Swing State Project has been doing a phenomenal job of tracking spending across the country by independent groups, in addition to candidate spending. They created a chart showing the total spending and partisan leanings for every contested House race in the country. Here's the explanation:

Note that this does not include direct expenditures by party committees (like we saw the other day from the DCCC in NJ-05 & FL-18) or electioneering communications by 527's like Freedom's Crotch (the FEC's database is all but unnavigable).

We do, however, include spending by many third-party groups, not just the DCCC and NRCC. In fact, we've tracked spending by forty-six different organizations, some of which you've heard of, many of which are obscure. The list includes the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Safari Club, SEIU, the National Association of Realtors, the Michigan Republican Party and many, many more. (Scroll down to the key at the bottom for the complete list.)

And here's what they found:

District	Blue	Red	Total
MI-07	$2,209,452	$1,788,807	$3,998,259
MN-03	$2,398,106	$1,030,494	$3,428,600
CO-04	$2,450,302	$893,077	$3,343,379

That's right. We were the most-targeted district in the country for independent expenditures. Remember that this doesn't include the candidates' own spending, the DCCC or NRCC, or even many 572 groups. Wow.

And, as evidence of the excitement on the part of Democrats this year, a clear majority of that spending came in support of Mark Schauer or in opposition to Tim Walberg.

After the election, I'd like to take some time to seriously look at where the money came from on both sides. Right now, I'm just shocked by the enormity of it all.

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

I think that this is interesting. Compared to this time last year-- when there was no election-- and this time in 2006, traffic to Walberg Watch is down, but not by all that much. Why is this interesting? Well, frankly, because I've fallen down on the job and fallen behind. Life got in the way. And even so, people keep visiting Walberg Watch. Thank you, everyone, and especially to everyone that has e-mailed me over the last few weeks.

Even though I've been a little quieter, I still absolutely believe that Mark Schauer is the right man for the job, and Tim Walberg absolutely has to go.

I've simply run out of time to give everything the time it deserves, but here are some interesting last-minute items:

-----

The Michigan Republican Party put out this advertisement:



What's the problem? The photo of Mark Schauer slowly floating down the screen was stolen from a progressive blogger. According to Chris Gautz at the Citizen Patriot, two more photos were also stolen from the same blogger for use in direct mail pieces.

That's just a low move.

-----

Speaking of Chris Gautz, he'll be holding a liveblog tomorrow night following the results. I don't always agree with the conclusions he reaches, but it's worth checking out. Chris has a fun writing style and tells it as he sees it.

And besides, I'll be away from a computer until about 9:30pm, so there's a chance Walberg Watch won't have anything exciting for a while. You've got to have somewhere to go.

-----

There have been a lot of pre-Election Day "Walberg, Schauer in tight race" stories or "Candidates make final push" stories. If you're at Walberg Watch looking for more information, chances are you've already read one of them or you could write one yourself. Still, here's a small sample:

Schauer talks jobs at local visit - Daily Telegram
Candidates make final push as election nears - Jackson Citizen Patriot
Campaign for Congress down to final moments - Battle Creek Enquirer

-----

Former Congressman Nick Smith-- who served the district from 1993 to 2005-- endorsed Congressman Tim Walberg for reelection. It's not a huge surprise. His son, Brad Smith, had actually gotten the Club for Growth endorsement over Tim Walberg in 2004, and no one has ever said either Smith was anything other than conservative. I think I might also remember having seen Smith contribute to Walberg sometime in the last two years, though I'm not totally sure.

Still, it's a significant endorsement, and worth reporting.

-----

In mid-October, President George W. Bush was in Grand Rapids for a fundraising trip, and Congressman Tim Walberg was a major beneficiary.

George W. Bush was here, helping Tim Walberg.

I've got no further comment.

-----

In case you're one of the many people every day that comes to Walberg Watch following a Google search for polling on the race, Pollster.com has a handy graph that shows the polling trend of the race. Sadly, there's been very little independent, public polling.

-----

Remember to vote. Sure, you have to pay taxes and obey the laws in this country. But your right to vote makes up for all of those mild inconveniences.

Bob Schieffer of CBS News said this at the conclusion of the third presidential debate:

I'll leave you tonight with what my mother always said: Go vote now. It'll make you feel big and strong.

That's right.

If I've missed anything you think is important, leave it in the comments.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Endorsements, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

Here's Mark Schauer's "closing argument," as articulated via television advertisement:



They released the ad on October 27, 2008, meaning it'll end up running for at most a week, and will probably be the last Schauer ad they see. I think it accomplishes a lot of things.

First, starting off by panning across a large group of unemployed workers has a certain populist element in a year that I think populism is a catchy message. There's a sense that these people losing their jobs was an injustice, and that Mark Schauer is on their side-- and on your side, if the same thing happens to you.

Second, it repeats the same message Schauer has stuck to for the entire campaign: he'll fight unfair trade agreements and fight for your jobs, while Tim Walberg thinks outsourcing is okay and won't fight for you. He's not trying some last-minute stunt or desperately changing messages. The Schauer campaign is comfortable with where they're at and think that it's working.

Third, everything about the ad, from the phrasing of Schauer's script to the music in the background implies "hope," which, as Barack Obama has shown, is popular this year. Schauer won't just fight the special interests or whatever. He'll "get up every day and work hard to get people back to work." That's a nice message.

And even so, it's couched in a certain degree of pragmatism-- the "I can't promise you that I can turn our economy around overnight" part. This is still a lean-conservative and lean-Republican district, and people won't vote for a Democrat they think is making ridiculously liberal assertions and promising to fix the world. Mark Schauer is promising to work hard, and will help make things better. Not perfect, but better.

I think this is his strongest ad. But then again, I'm a biased observer. What did you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

The Walberg campaign released what may be their final television advertisement for the season. For the first time since their first television ad, it's positive.



I don't have much commentary on this one. Maybe people will believe the "It's all lies!" message, but I think people are smart enough to know that he's been running a lot of negative ads, too, and some of those aren't entirely in line with the facts. (Anyone remember the "Schauer will give our children pornography" ad?) It's a little late to play yourself up as the poor, misunderstood guy who's getting attacked from all sides.

I'm also vaguely reminded of this ad, from Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988:



We all remember the stunningly successful Dukakis Administration, right?

My point is, sometimes going on camera and saying, "They're lying about me!" comes across as whining, and doesn't sit well with people. Maybe it'll work for Tim Walberg, but it didn't do anything to help Dukakis as he dropped back in the polls.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Tim Walberg

Although it's not on Tim Walberg's rarely-updated YouTube page, on October 20, Chris Gautz brought us one of the Walberg campaign's latest television ads:



Or, the short version: "Mark Schauer is lying!"

I don't know how effective this will be. Rather than countering with actual rebuttals to Schauer's attacks, he's just issuing a blanket "He's lying!" as if that's enough. I don't know if it is.

Of course, Chris Gautz, who's quoted in the ad, notes:

At the end of the short ad, it says Walberg opposes privatizing Social Security, though he told our paper last month he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

At a recent debate in Adrian, Walberg said "I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

I guess he decided to take a position-- though, it's not the position he's held before.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

On October 19, 2008, the Schauer campaign released this television advertisement:



Following the standard pattern of negative-then-positive, I actually think this is a really good ad. Regardless of the validity of the economics behind outsourcing, almost everyone in Michigan knows someone who has a story about losing a job because the business moved operations elsewhere. And when Walberg said that outsourcing was "necessary and good," it was incredibly tone-deaf.

But by closing on a positive note-- with a hopeful message and a legitimate Mark Schauer success story, Transpharm-- it casts Schauer as the good guy, on "our side." I'm not a big fan of negative advertising, but when you squeeze in some positive messaging, their value (to me, at least) increases.

That's my take, anyway. What did you think?

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

On October 8th, 2008, the Schauer campaign released this ad:



I'll be honest, I'm not crazy about this one. Using an actor's voice to fill in for Walberg in an attack ad just seems unnecessary to me.

That said, this is an issue I've criticized Walberg on countless times, and rightly so. He's been a reliable voice for the Club for Growth in Congress (to the detriment of his constituents). And, yeah, as Eric at Michigan Liberal notes, it's absolutely fair game to use this quote.

Even so, I'd be surprised if this was the ad that resonated with voters. People care less about who contributed to whom and more about issues that affect them. A million dollars is a lot, but if you don't already know something about the Club for Growth, it's not going to mean much to you.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Club for Growth, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

On October 9th, 2008, the Walberg campaign released this television ad:



Contrasting it to their latest ad on the economy, the Schauer campaign had this to say:

It's an interesting contrast. Schauer is focusing on the economy and how the incumbent's policies and supporters are making things worse, whereas Walberg's ad focuses on... Michael Moore.

With the Congressman trailing by 10-points in our latest internal poll, it now appears that Tim Walberg has officially jumped the shark.

More seriously, though, what about the substance of the ad?

Yes, Michael Moore does support Mark Schauer, and has contributed to him. Lots of people support Schauer, and that in and of itself shouldn't be a bad thing. It's not like Schauer's been flaunting Moore's endorsement.

The tax increase attacks have been common throughout the campaign, and don't need to be addressed in this post. But the thing about giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants has been used less. Is there substance to that attack?

Well, it turns out, yes and no. Yes, because Senator Schauer was against a provision that would prevent illegal immigrants from getting drivers' licenses, and no, because on the substance of the issue, Mark Schauer was right.

Chris Gautz brings us the statement of then-state Representative Schauer when he cast his vote:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I strongly support efforts to protect Michigan and the United States, I voted no on HB 5497 (H-1) because in a rush to pass necessary anti-terrorism legislation, there will be unintended consequences that could have been avoided by taking more time with this bill. This is a package of 60 bills. This bill represents only a small piece of the overall package and is unlikely to make any positive change to our current licensing system. Furthermore, if passed with the current language, HB 5497 would place a burden on the office of the Secretary of State that they are ill-equipped to handle. In considering my vote on HB 5497, I am compelled by the testimony of the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Diocese of Kalamazoo. They say that this bill will not accomplish its intended purpose. It will not drive undocumented persons out of Michigan. They are persons with homes, jobs, and families and are making substantial contributions to our communities. Depriving them of a drivers license will just make their lives and their children's lives more difficult. It will also result in an increased threat to the safety of all our people and increased auto insurance costs. This bill will also have negative consequences for Michigan's agriculture industry. In the Diocese of Kalamazoo, there are 20,000 migrants working each year in area fields and orchards. Many of these are undocumented immigrants."

In other words, complicated problems require thoughtful solutions, not panicked moves without considering the consequences. It's easy to make bold pronouncements like, "Illegal immigrants shouldn't get drivers' licenses!" It's much harder to think through the tough situation that would create for everyone.

Mark Schauer brings with him a thoughtful point of view. Tim Walberg brings only a rigid, out-of-touch ideology.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Illegal Immigration, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

YouTube user SeventhDem uploaded this advertisement on October 10, 2008. It's from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.



I'm not going to lie, I was cringing all the way through this. It would have been fine if it wasn't for the cartoon Wall Street executives popping up all the time. Seriously, that's as bad as "Sour for Schauer." Come on, guys, you're embarrassing our side!

I think it's got the potential to be a fairly effective attack ad-- Wall Street isn't popular right now-- but it loses everything with the cartoons. Sorry, I just don't think it works.

That's my shallow take on it. What did you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, AFSCME, Issues, Taxes, Tim Walberg

YouTube user SeventhDem (a phenomenal resource) uploaded this advertisement from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 22, 2008:



Ouch. We've talked about the sales tax thing before (though it's good to see them hitting him on it again), but I think this is probably one of the most pointed ads the DCCC has released. Notably, you come away from it remembering two parts.

First, there's the man with the line, "What nut would support that?" I think the DCCC is hiring better writers-- it's certainly more memorable than "Sour on Schauer," and they only had to say it once.

But the part that really leaves a mark is the end. While they phrase it as a question, it's clear what they want you to think: Tim Walberg both doesn't get it AND doesn't care. It paints him as out-of-touch with everyday needs and unconcerned with what you're going through.

And, frankly, while the ad doesn't tell a balanced story on Walberg's sales tax, the closing of the ad is very accurate. Walberg didn't go to Washington to represent us, he went there to push a rigid, ideological agenda. The far-right conservatism he's embraced is one that doesn't have room for compassion or helping those in need-- at least, not when it comes to the federal government. Walberg doesn't realize that people are hurting, and when government is one of the tools in your toolbox, it's irresponsible not to use it.

Use it carefully, sure. But you've got to use it.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Issues, National Sales Tax, Tim Walberg

Do you remember this ad from Health Care America NOW?



On October 20, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's campaign is demanding that a television advertisement, which they called ``blatantly false,'' be pulled from the airwaves.

The advertisement was sponsored by Health Care for America Now!, an advocacy group that is made up of nonprofit and political organizations.

[...]

Walberg's campaign disseminated its attorney's letter Thursday that calls on the group to retract or correct the ad, and threatens potential legal action.

Legal action? I knew it was an effective ad, but apparently it hit a really sour note with the Walberg people.

The short version of their argument is that Walberg doesn't support letting insurance companies make the rules, but instead supports letting inter-state competition. As I said before, this doesn't let the insurance companies make the rules, but it does give them a bunch of options for which they want to follow, including giving them the option of rejecting coverage of pre-existing conditions.

As far as legal action, I'm not quite sure what action they could take and actually expect anyone to take them seriously. But they did get a response out of Health Care for America NOW. From a press release:

LANSING, MI -- Today, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) responded to Congressman Tim Walberg's threat to sue over a television ad by extending its television ad buy in Michigan and running a new print advertisement in the local weekly. HCAN is putting its hard-hitting ad – "Fighter" - back on the air in Congressman Walberg's district for three additional days and has taken out a full-page ad in the Tecumseh Herald asking "What Is Walberg Hiding?"

Last week, the Walberg campaign issued a press release announcing it intended legal action against Health Care for America Now for a television ad running in Michigan's 7^th congressional district. The ad points out Congressman Walberg's record on health care – a record that indicates he clearly stands on the side of the insurance industry, rather than on the side of quality, affordable health care for all. The Walberg campaign then released a second notice demanding a retraction.

Contrary to Rep. Walberg's allegations, the television ad is 100% true, and HCAN's new print advertisement running in the October 23^rd edition of the Tecumseh Herald spells out the proof once again.

You can see the ad they put in the Tecumseh Herald here.

I'm glad to see that Health Care for America NOW isn't letting up on this. On the substance of issues, Tim Walberg is wrong, and it has the added benefit of being bad politics.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to the reader who e-mailed me about this.)

Some regular readers of this blog and of Chris Gautz's work at the Jackson Citizen Patriot website remember this advertisement put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:



Right from the start, the ad cites an article in the Daily Telegram from 2004 in which Walberg calls Social Security "socialism." It's certainly not a good quote for Walberg-- as the ad notes, a lot of people rely on Social Security, and the negative connotation "socialism" carries is likely to offend a lot of people.

Chris Gautz was doubtful about the accuracy of the quote, mainly because, as a former employee of the Telegram, he had thought he would remember a quote that explosive. Although I probably would have read that article in 2004, my memory for these sorts of things is awful, so I deferred judgment to a later date.

But thanks to the magic of the internet and the wonders of active readers, Chris brought us the answer: Walberg did call Social Security "socialism"!

After reading for myself the full context of the quote, it would seem to lend credibility to what the DCCC was trying to say. But click below to see the portion of the article that was referenced and judge for yourself.

Here's the text of the article:

ADRIAN -- Tuesday's debate between Republicans and Democrats running for the 7th District Congressional seat allowed candidates to inform the public about their views, but led to little debate.

When a panelist asked the candidates about their views regarding Social Security reform and privatization, Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Drew Walker openly debated the subject briefly.

Walker said the privatization of Social Security in the wake of corporate scandals and unstable stock prices could lead to individuals putting their retirement savings at risk in uninsured private accounts.

"What an incredible scandal; I would certainly never take part in that," Walker said. "Social Security is one of the foundations of our society for getting older."

The question then turned to Walberg, who began by expressing his feelings about Walker's statement.

"Wow, I just heard socialism at its finest," said Walberg, a former state representative. "Oh come on, that's offensive," Walker replied.

"That's defined as socialism when the government is required to take care of all of us," said Walberg, followed by audience laughter.

So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Drew Walker, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

The fun part about living in a district with lots of national attention is that you get to learn all about political groups you'd never heard of before.

The Hill reports:

Healthcare for America Now, a union-backed liberal health reform advocacy group, is making a $4.3 million ad buy in support of Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates.

Over the next two weeks, the organization will run ads on TV and radio attacking Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and seven GOP congressional candidates for their views on healthcare.

[...]

Echoing talking points used by Obama and his campaign, the ads claim that McCain’s health reform plan would cause 20 million people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance because of changes he would make to how those benefits are taxed.

[...]

Similar ads will air in the states and districts of four incumbent Republican lawmakers: Sen. John Sununu (N.H.) and Reps. Ric Keller (Fla.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.).

[...]

On top of the multimillion-dollar advertising buy, Healthcare for America Now will spend $500,000 on direct mail and telephone campaigning.

It will be interesting to see the kind of impact they might have on the campaign. Personally, I'd like to see all candidates talk about health care more, and, to his credit, it's something Mark Schauer rarely fails to mention.

With Health Care for America NOW, all I can hope is that the "telephone campaigning" doesn't include robocalls. Please, nobody likes those.

Here's the television ad they're running against Tim Walberg:



Ouch. Maybe I'm just a receptive audience, but I'd say that it's a pretty effective ad.

The bill they mention is HR 4460, the "Health Care Choice Act of 2007," of which Tim Walberg is a cosponsor. It was introduced but never made it out of committee, and for a good reason. The bill would allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, potentially opening you up to cheaper options, should you decide to purchase health insurance on your own.

However, by allowing health insurance companies to designate a "primary" state and making them exempt from the laws of all other "secondary" states in which they sell, that would mean insurers could choose as a "primary" state somewhere that, say, doesn't have a law requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions.

The ad says it would let the insurance companies "make the rules," and that's not quite true. It's more that it would let the insurance companies pick and choose which combination of rules they want to follow. (Thanks to Wikipedia and this blog for guiding me in the right direction.)

Anyway, that's the policy behind the ad. Now, back to the politics.

In addition to the television ad, Congressman Walberg is featured on a website they launched, WhichSideAreTheyOn.com. Walberg's page, with a side-by-side comparison to Mark Schauer, leaves the reader with one clear conclusion-- Tim Walberg's not on your side. They also include a .pdf file with a good summary of Walberg's record on health care. It's certainly a must-read for anyone planning to talk with friends or relatives, and should be added to the talking points for Schauer volunteers going door-to-door.

Labels: 110th Congress, 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Not content to just fund Tim Walberg's attack ads, on October 7, 2008, the National Republican Congressional Committee released an attack ad of its own against Mark Schauer:



As the always-observant Chris Gautz points out, there's more than one side to the kicked-off-committee story:

More specifically than the ad states, Schauer was kicked off the Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee allegedly because he missed four meetings, all of which took place at locations around the state, where no voting was going to occur.

The Republican chairwoman, Sen. Michelle McManus booted Schauer, but not fellow Republican members of the committee who also missed a number of hearings.

The Democrats, and Schauer said this was a clearly partisan move, and retribution for action on the service tax.

Maybe I'm just a partisan Democrat, but I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like Senator McManus had other motives than just encouraging good attendance. But really, that line of attack strikes me as too inside-baseball to resonate with voters. When people are worried about jobs and losing their homes, "Mark Schauer is a troublemaker who got kicked off his committee" doesn't seem like it'll matter all that much to me.

You know, I can even see it going further the other way, too-- John McCain's popularity was partly from his "maverick" image, and getting kicked off your committee is one way to show your independence from the status quo. Maybe Tim Walberg should have tried harder to get kicked off of a committee...

But now I'm just getting silly. It's a creative ad, but I don't think it'll do anything other than reinforce the "largest tax increase" narrative. But if Mark Schauer's internal polling is to be believed, that's a narrative that's just not working. Schauer's taking the lead and is more trusted on taxes than Tim Walberg.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Taxes, Tim Walberg

I missed this the other day... On Septmeber 30, the Walberg folks have another attack ad:



First, can I just say, "Sour On Schauer" has to be the stupidest thing I've heard this year. Really? That's literally the best thing you can come up with? I support Mark Schauer, and I can come up with more clever ways to attack him! And what's with the lemons? Really? And the bouncing lemon animation, as if they were singing a song... but they're not singing?

Maybe I just don't get it. But really, come on! I'm all for creativity, but come on! Congressman Walberg, hire a better ad agency! These are awful!

But that's not the important part. A stupid campaign ad will be forgotten pretty quickly. Here's the important part:


Right there, "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Walberg for Congress." As far as I know, that's the first time the NRCC has helped Walberg pick up the advertising bill. It's not unusual for the party to help pay for some costs for a campaign-- staff, polling, etc.-- as long as the party gets something out of it, too. But I don't remember seeing the NRCC actually help pay for ads before.

Normally, I'd say that means Tim Walberg is running low on cash, and needs some extra help to make ends meet. The third quarter just ended, so FEC campaign finance reports should be coming out sometime in the next two weeks and we'll get a clearer picture. If the Walberg campaign can't even pay for its own advertising, they're in trouble.

But I said, "Normally, I'd say that means..." Why wouldn't I say that this time? Frankly, because the NRCC doesn't have much money either, and has a lot of contested incumbents they're trying to protect. At the end of August, the DCCC had almost $54 million on-hand, compared to $14 million for the NRCC, and the DCCC was spending about twice as much as their Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report says that the Republicans have 37 seats in danger this year, compared to just 18 for the Democrats.

That makes me think there's some other reason than Walberg being short on cash. The NRCC is spread thin enough that I'd think they'd have better things to do than help Walberg pay for a crappy ad.

I don't know, this one has me puzzled.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Tim Walberg

It's the moment we've all been waiting for... the Club for Growth is on the air:

Washington – Today, the Club for Growth PAC begins running a TV ad on Mark Schauer’s tax record in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District. The $175,000 ad buy will run on broadcast television in the Lansing market and on cable stations throughout the Seventh District.

Here's the ad:



... That's intellectually dishonest!

For instance, the poor lady who's worried about Mark Schauer raising her Social Security taxes doesn't tell you that Schauer only said he would support removing the $90,000 cap on payroll taxes. From the article they cite:

Schauer said in a conference call with reporters that he would be open to such proposals as raising the current cap on payroll taxes but would not be open to private accounts. He says private accounts would "weaken" the entire Social Security program. He said he'd be open to a "bi-partisan solution that makes adjustments to current Social Security."

Currently, only the first $90,000 you make is taxed for Social Security. That is, if you make $60,000 each year, all $60,000 is subject to the payroll tax. If you make $160,000 each year, then $90,000 is subject to the payroll tax and the other $70,000 is not. Removing that cap is generally considered a part of the solution to Social Security's long-term solvency, and the public supports it:

"Currently, people pay Social Security taxes only on the first $90,000 of their annual income. If it were necessary to keep the Social Security program paying benefits as it does now, would you favor or oppose increasing the amount of income that is subject to Social Security taxes?"

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
6/10-15/05 63 30 7

Admittedly, that's a poll from 2005-- it's the most recent one I could find. But I find it hard to believe there's been a dramatic shift since then.

I'm going to come back to some of the other tax claims some other time, I promise. My point here is just to highlight the way that the Club for Growth sometimes represents certain things differently than you or I would.

Let's remember, these are the people who trashed Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz as "a liberal" who would spend your money, kill your babies, and take away your guns. They're not very nice, and they've got a lot of money. And, of course, they've had a reliable vote in Tim Walberg.

The Schauer campaign has responded:

BATTLE CREEK—Today the extreme Washington D.C. special interest group Club for Growth began airing its first attack ad against congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek).

"Club for Growth supports unfair trade deals and wants to privatize Social Security, and after Walberg admitted he was 'bought and paid for by them,' it's not surprising that the group is so desperate to save the seat they spent $1.1 million on two years ago," said Zack Pohl, spokesman for the Schauer campaign. "At a time when our country is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Michigan can't afford two more years of the dangerous economic policies of Walberg and Club for Growth."

Background:

• According to Club for Growth's website, the group's agenda includes expanding free trade, deregulation and privatizing Social Security. [www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php]

• Walberg sticks up for those who ship our jobs overseas, and agreed that outsourcing has been "both necessary and good for the nation's economy." [Lansing State Journal, 4/27/04]

• In 2006, the Club spent $1.1 million to defeat moderate Republican Joe Schwarz and put Tim Walberg in Congress. [Club for Growth Press Release, 8/8/06; Ann Arbor News, 8/09/06]

• Walberg even admitted to the Jackson Citizen-Patriot he was "bought and paid for by them." [Jackson Citizen-Patriot, 7/23/06]

So what does this move mean?

It means that the Club for Growth thinks Tim Walberg is in trouble. They don't do incumbent protection, they go after "bad" Republicans and open seats. Spending $175,000 is probably just the beginning. Tim Walberg, despite all of the advantages of incumbency, can't win reelection on his own.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Club for Growth, Mark Schauer, Taxes, Tim Walberg

This one is titled, "Tables":



Except for the strange static in the background toward the end, I'd say that in my opinion, this is the most powerful ad of the race so far. It hits Walberg with his own words (albeit from 2004) and speaks to an issue pretty much everyone in Michigan can relate to in some way. And the personal promise from Mark Schauer at the end to "fight for your job" doesn't hurt either.

I don't have much more to say about this one. What do you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Brad Flory at the Jackson Citizen Patriot writes about fatherhood amidst the Walberg and Schauer campaigns:

Fathers rarely have a question more troubling to ask children.

"Did you get pornography from Mark Schauer?" I demanded.

The children acted confused.

"Mark Schauer wants to send you pornography on the Internet," I said. "Not cheesecake like Sarah Palin's head pasted on a Victoria's Secret bra model. Mark Schauer wants you kids to see hard-core smut!"

My son is 14, prime age for Schauer's pornfest. When I was 14, we had to hide Playboy magazines in the woods.

"Mark Schauer never gave me porn," my son insisted. I searched everywhere and it was true.

How did he miss my house?

It's very silly, yes, but it does a good job of driving home the ridiculousness of Walberg's advertisement, which actually does accuse Mark Schauer of wanting to give children pornography.

Go read the whole thing, it's worth it. The ending is also powerful:

Walberg ignored the importance of the Constitution while criticizing a campaign opponent.

The winner of this election will take an oath. He will be asked if he solemnly swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If Walberg is victorious, maybe he ought to show the same principle displayed in his campaign ad.

Maybe he ought to say "no."

Ouch.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Constitution, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

I'm not anywhere near done catching up on the news from the last two-and-a-half weeks, but the campaign steams forward today with another new television ad. This time, it's Mark Schauer who's going negative, albeit in defense of his own record.



My initial reaction to this ad was "Ouch." It's harsh, and drives home the "Tim Walberg is lying" message rather well.

I think this is a decent ad-- it responds to Walberg's attacks without actually refuting them, but that would require more than just 30 seconds. At the same time, both sides going this negative in September might turn a lot of people off by November. You have to respond, but I hope that Schauer doesn't go all negative, the way Walberg has.

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

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

For quite a while now, I've written about how Mark Schauer's campaign has been using the internet in smart and innovative ways, as well as their strong outreach program with blogs and people like me. It's really very impressive, and they decided to use the medium yet again to respond to Tim Walberg's attack ads:

Truth Squad: Walberg Attacks Schauer Record of Helping Business - Released September 11, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Jobs" (Coverage Here)



and

Truth Squad: Walberg Lies Again - Released September 17, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Children's Future" (Coverage Here)



I like the format of these videos-- the true/false message is effective (and kind of funny), and, for the most part, they refute Walberg's attacks fairly well. (In some cases, it changes the subject, refocusing on Walberg's support for a 23 percent sales tax, but it does so smoothly and plausibly. It's certainly a better segue than Walberg's pornography to taxes transition.) It's a good use of video and it offers a point-by-point response.

Next time, I think some low, ominous piano chords might fit well when refuting Walberg's claims, to make the contrast with the hopeful music at the end more clear. But that's just me nitpicking. They're good videos.

The problem is, these things don't work as television commercials. They go out over the supporter e-mail list and are seen by YouTube wanderers, but that's about it. And as of writing this, each video has between 600 and 700 views on YouTube. That's still more than double the number of views Walberg's attack ads have on YouTube (Man, they're really bad at this!), but it's nothing compared to how many will see Walberg's ads on television.

That's where you come in. If you hear someone comment on Walberg's ads, send them these videos. Make sure the people you know see the other side of the story. These won't be viral YouTube sensations, no, but they have the potential to change a few minds.

I'm guessing that we're going to see a lot more of these videos between now and November. I'll be posting them to the Schauer media page on Walberg Watch as they're released.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, National Sales Tax, Taxes, Tim Walberg

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg released his third campaign advertisement on September 17, 2008. The ad is harsh-- a mother appears on camera and tells us about the horrors of Mark Schauer. And yet, something seems odd to me about the ad:



Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this ad is trying to do to much. It ties together two attacks on Mark Schauer-- that he supposedly supports high taxes and that he supposedly supports sending pornography to children-- but those two attacks really don't fit together well. The narrative connecting them, which is that Schauer supposedly puts children's futures in jeopardy, strikes me as contrived and unnatural. The first time I watched the ad, my response was, "Huh?"

Then again, the last line sticks, and if you're not paying close attention to the whole thing, the two attacks seem effective. Unfortunately, as is often the case, Walberg's attacks have a casual relationship with reality.

The Schauer campaign released a press release in response to the part about child pornography:

"This latest attack from Tim Walberg is another boldfaced lie from a floundering candidate. Mark Schauer has repeatedly and consistently voted to protect Michigan children, including supporting bills that prevent children from being exposed to pornography. The truth is that while Walberg has done nothing to save Michigan jobs, he will say or do anything to save his own."

SCHAUER HAS A CLEAR RECORD OF PROTECTING KIDS:

• Schauer voted in favor of a six-bill package in 1999 to strengthen the Sex Offenders Registration Act to protect kids from sex predators. [RC #571-576]

• That same year, he voted in favor of a bill to allow libraries to restrict use of the internet or computers from providing obscene or sexually explicit materials to minors. [PA 37, 1999, RC #232 and #491]

• In 2000, Schauer voted to pass HB 4327 so that minors would not be able to see or have access to pornography in stores.

• In 2002, Schauer co-sponsored and voted to pass legislation to strengthen child pornography laws and increase penalties for possession of child pornography. [HB 5296 & 5297, RC #981 and #982]

• This June, Schauer co-sponsored SB 1417, a bipartisan bill that would require public schools to develop programs designed to provide grade-level-appropriate instruction on internet safety for pupils in all grade levels. [SB 1417, 2008]
BACKGROUND ON SB 117:

• An analysis provided to legislators in 1999 by the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency before a vote ever took place on the bill in question explicitly stated, "The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional and will likely be struck down if enacted into law." [SB 117, 1999]

• In 2001, the Eastern District Federal Court for Michigan found that the law violated the First Amendment, and was ruled unconstitutional.

In other words, Schauer did vote against one bill, because it was flagrantly violating our constitutional rights, and would be struck down by the courts... which it was. But Schauer has a long record of voting for laws that can actually do something to protect children.

Congressman Walberg, it takes a special kind of sleaze to accuse your opponent of wanting to send pornography to children. That's dishonest, disgusting, and just stupid.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Mark Schauer, Taxes, Tim Walberg

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

On September 14, state Senator Mark Schauer released his second television advertisement:



There are some striking similarities and even more striking differences between this ad and Congressman Walberg's second television ad. Like Walberg's ad, the important part is the personal testimonial-- one person in front of the camera, sharing his thoughts on the candidate. These tend to be effective. It's good politics to show other faces than your own.

But Walberg's second ad was an attack ad and very negative (with scary music and everything). It ended on a frightening note: "Our survival is in jeopardy if we let [Schauer raise taxes]." Schauer's ends with soft music, a message of hope, and a sense of accomplishment: "Our jobs are staying here, and we have Mark Schauer to thank for it."

I don't know which message will be more effective. Anyone who's been watching politics for the last eight years knows that fear works and motivates voters, but the last year has shown that hope works, too. I just think it's interesting.

Now that both candidates are on the air, I'd love to see some polling that asks about the effectiveness of the ads. But, sadly, pollsters don't come to me for ideas, nor do I have the money to commission polls myself.

Also interesting, though less important in terms of moving voters, was the fundraising e-mail sent out by the Schauer campaign after releasing the ad. One part of the e-mail reads:

We can't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign against me, like he did two years ago against Joe Schwarz.

Obviously, this shows that Democrats know how to use fear, too, just in a different sort of way. But I think it's also telling that Schauer is starting to invoke Joe Schwarz in these e-mails. Schwarz is every Michigan Democrat's favorite Republican, and for many good reasons, and memories of the 2006 primary are a good motivator for Schauer's donor base. But Schwarz is still a powerful influence among independents and Republicans in the district, too. I'll be interested to see how much his name is used as we move closer to November.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Fundraising, Joe Schwarz, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

This morning, Schauer for Congress sent out a fundraising e-mail that included a link to their first television ad. The timing of the ad, Schauer admits, is in part because of the attack ad released by Tim Walberg's campaign:

Walberg's latest commercial features a Jackson business owner who complains about taxes, saying "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

But what he doesn't mention is the fact that I helped create a law that exempts his tool and die company from virtually all state and local taxes. While Tim Walberg and George Bush have supported unfair trade deals that make it harder for Michigan businesses to compete, I fought to level the playing field and make us more competitive.

That's the difference in this race - I've actually worked with businesses in the district to save and create jobs. As for Tim Walberg, it's clear that the only job he cares about saving is his own.

DONATE NOW

For almost a full month now, Walberg has been spending money on TV ads in a desperate attempt to raise his weak poll numbers, which show that he's just a few points away from losing his seat. I'll admit, this is earlier than we wanted to go on their air, but I won't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign like he did against Joe Schwarz two years ago.

Here's the new ad:



What do you think? Will this help get Schauer's name out in places like Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Branch Counties? Is it an effective ad? Is it an effective response to the Walberg ad?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

This is going to get pretty nasty... From YouTube user SeventhDem:



This is Walberg's second television ad and, perhaps because of its negative tone, is not yet included on the Walberg for Congress YouTube channel. Here's the Schauer campaign response:

WALBERG ATTACK MACHINE LIES ABOUT SCHAUER RECORD OF HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES

Schauer has strong record of helping tool and die industry compete for jobs, while Walberg is making things worse

BATTLE CREEK-- Yesterday Congressman Tim Walberg's attack machine kicked into high gear with a new round of television commercials aimed at distorting Mark Schauer's record on support for local businesses. In the commercial, Mike Shirkey of Orbitform in Jackson says, "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

"Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Walberg -- tell the truth. Because of Mark Schauer's hard work and dedication to his district, an MEDC report shows that Orbitform pays virtually no state or local taxes," said B.J. Neidhardt, Campaign Manager for Schauer for Congress. "The simple truth is that Mark has fought on behalf of tool and die companies like Orbitform, which have been hit hard by the unfair trade deals that Tim Walberg and George Bush have staunchly supported."

As the Democratic Vice Chair of the Committee on Commerce and Labor, Mark Schauer was instrumental in crafting the legislation to create tool and die renaissance recovery zone in 2003 (PA 266 of 2003, RC 649), and has supported every expansion of the bill since then (RC 155'06, RC 231'08, RC 712'05).

A press release sent out by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) in December 2005 reveals that Orbitform and nine other companies in Jackson County formed the Automation & Tooling Alliance of North America to receive the tax-free tool and die renaissance recovery zone designation. According to the release, "The zones allow companies to operate free of virtually all state and local taxes for up to 15 years, thus boosting their efforts to compete in the face of global competition."

Not only did Mark help craft the legislation to create the renaissance recovery zones for tool and die companies, but he also helped secure Orbitform's renaissance status through the MEDC in 2005. That year, he also actively lobbied the Jackson City Council on behalf of Orbitform's management to approve the company's tax-free designation on June 28, 2005.

"It's not surprising that Mr. Shirkey was willing to attack Mark in a campaign ad for Tim Walberg, considering that he and his family have donated over $8,500 to Walberg's campaign," said Neidhardt. "Earlier this summer the Jackson Citizen Patriot pointed out his use of inflammatory partisan rhetoric in official company messages, so you have to consider the messenger."

Background:

- On December 12, 2005, MEDC sent out a press release announcing tool and die renaissance recovery zone status for Orbitform, exempting them from "virtually all state and local taxes." [Link]

- Nearly ¾ of Tim Walberg's 2006 primary money came from Club for Growth, a group that lists expanding free trade as one of its main goals. [Ann Arbor News, 8/9/06]

- Mike Shirkey and members of his family have donated over $8,500 to Tim Walberg's campaign. [Link]

- According to a blog post on the Jackson Citizen Patriot website, a two-minute monologue from Mr. Shirkey attacking presidential candidate Barack Obama was available on company phones earlier this summer. [Link]

- A copy of Tim Walberg's attack ad can be found on YouTube. [Link]

# # #

That's a fairly effective response to the ad and to Mike Shirkey, but at some point, the Schauer campaign will need a good response to the "deciding vote for the largest tax increase in Michigan's history" nonsense. It is nonsense, too (and hopefully I'll get a chance to write more about it), but a short, memorable response to the claim would be helpful.

I am, however, surprised by an attack ad from the Walberg campaign this early. Normally, I would think they'd save this for October, and let their buddies at Freedom's Watch do the dirty work. This makes me think that the ad is mainly a response to the EPIC-MRA poll that came out last week. Recall:

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 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%

[...]

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%

Walberg's campaign is reacting to what looks like momentum for Mark Schauer. It seems to me that they're worried, and with good reason.

And, of course, remember that Mark Schauer hasn't gone on the air yet with his television ads. Walberg has been on the air since August 6th.

UPDATE: Sometime between when I first posted this and now, the Walberg campaign put up their ad on YouTube.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, Taxes, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Advertising, DCCC, NRCC, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

This afternoon, a little after 3:00pm, I received a phone call... from Freedom's Watch. It was a robocall, repeating the same talking points from the deceptive and largely false radio ad they've been running (minus the RAND study citation).

These things are annoying, and frankly, I hope that bring out the robocalls this early in the election backfires on them. Nobody I've talked to has said that they like or appreciate these kinds of calls. At least when it's a person and when it's a campaign, you can voice your displeasure and be taken off the call list. These invade your privacy and threaten to repeat with no possible recourse.

Then, I got this press release in my inbox:

SCHAUER INVITES WALBERG TO JOIN HIM IN PLEDGE AGAINST ROBOCALLS
Congressional candidate says it's time to hang up on divisive political tactics

BATTLE CREEK—Today Congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) sent a letter inviting Congressman Tim Walberg to join him in a pledge not to make political robocalls to voters in the 7th district for the remainder of the 2008 campaign. He also asked the Congressman to agree to publicly ask third party groups not to use robocalls for the rest of the race.

"People are tired of divisive political tactics, and out of respect for the democratic process, I think we should agree to offer voters something different by not bothering them with robocalls this year," said Schauer. "With all of the challenges facing our state, businesses and workers deserve an honest and open exchange of ideas between the two of us about our respective plans for turning Michigan's economy around. I hope the Congressman will accept my challenge and agree to hang up on robocalls."

Today the independent political group Freedom's Watch began making negative robocalls in the 7th district attacking Sen. Schauer's position on domestic drilling. The calls falsely claim that Schauer opposes drilling, even though he has offered public support for responsible drilling on numerous occasions.

"To set the record straight, I support responsible domestic drilling, both onshore and off," said Schauer. "Just this week I announced legislation that is specifically intended to spur oil production in Michigan. As I have said all along, what we need is a comprehensive energy strategy that includes protecting the Great Lakes, curbing speculation, temporarily releasing a portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief at the pump, exploring safe nuclear alternatives, ending tax breaks for Big Oil, and investing in renewable energy technology to create green collar jobs in Michigan."

# # #

Thank you, Senator Schauer, for rejecting these sorts of attacks and this waste of time.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Energy, Freedom's Watch, Issues, Mark Schauer, Robocalls

Last week, I wrote about the factually inaccurate Freedom's Watch radio ad attacking Mark Schauer, and that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would be responding. You can listen to their response.


Is this a serious ad buy? I'd say so:

The committee is looking toward New York, where they scored big gains in 2006, with a small buy against Rep. Randy Kuhl; to Missouri, with a sizable $26,000 purchase in Republican Rep. Sam Graves' district; to Michigan, where Rep. Tim Walberg will be hit with the biggest buy, at almost $40,000; and even in Idaho, where cheap television rates mean the $11,000 spent against freshman Rep. Bill Sali could go a long way.

(Emphasis added.)

They're spending $175,000 across ten districts. Spending $40,000 in Michigan's 7th alone is significant. If you've heard either the Freedom's Watch ad or the DCCC ad, feel free to share what station and when in the comments.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Democratic Party, Freedom's Watch, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg