On Tuesday, August 26th, three congressional candidates released their first TV spots. Coincidence? I don’t know. The third comes from CD1:
A solid spot by Tim Walz on energy. Walz co-sponsored the DRILL act. He voted for the Clean Energy Act. He’s brought forth legislation to expand wind power. He’s fought for lower gas prices. The ad isn’t just rhetoric — it reflects the kind of positions Walz has taken in Congress and why we need to keep him in Washington.
[via]
Loading ...
Ha. Walz is running from the Bush energy plan, and then goes on to promote the same energy plan both Bush and McCain have touted. The only difference is on the economic front where McCain believes we need to cut corporate taxes (which apply to all companies, including oil companies), and I suppose Walz at minimum opposes that.
Walz - 2 more years of Bush. Can we afford it?
I’m curious how progressives feel about Walz and other Democrats now supporting additional offshore oil drilling. Does this bother anyone as caving into the oil industry or is it ok?
Solid ad. I like Walz’ approach of focusing on an issue like energy. The fact that his first point is to increase oil production at home is a refreshing change from the Pelosi-zero tolerance policy of drilling here. Hey Nancy — listen to Walz on this one. If you don’t increase production at home, you’ll simply increase the imports from abroad.
Good first ad. Walz exudes common sense. While I disagree with many of his votes, I think think he really connects with the average voter.
I support nationalization of drilling for oil in the US. Oil drilled in the US should also stay in the US.
DtM: Pelosi has also called for increased US oil production.
Honest question: Which “many of his votes” do you disagre with?
Personally, I feel GREAT about Tim Walz, best Congressman EVER from CD1!
lojasmo -
A couple of Walz’ votes come to mind that I disagreed with.
His vote for and subsequent vote to override the veto of the Ag Bill. Instead of reforming the way Governmnet supports farmers, who are in an era right now where they can make very nice money, he voted to prolong a very expensive Government program. Why should farmers be receiving six-figures per year from our tax dollars while they are also selling their produce for record prices?
His vote for the Iraq withdrawal timetable (90 days). We need to get out of Iraq, but via mandated congressional action is not the right way to do it.
His vote to continue / increase Affirmative Action. Don’t recall the details but could Google it.
To name a few….
DtM
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. I would respectfully say that as a former Command Sergant Major, and teacher of American history, Walz knows a bit more about the situation in Iraq than you do. I would also point out that Walz’s constituency is made up, in large, of agricultural communities, and that he’s simply advocating for his constituency.
I would also point out that direct government payments to farms is down 20% from the yearly average of 2002-2006, while costs have increased by nearly 50% since 2002.
Rick. I agree completely (even though Walz is not a blue dog, and is therefore a “poor fit” for the first CD) {/snark]
I just don’t understand how Democrats are so opposed to providing any kind of modest tax relief to a $500,000 or $1 million small business, but when that business is a farm they are throwing money as those businessmen left and right in the forms of direct subsidies.
There is a way to support farms from disasters. Have govt-sponsored crop insurance. Everything else basically amounts to a corporate handout that Dems are usually very against.
But I agree, Walz would get lots of constituent flack for not supporting the current ag subsidy system.
Interesting how the fact that farms are receiving 20% less while having a 50% cost increase was just passed over.
What would Wellstone do? Wouldn’t he support Minnesota workers by emphasizing policies that will put them to work, like renewable wind energy, not offshore oil drilling.
The other big problem with this ad is that Rep. Walz is in front of a shell station. Shell has a notroiusly bad human rights record. See Amnesty International’s research: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR44/022/2005.