picabia

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.

Some have said that Walberg's a great guy who always answered their mails, but when I sent an e-mail disagreeing with one of his positions, I received no response at all. I saw no evidence that Walberg listens to his constituents, and I regret that we're stuck with him again.

robyn

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 8:12 p.m.

On the contrary - I did not always agree with Tim - and had no problem letting him know. And I was still sent a post card and an email inviting me to attend his informal meetings. One of the things that impressed me was that he actually listened to people, even if they were on the opposite side of an issue - he wanted to know WHY they differed. On more than one occasion his staff followed up with me after a meeting and sent me additional information regarding an issue and I sent them information from my own research. I'm sorry if you had different interactions with him - I never saw him 'talk down to' or otherwise disrespect someone with a differing point of view. The times I did speak with Mark, it was as if I were talking to a disinterested stranger about an issue that was of no consequence to them or me. Ie... questions about the $787 billion stimulus bill - he didn't read it. There was NO WAY he could have. There were only 5 copies of it available at the time. Yet he voted on it. While I do understand that the people we elect are not members of MENSA - I expect them to at least TRY to understand the difference between Keynesian Economics and Austrian Economics... I just don't think he knew enough to make the choices he was elected to make. Hand waving and talking in circles to avoid a question was a disappointment for me. But if you liked him - I'm glad.

InsideTheHall

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:59 p.m.

Tim Walberg is a common sense value based fiscal conservative who will head to DC to unwind the Obama failed policies. At 60+ seats gained in Congress, half dozen Senate seats and Governorships, plus a gain of over 500 state legislative seats it is clear that Ann Arbor "values" are NOT America's values.

tommy_t

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:20 p.m.

Ahh yes! the return of the Ludittes. May the live forever in the hearts and nightmares of modern man!

Scylding

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.

I agree with Robyn and Mick52. Schauer was very remote. His mind was made up before the town-halls. When he was holding the one on health-care, I checked his website, and he already had up there all the reasons why he thought Obamacare was so great. What's the point of the town-hall if all you're going to use it for is telling those who disagree with you that they are wrong? He's also smug. I can't stand smugness.

Scylding

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:48 p.m.

@Susie Q: Why is it liberals like you can only think of spending as a way of stimulating the economy, and not tax cuts? Tax cuts do not create wasteful government programs, spending does. Tax cuts do not heap money in globs where government beaurocrats think it should go, despite the fact that it may not be needed there, spending does. Tax cuts leave the money in consumers' pockets, where they can CHOOSE to spend it on goods and services that sustain and create jobs. We the people are far better arbitrators of where our money should be spent than politicians are. You trust the government far too much.

julieswhimsies

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

Walberg is back. Ugh. Now we have a birther in Congress...

Susie Q

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:10 p.m.

To those Walberg constituents who found him to be accessible and a good listener: I suspect you were in agreement with Mr Walberg on most of the issues. Whenever I contacted his office I did not speak with anyone who could answer my questions or was interested in my concerns. I received "form" emails back from Mr Walberg when I sent letters, emails or made phone calls. Mr Walberg claims fiscal responsibility, but added trillions to the deficit by agreeing with the irresponsible tax cuts of the Bush era. Cutting taxes DURING war time, while the cost of the wars kept escalating has added to an out of control federal deficit. If the new electees are truly interested in bringing down the deficit, they need to cut spending and NOT cut taxes until the deficit is gone. We do not want future generations paying for the current generation's irresponsible spending and tax policies.

Mick52

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.

@Dextermom I have the same opinion on Schauer. I wrote a few times and received nothing back but boilerplate, an no answers to a single one of my questions, just his pining on how he supported everything the President and Nancy Pelosi promoted, especially the disastrous health care bill. I am also upset that our district extends all the way to Battle Creek. Just a few miles up the road we have the 8th congressional district. We would be far better off with Mike Rogers.

leaguebus

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.

One more step toward Canada for me. Walberg and American Taliban are taking over. Say bye bye to stem cell research (again), the first ban cost the state $300 million or so in lost grants, buildings that were never occupied, etc. Talk about sending jobs out of the state! We sent all these researchers and their labs to California because they put up $2B to become the center for stem cell research in the country. Now we are starting to get these people and their grants back, because California is broke, but we will probably lose them again at some point when religious dogma attacks Science again. Make no mistake, the fundamentalist Christian movement is the American Taliban.

robyn

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

Here's the difference between the two that made MY choice of who to vote for: When Walberg was in office he had frequent informal meetings with his constituents. He meet us up at a restaurant and discuss the issues that were important to us. WE brought up the issues and spoke to him about them. I know he did this all over his district so that people had the opportunity to attend. I never called his office and did not get a decent response and a follow up. He also made it a point to sign the "No Pork" contract and he stuck with it. On the other hand - Schauer was unavailable. If you sent an email you received a 'form letter' - many times that letter did not even address the issue you wrote about. Calling his office was just as bad. They never returned calls, if you had a question - it would be pushed off on someone else. And the real kicker was during the summer of the health care reform town hall meetings. I received several invitations from Schauer's office to attend a special health care meeting at his office - BUT ONLY IF I SUPPORTED THE BILL. Basically a 'You're welcome to come if you agree, but don't bother if you have questions and are not supportive of it." At the same time - Walberg - who wasn't even in office - was holding meetings about the health care reform and alloing both sides to voice their concerns about it. It was an easy choice for me. I went with the person that listened to his constituents. I firmly believe that Walberg will begin his morning meetings and make himself available to the people he represents - just like he did before.

Suzanne

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.

Tim Walberg is a reactionary, not a radical...

clownfish

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.

Sad day for Michigan. Walberg is a radical. For JASON- Congrats to Mr.Tim Walberg for winning we need more Christians (believers) in government I know many of Walbergs supporters (not the out-of-state people that funded his campaign, but those that live here) like to preach about living the constitution so I thought I would show you this piece from that very document- Article Six:...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Interestingly, as Bible Thumpers generated lots of new laws for States in the last decade, the economy still collapsed. Evidently it is way more important to keep gays out of our sight than to allow oversight of massive banking industries, drilling rigs and private contractors doing business for the govt. Maybe Walberg will finally live up to G-d's laws...and ban the eating of shrimp!

Brian Shensky

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

The reelection of Mr. Walberg represents the foundation of my new campaign: "Vote Democrat: Because Ineptitude is Less Damning than Malfeasance!"

JSA

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.

I voted Republican in every race though I'm not upset that Dingell won reelection. I would never vote for Walberg. What I think about him would probably get me censored.

dextermom

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:54 a.m.

And Silly Sally, what is that Walberg did? At least Schauer tried to represent everyone in the district. I was never contacted for my opinion by Walberg. And when I contacted him all I ever heard from Walberg was that my beliefs were wrong.

A2lover

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:50 a.m.

Walberg! Have people no sense! Christians in Government? Believers? What a joke, have you know sense! The only thing Mr. Walberg believes, is himself.

picabia

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:24 a.m.

Like a bad penny, a hack like Walberg is back.

Jason

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:13 a.m.

Congrats to Mr.Tim Walberg for winning we need more Christians (believers) in government

LBH

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 5:47 a.m.

Seriously, Michigan, you're sending Walberg back to congress? A terrible decision.

Silly Sally

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:35 a.m.

Mr. Schauer was a nice guy who promised much but he did nothing for this district. He did nothing for transportation, even though he was on transportation committee. His biggest sin was voting for everything that Nancy Pelosi wanted, including cap-and-trade and Obamacare.

Scylding

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 12:51 a.m.

Bye-bye, Schauer. Don't let the door hit you on the way out... :-)