Democrat Tim Walz on War Funding: "I am NOT an ATM!"

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:22:22 AM EST

"We weren't designed in Article I of the Constitution to be the ATM machine for the president." U.S. Rep. TIM WALZ, on the congressional role in setting foreign policy, to the Star Tribune Editorial Board.

That's a great point from Tim Walz (D-MN1), who voted for the blank check bill in the Spring that funds Bush's war spending while attaching no restrictions to it. I wonder, though, if Walz means that Congress wasn't designed that way as a suggestion Congress shouldn't fund the war, or as an observation of a design flaw in Congress.

If it's the latter, Walz and his Bush Dog cohorts that fund everything Bush asks for can pat themselves on the back for fixing Congress so it is in fact an ATM. Good job, Tim!

Matt Stoller :: Democrat Tim Walz on War Funding: "I am NOT an ATM!"

Tags: Bush Dog, Iraq, Tim Walz, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Democrat Tim Walz on War Funding: "I am NOT an ATM!" | 5 comments

I get that Walz pissed people off with his FISA vote (4.00 / 1)

but with all do respect, he is no "Bush Dog"

He is the most liberal person to hold that seat since a Farmer-Laborite held it back in the 1930s. Only one other Democrat has managed to win since then, Tim Penny, and he was far more conservative than Walz.

His FISA vote was crappy but for his District, he's doing a pretty good job.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

by: DFLer @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:32:58 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Agreed wholeheartedly (4.00 / 1)

Those were two bad votes (FISA and Iraq funding), but Walz is otherwise a strong Democrat and is nowhere near what would conventionally be considered Blue Dog territory. I'm not sure if that makes those two votes more or less disappointing, and those were huge issues to be certain, but as a resident of MN-01 I'm personally satisfied with my representation.

by: Max Fletcher @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 10:52:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

ok (0.00 / 0)

Well if you consider voting for blank check funding for Bush's war a good vote, ok. But that is simply enabling this kind of bad behavior.

by: Matt Stoller @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:25:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

Walz is a Bush Dog. Sorry, my friend. You like him, it's ok to like people who do bad things. But Walz did bad stuff.

by: Matt Stoller @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:26:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I disagree (4.00 / 2)

You say "Bush Dog Democrats are Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments."

Progressive Punch calculates a similar score in their 'chips are down' column that "measures the impact that even a small number of Democrats have when they defect from the progressive position. These are votes where either progressives lost or where the progressive victory was narrow and could have been changed by a small group of Democrats voting differently.

According to Progressive Punch, he's ranked 153 out of 425 overall and when one ranks members according to the "chips are down" ranking, he is number 157.

Unless all but 150 Democrats are Bush Dogs, Walz shouldn't be on the list.

Among the Minnesota Delegation, he is the 3rd most progressive, making him the most progressive representative of outstate Minnesota.

He's destroyed Republicans on TV including Duncan Hunter concerning the Iraq surge:

http://www.youtube.c...

Concerning his Iraq vote, choosing that one vote is somewhat misleading. 1 month before Representative Walz voted for the supplemental without a timetable he voted for the supplemental with benchmarks and a timetable (twice).

http://projects.wash...
http://projects.wash...

Representative Walz, a former Command Sgt Major, then voted for funding with benchmarks but no timetable 4 days before funding would run out for soldiers in Iraq (where members of the national guard with whom he served are currently serving) because President Bush played chicken with the troops by vetoing the Congressional Bill Walz had supported. This is the vote for which you criticize him.

Since then, Representative Walz has once again pushed for an end to the war by supporting a new Iraq bill in July calling for withdrawal beginning in 120 days to be mostly completed by April 2008.

http://projects.wash...

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

by: DFLer @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 23:44:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]