The FEC reports are starting to show up, but I haven't got a lot of time right now. So, here's a couple of paragraphs from an AP article:

State Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, has overtaken Walberg in fundraising in the south-central Michigan district. Schauer reported collecting more than $350,000 during the last three months of 2007 and ended the quarter with more than $500,000 in his account.

Walberg, a freshman congressman from Tipton, reported raising about $151,000 during the same span and ended the period with about $438,000 in his account. It was the second straight quarter in which Schauer outraised the incumbent.

Asked about Schauer's fundraising totals, Walberg's chief of staff, Joe Wicks, said the congressman was focused on a legislative agenda "to protect the Great Lakes, improve health care and create jobs and opportunity for south-central Michigan."

Walberg was endorsed last week by the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group which injected more than $1 million into the 2006 primary pitting Walberg against then-Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Battle Creek.

So, Schauer beat Walberg in fundraising by a margin of about $200,000. That's incredible.

I have a lot more to say about this and other topics. Hopefully I'll get a chance this weekend.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Tim Walberg

I'll post the FEC summary as always when it's available, probably in the next couple of days. Still no news about Congressman Walberg's fundraising for the fourth quarter of 2007.

I got this in an e-mail a few hours ago:

SCHAUER SHATTERS RECORD FOR FUNDRAISING BY A DEMOCRAT IN MICHIGAN'S 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Consistently strong fundraising, broad support show powerful momentum in Congressional bid

BATTLE CREEK-State Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) announced today that in its first full quarter of fundraising his campaign has raised more than $350,000. Combined with the last quarter when he outraised his incumbent opponent, he has raised more than $575,000 and has more than $500,000 cash on hand. The record-breaking amount is already more than any Democratic candidate has raised for their entire campaign in previous cycles for this district.

"The people of Michigan's 7^th District deserve a voice in Washington to fight for their jobs, their families, their future," said Schauer. "Their overwhelming support this early in the campaign demonstrates that they are tired of the same old business-as-usual approach. We're going to use these resources to carry our message of change and opportunity across south central Michigan."

In this quarter alone the campaign collected more than 680 total contributions, with 93 percent of individual contributions from donors in Michigan.

"The extreme Club for Growth special interest group that bought and paid for Walberg to take this seat last year just announced their intention to bankroll him again, so our work is cut out for us, " said Maura Dougherty, spokesperson for the campaign. "The strength of our momentum so far is important to balance out the forces who prefer the outsourcing, insider status quo."

# # #

I know that lots of people have lots of opinions on a Schauer-Walberg race, but I think we can all agree that this kind of fundraising is extraordinary. $500,000 cash-on-hand is better than some presidential candidates have managed at times.

This means one of two things (or both): Democrats in the district are really excited about Mark Schauer and/or Democrats in the district are really excited about defeating Tim Walberg.

This really is impressive, and I look forward to seeing more data and Congressman Walberg's numbers.

Labels: 2008 Election, Fundraising, Mark Schauer

The Daily Telegram reported on a Right to Life rally.

This from our Congressman.

Also present during the event was U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, who shared a memory about leaving Afghanistan and seeing the faces of two particular children playing that stuck out in his memory.

He remarked how children in other countries are “pressed into duty of gruesome proportion” as suicide bombers “for the sense of destruction” while in the United States, which is supposed to be a “land of opportunity, ... goes one step further than radical Jihad.” In a calculated way, children are aborted, even “6 inches from being fully born.”

I won't even comment.

I heard something interesting not too long ago, which I think you'll find interesting.

Congressman Walberg's staff has apparently been told that no vacation requests will be granted from January 1, 2008 to November 4, 2008. What's November 4? Why, it's Election Day!

When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."

Some staffers, from what I hear, already had vacation plans. They are not pleased about this. Apparently, they were told that as employees of a "targeted" congressman, they should have expected these kinds of sacrifices.

Now, I probably used the word "apparently" more often than you'd like, but since I wasn't there myself, that's all I can say. Considering what I heard from someone a couple of months ago about Walberg and his staff, none of this really surprises me.

So let's suppose all of this is true. What does this mean?

First, I think it's obvious that it's a low and very unfair move on Walberg's part. These staffers are working long hours for this man, and how does he repay them? He takes away their vacation! Personally, that doesn't sound like the kind of boss I'd want to have.

Is it legal? Honestly, I have no idea. I know that for executive branch employees, the Hatch Act applies (basically, government resources can't be used on political campaigns), but Walberg's staffers aren't part of the executive branch. Anyone out there know more about this than me?

But at the very least, I think we can agree that it must not be fun working for Tim Walberg.

UPDATE: An anonymous comment:

I recently spoke to one of his staffers about this and they said there is no such policy nor statement made. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Especially when it appears this is completely false. I thought this was a serious website talking about the issues, not some rag spreading fallacious rumors...

I hope the fact that I bumped this comment to the front page as soon as I saw it restores a little bit of my credibility. If there is no such policy, then I apologize to Congressman Walberg and his staff.

As far as spreading rumors, I can promise I'll never intentionally or knowingly slander Tim Walberg or anyone else. I've done my best to maintain a high standard here, and I hope that I've been fairly good about admitting when I'm wrong.

But when someone comes to me with a piece of information and seems credible to my best judgment, I'll share that information on Walberg Watch. Might I make mistakes? Sure. And when I do, I appreciate being corrected, and I welcome any input from Walberg's office when I post misstatements. I oppose Tim Walberg and his ideas, but I do not wish to lie about my opponents or spread fallacious rumors. That's what his side does.

So, if this story proved to be unfounded, I apologize. At the same time, you are an anonymous commenter... so I don't necessarily have a reason to believe you either. Not that the comment isn't credible, just that I wouldn't entirely trust it, nor would I entirely trust any other anonymous information without anything else to support it.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying... here's a claim, here's a counter-claim. I'd appreciate any other information anyone could give to set me right.

Labels: 2008 Election, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

I haven't been posting a lot regularly, and I apologize for that. My regular life has gotten busier and more complicated. Unfortunately, that means it's harder for me to find the time or the energy to properly chronicle the adventures of Congressman Tim Walberg.

From a quick look at the traffic statistics, it's obvious that we've lost readers since this summer. But I am glad to see that we still have one reader in particular.

Commenter Jay posted the text of an interview with Michigan Senate Democratic Leader (and Congressional Candidate) Mark Schauer from MIRS. I'm going to try to write more about that interview later, but here's a nice ego boost.

Q. You seem to have an interest in new media. How would you describe your relationship with the press, in general?

A. Good. Open, accessible. Part of my job is informing my constituents about what I'm doing, what I'm working on, what my priorities are, explaining often times complex issues like the state budget or other policy issues. And I've always, going back to my days in the nonprofit sector and (Battle Creek) city commissioner, had an open, active relationship with the press. I think the new media is an exciting way to do that. It's a very particaptory way. It's instantaneous, it's grass roots, interactive medium, which I think is fun and exciting.

Q. Any favorite sites in particular?

A. I try to check out MichLib (Michigan Liberal) and Blogging for Michigan every day. That leads me to others, some local, some national. I like Walberg Watch.

Senator Schauer, it's nice to know you're still reading. And to everyone else out there who hasn't abandoned this blog, thanks for sticking around. I'll get my blogging act together soon.

Labels: Mark Schauer

Everyone has little things that bug them. They're not really all that important, and you know it, but it just drives you crazy. It's been bothering you deep inside, but you feel silly complaining about it, because you know it's not a big deal.

Me? I hate it when people don't use their turn signals. I also can't stand it whenever a store reorganizes itself, and you're wandering around lost and confused. It bugs me a lot.

But you know what? It's not a big deal, and I get over it. And in the occasional interview I've had with the press (not that it happens that often), I've never felt the urge to complain about any of those things.

Apparently, that's the difference between me and Congressman Tim Walberg. He was in Iraq recently (more on that later), and when he returned, what did he discover? They made changes at the congressional cafeteria! Obviously, he needed to tell WJR's Frank Beckmann all about it.

Beckmann: Well, welcome back home, and now you can look forward to getting back to the House cafeteria and that new menu they have there

Walberg: It is terrible, Frank, and in fact this morning I was grousing about the taste of my double espresso. Normally, in the Longworth building, there's a Starbucks there and I get my double espresso and it tasted absolutely chemical this morning. Well, I got to our conference, and they were talking about some people who have had bad reactions, actual physical reactions to the new paper cups. Well I had the paper cup in my hand and I said well I wonder if that’s it. Then I get back to my office, I find out it is now no longer Starbucks coffee, it is some organically-grown coffee that’s supposed to be green. Well, maybe that’s the problem. So, so far I'm not happy. They put scrambled eggs on cardboard now, uhhh, and you can imagine what a scrambled egg tastes like at a consistency moving around on a cardboard plate. It isn't good.

Beckmann: It's kind of like being back at Boy Scout camp, isn't it?

Walberg: [laughter]

It even got some national media coverage, from CBSNews.com.

To me, it just comes across as pitiful. He comes home from a country where American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives every day, and that doesn't seem to have any impact on him. But they change the coffee? It's the end of the world!

I'm not the only one who felt like this. Here's an editorial from MLive.com (for some reason, the link doesn't seem to work anymore...):

[Walbergs, hopefully, don't represent the majority, MLive.com, 1/17/08]

MLive.com (Lynsy Smithson-Stanley)

Thursday January 17, 2008, 8:42 AM

After sharing his experience in Iraq on the radio yesterday, Congressman Tim Walberg shared his disgust for the environmentally sound changes the Capitol is making in the cafeteria.

On WJR Detroit, he bemoaned the "absolutely chemical" taste of the coffee, which had so sneakily replaced his Starbucks double espresso.

Let the surge stand, but for the love of all that is holy, GET THIS MAN HIS STARBUCKS!

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the Capitol used the organic standard set by another federal institution, the USDA. In that case, then this new coffee was certified by the federal government to have been ...at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form.

Yet he was tasting chemicals. Interesting, Congressman.

He described the changes, including the use of "cardboard" for plates, as "terrible."

In reality, this "cardboard" is really 100 percent biodegradable and part of the greater Green the Capitol Initiative. Other changes include switching the Dome to earth-friendly lighting and eliminating what Walberg must like his eggs served on: styrofoam.

Or, as we "green" people like to call it, the worst substance in the world (insert Keith Oberman intonation here.)

So here's to hoping others in position to lead our country into the future aren't hopping on the anti-change bandwagon.

(Emphasis added.)

Over at Michigan Liberal, Eric B. has more to say:

How was Magic Frank able to bring this stinging indictment of new paper products, and organic coffee in general, to the attention of his listeners? At the end of the clip, Magic Frank mentions Chesapeake rockfish with sweet potato fennel hash and yellow pepper relish; and also pears with Stilton cheese and watercress. Plug it into Google, and you come up with a stinging investigation on the new House menu by The Politico (which gave us weeks of detailed coverage on John Edwards' haircut). It gives us comments from anonymous House staffers who've apparently forgotten that they can always bring their lunches from home, and also Jeff Ventura, the spokesman for the guy who runs the cafeteria and my newest hero, who gave former retail peons everywhere reason to cheer when he said this:

"We have had a few people observe that [straw] phenomenon and we had to tell them, 'Sip your coffee like a normal human being,'" Ventura said. "We're trying to save the planet here."

Right, just like those normal human beings who are smart enough to send back eggs when they're runny enough that they move around the plate.

Tim Walberg-- self-proclaimed environmentalist-- doesn't like the new biodegradable plates or the organic coffee. But that's okay. He wants his artificial coffee and styrofoam back, and that's his right.

But is it really a big deal? Is it worth complaining about on WJR, especially if you already have a pretty spotty record on environmental issues? Does it really matter all that much? If you were talking to Frank Beckmann on the radio, and he asked you about your cafeteria, would you launch into a long diatribe about it? Or would you stick with the things that really mattered?

Besides, you'd think Walberg would be nicer to the organic coffee, considering an organic farmer with no money almost beat him in 2006.

Labels: Environment, Iraq, Tim Walberg

Do you remember back in October, when Congressman Walberg voted "Present" on a House resolution recognizing Ramadan? Here's part of what the resolution said:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

A vast majority of the House voted for the bill, but Tim Walberg couldn't bring himself to vote to reject hatred and bigotry, and couldn't bring himself to offer respect to a major religion. As he later explained:

Among those who voted present on the resolution was Republican Tim Walberg of Michigan. "To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing," he stated.

At the time, I translated that as Walberg saying "All Muslims are terrorists." It doesn't matter that there are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful. It doesn't matter that estimates of the Muslim population in the United States range from 1 to 6 million. Walberg refuses to offer respect to them, because, as he sees them, they're some sinister force.

But this is all old news. Why do I bring this up now?

It turns out that Walberg isn't just denigrating another major religion. He's choosing to promote his own religious beliefs at the expense of others, and at the expense of... well, facts.

First came HR 847, which came about a month ago, on December 11, 2007. That bill, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," reads in part:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

Even as the far-left liberal that I am, I really have no problem with this resolution. There's nothing wrong with rejecting bigotry and acknowledging the fact that many in the United States throughout history are and were Christians, just as I feel there's nothing wrong with recognizing Muslims in America.

Tim Walberg voted Yes on HR 847, recognizing Christmas and the Christian faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with that vote, from my stance (my libertarian friends may disagree). What's wrong with his vote is that it shows his own hypocrisy.

Look at the text from the Ramadan bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

And now, look at the Christmas bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

I ask you, the kind, tolerant people of Michigan: Is there anything all that objectionable in the Ramadan resolution that isn't in the Christmas resolution? Is there a reason why our representative in Washington would refuse to vote for one and not the other?

Walberg voted against a bill recognizing Ramadan and Islam because some Muslims are terrorists. As I pointed out before, some Christians are terrorists, too. Why is Walberg willing to recognize Christmas?

That kind of hypocrisy bothers me, but there's something else that bothers me more, which elviscostello mentioned in a previous post.

Congressman Tim Walberg is a cosponsor of H. Res. 888, which is

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as "American Religious History Week" for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Now, this is the point where I start getting a little nervous about state recognition and sponsorship of religion. Still, even I can't deny that religion has played a role in American history, so maybe that should be recognized. The problem comes with the text of the bill.

A resolution of this type follows a set pattern. The first part, with a bunch of sentence fragments beginning with "Whereas," state items assumed in advance. This is a priori knowledge used to justify the actions taken in the second part, in which it is "resolved" that some action or another will be taken.

The "Whereas" part of the bill lists 75 items, which I will not repost here. It's just too much. The list is meant to document the instances of religious recognition by the United States government. It's lots of things like, "Whereas, George Washington said X," or "Whereas, in 1789, Congress passed X," and taken at face value, it makes a compelling case to suggest that our founding fathers intended this to be a Christian nation.

Unfortunately for Walberg and his fellow co-sponsors, many of the items simply are not true. Some are, but many are deliberate distortions of the facts and outright lies. Chris Rodda at the blog Talk to Action has a good debunking of many of the "whereas"'s. Here are a couple of them, so that you can get the general idea:

"Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';"

In order to associate the Liberty Bell, and particularly its biblical inscription, with the American Revolution, revisionists must disregard its real history. The only connection between the Liberty Bell and the Revolution is that it happened to be the bell that hung in the building where the Continental Congress met. The inscription, which is preceded in the Bible by a reference to "the fiftieth year," was chosen a generation before the Revolution by a now obscure Quaker, Isaac Norris, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Governor William Penn's Charter of Privileges, the 1701 document that secured the religious freedom and other rights of the colonists and formally gave the Pennsylvania Assembly the expanded legislative powers that it had already begun to exercise.

At the time of the Revolution, and for many years after, the bell was simply called the State House bell. The majority of the signers of the Declaration probably had no idea what was inscribed on it. It wasn't dubbed the "Liberty Bell" until 1838, when it was adopted as a symbol of liberty by a Boston abolitionist group, and a poem entitled The Liberty Bell was reprinted from one of the group's pamphlets by William Lloyd Garrison in his anti-slavery publication The Liberator. In the decades preceding this, the bell had become so insignificant that, in 1828, the City of Philadelphia had actually tried to sell it as salvage.

and

"Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive 'the patronage of the government';"

There are three distinct lies in this sentence. And, although each is created by misrepresenting a single incident, all are pluralized, creating even bigger lies.

The first item, that Jefferson "urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes," is copied verbatim from David Barton's article "The Founders on Public Religious Expression." The only source cited by Barton for this vague claim is an exchange of letters between Jefferson and John Carroll, the Bishop of Baltimore, in 1801. Carroll wanted to purchase a lot in Washington D.C. to build a church on, and apparently thought that sending his application to Jefferson rather than the Board of Commissioners might get him some preferential treatment and a better price, not because he wanted to build a church, but because Jefferson would remember his patriotism and services to the country during the Revolutionary War, when he volunteered to accompany Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and his cousin, Charles Carroll, on their 1776 diplomatic mission to Canada.

Reading only the reply from Jefferson to Bishop Carroll, it would appear that Jefferson did try to influence the commissioners. But, Jefferson was exaggerating quite a bit when he told Carroll that he had recommended to the commissioners "all the favor which the object of the purchase would wage" and "the advantages of every kind which it would promise."(15) In reality, he barely gave an opinion on the subject, leaving it entirely up to the commissioners to decide if there was any advantage to accepting the application, and putting absolutely no pressure on them to do so. This was Jefferson's letter to the Board of Commissioners.

"I take the liberty of referring to you the inclosed application from Bishop Carrol & others for respecting the purchase of a site for a church. it is not for me to interpose in the price of the lots for sale. at the same time none can better than yourselves estimate the considerations of propriety & even of advantage which would urge a just attention to the application, nor better judge of the degree of favor to it which your duties would admit. with yourselves therefore I leave the subject, with assurances of my high consideration & respect."(16)

No new Catholic church was built in Washington until two decades later, and that was built on privately donated land, so it appears that the commissioners must have turned down Bishop Carroll's application.

The second item, that Jefferson "provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes," is based on a single treaty with the Kaskaskia, signed by Jefferson in 1803, which included a provision for a $100 annual salary for a priest for seven years, and $300 towards the building of a church. Of the over forty treaties with various Indian nations signed by Jefferson during his presidency, this is the only one that contained anything whatsoever having to do with religion. This had nothing to do with converting the Indians, as the words "missionary work" imply. The Kaskaskia were already Catholic, and had been for generations. These things were what the Kaskaskia wanted, and this being a treaty with a sovereign nation, there was no constitutional reason not to provide them.

The third item, that Jefferson "declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government'," is based on a letter written by Jefferson to the Ursuline nuns in New Orleans on July 13 or 14, 1804. The nuns, like many of the territory's inhabitants, were concerned about the status of their property when the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803. A wide variety of rumors were being spread by anti-American natives of New Orleans, and among these were two about the convent -- one that the United States government planned to confiscate the convent's property and immediately expel the nuns from the country, and another that no new novices would be allowed to enter the convent, but that the government would let the nuns who were already there stay, and then take the property after they all died off. The territorial Governor, William C.C. Claiborne, temporarily managed to convince the nuns that their property was safe and that the United States government would never interfere with a religious institution, but then an incident occurred in which local authorities working for the federal government did shut down a church to prevent a riot between the followers of two rival priests. This renewed the nuns' fears, and they wrote to Jefferson requesting to have their property officially confirmed to them by Congress. Jefferson knew that there was no point in laying the convent's request before Congress because they were not yet making determinations about land claims in the territory, so he replied by assuring the nuns that their property was secure even without an official confirmation, and that they shouldn't have any problem with the local authorities, but if they did they would have the protection of his office. Because he used the word "patronage," however, the history revisionists imply that he meant financial aid.

And, of course, as Rodda points out:

And, finally, while the first resolve of H. Res. 888 asserts that the U.S. House of Representatives "affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history" of our country, in every one of Mr. Forbes's "Whereas's" that mentions a particular religion, that religion is, of course, Christianity.

Now, if there were as many errors as this in a high school history paper, what kind of a grade do you think it would get? But never mind the facts... people like Walberg want this to be a Christian nation!

Basically, this is what it comes down to for me:

• If Tim Walberg strictly voted against any bill that even hinted at state recognition or sponsorship of religion, I would respect him for sticking to a strict constitutional interpretation.
• If Walberg were to have voted for all three of the bills above, it'd be easy to argue that he supports expressions of faith for all beliefs.
  

But Walberg did neither of those. Instead, he chose to support two bills (one of which has a loose relationship with the facts) that recognize and promote Christianity, and opposed one bill that recognized Islam, followed by a statement accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.

Where does Congressman Walberg draw the line? Islam doesn't deserve recognition... does Judaism? Or Buddhism? If it's Christians only in Walberg's America, does he count the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly called Mormons)? Are Catholics allowed in a Protestant America? Are Eastern Orthodox Christians allowed? Are Unitarians, or Methodists, or Lutherans? Or is only Walberg's particular brand of Christianity allowed?

Am I over-reacting? No. Our representative in the House of Representatives has come out and said that some religions don't deserve our respect and don't belong in America. How long until Walberg decides your religion doesn't belong, either? I don't believe this nation will ever sink into a theocracy, but it is men like Tim Walberg that would allow that to happen.

Our country deserves better than this. Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg

I have decided that one of the ways I can help defeat Tim Walberg is to build the party at the local level. It is important to Mark and all of our other candidates that we have strong Democrats running for all offices. Earlier this week I filed paperwork forming a campaign committee with the Calhoun County Clerk.

I will be a candidate for Calhoun County Commissioner in the 6th district. The 6th is in the center of the county and includes Marshall and 7 townships to the south. This is an open seat this year. The district has important swing precincts to the 7th congressional race. Republican's think this is their district, I'm going to prove them wrong. Granholm won this district in 2006 with 53.78% of the vote.

If you would like to help with my campaign, you can contact me at,

Doug Murch for County Commissioner
615 W. Prospect
Marshall, MI 49068

Labels: Murch

Congressman Tim will be at Linda’s Diner at the Producers Stock Yard in Manchester, Michigan, located at 9610 M-52 in Manchester, from 7:30 - 8:30 a.m. on January 8, 2008.
He will also be at Grand Traverse Pie Company, located at 291 N. Zeeb Road in Ann Arbor, from 9:30 - 10:30 a.m.

Any good questions? Let's welcome him back to the district.

Looking at Daily Kos this afternoon I noticed a posting regarding House Resolution 888 and that progressives should be concerned. I opened the post and found that House resolution 888 would designate the first week in May, "American Religious History Week, for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith".
Naturally, I wondered who would be so concerned about the fact that 80% of Americans go to church, 60% are protestant, and 40% are "born again", that there would be a need to remind us that the United States is a judeo-christian country.
Surprise! None other than our own Congressman, Tim Walberg! (BTW, Tim co-sponsored with "Mean Jean" Schmidt of Ohio, remember her "cut and run" slam of John Murtha, very Christian-like...)
While Tim can block SCHIP and vote for a watered down version, vote a blank check to the current occupant of the White House to continue this insane Iraq adventure, and be in favor of oil exploration of the Great Lakes, he still finds time to protect those things that are believed by most of the population. You really must read the whole list of "Whereas" in the resolution, as though the sponsors need to overwhelm with examples of religiosity in our history.
The interesting part, though is the Resolved section, especially number 3 "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources". I think he is afraid that sandblasters are headed to all public buildings to remove any mention of religion.
When it comes to spending for the poor, programs for the disadvantaged, Tim seems to forget Matthew 24:44-45 which reminds us:
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Of course, gotta take care of the Club for Growth first...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888: