Thursday, August 03, 2006

A Mini-Interview with Tim Walberg

John Hawkins of Human Events interviews Tim Walberg who is running against Joe Schwarz. I have Tim's response to two questions here, but I recomment everyone clicking on the link to see the whole thing. I'd vote for Tim if I could, but lucky for Mr. Schwarz, the district stops at the Pinckney/Dexter line. If you are a fiscal conservative, Walberg's your guy. If you're a social conservative, Walberg's also your guy.

Now, you've called yourself the "conservative choice" in the race. Why would you say Joe Schwart isn't a conservative?

Walberg: Well, a guy who votes for pork barrel generally not considered a conservative. One who supports amnesty for illegal aliens is not considered a conservative. ...When you get down to the...definition of marriage being between one man and one woman and you're the only Republican member of the House delegation from Michigan that opposes the President's push for defining being between one man and one woman, that doesn't (seem) conservative.

Then you need to look at his endorsers. Organizations like a bunch of unions, Planned Parenthood, Triangle Foundation, Pride Pac, Log Cabin Republicans -- you don't normally see those organizations endorsing Republicans unless they're extremely liberal...So, in my mind, it's not difficult to define Joe Schwarz as being liberal in contrast to my side of the ledger, where I am a conservative ...having support from organizations like all of the right-to-life (groups), The Club for Growth, The National Taxpayers Unioin, Citizens Against Government Waste, ...Gun Owners of America...I think it's a clear distinction...

Now, what kind of message do you think it would send to Congress if you were able to knock off Joe Schwarz?

Walberg: It says that conservatives can win. It says that...if people have a chance to choose between one liberal and one conservative, they'll choose a conservative every time. I think it also says that the Republicans need to understand that people are tired of (candidates) talking like Republicans, but acting like Democrats.

They're tired of this administration, not because of George Bush's policies, but because he has been unwilling to stand up and veto excessive spending that Reagan would have choked on. Reagan vetoed a highway funding bill because it had a 121 pork barrel items. He called that unconscionable. This (highway bill) has 6,000 pork barrel earmark items in it. Reagan would have had no trouble vetoing that.

When they look at a Congress that stands up for all the liberal causes and votes for minimum wage increases, led by Republicans -- the people back in the conservative districts...are saying, "Enough is enough. You're using us conservatives. You expect us to carry you through and get you into office, but then you walk away from us. We're going to...take an incumbent, that was put into office as a Republican, but voted liberal, and we're going to throw him out."


Chris Arndt said...

I'm going to be doing a huge blogging blitz, a practical screed... a series of posts on this election in the coming days, so try to shoot whatever extra readership you can in focus over to my Apologies Demanded blog.

TTYL, Dan!

Count Me Red said...

Tim Wallburg, I am praying that the people in your district stand up to an incumbant that does not represent the party that elected him. NO MORE RINO's. We must be more careful of who we are electing.