Walberg Watch: Even Republicans trash Walberg

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Even Republicans trash Walberg

On the day that Tim Walberg joins Congress there was an interesting comment on a previous post. I do not know who this anonymous person is, but I think his/her comments are important and I am posting them for everyone to see. I would like for this person to come forward and let us know who he/she is. Maybe you can become a regular contributor.

Anonymous said...: Walberg is not only a radical right wing politician, he is also a prime example of what is wrong with politics. He drags his opponents into the mud, steps back, quotes scripture, and sneaks his way into office pandering to the radical right. Look at the issues you brought up, soc. sec., ANWR, fairtax and federal spending.

Those are main stream issues, with debates raging inside and outside of the GOP. The hell-or-highway tactics of how those issues are represented are crazy.

The President came out of left field and blindsided Congress on social security reform. No talking, just a massive reform of a program which people have been accounting for in their retirements for their entire working lives. The cost was HUGE, no plan to pay for it, the risk was uncalculated market performace, and it died a quick death. It is worth a look, but I don't trust anyone who wants to fall lock-step with that strategy as Walberg promised to do. If Rush or Hannity say it on the radio, it does not make it true.

There are some of us Republicans who believe the environment is worth saving and 4-6 months of current US oil consumption (finally ready for consumption in 10-20 years) is not worth the risk. It is called a debate, unless you are so dense as to think it can be dumbed down to a single sentence soundbite.

Fairtax? Is that what they are calling a national sales tax now? If you ever get a chance to read about that one, or better yet, get a cup of coffee with one of their supporters, do it. It is all so simple isn't it? Only a few minor details to consider. We are talking about a radical change to every single business in the country. All based on thory and economist studies, which are by their own admission, theory. At the end of the pitch, the Fairtax supporter is totally dumbfounded if you have any questions, it is soooo simple, right? Won't you sign my petition to urge your Congressman to support it?

And, finally, federal spending. What was Walberg's solution to the problem? Simple, right, end earmarks. He toed that line all the way to victory. Then, you open up the paper one day and read that he will support earmarks that are "worthy." I say liar, you might get away with "flip-flopper."

That was Walberg's campaign. Serious issues? Give 'em a soundbite. Ultra-conservative, froth-at-the-mouth, right wing issues? Talk ad nauseum about how God called you to serve in Congress to fix this messed up world.

He is focused on right wing issues and he brags he will get something accomplished. On the other 99% of topics, he is happy to recite talking points yammered out by the talking radio goons. He is shallow and the trainwreck left the station as the 110th Congress was sworn in.

The only question in my mind is who will step up to challenge him, and if no one in my party will do it, I will vote for a democrat or independant/ third party candidate.; 1:58 AM

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Tim Walberg

posted by Doug Murch # 10:50 AM

Comments:

Talk about frothing at the mouth...your hate filled rant against Tim Walberg exposes you as a bitter partisan who cares more about tearing our new congressman down than about tackling the real issues. Walberg has the same position on Social Security that Nick Smith did and that President Bush advocated...not out of left field but a widely accepted proposal to allow people to keep a small portion of their own money in private accounts. Maybe the stock market is too risky for you but I'll take my chances with it rather than allowing government to borrow my money and leave trillions of dollars in IOUs in a vault. On ANWR I guess I would rather drill for 4 to 6 months (that is a low ball estimate by the way...it is probably more like a year or more) of oil on our own territory than continue to buy it from the Saudis or Venezuelans who fund terrorists and prop up leftist dictators. You must be an accountant if you like the current tax code. Fair tax is only a proposal and at least Walberg is willing to look at it or some other tax reform. Maybe it is not perfect but something needs to be done. My whole point was that Schwarz was on the opposite side of many issues...I failed to mention abortion too...that are important to voters in the conservative 7th. Regarding earmarks Walberg has been consistent...he will not vote for pork barrel project earmarks. If the money has been appropriated he will however try to bring back our fair share to the district. This is not flip flopping it is called representation. You blowhards on this blog, moderate Republicans, Democrats, or what ever you are need to come to grips with the fact that this is a conservative district and Schwarz was a fluke 2 years ago. You can cite to me that John Kerry and Granholm carried the district all you want (Terri Lynn Land and Mike Cox won by an overwhelming margain so how do you explain that?) but that doesn't change the fact that this district leans conservative and Tim Walberg better represents our values. Come to grips with this and you will all sleep better at night.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Biff. Defend him all you want. Fact is, he's in way over his head, has no qualifications. He will be disaster for the 7th irregardless of the liberal or conservative moniker. Schwarz winning was no fluke, he was the very best candidate n both '04 and '06. It's too bad Walberg was the beneficiary of such a low voter turnout and a predatory soulmate with CFG. He won the primary with less than 8 percent of the registered voters, basically by driving people away from the polls with his brand of "integrity." If anything, Walberg's primary win was a fluke. It's people like him that have created voter apathy with his constant stream of lies and misrepresentations of Schwarz. He represents the very worst in American politics.

But what is past is past. We have all lost big time with him in Congress, but the fortunate thing is the 110th Congress will accomplish less than the 109th did and Walberg will be an irrelevant specator in the Dumb and Dumber Congresses.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 4, 2007 at 5:37 PM

FORMER SCHWARZ STAFFER FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST WALBERG

[from Gongwer News Service]
It appears U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) can expect supporters of former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz to be watching his every move. Mr. Walberg was the subject of a complaint filed this week over his use of the House seal for what the complainant argues is a campaign event.

Law student Eric Weiler of Southfield, who worked for Mr. Schwarz in 2004 and 2005 but said he was not involved with the bitter campaign this past year, filed the complaint with the U.S. House ethics panel that Mr. Walberg was improperly using both the seal and his office space for a swearing in celebration Thursday.

The problem, Mr. Weiler said, is Mr. Walberg’s campaign committee paying for an event that is announced with an invitation bearing the seal and held in the representative’s office.

“I want to either bring some attention to this or see that Rep.-elect Walberg is investigated for this,” Mr. Weiler told Gongwer News Service.

“You will note that the invitations have been disseminated electronically by partisan political organizations at the behest of Representative-elect Walberg,” Mr. Weiler said in his letter to the ethics commit-tee. “By virtue of this fact, and that the invitations bear the disclaimer of Representative-elect Walberg’s campaign committee, it is clear that the reception is political in nature, and that Representative-elect Walberg is misusing official House resources to both promote and conduct the event.”

Joe Wicks, spokesperson for Mr. Walberg, said there was no violation because the invitation did not, in fact, contain the official U.S. House seal. “The official seal contains e pluribus unim; ours doesn’t,” he said.
------------------

House Ethics Committee doesn't like folks tiptoeing around the House seal. If it looks official enough, (and given the current anti-corruption climate)they will come down on Walberg--fine most likely.-jay

# posted by

Jay : January 4, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Biff, lest take the the topic of the tax code. No one is happy with it. It is hard enough to fill out personal income taxes at times, not to mention the burden our system places on businesses. No doubt, a national sales tax would be easy to pay. 20-30 percent tacked on to every single thing you buy. I just cannot imagine how long it would take the markets to figure out proper prices to compensate. At a time when our economy is limping along, I don't see how a radical change in the tax code would be something every business owner in the ocuntry would embrace. On top of that, we now have a democrat controlled Senate and House. If we had one single tax to raise, how fast would Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid ram that bill through? And how high would that new tax rate be? Right now, the code is difficult to understand, but that means slow, incremental change which people and business can plan for. With a single national sales tax, and the abolition of every other tax, I see trouble. And, to correct you, Mr. Walberg did not say he was willing to look at it, he promised to become a co-sponsor of it. He had not even been sworn in and he knows the one-line, simple answer on the tax code.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 5, 2007 at 1:52 AM

And Biff, social security. How do you pay for it? My money goes in on pay day and the checks go out the other side to the recipients. If I don't put my share in, where do we get the money to pay grandma and grandpa? Raise taxes? Or, what do we cut?

# posted by

Anonymous : January 5, 2007 at 1:58 AM

Yo, Biff. If we don't get the terrorists figured out in the next 10-20 years, we are screwed. That national security argument is the lamest thing I have heard in that debate. We need to quit sucking up oil like it was beer and we are all drunken sailors. The supply is limited, grasping at every last drop is a bit whorish (is that a word?) and we can't even use the oil from Alaska in most of our refineries. We'd still be buying crude from the Middle East and South America. It is not about security, it is about money. Good old Teddy R. was a conservative and we need a dose of conservation here.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 5, 2007 at 2:04 AM

And, Biff, here is my last response. This one is on the flip-flop. Walberg promised he would never support an earmark. I read it plenty of times. After the election was over and he won, he "clarified" his position. I, for one, am very pleased Mr. Walberg has now promised to work the appropriation process to the benefit of his district. I do not think his base will be happy, though.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 5, 2007 at 2:14 AM

Here is a response to Jay, about the house emblem. I read that post, then I checked the first post on Walberg Watch. I saw Walberg's website link, so I clicked on it. There is an image of the emblem on the site. I cannot read the latin quote on the official site either. Maybe his spokesperson should make sure they are using only the "official" emblem on the "official" website and the knock off only when they are trying to raise money.

# posted by

Anonymous : January 5, 2007 at 2:22 AM