Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Tim Walberg already under attack

In an article that was posted at, Ken Thomas of The Associated Press writes about Tim. Walberg is trying to associate himself with Ronald Reagan.
Tim Walberg considers himself a Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan: a believer in limited government, low taxes and conservative values.

In his opinion, the late president wouldn't be too pleased with Republicans lately.

You are so right Tim. Reagan would never approve of the Schiavo vote or Republicans stand on Stem Cells. I wonder if Nancy Reagan approves of Walberg using her late husbands name when he would never support one of her top issues, Stem Cell research.

This comment is interesting.
I think you're going to see a resurgence of those issues that Tim talked about in the campaign," said Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, a conservative group.

She said one advantage of being in the minority is that "you're more able to shout the loudest about your beliefs because you're not burdened with governing."

As a constituent I sure am glad that I have a Representative who is, not burdened with governing. Tim you go right ahead and shout your beliefs. As a freshman in the minority, no one will hear you.

This is what he plans to do,
Walberg said he hopes to spur Democrats to make changes to legislation that will be more favorable to conservatives. And part of the approach involves engaging conservatives across the country, taking a cue from Reagan.
No Democrat will talk to you unless you are going to vote with them and that is not going to happen. Mr. Walberg in case you are not aware there is a huge difference in the power of a president and that of a freshman Congressman. I'm sure the Republican leadership, who all supported Schwarz, will appreciate you coming in and telling them what to do.

Bring on 2008


Nice piece, Doug. Did you see the article in today's LSJ on Walberg?

We need to keep a very close eye on all these congresscriters.
Nice, can't wait to hear this chickenhawk talk about the war.
Walberg is by no means a radical right winger...anymore than Schwarz was a radical left winger. In reality he is right of center...Schwarz was a moderate. As much as you blowhards don't like to admit it Michigan's 7th is a conservative district and Tim Walberg better represents his constituents values. We all know full well that issues of gay marriage and abortion aren't going be resolved in the US House so why do you all get so bent out of shape by his positions...he's a preacher for God's sake, I wouldn't expect him to take any other stance. He is indeed a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Schwarz was on the opposite side of many issues that were important to voters...Social Security, ANWR, Fair Tax, federal spending, etc, etc. His election in 04 was a fluke and now, like it was with Nick Smith, the district has returned a solid conservative to DC.
If the 7th is so conservative why did we vote for Granholm? We know the Republicans who vote in the primary are very conservative. What we will see is if I am correct that the district is moving Democratic. You can see the numbers on the previous post.
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.
Walberg, Walberg Über Alles!
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