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...

Labels: 9/11 Commission, ANWR, Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Health Care, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Oil, Tim Walberg

Today is the first day of summer, which means it's a great time to introduce a new series on Walberg Watch. Every Friday, I'll be releasing a new video highlighting one of Congressman Tim Walberg's finer moments. Today, I start with how he "doesn't understand" why we don't drill for oil under the Great Lakes.



I actually added this particular video back in February as a YouTube test, but future videos will be released on Fridays this summer and fall. The videos aren't of the best quality, but as I've been making more, I think they've been improving. Remember, I'm very much an amateur at all of this.

If you have subjects you'd like to see in these videos, feel free to mention them in the comments. And if you think you can make a better video than me, by all means, please do so!

Labels: Environment, Great Lakes, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Video

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

With wrapped boxes in hand, nine people walked up the stairs in the Commerce Pointe building to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's Battle Creek office on Wednesday.

Chris Simmons, field representative for the Tipton Republican, greeted the group who handed him the six empty packages.

"These gifts are like Congressman Walberg's promises," said Dale Bennett, speaking on behalf of the group. "They're beautiful and they're empty."

Bennett, a member of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) Clergy Caucus, was accompanied by five other members of the caucus, three members of the Kalamazoo-based Michigan Citizen Action and a representative of the national environmental organization Clean Water Action.

Erin Knott, Michigan Citizen Action assistant director, said the empty boxes represented Walberg's support for critical domestic priorities, including education, children's health care and veterans' benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

Beautiful and empty. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that. If you've ever heard Congressman Walberg speak, his rhetoric sounds great, but means nothing. Beautiful and empty.

Walberg's website reads:

The Great Lakes are a treasure essential to both Michigan and the entire nation.

Beautiful, isn't it? But how does he really feel?

“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.”

On Iraq, Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

That sounds pretty good to me. "A new strategy," with "quantifiable goals and measurable results" is a reasonable policy. But when Congress considers legislation that

Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.

Tim Walberg votes No. A beautiful promise, but, apparently, empty.

For that matter, Congressman Walberg promised $500,000 for W.K. Kellogg Airport, which was a particularly beautiful promise. We weren't supposed to notice that it was an empty promise, as he went ahead and voted No on that funding.

When given these symbolic gifts, what was Congressman Walberg's response?

Walberg was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday when the gifts were delivered, but he responded via e-mail, saying excessive government spending and tax increases have delivered a recession and job losses for Michigan families.

"I voted for the largest increase for veterans care in American history, while consistently working to eliminate wasteful spending to balance the budget and prevent more tax increases on struggling Michigan families and small businesses," he said.

Matt Lahr, Walberg's press secretary, said the congressman was expected to vote in favor of State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation approved Tuesday by the U.S. Senate that extends the program into 2009 without the $35 million expansion sought by Democrats.

Lahr said Walberg also supported reasonable education initiatives such as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

Yep. More empty promises.

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Great Lakes, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

I had not planned on going to Congressman Walberg’s town hall meeting in Battle Creek on Monday as I had another meeting earlier in Jackson. I sure am glad that I went. Nick Schirripa from the Battle Creek Enquirer covered the basics, but there was a lot more that went on. It was clearly a friendly group that had gathered to hear Walberg. In my opinion way too much time was spent on immigration. I am not surprised as it is clear that Republicans think this is an issue that can divert attention from Iraq. This is what Nick and I were talking about when I said,

"I think he came across very well and gave answers that most of the people in the room wanted to hear," Murch said.

There were only four of us who challenged the Congressman on any issue. One lady was there to ask Walberg to support the creation of the Department of Peace. Walberg took this opportunity to compare the War in Iraq to Reagan and the Cold War. While he was polite the Congressman totally blew off this idea. There was one young man I wanted to talk to, but he disappeared while I was talking to Nick Schirripa. This young man challenged the wisdom of building a wall on the boarder comparing it to the Berlin wall and stated that he thought drilling for oil in ANWR was a waist of time, because of the amount of oil that is available there. Walberg stated that there were different opinions about the amount. The young man then said that he believed his facts. Walberg had no response.

My first question came during a discussion about gas prices, as quoted in the Enquirer,

Murch asked Walberg why he recently voted against legislation that would have allowed the United States to sue the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, for manipulating oil prices. The bill passed with bipartisan support, 345-72.

After Walberg said,

Walberg said "the market will do what the market does," and suing OPEC would mean little more than politicians "posturing and pontificating," when they should be looking for alternatives and decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

He then went on to complain about regulation and that it is too difficult to build a new refinery. I asked Walberg if there was not evidence that what was really going on was the oil industry had closed refineries to drive down supply and drive up prices? Walberg responded they would not do that because the markets work and they want to sell the gas. When I pressed him again on his no vote on the OPEC Bill, Walberg asked me how would I enforce it. I stated that the bill will put OPEC and the oil industry on notice that we will not stand for manipulating prices. Walberg then made a similar statement to one that was in the Enquirer.

Walberg said that under the plan, “consumers can expect longer lines at the pump, higher prices and less gasoline available during emergencies.”

I asked him what evidence did he have that this Bill would create long lines at the pump. Walberg then made reference to the OPEC oil embargo. I reminded him that the oil embargo was not a result of anything we did, but simply an attempt to drive down supply and drive up prices. (they wouldn’t do that would they?).

I then asked a second question.

Murch also asked Walberg about his comments a couple weeks ago in which he advocated drilling for oil under the Great Lakes.

What was not said in the article was that Congressman Walberg responded that the Democratic Party had taken his comments out of context. Walberg totally misrepresented what he had said about drilling under the Great Lakes. Listen for your self. Walberg would not answer a direct question. I asked him three or four times if he would support it

When Walberg was pushed if he would he support Great Lakes drilling if state and federal laws were repealed, he answered: "I don't deal in hypotheticals. You do that. I deal with reality."

I Then got he last question of the evening. I must give him credit that he did come back to me. I asked, you have mentioned ANWR and drilling under the Great Lakes, is there any place so environmentally sensitive that you would not risk drilling for oil,

Walberg said, he would support any environmentally-sound method for retrieving resources needed.

I then suggested that he should visit the Pratt Museum in Homer Alaska. There is a great exhibit about the Exxon Valdez accident. This is when Walberg shocked even me. He stated that there would not be a ship at ANWR. I reminded him that there would be a pipe line that would go somewhere. Walberg said that the Exxon Valdez was not related to the pipe line. When I said, if they had not been drilling on the North Slope there would be no pipe line and no ship to run aground. Walberg responded, “now we are talking about the chicken or the egg”. This comment makes it very clear that Congressman Walberg will cherry pick the science and will only look at the evidence that will tell him it is OK to drill. I can’t believe that there is any scientist who would say that the spilling of oil in Price William Sound was not an environmental impact created by drilling on the North Slope.

My ActBlue page
Berryman's Web site

Labels: ANWR, Great Lakes, Oil, Tim Walberg

I appreciate it when Congressman Tim Walberg talks about the need to develop alternative, renewable sources of energy. But this should not be a part of our energy policy.

LANSING – Today Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer criticized Republican Representative Tim Walberg for his comments supporting oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Walberg told a group of Lansing area constituents on Friday “ I don’t understand” why the United States does not drill the Great Lakes.

...

“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.” Listen>

“So I say let’s get away from being held by the markets so tightly on petroleum sources… unless we are willing to use what we have and provide competition to the world market because we can say to OPEC then ‘to hell with them’ we got our own Alaskan oil, we have our own Great Lakes oil and we got our own intercontinental shelf oil... That’s how I look at it.” Listen>

(Emphasis added.)

That's right. Tim Walberg wants to drill for oil under the Great Lakes. He wants to extract oil from beneath the world's largest fresh water supply-- our fresh water supply.

The MDP press release above also includes this:

According to Public Interest Research Group In Michigan, oil drilling in the Great Lakes “would have significant long-term and short-term negative impacts on the lake's watershed, regardless of the drilling method employed.” Their analysis demonstrates oil drilling in the Great Lakes has potential negative impacts on human health, the environment and Michigan’s economy.

If you listen to the audio linked with the quotes, you'll notice that within the ellipses of the Walberg quotes provided by the MDP are references to Canadian oil projects in the Great Lakes. Walberg's main argument is, basically, "The Canadians do it, so why can't we?" Well, the PIRGIM study looks at that. Walberg is wrong about that, too.

The Canadian experience of drilling for natural gas and oil on the Canadian side of Lake Erie serves as a cautionary example for Michigan. Spills associated with the petroleum industry are both widespread and highly significant environmental threats to the Canadian Great Lakes. Fifty-one natural gas spills directly associated with gas drilling in Canada's portion of Lake Erie were documented between 1997 and 2001 - an average of almost one spill a month. The volume of natural gas released and the full duration of the leaks were not reported to or by the Canadian government.

The Canadian side of Lake Erie was also impacted by 83 petroleum spills from all sectors between 1990 and 1995 (the last year for which data was made available for this report). The volume spilled was not known for at least one-third of the spills. In addition, only 45% of the contaminants were cleaned up, on average.

The routine, long-term discharge of drilling wastes from drilling in Canada's portion of Lake Erie represents a significant environmental hazard. These direct discharges into Lake Erie have subjected aquatic organisms to immediate and long-term health risks, ranging from localized fish kills to aquatic organism developmental impairment. These risks are exacerbated by the routine usage of toxic chemicals during oil and gas drilling.

Read the entire study. It's worth the time.

This is, quite simply, a bad idea. In 2002, Republican gubernatorial nominee Dick Posthumous even came out against drilling in the Great Lakes.

In a split from Engler's policy, the No. 2 man in his administration, Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus, came out against drilling in July, telling Michigan reporters, "The risks [of drilling] are relatively few, but the benefits are even fewer."

(Emphasis added.)

And, from the same article, residents of Michigan haven't been too wild about the idea, either.

Oil and gas extraction from the Great Lakes does not poll well with Michigan voters. In a statewide survey conducted in February, opposition to drilling ran as high as 59 percent. Support was as low as 27 percent. Opposition was fairly consistent across the state and among all kinds of voters.

Congressman Walberg, listen to your colleague, Bart Stupak:

"There are just some places on Earth you shouldn't drill for oil and gas," said U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, who pushed for the permanent ban. "There's only about enough energy there to supply eight hours of energy for this country."

Contact Tim Walberg, and tell him to keep his hands off our Great Lakes.

UPDATE: I forgot to include this the first time around, but I thought I'd mention it.
Earlier this year, with Walberg's efforts on Great Lakes preservation, I wrote this:

If Walberg's work benefits the Great Lakes, I'll almost, for a moment, be proud to have him as my representative. Almost. But there's so much more that can and needs to be done to protect our environment, and I hope he'll consider doing more. There are plenty of issues he could get involved with.

(Emphasis added.)

I'd like to apologize to all of you. I should have never been fooled into thinking that Tim Walberg cares about the Great Lakes, and I should have seen through his empty political rhetoric.

For a politician that claims to be an environmentalist and claims to support renewable, alternative energy, he's looking more and more like a puppet of the oil companies.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

We all know about the Club for Growth's support of Tim Walberg, presumably for his "business-friendly" positions. Ordinarily, that kind of friendliness isn't associated with environmentalism. We always hear stories of the little guy standing up to the chemical company, or the oil company, or the lumber company, in defense of natural beauty.

Could it be that the "pro-growth" Walberg is actually an environmentalist? That's what his Weekly Wrap-Up seems to imply:

Washington, Mar 2 - Many of the fondest memories my wife Sue and I have of the childhood days of our three now-adult children involve our family spending time together in the Michigan great outdoors.

As campers, hikers, hunters and nature lovers, Michiganders cherish the beauty of our great two peninsulas, and we understand and respect the environment whose stewardship has been entrusted to us as citizens of this great state.

Currently, Michigan faces a pressing environmental problem that threatens both recreational activities our families have enjoyed for generations and our state’s economic and cultural identity.

Walberg continues:

Sadly, our lakes suffer damage every day through untreated sewage, toxic pollutants and aquatic invasive species. The ecosystem surrounding the lakes is breaking down.

I recently learned that every 28 weeks a new non-native species is discovered in the Great Lakes and 23 billion gallons of raw sewage has been dumped into the lakes by antiquated wastewater treatment facilities.

More than two-thirds of the wetlands that serve to cleanse water, prevent erosion and provide a home for fish and wildlife have been lost along the Great Lakes.

Populations of aquatic life, such as perch and white fish, are disappearing in areas these species formerly thrived.

While this problem may seem overwhelmingly vast and unsalvageable, manageable solutions to the problem exist.

Yes! Manageable solutions do exist for environmental problems, even those on a global scale. He proceeds to describe his support for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which will hopefully solve some of the problems. I admit, I'm not as knowledgeable on environmental issues as I should be, but I applaud Congressman Walberg for trying to do something.

Now that he's joined the environmentalists, would he consider working on behalf of a few new causes?

Environmental and energy policy: Candidates were asked whether they support tax breaks and incentives for alternative fuels like ethanol, and whether they support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

WALBERG: Says he supports tax breaks for alternative fuels, saying “I’m committed to giving tax breaks to all citizens, including business.” Supports drilling in ANWR and says it can be done “discreetly and safely.”

Hmm... Well, maybe he'll change his mind. And I'm sure he recognizes that the oil companies have a long record of polluting the environment, and that it's ridiculous that they have record profits and charge high prices while doing so. He'd certainly stand up to the oil companies on this one, right?

...

In short, the bill reduces oil industry subsidies (Steny Hoyer, D-MD says: "The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that.") and seeks to fix an error that allowed oil companies to keep over $1 billion in royalties that would otherwise have gone to the government. It passed the House, 264-163.

Tim Walberg voted No.

Well. Maybe not. But what about global warming? It may be the defining environmental issue of our time, and what we do today will have an enormous impact on the future of our planet. Now, he's just a freshman in the House, I don't expect him to have a solution in place. But as a reliable Republican member, surely his party would try to help fight the man-made causes of global warming. We've known that it would be a problem for decades, and Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994. Surely, by now, they've recognized the need for action.

It's a poll by National Journal, asking members of Congress the question, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" What are the results?

Democrats: Yes - 95%. No - 2%
Republicans: Yes - 13%. No - 84%

I see. You know, I'm getting the feeling that they might not be as firmly committed to environmental causes as I thought...

If Walberg's work benefits the Great Lakes, I'll almost, for a moment, be proud to have him as my representative. Almost. But there's so much more that can and needs to be done to protect our environment, and I hope he'll consider doing more. There are plenty of issues he could get involved with.

Contact Congressman Walberg, and urge him to become an environmental leader in the House, and to start with global warming. His contact page is here, and you can submit messages electronically here


Some useful links:
ClimateCrisis.org - Web site of Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
The League of Conservation Voters
Michigan LCV
Black Bear Speaks blog
Among the Trees blog

Labels: Environment, Global Warming, Great Lakes, Issues, Tim Walberg