Walberg Watch

Schauer Victory Speech and What's Next

2008-11-07T13:37:00.000-05:00

The Schauer campaign put Congressman-elect Schauer's victory speech on YouTube. The speech was given sometime shortly after 1:00am, Wednesday, November 5.

The quote at the end of the video is a good one, but I just wanted to highlight one other thing he said:

Politics is about competing visions, but governing is about people coming together for a common purpose, and I intend to help govern.

This is one of the reasons I like Mark Schauer-- he sees this distinction. It's what allows him to campaign as a proud Democrat, but still work with, say, Republican Joe Schwarz to save the Battle Creek Air National Guard base. It's what let him set aside the politics of the state budget crisis and make some tough decisions and compromise-- angering both conservatives and the all-important MEA-- in order to keep our state running. It's not about ideology, it's about making government work for people and solving problems.

That's the hard part. That's what's next for Mark Schauer.

Thank you to the kind comments I've received-- including from Walberg supporters. This is by no means the end of Walberg Watch, though its name will probably be changing sometime soon.

We've got a state Senate race coming up soon to replace the vacancy Senator Schauer created, and it's one where Democrats need to hold on.

We've got the state legislators and the county and city governments of this district, whose decisions impact our lives more directly than anything Mark Schauer or Barack Obama will be doing.

And yeah, we've got Congressman-elect Mark Schauer. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he doesn't need to be watched from time to time.

I'm not quite sure how this is going to work yet, but I hope you'll keep coming back.

Schauer Wins - Final Results Thread

2008-11-05T08:40:00.003-05:00

All precincts have now reported. Here are the (unofficial) final results, via MLive:

356 of 356 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Name	Party	Votes	Vote %
Schauer , Mark	Dem	157,189	49%
Walberg , Tim (i)	GOP	149,766	46%
Meadows , Lynn	Grn	9,529	3%
Proctor , Ken	Lib	5,673	2%

That's a margin of 7,423 votes.

Via CNN, here are the county totals:

Branch (100% reporting)
Walberg - 9,865 - 56%
Schauer - 6,879 - 39%

Calhoun (100% reporting)
Walberg - 23,920 - 40%
Schauer - 33,649 - 56%

Eaton (100% reporting)
Walberg - 24,876 - 45%
Schauer - 27,648 - 49%

Hillsdale (100% reporting)
Walberg - 12,015 - 60%
Schauer - 6,981 - 35%

Jackson (100% reporting)
Walberg - 34,231 - 47%
Schauer - 34,977 - 48%

Lenawee (100% reporting)
Walberg - 22,950 - 49%
Schauer - 22,018 - 47%

Washtenaw (100% reporting)
Walberg - 21,909 - 44%
Schauer - 25,037 - 51%

And now it's all over. Note that Schauer won Calhoun, Eaton, Jackson, and Washtenaw Counties, while Walberg won only Branch, Hillsdale, and Lenawee Counties. It's also worth noting that Lenawee County-- which President-Elect Barack Obama won-- went to Walberg by only 932 votes. That's incredible.

Thank you, Congressman Walberg, for your service. Although I've been very critical, I don't doubt that you acted with the country's best interests at heart. We just have a disagreement on what's best for the country.

Congratulations, Congressman-elect Schauer. Now comes the hard part.

Walberg Concedes (Almost), Schauer Declares Victory

2008-11-05T02:47:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: For final results, click here.

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, all but conceded Michigan’s 7th Congressional District race to Democratic challenger Mark Schauer, who declared victory about 2 a.m. today.

[...]

Speaking to staff and reporters in Jackson shortly before 2 a.m. today, Walberg said
“From the counts that we’re seeing right now, it looks very clearly that when the sun breaks tomorrow, it will not go in our favor. We will hold off til then before making any final statement.”

“But I want you to know that we’re living with reality right now, and it looks as if there will be a new U.S. congressman from this district,” Walberg said in Jackson. “That being the case, I will certainly wish Mark Schauer well when given the opportunity to speak to him. But for right now, I just thank you from the bottom of my heart.”

With nearly 93 percent of precincts reporting as of 2 a.m., Schauer led Walberg 142,542 votes to 138,690.

That's good enough for me. I'm done for the night.

The Enquirer has slightly different numbers than I do via the MLive site. Here's where they've got the results as of right now:

324 of 356 Precincts Reporting - 91%

Name	Party	Votes	Vote %
Schauer , Mark	Dem	145,388	48%
Walberg , Tim (i)	GOP	141,023	47%
Meadows , Lynn	Grn	8,878	3%
Proctor , Ken	Lib	5,353	2%

That's a margin of 4,365 votes. It's close, but it should hold. By county:

Branch (100% reporting)
Walberg - 9,865 - 56%
Schauer - 6,879 - 39%

Calhoun (100% reporting)
Walberg - 23,920 - 40%
Schauer - 33,649 - 56%

Eaton (70% reporting)
Walberg - 21,571 - 45%
Schauer - 23,209 - 49%

Hillsdale (100% reporting)
Walberg - 12,015 - 60%
Schauer - 6,981 - 35%

Jackson (100% reporting)
Walberg - 34,231 - 47%
Schauer - 34,977 - 48%

Lenawee (83% reporting)
Walberg - 19,361 - 52%
Schauer - 16,627 - 45%

Washtenaw (90% reporting)
Walberg - 20,060 - 44%
Schauer - 23,066 - 51%

The winner or current leader in each county is italicized. We're still waiting on results from three Windsor precincts in Eaton County, the seven precincts covering the entire city of Adrian in Lenawee County (.pdf), and four precincts in Webster Township in Washtenaw County. If they have any meaningful impact, I think it will be Adrian adding to Schauer's margin and making Lenawee County a little bit closer. I don't know enough about the voting patterns of the others to speak intelligently.

(Fun fact for the night: Even without Adrian, Senator Barack Obama actually leads in Lenawee County right now, 49.10 percent to 48.81 percent. Wow!)

Personally, I'm not comfortable calling this, and I'm nervous that I'll wake up tomorrow morning and be disappointed. Maybe that's why I'm just a blogger and not a professional political operative. I'll have a longer write-up sometime when all the results are in.

Until then, congratulations to all of the candidates. It's finally over.

Election Day - Results

2008-11-04T21:22:00.058-05:00

UPDATE: For final results, click here.

From MLive, which loads faster than everyone else right now:

1:09am - Schauer's up to a 433-vote lead. This is going to be a precinct-by-precinct thing for a while. (Note: I've moved previous updates below.)

1:18am - Schauer up by about 1,500. But I'm not ready to breathe yet.

1:36am - Finally, another update! Schauer now leads by about 1,700.

1:41am - In that last update, about half of Jackson County came in as one big block. In Jackson County, it went from Walberg 50-45 to Schauer 48-47. Wow.

1:47am - Schauer has a 5,000-vote lead now. But I'm still holding my breath.

1:57am - Schauer's lead dropped a bit, but he's still ahead by about 4,200 votes.

2:05am - It's getting close again... Schauer's lead is under 4,000 votes. Will it last the rest of the night? The good news is, Hillsdale is done.

2:10am - Now about a 3,600-vote lead. Only 33 precincts left.

2:14am - It's down to Eaton, Lenawee, and Washtenaw. Is Walberg strong enough in any of them to push him back over the top? Schauer's back up to a 4,300-vote lead.

2:23am - Just to be clear, the lead is enough to say that probably, probably, this is a Schauer win. But I'm a suspicious person, so while the folks at the Schauer election night party are celebrating, I'm not quite ready to say it's done. That 62-vote lead he had at one point spooked me.

324 of 356 Precincts Reporting - 91%

Name	Party	Votes	Vote %
Schauer , Mark	Dem	145,388	48%
Walberg , Tim (i)	GOP	141,023	47%
Meadows , Lynn	Grn	8,878	3%
Proctor , Ken	Lib	5,353	2%

-----
-----

County-By-County Results, via CNN (Note: These will be updated less frequently):

Branch (100% reporting)
Walberg - 9,865 - 56%
Schauer - 6,879 - 39%

Calhoun (100% reporting)
Walberg - 23,920 - 40%
Schauer - 33,649 - 56%

Eaton (70% reporting)
Walberg - 45%
Schauer - 49%

Hillsdale (100% reporting)
Walberg - 12,015 - 60%
Schauer - 6,981 - 35%

Jackson (100% reporting)
Walberg - 34,231 - 47%
Schauer - 34,977 - 48%

Lenawee (83% reporting)
Walberg - 52%
Schauer - 45%

Washtenaw (90% reporting)
Walberg - 44%
Schauer - 51%

11:00pm - CNN: Barack Obama is elected President of the United States

12:15am - For the moment, Schauer seems to have stalled out about 4,000 votes short of Walberg, but there's still a lot left to come. I think, if I'm reading the county clerk websites right, that all of Adrian and all of Delta Township have yet to report. I've got no idea what's happening in Jackson.

12:19am - Chris Gautz at the Citizen Patriot went to bed twenty minutes ago, but I'm still here. I'm taking a short break to stretch my legs, get some caffeine, and grab some non-political stuff to work on while I'm here. I'll be back soon.

12:24am - Walberg widens his lead. Now I'm actually going to go take a break.

12:33am - Schauer cuts the lead to 1,500 votes.

12:36am - What pushed Schauer up just now? Delta Township, in which he won all but three precincts.

12:48am - About 2,000 votes down.

12:51am - Woah! Mark Schauer jumps to a 1,400-vote lead.

12:54am - That was a big chunk of western Washtenaw coming in. Schauer went from a 48-47 lead to a 52-43 lead. Watch for Lenawee County to narrow a bit-- still no Adrian-- but it looks like it'll all come down to Jackson County, which is only 45 percent in.

1:00am - Ah! Schauer leads, but only by 227 votes. That was a chunk of Jackson County.

1:06am - Schauer leads by 62. Ah!

Update: GO VOTE! Find Your Polling Place

2008-11-04T09:12:00.004-05:00

Bumped up. - Fitzy

~~Tomorrow~~ TODAY is Election Day. Polls in Michigan open at 7:00am and close at 8:00pm.

Not sure where to go? Google has the answer! Follow the link for a special map, where you can type in your address and it will tell you where to go to vote and how to get there.

What do you need when vote? Although not required to vote, some form of photo identification is helpful. If you don't have any, you can still vote, but you'll have to sign an affidavit saying that you don't have any. If you've got a driver's license or a state ID card, just bring that.

For more information on voting or to see a sample ballot, visit the Michigan Secretary of State's website.

You should vote. This is important.

UPDATE: Share your voting stories in the comments, if you'd like.

UPDATE II: Shorter Susan Demas: Walberg is "bought and paid for" by the Club for Growth, and he meant it when he said it. Schauer will win (maybe), and Schauer should win, but she's still somewhat disappointed.

When you're done reading that, GO VOTE!

UPDATE III: Live results, courtesy of Google:

UPDATE IV: Here's an alternate live results map, thanks to our friends at Daily Kos:

Closing Arguments

2008-11-04T09:06:00.000-05:00

Bumped. It's Election Day. - Fitzy

From WILX, via YouTube user SeventhDem:

That's the scripted message each candidate wanted to put forward. For a more complete and unfiltered discussion of the issues, you can listen to, watch, or read coverage of three debates from the last month. Many thanks to WKHM 970 AM, which brings us .mp3 audio files of three debates.

October 06, 2008 - Siena Heights University, with WLEN and the Daily Telegram (Part 1; Part 2)
October 25, 2008 - Jackson High School, with WLNS (Video; Audio: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
October 28, 2008 - Jackson Community College, with WILX and the Jackson Citizen Patriot (Video; Audio)

They aren't perfect audio files, but they're pretty good. Some time (probably after Election Day), I'll try to get transcripts up. Better late than never, as they say, and I'd like to keep certain resources available, regardless of who wins tomorrow.

In addition, Senator Schauer has been crossing the district for his closing "Everywhere, Everyday, Every Job Counts" tour. If you need a last opportunity to meet Mark Schauer, here's your chance for tomorrow:

Meeting with workers at the Post Plant Gate in Battle Creek

250 Cliff Street, Battle Creek, 6:30 a.m.

Voting at his home precinct in Battle Creek
22116 Bedford Rd. North, Battle Creek, 8:00 a.m.

Meeting with voters at bake sale in Jackson
801 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, 9:45 a.m.

Visiting campaign HQ and door-to-door canvassing in Grand Ledge

512 S. Clinton, Grand Ledge, 11:00 a.m.

Talking with workers at construction site in Jackson (across from hospital)
205 N. East Ave, Jackson, 12:40 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling location in Jackson
1107 Adrian St., Jackson, 1:00 p.m.

Visit with workers at a plant gate and volunteers at a phone bank in Battle Creek

1006 Raymond Rd. N, Battle Creek, 2:30 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling place in Battle Creek
3142 Capital Ave. SW., Battle Creek, 3:30 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling place in Delta Twp.
5211 W. St. Joseph, Lansing, 5:00 p.m.

Visiting campaign HQ and door-to-door canvassing in Jackson
218 Mechanic St., Jackson, 6:30 p.m.

I've met both men, heard them both speak on the issues, and watched or listened to all three debates. My vote goes to Mark Schauer.

Election Day - What To Watch For

2008-11-04T02:56:00.002-05:00

From 7:00pm to 9:00pm, I'm going to be away from a computer-- and, in fact, away from any televisions, radios, or other devices which report election results. During arguably the most exciting portion of the night, when Virginia may be called for Obama, or when the returns start coming in for the Georgia Senate race, or when our own district begins reporting, I won't be able to be a part of it.

For a political junkie like me, that's like missing the World Series, the Rose Bowl (Go 'Cats! I believe in you!), and the World Cup all at once, which, by the way, are also on Christmas. Tomorrow could be a really amazing day, and I’m disappointed that I’ll be missing a big part of it.

But when I do get to a computer, I’ll be looking for a few things. I don't claim to have a secret formula or know which tiny town will be the bellwether, and I'm definitely not a Grebner-like expert. But I can tell you what I think a Schauer victory might look like, and where I’ll be looking for it.

Turnout in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties

With 98 percent of Michigan's voting population registered, there are a lot of people who could show up to vote. That’s got to worry Tim Walberg, whose victory in the 2006 GOP primary was thanks to what former Congressman Joe Schwarz called a "motivated minority" of 7.8 percent in a low-turnout primary. (Schwarz also called them "quasi-theocrats... infiltrating the party power structure"). Granted, a general election is very different from a primary, but a Walberg victory will depend on certain people not showing up, namely in Calhoun County, where Mark Schauer could run up the margin.

But Walberg has someone working against him: Barack Obama. The Obama campaign has done a phenomenal job of registering new voters who are trending Democratic. But they didn't ask prospective voters for a partisan affiliation before they registered them, nor should they have. In a Republican-leaning district, is it possible that the Obama campaign might have just registered a bunch of new Republicans?

Maybe, but judging from where the new voters are coming from, probably not. With help from the Detroit Free Press (who got the data from the Michigan Secretary of State), here's a fun table:

County Reg. Voters New Voters % Change (Jan. - Oct.)
Branch 31,805 683 +2%
Calhoun* 103,707 3,950 +4%
Eaton 80,023 2,781 +4%
Hillsdale 33,327 724 +2%
Jackson 115,357 4,672 +4%
Lenawee 71,552 2,170 +3%
Washtenaw* 273,955 24,962 +10%

Note that both Calhoun and Washtenaw Counties have portions not in the 7th District. This is especially important in Washtenaw County, where Ann Arbor (and the University of Michigan) probably accounts for most of the voters and most of the growth. However, Battle Creek, which is in the district, is the major population center for Calhoun County, and is probably responsible for most of that growth. So for our simplified purposes here, let's ignore Washtenaw County but keep Calhoun County.

As you can see, the most new voters were added in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties (both in absolute number of voters and in proportion to their populations). Calhoun County is generally considered safe territory for Mark Schauer, who has represented the voters there in the state House and Senate since 1996 and is generally very popular. Jackson and Eaton Counties, meanwhile, are the major "battlegrounds." Not only are they vote-rich, but they were divided pretty evenly in the 2006 election (Eaton: Renier 50 Walberg 48; Jackson: Walberg 51 Renier 46). Although Schauer currently represents much of Jackson County in the state Senate, I’m expecting it to be a major battleground again. Neglected in the voter registration drives were the Walberg strongholds of Branch and Hillsdale Counties, and to a lesser degree, Lenawee County (more on it in a minute).

I don't have solid data behind me, but I'm going to guess that if they turn out to vote, the new voters in Calhoun, Eaton, and Jackson Counties will break Democratic. If they were registered by the Obama folks, they were probably targeted as students or underrepresented populations, which is probably good news for Mark Schauer. At least, that’s what I'm hoping.

In 2006, Calhoun County had 47.5 percent turnout, Eaton County had 59.9 percent turnout, and Jackson County had 51.8 percent turnout (data here and here). If turnout is higher than that in those three counties (and especially Calhoun County), new voters and Schauer loyalists could run up enough of a margin to offset losses in the southern part of the district. If the turnout is really big in Calhoun County, that might be the whole ball game.

Is that a possibility? Could central-west Michigan see a massive surge in turnout? I don’t know, but it sounds like Kalamazoo County (one west from Calhoun County) is getting ready for one:

KALAMAZOO -- Bracing for a very long and very busy Tuesday, area election officials say they're "as ready as we'll ever be" for the 2008 presidential election.

"We're in good shape," Kalamazoo County Clerk Tim Snow said. "We've been preparing for this all year. We knew this was going to be big."

A surge in voter registrations and predictions of a higher rate of participation means the county could have as many as 144,000 voters this year, compared to the 120,000 who cast ballots four years ago.

The city of Kalamazoo, in particular, has taken steps to avoid long lines Tuesday, putting in a minimum of 14 voting stations at each precinct and substantially increasing the staffing.

[...]

On Tuesday, polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. People who are in line at 8 p.m. will be allowed to vote. The forecast calls for sunny skies and a high near 70 degrees.

Lenawee County

This is where Tim Walberg should win. He represented Lenawee County for 16 years in the state House of Representatives, and the mostly rural county is famous (or infamous) for its conservative politics and sometimes frightening tendencies. (Anyone else remember "Radio Free Lenawee"?) This is where I'm from, and I can say that it is a conservative place.

At the same time, though, people don't really like Tim Walberg all that much. Oh, sure, some do. Whenever I was canvassing, I was bound to run into someone who would say, "I plan to vote for Tim, I’ve known him for years" or something like that. But I'd also meet someone who'd say, "Walberg? I can’t believe we keep electing that guy!" The solidly-Republican state House seat Walberg vacated has been in Democratic hands (albeit moderate ones) for ten years. With state Representative Dudley Spade basically guaranteed reelection, it'll stay that way for at least two more years.

Meanwhile, the county is changing. Before the economy got really bad, a lot of people were moving out to Clinton or Tecumseh from Ann Arbor or metro Detroit for the cheaper properties, willing to put up with the couple-hour commute. They don’t have a relationship with Tim Walberg, and some of them are even (gasp) Democrats.

And the Schauer campaign has taken the county seriously, opening an office in downtown Adrian and hiring a full-time field organizer to staff it and coordinate with the Obama and Spade campaigns. Whenever he's in the county, Mark Schauer is certain to mention his great relationship with Doug and Dudley Spade, both of whom carry a lot of weight. (Side note: Their secret to success? They're actually really good representatives. If you go to Dudley Spade with a problem, he'll do everything he can to solve it.) Throw in the Obama organizers, and you've got a real chance for 2008 to be a year of Democratic revival in Lenawee County.

Will Mark Schauer win it? ... No. It just won't happen. But he can keep it close. Governor Jennifer Granholm managed to take 47 percent of the vote in 2006, and if Schauer can get a similar share of the vote and hold Walberg to 51 or 52 percent, it could mean a lot. If Schauer opens up a big lead in Calhoun County and Washtenaw County, then there just aren’t enough voters in Branch and Hillsdale Counties to make up for it. Walberg needs to win Lenawee County convincingly. If Lenawee County is as tight as the other "battlegrounds," it's going to be a rough night for Tim Walberg.

And what if Mark Schauer wins Lenawee County? Then short of something really unexpected happening, Schauer will win the district. But like I said, Schauer won't win Lenawee County. I'm not going to let my hopes get that high.

Obama

Barack Obama is going to win the state of Michigan. The only question left is "How big?" Since John McCain pulled out of Michigan, it's started to look pretty big. Here's the Pollster.com chart for Michigan:

That's quite a sight, isn't it? The final Pollster average puts it at Obama +16, which would be a bigger margin than Bill Clinton’s +13 win in 1996. That year, with the help of Ross Perot, Bill Clinton carried four of the counties that currently make up the 7th District: Calhoun, Washtenaw, Lenawee, and Branch. Calhoun and Washtenaw are to be expected, but Lenawee and Branch surprised me when I looked back at them. After all, these are supposed to be the conservative parts of the district.

Supposing Obama has similar success, picking up Calhoun, western Washtenaw, and at least one other county, is there any way Mark Schauer can lose? I'm not sure what the Obama-Walberg voter looks like, and I'd be shocked to see Obama carrying Jackson County by a wide margin but Schauer losing it. Maybe it's possible, but Mark Schauer has done a good job presenting himself as a moderate and a hard-working, dependable public servant. If Obama wins big, I can't imagine any reason for the Obama voter to choose "more of the same" and Tim Walberg.

*****

Upon re-reading all of that, I'm worried that I'm being too optimistic and tempting fate for another disappointing election night. It's possible. Even so, and despite not having any idea of what I'm doing, I think that most of my reasoning has some foundation to it. I think one of the three factors above (if not all of them) could contribute to a Schauer victory.

That's what I'll be looking for, sometime around 9:15pm Eastern Time. It's possible that there will be a clear leader by the time I arrive on the scene. We'll see soon enough if any of this is right.

7th District Most Targeted For Independent Expenditures

2008-11-04T01:11:00.000-05:00

Swing State Project has been doing a phenomenal job of tracking spending across the country by independent groups, in addition to candidate spending. They created a chart showing the total spending and partisan leanings for every contested House race in the country. Here's the explanation:

Note that this does not include direct expenditures by party committees (like we saw the other day from the DCCC in NJ-05 & FL-18) or electioneering communications by 527's like Freedom's Crotch (the FEC's database is all but unnavigable).
We do, however, include spending by many third-party groups, not just the DCCC and NRCC. In fact, we've tracked spending by forty-six different organizations, some of which you've heard of, many of which are obscure. The list includes the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Safari Club, SEIU, the National Association of Realtors, the Michigan Republican Party and many, many more. (Scroll down to the key at the bottom for the complete list.)

And here's what they found:

District	Blue	Red	Total
MI-07	$2,209,452	$1,788,807	$3,998,259
MN-03	$2,398,106	$1,030,494	$3,428,600
CO-04	$2,450,302	$893,077	$3,343,379

That's right. We were the most-targeted district in the country for independent expenditures. Remember that this doesn't include the candidates' own spending, the DCCC or NRCC, or even many 572 groups. Wow.

And, as evidence of the excitement on the part of Democrats this year, a clear majority of that spending came in support of Mark Schauer or in opposition to Tim Walberg.

After the election, I'd like to take some time to seriously look at where the money came from on both sides. Right now, I'm just shocked by the enormity of it all.

Walberg Making Fake Robo-Calls?

2008-11-04T01:00:00.000-05:00

Via Blogging for Michigan:

Delta Twp.-Delta Township Democrats called on Congressman Tim Walberg and his supporters to immediately stop robo-calls that have gone out to voters that imply local Democratic Eaton County officials support Walberg. Several voters complained about receiving the calls on their home answering machines today.
"These are exactly the kinds of dirty tricks voters are tired of and will reject at the polls tomorrow," said Sherry Freeman, Delta Township Trustee whose name was used in a Walberg robo-call without her permission. "Congressman Walberg is resorting to these underhanded tactics because he and Bush have failed to accomplish anything that would help our economy. He should be ashamed of this last minute attempt to mislead voters."
Congressman Walberg refused to accept Mark Schauer's challenge earlier this year to stop using robo-calls altogether.

If anyone has more information, I'd love to hear more. If true, this strikes me as a desperate move. Walberg should be ashamed of himself.

In Case You Forgot...

2008-11-04T00:04:00.000-05:00

Still trying to make up your mind? Are you a moderate Republican, uncomfortable with Tim Walberg but not quite ready to vote for Mark Schauer? Do you wish Joe Schwarz would come back?

I can't help you with that. But I can give you this, via YouTube user SeventhDem:

And, in case you don't remember what Joe Schwarz went through (thanks to Tim Walberg), here's the piece he wrote for the Washington Post two years ago:

I am the political equivalent of a woolly mammoth, a rarity heading for extinction. Yes, I'm a moderate.

[...]

... What did me in was voter apathy, and moral absolutist groups supported by a vitriolic negative-ad campaign funded by organizations on the far right.

[...]
After 16 years in the Michigan Senate and service as mayor of Battle Creek, I was elected to Congress in 2004. But my moderate positions on Roe v. Wade (I do not support overturning it, believing that a woman has the right to choose) and embryonic stem cell research (I strongly support it), as well as my general feeling that religion and moral and ethical issues are private matters, did not sit well with those who would mix church and state in a way that is antithetical to the principles of separation on which our country was founded -- in other words, the hard right.
So in the Republican primary, the opposition got its vote out. The effort was funded, probably to the tune of $1 million or so, by the Club for Growth, a Washington outfit supported by plutocrats nationwide who apparently have nothing better to do with their money than give it to an organization that stands for nothing -- though it says it's "anti-tax" -- and likes to play in elections in which it has no logical interest.
I had a great campaign organization, willing volunteers and was well-funded. Key endorsements rolled in: from the Farm Bureau, police and fire organizations, teachers, medical groups, some unions, key GOP officeholders. My supporters thought I couldn't lose -- and as a result, I did. It was a classic example of a motivated minority -- just 7.8 percent of the Republican electorate districtwide -- nominating a congressional candidate. The moderates stayed home in droves, felt horrible the next day, and vowed never to miss another vote. They will. The hard right won't. And fewer and fewer sensible "let's take the broad view" candidates will have any chance of being elected.
But politics needs a middle. Communication across the aisle in Congress and in legislatures is the sine qua non of effective public policy formulation. The reluctance -- at times, the near-total unwillingness -- to consider the other side's position has hamstrung political bodies from coast to coast.

You should really read the whole thing. It's a little dated, but worth it.

And, of course, here's what happened this time around:

Former Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz, who railed against an anti-tax group's role in his unsuccessful 2006 primary, endorsed Democrat Mark Schauer on Tuesday because the organization targeted the congressional challenger.

Schwarz told The Associated Press in an interview that he decided to endorse Schauer over Republican Rep. Tim Walberg in the south-central Michigan congressional district because the anti-tax Club for Growth began running ads critical of Schauer's positions on taxes.

and

Schwarz, a supporter of John McCain's presidential campaign, said he had hoped to stay neutral in the race but "once they made the decision, the die was cast."

"That to me is the straw that broke the camel's back," Schwarz said. "I object to political dabblers who stand for nothing other than to create havoc and dabble in a congressional race where they truly have no interest."

Schwarz, a former Battle Creek mayor and state senator who is from Schauer's hometown, said he thought "it's appropriate to have someone who knows the area and understands the problems ... I think Mark certainly fits that bill."

Joe Schwarz is a good man, and what Tim Walberg did to him was reprehensible. There are lots of reasons to vote for Mark Schauer, and there are lots of reasons to vote against Tim Walberg. But if you're still looking, I'd encourage you to listen to what former Congressman Joe Schwarz has to say.

Jackson Cit-Pat Endorses Schauer

2008-11-03T23:46:00.000-05:00

Here's my Election Eve prediction: Jackson County is going to decide the outcome of the 7th Congressional District race. As predictions go, that's not too controversial. It's the county with the most people and it's the county that's basically evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. When the county's main daily endorses, it has the potential to be a big deal.

This weekend, the Jackson Citizen Patriot made its decision. You can tell they were a little torn over the decision, in the birthplace of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, I agree with the conclusion they reached. In their Sunday, November 2, 2008 issue, the Citizen Patriot endorsed Mark Schauer:

Voters in the 7th Congressional District might express relief more than anything else at the end of the $6 million-plus campaign between Mark Schauer and Rep. Tim Walberg. Their scorched-earth battle of misinformation and even outright lies has not been worthy of two honorable men or the district they want to represent.

[...]
Ideology may well shape many voters' decisions in this high-decibel race, but we offer our endorsement using another standard: Who can better serve this district in Washington? In that respect, Mark Schauer is the better choice.

We do not suggest that voters choose the person they believe can bring home the pork. Whoever is elected goes to a Capitol that needs a fresh start, to cut back on gluttonous Bridges to Nowhere and pet projects that benefit nothing but politicians' chances of re-election.

Even so, this congressional district — and every district — deserves an advocate. It needs someone who can identify priorities and fight to see they are met.

The Jackson area needs money to modernize I-94. Michigan's automakers (and, by extension, their local suppliers) need federal assistance. Economic development projects involving government contracts or regulations need attention from a local lawmaker.

Walberg's record in this regard has been spotty. Schauer's has been exceptional.

[...]

Schauer is nothing if not effective, however. He has shown throughout his political career — as a Battle Creek city councilman and spending six years in the state House and six years in the Senate — that he cares about improving people's lives in a personal, tangible way.

He and Walberg share a priority of creating jobs. Schauer has been relentless in delivering results, even if they are compromises. Walberg would sacrifice what his constituents need at the cost of a principled defeat.

Much as we respect Tim Walberg and his two years in Washington, we endorse a better candidate for his seat: Mark Schauer.

The Citizen Patriot has always struck me as a moderate-to-conservative paper, though they've had some very good reporting this election cycle and last time. As Eric B. at Michigan Liberal notes, so close to Election Day, most people have probably made a decision. Even so, it doesn't hurt to add one more newspaper that says Mark Schauer is the right man for the job.

Pre-Election Round-Up

2008-11-03T23:34:00.000-05:00

I think that this is interesting. Compared to this time last year-- when there was no election-- and this time in 2006, traffic to Walberg Watch is down, but not by all that much. Why is this interesting? Well, frankly, because I've fallen down on the job and fallen behind. Life got in the way. And even so, people keep visiting Walberg Watch. Thank you, everyone, and especially to everyone that has e-mailed me over the last few weeks.

Even though I've been a little quieter, I still absolutely believe that Mark Schauer is the right man for the job, and Tim Walberg absolutely has to go.

I've simply run out of time to give everything the time it deserves, but here are some interesting last-minute items:

-----

The Michigan Republican Party put out this advertisement:

What's the problem? The photo of Mark Schauer slowly floating down the screen was stolen from a progressive blogger. According to Chris Gautz at the Citizen Patriot, two more photos were also stolen from the same blogger for use in direct mail pieces.

That's just a low move.

-----

Speaking of Chris Gautz, he'll be holding a liveblog tomorrow night following the results. I don't always agree with the conclusions he reaches, but it's worth checking out. Chris has a fun writing style and tells it as he sees it.

And besides, I'll be away from a computer until about 9:30pm, so there's a chance Walberg Watch won't have anything exciting for a while. You've got to have somewhere to go.

-----

There have been a lot of pre-Election Day "Walberg, Schauer in tight race" stories or "Candidates make final push" stories. If you're at Walberg Watch looking for more information, chances are you've already read one of them or you could write one yourself. Still, here's a small sample:

Schauer talks jobs at local visit - Daily Telegram
Candidates make final push as election nears - Jackson Citizen Patriot
Campaign for Congress down to final moments - Battle Creek Enquirer

-----

Former Congressman Nick Smith-- who served the district from 1993 to 2005-- endorsed Congressman Tim Walberg for reelection. It's not a huge surprise. His son, Brad Smith, had actually gotten the Club for Growth endorsement over Tim Walberg in 2004, and no one has ever said either Smith was anything other than conservative. I think I might also remember having seen Smith contribute to Walberg sometime in the last two years, though I'm not totally sure.

Still, it's a significant endorsement, and worth reporting.

-----

In mid-October, President George W. Bush was in Grand Rapids for a fundraising trip, and Congressman Tim Walberg was a major beneficiary.

George W. Bush was here, helping Tim Walberg.

I've got no further comment.

-----

In case you're one of the many people every day that comes to Walberg Watch following a Google search for polling on the race, Pollster.com has a handy graph that shows the polling trend of the race. Sadly, there's been very little independent, public polling.

-----

Remember to vote. Sure, you have to pay taxes and obey the laws in this country. But your right to vote makes up for all of those mild inconveniences.

Bob Schieffer of CBS News said this at the conclusion of the third presidential debate:

I'll leave you tonight with what my mother always said: Go vote now. It'll make you feel big and strong.

That's right.

If I've missed anything you think is important, leave it in the comments.

Late-Night Blogging In Review

2008-10-31T01:58:00.000-04:00

Whew!

So, all has not been well in Fitzy-land. I've been busy, I've been caught up in presidential campaign excitement, and, of course, somehow I managed to catch both a cold (a couple of weeks ago) and a "flu-like virus" (this week). Really, there have been some pretty miserable moments. But you don't care about that, you care about beating Tim Walberg!

So I spent the last few days trying to catch up with the campaign-- that can be seen in the dozens of posts below, which I've just uploaded. Most of them are going to sink off of the page pretty quickly (or already have), so I want to give you a table of contents of sort. Here's everything I've been up to today.

By the way, there's more coming tomorrow. This is just part one.

Today's blogging:

Predictions

Fundraising

Oops

Walberg... Spells His Own Name Wrong?

Endorsements

Walberg: Iraq Did Have WMD

2008-10-31T01:35:00.000-04:00

Um... Congressman Walberg?

Transcript

Walberg: Did not Saddam Hussein have the weapons of mass destruction?

Schauer: No!

Walberg: You disagree with even the...

Schauer: Do you contend that he did?

Walberg: Oh absolutely he did. In fact...

Moderator: What evidence has the government found of WMDs in Iraq since we went in?

Walberg: Oh, they didn't find it once they went in, but there's clear evidence that they were shipped other places or maybe still buried in the desert. The Hamilton Commission found that out...

[Moderator?]: Did we find them?

Walberg: No, we didn't find 'em.

Hm. So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, it's just that they're hidden so well that even after five years, we haven't found any. The Iraqi government was able to hide them quickly, in the midst of preparations for an invasion, without leaving any traces or having any witnesses that were able to give credible accounts to the Americans searching for the weapons.

Right.

I'm not an expert on this, but thankfully, there are some people that have spent a lot of time on this. For instance, the Iraq Survey Group, which was convened by coalition governments specifically to search for stockpiles or evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had this to say:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

and this:

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

[...]

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

In other words, Saddam Hussein really, really wanted weapons of mass destruction, liked to brag about them, but didn't actually have any. He was a deluded, aging dictator, not a serious threat.

And what about Tim Walberg's idea that the weapons might have been moved or buried? In an addendum to the final report, it was concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely.

Again, I have to ask, if there were these massive stockpiles, how is it that no one witnessed their movements across the border? I don't know, Congressman Walberg, this is straying into conspiracy-theory land. Next you're going to tell me that black helicopters from the UN are out to get you.

But wait, Congressman Walberg said that the "Hamilton Commission" found out that the weapons were buried in the desert. So he's right... right?

No. He's referring to the Iraq Study Group (not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group above), which was a bipartisan panel, chaired by Lee Hamilton (a Democrat) and James Baker (a Republican), and which released its final report in December of 2006. Except, they weren't tasked with investigating weapons of mass destruction. They were instead asked to find a path out of the mess we had created in Iraq.

In fact, in their final report, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" only appears once, in the biography of one of the commission members. As far as I can tell, the report never discusses the truth behind claims about weapons stockpiles, nor does it address what might have happened to those stockpiles, if they had existed.

Frankly, I haven't got any idea what Walberg is referring to. If anyone can enlighten me, I'll gladly post an update.

It's possible-- possible-- that Tim Walberg could be right, and a couple of dozen of Iraqi nuclear bombs are hidden in the desert, or in Syria, or something like that. Maybe, in some crazy, unbelievable way, that all managed to happen without us ever finding any evidence. Hey, anything can happen.

But that's not what Tim Walberg said. He didn't say, "Well, who knows, maybe it's possible that they were there!" No. He was sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He mocked Mark Schauer for denying that known fact. It was ridiculous to suggest that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and everyone knows that they're just hidden really well.

And yet, there's absolutely no evidence to support that. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking. When presented with evidence that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, he continues on, living in his fantasy world.

We should be used to that by now. It's the same Walberg fantasy world where Iraq is as safe as Detroit, the Chinese are drilling off of the coast of Florida, Hurricane Katrina didn't cause any damage, Iraq was behind September 11, and global climate change isn't real.

This isn't funny anymore.

Schauer's Closing Ad

2008-10-31T01:32:00.000-04:00

Here's Mark Schauer's "closing argument," as articulated via television advertisement:

They released the ad on October 27, 2008, meaning it'll end up running for at most a week, and will probably be the last Schauer ad they see. I think it accomplishes a lot of things.

First, starting off by panning across a large group of unemployed workers has a certain populist element in a year that I think populism is a catchy message. There's a sense that these people losing their jobs was an injustice, and that Mark Schauer is on their side-- and on your side, if the same thing happens to you.

Second, it repeats the same message Schauer has stuck to for the entire campaign: he'll fight unfair trade agreements and fight for your jobs, while Tim Walberg thinks outsourcing is okay and won't fight for you. He's not trying some last-minute stunt or desperately changing messages. The Schauer campaign is comfortable with where they're at and think that it's working.

Third, everything about the ad, from the phrasing of Schauer's script to the music in the background implies "hope," which, as Barack Obama has shown, is popular this year. Schauer won't just fight the special interests or whatever. He'll "get up every day and work hard to get people back to work." That's a nice message.

And even so, it's couched in a certain degree of pragmatism-- the "I can't promise you that I can turn our economy around overnight" part. This is still a lean-conservative and lean-Republican district, and people won't vote for a Democrat they think is making ridiculously liberal assertions and promising to fix the world. Mark Schauer is promising to work hard, and will help make things better. Not perfect, but better.

I think this is his strongest ad. But then again, I'm a biased observer. What did you think?

Walberg's Closing Ad

2008-10-31T01:29:00.000-04:00

The Walberg campaign released what may be their final television advertisement for the season. For the first time since their first television ad, it's positive.

I don't have much commentary on this one. Maybe people will believe the "It's all lies!" message, but I think people are smart enough to know that he's been running a lot of negative ads, too, and some of those aren't entirely in line with the facts. (Anyone remember the "Schauer will give our children pornography" ad?) It's a little late to play yourself up as the poor, misunderstood guy who's getting attacked from all sides.

I'm also vaguely reminded of this ad, from Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988:

We all remember the stunningly successful Dukakis Administration, right?

My point is, sometimes going on camera and saying, "They're lying about me!" comes across as whining, and doesn't sit well with people. Maybe it'll work for Tim Walberg, but it didn't do anything to help Dukakis as he dropped back in the polls.

Walberg Ad: They're Lying About Me!

2008-10-31T01:27:00.000-04:00

Although it's not on Tim Walberg's rarely-updated YouTube page, on October 20, Chris Gautz brought us one of the Walberg campaign's latest television ads:

Or, the short version: "Mark Schauer is lying!"

I don't know how effective this will be. Rather than countering with actual rebuttals to Schauer's attacks, he's just issuing a blanket "He's lying!" as if that's enough. I don't know if it is.

Of course, Chris Gautz, who's quoted in the ad, notes:

At the end of the short ad, it says Walberg opposes privatizing Social Security, though he told our paper last month he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

At a recent debate in Adrian, Walberg said "I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

I guess he decided to take a position-- though, it's not the position he's held before.

Schauer Ad: Walberg and Outsourcing

2008-10-31T01:20:00.000-04:00

On October 19, 2008, the Schauer campaign released this television advertisement:

Following the standard pattern of negative-then-positive, I actually think this is a really good ad. Regardless of the validity of the economics behind outsourcing, almost everyone in Michigan knows someone who has a story about losing a job because the business moved operations elsewhere. And when Walberg said that outsourcing was "necessary and good," it was incredibly tone-deaf.

But by closing on a positive note-- with a hopeful message and a legitimate Mark Schauer success story, Transpharm-- it casts Schauer as the good guy, on "our side." I'm not a big fan of negative advertising, but when you squeeze in some positive messaging, their value (to me, at least) increases.

That's my take, anyway. What did you think?

Schauer Ad: Walberg "Bought And Paid For"

2008-10-31T01:17:00.000-04:00

On October 8th, 2008, the Schauer campaign released this ad:

I'll be honest, I'm not crazy about this one. Using an actor's voice to fill in for Walberg in an attack ad just seems unnecessary to me.

That said, this is an issue I've criticized Walberg on countless times, and rightly so. He's been a reliable voice for the Club for Growth in Congress (to the detriment of his constituents). And, yeah, as Eric at Michigan Liberal notes, it's absolutely fair game to use this quote.

Even so, I'd be surprised if this was the ad that resonated with voters. People care less about who contributed to whom and more about issues that affect them. A million dollars is a lot, but if you don't already know something about the Club for Growth, it's not going to mean much to you.

Walberg Attacks... Michael Moore?

2008-10-31T01:14:00.000-04:00

On October 9th, 2008, the Walberg campaign released this television ad:

Contrasting it to their latest ad on the economy, the Schauer campaign had this to say:

It's an interesting contrast. Schauer is focusing on the economy and how the incumbent's policies and supporters are making things worse, whereas Walberg's ad focuses on... Michael Moore.

With the Congressman trailing by 10-points in our latest internal poll, it now appears that Tim Walberg has officially jumped the shark.

More seriously, though, what about the substance of the ad?

Yes, Michael Moore does support Mark Schauer, and has contributed to him. Lots of people support Schauer, and that in and of itself shouldn't be a bad thing. It's not like Schauer's been flaunting Moore's endorsement.

The tax increase attacks have been common throughout the campaign, and don't need to be addressed in this post. But the thing about giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants has been used less. Is there substance to that attack?

Well, it turns out, yes and no. Yes, because Senator Schauer was against a provision that would prevent illegal immigrants from getting drivers' licenses, and no, because on the substance of the issue, Mark Schauer was right.

Chris Gautz brings us the statement of then-state Representative Schauer when he cast his vote:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I strongly support efforts to protect Michigan and the United States, I voted no on HB 5497 (H-1) because in a rush to pass necessary anti-terrorism legislation, there will be unintended consequences that could have been avoided by taking more time with this bill. This is a package of 60 bills. This bill represents only a small piece of the overall package and is unlikely to make any positive change to our current licensing system. Furthermore, if passed with the current language, HB 5497 would place a burden on the office of the Secretary of State that they are ill-equipped to handle. In considering my vote on HB 5497, I am compelled by the testimony of the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Diocese of Kalamazoo. They say that this bill will not accomplish its intended purpose. It will not drive undocumented persons out of Michigan. They are persons with homes, jobs, and families and are making substantial contributions to our communities. Depriving them of a drivers license will just make their lives and their children's lives more difficult. It will also result in an increased threat to the safety of all our people and increased auto insurance costs. This bill will also have negative consequences for Michigan's agriculture industry. In the Diocese of Kalamazoo, there are 20,000 migrants working each year in area fields and orchards. Many of these are undocumented immigrants."

In other words, complicated problems require thoughtful solutions, not panicked moves without considering the consequences. It's easy to make bold pronouncements like, "Illegal immigrants shouldn't get drivers' licenses!" It's much harder to think through the tough situation that would create for everyone.

Mark Schauer brings with him a thoughtful point of view. Tim Walberg brings only a rigid, out-of-touch ideology.

AFSCME Ad: "Walberg For Wall Street"

2008-10-31T01:08:00.000-04:00

YouTube user SeventhDem uploaded this advertisement on October 10, 2008. It's from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.

I'm not going to lie, I was cringing all the way through this. It would have been fine if it wasn't for the cartoon Wall Street executives popping up all the time. Seriously, that's as bad as "Sour for Schauer." Come on, guys, you're embarrassing our side!

I think it's got the potential to be a fairly effective attack ad-- Wall Street isn't popular right now-- but it loses everything with the cartoons. Sorry, I just don't think it works.

That's my shallow take on it. What did you think?

More From the DCCC

2008-10-31T01:06:00.000-04:00

YouTube user SeventhDem (a phenomenal resource) uploaded this advertisement from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 22, 2008:

Ouch. We've talked about the sales tax thing before (though it's good to see them hitting him on it again), but I think this is probably one of the most pointed ads the DCCC has released. Notably, you come away from it remembering two parts.

First, there's the man with the line, "What nut would support that?" I think the DCCC is hiring better writers-- it's certainly more memorable than "Sour on Schauer," and they only had to say it once.

But the part that really leaves a mark is the end. While they phrase it as a question, it's clear what they want you to think: Tim Walberg both doesn't get it AND doesn't care. It paints him as out-of-touch with everyday needs and unconcerned with what you're going through.

And, frankly, while the ad doesn't tell a balanced story on Walberg's sales tax, the closing of the ad is very accurate. Walberg didn't go to Washington to represent us, he went there to push a rigid, ideological agenda. The far-right conservatism he's embraced is one that doesn't have room for compassion or helping those in need-- at least, not when it comes to the federal government. Walberg doesn't realize that people are hurting, and when government is one of the tools in your toolbox, it's irresponsible not to use it.

Use it carefully, sure. But you've got to use it.

HCAN Increases Ad Buy In Response To Walberg

2008-10-31T01:03:00.000-04:00

Do you remember this ad from Health Care America NOW?

On October 20, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's campaign is demanding that a television advertisement, which they called ``blatantly false,'' be pulled from the airwaves.

The advertisement was sponsored by Health Care for America Now!, an advocacy group that is made up of nonprofit and political organizations.

[...]

Walberg's campaign disseminated its attorney's letter Thursday that calls on the group to retract or correct the ad, and threatens potential legal action.

Legal action? I knew it was an effective ad, but apparently it hit a really sour note with the Walberg people.

The short version of their argument is that Walberg doesn't support letting insurance companies make the rules, but instead supports letting inter-state competition. As I said before, this doesn't let the insurance companies make the rules, but it does give them a bunch of options for which they want to follow, including giving them the option of rejecting coverage of pre-existing conditions.

As far as legal action, I'm not quite sure what action they could take and actually expect anyone to take them seriously. But they did get a response out of Health Care for America NOW. From a press release:

LANSING, MI -- Today, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) responded to Congressman Tim Walberg's threat to sue over a television ad by extending its television ad buy in Michigan and running a new print advertisement in the local weekly. HCAN is putting its hard-hitting ad – "Fighter" - back on the air in Congressman Walberg's district for three additional days and has taken out a full-page ad in the Tecumseh Herald asking "What Is Walberg Hiding?"
Last week, the Walberg campaign issued a press release announcing it intended legal action against Health Care for America Now for a television ad running in Michigan's 7^th congressional district. The ad points out Congressman Walberg's record on health care – a record that indicates he clearly stands on the side of the insurance industry, rather than on the side of quality, affordable health care for all. The Walberg campaign then released a second notice demanding a retraction.

Contrary to Rep. Walberg's allegations, the television ad is 100% true, and HCAN's new print advertisement running in the October 23^rd edition of the Tecumseh Herald spells out the proof once again.

You can see the ad they put in the Tecumseh Herald here.

I'm glad to see that Health Care for America NOW isn't letting up on this. On the substance of issues, Tim Walberg is wrong, and it has the added benefit of being bad politics.

Ann Arbor News Endorses Schauer

2008-10-31T01:01:00.000-04:00

Although Ann Arbor isn't in the 7th District, the Ann Arbor News still serves as the main newspaper for western Washtenaw County, a vote-rich battleground for this year's congressional race. And although Washtenaw County is solidly Democratic, thanks to Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor News itself is a rather conservative paper. For instance, in 2004, they endorsed President George W. Bush (R), while Senator John Kerry went on to carry the county 63-35.

In 2006, the newspaper chose not to endorse between Renier and Walberg, judging Walberg too radical and Renier too, well, incompetent. Here's what they said about Walberg last time:

Walberg's entrenched conservative stances on virtually every issue, from abortion to Iraq, offer no room for compromise - and that ideological rigidity should have no place in Congress. His unwillingness to engage in the necessary give and take of governance makes him an untenable choice.

This year, it's different. In their October 24, 2008 issue, the Ann Arbor News endorsed state Senator Mark Schauer over Congressman Tim Walberg:

Both candidates are bright, and are hard-working lawmakers who understand the importance of constituent service. Schauer knows how to get things done and is more likely to intervene and seek aid for companies, in part because he is comfortable in that pragamatic role and he doesn't have to jump the free-market hurdle that slows Walberg.

We're uncomfortable with Schauer because of his inability or his unwillingness to admit that tax hikes he typically would support will hurt the very companies he is trying to help in the district, and those are the small- and medium-sized companies that tend to be the best creators of jobs. And, we're unsure if he doesn't get that fact or simply is trying to spin himself as something he isn't.
Nevertheless, we're endorsing Schauer. His pragmatism works, and we think he will do a better job of representing the area of Washtenaw County that is in this district.

You could tell that it hurt them to do that. Even so, the conservative Ann Arbor News endorsed the Democratic nominee in the 7th District race. That's a big deal.

LSJ Endorses Schauer

2008-10-31T00:59:00.000-04:00

The Lansing State Journal is a great resource for news on state government and the Lansing area, including Eaton County. They've watched Mark Schauer in Lansing up-close, and they've watched as Tim Walberg embarrasses his district in Washington. On Saturday, October 25, 2008, the Lansing State Journal endorsed Mark Schauer:

Voters in Michigan's 7th Congressional District have watched one of the nation's highest profile contests between incumbent Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Mark Schauer.
The contrasts between the two are deep; campaign rhetoric has been deafening.
But a careful review of the issues leads to a clear choice. The LSJ Editorial Board endorses Mark Schauer for the seat.

They also have a fairly decent response to Walberg's attacks on taxes:

The 2007 budget battle in the Michigan Legislature was messy, but Schauer took his leadership responsibility seriously and joined politicians on both sides of the aisle in creating and supporting a compromise.
Walberg now uses that compromise to label Schauer as a tax-and-spend Democrat who has run off Michigan jobs.
Voters should see that shallow partisan rhetoric for what it is. The United States faces a $438 billion spending deficit according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office earlier this month (a figure that doesn't include the $700 billion authorized to stabilize the nation's financial crisis). It's a budget gap that makes Michigan's $1.75 billion shortfall for fiscal 2008 look like pocket change.
The 7th District will best be served by a level-headed lawmaker who has demonstrated the ability to partner with politicians of both parties to carve out difficult solutions to government's challenges.

You can read the whole piece (and the angry comments) here.

Battle Creek Enquirer Endorses Schauer

2008-10-31T00:57:00.000-04:00

It's not a huge surprise... From what I hear about Battle Creek's relationship with Mark Schauer, there would probably be rioting if they didn't do this. Nevertheless, it's important to note that the Battle Creek Enquirer endorsed state Senator Mark Schauer over Congressman Tim Walberg in the October 24, 2008 issue:

When it comes to the 7th Congressional District race, we endorse Democrat MARK SCHAUER over first-term incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg.

Schauer has long been a thoughtful, moderate representative of our community, first as a Battle Creek city commissioner, then as a state representative and currently as a state senator. That is why we don't recognize the "scary" and "dangerous" caricature portrayed in anti-Schauer campaign ads. As a lawmaker, Schauer usually has taken the time to listen to both sides of an argument, trying to forge consensus about what is best for constituents.

It's a good endorsement, and you can read the whole thing here.

Detroit Free Press Endorses Schauer

2008-10-31T00:54:00.000-04:00

Like the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press isn't a 7th District newspaper and isn't all that widely read in the district, compared to local dailies. But it does help shape opinion in the state, and an endorsement does carry weight-- in particular, with the state and national groups that are looking to handicap races in Michigan. The Free Press tends to be more left-leaning than the conservative News, but it's also the most-read newspaper in Michigan.

In the October 24, 2008, issue, the Free Press discussed the historically low grade of challengers in Michigan's congressional races, and then highlighted and endorsed Mark Schauer and Gary Peters as bucking that trend.

No matter what shape the state is in or how much Michigan voters gripe about Washington, they have a pattern of retaining their representatives in Congress. It's pretty tough to knock off an incumbent on these peninsulas. The result is challengers who are sometimes unqualified, usually underfinanced, and generally unable to offer assets equivalent to the experience and seniority that matter so much in the Washington power structure.
This year, however, two challengers have made the case.
In the 9th District, which spans Oakland County from Farmington Hills north through Pontiac, the Free Press endorses Democrat GARY PETERS of Bloomfield Hills over eight-term incumbent Republican Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Township. In the 7th District, which encompasses all or most of seven southern lower Michigan counties, state Sen. MARK SCHAUER, D-Battle Creek, would do a better job than incumbent Republican Tim Walberg of Tipton has managed in his first term.

and

As for the 7th District contest, Schauer, 47, has been in the state Legislature since 1997, and, unlike archconservative Walberg, believes that government can do more to help and protect people than just cut taxes and get out of their way. He has done considerable ground-level work to bring businesses and jobs to the Battle Creek area and says that securing health care coverage for all Americans is "an economic issue as well as a moral issue."
Schauer would set a "safe timetable" for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, while Walberg wants to achieve victory.
[...]
Walberg's first term was notable in part for a press release he issued taking credit for a federal grant to build a new runway at Battle Creek's airport -- in a bill that Walberg voted against. He explained that the full bill contained too much pork barrel spending. The League of Conservation Voters made Walberg a member of its 2008 "Dirty Dozen" in Congress for his record on environmental issues.
Walberg has certainly been true to his principles -- the American Conservative Union gave him a 100% rating last year -- but the 7th District would be better served by electing Mark Schauer to Congress on Nov. 4.

You can read the whole endorsement here.

Adrian Daily Telegram Endorses Walberg

2008-10-31T00:51:00.000-04:00

It's not a huge surprise, since the paper leans right anyway, it's the only daily newspaper in Lenawee County, and it's endorsed Tim Walberg in the past. Nevertheless, it's worth mentioning that Adrian's Daily Telegram endorsed Congressman Tim Walberg in it's October 24, 2008 issue:

In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District race between Tim Walberg and Mark Schauer, playing up the candidates’ differing views on TV has been like shooting fish in a barrel. In real life, however, the actions of Rep. Walberg in Washington have turned out to be consistent and practical, and that is why voters should re-elect Walberg on Nov. 4.

The editorial commends Walberg for what he's done in Congress (including many things I've criticized him for-- and I stand by all of my criticism), and then proceeds to call Mark Schauer a "big-government liberal." Yeah.

If you're interested, you can read the whole editorial.

Detroit News Endorses Walberg

2008-10-31T00:48:00.000-04:00

The Detroit News isn't a 7th District newspaper, but like it's rival the Free Press, it's still read throughout the state. An endorsement by the paper means less to voters than, say, the local dailies that cover the district, but more to the groups that are handicapping the race, particularly those from a conservative perspective. I discussed all of this in the post on the Free Press endorsement.

In 2006, the News refused to endorse Tim Walberg, judging him too "extreme," and opting for the comparatively safe Libertarian Robert Hutchinson.

This time around, they've judged Walberg to be a standard Bush Republican-- which, in the eyes of the Detroit News, is a good thing. They've endorsed Congressman Tim Walberg for re-election.

Meh. You can't win 'em all.

Walberg... Spells His Own Name Wrong?

2008-10-31T00:43:00.000-04:00

Every now and then, a politician does something stupid that doesn't actually matter, but makes us all feel better about ourselves. When Barack Obama accidentally said he had visited "fifty-seven states," he didn't actually mean it. He was tired and he misspoke.

But it's fun to make fun of that anyway, just like it's fun to make fun of a minor mistake made by Congressman Tim Walberg, which the Schauer campaign jumped on, while noting a previous mistake:

WALBERG SPELLS OWN NAME WRONG
Tim "A in English" Walberg continues to struggle with spelling

BATTLE CREEK—Earlier this year, Congressman Tim Walberg was recognized at the U.S. Capitol by U.S. English, Inc. and honored with an "A in English" award based on his votes for English-only legislation. Unfortunately, the press release announcing the news included an unfortunate spelling error, referring to the Congressman's "constitutents": [Link]

A recent fundraising letter sent out by the Walberg campaign contained another unfortunate spelling error – this time it was the Congressman's own name (see attached).

"Hey, we all make typos sometimes," said Schauer spokesman Zack Pohl. "It's no big deal – they could've spelled the Congressman's last name B-U-S-H and nobody would be able to tell the difference."

(Emphasis added.)

And before anyone says anything, it wasn't just some staffer mis-typing something. This was a handwritten fundraising appeal which was passed on to the Schauer campaign. Shown below, Walberg spells his name two different ways:

and

Now, the actual story here is the panicked, last-minute fundraising appeal for "anything you can send," but that's not nearly as much fun as the spelling error.

Then again, I have a tough to spell last name too, so I understand, Congressman Walberg.

Tim Walberg's Pre-General Fundraising

2008-10-31T00:41:00.000-04:00

On October 23, 2008, Walberg for Congress filed the Pre-General report with the Federal Election Commission. It covers the period from October 1 to October 15.

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	74151.00
(ii) Unitemized	15470.82
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	89621.82	917623.61
(b) Political Party Commitees	5125.00	18527.80
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	63020.00	719394.76
(d) The Candidate	0.00	500.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	157766.82	1656046.17
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	0.00	22157.62
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	0.00	13023.89
15. Other Receipts	0.00	7802.85
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	157766.82	1699030.53
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	437012.16	1378633.69
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	0.00	0.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	0.00	2350.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	0.00	294.12
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	0.00	2644.12
21. Other Disbursements	0.00	499.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	437012.16	1381776.81
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	691635.12
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	157766.82	1699030.53
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	849401.94
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	437012.16	1381776.81
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	412389.78

In the fifteen-day period, Walberg raised $157,766.82. Of that, $89,621.82 came from individual donors, or about 57 percent. Included in that is $5,000 from the Republican National Committee. This brought his total fundraising for the cycle up to that point to $1,699,030.53.

In the same period, Walberg spent $437,012.16. This included a $42,000 mailing and about $260,000 spent on "ads."

At the close of the period, Walberg had $412,389.78 cash-on-hand. This is just 56 percent of Schauer's cash-on-hand. Schauer entered the final portion of the campaign with nearly twice as much money as Walberg.

The Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz looked at some notable contributors to the Walberg campaign during this period. It's interesting reading.

Although significantly more than former Congressman Nick Smith's mere $125,506 raised in his 2002 reelection campaign and nearly twice former Congressman Joe Schwarz's $891,845 in 2004, Walberg only slightly outraised Schwarz's $1,608,883 for the 2006 Republican primary. Walberg's fundraising appears consistent with a Republican in a tough race, unlike the extraordinary records set by Schauer.

Mark Schauer's Pre-General Fundraising

2008-10-31T00:39:00.000-04:00

On October 23, 2008, Schauer for Congress filed the Pre-General report with the Federal Election Commission. It covers the period from October 1 to October 15.

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	136838.50
(ii) Unitemized	28022.87
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	164861.37	1329405.89
(b) Political Party Commitees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	58592.36	631647.23
(d) The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	223453.73	1961053.12
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	2923.87	43760.85
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	0.00	0.00
15. Other Receipts	0.00	11772.88
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	226377.60	2016586.85
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	247338.14	1155383.32
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	100000.00	120000.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	300.00	5100.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	0.00	1400.00
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	300.00	6500.00
21. Other Disbursements	0.00	700.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	347638.14	1282583.32
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	856148.96
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	226377.60	2016586.85
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	1082526.56
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	347638.14	1282583.32
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	734888.42

In the fifteen-day period covered by the report, Mark Schauer raised $223,453.73, plus almost $3,000 transferred from the joint committee with 9th District Democrat Gary Peters. Of the contributions he received, $164,861.37 came from individual donors, or about 74 percent. The Schauer campaign raised a total of $2,016,586.85 for the entire cycle up to that date.

The Schauer for Congress committee also spent $347,638.14 in that period, including a $101,409.82 media buy and a $100,000.00 transfer to the Michigan Democratic Party.

As a result of these expenditures, the Schauer campaign's cash-on-hand as of October 15 was $734,888.42.

Chris Gautz at the Jackson Citizen Patriot picked out some significant contributors during this filing period. It's interesting reading.

The total dollar amount raised for every Democratic nominee in the 7th District since the 2002 cycle (when the current boundaries were adopted) and prior to 2008 is $115,718. That is, the total amount of money raised for the 2002, 2004, and 2006 nominees was $115,718. In 15 days, Mark Schauer raised almost twice that, and for the whole cycle, has raised raised that more than 17 times over.

Tim Walberg's Third Quarter Fundraising

2008-10-31T00:36:00.000-04:00

On October 15, 2008, Tim Walberg's campaign filed their third quarter fundraising report with the Federal Elections Commission. It covers the period from July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008.

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	141965.00
(ii) Unitemized	41707.93
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	183672.93	828001.79
(b) Political Party Commitees	4500.00	13402.80
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	121368.70	656374.76
(d) The Candidate	0.00	500.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	309541.63	1498279.35
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	21410.12	22157.62
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	151.00	13023.89
15. Other Receipts	1815.88	7802.85
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	332918.63	1541263.71
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	495921.85	941621.53
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	0.00	0.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	0.00	2350.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	0.00	294.12
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	0.00	2644.12
21. Other Disbursements	499.00	499.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	496420.85	944764.65
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	855137.34
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	332918.63	1541263.71
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	1188055.97
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	496420.85	944764.65
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	691635.12

In this quarter, Walberg raised $332,918.63, with $183,672.93, or about 55 percent, coming from individual donors. The rest came from political action committees or some organ of the Republican Party.

In the same quarter, Walberg spent $496,420.85, slightly more than half of all expenditures in the cycle up to that point. Many of the more expensive purchases are for "advertising" or "production," reflecting the start of serious general election campaigning.

At the end of the quarter, Walberg had $691,635.12 cash-on-hand.

Mark Schauer's Third Quarter Fundraising

2008-10-31T00:34:00.000-04:00

On October 15, 2008, the Schauer for Congress campaign filed their third quarter fundraising report with the Federal Elections Commission. It covers the period from July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008.

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
I. RECEIPTS
11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	257644.77
(ii) Unitemized	47889.62
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	305534.39	1164544.52
(b) Political Party Commitees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACS)	123419.87	573054.87
(d) The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(e) Total Contributions (11(a)(iii) + (b) + (c))	428954.26	1737599.39
12. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees	25918.08	40836.98
13. Loans
(a) Made Or Guaranteed By The Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loans ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
14. Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc)	0.00	0.00
15. Other Receipts	3779.69	11772.88
16. Total Receipts (11(e) + 12 + 13(c) + 14 + 15)	458652.03	1790209.25
II. DISBURSEMENTS
17. Operating Expenditures	530289.52	908045.18
18. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees	0.00	20000.00
19. Loan Repayments:
(a) Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate	0.00	0.00
(b) Of All Other Loans	0.00	0.00
(c) Total Loan Repayments ((a) + (b))	0.00	0.00
20. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees	500.00	4800.00
(b) Political Party Committees	0.00	0.00
(c) Other Political Committees (such as PACs)	400.00	1400.00
(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c))	900.00	6200.00
21. Other Disbursements	0.00	700.00
22. Total Disbursements (17 + 18 + 19(c) + 20(d) + 21)	531189.52	934945.18
III. CASH SUMMARY
23. Cash On Hand At Beginning Of Reporting Period	928686.45
24. Total Receipts This Period (line 16)	458652.03	1790209.25
25. Subtotal (23 + 24)	1387338.48
26. Total Disbursements This Period (line 22)	531189.52	934945.18
27. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period (25 - 26)	856148.96

In this quarter, Schauer raised $458,652.03, with $305,534.39 coming from individual donors, or about 67 percent. The rest came from political action committees or other, similar groups. For the entire election cycle up to the end of September, Schauer raised $1,790,209.25.

In the same quarter, Schauer spent $531,189.52. This accounts for more than half of all their spending in this election cycle, including large "media production" costs-- presumably, television ads-- reflecting the start of the general election period.

The campaign finished the quarter with $856,148.96 cash-on-hand.

This quarter is the fifth straight quarter in which Mark Schauer has out-raised Tim Walberg.

Fox News: Walberg Will Lose

2008-10-31T00:33:00.000-04:00

Ouch. It's got to hurt when Fox News, always willing to put a more optimistic spin on things for Republicans, says Tim Walberg will lose:

MI 7: Rep. Tim Walberg (R) is one of the most-endangered Republicans this cycle in a contest against Mark Schauer. Expect a Democratic win. Especially after McCain pulled out of Michigan.

This won't mean a thing on Election Day, however. You've still got to get out there and help get out the vote for Mark Schauer.

Larry Sabato: Schauer Will Win

2008-10-31T00:31:00.000-04:00

(Thanks to the multiple people that e-mailed me about this.)

On his "Crystal Ball" website, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, published his "next-to-last" predictions for Election Day 2008. They're pretty good for the Democrats all around, but here's the part that matters to me the most:

I don't know if you can see it on there, but "MI-07 (Walberg)" is under the "Democratic Pick-up" column. Yeah, it's just one prediction, and it won't matter at all in five days. But it's good to see anyway.

Mind you, this is no time to get overconfident. Mark Schauer is going to need everyone's help to get out the vote.

US News & World Report: GOP Thinks Walberg Will Lose

2008-10-31T00:28:00.000-04:00

This showed up all over the internet, but is definitely worth repeating here. A Republican memo leaked to U.S. News & World Report had the expected losses for the GOP on Election Day:

The document provided to Whispers is no gag: It comes from one of the key House GOP vote counters. The source called it a "death list." The tally shows several different ratings of 66 House Republicans in difficult races or open seats held by retiring Republicans. "Rating 1" finds 10 Republicans "likely gone." Those districts are New York 13, Alaska, Arizona 1, Virginia 11, New York 25, Illinois 11, Florida 24, Michigan 7, Nevada 3, and North Carolina 8.

(Emphasis added.)

Ouch. Congressman Walberg, your party says you're going to lose!

Mind you, now isn't the time to be overconfident. Go sign up to volunteer to get out the vote!

DCCC Poll: Schauer 43, Walberg 35

2008-10-31T00:25:00.000-04:00

Catching up... -- Fitzy

For the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Benenson Strategy Group conducted a poll over October 6 and 7, 2008. With a margin of error of 4.9 percent, here's what they found:

Mark Schauer (D) - 43
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 35

The press release didn't release details like sample size or, for that matter, if they asked any other questions, and I'm mentioning this late enough that I feel silly asking for those details now. Suffice it to say, this seems more or less in line with the poll the Schauer campaign released at about the same time.

Right now, I'm inclined to believe that both polls are accurate, and Schauer is leading by a respectable margin, with a lot of undecideds. Why? It's been weeks, and the Walberg folks haven't released their own counter-poll. If they had better-looking data than this, you'd better believe they'd release it.

19 Days Out

2008-10-16T17:15:00.000-04:00

I've been sick and extremely busy in my non-Walberg Watch life. These things combined make blogging a low priority. But I'm back now, hopefully more consistently, for the next 19 days.

I'm going to have substantive posts coming up soon, but for the moment, I'm going to leave you with this:

There are 19 days left between now and Election Day. In that time, a single volunteer with Mark Schauer's campaign could easily make 400 phone calls or 200 doors volunteering just twice a week for two hours each time. Those are very reasonable numbers for just one person, working at a reasonable pace.

If you can't give up two hours of your time, you can write a letter to the editor, detailing why Mark Schauer is the right choice for Michigan's 7th District. You can tell your friends and neighbors about the irresponsible votes cast by Tim Walberg. You can spend five minutes calling up your college-age child to make sure he or she has gotten an absentee ballot.

There's a lot of work to be done between now and Election Day, and the Get Out The Vote effort is going to be an enormous challenge, especially in a district as large as Michigan's 7th District.

It's not about chipping in $20 or putting a bumper sticker on your car anymore. We've reachd the serious part of the campaign. It's up to you. What are you going to do to help elect Mark Schauer?

Walberg DID Call Social Security "Socialism"!

2008-10-09T09:10:00.000-04:00

(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"!

After reading for myself the full context of the quote, it would seem to lend credibility to what the DCCC was trying to say. But click below to see the portion of the article that was referenced and judge for yourself.

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.

When a panelist asked the candidates about their views regarding Social Security reform and privatization, Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Drew Walker openly debated the subject briefly.

Walker said the privatization of Social Security in the wake of corporate scandals and unstable stock prices could lead to individuals putting their retirement savings at risk in uninsured private accounts.

"What an incredible scandal; I would certainly never take part in that," Walker said. "Social Security is one of the foundations of our society for getting older."

The question then turned to Walberg, who began by expressing his feelings about Walker's statement.

"Wow, I just heard socialism at its finest," said Walberg, a former state representative. "Oh come on, that's offensive," Walker replied.

"That's defined as socialism when the government is required to take care of all of us," said Walberg, followed by audience laughter.

So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.

Walberg For Privatizing Social Security Before He Was Against It Even Though He's For It

2008-10-09T09:00:00.000-04:00

At last night's debate in Adrian, Congressman Tim Walberg and state Senator Mark Schauer talked about privatizing Social Security. Here's what happened, via the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

Schauer then offered to read Walberg his statement to CitPat reporter Holly Klaft in expressing his support for private accounts.

Schauer said Walberg's plan is dangerous and that "Social Security is not in crisis."

and Holly Klaft:

Schauer said the first-term congressman's plan to fix the nation's Social Security system by creating private accounts would be ``devastating.''

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

And, finally, the Schauer campaign has this quote:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Now, I haven't gotten my hands on any audio from the debate (yet), so I can't give you the unfiltered exchange. But let's suppose that this is all that happened.

For starters, when it says:

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

Well, Congressman Walberg, that is privatization of Social Security. At least, that's the sort of plan generally accepted as privatizing Social Security. People get into trouble by relying on Wikipedia too much, but the article on this debate, while not the best, has a decent explanation of what "personal accounts" means-- namely, that individuals could take money they pay into the Social Security system and invest it in stocks and bonds.

So, Congressman Walberg, when this happened:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

And this:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Well, you weren't exactly being honest. And then this:

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

That's basically true. No one's really been pushing that idea lately. It basically died in 2005, due to lack of support and a lack of political capital for President Bush. But that didn't stop Tim Walberg from supporting it in 2006, so much so that he put it on his website:

Tim supports President Bush’s efforts to expand our ownership society by allowing younger workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their payroll taxes and allowing the money to be secured in personal investment accounts.

And in 2004, he also put on his website:

Tim Walberg believes Social Security benefits must be protected and younger workers should have the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks, bonds, or money market funds. Under this reform, younger workers will earn a higher rate of return and likely retire with far more funds than under the current system.

Those claims are a little dubious, but that's beside the point-- in 2004 and 2006, Walberg was clearly on the record as supporting privatizing Social Security.

And then, in September, from the Detroit News:

Walberg, R-Tipton, supports changing the program so younger workers could choose to invest a portion of their Social Security money in private investment accounts.

And this from the Citizen Patriot the next day:

Kennelly, who is president of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which endorsed Schauer in his bid for Congress, said lawmakers should avoid looking to privatization as a solution.

Privatization would put Social Security money seniors rely on into private accounts that are at the mercy of the market, she said.

She said many Social Security recipients get a little more than $1,000 per month.

Schauer said Social Security is an efficient system that must be preserved. He has said he would oppose any efforts to privatize it and would work to make sure Social Security is available for the long term.

Walberg said he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

My point, of course, is to say that yes, Congressman Walberg, you do support privatizing Social Security. You didn't call it that, but Holly Klaft equated your plan with privatization, and we didn't hear any calls for a retraction. And just a few days ago, Chris Gautz made the same connection between "privatization" and the Walberg plan:

Also in the ad, it points out Walberg's support of "privatization," which is another way of saying he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts. Of course those accounts could be subject to the whims of the market, and especially this week, might not be the most popular idea.

So, Congressman, when you said:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

well, that was just a lie. You have taken a position in favor of privatizing Social Security. The only thing you haven't done is used the magical word "privatize."

Needless to say, the Schauer campaign is jumping on this (and rightly so):

WALBERG LIES ABOUT SUPPORT FOR PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY AT ADRIAN DEBATE
Schauer has a clear record of fighting to protect guaranteed Social Security benefits

BATTLE CREEK—During last night’s debate at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Congressman Tim Walberg once again lied about his stance on Social Security, saying, “I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security.” In fact, less than a month ago Walberg told the Jackson Citizen Patriot that he, “supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.” [Citizen Patriot, 9/9/08]

Such a policy would slash benefits by more than 40 percent for future retirees, replace guaranteed Social Security benefits with risky private accounts, drain trillions of dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund, and increase America’s debt to foreign nations by about $5 trillion over 20 years. [http://www.cbpp.org/12-17-04socsec.pdf; http://www.cbpp.org/5-1-06socsec.htm]

“Tim Walberg can call it whatever he wants, but the bottom line is that private accounts would effectively kill Social Security as we know it,” said Schauer spokesman Zack Pohl. “At a time when the financial meltdown has cost more than $2 trillion in lost retirement funds, working families and seniors can’t afford to put Wall Street CEOs in charge of our Social Security benefits.”

Background:

Walberg also supported private accounts for Social Security during his 2006 campaign: "I support efforts to expand our ownership society by allowing younger workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their payroll taxes and allowing the money to be secured in personal investment accounts. Once the system is fully transitioned into personal investment accounts, the system will involve real savings and real rates of return.” [Detroit News, 7/17/06]

Walberg has received more than $1 million in campaign support from the extreme Club for Growth, a group that also supports personal retirement accounts for Social Security. [Club for Growth Press Release, 8/8/06; www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php]

In March 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney visited Battle Creek to support President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. That same week, Sen. Schauer hosted a town hall meeting with Congressman Sandy Levin to oppose Bush's privatization efforts. [http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3122588&nav=0RceXskT]

According to the Social Security Office of Policy Data, there are roughly 126,552 seniors in the 7th district who receive Social Security benefits. [http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/cong_stats/2007/]

# # #

Come on, Congressman Walberg. If you really, honestly, truly believe that privatizing Social Security is the right thing to do, then say so and do it honestly. Defend your ideas for what they are. Right now, you're trying to have it both ways, and when people call you out on it, you lie. That's not acceptable.

Health Care for America NOW Launches Ad Against Walberg

2008-10-09T08:56:00.000-04:00

The fun part about living in a district with lots of national attention is that you get to learn all about political groups you'd never heard of before.

The Hill reports:

Healthcare for America Now, a union-backed liberal health reform advocacy group, is making a $4.3 million ad buy in support of Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates.
Over the next two weeks, the organization will run ads on TV and radio attacking Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and seven GOP congressional candidates for their views on healthcare.

[...]

Echoing talking points used by Obama and his campaign, the ads claim that McCain’s health reform plan would cause 20 million people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance because of changes he would make to how those benefits are taxed.

[...]

Similar ads will air in the states and districts of four incumbent Republican lawmakers: Sen. John Sununu (N.H.) and Reps. Ric Keller (Fla.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.).

[...]

On top of the multimillion-dollar advertising buy, Healthcare for America Now will spend $500,000 on direct mail and telephone campaigning.

It will be interesting to see the kind of impact they might have on the campaign. Personally, I'd like to see all candidates talk about health care more, and, to his credit, it's something Mark Schauer rarely fails to mention.

With Health Care for America NOW, all I can hope is that the "telephone campaigning" doesn't include robocalls. Please, nobody likes those.

Here's the television ad they're running against Tim Walberg:

Ouch. Maybe I'm just a receptive audience, but I'd say that it's a pretty effective ad.

The bill they mention is HR 4460, the "Health Care Choice Act of 2007," of which Tim Walberg is a cosponsor. It was introduced but never made it out of committee, and for a good reason. The bill would allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, potentially opening you up to cheaper options, should you decide to purchase health insurance on your own.

However, by allowing health insurance companies to designate a "primary" state and making them exempt from the laws of all other "secondary" states in which they sell, that would mean insurers could choose as a "primary" state somewhere that, say, doesn't have a law requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions.

The ad says it would let the insurance companies "make the rules," and that's not quite true. It's more that it would let the insurance companies pick and choose which combination of rules they want to follow. (Thanks to Wikipedia and this blog for guiding me in the right direction.)

Anyway, that's the policy behind the ad. Now, back to the politics.

In addition to the television ad, Congressman Walberg is featured on a website they launched, WhichSideAreTheyOn.com. Walberg's page, with a side-by-side comparison to Mark Schauer, leaves the reader with one clear conclusion-- Tim Walberg's not on your side. They also include a .pdf file with a good summary of Walberg's record on health care. It's certainly a must-read for anyone planning to talk with friends or relatives, and should be added to the talking points for Schauer volunteers going door-to-door.

NRCC Releases Attack Ad

2008-10-09T08:50:00.000-04:00

Not content to just fund Tim Walberg's attack ads, on October 7, 2008, the National Republican Congressional Committee released an attack ad of its own against Mark Schauer:

As the always-observant Chris Gautz points out, there's more than one side to the kicked-off-committee story:

More specifically than the ad states, Schauer was kicked off the Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee allegedly because he missed four meetings, all of which took place at locations around the state, where no voting was going to occur.

The Republican chairwoman, Sen. Michelle McManus booted Schauer, but not fellow Republican members of the committee who also missed a number of hearings.

The Democrats, and Schauer said this was a clearly partisan move, and retribution for action on the service tax.

Maybe I'm just a partisan Democrat, but I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like Senator McManus had other motives than just encouraging good attendance. But really, that line of attack strikes me as too inside-baseball to resonate with voters. When people are worried about jobs and losing their homes, "Mark Schauer is a troublemaker who got kicked off his committee" doesn't seem like it'll matter all that much to me.

You know, I can even see it going further the other way, too-- John McCain's popularity was partly from his "maverick" image, and getting kicked off your committee is one way to show your independence from the status quo. Maybe Tim Walberg should have tried harder to get kicked off of a committee...

But now I'm just getting silly. It's a creative ad, but I don't think it'll do anything other than reinforce the "largest tax increase" narrative. But if Mark Schauer's internal polling is to be believed, that's a narrative that's just not working. Schauer's taking the lead and is more trusted on taxes than Tim Walberg.

The State of the Race From Susan Demas

2008-10-09T08:45:00.000-04:00

A friend pointed me in the direction of an article by Susan Demas in the Lansing City Pulse, which more or less describes the 7th District race up to this point. Although she leaves out the fun details you get by reading Walberg Watch, it's a pretty good description of the state of the race, including the history behind it from 2006. If you're just joining us now, or have friends or relatives who don't know much about what's going on, it's a good starting point.

The short version of the article is that Tim Walberg has a lot of built-in advantages from his district map and is a good campaigner, but Mark Schauer is also an exceptional campaigner, and has lots and lots of money. Also, if Joe Schwarz were still in Congress, he'd be there for the rest of his life and no one would complain.

I've had some differences with Susan Demas (which is healthy), and, while I generally focus on the articles she writes that are critical of Tim Walberg, she's also had not so kind things to say about Mark Schauer and the progressive blogosphere. Sometimes, I've been offended. Sometimes, she's much more confrontational than I would be. Sometimes, I've walked away in disgust and frustration. But all of that is okay. She's filling her role, and we're filling our roles. This is how politics works.

Susan Demas is a good journalist, which makes her worth paying close attention to, even when she's wrong. Go read her City Pulse article. It's a good read and it paints an optimistic picture for Mark Schauer. But more than that, it gives a good overview of the race from a solid reporter. Before you get too pessimistic or too confident, you need a good review of the state of the race to bring you back to reality.

Right. That was entirely too much praise for this blog. I've got to get back to bashing Tim Walberg.

Romney To The Rescue?

2008-10-08T16:17:00.000-04:00

From the Lansing State Journal:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be joining Congressman Tim Walberg on the campaign trail Wednesday.

The two Republicans will appear at Capitol Harley-Davidson, 9550 Woodlane Drive, Dimondale, for a $100 per person luncheon from noon to 1:30 p.m.

Ah, Mitt Romney. I really don't have much to say-- the former governor hasn't done much of anything to bother me lately, and he's been basically forgotten by everyone amidst the general election campaign. I will say, however, that appearing at a $100-per-person fundraiser hardly qualifies as "the campaign trail."

I hope former Governor Romney enjoyed his return to Michigan, and I hope for his sake that his 2012 presidential campaign is going well. It's just too bad Walberg couldn't get the 2008 nominee.

Schauer Internal: Schauer 46 Walberg 36

2008-10-07T16:15:00.000-04:00

Here I was, thinking Republican endorsements and tonight's Siena Heights University candidate forum would be the only excitement. The Schauer campaign released a new poll:

BATTLE CREEK—A new internal poll released today by Myers Research & Strategic Services for congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) shows the state Senator leading incumbent Congressman Tim Walberg by ten points, 46 to 36 percent, outside the 4.4 percent margin of error.

“This new poll confirms that Mark’s record of working with businesses and fighting for jobs is resonating with voters,” said campaign manager B.J. Neidhardt. “This race will almost certainly tighten between now and Election Day, but Mark has always run like he’s ten points behind, and that’s exactly what he’ll continue to do.”

and
“Today, by a 28-point margin voters are more likely to blame unfair trade policies than taxes for Michigan’s economic situation, and across the board they favor Schauer on every economic issue,” said pollster Andrew Myers. “Make no mistake, this political environment is becoming dangerous for any Republican incumbent, particularly one whose connection to voters here is as tenuous as Walberg’s.”

Once again, it was through Myers Research & Strategic Services. It was conducted October 5 and 6, surveying 500 "likely voters." The partisan breakdown was 36 percent Democratic, 33 percent Republican, and 31 percent independent. The margin of error is 4.38 percent with a 95 percent confidence level.

Here are the reported results (Sept. 23-24 results in parentheses, where available):

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg

Mark Schauer (D) - 46 (42)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 36 (36)

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg - Independents Only

Mark Schauer (D) - 39
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 27

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg - Lansing Media Market Only

Mark Schauer (D) - 48
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 33

Trust On Taxes

Mark Schauer (D) - 37
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 30

Generic Congressional Ballot

Democrat - 44
Republican - 36

Barack Obama vs. John McCain

Barack Obama (D) - 50
John McCain (R) - 39

Walberg Job Performance

Positive (Good or Excellent) - 34 (34)
Negative (Fair or Poor) - 42 (46)

There's lots of good stuff in there for Mark Schauer.

Republicans For Schauer

2008-10-07T11:17:00.000-04:00

It never hurts to be bipartisan, and it definitely never hurts for the other guy's base to be divided.

Luckily for Mark Schauer, both of these are true.

The Schauer for Congress campaign just sent out a press release announcing the "Republicans for Schauer"-- prominent Republicans from around the district and in the state government who have come out either in recent weeks or today and endorsed Senator Schauer over Tim Walberg.

BATTLE CREEK—Today several prominent Republicans announced their support for state Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) over incumbent Congressman Tim Walberg, citing Schauer's ability to work across the aisle to get things done.

"Mark Schauer puts getting results for people ahead of partisan concerns," said Retired Jackson Circuit Judge Charles Nelson. "We worked together on starting the drug court that has saved our community crucial tax dollars and made the system more efficient. Mark will bring those same values to Congress."

Schauer has a long track record of partnering with Republicans on important issues. He fought side-by-side with former Congressman Joe Schwarz and Senator Carl Levin to save local jobs when the federal government threatened to close the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base. He also worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass an extension of SmartZones that could help provide incentives for economic growth in south central Michigan.

"Losing your home to foreclosure happens to both Republicans and Democrats and that hurts all of us," said Jim Logue, former Michigan State Housing Development Authority director under John Engler. "I know Mark has a deep understanding of the importance of a well-functioning housing finance system, and he has a proven track record of working across party lines for the benefit of Michigan families. We need someone in Washington who will change business as usual, and I am certain Mark will do just that."

Here are the Republicans for Schauer named in the announcement:

Joe Schwarz, former Congressman (Battle Creek)
Paul DeWeese, former state representative, 2004 GOP candidate for Congress
Judith Scranton, former state representative
Susan Grimes Width, former state representative
David Stimpson, current Lenawee County Commissioner (Tecumseh)
Charles Nelson, Retired Jackson Circuit Judge
Jim Logue, Governor John Engler's Housing Development Authority Director

Besides Joe Schwarz, Stimpson strikes me as the biggest name there for purposes of the campaign, as a current officeholder, unopposed in November, and with connections in Lenawee County.

This, of course, brings the obvious question: Are you a Republican? Are you rejecting Tim Walberg's closed-mindedness and supporting Mark Schauer?

If you have Republican friends who aren't crazy about Tim Walberg, you might want to let them know that Joe Schwarz, David Stimpson, and the Republicans that worked with Mark Schauer every day in state government have decided to support Schauer.

All of these people have met and know Tim Walberg. They still picked Schauer.

Where Was Walberg?

2008-10-06T16:06:00.001-04:00

UPDATE: Mystery solved. An anonymous commenter says:

As much as it pains me to give Tim Walberg credit for anything, he was attending a funeral service for his father-in-law in Arkansas on those dates.
[Link]

To Congressman Walberg and his wife, I'm very sorry for your loss.

To everyone else, disregard the question below. It wasn't meant to imply any malfeasance, and, as we now know, it was perfectly appropriate for Congressman Walberg to be absent.

-----

I've been sifting through Congressman Walberg's voting record from the last month or so, and I noticed something that strikes me as odd. It might be perfectly innocent. I'm just curious if anyone out there has an answer.

On September 15 and 16, Walberg didn't cast any votes in the House of Representatives. Many of the votes he missed were procedural, but he missed votes on the passage of a student loan bill, two resolutions honoring the military (here and here), and on an energy bill that would allow drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Since Congressman Walberg has generally been good about showing up for votes (11 of his 22 missed votes came during those two days), and since he's always eager to vote for drilling for oil, it struck me as odd that he missed all of those votes. Now, it could be (and probably is) something innocent, like, he was sick, or there was a family emergency, or something like that.

But I'm just curious-- does anyone know where Tim Walberg was for those two days? Did I miss some big protest that only he and eight other congressmen took part in? What kept him out of the House?

Last Chance To Register

2008-10-06T15:28:00.000-04:00

I'm hoping that everyone reading Walberg Watch is registered to vote... But if not, today is your last chance.

This has been going around on the internet, and I think it's worth including here:

If you're not registered, go to the Michigan Secretary of State for more information.

Seriously, this is important. Register to vote. You're almost out of time.

Quick Post

2008-10-06T11:21:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to make sure you all knew I was still here. I'll have more later, but a couple of quick items:

- Mark Schauer was endorsed by People for the American Way, and is now the beneficiary of a fundraising competition. If you've been thinking about contributing to Schauer's campaign, consider contributing with them, showing your support for activists nationwide to see.

- There's been some excitement in presidential politics. Just as a reminder, here's what Barack Obama has been doing to support Mark Schauer:

... And here's what John McCain has been doing to support Tim Walberg:

LANSING, Mich.-- Republican John McCain's decision to halt his Michigan campaign has left a hole in state GOP efforts and uncertainty hanging over the re-election chances of two congressmen.

U.S. Reps. Joe Knollenberg of Oakland County's Bloomfield Township and Tim Walberg of Tipton both face well-financed Democratic challengers, and turnout could be key in their elections.

I'll probably write more about this later.

What else is happening today?

New Walberg/NRCC Ad

2008-10-04T23:03:00.000-04:00

I missed this the other day... On Septmeber 30, the Walberg folks have another attack ad:

First, can I just say, "Sour On Schauer" has to be the stupidest thing I've heard this year. Really? That's literally the best thing you can come up with? I support Mark Schauer, and I can come up with more clever ways to attack him! And what's with the lemons? Really? And the bouncing lemon animation, as if they were singing a song... but they're not singing?

Maybe I just don't get it. But really, come on! I'm all for creativity, but come on! Congressman Walberg, hire a better ad agency! These are awful!

But that's not the important part. A stupid campaign ad will be forgotten pretty quickly. Here's the important part:

Right there, "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Walberg for Congress." As far as I know, that's the first time the NRCC has helped Walberg pick up the advertising bill. It's not unusual for the party to help pay for some costs for a campaign-- staff, polling, etc.-- as long as the party gets something out of it, too. But I don't remember seeing the NRCC actually help pay for ads before.

Normally, I'd say that means Tim Walberg is running low on cash, and needs some extra help to make ends meet. The third quarter just ended, so FEC campaign finance reports should be coming out sometime in the next two weeks and we'll get a clearer picture. If the Walberg campaign can't even pay for its own advertising, they're in trouble.

But I said, "Normally, I'd say that means..." Why wouldn't I say that this time? Frankly, because the NRCC doesn't have much money either, and has a lot of contested incumbents they're trying to protect. At the end of August, the DCCC had almost $54 million on-hand, compared to $14 million for the NRCC, and the DCCC was spending about twice as much as their Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report says that the Republicans have 37 seats in danger this year, compared to just 18 for the Democrats.

That makes me think there's some other reason than Walberg being short on cash. The NRCC is spread thin enough that I'd think they'd have better things to do than help Walberg pay for a crappy ad.

I don't know, this one has me puzzled.

DCCC Releases Ad Hitting Walberg On Social Security

2008-10-03T11:42:00.000-04:00

Social Security is an issue that people haven't been talking about much since about 2005 or so. With President Bush's failed attempt to push through a privatization plan, the system so many depend on has been left basically untouched by politicians.

When the Club for Growth attacked Mark Schauer earlier this week, they claimed he wanted to raise Social Security taxes-- which is a little misleading. However, aside from a few mentions every now and then by either Senator Schauer or Congressman Walberg, I haven't really seen or heard the issue brought up besides in that ad.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee changed that with a new ad, directly attacking Walberg on his support of privatizing Social Security:

Ouch.

Chris Gautz, who wrote about the ad this morning, says he doesn't remember the "socialism" quote, but I'm sure someone will come out with an article either confirming or explaining that.

But even if Walberg didn't actually say Social Security was "socialism," this ad could hurt him a lot. What Walberg supports is allowing younger workers to invest a portion of what they would get in benefits after retirement in the stock market-- ideally, to make more money. I was never exactly sure how that fit into the current system, where younger workers are paying for the benefits of retirees now... but that's policy. Right now, I want to talk about politics.

When privatization plans for Social Security were polled in 2005, most polls found that Americans were either split or slightly to moderately against the idea. When the headlines are things like "Dow Plunges 700," I suspect that the plan hasn't gotten any more popular recently. It's not an issue Republicans are eager to talk about right now.

But that's not even where it hurts Walberg. The conventional wisdom is that senior citizens are the most reliable voting bloc, and that they tend to be slightly more conservative-- slim advantage Walberg. But many of them rely on Social Security, as either a significant part or all of their income. Anything seen as potentially threatening that is going to play badly.

Will it cost Walberg the election? I doubt it. But it certainly won't help.

Joe Schwarz Endorses Mark Schauer

2008-09-30T21:10:00.001-04:00

Big news:

Former Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz, who railed against an anti-tax group's role in his unsuccessful 2006 primary, endorsed Democrat Mark Schauer on Tuesday because the organization targeted the congressional challenger.

Schwarz told The Associated Press in an interview that he decided to endorse Schauer over Republican Rep. Tim Walberg in the south-central Michigan congressional district because the anti-tax Club for Growth began running ads critical of Schauer's positions on taxes.

and

Schwarz, a supporter of John McCain's presidential campaign, said he had hoped to stay neutral in the race but "once they made the decision, the die was cast."

"That to me is the straw that broke the camel's back," Schwarz said. "I object to political dabblers who stand for nothing other than to create havoc and dabble in a congressional race where they truly have no interest."

Schwarz, a former Battle Creek mayor and state senator who is from Schauer's hometown, said he thought "it's appropriate to have someone who knows the area and understands the problems ... I think Mark certainly fits that bill."

and, finally

Schwarz said his supporters and former constituents had repeatedly asked him who he planned to support. He had hoped to stay neutral in the race but said he would now let his supporters know that he backs Schauer.

"The Club for Growth is in and I can't as a matter of principal stay out of it any longer," he said.

Though, instead of reading it here, the AP would much rather have you read it at the Chicago Tribune's website.

Here's the statement released by state Senator Mark Schauer:

"Joe Schwarz has been a colleague and a partner in helping move our state forward for many years, and it is an honor to have his support in this campaign," said Schauer. "Three years ago, I worked side-by-side with Joe to help save hundreds of jobs at the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base, and unfortunately, that spirit of bipartisanship has been missing since Tim Walberg was elected. With Joe's support, I look forward to fighting for the change Michigan needs as a member of Congress."

Nice.

It's important to note that former Congressman Schwarz still supports (and calls a friend) Senator John McCain, and he's got a lot of friends throughout the 7th Congressional District. If Schwarz supported Schauer but did it quietly, this wouldn't be a big deal for Tim Walberg. But make no mistake, an open endorsement-- especially if followed by joint Schwarz-Schauer campaigning-- is not good news for Tim Walberg.

If Congressman Walberg wants to blame anyone, he can blame his friends at the Club for Growth.

Mark Schauer just... gets it

2008-09-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

By PerfectStormer

January 16, 2004: Electrolux Group, one of the largest household appliance manufacturers in the world, announces it will idle its refrigerator assembly operations in Greenville, MI. Nearly three thousand jobs will be eliminated.

November 21, 2005: GM announces a massive restructuring plan which will result in nine plant closures and the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs, almost ten percent of its American workforce of 325,000.

April 11, 2006: Automotive supplier Federal Mogul announces it will idle its operations in St. Johns, Michigan. Four hundred and twenty jobs will be lost.

2007: Faced with years of declining Medicare reimbursements and the astronomical rise in the ranks of the uninsured, Hackley Hospital, once the largest healthcare provider in Muskegon County, completes two rounds of layoffs. Eventually Hackley agrees to be swallowed by its competitor, Mercy Hospital, resulting in Mercy Health Partners. Hackley Hospital, opened on November 17, 1904 as Muskegon's hometown healthcare provider, is no more. Hackley's Lakeshore Cancer Center closes.

You've heard the story a hundred times before. A manufacturer or other business hits hard times, finds a cheaper way to do things, finds a cheaper place to do things, and locks the door on the American worker.

Mark Schauer's heard the story a hundred times before, too*. He's heard it in his own family as his son-in-law, a journeyman electrician, struggles to find work in Washington state. He's heard it before with several nurses in his family (although their dilemma is rather reversed--forced to work overtime to compensate their brethren in the healthcare industry who have retired and not been replaced, been laid off, been or just plain been burned out by deplorable working conditions.)

He heard it again this morning. He heard from a representative from the Electrolux union in Greenville. He heard from a representative from the Federal-Mogul union in St. John's. He heard from a rep for the ironworkers' union, whose ranks are fleeing Michigan for greener pastures elsewhere. He heard from a maintenance worker at the Potterville school district, which has privatized its maintenance operations.

Mark Schauer was the guest of honor at a roundtable on economic issues hosted by the Michigan AFL-CIO this morning in Delta Township, moderated by Michigan AFL-CIO president Mark Gaffney. He heard these stories this morning, and among the stories, one fact emerged: Mark Schauer gets it.

He gets that these workers aren't statistics--they're real people. He understands the dilemma of the worker forced to leave his family behind in Michigan as he seeks work in Wyoming, or Massachusetts, or Washington. Most importantly, he understands that our entire economy is a giant, tangled web, and that if one strand in the web collapses, the whole web is in jeopardy.

He understands that we're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, enough money to fund the vetoed SCHIP program for five years. He understands that his great-nephew Aidan goes without health insurance because his parents make just a little too much money for SCHIP.

He understands that we're about to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, money that (to use our new favorite frame) could be used to bail out Main Street. He understands that when the government buys back a bad mortgage from a bank, it's still a bad mortgage: the family living in the house the mortgage purchased is now forced out on the street.

He understands that our economic hell (at least here in Michigan) was created by NAFTA, fueled by CAFTA, and blown to epic proportions by the pro-business, anti-worker policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

He understands that when NAFTA was passed, as he put it, "somebody got lied to."

Mark Schauer gets it.

McCain To Campaign With Walberg

2008-09-30T17:00:00.000-04:00

... Joe McCain, that is... From Walberg for Congress:

Join Team Walberg

And

The McCain Campaign

For a special event at Adrian College

This Thursday, October 2, 2008

11:00am

Adrian College

“On the Mall”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The McCain Victory Bus will be making an official campaign pit-stop here in the 7th District - featuring a visit from Joe McCain (Senator McCain’s brother) and Jim Warner, a POW with Senator McCain and former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan.

This event is free and open to the public - Please join us there!

It's not quite as exciting as Barack Obama and Joe Biden in Battle Creek, but it might be interesting anyway. I'll be curious to find out what kind of turnout Joe McCain and Tim Walberg get in Adrian.

I wonder how disappointed the Walberg folks were when they found out that they had to settle for the younger brother. Still, it's interesting-- apparently, the younger McCain wasn't campaigning for his older brother, preferring to keep to himself.

I'd encourage all of you to go and check it out. It might be interesting, and you might get a chance to ask a few questions. Maybe Tim Walberg and Joe McCain would like to talk about the Club for Growth, a group that John McCain has had unkind words for in the past.

Club for Growth On-Air With $175,000

2008-09-30T16:35:00.000-04:00

It's the moment we've all been waiting for... the Club for Growth is on the air:

Washington – Today, the Club for Growth PAC begins running a TV ad on Mark Schauer’s tax record in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District. The $175,000 ad buy will run on broadcast television in the Lansing market and on cable stations throughout the Seventh District.

Here's the ad:

... That's intellectually dishonest!

For instance, the poor lady who's worried about Mark Schauer raising her Social Security taxes doesn't tell you that Schauer only said he would support removing the $90,000 cap on payroll taxes. From the article they cite:

Schauer said in a conference call with reporters that he would be open to such proposals as raising the current cap on payroll taxes but would not be open to private accounts. He says private accounts would "weaken" the entire Social Security program. He said he'd be open to a "bi-partisan solution that makes adjustments to current Social Security."

Currently, only the first $90,000 you make is taxed for Social Security. That is, if you make $60,000 each year, all $60,000 is subject to the payroll tax. If you make $160,000 each year, then $90,000 is subject to the payroll tax and the other $70,000 is not. Removing that cap is generally considered a part of the solution to Social Security's long-term solvency, and the public supports it:

"Currently, people pay Social Security taxes only on the first $90,000 of their annual income. If it were necessary to keep the Social Security program paying benefits as it does now, would you favor or oppose increasing the amount of income that is subject to Social Security taxes?"

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
6/10-15/05 63 30 7

Admittedly, that's a poll from 2005-- it's the most recent one I could find. But I find it hard to believe there's been a dramatic shift since then.

I'm going to come back to some of the other tax claims some other time, I promise. My point here is just to highlight the way that the Club for Growth sometimes represents certain things differently than you or I would.

Let's remember, these are the people who trashed Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz as "a liberal" who would spend your money, kill your babies, and take away your guns. They're not very nice, and they've got a lot of money. And, of course, they've had a reliable vote in Tim Walberg.

The Schauer campaign has responded:

BATTLE CREEK—Today the extreme Washington D.C. special interest group Club for Growth began airing its first attack ad against congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek).

"Club for Growth supports unfair trade deals and wants to privatize Social Security, and after Walberg admitted he was 'bought and paid for by them,' it's not surprising that the group is so desperate to save the seat they spent $1.1 million on two years ago," said Zack Pohl, spokesman for the Schauer campaign. "At a time when our country is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Michigan can't afford two more years of the dangerous economic policies of Walberg and Club for Growth."

Background:

• According to Club for Growth's website, the group's agenda includes expanding free trade, deregulation and privatizing Social Security. [www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php]

• Walberg sticks up for those who ship our jobs overseas, and agreed that outsourcing has been "both necessary and good for the nation's economy." [Lansing State Journal, 4/27/04]

• In 2006, the Club spent $1.1 million to defeat moderate Republican Joe Schwarz and put Tim Walberg in Congress. [Club for Growth Press Release, 8/8/06; Ann Arbor News, 8/09/06]

• Walberg even admitted to the Jackson Citizen-Patriot he was "bought and paid for by them." [Jackson Citizen-Patriot, 7/23/06]

So what does this move mean?

It means that the Club for Growth thinks Tim Walberg is in trouble. They don't do incumbent protection, they go after "bad" Republicans and open seats. Spending $175,000 is probably just the beginning. Tim Walberg, despite all of the advantages of incumbency, can't win reelection on his own.

Schauer Releases Another Ad

2008-09-30T16:30:00.000-04:00

This one is titled, "Tables":

Except for the strange static in the background toward the end, I'd say that in my opinion, this is the most powerful ad of the race so far. It hits Walberg with his own words (albeit from 2004) and speaks to an issue pretty much everyone in Michigan can relate to in some way. And the personal promise from Mark Schauer at the end to "fight for your job" doesn't hurt either.

I don't have much more to say about this one. What do you think?

Democracy Corps Puts MI-07 Close, Possibly Democratic Advantage

2008-09-30T16:25:00.000-04:00

Democracy Corps is a group founded by Bill Clinton adviser James Carville and pollser Stanley Greenberg which advises Democrats and analyzes elections. Every so often, they release a "battleground poll" surveying the most competitive congressional races in the country. Although they don't give any information broken down by district, they use this to analyze national trends.

In 2008, Michigan's 7th District is listed in "Tier 1" of Republican-held seats, along with 19 others. In total, 50 districts were included in the survey.

The whole report is worth reading if you're a political junkie. I thought I'd share a few interesting items. Remember, this isn't a poll of the 7th District, but it's a poll that includes the 7th District.

The financial crisis, which had not yet reached its peak when this survey was in the field, is driving a deepening anger across the country and in these Republican districts. Just 14 percent of likely voters believe the country is heading in the right direction, the lowest number we have seen in our Democracy Corps congressional polling, even in this Republican battleground. The intensely negative mood is more directed at Republicans, who are seeing their brand continue to erode. President Bush remains toxic and the Republican Party is now significantly less popular than the Democrats, even in this more conservative battleground.

and

Democratic candidates are taking advantage of this favorable environment and now hold a 49 percent to 45 percent lead in the 40-seat Republican battleground.>[2] This is a broad lead – with Democrats holding equal 4-point cushions in the top tier of races, the 20 most vulnerable seats, and in the second tier, the next 20 districts.� If the election were held today, Democrats would be poised to win, perhaps, well upwards of 20 Republican seats.

and

... In fact, Republican incumbents are losing further ground, being dragged down by the toxic environment and unpopular GOP brand. As disdain for Washington has increased, the Republican incumbents have failed to establish their independence from Bush or their party. Since May, the percent saying Republican incumbents are not independent has risen from 45 to 53 percent while the percent saying these incumbents follow Bush’s direction too much has jumped from 40 to 49 percent.>[3]

and

Meanwhile, 48 percent now disagree that Republican incumbents are “on your side,” up from 40 percent four months ago. This key attribute is another important driver of the vote in our regressions. As a result of this poor performance on so many attributes, a near majority of 48 percent of voters in these 40 Republican districts now say they simply can’t vote to reelect their incumbent congressman and in a named matchup, the Democratic challengers lead these incumbents 49-45.

(Emphasis added.)

By now, I've probably exceeded fair use guidlines, but there's a lot more in the full report that's worth reading. It doesn't mean that Tim Walberg will lose to Mark Schauer, but it does mean that we're part of a nationwide trend toward the Democrats this year. If you're a Democrat, you've got a lot of reasons to be optimistic.

Siena Heights Debate Announced - October 7

2008-09-29T13:20:00.000-04:00

Earlier in September, state Senator Mark Schauer's campaign manager sent the Walberg campaign a letter (.pdf) challenging Walberg to four televised debates-- one in each of the media markets covering the 7th District. The argument is that four televised debates would ensure that everyone in the district would have an easy opportunity to see the candidates.

Walberg's campaign responded, essentially, that they were already committed to 12 candidate debates or forums, and more or less blew off Schauer's request. I think that's a missed opportunity for both candidates, but it's not anything I'm going to lose sleep over.

But when will they debate?

Adrian's Daily Telegram brings us the first one:

Major candidates for two offices are expected Oct. 7 for a broadcast debate
in Adrian, and the public is invited to attend the 7:30 p.m. event at Siena
Heights University’s Francoeur Theater.

The debate includes the Democratic and Republican candidates for both the
Michigan 57th House District and the U.S. House of Representatives
7th Congressional District, according to Anne Jameson, president of the local
American Association of University Women. The group is sponsoring the debate
along with WLEN radio and The Daily Telegram.

and

From 8:30 to 9:15 p.m., the U.S. House candidates will discuss issues. They are
incumbent Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; and challenger Mark Schauer, a Democrat from
Bedford Township in Calhoun County.

(Emphasis added.)

This is the first debate I've heard about so far, though it's possible that I missed others. This looks like the same debate I attended in 2006, though I won't be able to attend this year (unfortunately).

A notable change-- only Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer will be present. The minor party candidates included last time will not be included. It'll make the debate a little less exciting, but it will also allow for a clearer contrast between Walberg and Schauer, and should have a quicker pace than the one in 2006.

Unfortunately, WLEN doesn't stream audio over their website, and I'm eager to get more than just the Telegram's article on it after the fact. If you think you can attend and would be able to provide either video or audio of the event, please contact me.

Fatherhood In The 7th District

2008-09-27T09:36:00.000-04:00

Brad Flory at the Jackson Citizen Patriot writes about fatherhood amidst the Walberg and Schauer campaigns:

Fathers rarely have a question more troubling to ask children.

"Did you get pornography from Mark Schauer?" I demanded.

The children acted confused.

"Mark Schauer wants to send you pornography on the Internet," I said. "Not cheesecake like Sarah Palin's head pasted on a Victoria's Secret bra model. Mark Schauer wants you kids to see hard-core smut!"

My son is 14, prime age for Schauer's pornfest. When I was 14, we had to hide Playboy magazines in the woods.

"Mark Schauer never gave me porn," my son insisted. I searched everywhere and it was true.

How did he miss my house?

It's very silly, yes, but it does a good job of driving home the ridiculousness of Walberg's advertisement, which actually does accuse Mark Schauer of wanting to give children pornography.

Go read the whole thing, it's worth it. The ending is also powerful:

Walberg ignored the importance of the Constitution while criticizing a campaign opponent.

The winner of this election will take an oath. He will be asked if he solemnly swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If Walberg is victorious, maybe he ought to show the same principle displayed in his campaign ad.

Maybe he ought to say "no."

Ouch.

Another Internal: Walberg 50, Schauer 40

2008-09-27T09:08:00.000-04:00

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

Tim Walberg has his own poll, and according to that one, he's leading the 7th Congressional District race.

The campaign for the Tipton Republican released the results Thursday of a Sept. 15-16 poll, only hours after the release of polling information from state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Bedford Township, Walberg's main opponent.

In addition to the Enquirer, Chetly Zarko got the memo from the Walberg campaign.

It was conducted over September 15 and 16 by National Research, Inc., a Republican polling firm. It has a sample of 300 "likely voters" stratified geographically, and has a margin of error of 5.7 percent.

Here are the results (with 7/08-09 results in parentheses where available, also +/- 5.7):

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg

Mark Schauer (D) - 40 (31)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 50 (47)

Walberg Favorable - Unfavorable

Favorable - 57
Unfavorable - 29

Schauer Favorable - Unfavorable

Favorable - 33
Unfavorable - 18

Obama vs. McCain

Barack Obama (D) - 40
John McCain (R) - 55

Generic Congressional Ballot

Republican - 46
Democrat - 41

So, what does all of this mean?

First, it means that either A.) the last Walberg internal was an outlier or B.) Mark Schauer has made an enormous nine-point gain since the beginning of August. The first one isn't a big deal-- it made Walberg's people feel good about themselves for a day. The second one should worry them a lot. Though, then again, here's what Walberg's pollster says:

Despite the barrage of negative ads directed against him, Congressman Tim Walberg leads Mark Schauer 50%-40% according to our most recent congressional survey in the district, conducted on September 15 and 16 among 300 likely voters in the district. This represents a significant gain for Congressman Walberg, who was garnering 47% in our July survey. With his poll numbers now at 50%, Walberg enters the month of October with momentum.

(Emphasis added.)

That's quite a positive spin! Personally, I'd say that the significant gain goes to the one who, you know, actually gained more.

It's also important to note that, with a 10-point lead in a poll with a margin of error of 5.7 percent, Walberg is now within the margin of error (barely) in his own polling. That's not what will get the headline, though. The magical 50 percent mark is an important one to the media, and one that I don't think Walberg has reached in any previous polling. (He also didn't reach it in 2006-- he had 49.99 percent of the vote).

Last night, I wrote a partial defense of internal polling, saying that it's still useful and reliable. Now, I'm wondering if there might actually be a systematic difference between Schauer's polls and Walberg's polls-- namely, in the geographic breakdown and in the likely voter screen. Is Walberg oversampling Branch County and undersampling the youth vote? Or is Schauer oversampling Calhoun County and undersampling Hillsdale County? I don't know, and the campaigns don't release that kind of information.

The reason I wonder about that is the name recognition. Only 55 percent know who Mark Schauer is in this poll, where 67 percent did in Schauer's last poll. Similarly, 86 percent know who Tim Walberg is in this poll, where it was only 76 in Schauer's poll. That kind of difference surprises me, and makes me think someone weighted the counties differently.

Then again, both polls strike me as plausible, especially with the large margins of error. It really doesn't matter, though. There are 38 days until election day. That's more than enough time for everything to change.

Overall, it was a good poll for Walberg, but maybe a better poll for Schauer.

Sharon Renier To Run As Write-In

2008-09-27T00:56:00.000-04:00

There have been people talking about this in the comments, and now I'm finally getting around to it. I assure you, I didn't delay for any particular reason.

Actually, that's not true. I delayed because I wanted to focus on stories that actually mattered.

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

After a primary loss to Democrat Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier is making a comeback in the general election, this time as an independent write-in candidate.
"I love the way that sounds," she said. "I am independent, and the two-party system is broken."
Renier joins the candidate field populated by Schauer, D-Bedford Township, incumbent U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, Green candidate Lynn Meadows of Chelsea and Charlotte Libertarian Ken Proctor.

and

"If you look at the numbers, people were disenfranchised in the primary," she said. "The state legislature decides election laws, and things being what they are, a lot of voters couldn't really voice their preference because they had to vote either Republican or Democrat."

and

Still, Renier insists she's running not as a spoiler but as a viable candidate for Congress.
"I am absolutely running to win," she said. "We've got a really good shot at this."

Right.

First, let me say that I honestly, truly do like Sharon Renier. I supported her in 2006, because I absolutely do believe that she would have been a better representative than Tim Walberg. She ran as a Democrat, espoused some good, legitimately Democratic ideas, and would have done less harm for the district than Tim Walberg and his rigid ideology.

That said, Sharon Renier was definitely not a traditional Democrat-- she was her own person, and she brought some unique ideas to the table. But she was passionate, and I like that a lot.

But she wasn't my first choice in the 2006 primary, and, of course, she wasn't my choice in 2008. Some of her ideas do stray from the mainstream. There are some issues where I don't think she's particularly well-versed.

And some of what she says really bothers me. It's one thing to be a sore loser, but she and some of her supporters equate Tim Walberg with Mark Schauer. That's just silly. On any of the issues-- including issues that matter to her-- Mark Schauer will be lightyears ahead of Tim Walberg. Will Schauer and Renier always agree? No. Schauer and I don't always agree either. That's just not the way politics works. Some people call that picking the "lesser of two evils." I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree.

And then, you have to consider why Sharon Renier didn't win in her first two attempts. It wasn't because of personality-- there are some very colorful characters in Congress. It was because of campaigning. The 2006 race was better than 2004, but neither was run as a viable campaign. She didn't pass a certain threshold for the party to support her in force, and she didn't pass a certain threshold for voters to take her seriously. Many of her votes really were just anti-Walberg votes.

So, where does this leave us? She's running as an independent and as a write-in. Joe Schwarz ran as a write-in, too, and got 1.07 percent of the vote. In an extremely close race, that could be all it takes to spoil it for Schauer. But there are some differences, too. Joe Schwarz went into the election as an incumbent (albeit a lame-duck), with high name recognition, and an energized base of angry supporters.

Sharon Renier, on the other hand, has very low name recognition-- even after two times on the ballot, 80 percent of the district didn't know who she was in July of 2007. And, where Schwarz filed as a write-in the day before the election, making his move a fresh memory for his supporters, Renier will have to work hard to remind her loyalists that she's trying to run. Since she didn't really have any money to speak of before the election, that'll be hard.

One plus for her is that she won't have to change her campaign website... She never actually acknowledged her loss in the primary, so it's looked as if she was still running all along!

I might be wrong, but I don't think this is a big factor in the race. She's grabbing attention one more time in September, and might get a couple of articles one more time in October, but that's it. Unless she can demonstrate a credible reason for why she should win under the least likely of circumstances, I don't see this mattering all that much.

More On The Schauer Poll

2008-09-27T00:10:00.000-04:00

While you're all watching Senators McCain and Obama, I thought I'd finally get around to writing more about the poll the Schauer campaign released. Just for a reminder, here's what the poll found:

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg

Mark Schauer (D) - 42 (37)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 36 (40)

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg (Plus Undecideds, allocated based on stated partisan leanings)

Mark Schauer (D) - 48 (45)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 41 (47)

Name Recognition

Mark Schauer (D) - 67 (42)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 76 (74)

Walberg Job Performance

Positive (Good or Excellent) - 34 (34)
Negative (Fair or Poor) - 46 (42)

So, what does all of this mean? Schauer's pollster, Andrew Myers, picks out one important finding:

This survey demonstrates that Schauer’s communications are clearly taking root. Today Schauer is known by 67 percent of voters, a substantial 25 point jump in identification since May

That's the big one, much more than the 42-36 headline. It shows that Schauer's breaking out of his Senate district and getting more attention elsewhere in the district. This is good-- it means the money they're spending on television ads and field organizing is working. It shows that the overall strategy of introducing Schauer to more voters is working. Remember, Schauer doesn't have to win Lenawee County or Hillsdale County to win the election, he just has to not lose too badly, and then perform well in his base. Man, I'd love to see a geographical breakdown of the results.

Of course, by running mostly attack ads, Walberg might be helping to increase Schauer's name recognition. Walberg's attacks might drive up some of Schauer's negatives, but it also makes sure people know that there's an alternative to Tim Walberg. Oh, the irony.

But let's get back to that headline. Schauer leads, 42 to 36. But it's also an internal poll, commissioned by Mark Schauer through a Democratic polling outfit. It must be rigged, right?

No. Just like Walberg's internal poll released a couple of months ago, I don't doubt that the poll was conducted with fair, legitimate polling practices. It's not in anyone's interest to pay for inaccurate polling-- the Schauer campaign probably cares a lot more about getting useful information than about sending out a good press release and having a favorable news cycle.

Does that mean that this poll is accurate? No, not necessarily. A 95 percent confidence level means that 95 percent of the time, the poll will be correct to within the stated margin of error (in this case, 4.38 percent). Schauer's lead is within the margin of error, though it's better to be leading and within the margin of error than losing. But it's also possible that this is one of those 5 percent polls (like I think Walberg's was), where it's not accurate by more than the margin.

Supposing Schauer's poll is absolutely correct, this is a big deal. There are still a lot of undecideds-- and a lot of people who are paying close attention to Obama-McCain, but haven't thought about Schauer-Walberg. But among those that are decided, Schauer is leading a sitting congressman by six points. That's a tough thing to do.

I don't know that I'm saying anything new or interesting tonight, I just wanted to share a few thoughts. It's a good poll for Schauer.

Walberg Snubs... Walberg Watch

2008-09-26T20:41:00.001-04:00

Ouch. I get no love from the Walberg campaign, according to the Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

During lunch Thursday I listened in on a conference call U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's campaign set up with area bloggers, which I thought was a great way for the Congressman to interact with members of the "new media."

I was expecting the questions to come from young, hip, bloggers, calling in live from their Mom's basement in between bites of funyuns, but those on the call were mostly all members of the "old media," with mostly boring newspaper reporters asking the questions.

(Just to be clear, I still count myself in the "boring newspaper reporter" category.)

Walberg's campaign told me certain liberal bloggers were not invited to take part, but earlier in the week, Walberg took part in a meeting with conservative bloggers.

If you're going to have a conference call with bloggers, I think it's only appropriate to invite some, including those who might disagree with you. Especially after seeing the video from the conservative bloggers meeting where Walberg is filmed saying "I always enjoy being with bloggers."

(Emphasis added.)

In case you didn't notice, the "certain liberal bloggers" link above points to... Walberg Watch. I'm not sure if they singled me out or if Chris Gautz just assumed that they meant me. Either way, I was not invited.

But don't feel too sorry for me. I didn't even know I was not invited. Indeed, I had no idea that such a conference call was going to take place.

Come on, Congressman Walberg. If you're going to snub me, the least you could do is tell me that you're going to snub me! A phone call or an e-mail would have been more than enough!

Tonight's going to be another big catch-up night. I hope you all enjoy the presidential debate, and I hope you all hurry back to Walberg Watch to read all the new stuff.

UPDATE: For the record, while my mother says she loves me very much, I doubt that she would want me to be blogging from her basement. Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it's not all that comfortable, though they do have a ping-pong table, which would be the source of hours of entertainment. And, also, until reading this piece, I had no idea what a "funyun" was. I guess I'm not all that hip.

More seriously, while it was a funny read, those sorts of comments don't really help. A lot of people rely on blogs and other new media for information and analysis, and, strangely enough, there are even some people that take Walberg Watch pretty seriously. Belittling the medium makes more enemies than friends-- especially when you're using some new media techniques in your old media job.

I don't think there's anything wrong with more traditional media-- it fills its own role, and I fill mine. Can't we all just get along?

Poll: Schauer 42, Walberg 36

2008-09-25T14:28:00.006-04:00

UPDATE: Sorry for the delay. The poll was conducted by Myers Research & Strategic Services, who are the same ones that conducted the Schauer internal poll from May that was released a month or two ago. They're a Democratic firm, but that isn't necessarily a reason to doubt the numbers. More on that later.

The poll was conducted September 24 and 25, 2008 (CORRECTION: September 23 and 24), with a sample size of 500 "likely voters," and the respondents were "stratified geographically"-- in other words, this wasn't all Battle Creek. The margin of error is +/- 4.38 percent, with a 95 percent confidence level.

Here are the results released today (previous results in parentheses, MoE +/- 4.00):

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg

Mark Schauer (D) - 42 (37)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 36 (40)

Mark Schauer vs. Tim Walberg (Plus Undecideds, allocated based on stated partisan leanings)

Mark Schauer (D) - 48 (45)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 41 (47)

Name Recognition

Mark Schauer (D) - 67 (42)
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 76 (74)

Myers also asks respondents to rate candidates on a "personal feeling thermometer," where 100 is very warm and 0 is very cold, with 50 neutral.

Personal Feeling Thermometer

Mark Schauer (D)
Warm (>50 degrees) - 35 (23)
Cold (<50) - 19 (9)
Average Temperature - 57 degrees

Tim Walberg (R-inc.)
Warm (>50 degrees) - 36 (36)
Cold (<50) - 28 (23)
Average Temperature - 52 degrees

And, finally:

Walberg Job Performance

Positive (Good or Excellent) - 34 (34)
Negative (Fair or Poor) - 46 (42)

Myers also says that "seven in ten" respondents believe the country is on the wrong track, which is where it was in their May poll, as well.

I've got a lot of thoughts on this poll, which I'll be compiling this afternoon. I'll have more later today.

----
The Schauer campaign just released a poll-- Schauer 42, Walberg 36. More information and thoughts to come soon.

Schauer Releases Third TV Ad

2008-09-24T11:26:00.000-04:00

I'm not anywhere near done catching up on the news from the last two-and-a-half weeks, but the campaign steams forward today with another new television ad. This time, it's Mark Schauer who's going negative, albeit in defense of his own record.

My initial reaction to this ad was "Ouch." It's harsh, and drives home the "Tim Walberg is lying" message rather well.

I think this is a decent ad-- it responds to Walberg's attacks without actually refuting them, but that would require more than just 30 seconds. At the same time, both sides going this negative in September might turn a lot of people off by November. You have to respond, but I hope that Schauer doesn't go all negative, the way Walberg has.

DCCC Releases Attack Ad On FairTax

2008-09-24T02:07:00.001-04:00

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

On September 19, 2008, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released their first Walberg-specific television advertisement:

My initial reaction? "Finally, someone's talking about this stupid plan!" And I mean stupid. Astoundingly stupid.

I've had a quarrel with the "FairTax" for a while now, starting long before Walberg Watch. I want to talk a little bit about it, if you're interested. But first, here's the Walberg campaign response to the ad:

Dear Friends,

Just wanted you to be aware of a recent attack ad that has aired on behalf of Congressman Walberg's ultra-liberal opponent, Mark Schauer. The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has invested significant amounts of money in our district to go on the attack, and spread lies about Tim's record.

Below is a press release we issued that explains the truth. Please feel free to share this with any friends who may have questions.

Thank you all for your support - let's all keep working toward victory in November!

Best,

Justin Roebuck

Campaign Manager

(Thanks to the friend who passed that along to me...)

I want to stop right there for a moment and remind Justin that it's actually the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, not the "Democrat" Congressional Campaign Committee. It just sounds dumb when you don't use the right word.

Yeah, that's a minor complaint, but it bugs me, and that's the reason that people like Tim Walberg do that. Just remember, every time you call it the "Democrat Party," an English major cries out in pain.

Moving on...

Jackson, MI- Today, Mark Schauer's Washington DC friends, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, kicked off their massive television ad blitz by attacking Congressman Walberg for supporting the Fair Tax proposal, H.R. 25. The ad claims Congressman Walberg supports a new 23 percent sales tax, but the ad fails to mention the Fair Tax proposal would repeal the federal income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, corporate income tax, and death tax, and junk the tax code, shutdown the IRS, and be a net tax cut.

"It's not surprising Mark Schauer's Washington DC supporters would attack Tim Walberg for fighting to junk the tax code, shutdown the IRS, and reduce the tax burden on Michigan families and small businesses. While Mark Schauer was the deciding vote for the largest tax increase in Michigan history, Tim Walberg is fighting against higher taxes and for the families of Michigan," stated Justin Roebuck, campaign manager.

Background:

Details on the Fair Tax, H.R. 25, the proposal the DCCC uses in the ad:

This is from a detailed study on the Fair Tax entitled “Taxing Sales under the FairTax – What Rate Works?” published by several well-known economists, including a Research Associate from The National Bureau of Economic Research.

[Link]

Key takeaways:

Repeals a myriad of taxes and replaces them with a simple single rate consumption tax - “As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.” (page 2)

Net tax cut - “Revenues from the FairTax at a 23% tax rate, plus other federal revenues, are estimated to yield $3,209 billion which is $76 billion less than current CBO spending projections for 2007… ensuring real revenue neutrality at the federal level… implies a rate of 23.82%.” (page 2)

The press release then goes on to talk about Schauer as supposedly voting for the largest tax increase in the history of humanity. That's for a different post to debunk. Right now, let's talk about the "FairTax."

I'll concede a few points to Congressman Walberg-- the DCCC ad wasn't totally fair. If enacted, the "FairTax" would replace all other federal taxes you pay now. So, no more income tax, no more gas tax, no more business taxes, no more Social Security payroll tax. Instead, everything would be covered in a 23 percent sales tax on everything that you buy. Advocates say that prices wouldn't actually increase, because, no longer having to pay taxes while producing goods or services, businesses would lower their own prices and it would all balance out.

Sounds nice, right? Well, no. I'd like to give a few reasons for why this is a bad idea. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

For starters, it's not a 23 percent sales tax. That number is the result of mildly creative mathematics. Michigan's current sales tax, 6 percent on most items, takes the pre-tax price of the product, calculates 6 percent, and adds that on for the post-tax price. In other words, if a business sets a price at $1.00, tax is 6 percent, and the price you pay is $1.06. It's pretty straightforward.

That's not how the "FairTax" people calculate it. Instead, they get their 23 percent figure by deciding that 23 percent of the item's price will be tax.

As the Washington Post explains:

First, the 23 percent figure is disingenuous. If the current price of a widget is $1, a 30-cent sales tax would be added at the register under the FairTax. Because 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30, backers of the tax claim that the tax rate is 23 percent.

So, it's not a 23 percent sales tax, it's a 30 percent sales tax. The DCCC ad was wrong. It might seem like a minor point, but it matters.

The Post continues:

The Presidents' Advisory Panel on Tax Reform -- that's President Bush's tax panel -- calculated that the rate would have to be at least 34 percent, not 30 percent, "and likely higher over time if the base erodes, creating incentives for significant tax evasion." Brookings Institution economist William Gale puts the rate at 44 percent -- and his calculation doesn't take into account cheating, for which there would be ample incentive.

(Emphasis added.)

So, now we're up to 34 to 44 percent federal sales tax. Add in Michigan's 6 percent sales tax, and we're looking at a 36 percent sales tax at the minimum and up to a 50 percent sales tax. That's a big increase in prices.

Except, that's not the whole story. Currently, Michigan's state sales tax is not levied on certain items, like food or prescription drugs. This would not be the case for the new Walberg tax, which would be applied to everything. Prices will go up.

And here's where a lot of "FairTax" advocates get angry. They say that prices won't go up, because of the savings businesses experience, not having to pay taxes earlier in the process. The idea is that certain taxes, like business and Social Security taxes, are embedded in the cost of your goods. Since these costs will be eliminated for the businesses, their prices will be lowered, so the new 34 to 44 percent sales tax won't have a real impact.

Setting aside for a moment the question of whether businesses would actually lower their prices to reflect changes in the tax code, FactCheck.org pretty decently refutes this argument:

A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.

Chris Edwards, the Cato Institute's director of tax policy studies, points out that prices do not really matter; corporate, payroll, income and estate taxes currently generate approximately $2.4 trillion, and a revenue-neutral FairTax would still require that taxpayers pony up $2.4 trillion. Nor is it clear that the 22 percent embedded tax figure is particularly meaningful. David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, calls it "simplistic" to think that the entire cost of corporate taxes is borne by consumers. Cato's Edwards suggests that while consumers do pay at least part of the costs, producers also bear some of the burden. That is, employees pay part of the costs of hidden taxes (in the form of lower wages), and corporate shareholders pay another portion (in the form of lower returns on their investments).

So, the prices you pay will be higher.

Then comes the question of whether this makes any sense from the government's perspective. The only way the math works out is if the government pays itself the tax whenever it makes purchases... which gets a little messy. As the Boston Globe explains:

Governments must also pay. The FairTax would apply to all government purchases at every level. Only education spending is exempted.
States would have to pay 30 percent more on every highway and bridge they build, local governments would have to pay 30 percent more for police and fire protection, and even the federal government would have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for troops.
Taxes would have to be increased at the state and local level to pay the FairTax to the federal government. The FairTax rate would also have to be higher to pay for the additional federal spending it will require. However, FairTax supporters exclude this higher spending from their calculations. The 23 percent rate is designed only to be revenue-neutral, not spending neutral. Thus the federal deficit would either rise by more than $200 billion per year or spending would have to be cut by this much.

Hm. So, not only would this potentially be a 44 percent sales tax, and not only would prices rise, but local and state taxes will also increase in order for local and state government to afford paying new taxes to the federal government. And then the federal taxes-- now just the "FairTax"-- will have to be increased in order to afford paying... taxes... to... the federal government.

I don't know about you, but I'm starting to lose faith in Congressman Walberg's idea.

But then comes the "prebate." It's the magical addition to the "FairTax" that makes it okay for poor people. Basically, every month, every family in America would get a certain amount of money, calculated based on the size of your family. That check from the government would be enough so that families below the poverty line wouldn't be overburdened by the sales tax. How much would this cost? FactCheck.org:

Sometimes sales taxes are called regressive, meaning that the poorest pay higher rates than the wealthy. Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

The FairTax plan, however, helps to alleviate this difficulty by exempting sales taxes on all income up to the poverty level. Taxpayers would receive a "prebate," which Edwards calculates to be about $5,600 annually. The Treasury Department estimates that the prebate program would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually, making it the largest category of federal spending. Americans for Fair Taxation disputes the Treasury Department numbers, claiming that the actual cost would be closer to $485 billion per year. The Treasury Department has so far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to determine whose estimate is correct.

So, let's say $485 billion is the right number. For comparison purposes, the Social Security Administration expects to pay out about $660 billion this year. So, the "prebate" proposal isn't quite as big as Social Security, but it's getting up there. And here I was, thinking that Republicans didn't want to add extra spending on entitlement programs.

The Boston Globe points out another problem:

Although FairTax supporters tout the generosity of the rebate, it is extremely modest because it is based on the poverty level income - a figure that bears no relationship to the actual cost of living. As a consequence of the way the poverty rate is calculated, childless couples would get a monthly rebate of $391 per month, but a single mother with two children would only get $329 per month.

That doesn't seem very "fair" to me.

Supposing the "prebates" actually did make this a viable plan for those below the poverty line, how would the system effect the rest of us? Back once again to FactCheck.org:

With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year.

In other words, the net result of the "FairTax" is a middle-class tax increase and an upper-class tax cut.

But let's set all of that aside for a moment. If it makes it simpler, is it worth it? One of the main arguments in favor of the "FairTax" is that it would simplify the tax code, it would be easy to understand, and we could eliminate the IRS. The next, logical question then becomes: Who runs the massive "prebate" system? Who collects the sales tax in the first place? I've got to think a new bureaucracy on the scale of the Social Security Administration (or bigger) would be needed to make all of this work.

And there are more questions. What about charitable giving? Will people give as much if there's no tax incentive? What about tax credits that are used to stimulate certain parts of the economy, like alternative energy?

For that matter, what happens in economic times like we're facing now? If the federal government's primary source of income is a national sales tax, what happens if, in a recession, people just buy less stuff? Government revenues go down, arguably at a time when the government most needs resources to act to stimulate the economy (or bail out failing banks).

So, yes, Congressman Walberg, the DCCC ad didn't tell the whole story. Unfortunately, the whole story is much, much worse.

This is a stupid idea, and I'm embarrassed that my congressman supports it.

Schauer Releases "Truth Squad" Videos

2008-09-23T20:55:00.000-04:00

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

For quite a while now, I've written about how Mark Schauer's campaign has been using the internet in smart and innovative ways, as well as their strong outreach program with blogs and people like me. It's really very impressive, and they decided to use the medium yet again to respond to Tim Walberg's attack ads:

Truth Squad: Walberg Attacks Schauer Record of Helping Business - Released September 11, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Jobs" (Coverage Here)

and

Truth Squad: Walberg Lies Again - Released September 17, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Children's Future" (Coverage Here)

I like the format of these videos-- the true/false message is effective (and kind of funny), and, for the most part, they refute Walberg's attacks fairly well. (In some cases, it changes the subject, refocusing on Walberg's support for a 23 percent sales tax, but it does so smoothly and plausibly. It's certainly a better segue than Walberg's pornography to taxes transition.) It's a good use of video and it offers a point-by-point response.

Next time, I think some low, ominous piano chords might fit well when refuting Walberg's claims, to make the contrast with the hopeful music at the end more clear. But that's just me nitpicking. They're good videos.

The problem is, these things don't work as television commercials. They go out over the supporter e-mail list and are seen by YouTube wanderers, but that's about it. And as of writing this, each video has between 600 and 700 views on YouTube. That's still more than double the number of views Walberg's attack ads have on YouTube (Man, they're really bad at this!), but it's nothing compared to how many will see Walberg's ads on television.

That's where you come in. If you hear someone comment on Walberg's ads, send them these videos. Make sure the people you know see the other side of the story. These won't be viral YouTube sensations, no, but they have the potential to change a few minds.

I'm guessing that we're going to see a lot more of these videos between now and November. I'll be posting them to the Schauer media page on Walberg Watch as they're released.

Walberg Releases Another Attack Ad

2008-09-23T20:30:00.000-04:00

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg released his third campaign advertisement on September 17, 2008. The ad is harsh-- a mother appears on camera and tells us about the horrors of Mark Schauer. And yet, something seems odd to me about the ad:

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this ad is trying to do to much. It ties together two attacks on Mark Schauer-- that he supposedly supports high taxes and that he supposedly supports sending pornography to children-- but those two attacks really don't fit together well. The narrative connecting them, which is that Schauer supposedly puts children's futures in jeopardy, strikes me as contrived and unnatural. The first time I watched the ad, my response was, "Huh?"

Then again, the last line sticks, and if you're not paying close attention to the whole thing, the two attacks seem effective. Unfortunately, as is often the case, Walberg's attacks have a casual relationship with reality.

The Schauer campaign released a press release in response to the part about child pornography:

"This latest attack from Tim Walberg is another boldfaced lie from a floundering candidate. Mark Schauer has repeatedly and consistently voted to protect Michigan children, including supporting bills that prevent children from being exposed to pornography. The truth is that while Walberg has done nothing to save Michigan jobs, he will say or do anything to save his own."

SCHAUER HAS A CLEAR RECORD OF PROTECTING KIDS:

• Schauer voted in favor of a six-bill package in 1999 to strengthen the Sex Offenders Registration Act to protect kids from sex predators. [RC #571-576]

• That same year, he voted in favor of a bill to allow libraries to restrict use of the internet or computers from providing obscene or sexually explicit materials to minors. [PA 37, 1999, RC #232 and #491]

• In 2000, Schauer voted to pass HB 4327 so that minors would not be able to see or have access to pornography in stores.

• In 2002, Schauer co-sponsored and voted to pass legislation to strengthen child pornography laws and increase penalties for possession of child pornography. [HB 5296 & 5297, RC #981 and #982]

• This June, Schauer co-sponsored SB 1417, a bipartisan bill that would require public schools to develop programs designed to provide grade-level-appropriate instruction on internet safety for pupils in all grade levels. [SB 1417, 2008]
BACKGROUND ON SB 117:

• An analysis provided to legislators in 1999 by the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency before a vote ever took place on the bill in question explicitly stated, "The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional and will likely be struck down if enacted into law." [SB 117, 1999]

• In 2001, the Eastern District Federal Court for Michigan found that the law violated the First Amendment, and was ruled unconstitutional.

In other words, Schauer did vote against one bill, because it was flagrantly violating our constitutional rights, and would be struck down by the courts... which it was. But Schauer has a long record of voting for laws that can actually do something to protect children.

Congressman Walberg, it takes a special kind of sleaze to accuse your opponent of wanting to send pornography to children. That's dishonest, disgusting, and just stupid.

Schauer Releases Second TV Ad

2008-09-23T20:15:00.000-04:00

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

On September 14, state Senator Mark Schauer released his second television advertisement:

There are some striking similarities and even more striking differences between this ad and Congressman Walberg's second television ad. Like Walberg's ad, the important part is the personal testimonial-- one person in front of the camera, sharing his thoughts on the candidate. These tend to be effective. It's good politics to show other faces than your own.

But Walberg's second ad was an attack ad and very negative (with scary music and everything). It ended on a frightening note: "Our survival is in jeopardy if we let [Schauer raise taxes]." Schauer's ends with soft music, a message of hope, and a sense of accomplishment: "Our jobs are staying here, and we have Mark Schauer to thank for it."

I don't know which message will be more effective. Anyone who's been watching politics for the last eight years knows that fear works and motivates voters, but the last year has shown that hope works, too. I just think it's interesting.

Now that both candidates are on the air, I'd love to see some polling that asks about the effectiveness of the ads. But, sadly, pollsters don't come to me for ideas, nor do I have the money to commission polls myself.

Also interesting, though less important in terms of moving voters, was the fundraising e-mail sent out by the Schauer campaign after releasing the ad. One part of the e-mail reads:

We can't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign against me, like he did two years ago against Joe Schwarz.

Obviously, this shows that Democrats know how to use fear, too, just in a different sort of way. But I think it's also telling that Schauer is starting to invoke Joe Schwarz in these e-mails. Schwarz is every Michigan Democrat's favorite Republican, and for many good reasons, and memories of the 2006 primary are a good motivator for Schauer's donor base. But Schwarz is still a powerful influence among independents and Republicans in the district, too. I'll be interested to see how much his name is used as we move closer to November.

Catching Up

2008-09-17T17:59:00.001-04:00

Hi everyone. I'm guessing readership has dropped a bit for the week-and-a-half I've taken off from this. I assure you all, I definitely wasn't on vacation, and had a good, non-politics reason for taking a break from blogging.

Over the next day or so, I'm going to be posting a lot. So watch this space for plenty of excitement.

Schauer Releases First TV Ad

2008-09-05T09:20:00.000-04:00

This morning, Schauer for Congress sent out a fundraising e-mail that included a link to their first television ad. The timing of the ad, Schauer admits, is in part because of the attack ad released by Tim Walberg's campaign:

Walberg's latest commercial features a Jackson business owner who complains about taxes, saying "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

But what he doesn't mention is the fact that I helped create a law that exempts his tool and die company from virtually all state and local taxes. While Tim Walberg and George Bush have supported unfair trade deals that make it harder for Michigan businesses to compete, I fought to level the playing field and make us more competitive.

That's the difference in this race - I've actually worked with businesses in the district to save and create jobs. As for Tim Walberg, it's clear that the only job he cares about saving is his own.

DONATE NOW

For almost a full month now, Walberg has been spending money on TV ads in a desperate attempt to raise his weak poll numbers, which show that he's just a few points away from losing his seat. I'll admit, this is earlier than we wanted to go on their air, but I won't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign like he did against Joe Schwarz two years ago.

Here's the new ad:

What do you think? Will this help get Schauer's name out in places like Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Branch Counties? Is it an effective ad? Is it an effective response to the Walberg ad?

Walberg Releases Attack Ad

2008-09-02T14:44:00.002-04:00

This is going to get pretty nasty... From YouTube user SeventhDem:

This is Walberg's second television ad and, perhaps because of its negative tone, is not yet included on the Walberg for Congress YouTube channel. Here's the Schauer campaign response:

WALBERG ATTACK MACHINE LIES ABOUT SCHAUER RECORD OF HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES

Schauer has strong record of helping tool and die industry compete for jobs, while Walberg is making things worse

BATTLE CREEK-- Yesterday Congressman Tim Walberg's attack machine kicked into high gear with a new round of television commercials aimed at distorting Mark Schauer's record on support for local businesses. In the commercial, Mike Shirkey of Orbitform in Jackson says, "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

"Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Walberg -- tell the truth. Because of Mark Schauer's hard work and dedication to his district, an MEDC report shows that Orbitform pays virtually no state or local taxes," said B.J. Neidhardt, Campaign Manager for Schauer for Congress. "The simple truth is that Mark has fought on behalf of tool and die companies like Orbitform, which have been hit hard by the unfair trade deals that Tim Walberg and George Bush have staunchly supported."

As the Democratic Vice Chair of the Committee on Commerce and Labor, Mark Schauer was instrumental in crafting the legislation to create tool and die renaissance recovery zone in 2003 (PA 266 of 2003, RC 649), and has supported every expansion of the bill since then (RC 155'06, RC 231'08, RC 712'05).

A press release sent out by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) in December 2005 reveals that Orbitform and nine other companies in Jackson County formed the Automation & Tooling Alliance of North America to receive the tax-free tool and die renaissance recovery zone designation. According to the release, "The zones allow companies to operate free of virtually all state and local taxes for up to 15 years, thus boosting their efforts to compete in the face of global competition."

Not only did Mark help craft the legislation to create the renaissance recovery zones for tool and die companies, but he also helped secure Orbitform's renaissance status through the MEDC in 2005. That year, he also actively lobbied the Jackson City Council on behalf of Orbitform's management to approve the company's tax-free designation on June 28, 2005.

"It's not surprising that Mr. Shirkey was willing to attack Mark in a campaign ad for Tim Walberg, considering that he and his family have donated over $8,500 to Walberg's campaign," said Neidhardt. "Earlier this summer the Jackson Citizen Patriot pointed out his use of inflammatory partisan rhetoric in official company messages, so you have to consider the messenger."

Background:

- On December 12, 2005, MEDC sent out a press release announcing tool and die renaissance recovery zone status for Orbitform, exempting them from "virtually all state and local taxes." [Link]

- Nearly ¾ of Tim Walberg's 2006 primary money came from Club for Growth, a group that lists expanding free trade as one of its main goals. [Ann Arbor News, 8/9/06]

- Mike Shirkey and members of his family have donated over $8,500 to Tim Walberg's campaign. [Link]

- According to a blog post on the Jackson Citizen Patriot website, a two-minute monologue from Mr. Shirkey attacking presidential candidate Barack Obama was available on company phones earlier this summer. [Link]

- A copy of Tim Walberg's attack ad can be found on YouTube. [Link]

# # #

That's a fairly effective response to the ad and to Mike Shirkey, but at some point, the Schauer campaign will need a good response to the "deciding vote for the largest tax increase in Michigan's history" nonsense. It is nonsense, too (and hopefully I'll get a chance to write more about it), but a short, memorable response to the claim would be helpful.

I am, however, surprised by an attack ad from the Walberg campaign this early. Normally, I would think they'd save this for October, and let their buddies at Freedom's Watch do the dirty work. This makes me think that the ad is mainly a response to the EPIC-MRA poll that came out last week. Recall:

Overall, would you say that things in the United States are generally headed in the right direction, or have things pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

8% Right direction
78% Wrong track
14% Undecided/Don't know/Refused

[...]

How would you rate the job being done by Tim Walberg in the United States Congress-- would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

TOTAL POSITIVE - 32%
TOTAL NEGATIVE - 43%

[...]

If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?

TOTAL WALBERG - 43%
TOTAL SCHAUER - 40%
TOTAL MEADOWS - 1%
TOTAL PROCTOR - 2%

Walberg's campaign is reacting to what looks like momentum for Mark Schauer. It seems to me that they're worried, and with good reason.

And, of course, remember that Mark Schauer hasn't gone on the air yet with his television ads. Walberg has been on the air since August 6th.

UPDATE: Sometime between when I first posted this and now, the Walberg campaign put up their ad on YouTube.

Obama-Biden In Battle Creek

2008-08-31T13:08:00.006-04:00

Obama-Biden in Battle Creek:

Please join us for this special event in Battle Creek:

An Evening On the Road for Change
with Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Brown Stadium at Bailey Park
1392 Capital Avenue NE
Battle Creek, MI

Sunday, August 31st
Gates Open: 5:00 p.m.

The event is free and open to the public; tickets are not required but an RSVP is encouraged. Space is available on a first come, first served basis. Please RSVP using the form to the right.

For security reasons, do not bring bags and please limit personal items. No signs or banners permitted.

Parking is very limited. Please carpool or take public transportation if possible.

I'll be there, and I'll have photos and thoughts either late tonight or tomorrow morning. For on-the-ground reports, check out the Battle Creek Enquirer's Twittering reporters.

Meanwhile, share your thoughts and-- if you go-- your experience. It's not every day that a major presidential contender and his vice president come to Michigan's 7th District. It's even rarer when you can get in without having to pay $500 per plate.

UPDATE (1:48am Sept. 01, 2008): I'm back from Battle Creek, with two memory cards full of photos and video, a notebook full of scribbles, and a pounding headache, the result of a beautiful, sunny, hot, cloudless day. I'll have lots of photos and more thoughts tomorrow, but for now, I'll leave you with a couple of images from the day/evening:

That's all for tonight. I'm going to bed now.

UPDATE II: I'm not in bed quite yet. I had one fun fact to share.

Today, 16,000 people saw Barack Obama and Joe Biden in Battle Creek. It was, basically, a normal crowd for a candidate that's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him. His big days are times like the 75,000 in Portland or the 80,000 in Denver. In 2004, President George W. Bush managed a crowd of 10,000 in Battle Creek.

Today, John McCain also had a big crowd, but rather than a routine, normal size, it was his biggest ever, thanks to his vice presidential bounce. How big was it? 17,000.

Crowd size isn't everything, no, but it's not nothing, either.

NRCC To Spend $832,000

2008-08-31T00:20:00.001-04:00

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced in July that it would be reserving $1.5 million in advertising time in Michigan's 7th District. The Politico.com brings us the response from the National Republican Congressional Committee:

The Republicans' campaign arm in the House has reserved another round of television ads to prop up their vulnerable GOP colleagues this fall.

[...]

With this latest round of reservations, the NRCC will be playing defense in 21 of the 26 races where the committee has secured airtime. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has secured time in many of these districts - a strong sign that the party in power could pad its majority in the House this fall.

[...]

In Michigan, the NRCC has reserved $618,000 to protect veteran Rep. Joe Knollenberg and $832,000 to help freshman Rep. Tim Walberg.

(Emphasis added.)

There's really not much more to say here. The GOP is playing defense, and, for now, has decided that Tim Walberg is worth fighting to protect. But when the DCCC has more cash-on-hand than the NRCC ($56,456,584 to $14,233,074 as of the end of July), they'll be able to push hard across all 21 districts that the NRCC is defending and more. When faced with limited resources, I still say there's a chance the Republican leaders may choose to protect an older incumbent (and longtime friend) over the freshman from Michigan.

Of course, Walberg has the Club for Growth and now Freedom's Watch on his side, so there'll still be plenty of money available to rush to his defense.

Walberg On Michigan Business Success: "Bummer"

2008-08-28T15:08:00.000-04:00

A lot of people don't know much about a man named Homer Stryker, but they should. Raised in Athens, Michigan, he was a teacher, a World War I soldier, a doctor, and an inventor. As an orthopedic surgeon in Kalamazoo, he began building devices that improved the comfort of the patients he was treating. The company he founded-- Stryker Corp.-- has grown into a Fortune 500 company and a leader in medical technologies.

But best of all, they're still in Kalamazoo, Michigan. With nearly 19,000 employees worldwide, the world headquarters and much of the manufacturing is still in Michigan.

This is the perfect Michigan success story. It shows that Michigan businesses can thrive and be successful and stay in Michigan. It shows that hard work and creativity can lead to great results. This is the sort of success story politicians should be talking about all the time.

So what does Tim Walberg say about it while touring a hospital?

Matt Davis, a Marshall Realtor and Walberg supporter, noted the room contained a bed made by Stryker Corp. of Kalamazoo.
Walberg said he'd had surgery in 2007 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.
"I looked at the bed and it said 'Stryker,'" Walberg said. "Bummer."

(Emphasis added.)

"Bummer." That's his reaction to a Michigan success story. Why?

Jon Stryker, one of three billionaire grandchildren of Stryker's founder, has in recent years funded numerous liberal causes, and his Coalition for Progress has contributed to Schauer's 2008 campaign.

Yup. Tim Walberg doesn't like Stryker because one of the grandchildren of the founder is a Democrat. And it's true-- Jon Stryker has spent a lot of money on his political activities. It's much like the many members of the Club for Growth, who funded the congressman's 2006 campaign.

To his credit, Walberg eventually acknowledged that he was wrong:

In the end, Walberg noted that the company is a separate entity and said, "If Stryker makes the best hospital bed, that's the one I want to be in."

But an initial reaction says a lot. In the comments on the Battle Creek Enquirer article, user DSMi59 wrote:

His comment about Stryker and it's politics is a good guage of how he values Michigan businesses. It isn't the business he appreciates, one who chooses staying in Michigan and making local employment possible, it's that Stryker supports the wrong political party. He resents being in a hospital bed manufactured in his own state. Bummer, indeed!

And Michigan Liberal's Eric B. wrote:

He could have said that he was proud to have been in a bed made by the nation's best workers, right here in Michigan, in one of the nation's best hospitals. He could have said that. Didn't.

Congressman Walberg, perceptions mean a lot, and as a public figure, you're in a position that attracts a lot of attention. "Bummer" doesn't convince businesses to stay in Michigan. It's possible that we're all being a little too sensitive, but seriously, "bummer"? That's the most intelligent thing you can think of?

For the record, I've got no problem buying cabinetry from Merillat, despite the numerous times that the Merillat name shows up in Walberg's FEC filing. For that matter, Battle Creek Unlimited still does plenty of great things for that city, so don't judge them harshly just because their CEO contributed $500 to Tim Walberg's re-election campaign.

Business is business, and politics is politics. In a state like Michigan, I don't care who you vote for, as long as you're providing jobs and helping your community. It's too bad Tim Walberg doesn't feel the same way.

Friday Walberg Motorcycle Tour Stops

2008-08-28T12:05:00.000-04:00

As Congressman Tim Walberg continues his "motorcycle tour," in which he rides across the 7th District on his Harley Davidson motorcycle (listening to constituents, but, of course, not campaigning for re-election-- despite the prominent sticker on his motorcycle), he'll be making stops in Jackson County tomorrow:

Stops will include:

• Brooklyn Village Hall, 121 Main St., 10 a.m.

• Parma Village Hall, 117 W. Main St., 1:30 p.m.

• Springport Village Hall, 137 W. Main St., 3:30 p.m.

The stops will be among 27 scheduled in the seven counties of the 7th District.

I have yet to find the full 27-stop schedule, but I'd encourage readers to visit Congressman Walberg at one of these stops. It's a great opportunity to ask him questions, like:

Congressman Walberg, the motorcycle thing is all well and good, but many of us can't afford a $17,000 "Road King" from Harley Davidson. Why did you vote against Amtrak, public transportation, and releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of which could help save energy or lower prices?
You've mocked the "Use It or Lose It" plan put forward by the Democrats as a gimmick, and that it won't produce more oil. If oil companies can't produce on that land, why do you think they should be able to keep it?
You've received $32,500 from electric utilities and the oil and gas industry this cycle alone. How much do those contributions influence the policies you support?
Do you support any legislation that would bring short-term energy savings? Drilling for more oil doesn't count as "short-term."

If you get a chance to ask Congressman Walberg a question, I'd love to hear about it. Maybe he'll impress me with his thoughtful responses.

Obama, Biden Visit Battle Creek On Sunday

2008-08-28T11:21:00.000-04:00

It's not exactly news about the 7th District race, but it is happening in Battle Creek and state Senator Mark Schauer will be there, so it qualifies for this blog.

It's been confirmed. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has scheduled a rally for Sunday in Battle Creek.
Interim City Manager Ken Tsuchiyama said Wednesday he was contacted Tuesday evening by the Illinois senator's campaign, and the group toured C.O. Brown Stadium in Battle Creek on Wednesday morning.
While no time has been determined, Obama's stop in the Cereal City has been confirmed by campaign officials.
Liz Kerr, communications director for the Michigan Democratic Party, said the Illinois senator will be joined by his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, and state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Bedford Township.

Even if you're a Republican, I'd encourage you to look into this and see if you can attend. It's not every day that you get to see the man who may be our next president in person. And, hey, maybe he might just change your mind.

LSJ: Walberg Wrong On Amtrak

2008-08-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

As officials in Jackson discuss a high-speed rail system to Ann Arbor and Detroit, it's important to remember Congressman Tim Walberg's previous positions on funding public transportation. After voting against a public transportation investment bill and a bill to reauthorize and fund Amtrak, can Jackson County expect his support for a commuter rail system?

With all of this in mind, the Lansing State Journal took Walberg and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) to task today for their anti-Amtrak votes.

More people in Michigan are taking to Amtrak trains to get around. Ridership increases from October 2007 to July 2008 ranged between 5.9 percent and 7.2 percent on the three lines in the Great Lakes State.

But Michigan wouldn't have three Amtrak routes had state government not struck a deal with Amtrak to subsidize those routes a few years back. For the coming fiscal year starting Oct. 1, Michigan again plans to pump $7.9 million into Amtrak service to mid-Michigan, among other places.

Yet mid-Michigan Congressmen Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, voted against a federal Amtrak funding bill in June.

Talk about working at cross purposes.

and

Rogers, Walberg and the rest of Congress should continue to seek rail reform. But it does not serve Michigan's interests to be voting against Amtrak in the meantime.

The editorial (rightly) points out some of Amtrak's flaws, but they make a strong case that voting "no" on Amtrak without a viable alternative in mind makes no sense. Since Tim Walberg has yet to offer anything besides an oil company give-away energy plan, I very much doubt that he had reform on his mind when he voted against Amtrak.

EPIC-MRA Poll: Walberg 43, Schauer 40

2008-08-25T19:57:00.005-04:00

UPDATE: Full poll results are at the bottom, via WXYZ.

For the Detroit News, EPIC-MRA brings us a new poll:

Walberg of Tipton leads Schauer, a state senator from Battle Creek by 43-40 percent, which is within the poll's 4.9-point error margin. A decisive 14 percent of voters in the district are undecided.

[...]

The Knollenberg-Peters poll was conducted from Aug. 21-23; the Walberg-Schauer survey was done from Aug. 20-22. Each was conducted among 400 likely voters.

[...]

Walberg, 57, and Schauer, 47, are battling over a district that includes all of five counties -- Eaton, Jackson, Lenawee, Hillsdale and Branch -- and most of Calhoun and Washtenaw counties.

Voters, by 43-32 percent, give Walberg negative ratings for his job performance.

Pollster Porn said a finding in the poll shows Schauer must go on the attack if he is to win. When voters were read the biographies of both candidates, they favored Walberg 46-44 percent.

"Schauer needs to run an aggressive, hard-hitting campaign against Walberg," Porn said. "If Schauer thinks he can run a positive campaign, that will not be enough for that district, because it is too Republican. He needs to contrast with the Walberg record."

Walberg knocked off a less conservative Republican incumbent, Joe Schwarz, in 2006, and some Democratic strategists believe he is too conservative for a majority of voters in the district.

B.J. Neidhardt, Schauer's campaign manager, said the poll numbers come as Walberg has had a TV ad up since Aug. 6, while his candidate has yet to air an air.

"The numbers show voters aren't buying what Congressman Walberg is selling," Neidhardt said.

(Emphasis added.)

The Schauer campaign sent out a press release:

NEW INDEPENDENT POLL SHOWS DEAD HEAT IN MICHIGAN'S 7TH DISTRICT

Walberg trails in fundraising, losing ground after several weeks of paid advertising

BATTLE CREEK—Tonight a new poll released by EPIC-MRA for Detroit News/WXYZ indicated that the race between state Senator Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and Congressman Tim Walberg in Michigan's 7th Congressional district was a statistical dead heat. The news represents a huge fall in standing for Walberg, who has been advertising on television for more than three weeks and spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars communicating with voters through automated robocalls, on the radio, in newspaper inserts, and in the mailbox.

"This poll reflects the momentum we've been seeing on the ground for the past several months," said B.J. Neidhardt, Campaign Manager for Mark Schauer's campaign. "People simply aren't buying what Tim Walberg is selling, and Mark has the message and the momentum to win this race in November."

The independent poll released tonight showed a statistical dead heat with Schauer at 40% and Walberg at 43%, well within the 4.9% margin of error. The complete story can be found at:

[Link]

In the second quarter, Schauer's campaign out-raised incumbent Tim Walberg for the fourth straight filing period, bringing in more than $427,000. Over the course of the campaign, Schauer has brought in more than $1.33 million and raised more than Tim Walberg's total contributions for the entire 2006 election cycle.

Background:

• The previous EPIC-MRA poll, released in March, showed Tim Walberg leading 51-40.

# # #

This really does look bad for Walberg. He's still leading, and, contrary to the Schauer press release, it's not a "dead heat," but it is within the margin of error. That's a lot closer than it should be for an incumbent in a lean-Republican district. It's certainly a lot closer than the internal poll the Walberg campaign released last month.

As the Schauer campaign points out, this also comes after a few weeks of Walberg being on the air, yet he's losing ground against a challenger who has yet to really advertise. Both sides are the beneficiaries (and victims) of independent attacks.

Perhaps more significant than the Walberg-Schauer result is the job performance result. Recall:

Voters, by 43-32 percent, give Walberg negative ratings for his job performance.

That's ridiculously awful. A net 11 point disapproval means that even the Republican base is disappointed in him. I'd be interested to see where Schauer stands on name identification. If it's still relatively low, combined with Walberg's negative ratings, then we can expect to see the race tighten further. Maybe this isn't a conservative district after all!

-----

Via WXYZ, the full results.

7TH DISTRICT RESULTS

Overall, would you say that things in the United States are generally headed in the right direction, or have things pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

8% Right direction
78% Wrong track
14% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused

How about in Michigan – Do you think that things in Michigan are generally headed in the right direction, or are things pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

10% Right direction
82% Wrong track
8% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused

Now, I would like to read a list of several political figures. For each one, please tell me if you recognize the name, and whether you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of that person.

George W. Bush
- Favorable - 32%
- Unfavorable - 61%

Jennifer Granholm
- Favorable - 40%
- Unfavorable - 52%

Barack Obama
- Favorable - 44%
- Unfavorable - 36%

John McCain
- Favorable - 46%
- Unfavorable - 34%

Mark Schauer
- Favorable - 25%
- Unfavorable - 15%

Tim Walberg
- Favorable - 39%
- Unfavorable - 29%

Overall, how would you rate the job being done by George W. Bush as President -- would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

TOTAL POSITIVE - 24%
TOTAL NEGATIVE – 73%
Overall, how would you rate the job being done by Jennifer Granholm as Michigan’s Governor – would you give her a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

TOTAL POSITIVE - 26%
TOTAL NEGATIVE - 71%

How would you rate the job being done by Tim Walberg in the United States Congress – would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

TOTAL POSITIVE - 32%
TOTAL NEGATIVE - 43%

Over the next six months to a year, do you think Michigan’s economy will improve, get worse, or remain about the same?

18% Improve
29% Get worse
48% Remain about the same
5% Undecided/Don’t know/Refused

In the election for President, if the election were held today, would you vote for John McCain the Republican, Barack Obama the Democrat, Ralph Nader the Independent, or Bob Barr the Libertarian?

TOTAL OBAMA - 39%
TOTAL McCAIN - 43%
TOTAL NADER - 3%
TOTAL BARR - 3%

If the November general election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Jack Hoogendyk the Republican, Carl Levin the Democrat, Harley Mikkelson of the Green Party, Michael Nikitin of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, Scotty Boman the Libertarian, or Doug Dern of the Natural Law Party?

TOTAL LEVIN - 46%
TOTAL HOOGENDYK - 28%
TOTAL MIKKELSON - 1%
TOTAL NIKITIN - 0%
TOTAL BOMAN - 2%
TOTAL DERN - 0%

If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?

TOTAL WALBERG - 43%
TOTAL SCHAUER - 40%
TOTAL MEADOWS - 1%
TOTAL PROCTOR - 2%

Now I would like to read a brief description of the two major party candidates running for congress.

Tim Walberg is 57 years old and the incumbent Republican. He was born on the south side of Chicago. After graduating from high school he became a member of the U.S. Forest Service. To pay his way through college, he worked as a union steel mill worker, attended Western Illinois University, Taylor University, Moody Bible Institute, where he was trained as a minister, and Wheaton College Graduate School, where he earned his B.S. and M.A. degrees. He was a pastor for 10 years, then served in the Michigan House of Representatives from Lenawee County for 18 years. In the 2006, he defeated the incumbent Republican by campaigning on a platform of support for President Bush’s war on terror and opposition to pork barrel spending. Walberg is a social and economic conservative, taking a strong pro-life position on abortion and supporting traditional marriage. He and his wife Sue have been married for 34 years, raised three children and live in Tipton in Lenawee County.

Mark Schauer is 47 years old and the Democratic leader of the Michigan State Senate, representing Calhoun and Jackson Counties since 2003. Before that, he served in the Michigan House of Representatives. Born in Howell, he was his class Valedictorian and then graduated with honors from Albion College. He worked as an urban planner for Calhoun County while continuing his college education, earning Masters Degrees in Public Administration from Western Michigan and Political Science from Michigan State. He worked for and later became the Director of the Community Action Agency in Battle Creek, was a founding member of the Battle Creek Habitat for Humanity, and an active supporter of the Food Bank. He has been a strong advocate of quality schools, early childhood development, job training, economic development, access to quality health care, and he is pro-choice on the abortion issue. He and his wife Christine live in Battle Creek with his three step children.

After hearing these descriptions, let me ask you again, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?

TOTAL WALBERG - 46%
TOTAL SCHAUER - 44%
TOTAL MEADOWS - 0%
TOTAL PROCTOR - 1%

There's a lot to digest there.

UPDATE II: Fixed typos.

Schauer Endorsed By Ex-Republican DeWeese

2008-08-25T10:34:00.000-04:00

Everyone remembers the 2006 Republican primary, in which Tim Walberg defeated incumbent Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz. But two years earlier, the 2004 GOP primary was just as hard-fought a race, drawing six legitimate Republican candidates, all of whom at some point had a plausible chance of winning.

That race ended with Joe Schwarz squeaking by with a narrow plurality:

Joe Schwarz (R), 28%
Brad Smith (R), 22%
Tim Walberg (R), 18%
Clark Bisbee (R), 14%
Gene DeRossett (R), 11%
Paul DeWeese (R), 7%

We all, of course, know what happened with Schwarz and Walberg two years later. Clark Bisbee considered challenging Walberg in the primary this year, but decided against it, and:

Other names being floated are the two other also-rans in the '04 primary, former Reps. Gene DeROSSETT and Paul DeWEESE.

Neither, of course, decided to join the race. Indeed, Paul DeWeese decided instead to join the Democratic Party:

Former Rep. Paul DeWeese of Williamston, a one-time Republican Senate and congressional candidate, said he's changed parties and is now a Democrat.

For a number of years, the emergency room physician said he's watched a growing disconnect between the needs of people and the Republican Party's narrow "bankrupt ideology."

(Emphasis added.)

Now, we get this news from Schauer for Congress:

FORMER REPUBLICAN STATE REP. PAUL DEWEESE ENDORSES SCHAUER FOR CONGRESS

Says Schauer will fight to fix broken healthcare system, make Michigan more competitive

BATTLE CREEK—Today former state Rep. Paul DeWeese, a one-time Republican from Williamston, announced that he was endorsing Mark Schauer for Congress in the 7th district race. The emergency room physician announced he was leaving the Republican Party earlier this spring.

"The people of Mid-Michigan are ready for change, and Mark Schauer is exactly the kind of leader we need right now to make this state more competitive," said DeWeese. "Unlike his opponent, Mark would never vote against healthcare for kids, and he would never tell his constituents that people without health insurance should seek basic treatment in the emergency room. You don't have to be an ER doctor to understand that this only drives up costs for everyone else in the system. The 7th district deserves a Congressman who will fight to fix our broken healthcare system, and Mark is the best man for the job."

In August 2007, Congressman Walberg voted against the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (HR 3162), legislation to expand the current State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $47.8 billion and bring 5 million additional children into the program. In March of this year, Walberg claimed at a town hall meeting in Hillsdale that those who cannot afford to go to the doctor have sufficient access to medical care because anyone can obtain treatment at an emergency room.

"I appreciate Paul's support and look forward to welcoming even more Democrats, Independents and Republicans to join our team this year," said Schauer. "Together, we can turn Michigan's economy around, one job at a time."

# # #

(Emphasis added.)

I think it's important to make clear just how significant this might be. DeWeese was certainly a moderate Republican, and as a state Representative, he didn't actually live in the 7th District. At the same time, he's a known quantity to 7th District Republicans, and especially to moderates who are wary of Walberg but not yet sure about Schauer.

And also, it never hurts to have a well-known emergency room doctor say that you're better on health care than your opponent. The town hall the press release mentions contains a heated exchange between a questioner and Congressman Walberg. You can listen to the whole thing here (low-quality .mp3), but here's the important part:

Walberg: ... That’s an issue, and I suggest that health savings accounts aren’t the only way to go, but I also suggest that we need to find ways, like associated health plans, giving the same tax breaks to individuals to purchase health insurance that we give to businesses…

Question: But many people have no money to purchase. You have the poor who have only enough money maybe to buy food. You can’t close the door. They can’t save money…

Walberg: Then wouldn’t it be good to take the government as much out of the way… of standing in the way of people having jobs so they would have incomes so they could afford health care. That’s the strong economics, because right now, everybody in the United States has some health care, maybe even the emergency room.

Question: No they don’t.

Walberg: [Losing patience] Everyone can walk into an emergency room and receive basic health care.

[Crowd noise]

Question: It doesn’t work that way. This community, this community really does pay for …

Walberg: I have a doctor in this row that knows it does work that way.

Someone in crowd: She might know a doctor!

Question: … Well, I’m a nurse practitioner. But we have a… in this community we do have, the community comes together for a free clinic. We put that together, […] it’s an excellent resource for people that do not have insurance. But, not every community has that. Not everybody comes together like that. What I’m saying is, that as a nation, we need to come together to provide basic health care for everyone...

This, of course, is a partial transcript, with a lot more before and after, and I probably made a few mistakes through there. Even so, this is a fairly good account of the discussion.

From this, we see that Tim Walberg's health care plan is, basically, the same "Every man for himself!" strategy he brings to other issues. And if you're still too poor to receive quality health care, well, you can just use the emergency room and drive up the costs for the rest of us.

That's not smart economics, and that's not smart health care. Walberg's system has no room for preventative care, which saves lives and money. It leaves emergency rooms-- the part of the hospital you want working most smoothly-- overcrowded and overwhelmed. And it leaves the rest of us to pay for it anyway.

I'm glad to see former state Representative and Dr. DeWeese endorse Mark Schauer. Are there any other doctors out there interested in endorsing?

Dr. Schwarz?

Walberg: Saddam Hussein Funded 9/11 Attacks

2008-08-22T20:26:00.001-04:00

I'm trying to find out when this interview aired, but it was on the Bart Hawley Show on JTV:

Many thanks to YouTube user SeventhDem for the video.

As I said, I'm not sure when this aired, but this is at least twice now that Congressman Tim Walberg has linked the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. This time, he specifically states that Saddam Hussein funded terrorist operations. This is, in fact, not true. This claim was debunked four years ago by the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, the former director of the CIA says that the claim never made sense:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

Let me repeat this. The terrorist group Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. The government of Iraq and then-President Saddam Hussein had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Setting aside the "fantasy world" explanation I offered yesterday, it's clear that Tim Walberg is deliberately trying to distort the facts to justify his support of the war in Iraq.

Earlier today, the Battle Creek Enquirer carried an article titled "Walberg Clarifies His Comment," in which the congressman is supposed to have explained what he meant when he said that Iraq and September 11 were linked. Except, here's the only "clarification" they offered:

When asked about the comment, Walberg said:
"The fact is I strongly believe that terrorism must be defeated here and abroad. Al-Qaida was and is a threat to our family's security — they have proven that."

Lacking in any other explanation, I'm forced to conclude that Congressman Walberg stands by his claim that Saddam Hussein helped carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In other news, someone who attended one of Congressman Walberg's campaign events informed me that Walberg flip-flopped-- he now supports a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This is a dramatically different position than he had taken before, voting against such timetables throughout last year.

If this policy switch turns out to be true (I'll have to wait until I see media reports), I'll be eager to see how he explains to his supporters why he supports "timetables for defeat."

UPDATE: I'm told that this video clip was from Tuesday, August 19, 2008. That was four days after he made similar false statements on WKHM's Greg O'Connor Show and was the subject of a Schauer for Congress press release and a post by Chris Gautz of the Jackson Citizen Patriot on his blog.

Walberg Lenawee Kickoff Disappointing?

2008-08-22T20:23:00.000-04:00

A short post now, then I've got a much more important post coming up next.

Today, Congressman Walberg held his Lenawee County Campaign Kickoff:

WALBERG LENAWEE CAMPAIGN KICKOFF RALLY
Friday, August 22, 2008
10:00am

Join us at Next Diesel
1571 W. Beecher Rd.
Adrian, MI 49221

Congressman Walberg as well as several community leaders will be speaking.

Come on out, pick up your yard sign, and show your support for your Congressman!

Recall that Lenawee County is Walberg's home county. He's lived in Tipton for years, knows everybody, and won the county with 55 percent of the vote against Sharon Renier, won it with 69 percent in the 2006 GOP primary against Joe Schwarz, and won it with 57 percent in a six-way primary in 2004. In other words, this is his base.

I spoke earlier with someone who attended Walberg's kickoff rally. How many people showed up?

10.

Including staff.

Contrast this with Mark Schauer's town hall in Adrian a couple of weeks before the primary, which had somewhere between 60 and 70 people attend.

Walberg's still got the advantage, but he can only draw a crowd of 10 in Lenawee County? If that's true, then he's got plenty of reasons to be worried about November.

Tim Walberg's Fantasy World

2008-08-21T16:31:00.001-04:00

The Politico.com ran a story a few days ago that's interesting in the context of the debate over offshore drilling for oil. Without commenting on the merits of drilling offshore, they noted that a number of proponents of drilling like to make the claim that facilities in the Gulf of Mexico went through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without any damage and without "one drop of oil spilt," according to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS).

So, if the oil rigs could survive hurricanes without any environmental damage, obviously offshore drilling is completely safe, and environmentalists who oppose it are being unreasonable.

The problem with these assertions? Well, they're wrong. As the Politico explains:

The U.S. Minerals Management Service, however, did a study of the damage Katrina and Rita did to offshore oil wells and came to a different conclusion. It found that the two storms caused a combined 124 spills with a volume of 17,700 barrels—or roughly 750,000 gallons. That's no Exxon Valdez -- in fact, the MMS had kind words for the rigs' performances -- but it's not nothing either.

The article also cites pieces by CBS News and Media Matters which debunk the claim.

Among the proponents of drilling that the Politico mentions? Congressman Tim Walberg:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said on Friday that the Gulf rigs went "through Katrina with no spills -- with derricks being washed up on shore and yet the environment has not been hurt and we've been benefited by it."

(Emphasis added.)

The problem here isn't the policy Walberg supports. There are a lot of reasons not to support his oil-company-give-away policy, but in this case, 750,000 gallons of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita aren't going to convince many voters.

Instead, the problem is what the story indicates about Tim Walberg as a person and as a politician. He's basing his policies and his rhetoric on what he wishes was true, not based on the actual facts. Rather than taking positions based on what's happening, he's following his rigid ideology and creating for himself a world that fits it. His hard line, conservative positions make perfect sense in the fantasy world he's constructed.

Offshore drilling is a lot easier to support if you pretend that there's no environmental risk and if you pretend the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida.

Continuing the war in Iraq is a lot easier if you pretend that Iraq is as safe as Detroit.

Going to war to begin with makes more sense if you pretend that Iraq was behind September 11.

Environmental issues are a lot easier if you pretend that global climate change isn't real.

Unfortunately, Tim Walberg's facts don't quite match the ones the rest of us have to live with.

Schauer Campaign Video: "The Things People Say"

2008-08-21T15:56:00.001-04:00

From my inbox last night:

Dear [---],
In case you missed it, Tim Walberg did an interview with WKHM in Jackson last week. When the topic of Iraq came up during the conversation, Walberg said, "There was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11."

Apparently the Congressman didn't get the memo that President Bush admitted this wasn't true in 2003, or that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission de-bunked this myth more than four years ago.

This got me thinking about some of the other shocking comments Tim Walberg has made over the past year that show how out of touch he is with the 7^th district. We put this video together to highlight some of his extreme viewpoints:

And, here's the video, called "The Things People Say":

I'm more than a little embarrassed that I'm represented by this man...

Walberg Increases Internet Operation

2008-08-21T15:32:00.000-04:00

I've repeated a number of times that the internet is still the best untapped resource for political campaigns to reach out to supporters and win over undecided voters. Mark Schauer has been doing a fantastic job, with a number of innovative ideas and embracing dynamic content. Up until the primary, Tim Walberg's attempts at using the internet were disappointing.

This may be changing. Tim Walberg's campaign has significantly increased his internet operation, now with a website, a blog, a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, and a YouTube channel. So far, this is impressive-- though, it's worth noting that Mark Schauer had all of these long before Walberg, with the exception of the Twitter feed.

So does this mean that Tim Walberg is pulling even with Mark Schauer on the internet? Well, no, not yet.

On the brand new Walberg for Congress blog, there is exactly one post as of today. It's very nice, with photos and whatnot, but it came last Wednesday, and so far, there hasn't been any indication of any more activity. Contrast this with the Schauer blog, where Senator Schauer and his communications director have something new to say every day, including information that might actually be useful for supporters.

On the Walberg for Congress YouTube channel, there is only one video, the first Walberg campaign ad. That's fine, because it'll get greater exposure for your ad and its message. But Mark Schauer's YouTube page has 16 videos so far. Of those, eight are of Schauer speaking directly to viewers and to voters, and another six are of public appearances where he's speaking about policy. Rather than five scripted lines and a motorcycle, Schauer is talking about the issues that people care about, and he's effectively using the medium.

The point this, of course, is to show that Walberg's internet operation is still lacking compared to Schauer's. But it doesn't have to be. As much as I want to see Mark Schauer elected, I'd also like to see candidates in both parties effectively use technology to reach voters. Schauer's team is doing that. Walberg's team has all of the pieces in place, but hasn't bothered to use them yet. If they do, then we could have an exciting race on our hands.