Thursday, October 09, 2008
Walberg DID Call Social Security "Socialism"!
(Thanks to the reader who e-mailed me about this.)
Some regular readers of this blog and of Chris Gautz's work at the Jackson Citizen Patriot website remember this advertisement put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
Right from the start, the ad cites an article in the Daily Telegram from 2004 in which Walberg calls Social Security "socialism." It's certainly not a good quote for Walberg-- as the ad notes, a lot of people rely on Social Security, and the negative connotation "socialism" carries is likely to offend a lot of people.
Chris Gautz was doubtful about the accuracy of the quote, mainly because, as a former employee of the Telegram, he had thought he would remember a quote that explosive. Although I probably would have read that article in 2004, my memory for these sorts of things is awful, so I deferred judgment to a later date.
But thanks to the magic of the internet and the wonders of active readers, Chris brought us the answer: Walberg did call Social Security "socialism"!
Here's the text of the article:
ADRIAN -- Tuesday's debate between Republicans and Democrats running for the 7th District Congressional seat allowed candidates to inform the public about their views, but led to little debate.So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.
he did not directly say, social security was socialism.Post a Comment
he just said, that a gov't taking care of everything is socialism.
you make it seem like he is against social security and all government programs.
you post slants. which is why you are a blog and why a good amount of people don't take you serious.
come November 4, will you look all the hours of work on this fake news source a valuable waste of time?
perhaps time that could've been spent in communication courses or a political science course that would teach you what socialism actually is.
there is no problem with having an opposing viewpoint but there is a problem with "indirect assumptions, obfuscations, and distortions". furthermore, please don't offer anymore future polling analysis. it makes it too obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
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