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.

Labels: 2008 Election, Journalism, Mark Schauer, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg

There are a lot of things wrong with this article from the Wall Street Journal, most of which revolve around a dumb premise regarding Senators Obama and McCain. I'll also just mention that just because Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in Appalachia, that does not mean he won't win working-class white votes in November. Primaries and the general election are a different game, and pushing that narrative is just stupid.

Besides that item though (one of many dumb assertions in the article), there's one part that's actually relevant to this blog:

The opposite is happening with Republicans, whose toughest races are in Democratic-leaning or closely divided districts. Nevada Republican Jon Porter, who represents a Democrat-friendly district in Las Vegas, supports Sen. McCain and will attend the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., even though he isn't a delegate, his spokesman said. Minnesota's Tim Walberg, the sole Republican House freshman, also supports the senator and may attend the convention, although he can't vote there, said his spokesman.

This raises two obvious questions:

1. When did our district become "Democratic-leaning or closely divided"? The conventional wisdom was always that our district was so Republican that a Democrat will never have a chance.
2. When did Tim Walberg move to Minnesota?

Now, it might seem petty of me to be complaining about the Minnesota thing. "MI" and "MN" look roughly similar, so that could be what happened. Also, Minnesota does have a freshman in Congress named Tim Walz, but he's a Democrat, so the point of the paragraph wouldn't make sense. But darn it, this bothers me a lot!

This brings me to a larger point and a little bit of a rant. I hope you'll all forgive me, and I hope I don't just fan the flames of something that seems to have settled down for a little while. This is just something that's been bothering me.

I like Susan Demas a lot. She's a smart woman (and a much better writer than hacks like Maureen Dowd) and her analysis is generally pretty good, even when it's negative for the people I support. But I just don't understand her or the countless other journalists that get hung up on blogs. While there are many (especially in the D.C. pundit class) who are guilty of this, I'm going to stick with Susan Demas for the moment, though.

On her Capitol Chronicles page, Susan has written several columns deriding left-leaning bloggers. This website and myself have been more or less spared from this (and in the past, Susan and I have had a good private relationship, though I think I might have forgotten to reply to her last e-mail), but some of her targets are people for whom I have a great deal of respect. She has no qualms at all with calling out people who she feels have breached either journalistic ethics, shown poor judgment, or have simply made callous remarks (ie. 1 2 3 4 5 6 in the last month).

This in and of itself is not a problem. Sometimes, bloggers deserve to be called out, and we do it to each other all the time. In some of the instances I cited above, I even agree. But that's not what bothers me.

Journalists like Susan Demas spend an incredible amount of time trying to prove that blogs are an unreliable source of information. It seems as if they're trying to show their own value as traditional journalists by making the alternatives look bad. It's the same principle behind every political attack ad.

While they're busy with that, crap like the Wall Street Journal article I started with gets printed. Traditional journalists give one another a free pass, when they themselves are guilty of some pretty serious missteps. Why point it out when someone at Michigan Liberal spells says "wretch" instead of "retch," but ignore it when, say, the Tecumseh Herald spells "Monday" wrong? (It's not just the Herald, either. If you live in a town of 40,000 or less, you've seen the same mistakes.) Why question the journalistic integrity of bloggers when newspapers throughout the 7th District report without analysis Tim Walberg's claims that drilling in ANWR will bring down gas prices?

I have a question for all of the serious journalists out there. When you're getting ready to write another column talking about the horrible things you've found on the internet, do you even bother to read what your own publications are printing? You're in a position of trust that blogs still lack. The least you could do is hold yourselves to a higher standard.

I'm not at all religious, but I think the former Pastor Tim Walberg would probably tell us to cite this passage:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

So here's what it comes down to:

Although plenty of bloggers would disagree with me, I don't consider myself a journalist. I consider myself an activist, and a part of that involves conveying information via a different medium. I don't pretend to be a reliable source for unbiased reporting. I don't see myself in competition with them. Sometimes people like me screw up. It happens. We're amateurs. That doesn't mean the medium itself doesn't have value, it means that we're roughly on the same level as the traditional media, which is itself far from perfect. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you still have value, too.

That said, if journalists will continue deriding what I do, I don't have any problem with pointing out their own poor writing. The Wall Street Journal article above is a fine example. When Susan Demas, whom I greatly respect, is wasting her time writing about things that don't really matter, I don't mind pointing that out, either.

I can promise all of you that this will be the last time I rant like this, because I think it's bad form and a bad way to take care of disputes that ought to be settled in private. In the end, journalists like Susan Demas and bloggers like me or Eric B. or Christine are all interested in the same thing: better, more responsive government. I choose to accomplish that by working on the internet and in real life to support and oppose political candidates. Susan chooses to accomplish that by ripping apart public officials in print. These strategies don't have to be at odds with one another.

Before I get accused of turning my "venom" against Susan, let me assure everyone that this is not what I'm trying to do. I'm just tired of seeing otherwise intelligent people waste their time snipping back and forth. It's stupid. We're all better than this.

And, for all any of you know, you may have just been lectured at by a 12-year-old sitting in his parents' basement in his underwear. So what?

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: Ethics, Journalism, Susan Demas

Love her or hate her, Susan Demas always has interesting things to say about the 7th Congressional District. Today, she doesn't disappoint.

On a subject I've touched upon, Demas writes about the growing civil war in the Republican Party, specifically as it relates to Tim Walberg. Go read the whole article. If you're too busy or lazy for that, here's an excerpt.

It's the electability, stupid.

Conventional wisdom says ideology is king and Republicans must wheezingly lurch to the right to win in November. John McCain better pick Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity or Tom DeLay (if he's not in the slam) as veep if he wants to perk up the base.

The same debate is bobbing up in the 7th Congressional District. In the most overlooked story last week, some Michigan GOP poobahs are fishing for a candidate to knock off freshman U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in a primary.

The preacher's problems evidently go beyond the congressional cafeteria mucking up his coffee, as he recently whined to the media. The darling of the Religious Right is a top 10 Democratic target, has burned through a lot of green and is desperately struggling to raise more.

Walberg just might be able to accomplish a feat no one thought possible: He could lose the blood-red 7th District.

Though there are several good prospects - popular former state Rep. Clark Bisbee of Jackson is rarin' to go - a primary remains unlikely.

Why? Just look at 2006, when Walberg handily defeated then-U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, an almost universally respected public servant of four decades who had won his seat with almost 60 percent of the vote.

"Republican powerbrokers can't go to the right of Tim and still be Republican," says former state Sen. Phil Hoffman, a Walberg supporter. "And Tim's shown that if you go to the left of him, he can beat you."

Hoffman knows more about the 7th District than just about anyone I know. And primaries tend to be orgies for extremists.

Really, go read the whole thing. I think it's worth it.

This is obviously a pro-Democratic, rather left-leaning blog, but I'd love to hear from any disaffected Republicans out there. Who would you like to see run? If Joe Schwarz doesn't get into the race (which, at this point, he probably won't), is there someone else you'd support? Between Walberg and Schauer or Walberg and Renier, would you pick a lesser of two evils, or would you stay home?

If you're a Republican Party leader, would you like to see Tim Walberg step aside for the good of the party? Or is it too late?

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Moderate Republicans, Republican Party, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg

I should have mentioned this sooner...

Once again, the pages of the Battle Creek Enquirer carry a harsh message for Congressman Tim Walberg, thanks to editor Susan Demas. A sample:

The press is in the business of reporting the truth about officials' voting records, platforms, finances and campaign ads.

Naturally, these goals often clash. As a result, Walberg and his staff refuse to answer my questions, provide information on his votes and inform me of his public events.

As an editor, I can't even assign a reporter to cover something as simple as the Tipton Republican's earmarks in the federal budget - as was the case last week - because I'm not privy to his press releases.

In short, I can't do my job to inform the public - and you lose.

What you should care about is that the congressman doesn't much care for you, either, because he is actively squelching your right to know.

Even more troubling is his hypocrisy. In a flowery, self-congratulatory column in last Friday's Detroit Free Press, Walberg metamorphosed into the media's biggest champion, sounding his support for the Free Flow of Information Act. It's a federal shield bill for journalists, protecting us from prosecution if we won't reveal a confidential source's name.

But who will protect the press from Tim Walberg?

You really should go read the whole thing, if you haven't already. Also, an anonymous commenter included the entire article in the comments of the Video Challenge post.

UPDATE: I've been reading through the discussion pages for this article on the Enquirer's website. Lots of personal attacks, with lots of people claiming that Susan Demas is a bad journalist, or one of them "lib'ruls" out to ruin the country. But then came this, by someone called Spartyno1:

Just as the primaries turn out the base, storychat turns out the fringes.

The Walberg faithful and conservatives want to paint Demas into a liberal corner (as she openly predicted) while playing on the stereotype of the emotional woman, while the liberals/leftists want to lump Walberg in with Bush and play into the whole cycle of corruption charge.

Both sides are overly emotional and miss the main point, which is:

Walberg is evasive, and does not answer direct questions.
That is harmful to the community.
It needs to stop.

Plus, Walberg is guilty of the highest level of hypocrisy claiming that he loves journalists when he is not willing to answer their questions.

Quick housecleaning:
If you voted for Schwarz, and truly supported him, chances are, you know the spelling of his last name. If however, you are a Walberg supporter, and you don't want to look partisan, you are more likely to say, "I voted for him, but now I've changed my mind..."

In fact this tack works for any candidate.

Some, but not all press releases are on Walberg's website, meaning that we still miss a great deal of valuable information.
Walberg's voting record can be found, but it's a journalist's job find out WHY he voted in that way.

Demas does that, and she is punished for her effort.
That is what is unsettling here, not Walberg's views or his policies.

Walberg has done many fine things, so why not be willing to talk about them?

To add salt to the wound he feels the need to send his press secretary to perform his evasive maneuvers.

Ask yourself:

How often does Walberg himself get quoted?
How often does he have town hall meetings?

Little, and not enough, respectively.

And it is a very valid question to ask about his feelings toward a prospective opponent.

If we can spend half the time in the media talking about the next president, I believe we can spend five minutes discussing our next representative.

Here's the thing about Demas that most of you guys don't get.

She DOES have an agenda and a bias.

Her agenda is to find the truth, and she is biased toward people that are forthcoming with it.

Demas doesn't take kindly to receiving press releases (when they're available) and running with them blindly.

She'll let some pissant weekly in Hillsdale County do that.

She digs deep, finds validations, researches, talks to experts, and then double checks everything to make absolutely certain you know the unspun, unfiltered truth.

You know, the kind of things reporters are SUPPOSED to do.

(If any of you have a blog out there, rest easy, you will never be held up to any standards, have no editors, do not need to notate, factcheck, or verify unreliable sources, and can feel free to pull anything out of your sleeves at will. )

If she did as you asked, and instructed her reporters to be stenographers, her job would be so much nicer.

Do you know easy it is to just wait for the next spun comment from a press secretary, and print it?

Go to any liberal blog and you'll see it in spades.

Pardon me, but I must have missed the lovefest from the MI left when "hippy liberal" Demas ripped Granholm for being misguided and ineffective.

So, for all the extra work a good honest journalist does, they get rewarded with what?

Avoidance, threats, and puff piece columns about loving the media while simultaneously stonewalling it.

AND YOU'RE DEFENDING WALBERG'S RIGHT TO DO IT?

Many of you are either letting him off the hook or saying you want to hear it in a nicer timbre.

Folks, this ain't morning latte!

We pay Rep Walberg a six figure salary to make decisions for us. It is a fundament right of each and every one of us to find out why he makes those decisions.

It's not liberal.
It's not conservative
And it's certainly not a personally biased emotional decision.

It is a requirement for all honest journalists to find the truth about what the policymakers of this country are doing and why.

And it's nice to know that we still have someone with the balls to go out and get it.

Well said. This gets to the very heart of the issue.

Labels: 110th Congress, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to an e-mail tip.)

In today's Battle Creek Enquirer, Susan Demas (a favorite of this blog) begins an editorial with five simple words:

Tim Walberg is a liberal.

Has she lost her mind? Has all that stress-- long hours, working hard, and actually reporting the facts-- finally made her crack?

I was worried for a moment, but it should be Tim Walberg that's worried.

Go and read the whole thing, you really should. I'm going to give you a few excerpts.

It is with heavy heart that I write these words about our congressman, because I never thought I would.

When the good reverend rode into the Capitol on his Harley-Davidson Road King, he vowed to stop the pervasive problems of gays getting hitched every five seconds, guns being ripped from the hands of law-abiding toddlers and abortions being performed at the rate that McDonald’s sells Big Macs.

That’s why he had to oust that big lib Joe Schwarz, who was masquerading as a Republican, but as all true patriots know, secretly carries the title of general secretary of the Communist Party USA.

But alas, it seems the Washington ethos has corrupted the man who seemed incorruptible, the Rev. Walberg.

Demas then proceeds to list some of Walberg's accomplishments, which, interestingly enough, are nothing like his promises from the campaign.

He knew that guns, gays and abortion are the fundamental issues of our time and talked of little else on the stump. So where is this kinder, gentler Tim coming from? Is this the little boy who dreamed of being a forest ranger while frolicking in the wooded acres Chicago’s south side, as he recently told a beltway reporter?

Sir, I know you grew up in the 60s. But it’s time to put that hippie persona to rest. We elected you to round up immigrants in a rickety pick-up and ship ‘em back. We sent you to Washington to pass a whopping 23 percent sales tax on consumers in your “fair tax” plan. We voted for you to kill the Department of Education, because as you said, a nation of 300 million people does not need a federal system.

Perhaps it’s time for a true Republican to stand up against this turncoat in next year’s primary, finally reclaiming the 7th District for family values. I know it breaks Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment — “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” — but Walberg already hurled that imperative out the window in 2006 with his ad assassination of Schwarz.

And the conclusion...

Why has thou forsaken us, Rep. Walberg? A cynic would say you’re terrified of the next election since the Democrats have taken back Congress, have topped the polls and have vocally targeted your seat. A cynic would note you still preach traditional social issues to evangelical churches and conservative groups, but you turn on the limp-wristed, lefty charm when appealing to the more than 50 percent who didn’t vote for you last year.

But I have faith in you, reverend. I know that although you’ve lost your way in the cesspool that is our Capitol, you’ll return to the warm embrace of the conservative clan before the 2008 election.

You’re going to need buckets of cash to survive this skirmish, after all. And they’re the only ones who are going to fill your collection plate.

Really, though, you should read the whole thing. I skipped over the jabs at the Club for Growth and radio host/Walberg staffer Chris Simmons, as well as some other good stuff in the middle.

Labels: 2008 Election, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg

[UPDATE] The article included below was just Thursday's preview of the full column, which is now on the Enquirer's website. Go check it out. My favorite part:

It's not personal. It's just a bad public relations move, typical of a staff composed of 20-something "Jesus Camp" counselors who almost managed to lose the general election to Sharon Renier, a chicken farmer with $1.03 in the bank.

They're not ready for primetime.

Ouch.
___

Susan Demas (now at the Battle Creek Enquirer) was probably the most prolific and professional journalist in the 7th Congressional District to cover the 2006 election. She's always been fair to all candidates-- even when I might wish she were a little more harsh on Walberg. Her articles on Tim Walberg have been cited on this blog again and again, and, at one point, she and I were briefly in contact for a possible story that never ran.

In hindsight, I suppose it was only a matter of time before Tim Walberg saw that she was, you know, reporting the truth about him. We can't have that, can we?

An anonymous reader was kind enough to include this in the comments. I hope Susan Demas and the Enquirer won't mind if I repost the whole comment-- which includes the text of an article that appears in today's issue.

Anonymous said...

I know Fitzy is on a trip, so I figured I'd bring this to everyone's attention. It is an article today discussing Walberg's fundraising for the first part of the year. For those of you in other parts of the District, you will still be getting news coverage, but those of us who read the Enquirer are finally free from the daily embarassment---

Article published Apr 19, 2007
Demas: Walberg haunted by specter of Schwarz
Susan J. Demas
The Enquirer

Truth is, I was dying to read about U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg’s Black History Month legislation, even though the press release didn’t arrive until March.

But alas, I’ve now been stripped of the privilege of at least 23 Walberg e-mails clogging my inbox each day. That means, loyal Enquirer readers, that I may not be able to apprise you of the Tipton Republican’s valiant scraps to lower taxes, protect traditional marriage and restore the Great Lakes.

It seems a recent story hit a nerve. Not when I quoted Walberg insisting Iraq is just as safe as the body armor-free streets of Detroit. That was kosher.

This was the remark by Walberg’s aides didn’t want you to read:

“Our goal is to make a real strong (financial) showing in the first quarter, so people like Joe Schwarz back off.”

Well, he didn’t. And the specter of Schwarz, whom the conservative preacher edged out in the 2006 GOP primary, still seems to be breathing down his neck.

Schwarz, 69, has returned to his surgical practice and is playing coy, saying he’ll decide this summer whether to take another stab at Congress. The Battle Creek native has been busy with stuff like investigating Walter Reed as a member of the blue-ribbon Pentagon panel.

But he clearly remains the No. 1 threat to Walberg’s job security.

My punishment from Fort Walberg was swift and severe.

“I took you off the (media) list,” his spokesman informed me this month, “because the congressman has decided he will no longer talk to you.”

That hurt. Congress’ 423rd most powerful member and I have been through a lot together since last year’s venomous, cash-chucking race. Walberg even posted some of my stories on his campaign Web site, which was even better than seeing them hang on my mom’s fridge.

Once, a grandmotherly supporter mistook me for the 56-year-old’s trophy wife. Good times.

April 19, 2007 12:32 PM

(Emphasis added.)

"The congressman has decided he will no longer talk to you." Hm.

That, my friends, is certainly the reaction of a mature, seasoned politician that is perfectly secure in his seat. Obviously he's not worried at all.

Really, this is going to be a problem for him somewhere along the way. I mean, if he won't talk to people that report, you know, facts, getting his message out is going to be a lot harder. If the local press is against you, it doesn't matter how much help the Club for Growth gives you.

Needless to say, while Walberg might not want to talk to Susan Demas anymore, I do, and I'd encourage every candidate considering running in 2008-- Democrats, Republicans, or others-- to take their stories to the Battle Creek Enquirer first.

Unlike Tim Walberg, I support freedom of press and good, honest journalism (which is more than just reprinting press releases). Walberg is punishing Susan Demas and the Enquirer. Potential candidates, I think you should reward her for doing a good job. The same goes for the DCCC, the MDP, and all the various groups that may be hurt if Tim Walberg's ideas ever made it into law.

(By the way-- I'm back from Chicago, but I'm busier than ever. I promise regular posting to resume... sometime soon.)

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Joe Schwarz, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg