« Dems elevate Kline-Sarvi race to "Emerging" status | Main | Walz votes against FISA surveillance law »

June 19, 2008



Why on earth would anyone pay attention to an opinion poll done by Tim Walz on himself? Hopefully he didn't put this expense on his credit card. I hear he is a bit behind on payments. This is not news, it is wasn't even worth the money Walz spent on it.

Ollie Ox

Classy, HFStassen.

Those who don't want to get confused about campaign committee finances should check candidates' quarterly reports at

Look up Day, Davis and Walz's reports to find out whose committee was behind on payments.


Good shot, HFStassen. Walz and the liberal Democratic congress have an approval rating of 18%, well below the President's.

When he is not raking up credit card debt, Walz is pandering to veterans and shoring up his left flank by voting against initiatives that monitor terrorist communications.

L D Nelson

Republicans in congress are making major contributions to its low rating by pursuing a block and blame strategy. They have used a record number of filibusters this session, so many that it now seems to take a vote of 60% to get a piece of major legislation passed.

Moreover, they are blatantly open about their obstructionist policies. Trent Lott reportedly told the journal Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it's working for us."

And then there is Bush's veto pen. The president who had issued the fewest vetos during his first years in office and signed a prescription drug benefit bill which created unfunded financial liabilities far in excess of the long-term Social Security shortfall, turned decidedly vicious after 2006 and vetoed a SCHIP bill which would have been about $7 billion per year more than he wanted to spend on health insurance for children. Seven billion is less than what the US spends in two months on Bush's war of choice.

If Republicans want to showcase Congress's low approval ratings, they should remember that they themselves are a big part of the problem.


Nelson, your are a foghorn of baloney. Last I checked the democruts were the majority party. Anything that goes through or doesn't is pretty much their responsibility. Oh, did you notice your debt-plagued congressman Walz voted for the $165 billion Iraq war funding bill. He also voted for the bloated farm bill which mostly funds non-farm programs. I suppose he will get around to addressing the deficit right after he gets his credit cards paid off. He could check out some cheap loan sources too from Sen. Kent Conrad of ND and Christopher Dodd. They know where the cheap money is. Give me a break.

L D Nelson

The Democrats have majorities in both houses, but they do not have the 60 needed in the senate for cloture. So by using a record number of filibusters, Republicans have contributed mightily to the low approval ratings of congress. Their official strategy is, as Senator Lott stated, obstructionist.

Ollie Ox

"Pandering to veterans", Othelmo da Silva? How's that again?

Please,Mr. da Silva, do everyone a favor, and tell the next veterans you run into how working for their health care and education benefits is "pandering." Those who served this country deserve to know the exactly how much you value their sacrifice and that of their families. Sheesh.


Ollie Ox, I think you finally did it. You're the first one ever to shame him into silence!

Kathleen Castrovinci

The Bush GOP attitude towards those in uniform is appaling at best. "Send them into a war zone time after time. But don't give them the respect and needed benifits they deserve." Arrogant !!!

Tim Walz voted NO to give Telecoms in colusion with Bush immunity from Prosecution for illegal wiretappings without warrants.

That vote I agreed with. The Intelligence community has the needed funding and tools to thwart terrorist activities.

You're not kidding anybody, Othelmo.


Liberals would love to "shame" those who disagree with them into silence. They don't want to debate as befits their totalitarian streak.

Walz uses veteran advocacy and services as aa cloak for his often liberal and occasionally opportunistic votes in congress.

Walz voted against FISA before he voted for it.

Moreover, Walz is fiscally irresponsible in his personal life and can't be trusted to make decisions in the economic long term interest of America.


P.S. The bug still does not love me after all these years.

L D Nelson

"They don't want to debate as befits their totalitarian streak."

Pure nonsense!

I would relish the opportunity to debate with you on any substantive issue facing the nation or the state. How about McCain's tax plan or his plans to deal with global warming?

Unfortunately, you don't seem capable to getting past, invectives, insults, name calling, innuendos, false accusations and misleading statements. You appear to be more interested in promoting hate feast (your words) than in debate.

Rather than silence you, I would like see you clearly and concisely state your policy views with facts and logic.

Ollie Ox

Who would benefit from daSilva being silenced?

Rather, everyone--especially veterans--should hear what he says and how he says it.

It's pretty clear that that he's not interested in a civil policy debate--nor is he able to make a rational case for his positions.


What is "pretty clear" is that liberals prefer the echo chamber and are intolerant of dissent.


"Pandering to veterans?" Wow.


Anyone who debates LD Nelson should hire someone to keep them awake while Nelson makes his points. If you think he is boring here you should hear him speak.


"Ollie Ox" does not live in the First District.

Kathleen Castrovinci

"What is "pretty clear" is that liberals prefer the echo chamber and are intolerant of dissent."

What is pretty clear, Othelmo, is that Liberal minded people tend to be more tolerant and display dissent to policies that are unjust. Such as the War in Iraq has shown.

"Moreover, Walz is fiscally irresponsible in his personal life and can't be trusted to make decisions in the economic long term interest of America."

The Credit Card debt Walz incured was during his run for Congress. It wasn't to buy frivolous items he and his family did not need.

Irresponsible with Taxpayer money??? Why then did Walz return over $100,000 of his Office Budget back to the US Treasury in 2007 that he did not need? Let alone his 2008 Congressional raise?? Irresponsible with Taxpayer money???

"Walz uses veteran advocacy and services as aa cloak for his often liberal and occasionally opportunistic votes in congress."

That's not how Veterans of both parties see Tim Walz, Othelmo. You could not be mnore wrong on that.

Ask your Veteran friends if they dislike getting more reimbursement money for milage they rack up going to the VA for treatment!!

Ask them if they are upset with increased monetary and educational benifits for their families while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!

Ask them if they are unhappy that Brain Injuries are finally becoming more the focal point of returning injured troops!!

ASk veterans if they are upset with the revelations of the horrid condiditons at Walter Reed concerning their care.

The more you rant, the more clear it becomes that it is you, Othelmo, who is the intolerant one and cannot handle dissent.

L D Nelson

Oh my. My feelings are hurt; but I do feel kind of vindicated. Rather than debate substantive issues, Mr da Silva decided to hurl a bit of nastiness. I am not really concerned about the silly remarks, however.

As I said previously, I would welcome the opportunity to debate with Mr da Silva substantive national or state issues.

We could start with veteran issues. I am sure many veterans would be interested in hearing his views, since he is a Republican party activist and Davis supporter.

The ball is in Mr da Silva's court. We can have a constructive debate or he can hurl another bit of nastiness. Its his choice.

Oh, I wonder. Does Brian Davis approve of Mr da Silva's messages?


Oh, please. Liberal desperation is setting in. They can't be questioned about anything and feel entitled to remain in power forever.

Veterans deserve more than what Walz has ever done or ever would do for them. Still, they deserve better.

The intellectually dishonest attempt to mischaracterize my views of Walz's policies are predictably pathetic. I should be used to it but I guess I should expect consistency in that area.

I have inside information that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Walz among liberals in the district since the FISA debacle a few months back. You know he used to be for it before he was against it, right? Or is it the other way around? You never know with Walz. He often talks out of both sides of his mouth.

The comments to this entry are closed.