« IT’S “REPRESENTATIVE” BLY NOT “CONGRESSMAN” BLY | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN SAID IT WOULD BE A “TRAVESTY” IF “EVEN 50 PEOPLE VOTED FOR” HIM »
CONFUSION ON WALZ’S DM&E POSITION STARTS WITH WALZ’S CONFUSING POSITION
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 7, 2007
There seems to be some confusion in Minnesota's liberal blogosphere about Congressman Tim Walz's position on the proposed DM&E railroad expansion. After reading the below quotes from Walz, it appears even Walz is confusing people about his position:
"'We need expanded rail travel. The DM&E has a great potential to help Southern Minnesota, but it also has the potential to hurt Rochester, Mayo and others,' according to Walz. 'I am not either Pro, Anti-DM&E, Pro, Anti-Mayo [other than the way I] want both to succeed for Southern Minnesota.'" Source: KAAL-TV, February 1, 2007
Congressman Walz is a member of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives and a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rather than engaging in what a fellow Democrat called "absurd hyperbole" on the prosed DM&E railroad expansion, Walz should start acting like the "independent leader for Southern Minnesota" he claimed he would be and ACTUALLY take a position.
UPDATE: This comment was left on Minnesota Democrats Exposed:
The most significant, and probably unnoticed piece of this is that Walz says definitively that he is not “pro-Mayo.”
Setting this issue aside entirely, how the hell can a person represent the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota and not consider themselves “pro-Mayo???”
I don’t live anywhere near Rochester, and I’m “pro-Mayo.” It is a wonderful hospital that garners world-wide attention for the state of MN. Yet the Congressman that represents the area surrounding it isn’t “pro-Mayo?”
Kind of shocking actually.
I couldn't agree more.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 19 Comments »
19 Responses to “CONFUSION ON WALZ’S DM&E POSITION STARTS WITH WALZ’S CONFUSING POSITION”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Typical Democrat — taking a strong stand on both sides of an issue.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Sounds like he is looking for something called compromise, apparently DM&E doesn’t have a good understanding of that word. It’s just another one of those cases of those darn Rochester Liberals causing troubles.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:26 PM
The most significant, and probably unnoticed piece of this is that Walz says definitively that he is not “pro-Mayo.”
Setting this issue aside entirely, how the hell can a person represent the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota and not consider themselves “pro-Mayo???”
I don’t live anywhere near Rochester, and I’m “pro-Mayo.” It is a wonderful hospital that garners world-wide attention for the state of MN. Yet the Congressman that represents the area surrounding it isn’t “pro-Mayo?”
Kind of shocking actually.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:07 PM
What a phoney this WALZ is ! He better go back to
“Camp Wellstone” and learn how to be a better DISEMBLER like his hero was ! It shouldn’t be hard. From what we saw during the campaign and his retreat on the WAR (NOTE TO NICK COLEMAN)he has all the traits of an AMORAL,LIBERAL,DFL POLITICIAN !!!!
February 7th, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Actually I think he is refering to the Mayo’s hard work in killing the line. He is saying he doesn’t neccarily support this action.
I am pro-Mayo ovrall and think they are wrong, so am anti-Mayo on this issue.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:15 PM
“Sounds like he is looking for something called compromise, apparently DM&E doesn’t have a good understanding of that word.”
I’ve been following this issue for a while as I have friends in the RR industry. The DM&E offered a nice package to Rochester very early in the process. I don’t have the details handy, but if I remember right, it involved the railroad building overpasses and doing what it could to minimize the impact to downtown Rochester.
The city said “no” and that the only option they would accept is to kill the project all together.
We debated this farther down and in my opinion Rochester is wrong and more then alittle paranoid.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Mark — it’s fine if Walz wants a “compromise” but as a leader, it his job to propose one. Not just to bitch endlessly and talk from both sides of his mouth.
But… my guess is, those are skills they teach best at “Camp Wellstone”.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I don’t think your correct Dave. I believe Mayo’s position is that they want a city bypass. Now granted that is a big request, but when the project is projected to cost $5-6 billion with a big chunk of that coming from “magic loan” from the taxpayers I think they could pull it off.
Its a bullshit project, which only benefits DM&E. Republicans love to talk about pork projects and here’s a perfect example.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Yes, they did want a bypass. But that just pushes the issue to the farmers and other landowners surrounding Rochester. And if you’ve ever tried to build something and deal with the gov’t regulators, especially the environmental ones…..
February 7th, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Mayo is getting its ass kicked on this issue. There won’t be a bypass. The trains are coming for sure.
Rochester voters are chumps for electing Walz. He’s crapping on them, but they won’t figure that out until they’re choking on coal dust.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:03 PM
It’s about WALZ’ STAND on this ISSUE PEOPLE !!
MDE has pointed out HE HASN’T TAKEN ONE !
February 7th, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Mark – //which only benefits MD&E// underscores the abject stupidity of most any argument a liberal makes. Fact is, other businesses, individual and society at large benefit from the services MD&E provides.
Either way, what would be helpful, is if Walz — the same spineless dink who abandoned his troops before they shipped out to Iraq — would find the balls to take a position on this issue one way or the other, and help to resolve the conflict.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Compromise is evil. It is to be avoided at all costs. Perhaps Walz should suggest a surge in trains to make sure that NO ONE is happy.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:57 PM
“Rochester voters are chumps for electing Walz. He’s crapping on them, but they won’t figure that out until they’re choking on coal dust. ”
Comment by Truth — February 7, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
I am one of those “chumps” who supported Tim Walz from early on in 2005. What he has done is ask for and bring the voices of the people and cities affected by this project to the Transportation Department. He is doing the job the people have asked of Gutknecht all these years to do. Cut the guy some slack.
Many of you can call Tim Walz all the names you want..”spineless dink”, or a “phony”. What causes your undies to be in a bind is that he is tackling a difficult issue and bringing it into open of the National spotlight that it deserves to be. $2.3 Billion of your hard earned tax dollars is a lot of money to be throwing around with no guarantees of being paid back.
The DM&E is not Chrysler. Chrysler had assets that outweighed its liabilities, thus paid back in full every penny it was loaned. Lee Iococca used that Federal Loan of $800 Million and brought Chrysler back to profitability. The difference here is that Chrysler was in the open about the money it needed and how the monies would be paid back. The rest is History.
The DM&E has made it known it wants our money, more than 10 times it’s total net worth with no guarantees. Nor has the DM&E made known how much Public Monies it hs raised to toal the $6 Billion it needs overall. People locally close to this issue have said no Public monies have been raised and that the DM&E would really like the US Tax payers to foot he entire $6 Billion.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Mentions from the Worthington Daily Globe on Tim Walz and the DM&E issue. Confusing position…hardly!!
“On Tuesday, Rep. Walz delivered comments of Minnesota 1st District residents regarding the proposed $2.3 billion federal loan to the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad. Walz noted that while the public comment period on the loan has officially closed, “it is never too late for citizens to comment on the work of their government.â€
Walz, in addressing the Department of Transportation, said he had received a total of 193 comments on the DM&E loan since this past Thursday. Of those, a substantial majority — 172 — opposed the proposed loan, while just 21 indicated their support.
In reading excerpts of the comments, Walz highlighted several legitimate reasons why many feel the DM&E loan is a bad idea. Among them: proximity of tracks to residential areas; a feared negative effect on Rochester’s Mayo Clinic; a poor DM&E safety record; and a high risk for taxpayers.
One comment Walz read was from a Mankato resident, who wrote: “I would rather use the $2.3 billion in the form of grants to universities to use for research in alternative clean energy sources.†This point — the DM&E loan money could be better used elsewhere — seems well taken not just from an alternative energy standpoint, but from the perspective that $2.3 billion could be put to use in a multitude of different areas. The loan, if approved, would be the largest ever to an American private corporation — one with revenues of only $200 million.”
If anything, Tim Walz is on the job he was elected to do. Get over it!! The role of an elected official is to be the voice of the people, to look out for them, seek their input, and then do right by that. Characteristics lacking in many in Government today.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:18 AM
Thanks kathy for shedding some light. Walz needs to be more clear about what position he’s advocating more often.
With statements like “I am not either Pro, Anti-DM&E, Pro, Anti-Mayo” blah blah blah… he’s wishy washy.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:16 AM
We Republicans lost the 2006 elections across America in large part because we have quit acting like Republicans. The $2.3 billion bailout to DM&E is typical of the ethical sleaze and fiscal insanity of Hillary and Billary Clinton, not conservative Republicans. Ronald Reagan would not have handed the biggest corporate subsidy in American history to the worst managed railroad in the country. Stephanie Herseth is probably the phoniest person in the phoniest institution in the phoniest city in America. Walz should take her oppostion to his action as a sign that he is on the right track. We cannot win the next election by demonizing Walz for doing his job. We have to go out and find someone who would do an even better job and then run a positive campaign.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Perhaps Walz has been misunderstood again. WHat if he’s simply pro-Miracle Whip and we’re missing his point?
We shouldn’t be subsidizing private enterprise.
What has happened here appears to be a one-time shot at federal money. And even the staunchest conservatives flinch a little when they see the bacon tray on the lazy susan of govermisness cashola passing them by.
Who in the aminstream media is writing or telling the DM&E story truthfully anyway?
February 8th, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Doc Holliday!!!
Gil Gutknecht lost the 1st Congresional Election in November because he refused to take a stand on most issues that concerned the voters he had represented, especially about the DM&E and Iraq. He was for the Loan no matter what and would not hear opposition to it. I heard that from his own mouth. As for Iraq, his change of heart after a 16 hour visit last July was too little to late after 3 years of ardent support for Bush with his votes. The people in the 1st CD felt otherwise. But did Gil hear them???
As for “a positive campaign”, Tim Walz ran one. He saw the cracks in Gutknecht’s voting record over the last 6 years. I was fortunate enough to attend two Congressional debates last year. The bottom line was that the GOP underestimated the knowledge Tim had on the issues, his consistency, that even Moderate Republicans were taking him seriously. Gutknecht had strayed from the values that had won him 6 prior elections, this coming from prominent Republicans I know.
Tim Walz does not oppose the DM&E. He questions the way the Loan was added to a Transportation Bill at the last minute, behind closed doors, with no open debate on its merit as a benifit to the American people by a DM&E Lobbyist elected Senator from South Dakota. If that is not a position for clarity, what is it then?