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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Endorsements, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Illegal Immigration, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, AFSCME, Issues, Taxes, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Issues, National Sales Tax, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(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.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Drew Walker, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

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):
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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 110th Congress, 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Taxes, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: DCCC, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

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.

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.

Labels: Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Economy, Fundraising, Issues, Jon Stryker, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Energy, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

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.

Labels: Amtrak, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

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.

Labels: 9/11 Commission, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg