Michigan Congressional Delegation

VoteVets is coming to Michigan, targeting Fred Upton and Mike Rogers.

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The division was deployed to north-central Iraq from February 2004 until February 2005 and included 22,000 soldiers from active and reserve component units from throughout the United States. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican....

"For too long, the President has maintained that he’s just listening to commanders on the ground, which is utterly false. These ads set the record straight, directly from the mouths of those men," said Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman and Co-Founder of VoteVets.org. "The President isn’t listening, he hasn’t listened, and he hasn’t shown an interest in listening to commanders on the ground in Iraq. If the President won’t listen to commanders, then Congress must. They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end."

Again, I'm strapped for time, but the Detroit News has Rogers' reaction.

O.K., this is kinda fun. You can go through the FEC filings for candidates to see how they spent their money and who their money came from. "Schedule A" lists individual contributions and "Schedule B" lists campaign expenditures. For example, you can see how Joe Knollenberg spent his campaign money to design and place the billboards trashing Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The FEC's interface is a little convoluted, so I uploaded Knollenberg, Walberg, Rogers, and McCotter's disclosures. You can download them via YouSendit or Rapidshare.

Here's how the vulnerable incumbents fared:

Knollenberg:

Beginning Cash: $134,287
Latest Cash On Hand: $279,794

Knollenberg spent $3,105,161 in the last election cycle.

Walberg:

Beginning Cash: $37,961
Latest Cash On Hand: $159,893

Walberg spent $1,225,137 in the last election cycle.

McCotter:

Beginning Cash: $100,172
Latest Cash On Hand: $154,120

McCotter spent $875,708 in the last election cycle.

Rogers:

Beginning Cash: $352,543
Latest Cash On Hand: $393,097

Rogers spent $1,863,914 in the last election cycle.

Here's how to read this: "Beginning Cash" is what they were left with after the 2006 election and "Cash On Hand" is the amount they have currently. To put their numbers into context, I included the amount that they spent on keeping their seats in the 2006 cycle.

In 2004 Rogers spent $797,146 and was left with $728,566 cash on hand, Knollenberg spent $1,412,320 and was left with $439,168 cash on hand, and McCotter spent $735,845 and was left with $104,309 cash on hand.  So, in 2006, they all spent more money defending their seats and were left with less cash on hand than in 2004.  Money wise, Knollenberg and Rogers spent dramatically more in 2006 than they did in 2004.

Now what I'm really interested in is the number of individual contributors each candidate had.

UPDATE: The Swing State Project commented on Walberg's numbers.

Tim Walberg's underwhelming total of $136K certainly won't deter a top-shelf candidate from giving this Club For Growth stooge a hard challenge next year. MI-07 and FL-10 have got to be in the top five Democratic House targets this cycle.

UPDATE 2: Adam B over at Daily Kos has a fantastic primer on how to go through the FEC reports.

UPDATE 3: Bowers has more.

The Iraq supplemental bill, which sets a certain date for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, passed out of the U.S. House today. Unsurprisingly, all nine Michigan Republicans voted against the bill and to continue the war.

"Mistakes have been made in the execution of the war. No one is disputing that," Knollenberg said. "But we should give the administration’s new policy a chance to work before presupposing its failure and our ultimate defeat in Iraq."

"New" policy? Is he serious? How many more last chances are they going to get from us?

Just for the record:

In addition to Stupak and Conyers, Michigan's House Democrats are Dale Kildee of Flint, Sandy Levin of Royal Oak, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Detroit and John Dingell of Dearborn.

In addition to Camp and Knollenberg, Michigan's House Republicans are Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, Fred Upton of St. Joseph, Tim Walberg of Tipton, Mike Rogers of Brighton, Candice Miller of Harrison Township, and Thad McCotter of Livonia.

It's also worth noting that 60% of Michigan's Congressional delegation voted to continue the war. However, almost 60% of Michigan residents favor withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. That doesn't sound very representative to me.

Senator Schauer's recent YouTube message and the new Michigan Progress TV show are both examples of elected officials in Michigan using new methods to directly communicate with the progressive community in Michigan.

There's no reason that candidates in Democratic primaries in Michigan can't do this as well. Perhaps for the first time, candidates have the opportunity to speak to us directly while incurring virtually no costs to themselves. When the time comes, I encourage each one to take the opportunity to introduce themselves to us.

According to the Detroit News, all of the Michigan Democrats plan to oppose the escalation.  All of the Michigan Republicans plan to support the escalation, except for three who refuse to answer.

Oppose Escalation

Bart Stupak of Menominee
Dale Kildee of Flint
Sander Levin of Royal Oak
John Conyers of Detroit
John Dingell of Dearborn
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit

Support Escalation

Pete Hoekstra of Holland
Dave Camp of Midland
Tim Walberg of Tipton
Mike Rogers of Brighton
Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills
Thaddeus McCotter of Livonia

No Answer

Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids
Fred Upton of St. Joseph
Candice Miller of Harrison Township

Their rhetoric may have changed, but they are still out of touch with the reality of the situation in Iraq.  There will be consequences.

Hat tip to Zack for the heads up.

Remember all the fuss about whether members of Michigan's Congressional Delegation supported the escalation or not?  Got a quick update to that.

Thanks to Stone Soup Musings, Dale Kildee is now on the record as opposing the escalation in Iraq. 

Years later, and the President still has not adequately answered my questions. I am convinced that my vote against the war was and is the correct course. The occupation of Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning that was further exacerbated by incompetent leadership from the White House and the civilian officials in the Pentagon. You may be assured that I will continue to support efforts to bring our American troops home from Iraq at the earliest practical time. (emphasis added)

Chalk one more for us!

By now, you have assuredly heard that DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen mentioned both Walberg and Knollenberg by name as top targets in 2008. Ideally, this will translate to better candidate recruitment and funding.

Kos felt that McCotter's district deserved a look, too:

Another to watch for 2008 is MI-11, where newcomer Dem Tony Trupiano lost to incumbent Thaddeus McCotter 54-43 despite having been outspent $876K to $83K. And if it seems like 11 points is too huge a spread to overcome, consider that in 2004, now-Reps Boyda, Hodes and McNerney lost by 15, 20, and 22 points, respectively. Trupiano impressed me from afar. I'll be watching if 1) he runs, and 2) if the Michigan netroots embraces him. He's got great potential to follow in the footsteps of the above-named Congresspersons.

Let's not forget that Jonathan Singer over at MyDD believes that we can challenge as many as seven districts in Michigan.

This is very exciting, and 2008 is assuredly shaping up to be very different than 2006. Although the national scrutiny is nice, it's important to remember that the attention in itself isn't a ticket to victory. Especially in the case of potential "netroots" candidates such as Trupiano, it is up to us to create the infrastructure to get our candidates "in play." Once some of these districts are "in play," it doesn't guarantee success.

Still, this election cycle is shaping up to be a heck of a lot more fun than the last one.

It seems like Michigan is finally generating some national interest!  Jonathan Singer over at MyDD put together an extensive profile of potential House targets in Michigan, and believes that we could challenge as many as seven Republican incumbents.

I'm also thrilled that they share my skepticism about the viability of Joe Schwarz as a Democratic candidate in MI-07.  That isn't to say that it should be ruled out, but he may not be the best candidate to represent our party's values in the district.

I responded to the thread here.

Although our legislative priorities now are more important than the elections up ahead, it would also be useful to start thinking about some of our upcoming races. Given the DCCC's updated criteria for targeting U.S. House races, we need to start discussing how we want to approach these elections in 2008.

According to the Hotline, Michigan is "the one untapped resource left for" Democrats to increase their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Michigan Republicans currently hold a 9 to 6 lead despite losing the popular vote, so this assertion seems reasonable. In particular, MI-09 (Representative Knollenberg) and MI-07 (Representative Walberg) are identified as "must contest" districts.

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 09) didn't fare much better against liberal talk show host Nancy Skinner (D). He won only 51% of the vote - the first time he's won by a single-digit margin.

The Skinner campaign took a gutsy approach and did a great job setting themselves up as the "opposition" to the corrupt Knollenberg. Their campaign operatives were energetic and their field and Internet outreach was beyond impressive. However, I feel that they should have been able to raise more money in such an affluent district. As first-time candidates, Eric Massa and Tim Walz raised $1.4 million and $1.2 million in poorer districts. Compared to that, the $400K that Nancy Skinner raised feels underwhelming.

Given the funding disparity in the race, its close outcome is a testament to just how unpopular Knollenberg is in his district. We probably won't have the advantages that we did in 2006, but with increased name ID and better fundraising, some activists feel that Nancy could give it another go. However, others believe that someone more in tune with the district's ideological leanings would have a much better chance at winning.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI 07) didn't even win a majority of the vote despite running against an underfunded opponent. And speculation abounds that ex-Rep. Joe Schwarz (R) could run as a Dem against him in '08.

Schwarz showed a high degree of party loyalty to the Republican Caucus in his voting behavior as a member of Congress, so it is difficult to make the case for Schwarz as a Democrat. If anything, he would be better served by mounting a Republican primary challenge or by running as an "Independent Republican" in the general election. What he decides is going to have a big impact on our ability to win this race.

I'll come out and say it: a less "absurd" candidate would serve us more well in this district. For perennial candidates, a Democratic "wave" year like 2006 is as good as it gets.

It is clear that a credible candidate will have a very good chance at winning this district. Walberg is too conservative and left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. The Republicans allocated significant resources (both in money and in appearances by high-profile figures) to keep this district in 2006, and there's no reason it will get any easier for them in 2008.

The article also mentions Thad McCotter as being potentially vulnerable.

I like the new DCCC targeting criteria, especially because it includes several of our districts that were neglected in 2006. The DCCC intends to target districts "where Republicans won by less than 5%, seats won by Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, districts occupied by ethically challenged incumbents and Republican seats likely to open." Based on this, Knollenberg and Walberg will likely be targeted, and both Thad McCotter and Mike Rogers could be identified as well.

I've mentioned money, but money is by far from the only factor that is relevant to this process. The new DCCC criteria also places a strong emphasis on candidates that have significant netroots and grassroots support. This is important, because it allows bloggers and local activists to play an increased role in the election process, from candidate recruitment to the eventual outcomes of these races. Thankfully, we already have the District Watch blogs to start focusing on these districts at the individual level.

With all of this in mind, it is important that we start having a conversation about candidate recruitment and what qualities we are looking for, so that we can better help the party to develop winning candidates and ultimately effective legislators.

According to Think Progress, here's how various members of the Michigan delegation stand on troop escalation:

Dave Camp - Support
John Conyers - Oppose
John Dingell - Lean Oppose
Vern Ehlers - Refused to Answer
Pete Hoekstra - Refused to Answer
Dale Kildee - Unknown
Carolyn Kilpatrick - Oppose
Joe Knollenberg - Support
Sander Levin - Unknown
Thad McCotter - Refused to Answer
Candice Miller - Lean Oppose
Mike Rogers - Lean Oppose
Bart Stupak - Oppose
Fred Upton - Oppose
Tim Walberg - Support

I hope Camp, Knollenberg, and Walberg's constituents are aware of their Representatives' position on this issue. In a future post, I hope to explore and utterly deconstruct their rationales for supporting the escalation.

If any Camp/Knollenberg/Walberg constituents have any further information, please give me a shout.

Hat tip to Stone Soup Musings for pointing this feature out.