On the same day that "Freedom's Watch" released a radio ad attacking Mark Schauer on energy policy, Congressman Tim Walberg released a television ad touting his own energy "plan":



First, I think Tim Walberg is the first person I've ever seen wear an orange polo shirt while riding a motorcycle. I don't have anything against motorcycles, I just feel like if you're going to do it, especially on television, you should have a little style! It just looks as awkward as, say, John Kerry hunting.

Besides that silliness, it's an ad that plays to the base while trying to come across as moderate. It's pretty light on content, but hey, that's a television ad.

The big question is about timing. It's a logical time to release an ad-- right after the Democratic primary, to frame himself early before the general election coverage heats up. But it coincides exactly with the release of the "Freedom's Watch" ad and deals with the same subject. Energy is a big issue and the release of both ads makes sense. Even so, it's a little suspicious.

The Walberg for Congress campaign and the "Freedom's Watch" group are not allowed to coordinate their message and spending like that. It's illegal, and it's something that Walberg has been accused of in the past. Joe Schwarz filed an FEC complaint against Tim Walberg for doing exactly that with the Club for Growth in 2006:

The FEC complaint contends the Club for Growth coordinated expenditures from its political action committee and 527 organization, listing common political strategists and pollsters who were paid by the Club for Growth, Walberg and three other campaigns: Senate candidate Steve Laffey in Rhode Island, and congressional candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Bill Sali in Idaho.

And "Freedom's Watch" isn't exactly clear of such accusations, either. During a special election in Louisiana this year, the group aired an ad whose script appeared to be written by the NRCC. That was called an "innocent mistake," but, if actually written by the NRCC, is absolutely illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone has broken the law. I'm saying that this is something to watch closely as both Walberg and "Freedom's Watch" release more ads.

Labels: Advertising, Energy, Ethics, Freedom's Watch, Oil, Tim Walberg

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

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

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

This raises two obvious questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's what it comes down to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: Ethics, Journalism, Susan Demas

"Politicians are all corrupt." It's a common complaint, and, sadly, often true. And, even more sadly, the final check on that corruption-- elections-- isn't always enough, because the voters won't know what their representative is up to if he or she hasn't been investigated.

When you have people like Congressman Don Young (under investigation for bribery), Congressman Rick Renzi (indicted on 35 counts), and the unfortunately-named Congressman John Doolittle (under investigation, as is his wife), let alone Congressman William Jefferson (who, infamously, was caught with $90,000 in a freezer), it's pretty clear that scrutiny is necessary to make sure these folks work for the public interest.

Wouldn't it be great if there were some impartial office watching all of them? Say, a board of six people, none of whom are members of Congress and none of whom are lobbyists or work for the government. Three could be appointed by the Speaker of the House and three could be appointed by the Minority Leader.

But, you don't want to give them too much power, or else you end up with people like Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, who was charged with investigating one thing and, finding nothing, led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton on something entirely different. So, what if this hypothetical ethics office were limited to a 30-day investigation, at the end of which they have a choice: drop the investigation, or take it to the next level, which will eventually lead to a recommendation of subpoenas.

This was not Fitzy merely musing on the type of government oversight I wish we had. Instead, it was the essence of H. Res. 1031, which the House of Representatives considered on March 10, 2008. The bill would create an Office of Congressional Ethics, which I have described above.

H. Res. 1031 passed, by a vote of 229 to 182.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

You know, to me, this one seemed like a no-brainer. Apparently some members of Congress don't like the idea of accountability. Apparently Tim Walberg is one of them.

Labels: 110th Congress, Ethics, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

(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.

Contribute to ActBlue's General Election Fund.

(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.)

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Ethics, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

UPDATE: Oops! Didn't notice that Doug had already posted on Title IV below... Great minds think alike?

The first two days of the new Congress had little to do with governing the country, but were very important when it came to ethics and transparency in House activities. How did Congressman Walberg vote?

(Note: I'm not going to keep a record of every vote Walberg casts for the next two years. Many procedural votes-- like his first vote, in which every member votes "Present"-- aren't important enough to waste your time with. However, the votes on rules this week, while perhaps a little dull, are important reforms in the House).

- As would be expected, Congressman Walberg voted for John Boehner (R) for Speaker of the House. The vote followed party lines exactly, and Nancy Pelosi (D) won the election.

- Title II of HR 6: Walberg votes Yes. This bans all gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists and prohibits former members of the House from lobbying current members. Passed 430-1 (the only "no" was Dan Burton, R-IN).

- Title III of HR 6: Walberg votes Yes. This sets all voting periods at 15 minutes in length (a problem under the Republicans) and granted minority rights for conference reports. Passed 430-0.

- Title IV of HR 6: Walberg votes No. Now, for some of the controversial changes. For this description, I'll quote the US House Digest:

This one is a biggy. Two significant things were changed in this Title. First, the House agreed to publicly identify earmarks, or special-interest money and tax breaks often secretly inserted into legislation. This change makes it likely that we will see less and less pet projects. Or, at least, less than the near 10,000 in the 2006 budget. This won praise from even some Republican members, who were disappointed at their leadership’s inability to control government spending while they were in power.

Democrats had “more guts than we did to tackle earmark reform in a meaningful way,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) [Wiki].

Second, the House re-instated the “pay-as-you-go” rule. Basically, what PAYGO does is stop new tax cuts or new spending on “entitlement” programs unless those policy changes were paid for through tax hikes or other spending cuts. Therefore, if Congress wants to spend more, it has to raise taxes. If it wants to cut taxes, it has to cut spending. The PAYGO restrictions were a big part of how the U.S. got to a balanced budget in the 1990s. Alot of Republicans went along with this, so it passed 280-152.

To me, this seems like the sort of thing a "conservative" concerned about overspending would have supported. If earmarks are as awful as they are, why not have it publicly known who is inserting them into legislation? And why not have a little fiscal responsibility for a change with the PAYGO rules? Still, despite Walberg's No vote, it Passed 280-152.

- Title V of HR 6: Walberg votes No. Again, I turn to the US House Digest:

This was the Title for all the different rules Democrats wanted to make, but without really knowing how to classify them. The first section gives the minority more rights in deposing witnesses subpenoaed before a committee. The following two sections were technical changes to administrative positions, like the Director of National Intellegence. The following five sections to that, however, stirred up some debate on the floor. After pledging to reverse the Republican tradition of shutting the minority out of the legislative process, Democrats passed a set of exceptions for their priorities: the 9/11 commission recommendations, stem cell research, the minimum wage and prescription drugs. Democrats claimed the legislation they intend to present has already been discussed, and sometimes already voted on. Republicans replied that new members (of which there are more than usual) have not gotten the chance to have their voices heard. The remaining sections made some more technical changes, including banning lobbyists from entering the House gym. Every Republican was against this, but, as they will learn in their time as the minority party, they can have a rock solid caucus and still lose the vote. It passed 232-200, with three members not voting.

Yep, that's right-- Walberg voted against kicking lobbyists out of the House gym. The exceptions the Democrats passed are all part of their 100 Hours program, the idea being that they would give Republicans some of the minority rights that the GOP had denied Democrats after they had followed through on many of their campaign promises. Passed 232-200.

So, after two days in the House of Representatives, how has Walberg done?

Labels: 110th Congress, Ethics, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

A few news articles for your reading pleasure as we begin the 110th.

2008!

From the Jackson Citizen-Patriot, a few items of note:

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.