Thursday, July 26, 2007

Walberg Was For It Before He Was Against It



From the Battle Creek Enquirer:
U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg worked for months to bring more funding to W.K. Kellogg Airport, but the Tipton Republican said he was forced to vote against it.

Tuesday, the U.S. House approved $500,000 for a new runway at W.K. Kellogg Airport, a Walberg-drafted earmark contained in a $104 billion Transportation and Housing and Urban Development bill.

Wednesday, Walberg’s office sent a news release stating Walberg “secured” House approval of funding for the airport, 2712 W. Territorial Road.

The release did not include information on Walberg’s vote against the bill.

Matt Lahr, Walberg’s spokesman, said that although the congressman did not vote for the funding, “he still supported it.”

According to Lahr, Walberg joined 150 GOP members of Congress in signing a letter on May 18 promising to uphold any of President Bush’s vetoes of Democratic-drafted spending bills.
So, Walberg gets an earmark on a bill that would help Battle Creek, but when orders from the White House come in, he switches positions and votes No. The bill passed anyway, 268 to 153.

But the flip-flop isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is the part that I emphasized in the quote above-- Walberg took credit for getting an earmark he ultimately ended up opposing, and he omitted that part in his news release. He was trying to hide his real position.

The readers of the Enquirer online had some interesting thoughts on the story.

God's Machete:
This is just amazing?

No matter what he says or how he votes, everything good is his doing and everything not good isn't his doing?

This is almost too good to be true, but whatever he says I believe, because he says he is a man of God?

Thank you Tim, it is so nice to have someone to thank.
DSMi:
Is this anything like the big Bush blast on Dem's voting for it before voting against it ? The Michigan flipflopper from the land of flipflop haters? OMG how funny.
Remember that slogan Boots or FlipFlops that graced the billboards? Who knew it would come back to bite them in the butt?


"Standing with 150 others that swore an oath promising to uphold any of President Bush’s vetoes of Democratic-drafted spending bills. "

Are these adults we've sent to do our legislative duties or a club of kids playing following the leader. This certainly puts the seal of approval of truth to the Bush agenda to lockstep the GOP to make the Dems look bad.

Poor Walberg, a one termer with recall looming. How funny
bccurmudgeon:
Let me see if I've got this straight.

Three years ago Joe Schwarz put everything he had into saving the ANG base at the airport in Battle Creek, thereby assuring local jobs and increased economic activity in the community.

Now, Walberg votes AGAINST funding coming into this district to enhance the same airport? But says he "supports it?"

My mama always taught me that it isn't what you SAY that's important, it's what you DO.

Further words (that would not get me removed from this forum) completely fail me.

UPDATE: The Enquirer has more today:

Ed Sarpolus, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Lansing-based political research and consulting firm, said sending a press release on the bill's success — without disclosing how Walberg voted — is a case of "trying to have his cake and eat it, too."

"Like many conservatives, Walberg knows that he has to spend, spend, spend to get reelected," said Sarpolus. "Even if they vote differently; even if that means telling the public a white lie."

Now, when are we going to see a Republican primary challenge?

Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
I don't know about you but I love the phrase 'One Term Tim".

Lol.
 
"the Tipton Republican said he was forced to vote against it."

I for one don't want a Congressman who is forced to do anything other than what is in the best interest of his district. Walberg is a two-faced charlatan who has no business being in public office and the sooner he's removed from power the better.

He is completely beholden to party politcs and special interests. We can do much, much better and we will!

This is simply a slap in the face to the Western half of his district and to Battle Creek, which he cares little about.
 
I wish someone in the mainstream media, like Ed Sarpolus, would have the balls to tell it like it is. Walberg is not spreading white lies, HE IS A LIAR. In private conversation, I call him a @#%@!$* LIAR...

He promised to never support an earmark. He did. It is public record. He and his handlers will tell you different, but that is a lie.

Now he is supporting earmarks, then voting against them, but still supporting them. That is not only intelectually dishonest, it is a stupid, inefficient use of his and our time.

He really does think we are all morons who will listen (and believe) everything he tells us and that we will follow him anywhere.

We are the feeble-minded flock and he is the shepherd. The sheep are screwed...
 
"One Term Tim" is now officially on record voting against something he specifically asked for after he said he never said he promised he would never support.

Earkmarks can be tricky, huh? Things were so much easier when the Club for Growth was paying all the bills and Walberg's position on earmarks was, "NEVER, NEVER, NEVER."
 
Did anyone notice Walberg had an amendment added to the transportation bill which passed by voice vote? (Voice vote is when no one opposes the action and they don't record votes, they just pass it by all saying aye.)

Walberg recalled the anti-affirmative action vote we had in Michigan last fall when he described the amendment:

"Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to pose an important question to this House, and that question is this: Do we really need race, ethnic or gender-based preferences for roads?

Today I am offering an amendment to the transportation bill we are currently debating that would stipulate no funding in this bill may be used by the Department of Transportation to discriminate based on race, ethnicity or sex...

...Last fall in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State constitution to outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose any and all forms of discrimination. But I also support nondiscrimination, the practice or policy of refraining from discrimination.

My support of nondiscrimination compels me to state on this floor that every American deserves equal treatment when competing for business contracts, and our Federal Government should treat all applicants for such contracts on an equal basis. The Federal Government should never view any American as part of a group, but rather look at them as an individual. By granting the Department of Transportation the ability to discriminate based on race or sex, this House would essentially create affirmative action preferences for our Nation's highways.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that all American businesses competing for public works projects are given a fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity."

Nice quote, huh?

This is what the democrat who was controlling their side of the debate said:

"Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it has a really nefarious purpose. We do have rules and regulations, I think, that might come under the material of the legislation that support and require certain set-asides for minority or women-owned businesses in providing among all of our contracting in transportation departments, in some of those departments, and under certain circumstances. I think those are entirely appropriate.

I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown effects. Perhaps I should have asked the gentleman whether he had particular things in mind that he knew about because I couldn't at first think of any.

Mr. Chairman, my chairman says I should accept the amendment, and I am going to accept the amendment."

That simple, huh? No opposition? Walberg walks away thinking he scored a major victory, but does anyone understand what that amendment affected? It seems like the democrat in charge of opposing the amendment could not even figure it out. I think Waberg might have just catapulted himself onto the national stage with the help of the democrat leadership.

Is that a good thing for us?
 
Legislators who sign pledges abdicating thier ability to cafefully consider each piece of legislation and its impact on their constituents are lazy and stupid. I don't care what the peldge is: you should never sign away your ability to consider each proposal individually. People who sign pledges don't want to think and they do not want to take responsibility for their actions. ("The pledge made me do it.")

You could train a rat to vote a "no tax" or Club for Growth or Right to Life agenda. At least a rat would not have the ability to manipulate the truth into a series of self-serving lies.
 
"Now, when are we going to see a Republican primary challenge?"

Fitzy... Are you serious? Walberg worked the republican system as coldly and calculatingly as anyone in recent history (Rove-like in my honest opinion.)

He won, both primary and general, the 7th district in a year where democrats held onto the governorship and beat two incumbent state house members in the heart of the district (Jackson... birthplace of the GOP...)

He managed to eke out two victories by playing to the base, capturing the "moral" high ground on bread and butter republican issues. Who in their right mind would challenge him? Why would any sane republican subject themselves to gutter tactics that Walberg has proven are winning strategies when dealing with republican primary voters?

Who could possibly out-conservative King Walberg? He proved it by laying in the grass for a year, waiting for the opportuinty to pounce on Schwarz. Walberg could not pull off a win in a field of 6 candidates-- he could not gain the institutional support nor the votes, but he waited. Then he let loose a relentless smear campaign on the incumbent and stole the win. He would have done the same thing to any of the other 4 candidates.

Again, who is crazy enough to challenge him on his own turf? And, more to the point, how many sane republicans did Walberg drive from that party?

How many people, moderate people, with an ear for reasoned debate and civil dialogue, did Walberg purge from the ranks?

This man is doing more for the democratic party than any activist, candidate, office holder or issue could do to bring the average voter into the fold.

He promised to challenge the status quo in Washington, but he seems to be perpetuating that culture by misdirecting, double-talking, and generally lying to us about our federal government.

"Forced to vote against it"??? What higher power is there than the representative of the people? Who is he beholden to? Club for Growth? Bush? Who "forced" him to vote and how often does that voice weigh in when he pulls the lever on behalf of the 7th district?

One side of his mouth says the airport funding is vital to the economy of Battle Creek, one side of his mouth says spending is out of control, ANOTHER side of his mouth says he "secured" funds, a forth side of his mouth says he "still supported it" but his hand --the only physical means we as citizens of the 7th district have to affect matters pertaining to the federal government-- his hand told us to get bent. "Bite me, neighbors..." "I promised Dubya I'd help him."
 
Don't overestimate his primary win. Schwarz voters failed to come to the polls and he won by default. There was less than 17 percent turnout and he won it narrowly with just over 8 percent of the votes, hardly a mandate. He, more than anyone dumbed down the process and alienated and turned off voters.

I think if Schwarz runs again the numbers will be much, much different and Schwarz will have enough ammo to defeat him on his abysmal record--only if the lazy GOP voters get off their collective butts and go to the polls this time.
 
I wonder how many GOP voters there really are any more. Has anyone looked at the primary turnout trend here in the counties of the 7th district?

I think Schwarz two elections ago was a glimmer of hope that republicans could be slightly open-minded about issues, but then he was bounced from office. I think this recent primary election says more about the district's conservative voters than it said about Schwarz.

With a robot Congressman, programmed by the Club for Growth and the Bush Administration, I think the seat is even more ripe for a change.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

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