1. Eighty-five percent of his campaign funding came from plutocrats outside Michigan and from organizaitons which have no vested interest in this district. He is only accountable to fat-cats and his handlers in DC, not constituents.

2. He fails, or will fail, to represent anyone West of 127.

3. The economic development community is diametrically opposed to him. He did nothing while in the Michigan House. He knows little about economic issues and votes no on things he doesn't understand and comprehend. That translates to more missed opportunities.

4. He will not bring back funds, because "earmarks" are wrong. Michigan will continue to be a "donor state." (Think about that while driving on I-94!).

5. He supports a 23% sales tax.

I could go on, but it would be redundant.
 

1) a waterboy for Shrub
2) pro-life
3) political decisions determined by religious beliefs
4) homophobic
5) supports the Iraq war
 

In regards to the above post here is the definition of a plutocrat. First time I heard this, I had to look it up.

So in case you are wondering--

Plutocrat, member of a plutocracy.

noun
someone who exercises power by virtue of wealth

plu·toc·ra·cy
(plōō-tŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies

Government by the wealthy.

A wealthy class that controls a government.

A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
 

Heh. This could be a fun thread, if more people would post.

Here are a few of the reasons why I oppose Tim Walberg, and why I started this blog.

1. Walberg viciously attacked and defeated Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary. I disagree with Schwarz on a lot, but he's a decent man and was as good a representative as any Republican could be for this district. And as a liberal, he certainly wasn't one.

2. Walberg's use of the word "liberal." I'm proud of my left-leaning beliefs, and honestly feel that liberal and progressive ideas can help the country move forward. He makes me sound like the enemy.

3. He uses faith-- my Christian faith-- for political purposes. He should talk about government, not God. An "intentional ministry" isn't what the Founding Fathers intended. And his vision of Christianity as all about abortion and homosexuality isn't what I read in the Bible.

4. Instead of a complaint, a challenge: Walberg supporters, when has he ever stood up for "the little guy"? When has he ever voted against wealthy interests in order to help working-class constituents?

5. When is he going to offer his own, new ideas? So far, he's only promised to support President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, latched onto Grover Norquist's/the Club for Growth's economic policies, and reminded us that he supports defending civil liberties, except for things like reproductive rights and marriage rights.

I want a member of Congress who will lead with new, original thinking and honest debate of the issues. Tim Walberg isn't the guy.
 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7713549

Today on NPR's "Fresh Air" they interviewed the author of the book "The Jesus Machine." He has followed and documented the rise of James Dobson who was one of Walberg's allies. I heard part of it in my car today, but the above link and audio is very enlightening and worth listening to. Dobson is the annointed King of theocrats today.