. "The money should go into renewable fuels instead."
Republicans call the 100-hour legislative agenda a publicity trick, noting that the Democratic leadership has failed to disclose any details about what's in the legislation. And even if bills are approved, they predict, it's likely President Bush will veto many of them.
FORMER SCHWARZ STAFFER FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST WALBERG
[from Gongwer News Service] It appears U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) can expect supporters of former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz to be watching his every move. Mr. Walberg was the subject of a complaint filed this week over his use of the House seal for what the complainant argues is a campaign event.
Law student Eric Weiler of Southfield, who worked for Mr. Schwarz in 2004 and 2005 but said he was not involved with the bitter campaign this past year, filed the complaint with the U.S. House ethics panel that Mr. Walberg was improperly using both the seal and his office space for a swearing in celebration Thursday.
The problem, Mr. Weiler said, is Mr. Walberg’s campaign committee paying for an event that is announced with an invitation bearing the seal and held in the representative’s office.
“I want to either bring some attention to this or see that Rep.-elect Walberg is investigated for this,” Mr. Weiler told Gongwer News Service.
“You will note that the invitations have been disseminated electronically by partisan political organizations at the behest of Representative-elect Walberg,” Mr. Weiler said in his letter to the ethics commit-tee. “By virtue of this fact, and that the invitations bear the disclaimer of Representative-elect Walberg’s campaign committee, it is clear that the reception is political in nature, and that Representative-elect Walberg is misusing official House resources to both promote and conduct the event.”
Joe Wicks, spokesperson for Mr. Walberg, said there was no violation because the invitation did not, in fact, contain the official U.S. House seal. “The official seal contains e pluribus unim; ours doesn’t,” he said. ------------------
House Ethics Committee doesn't like folks tiptoeing around the House seal. If it looks official enough, (and given the current anti-corruption climate)they will come down on Walberg--fine most likely.-jay
On the day that Tim Walberg joins Congress there was an interesting comment on a previous post. I do not know who this anonymous person is, but I think his/her comments are important and I am posting them for everyone to see. I would like for this person to come forward and let us know who he/she is. Maybe you can become a regular contributor.
Anonymous said...
Walberg is not only a radical right wing politician, he is also a prime example of what is wrong with politics. He drags his opponents into the mud, steps back, quotes scripture, and sneaks his way into office pandering to the radical right. Look at the issues you brought up, soc. sec., ANWR, fairtax and federal spending.
Those are main stream issues, with debates raging inside and outside of the GOP. The hell-or-highway tactics of how those issues are represented are crazy.
The President came out of left field and blindsided Congress on social security reform. No talking, just a massive reform of a program which people have been accounting for in their retirements for their entire working lives. The cost was HUGE, no plan to pay for it, the risk was uncalculated market performace, and it died a quick death. It is worth a look, but I don't trust anyone who wants to fall lock-step with that strategy as Walberg promised to do. If Rush or Hannity say it on the radio, it does not make it true.
There are some of us Republicans who believe the environment is worth saving and 4-6 months of current US oil consumption (finally ready for consumption in 10-20 years) is not worth the risk. It is called a debate, unless you are so dense as to think it can be dumbed down to a single sentence soundbite.
Fairtax? Is that what they are calling a national sales tax now? If you ever get a chance to read about that one, or better yet, get a cup of coffee with one of their supporters, do it. It is all so simple isn't it? Only a few minor details to consider. We are talking about a radical change to every single business in the country. All based on thory and economist studies, which are by their own admission, theory. At the end of the pitch, the Fairtax supporter is totally dumbfounded if you have any questions, it is soooo simple, right? Won't you sign my petition to urge your Congressman to support it?
And, finally, federal spending. What was Walberg's solution to the problem? Simple, right, end earmarks. He toed that line all the way to victory. Then, you open up the paper one day and read that he will support earmarks that are "worthy." I say liar, you might get away with "flip-flopper."
That was Walberg's campaign. Serious issues? Give 'em a soundbite. Ultra-conservative, froth-at-the-mouth, right wing issues? Talk ad nauseum about how God called you to serve in Congress to fix this messed up world.
He is focused on right wing issues and he brags he will get something accomplished. On the other 99% of topics, he is happy to recite talking points yammered out by the talking radio goons. He is shallow and the trainwreck left the station as the 110th Congress was sworn in.
The only question in my mind is who will step up to challenge him, and if no one in my party will do it, I will vote for a democrat or independant/ third party candidate.
The AP has an article out on Joe Schwarz's political future, based on a similar Battle Creek Enquirer article. Both are worth reading. I'm afraid I don't have the time to summarize them, except to note that Congressman Schwarz has a number of issues he plans to work on when Congressman-elect Walberg takes over, including stem cell research and universal healthcare.
But here's a part I do want to share, from the end of the AP article:
Other plans include teaching public policy at the University of Michigan next fall and helping U.S. Sen. John McCain in his expected bid for the presidency in 2008.
Despite support from the likes of President George W. Bush and the National Rifle Association, Schwarz lost the August primary after Walberg said he was too liberal for the district and used Schwarz's vote in favor of expanding embryonic stem cell research against him. Schwarz said he would be "foolish" to rule out running again to reclaim his House seat but said he has come to terms with the loss.
"You move on," he said. "Life is one reality after another."
... and, from the Enquirer article:
"I would be foolish to rule it out, but I certainly haven't ruled it in either," Schwarz said of a 2008 bid in the 7th Congressional District. "I've given myself at least six months to sit back and look at that situation."
I've been saying for a long time (even before Tim Walberg defeated Joe Schwarz in the primary) that MI-07 could be won by a Democrat under the right conditions, and 2006 has shown that against Tim Walberg, it's a serious pick-up opportunity. But then, I'm just one blogger. I can't speak for the entire netroots.
Then there's Michigan Liberal, whose contributors have shown considerable interest in making this seat competitive. Still, though, I can only claim that the Michigan netroots think the race could be competitive in 2008, and really only a portion of that group.
But now, as Democratic activists across the country begin looking for ways to solidify the newly-won Democratic majorities, more and more eyes are turning toward Michigan's 7th Congressional District.
Take Democraticavenger, who, at MyDD and elsewhere, has compiled a list of the top 50 targets for 2008. Can you guess which race is number 1? I'll give you a hint: it's currently held by a freshman Republican who defeated a popular moderate in a primary, holds radically conservative positions, and only won because of substantial out-of-state support. That's right-- MI-07 is the top pick-up opportunity listed!
And then there's Predictor at DailyKos. He lists the 35 closest Republican-won districts [UPDATE: My mistake-- 35 closest, both Democratic and Republican] in the country, noting that "the purpose of this Diary is more from a Statistical/Tactical Perspective for 2008." What race snuck in at number 34? Once again, MI-07.
Some might argue that two diaries is hardly an overwhelming wave of support for targeting the district, and that would be correct. But it's only a month and a half after the last election, and already, people around the country agree that the district ought to be competitive. Imagine what people will be saying when they all see Tim Walberg in action!
In 2006, the district was virtually ignored by everyone out of state until the last minute, when netroots support (and even DCCC support) might not have been enough to tip the race for Sharon Renier, with the Club for Growth already active in the district. In 2008, expect a lot more attention and a lot more support.
I had finished this post, and was about ready to hit "Publish," when I thought to myself that I should re-check one of the things I said about the August primary. I go on to the MI SOS site, and the computer freezes, and I lose everything I wrote... Such is life. So, this is take two.
Prior to starting Walberg Watch, I was involved in the movement to support Senator Russ Feingold's potential presidential bid. That all ended when Feingold announced he would not run, but I learned quite a bit and grew quite a bit as a blogger.
At the start, the movement was a loose collection of blogs with no clear message or plan. However, things began coming into focus when the very first pro-Feingold blogger-- a guy in Missouri named Dan-- wrote a piece titled "Forward With Feingold." He eloquently set the tone of our message by drawing from Wisconsin's state motto, and further helped us focus our attention on 2008. You can't win anything by refighting old battles. You've got to look forward to the next opportunity to convince voters that your candidate is the right guy for the job. Always move forward.
And so, I now look forward to 2008 here in Michigan's 7th District.
Below is a list of potential Democratic candidates to run against Tim Walberg. Some might say that it's too early to start this speculation, and those who say that would be right. Consider this a "rough draft" for the 2008 field, looking only at the names that are prominent now. A lot will change. This is just playful speculation. I'm certain that plenty of the names I list below aren't interested.
So, here are the possibilities that currently come to mind:
Previous Candidates
Sharon Renier - If she runs again in 2008, it'll be her third attempt at the office (and run total for elective office). Will she run? On Election Night, that's what it looked like she'd do, but a lot can change in two years. In my previous post on the 2006 results, one comment caught my attention:
Renier was in her 3rd run for office, raised no money and changed her position on a reproductive choice. She failed to reach out to any of the active democrats in the district and it apprears she is not a dues paying member of the democratic party. Her drop off from Granholm was consistently 1,400 - 3,000 votes, less than half of which went to Walberg. You don't show the drop-off in Washtenaw, who's western end is trending democratic. You might like her but she is not credible as a congressional candidate.
It may be true that I was a little too friendly to Renier in my look back, so I'll say this: Renier ran behind a gubernatorial candidate that was under constant attack, had atrocious fundraising, was up against a divisive far-right Republican yet still lost, and, at times, her rhetoric was as divisive as Tim Walberg's.
That said, it's not fair to say she wasn't credible. She out-performed any recent Democratic candidate for the office with a campaign which was run with a few thousand dollars and a lot of hard work. With a strong campaign apparatus, she could easily win. Is she the best choice? We'll have to see what happens.
Fred Strack - Veteran of the US Navy and Ford employee, Strack finished second in the 2006 Democratic primary. He's got a good resumé and had a good message, but (like all the Democratic candidates) was drowned out by the tough GOP primary. There's no clear indication that he'd run again, but he's certainly a possibility.
Daryl Campbell - Army veteran and Washtenaw County police officer, Campbell finished third. His campaign never really seemed to get off the ground, but some suggested he might be a "rising star" of the district.
Chuck Ream - If the far-right loves Tim Walberg, they'd hate Chuck Ream, the fourth place finisher in the 2006 primary. Scio Township trustee and supporter of legalization of marijuana, electability becomes a factor. He'd certainly provide contrast with Tim Walberg on the issues, though.
Drew Walker - Walker finished second in the 2004 primary, and did not run in 2006. However, here's his quote in a recent Jackson Citizen-Patriot article:
"The Republicans couldn't possibly have a worse candidate than Tim Walberg," said Drew Walker, D-Battle Creek, who was defeated in the 2004 7th District primary. "He's on the fringe, supporting practically every radical social issue. The tide is turning for our party."
The rumor at the time was that he was the choice of the Spade brothers in Lenawee County, which is some strong support. It was never really clear if that rumor was true, though. Is he interested in running again? I don't know. It's always a possibility.
Elected Officials
For the purposes of this list, I'm only including state representatives and state senators, and only those that have served at least one term already. There's always the possibility that a freshman like Martin Griffin might make a run, but I'd expect him and Mike Simpson to focus on re-election. There may also be more local figures-- mayors, county commissioners, etc.-- that could emerge, but I can't think of anyone now. If you can, mention 'em in the comments.
Mark Schauer - Mark Schauer was the name the Schwarz campaign used to try to scare Republican primary voters with. "Vote for Schwarz," they would say, "because Mark Schauer could beat Walberg in 2008!" State Senator Schauer represents Battle Creek and its surrounding area, the same seat (more or less) that Joe Schwarz occupied. He's certainly a rising star in the party, and is the incoming Senate minority leader (a couple more seats, and he could have been majority leader). He's term-limited out in 2010, so what are his options? Sen. Carl Levin is running for re-election in 2008, so he can't take that seat. Will he run for governor in 2010? Or how about Congress in 2008?
Or will he retire from public life? It's impossible to predict. Still, Schauer's one to watch.
________ UPDATE: From the comments:
Point of order. The Schwarz campaign did not use Schauer as a scare tactic, the GOP did. Fact is, Schauer and Schwarz work together very well. He was the Rep. and Schwarz was the Senator in Calhoun County when Schwarz was in the MI Legislature. They both respect each other and work hard together for Calhoun County and Battle Creek. They have political differences, but Schwarz would never "threaten" the voters by using Schauer's name. That's just not his style.
Maybe "scare Republican primary voters" wasn't the best way to put it... That said, John Truscott, at the time working with the Schwarz campaign, did use Schauer's name, and Schauer said he felt like a "political bogeyman". ________
Doug Spade - Incredibly popular former state representative from Lenawee County, he was the first legally blind member of the Michigan House, and would be the first such member of Congress. The rumor was that he was heavily courted in 2004, but backed out to help his brother, Dudley, win his seat after being term-limited out of office. Still, he's popular and might decide to return to public life.
If he doesn't run for Congress, watch him when current State Senator Cameron Brown is term-limited out in a few years. In an open seat, Doug could win where Dudley failed in 2002.
Dudley Spade - The other half of Lenawee County's dynamic duo, State Representative Dudley Spade now holds the seat his brother left, winning in 2004 (after a failed 2002 state Senate bid), and re-elected in 2006 by a 2 to 1 margin. He won't be term-limited out in 2008, but he might see it as a great opportunity for any ambitions he might have.
Both Spades tend to be moderates, and could easily carry Lenawee County against Tim Walberg.
Pam Byrnes - State Representative Byrnes is in the same position as Dudley Spade-- she won't be term-limited out, but could seize the opportunity to fulfill greater ambitions. She represents western Washtenaw County, an area which has been trending slightly more Democratic lately.
Fantasy Candidates
Joe Schwarz - A former member of Congress, veteran, distinguished mayor of Battle Creek and state senator, and one-time gubernatorial candidate, Schwarz has the perfect resumé. Too bad he's a Republican.
Seriously, though, Matt at Michigan Liberal suggested that Schwarz running as a Democrat wasn't outside the realm of possibility in 2004. Now, I really doubt that he'll make such a switch in 2008, but it'd make for a great race.
If Schwarz does run, it would probably be as a primary challenge to Tim Walberg, making it the third such match-up in a row, or as an independent. I know that a lot of readers of this blog were more loyal to Schwarz than to the Democratic Party, and I understand that. If he runs, though, it'll make 2008 the race to watch.
Regardless of who runs, I make this promise: this blog will not endorse any candidate prior to the primary, and is committed to supporting the Democratic nominee that challenges Congressman-elect Walberg. While I may have personal preferences in the primary, I'll try to stay impartial on this site (when the time comes, check Michigan Liberal, Capital Viewpoint, etc., for my opinions).
So, an open question for the comments: who's your pick? If you could run anyone in the 7th District against Walberg, who would it be, and why?
Subscribe to Posts [