Thursday, January 18, 2007

Energy Bill - Walberg Votes No

In the final vote of the Democrats' 100 Hours promises prior to the election, the House of Representatives considered HR 6, the "CLEAN Energy Act of 2007" (as a side note-- I had previously complained about the national sales tax proposal being named the "FairTax," but it's not just Republican proposal names that bother me. "CLEAN" sounds great, but it should have a simple, descriptive, and neutral title. But, such is politics...) For a good explanation of what each portion of the bill would do, see the US House Digest description here, news coverage here, or the bill itself.

In short, the bill reduces oil industry subsidies (Steny Hoyer, D-MD says: "The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that.") and seeks to fix an error that allowed oil companies to keep over $1 billion in royalties that would otherwise have gone to the government. It passed the House, 264-163.

Tim Walberg voted No. This time, 36 Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, while 4 Democrats voted against it. Among those joining the Democrats were Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers (MI-03), Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), and Candice Miller (MI-10). Joining Walberg in opposition were the remaining Michigan Republicans, Peter Hoekstra (MI-02), Dave Camp (MI-04), Fred Upton (MI-06), Mike Rogers (MI-08), and Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11).

Labels: , , , ,

What would be the argument against this bill? And how many Club for Growth members donated to Walberg? Can't wait to see the opensecrets site on this.
In answer to an earlier post by Biff, Walberg won with 49.9% of the vote, not well over 50. He is one of seven vulnerable House Republicans not to win a majority of votes, as Congressional Quarterly/The New York Times noted today:
Keep counting - Walberg votes nay to stem cell research, energy bill, support for the war. How much longer can he continue to represent us without facing a recall?
I'm pleased that Tim Walberg voted NO on many of bills in the Democrats first 100 hour agenda. I think he represents me and many other reasonable people in the 7th district well. While on the surface many of these Democrat bills seem reasonable in actuality they were full of garbage. That must be why Nancy Pelosi refused to let the approriate committees review the legislation before bringing it to the House floor. For example the minimum wage increase included an exemption for American Samoa that directly benefited the Starkist Tuna/Delmonte Company based in Pelosi's San Fransico district. What hipocrisy! As for the energy bill, it is simply a shift just like the prescription drug price negotiation bill. Oil companies will pass along the extra costs to us at the pump just like pharmaceutical companies will pass the cost of discount drugs for seniors along to younger people. Walberg did vote for the student loan interest rate cut and the ethics bill but you don't mention that. You also don't mention that Walberg joined every other member in the Michigan delegation in co-sponsoring the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act which would allow Michigan to regulate the importation of solid waste from Canada. He is not a radical right winger as you imply but simply a politician with whom you disagree on some issues. You don't hear me calling for Levin or Stabenow's recall for their opposition to the war or support of windfall profit taxes on oil companies or stem cell research. That would be absurd. We can be critical of positions without getting bitterly partisan and downright nasty as seems to be the trend on this obscure blog. I see it is moving down in the rankings on Google as the Walberg Web site is now up and running at Why don't you post a hit counter so we can see how few people actual care about your hate filled rants. I don't know why I even bother looking at and responding to this rubbish.

For starters, if it's such an obscure blog of little consequence, why do you hang around here so much? I don't mind, I enjoy hearing other opinions. I'm just curious.

When I started this blog in August, I never wanted it to dominate the internet, or rank higher than the official website of a United States Congressman. That would be delusional and absurd. I wanted to put something together that could build resources to defeat Tim Walberg and, failing in that, hold him accountable.

Now, I'm not entirely clear on whether or not you're upset with the blog as a whole or with some of the comments. To the best of my knowledge, most actual posts are fairly civil in their tone, and I refuse to delete comments except in extreme circumstances.

But it's bad form for you to complain about "bitterly partisan" comments, as you're posting conservative rants on a Democratic-leaning blog. I try to keep things as open as possible, allowing comments from those that despise Walberg and those that love him, including yourself.

I'm just sayin', it's politics, there are going to be people you disagree with, and for every "downright nasty" thing you read here, I'll gladly link to Melanie Morgan and others advocating hate and violence on talk radio. (Here, for instance.)

Feel free to make actual criticism, but complaining about bias and partisanship on a political blog? Sorry, that's just a little silly.

Oh, and on the bottom of the right sidebar, there's a Sitemeter box. Click it, and you'll see the hit count. An average of 56 hits per day right now, but that goes up and down. It's not much, but it's something.
56 hits...WOW that's probably only 5 or 6 people looking at a couple of pages a few times a day. You're right fitzy I don't know why I bother reading and posting here. I just felt like setting the record straight of a few of these misguided postings. I'll leave the few of you on here to make you wacky rants back and forth to yourselves and find something more useful to do with my time. Just a word of advice...if you really do want to defeat Tim Walberg don't be so kooky and out there on the left wing fringe. Stick to the issues and if people truely agree with you you'll win. However I'm confident and thankful that reasonable people in the 7th don't agree your ilk.
Just my two cents on this conversation. I am a republican who finds this website very interesting. I think if the dems are going to take the seat, they will need a well-known, moderate candidate like Mark Schauer or Doug Spade to step up. I will gladly vote for a moderate dem over Walberg. I also hope those of us republicans who do not think the radical religious fanatics should be controlling our party are able to find some common ground here and learn a bit about our current Congressman. I hope I have a common-sense choice in the next primary, whomever steps up to the plate (first choice is Joe Schwarz.)

I believe Walberg is radical and exclusively concerned with controlling our lives in social settings. I think he has very little interest in many of the issues which I feel the government should be involved in. His "no" votes are an indication that he is going to use the same strategy he did as a state rep. Specifically, taking vacations when he should be making important committee decisions, collecting a paycheck and not doing the homework, refusing to meet with organizations which don't agree with his pre-conceived opinions... Walberg has a core moral code which does not coincide with mainstream people. It involves very conservative, very radical social mores which are found in some extreme branches of protestant Christianity. I believe most people are unaware of these extreme views of his and I think most people would be shocked to see how he uses religion as a political tool.

I actually agree with Biff that most of these bills are being rammed through a dem controlled House to score political points. They are not being run through committees which is a shame. The sad thing is they are simply a response to how the GOP treated the minority over the past several sessions. The dems had an opportunity to break the pattern, but instead Pelosi is proving she can stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Delay and Boehner. She should not be proud of that and it is going to hurt a democrat here in this district and actually help Walberg. He is a shrewed political mind, with little (check that: nearly nothing) to show for it in accomplishments from his 16 years in the state House. He will blame democrats for his inneffectivness and if we don't continue to work on this website, he will be re-elected with his electorate asleep at the wheel.

Simply put, Biff, if you already know Tim Walberg is going to get your vote in the next primary and general, this site is not for you. If you are a thinker, and you pride yourself on examining the performance of your Congressional representation, you might want to keep an eye on us. We are just getting started.
Couldn't agree more. Walberg is a dangerous, scarry individual who should never have been elected to office. He is patently two-faced, what he campaigned on and what he does are polar opposites. America is at a crossroad and we put the wrong person in office. He has no economic sense, just ask ANY economic development person in the district. He cares nothing about anything West of 127, especially Battle Creek, doubt he will ever do anything there. Battle Creek has a lot to lose. Jackson isn't very warm to him either. Those are the two largest cities in the 7th! I just hope a reasonable candidate emerges from either party who is smarter and more interested in the district and real issues of the day. Walberg is simply a false prophet.
The last 2 comments were excellent and "right on the mark."
If only we could re-draw the district boundries to include Hell, Michigan, we could be pretty sure Rep/Pastor Walberg would go to Hell.
There are so many of us "anonymi" that it's hard to keep us straight but one of the comments from the 3:51 p.m. anonymous said:

He (Walberg) is patently two-faced, what he campaigned on and what he does are polar opposites.

Actually, I attended the debate between Renier and Walberg and there was no doubt in my mind how he would vote in the House. He SAID he'd be against stem-cell, against raising taxes, against Roe v Wade, against an energy bill but for the war and in short, supporting just about everything this administration stands for. I can't remember an instance when he didn't tell us exactly where he stood. And for those very reasons, he should never have been put into office.

I repeat (from a previous forum post), had Schwarz wanted to really pull a pay-back on Tim, he could have supported Sharon. I think he even hinted at the possibility. But he let his ego get in the way by allowing--maybe even encouraging the last-minute write-in voter campaign. If he would have verbally said no, he didn't want his supporters to participate in a futile endeavor, Tim would not be in D.C. as we speak.

Having said that, I was a bit disarmed at some of Sharon's responses during the debate. It was obvious she is not a "smooth talker" but she told it the only way she knew how. Would additional experience on the campaign trail have helped her get the point across without engaging in some sort of rant or making accusations without complete substantiation? I don't know, but I can tell you that I agreed with almost every issue that she stood for. She spoke for me. If she had won, I'm certain she would have had to be taken down a notch or two but there's no doubt in my mind that she would have spoken her piece and everyone wouldn't have to guess where she stood on an issue. I like that in a politician--or anyone, for that matter.
"He (Walberg) is patently two-faced, what he campaigned on and what he does are polar opposites."

The thought behind that is that he campaigned as a fiscal conservative then his first piece of legislation is a 23% tax hike. That's pretty two-faced to me. He's not what he appears to be and he's no conservative judging from this.

He lied about Schwarz, we shouldn't be suprised when he lies about other things too.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008