Is That a Fact?
On the radio, Rep. Michele Bachmann re-distorts the origin of her Iran-Iraq blooper (and returns to her earlier what-I-said-in-the-first-place-was-true position.)
April 12th, 2007 – 12:14 AM by Eric Black
Good Thursday morning Fellow Seekers,ÂÂ
Early distant warning: this will be a long post. When you get to the “read the rest of this entry” button, it will take you to a thorough Fisking of a March 8 radio interview (that has only recently come to the Big Q’s attention) in which U.S. Rep Michele Bachmann made several misstatements about her earlier claim that Iran had a plan to divide Iraq.
Frankly, the radio interview comes across as an effort to blame the media in general and your obedient ink-stained wretch in particular for whatever problems her original insupportable claims caused for her.
So in addition to setting the record straight on the substance of this Bachmannian tap dance, the full fisking is also partly a point of personal privilege, since Bachmann made untrue claims about how the coverage of her Iran-Iraq statements was handled by the Star Tribune and this blog.
Bachmann has declined to be interviewed for this post, saying through her spokesperson that she will stand on her earlier statements.
For those who lack the time and/or inclination for the full treatment, and who don’t care about Bachmann’s claims of media mistreatment or my rebuttals, here’s a summary of the most substantive aspect of Bachmann’s interview on KKMS, a Richfield-based Christian-themed radio station, in which she gave what I count to be the fourth version of what she believes Iran is up to in Iraq.
Without acknowledging that she is retracting her earlier claim (in version 1) that Iran had a plan with Al Qaida to partition Iran and turn half the country into a haven for terrorists, Bachmann is repeating the claim from version 3 (an op-ed she wrote for the Strib) that the ultimate truth running through all of her statements is that Iran and Al Qaida have a joint mutual interest in partitioning Iraq.
The problem that remains, and about which Bachmann has never been asked (although I have posed the question publicly in this blog and asked again in an email to Bachmann’s office  leading up to this post), is that she has presented no evidence that Iran wants to partition Iraq.
The evidence that she presented in the best and most thorough of her versions (number 3, the op-ed) to back up that claim, simply doesn’t support it, nor is it widely reported in the media (as Bachmann claims in version 4), nor is it particularly logical that Iran wants to divide Iraq with Al Qaida.
 A full discussion of that evidentiary deficit appears near the bottom of the full version, which appears below.
ÂÂ
The Background
Cong. Bachmann brought a brief cyclone down upon her head in February with her statement that Iran had an agreement (she didn’t say with whom) to partition Iraq and create a terrorism safe haven zone in northwestern Iraq from which attacks would be launched around the Middle East and against the United States.
The statements were originally made Feb. 9 in a taped interview with Larry Schumacher of the St. Cloud Times, which is still available for listening. (If you go to this link, look down on the right for “download Capitolcast.â€Â) A transcript of the excerpt in which she made this startling claim is in this Big Question post of Feb. 23.
Version 2ÂÂ
The congresswoman has not backed up her statement in several important details, nor answered questions about how she came to make them. After the Big Question post was picked up by national blogs and talk radio shows, Bachmann first issued a statement that her remarks had been misconstrued. They had not been misconstrued, at least not here. The problem may have been that her statement was too clear.
Version 2, in the name of reconstruing, simply omitted any reference to the earlier claim that Iran had struck a deal with unnamed other parties to divide Iraq and set up a terrorism haven.
Version 3ÂÂ
A week later, with editorials appearing around the state urging Bachmann to clarify, or to explain how she came to make a statement she couldn’t support, Bachmann submitted version 3 in the form of an op-ed piece to the Star Tribune designed to put the matter to rest. She went further toward retracting her claim and replacing it with a new, more defensible but still problematic claim.
On March 2, the Strib published the op-ed , (which remains on the Bachmann congressional website here).
And a story by your obedient ink-stained wretch was published on the metro cover about the piece. On the blog, I accepted Bachmann’s statement that what she said to Schumacher was not was she meant, but wrote that there were still unanswered questions and left open my request for an interview. There matters stood as far as I knew except that it grew increasingly clear that Bachmann would not agree to be interviewed by me about this matter.
The fourth (and, so as I know, most recent) version
On March 8, Bachmann appeared on “Live With Jeff and Lee,” on Richfield-based KKMS (AM 980) a Christian-themed station. Jeff and Lee offered the congresswoman a chance to clarify the whole kerfuffle about her Iran-Iraq remarks. In the audio of the full show, the relevant portion starts between the 8th and 9th minutes.
What follows is my transcription of what she said. Bachmann’s statements are in bold. The parenthetical insertions in italics, are by me, where there are Is That a Factual problems. It starts with Jeff and Lee offering her a open shot at explaining how the whole came to be:
Bachmann: “I appreciate the opportunity to talk about it and clear it up. Actually, I was downtown Minneapolis, about to be the luncheon speaker at Thrivent Financial Services..
And I got a call from the Star Tribune asking me about comments I had made in a previous podcast out of St. Cloud, regarding Iran-Iraq.”
Is That a Fact? (It would have been unprofessional and wrong of me to have written my piece on this if, as Bachmann asserts here, I had given her only a few minutes to clarify her earlier statements. Actually, my requests for an interview had begun at about 4 p.m. the previous day, soon after I had become aware of the Schumacher podcast. I was told Bachmann was unavailable, but might speak to me the next morning. In the morning, it was no, but maybe in the afternoon. I told Bachmann’s spokeswoman, Heidi Frederickson, that I would post over the lunch hour and add Bachmann’s response as soon as I got it. I also told her precisely what I wanted to ask about.)
Bachmann: “They had said that I said the United States had an agreement with Iran to partition Iraq, which is not at all what I said. That’s what they wanted to talk about. I just thought, ‘well that’s crazy.’”
Is That a Fact? (Yes, that would be a pretty crazy thing to say, but, they, which is presumably me, never said it. In my email to Frederickson, I cited the quote from the Schumacher interview about the existence of an agreement involving Iran and unspecified parties to divide Iraq. I wrote: “Here are the questions: How does she know about this plan? With whom has Iran already made this agreement and is she saying it’s the government of Iran?”)
Bachmann: “I had to go in and make my speech and I said ‘we’ll call the Star Tribune reporter back when I make my speech.’”
Is That a Fact? (Actually, before noon, moments after I posted on the blog, I received an email from Frederickson informing me that: “A call this afternoon is not going to work.”)
Bachmann: “I came out of my speech about 90 minutes later and when I checked my email. I had an email from a girlfriend in California saying that she had heard Rush Limbaugh talking about my Iran-Iraq comments…”
(The radio hosts interject here that, yikes, that kind of thing would get your attention)
Bachmann: “And I said: What!? In 90 minutes to go from a reporter initially questioning me to now it’s on Rush Limbaugh?
And what the Star Tribune did, which I think is wrong, is they went ahead and they posted a story without talking to me, on the internet. It had gotten onto the Drudge Report. Drudge had gotten onto Rush. And all of a sudden you had a national story.
The thing that is awful, that’s difficult for people to understand is that once the media, the major media puts a spin on a story, you can’t change it. I mean it’s impossible. It gets repeated over and over.
The suggestion was made that I had suggested that there was a written agreement that Iran was going to divide Iraq. I did not say that.”
Is That a Fact? (If she’s talking about me, what I wrote was: “Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country.” Here’s the statement from Bachmann’s Feb. 9 podcast interview, on which I based that:
“They’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq. And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made. They are going to get half of Iraq.”)
Bachmann (back to the Jeff and Lee show): “There was suggestion that I had revealed classified information. I did not. There was a suggestion that I was pretending that I had secret information that I was revealing. I did not.”
(Perhaps Bachmann is referring to this quote, from U of M political scientist Kathryn Pearson, that ran in my story the next morning: “Members of Congress are privy to intelligence that the rest of the public isn’t. So when a member of Congress says something of such significance, the first assumption is that she knows something that the public doesn’t. So on that basis, people are going to take it seriously… Either this is top secret information that she’s leaking, which is a problem. Or she’s presenting her thoughts on a very serious topic as if they were established fact, and that’s a problem for other reasons.”)
Bachmann: “What I had said quite simply — I could have been more precise, I should have given specific examples, but my underlying statement was true. It was correct. It’s that America’s adversaries agree that a divided Iraq benefits them. So Al Qaida and Iran, it is to their advantage to have a divided Iraq. Because a divided Iraq means that America will probably not be successful. And much of Iraq could turn into a safe haven for terrorists.
That’s absolutely true. I don’t have secret information on that. That’s been widely reported in the media…”
Is That a Fact? (All alleged issues of alleged journalistic malfeasance aside, here are the main substantive problems with the radio interview and the current state of Bachmann’s Iran-Iraq position. Bachmann has abandoned the what-I-said-was-not-what-I-meant tone of the op-ed piece, and returned to her earlier claim that what she said in the first place was true and correct, except for a lack of precision and failure to give examples.
What she said in version one was that Iran had a plan with another party — it’s now clear she had Al Qaida in mind – to divide Iraq in half between them and set up a terrorism zone. That statement disappears in versions two (the I-was-misconstrued press release) and four (the radio interview), except for the vestigial assertion that the missing piece was true all along.
But even if we give up on Bachmann making a straightforward retraction/clarification and sticking by it, there remains a fairly serious problem with all of the versions: All of them include a statement that Iran wants to see Iraq partitioned.
But is that a fact? Bachmann says that this fact has been widely reported in the media. But it hasn’t been widely reported and Bachmann has offered no evidence that this is so.
In the op-ed that ran in the Strib under Bachmann’s byline, the third and best version of her position, she adduced some evidence (a Reuters story) that something called the Mutayibeen Coalition, which Reuters described as linked to Al Qaida, had posted a video online in October of 2006 in which the coalition “called for a separate Islamic state in Baghdad and other areas with a large Sunni Arab population.”
This evidence is not overwhelming. But personally, from what I know of the situation, it is not far-fetched that elements of Al Qaida would hope to control the Sunni Arab portion of Iraq (nor that if Al Qaida did control such territory, it could become a base for terrorism).
But the Iran piece of Bachmann’s case for “America’s adversaries are in agreement that a divided Iraq benefits their objectives” is much weaker. And bear in mind, this piece was written to redeem an original claim that Iran had a plan and an agreement to divide Iraq.
The op-ed cites a statement from August of 2005 by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the powerful Iranian Guardian Council (and a confidant of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).
But Jannati is in not advocating or referring in any way to the partitioning of Iraq. On the contrary, he is congratulating the Iraqis on establishing the new U.S.-blessed state, under a U.S.-blessed constitution that refers to Islam as “a fundamental source”of all laws.
This constitution and this new government are for the entirety of Iraqi territory and have nothing to do with any division of Iraq.
So Bachmann’s watered down statement –- what she claimed on KKMS was the one true thing that she has been trying to say all along — that Iran and Al Qaida agree that a partition of Iraq is in their mutual interest, is untrue, or at least unsupported.)
(At this point in the KKMS interview, one of the hosts observes that Eric Black has written in his blog that he accepted her op-ed as a clarification of her previous statements, which I thought was fairly sporting of me. But Bachmann chooses to treat this as if it was an acknowledgement by me of errors or of the wrongs I had done her.)
Bachmann: “It’s nice that he’s clarifying it on his blog, but it isn’t front page news either.
It’s very interesting with the media. They’ll put their wild assertion on the front page and then it’ll go from there and then when they correct themselves, it’ll be buried in small print on page 18. And that’s the way it goes. And unfortunately, if someone asks me:
Is there media bias? You bet there’s media bias. Unbelievable.”
Is That a Fact? (Yes, unbelievable. The first newspaper story on this controversy ran on the front page of the Strib on the morning of Feb. 24. The deadline for it was more than a full day after I had first sought her comments and about 10 hours after Bachmann’s luncheon speech – remember she was going to call and straighten things out after the luncheon speech. She never called, but she did put out the written I’m-sorry-if-my-words-have-been-misconstrued statement, and that statement was quoted and well-represented in the article.
The second (and so far only other) article in the Strib about it was published on the same day as her op-ed, was based upon the op-ed, and appeared on page B1, the cover of the metro/state news section. No small print, no page 18, and no correction unless one means that the second story reflected her effort to correct what she had said wrong in the first story.
Okay, this is the longest post I’ve ever written and perhaps I’ve gotten carried away with my ardor for keeping the record straight on this matter and for defending my own actions when they have been unfairly and inaccurately described. In recognition of same, I will fade into the background and allow Rep. Bachmann to complete, without further interruptions from me, her comments to KKMS listeners about about what they should learn from this incident.)
Bachmann: “That’s one thing I would just say to your listeners, When they hear wild accusations like that, try and go back to the source. And ask the person.
I have an opinion piece that I wrote on this Iran-Iraq question, that’s on my website, Michele Bachmann, people can go to my website and they can read my statement.
What I do is I cite the sources for my remarks. And the sources establish, like Eric Black apparently said in his blog, that there is source material to back up what I was saying.
It’s an interesting thing. There’s a reason why a lot of politicians don’t say anything or are very unwilling to speak up. Especially if you’re a conservative, you’re just slapped up mercilessly in the press.
That being said, I have to be extremely careful what I say and how I say it.”
74 Responses to "Is That a Fact?
On the radio, Rep. Michele Bachmann re-distorts the origin of her Iran-Iraq blooper (and returns to her earlier what-I-said-in-the-first-place-was-true position.)"
Now you know what it feels like to be a constituent of Michele Bachmann’s, Eric. Ignored, lied to repeatedly, slandered–these are all responses to which Bachmann’s constituents who disagree with her have become accustomed over the years. In six years as my state senator, and now as my congressperson, Bachmann has never responded to a single letter, phone call or e-mail of mine. Instead, like you, Eric, she has publicly called me a liar, and labeled others who simply want to talk to her about issues “stalkers.”
This is the same M.O. the Bush administration has been using with Congress for the past six years: ignore, stonewall, misrepresent, avoid, and when all else fails, lie. Repeatedly, as she and her mouthpieces have done to you, Eric.
As a result, fully half of Bachmann’s constituents in the 6th CD–the 50% who didn’t vote for her–have been disenfranchised. They have no representation in Congress. None. They have no way to express their views to their congressional representive, because she simply ignores them. And that’s the biggest crime about Michele Bachmann occupying a seat in Congress.
Ok, a quick show hands, who here thinks that Bachmann is certifiable?
I truly hope that those in the 6thCD that did vote for her are getting a good look at their “representation”, unless, of course, this is what they truly wanted; a right-wing nutjob that goes around spouting conspiracy theory and then blaming the “liberal media” for printing her actual words.
I believe it’s safe to say that Bachmann is now Minneosta’s Jean Schmidt.
I stopped reading when she said she was talking to a californian who listens to limbaugh. That scares me.
Can you say 1 term. Sure you can.
Amen. Bachmann’s lies always seem small (like marketing herself as “Dr. Michele Bachmann”, a child education expert a few years ago on the Maple River coalition website).
Your post is a good and timely rejoinder to Jason Lewis rant complaining that your articles were somehow a hit job by the Star Tribune and Dump Bachmann. Lewis’s rant is pure spin and more lies ignoring the facts as you lay them out here. Apparently, Bachmann’s guest hosting on his radio show must be some kind of mutual admiration society/back-scratching.
Anyway, I think your post will help to highlight how the right uses this liberal media baloney to “work the refs” and have neutralized the media from doing its job. I hope the media is finally awakening from its slumbers enough locally to begin exposing the mendacity and incompetence of the present representative from the Sixth District.
This ought to help folks remember not to journey to Planet Bachmann again, not ever. She ought to be named Ambassador to Iran, she’d fit right in.
Well, that post was a huge amount of work, Mr. Black. I guess that’s needed when a member of Congress is claiming that she’s being unfairly attacked by the liberal media.
Like most members of Congress, Bachmann doesn’t know the slightest thing about Iraq or Iran, as one can tell from every statement out of her mouth. And as an extremist Repub, she has no interest in actually learning anything about them.
That’s why we were (and are) doomed to disaster in Iraq.
She simply refuses to admit she said there was “agreement” with Iran to partition Iraq, and that she was wrong about that. She can’t admit she said something wrong. So typical of these Bushists.
Iran has not the slightest interest in aiding al qaeda or in partitioning Iraq. No Middle East expert thinks such a thing.
Indeed, Seymour Hersh has been reporting that a Cheney-led initiative has been diverting covert funding to al qaeda-like Islamist groups to commit terrorists acts INSIDE Iran. Iran helped us in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Al qaeda believes that muslim Shi’ites (like Iran) are heretics. Al qaeda-like groups in Iraq have been behind the brutal bombings of Iraqi shi’ites. Iran does not support any of this, obviously.
As for partitioning Iraq, Iran has its own kurdish minority and the last thing it wants to see (just like Turkey) is a partitioned Iraq with a separate kurdish state. And Iran has absolutely no interest in having a sunni fundamentalist/terrorist “safe haven” so close to its border. So everything Bachmann says is “true” is utter rubbish.
What’s most disgusting is Bachmann playing the crying, pathetic “conservative victim” game. She makes absurd unsupportable claims, the press has the temerity to print them and ask questions about them, and SHE’S A VICTIM of the LIBERAL MEDIA!! Conservatives just aren’t allowed to SPEAK!
I don’t really know how this nonsense plays with the regular “conservatives” here. Do you guys think that Bachmann has been victimized by the liberal media in this (ongoing) incident? That she has uttered obviously correct statements that have been erroneously “spun” just to damage our dear little “conservative” darling?
parthian ponders “I don’t really know how this nonsense plays with the regular “conservatives†here.”
Well, its hard to say. There are conservatives here who expect Rep Bachmann to defeat Sen Klobuchar for her seat in 2012.
There are conservatives here who expect Rep Bachmann to defeat Sen Klobuchar for her seat in 2012.
I give more credence to those who, based on Mayan calendars, expect the world to end in 2012.
Bachmann is a nut. KKMS has some interesting programming, but Jeff and Lee are all too quick to be shills for baseless rightwing paranoia. It is beyond frightening that this woman is taken seriously, much less that she serves in Congress.
parthian says:
April 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Like most members of Congress, Bachmann doesn’t know the slightest thing about Iraq or Iran,
—-
And as Nancy demostrates, that aint limited to one side of the aisle.
“Ok, a quick show hands, who here thinks that Bachmann is certifiable?”
Bachmann’s lunacy has received national attention and she has replaced Katherine Harris as the “Offical Bat**** Crazy Congresswoman of the Stephanie Miller Show”.
Thanks for posting such detailed information including information that only you had!
Les says:
And as Nancy demostrates, that aint limited to one side of the aisle.
More hypocritical, manufactured outrage as diversion from the right: “look, over there, a shiny bobble”.
“There are conservatives here who expect Rep Bachmann to defeat Sen Klobuchar for her seat in 2012. ”
I for one do even though obviously a lot can change in the meantime. The biggest hurdle to a Bachmann Senate campaign would be financing.
THe reason why you and others cannot see this as a possibility is that your views are so virulently opposed to hers, you cannot see the fact that much of what she says is agreed to resoundingly by most of Minnesota.
Like I stated during the campaign to all of her opponents here, if what she says is so outlandish and so CRAZY, how come the Patty Wetterling campaing never ran a commercial featuring some of this “crazy talk”? Instead, they ran an ad that was essentially a lie about Bachmann supporting raising taxes 23% through the “Fair Tax Plan” and anti-Mark Foley ads. The answer to this question is that much of what she says is not considered to be crazy by a significant majority of the 6th District, and for that matter, most of the state.
If Bachmann makes a potential run against Klobuchar a referendum on conservative social positions, like gay marriage and abortion, versus Amy Klochubar’s positions on these issues Bachmann will slaughter Klochubar.
The only way that Klocubar could beat her is if she can shift the election to other issues and soften her positions on the social issues. Most likely, Iraq will not be an issue in 2012 nor any of the “Hate Bush” issues being peddled across the nation. Bachmann’s chances increase significantly if there is a Democrat in the WHite House because there would be issues to run against.
A well run Bachmann campaign would be difficult for a liberal like Klochubar to beat, unlike the poorly run, muddled campaign of Mark Kennedy. The biggest challenge to running a Bachmann campaing would of course being to muzzle Michelle, but that is doable in a large statewide election.
The biggest challenge to running a Bachmann campaing would of course being to muzzle Michelle, but that is doable in a large statewide election.
If the biggest challenge to your campaign is your own candidate, that says a great deal about your campaign.
Les writes “And as Nancy demostrates, that aint limited to one side of the aisle.”
While it is fair to question or criticize Speaker Pelosi’s recent actions in the middle east, it is not at all accurate to claim that she “doesn’t know the slightest thing about Iraq or Iran.” Rep Bachmann, on the other hand, appears to make up her own facts.
According to mark, the biggest challenge to a Sen. Bachmann (snicker) would be either financing or “muzzling Michele”. Wonder which one it is? Mark, she’s probably looking for 2012 volunteers right now—get in on the ground floor!
As laugh-out-loud funny as these vaporous conservative Repub fantasies about Election 2012 are, I notice that no conservative is willing to answer my question or actually respond to the post: has darling Michele B been the latest “conservative” victim of the unfair and vicious liberal media?
bsimon says:
While it is fair to question or criticize Speaker Pelosi’s recent actions in the middle east,…
I would say that fairness in this case would be to criticize all the delegates that had gone to Syria. The singling out of Pelosi in this instance while ignoring Republican delegates smacks of nothing more than partisan hackery. The same Republicans that attempt to denounce Pelosi, ignore Republican delegates and endorsed (if not participated in) Gingrich’s China trip are nothing more than hypocrites of the highest order.
Parthian, finally picking the question out of your usual plethora of unnecessary and inane adjectives, the answer is no, on this Iraq statement of hers, MB is not a victim
Her complaints about the media on this issue remind me a of a certian “vast right wing conspiracy” complaint that has been recycled at least once this go around.
OTOH, the coverage of the SOTU encounter was over the top.
CC;
Cant argue with you there, Newt shouldnt of done it either. That of course, make’s nancy et all actions OK, right?
And besides, the issue was knowledge of the situation, not visiting Syria, so what does Newt’s China boondogle got to do with that?
Les, thanks for your answer.
And good use of “plethora”!
Thanks for the succint answer.
Les says:
CC;
Cant argue with you there, Newt shouldnt of done it either. That of course, make’s nancy et all actions OK, right?
I personally took no exception to Pelosi’s delegation visiting Syria. In fact, I felt that her trip was beneficial to America’s image abroad.
What I took exception to was the President singling out of, and denunciation of, Pelosi while ignoring the Republican delegates that had gone with or prior. Where was his condemnation of those Republicans? Of course the Republicans fell in line with Bush and his selective umbrage by attempting to make political hay out of it.
And besides, the issue was knowledge of the situation, not visiting Syria, so what does Newt’s China boondogle got to do with that?
Of what particular knowledge (or lack there of) of Pelosi’s are you referring? Can you provide an actual example of something with which you took exception or is this just so much parroting of a talking-point?
As for Gingrich, you would be in the minority of Repubs that took issue with his trip. Is it not possible to see the rank hypocrisy of someone like Bohner who bleats about Pelosi’s trip while finding his trip China with Ginrinch “educational”? If you’re applying some sort of “knowledge test” to delegates, what qualifications do the likes of Gringrich or Bohner have in Chinese affairs? Would you also roundly condemn Pawlenty’s trips to China or Iraq as “meddling” in foreign affairs?
“Mark, she’s probably looking for 2012 volunteers right now—get in on the ground floor!”
I can more objectively see reality than you. I do not support Michelle Bachmann. I am not a social conservative. The only way I would work for a social conservative candidate is if they paid me lots and lots of money, and even then I would not be real happy about it.
What I do see is that Michelle Bachmann is a major political force who has most of the factors you look for in a winning politician. She is staunchly supported by the social conservatives, is charismatic, and a decent speaker.
An objective look at a potential Bachmann/Klobuchar race would indicate that Bachmann would probably run ahead of Pawlenty 2006 results in the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th. She would run behind him in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th districts.
The main variable in her race would be Ramstad’s 3rd District and if she can offset her losses against Pawlenty’s total there in the other districts. If she can run even with Pawlenty here then she would be doing very well and that is quite possible given that it is not that hard to paint Amy Klochubar as a tax and spend liberal.
Bachmann’s campaign would be simple. Run as vocal social conservative champion in the out state districts and a fiscal conservative in the suburbs. Get my image next to Amy Klochubar’s as much as possible making it a beauty pageant and paint Klochubar as the tax and spend liberal.
How is Bachmann going to run in the 2012 Senate campaign if she doesn’t get reelected (twice) in her home 6th? That seems to be the tall order right now. If the 6th DFL’ers can find someone who isn’t a easy target of character assassination, Bachmann should be toast by January 2009.
Mark says
“An objective look at a potential Bachmann/Klobuchar race would indicate that Bachmann would probably run ahead of Pawlenty 2006 results in the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th. She would run behind him in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th districts.”
Why start with Gov Pawlenty’s numbers & not Mark Kennedy’s? Seems to me like her positions & credentials are closer to (former) Rep Kennedy’s than Gov Pawlenty’s. Come to think of it, didn’t Kennedy try the campaign tactics you propose & fail miserably? Surely its not because he’s not prettier than Sen Klobuchar.
“Why start with Gov Pawlenty’s numbers & not Mark Kennedy’s”
Because I am comparing what I would expect her numbers to be versus a candidate that won an election in the statewide office. Pawlenty barely won, so an effort that runs better than his should win.
I then break down an estimate by district in how another candidate would do versus that baseline. Hence, I stated that Bachmann would run better in the outstate districts, 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 8th than Pawlenty, as well as run better than Pawlenty in her own district the 6th. I also believe that she will run worse in the Metro area districts than Pawlenty and that the balance would favor Michelle.
“Come to think of it, didn’t Kennedy try the campaign tactics you propose & fail miserably? ”
Not really. First, Kennedy was a miserable performer, one of the worst I have ever seen in a Republican statewide election. Second, he was very unsuccesful in defining the issues in the race because the major issue was the Iraq War. Third, he war running against a complete unknown who has very little negatives so it was more difficult to paint her as a liberal. Fourth, Mark Kennedy is not a “social conservative champion” and not out front on those issues statewide like Michele Bachmann.
Michelle would be able to run on Klocubar’s record and more effectively paint her as a liberal, manuever Klochubar into the liberal position on the main social convervative issues, and look and sound much better than Amy Klochubar.
“How is Bachmann going to run in the 2012 Senate campaign if she doesn’t get reelected (twice) in her home 6th?”
If you really think that this is true then you obviously know little about Minnesota politics. The fact that the district is by far the most conservative district in the state means that Bachmann should win handly each time she is nominated.
Mark says
“Because I am comparing what I would expect her numbers to be versus a candidate that won an election in the statewide office. Pawlenty barely won, so an effort that runs better than his should win.”
I find it curious that you choose to compare her numbers to the only Republican who actually won statewide in 2006, who’s opponent self-immolated in the last week of the election. While its too early to predict 2008, much less 2012, your prediction is based on the most optomistic of assumptions – particularly that the most polarizing republican in the state can attract more voters than Pawlenty. To me it looks far more likely that she’ll lose her seat in 2008 than that she’ll win in 2008 & 2010 and be promoted to the Senate in 2012.
Mark’s analysis, as far as it goes, is right–and I never say that about Mark’s analysis of anything.
Bachmann is positioned to be a major factor in future elections, if they play down the reality (she’s a nut and an habitual liar.)
How can it be that a person who’s a nut and an habitual liar (and a sincere bigot, to boot) could be a major factor in federal and state politics?
There are a number of reasons.
1) Michele is a creature of the evangelical political movement. Her political strength is national, not local–evangelical political players like Dr. James Dobson pick out proteges like Michele to run as state and local candidates, grooming them for success at the federal level. This is a long-range strategy of the EPM–they get there “own people” in Congress to do their bidding.
2) The way this is done is to pass off EPM candidates as conservatives in the tradition of Reagan, invoking the Reagan legacy of conservativism. From a Reagan conservative’s point of view, Michele’s political positions in the state legislature were impeccable. So now she’s got: 1) the evangelicals/”Christian Right”, who have a demonstrated power to put in a candidate like Michele into the nomination process, in preference to “secular” right wing Republicans like Krinkie 2) the Reagan guys who listen to Garage Logic, Jason Lewis, Rush Limbaugh, all of that cr@p–these have been successfully groomed to think of Michele as a conservative in the tradition of Reagan, rather than as a fundamentalist Christian candidate. That, in a district that trends Republican anyway, is enough to put her over.
3)There are fewer choices available to conservative Republicans after the last round of elections. In the face of a Dem tsunami in the federal and state elections, Bachmann sailed to victory. She’s begun her rise on the national stage too. She was invited to speak at the most prominent convention of conservatives in the country this year, to speak at the same event as Dick Cheney, Sen. McConnell, etc etc–Michele was scheduled as a featured speaker. (She did not get to speak though–she was apparently “disinvited” after the national story broke about her fantasy account of an existing agreement with Iran to divide Iraq (“Bachmannistan”.)
4) So, as Mark points out, she’s electable–if they can muzzle her; keep her on the message and conceal the fact that she is a certifiable, grade A, USDA inspected Macadmamia nut. And bigot. And theocrat.
5) Other reasons she’s electable. She presents herself very well. She’s attractive and comes off as a “mom” –rather than as a evangelical political extremist who believes in conspiracy theories (which she is.) It’s only when you start looking at statements that Bachmann makes out of the media limelight, before “friendly” audiences, that you realize that she’s a nut. The real thing. You’d never know just to look at her, if you only knew her through her campaign commericials or met her in person. It’s only when she’s “being herself”, speaking off the top of her head, telling lies about what she’s said and done, or seizing the President of the US after the State of the Union speech, that you realize–this woman’s out of control; she hasn’t got an honest bone in her body. But she has no shame and guilt about the lies and bigotry–because in a conversation between you and Michele, Michele believes that she is the one representing Jesus Christ. (He talks to her and tell her what to do, you know–sends her visions. No, I’m not kidding, that’s what she claims.)
7) There’s some very big, very wealthy special interests backing Michele, and they have an interest in seeing that her career takes off. Locally, it’s the Taxpayers’ League and other millionaires’ clubs. Nationally, it’s banking interests. This explains why she had so much interest in getting on Congress’ Financial Services Committee (her first choice for a committee assignment) and so little interest on getting on a committee directly affect farm policy in her Minnesota district (as a conservative, she would have been caught on the “wrong side” of many votes and issues on an agriculture committee, which would have made her loathsome to all the voters who care about those issues in her own district.)
8) The Bush White House campaigned vigorously for Michele. She did photo ops with Bush locally (she adores him and his endless war policy.) Karl Rove came down to Stillwater to speak for her. Cheney appeared with her a millionaires fundraising event out at the lakes. Those guys still have lots of credibility with the richest Republicans in Minnesota; they practically anointed Michele.
9) Finally–Michele’s most important ally on the road to Congress was the local Minnesota media. They stopped her candidacy cold at almost any time during the past six years, simply by reporting what she said and claimed, on the record. They could have simply reported the statements that she’s made over the past six years. If the Minnesota papers and broadcast news outlets in the Sixth District had done that–that alone, would have sunk her–even in the conservative Sixth district.
They didn’t. Not even the “liberal” news outlets, like the Strib or MPR. They received documented quotes by Bachmann herself, indicating that she was an extremist, a theocrat, a bigot, etc. They ignored these, wouldn’t print them, spiked them prior to the election.
So–with the compliance of the local media (which didn’t start covering her nutty behavior until the national press did), Michele’s career has been very well managed, and she’s positioned. Which doesn’t change the fact that she is indeed a nut and bigot posing as a Reagan Republican. If 1) the media continues to play down the fact that we have a nut representing the 6th district of MN in Congress, and 2) if her advisers can, as Mark writes, muzzle the nut and bigot aspect of her–she will continue to rise in American politics. All the necessary pieces are there, except for the piece of her brain that’s missing, and she doesn’t really need that to keep getting elected.
Bachmann barely won the 6th CD with 50% of the vote. She lost her hometown of Stillwater. She lost her own precinct. She lost St. Cloud. She lost Anoka. She lost virtually every major city in the 6th. And the rubes think she can take the whole state? Including the solidly Democratic 4th, 5th and 8th?
What planet are you people on? Oh, that’s right, someone already identified it–Planet Bachmann.
“They stopped her candidacy cold at almost any time during the past six years, simply by reporting what she said and claimed”
That should read:
“They COULD HAVE stopped her candidacy cold”
” find it curious that you choose to compare her numbers to the only Republican who actually won statewide in 2006″
It should not be. It is meaningless to compare her to Mark Kennedy’s campaign. Here is my estimate of how a statewide candidacy run by Bachmann would compare to Mark Kennedy’s: She will do much better in EVERY district. Now, that is meaningless.
“To me it looks far more likely that she’ll lose her seat in 2008 than that she’ll win in 2008 & 2010 and be promoted to the Senate in 2012″
BASED ON WHAT INFORMATION????? That is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made. She beat Patty Wetterling, a well known name making her second run in the district after flirting with a statewide race (she raised tons of money in her short term Senate “campaign” which was a significant advantage) by 8 points in a bad Republican year.
Anyone who thinks Bachmann is more likely to lose in 2008 is delusional. You have nothing to base that opinion on than your own personal prejudices.
“They COULD HAVE stopped her candidacy coldâ€
Again, that is ridiculous. Patty Wetterling had a lot more campaign money than Michelle Bachman and she could have run advertising that featured such things, but she did not.
What you constantly fail to address is that although what Michele believes and even says,is “nutty” and “crazy” it is NOT to the vast majority of Minnesota voters who are vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage, are very devout religiously, are strongly pro-life, and totally opposed to gun control.
To run against Michelle Bachmann’s views on these issues is out and out political suicide.
Sez Mark: “What you constantly fail to address is that although what Michele believes and even says,is “nutty†and “crazy†it is NOT to the vast majority of Minnesota voters who are vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage, are very devout religiously, are strongly pro-life, and totally opposed to gun control.
“To run against Michelle Bachmann’s views on these issues is out and out political suicide.”
And what you fail to address, Mark, is that Makeover Mark Kennedy ran on God, Guns, Gays and Gynecology and had his a$$ handed to him by pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights Amy Klobuchar. What happened to that “vast majority of Minnesota voters” there?
Michele Bachmann’s victory in the 6th was at least as much about the dismal candidacy and campaign of Patty Wetterling as it was about support for Bachmann.
The Iranians have every interest in seeking a weakened and divided Iraq. Take a look at the last 30 years of regional history – Iraq and Iran went through an incredibly bloody war during the 1980s in which both sides suffered horrendous losses.
The Iranians have been funding Sunni militias in Iraq see http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20070412.aspx. Just because the Iranians are Shi’a doesn’t mean that they won’t use Sunni militias towards the end of keeping their long-standing enemy divided and powerless.
Bachmann was clearly referring to the al-Qaeda in Iraq declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq (which included a map showing its borders) and the fact that having an Iraq that’s divided into warring clans suits the Iranians just fine. Calling her “certifiable” for making a perfectly reasonable (if inarticulate and poorly worded) statement is just piling on.
Mark says
“BASED ON WHAT INFORMATION????? That is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made. She beat Patty Wetterling, a well known name making her second run in the district after flirting with a statewide race (she raised tons of money in her short term Senate “campaign†which was a significant advantage) by 8 points in a bad Republican year.”
Surely that’s not the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever made. Ms Wetterling, while a much admired individual, is not a good campaigner. She did an atrocious job both times she ran for that seat. If the DFL bothers to nominate a competent politician who is both up to speed on the issues and capable of speaking in logical & complete sentences they will do very well against Rep Bachmann. As other posters have noted, Rep Bachmann’s somewhat unorthodox views on issues important to voters – lets use the Iran/Iraq topic of this thread – are becoming more well-known and covered by the media. Rep Bachmann is going to have a much harder time hiding her somewhat bizarre worldview from voters next time around. Given the way the GOP is trending under Bush admin leadership, Dems are likely to do well again in 2008; I’m not at this point predicting a 2008 loss for Rep Bachmann, I am stating her odds of losing in 2008 are higher than of her wining the Senate in 2012.
I think its funny that with the vast majority of the population being in the metro area for the entire state of MN, Mark seems to think Bachmann could beat Amy. The MPLS area resoundingly elected Ellison. Klobuchar resoundingly beat a Kennedy campaign that shares all of Bachmanns stances on the issues. Anyone at the state fair senate debate knows Mark is in a dream world. Bachmann has no chance of winning a state wide election.
“Her political strength is national”
Great. If people in other states start voting in MN she might have a chance.
“Her political strength is national, not local”
If her political strength and appeal is not local how do expect her to win a local election?
“the vast majority of Minnesota voters who are vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage, are very devout religiously, are strongly pro-life, and totally opposed to gun control.
To run against Michelle Bachmann’s views on these issues is out and out political suicide.”
How would you explain Mark Kennedy’s thrashing at the hands of Klobuchar? Let me guess, I dont understand politics either?
Mark wrote:
What you constantly fail to address is that although what Michele believes and even says,is “nutty†and “crazyâ€
(Okay, we’re on the same page here)
… it is NOT to the vast majority of Minnesota voters who are vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage, are very devout religiously, are strongly pro-life, and totally opposed to gun control.
You’re very cynical. I know from reading your posts in the past that you think politics is “about winning elections” and that underpins a lot of your analysis.
I don’t agree that “the vast majority of Minnesota voters are vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage, are very devout religiously, are strongly pro-life, and totally opposed to gun control”–if each and every item on that list represented a truth, the Dems couldn’t have got in last year. I’m open to persuasion–if you show me a bunch of polling numbers from a reliable source that prove, for example, that “a vast majority” of MN voters are “vehemently opposed” to homosexual marriage, I couldn’t argue with you about a fact. (My perception is that most voters don’t really give a s about it (they care much more about economic issues; that a small, powerful and politically active minority of MN evangelical voters really think that gay marriage is a core issue that spells the end of Western civilization.)
If you’re talking about the northern and western part of the 6th district, you’re probably right. Outside the cities there’s obviously a lot of voters who make up their mind on the basis of wedge issues.
All the same: the professional media could have stopped her, by reporting and writing about her craziness. That conclusion stands, because if–through media coverage- it becomes a well-established and proven fact that a candidate is a nut, their voter support drops–because though the guys on conservative talk radio and the guys who run and fund the GOP want candidates who spout the conservative line, they don’t want to sponsor a candidate who has been exposed by the professional media as a “nut.” They would have found another GOP conservative to run, instead of the nut; they could have won that way, too, without the embarrassment to the party.
The embarrassment to the party would have been severe–in a doom-laden year for the GOP (with the unpopular war and president) you can’t present the conservatives of Minnesota with a candidate who’s been identified by the media as a documented nut. They would have pulled the plug on her a long time ago, if the media had been printing her craziest statements.
An example from out of state: the GOP down here in Louisiana still has a slight hangover from the days when David Duke was the GOP candidate, and was beaten by a Dem who’s now in prison. They’ve had to live down that Duke nomination ever since–because everybody knew what Duke was when they allowed him to be the nominee.
“Michele Bachmann’s victory in the 6th was at least as much about the dismal candidacy and campaign of Patty Wetterling as it was about support for Bachmann. ”
Patty was not a great campaigner that is true.
But the demographics of the district are storngly favorable to Bachmann.
Now she has the edge as an incumbent, she will be running against a lesser known opponent, and will have a distinct financial advantage.
marka wrote:
“Her political strength is national, not localâ€
If her political strength and appeal is not local how do expect her to win a local election?”
Answer: 1) Money. From out of state, from conservative organizations that back an extremist right wing agenda (eg, in the last election she got $50K from a group pledged to end public eductation ENTIRELY.) Plus special interest money–the banking stuff, the national conservative PACs and campaign funding organizations.
Marka–do you think that because it’s national money and not local money, it doesn’t “count?” This is the money that is used to put on the TV commericials that created the image of her as a conservative Minnesota mom (as opposed to an extremist conspiracy touting theocratic nut.) Most of what people know about her before the congressional election comes from those commercials, those campaign mailings, those GOTV drives. That one way you can win a local election because your political strength is national.
2) Her biggest and most active backers are the evangelical political movement (EPM)–which is national, not local. The EPM controls Christian radio stations here in MN, broadcasting into Bachmann’s district. Over the past six years they’ve devoted hours and hours of radio time to promoting the career and views of Michele Bachmann. If you had to pay for that political advertising, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more than a hundred thousand, after six years. Bachmann gets it for free, because she works with and for James Dobson and the EPM; they’re in bed together. The EPM gives Bachmann advice on how to present herself to the voters, what issues to target (homophobia is a great favorite, so is the war with radical Islam, many others.)
And right before the election, the EPM sets up voter registration drives–in the churches, on the phones, wherever–to the get the vote out for their political proteges–to make sure that all those people who believe that Bachmann is the local candidate who represents Jesus Christ, show up on election day.
It’s a very efficient, nationally organized, researched effort by the EPM to put “their” candidates into local races. And, as with Bachmann, it’s effective.
The reason you don’t understand this about Bachmann is because the local media didn’t report her on-going and substantial affiliations to this national movement. They still don’t–so far as the big papers are concerned, Bachmann’s a conservative Republican, no more than that.
So that’s how a person whose political strength is “nationally based” can win in a local election, in some districts where that national movement is active. That is how a national organization outside the district, can, in effect, choose who’s going to represent you in Congress–and this is what has happened in the Sixth District of MN, under the media radar.
There’s no denying that Bachman is a devout Christian whose words and actions are entirely consistent with her beliefs. She even obeys the 11th commandment that is often ignored. You know, the one that states, “Thou shalt lie and claim it is in my service.” In case you weren’t aware, the 11th commandment trumps that silly other one about bearing false witness. Smearing the journalist wasn’t wrong; it was a moral imperative.
“if you show me a bunch of polling numbers from a reliable source that prove, for example, that “a vast majority†of MN voters are “vehemently opposed†to homosexual marriage,”
If the anti-gay marriage amendment was actually put on the ballot it would receive 60+% of the vote. That is why the Democrats savaged Michelle Bachmann to begin with because they never wanted that amendment to be put before the voters.
“the professional media could have stopped her, by reporting and writing about her craziness. That conclusion stands, ”
Again, NOTHING prevented Patty Wetterling from doing so and according to you it would have been in her best interests. She never did. Her ad campaign consisted of a strange ad about Michelle Bachmann supporting the Fair Tax plan and distorting that to mean she favored raising taxes 23% and anti-Mark Foley ads. If she is so obviously a NUT then why didn’t Patty point that out instead of running a campaign ad that at best can be described as a distortion?
“the GOP down here in Louisiana still has a slight hangover from the days when David Duke was the GOP candidate,”
Really? The GOP replaced John Breaux with a Republican Senator, held the govenor’s chair for two terms before Kathleen Blanco who probably will be replaced by a Republican in the next election, and have run very well against Mary Landieu who probably was elected to her first term using massive voter fraud and barely beat Bobby Jindal in the last election.
Bill P writes
“in the last election she got $50K from a group pledged to end public eductation ENTIRELY”
This, to my mind, is probably the most under-covered story of the last election. Why Wetterling never raised the issue is incomprehensible to me. To the extent that 6th district voters are more conservative and either tolerate or support Bachmann’s positions on abortion & gay marriage, her preference for the elimination of public schools should be a good issue with which todemonstrate her bizarre worldview.
Mark asks “If she is so obviously a NUT then why didn’t Patty point that out instead of running a campaign ad that at best can be described as a distortion?”
Because, as has already been noted & agreed upon, Patty Wetterling ran an incompetent campaign. As was discussed at the time, the Wetterling campaign blew it with the Fair Tax ad, given that there was so much more & better material with which to attack.
“in the last election she got $50K from a group pledged to end public eductation ENTIRELY”
Which PAC do you claim this is?
“Because, as has already been noted & agreed upon, Patty Wetterling ran an incompetent campaign. As was discussed at the time, the Wetterling campaign blew it with the Fair Tax ad, given that there was so much more & better material with which to attack. ”
Again, if is SOOOOOO obvious why didn’t she do it? The answer is that even though you may think her views are crazy, Bill P may think her views are crazy, and even I may think that her views are crazy, the MAJORITY OF THE 6th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT DOES NOT. They totally support her views on gay marriage and abortion, as is their right to. To run the “CRAZY” ads would be to take positions opposite of the voters of the district and that would be CRAZY for a candidate. Even Patty knew this.
Perhaps Bill knows the name, but it has been mentioned here before. She is active in a group that promotes home schooling & the idea that the gov’t should be entirely out of the schooling business.
JayReding wrote:
“Bachmann was clearly referring to the al-Qaeda in Iraq declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq (which included a map showing its borders) and the fact that having an Iraq that’s divided into warring clans suits the Iranians just fine. Calling her “certifiable†for making a perfectly reasonable (if inarticulate and poorly worded) statement is just piling on.”
JayReding–You’re just plain wrong. She wasn’t “clearly referring” to anything. The description she gave in the interview was to some fictitious Iranian-sponsored state in the northern and western part of Iraq. She hasn’t ever made it clear what exactly it was she was referring to, even though reporters have called her to give her the chance to explain what the source of her claim was:
her claim that there was
IN EXISTENCE
an agreement with Iran
to divide Iraq
and set up a new terrorist safe haven state
in the northern and western part of Iraq.
JayReding–there is no such agreement. There was no such agreement. She’s already admitted that. If you’re a member of the United States Congress announces something that’s patently false, without foundation–during war time–you are going to look like a fool when that statement is exposed as false.
Which this one was. And the reason she looked like a fool is because she IS a fool–she did not know what she was talking about, didn’t care that she didn’t know what she was talking about, obviously didn’t care what she was talking about (if she had, she would have bothered to get the facts on Iraq and national security straight, before making a public statement containing this “bombshell.”)
In the same interview she made another equally egregious idiocy–not reported by the media. She insisted that the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict in Iraq was not a millenial conflict, that the two sects would go back to being brothers real soon.
So there you have Michele being the irresponsible fool. What Black gives us in the piece above, is Michele being the irresponsible liar, when she’s called out on being the fool. She’s lying, mischaracterizing what she claimed, distorting how it was reported–all to avoid taking personal responsiblity for her own actions; lying to her evangelical base to “minimize the damage to her career.”
It’s disgusting, but if you’ve been watching Bachmann’s career for years–it’s not surprising.
“To run the “CRAZY†ads would be to take positions opposite of the voters of the district and that would be CRAZY for a candidate. Even Patty knew this.”
That’s why you don’t run the crazy ads on abortion & gay marriage, you run the crazy ads on “This woman wants to ban public education so kids don’t learn about evolution.” Perhaps I’m way off base, but I suspect that position is a little too conservative, even for the 6th.
“Perhaps I’m way off base”
You are off base.
And, I am still waiting for the group that you claim gave Michelle Bachmann $50,000 in the last election cycle.
“You are off base.”
I see. So you think the 6th would support a candidate that proposes that public schools be shut down?
“So you think the 6th would support a candidate that proposes that public schools be shut down?”
I don’t think Michelle Bachmann has actually proposed this.
Yeah, I know the name of the people who gave her that $50 grand. They have an unforgettable acronym: ASSS (the Alliance for Separation of School and State.)
But I don’t think they gave it to her as a PAC. I’m not sure–I don’t have it in front of me. The donors were identified because they were a string of names coming out of Georgia, I think, and they all started donating $ to Bachmann’ campaign in MN–it turned out that they were all members of this ASSS organization, which is working to remove all funding for public education. (They ask members to take a pledge to do so.)
There’s videotape on YouTube of her denying that she took their money, and in the next breath inadvertently admitting that she did indeed take their money.
The Alliance for Separation of School and State made absolutely no contributions to her as an organizations.
As for the State of Georgie there were a total of 8 contributions from that state:
1. Bob Barr Leadership Fund $1,000
2. Barry Connor Individual $1,900
3. Barry Connor Individual -$1,900
4. Barry Connor Individual $4,000
5. Barry G. Connor Individual $6,600
6. Bridget Connor Individual $3,400
7. Bridget Connor Individual $1,000
8. Henry Miyares Individual $500
Most of this money went to the Bachmann Minnesota Victory Campaign, which was a PAC, not her campaign.
I don’t think Michele has actually proposed that public schools should be shut down either.
Someone once asked me for a list of her ten most extreme political positions, and I answered that she doesn’t have any extreme political positions–on the record. She is an extremist is posing as a conservative Republican; she is not going to openly adopt extremist positions–even if she admits to such views in private, or before crowds who hold extremist views.
Bachmann will extremist statements, when she thinks that there are no reporters around, and these are sometimes recorded. The “base” that got her started in politics is extremists: federal government conspiracy nuts, paranoids, and theocrats who want to take control of the GOP.
This Minnesota political phenomenon was not deemed “newsworthy,” by the reporters who cover politics in Minnesota. Strange decision, by a group of professionals whose responsibilities traditionally include keeping nuts *out* of political office.
I want to hear more of this alleged $50,000 in campaign contributions to Bachmann from this group. You made the claim. I showed the 8 Georgian contributions, none of which looks very distrubing to me.
Now, your claims are that she is a PRIVATE extremist with secret conversations with bad, bad people. Your conspiracy theories look lamer each time you bring them out.
It’s a fact that she took the money from ASSS activists. Two of the people you yourself listed on this blog as Bachmann contributors are prominent ASSS activists. Other ASSS supporters who gave Bachmann money came from other states: Tennessee, Colorado, Ohio and Minnesota.
When she was accused of taking this ASSS money in the PiPress, Bachmann did not comment, did not demand a correction or a retraction. As I say, there’s video of her on YouTube admitting it, saying that there’s nothing wrong with taking ASSS money. If want more information about it, I suggest you contact her office.
I am not claiming she is a “PRIVATE” extremist. I am claiming, and have proven, that she is an extremist nut posing as a conservative Republican. You know that this is what I am claiming, and you yourself have already acknowledged in this thread YOU think she’s a nut. So do at least half of this state’s GOP insiders, I bet.
So here you are setting up another one of your cherished strawman arguments. For practice, I guess.
“So do at least half of this state’s GOP insiders, I bet. ”
This is a very telling statement. It proves what I have been stating, that is, that all of your statements are pure conjecture on your part. “I bet” is not a real strong statement.
“Two of the people you yourself listed on this blog as Bachmann contributors are prominent ASSS activists”
Which two?
Way to go Mark. BP has proven he can’t back up his hate speech in the past and you are calling him out on it again. First he claims she got “$50k from a group” and now it has been watered down to taking money from 2 individuals who have no direct association with any such group other than possibly contributing money to them.
BP likes to call others names “bigot, liar, extremist, nut,…”. He is a supporter of the anti-Christian bigotted website called DumpBachman. He must be trying to be the Don Imus of the site given his/DB’s past statements.
You guys are just being silly. This stuff is documented. The two people on Mark’s list who are ASSS activists are the Connors, Barry and Bridget. Other members of the ASSS group come from the states I named in the previous posts.
As I also stated in the previous posts, the ASSS people who gave her money didn’t do so as a PAC, they made the contributions as individuals. So these out of state individuals, who support ASSS and its agenda, are funneling thousands of dollars to a Minnesota candidate who’s claimed that federal education laws passed by a Republican Congrees are a conspiracy to imposed socialist one world government on Minnesota.
So you got the sprinkles, you got the ice cream cone, but you two political geniuses can’t figure out how to put them together. Well, the rest of us can, and Bachmann has admitted that she took the money from these people.
As for “hate speech”, I don’t know what definition you’re using, Cash, but it’s not “hate speech” to call a politician a bigot, a liar, and a nut if she’s on the record promoting bigotry, telling lies, and signs her name to a statement accusing Republican Congress of participation in a conspiracy to imposes socialist one world government on Minnesota. Bachmann has done all of that, and much, much more. She’s done it in print, on CD audio, and on videotape.
I cannot change what Bachmann has said and done, on the record, and neither can either of you. You can pretend she’s being slandered and live in your little fantasy world, but and the end of the day it’s her own words and conduct that convict her of the “bigot, liar, nut” charge.
If you are really interested in seeing the proof, go to The Bachmann Record web page, where you will find an extensive collection of quotes by the Congresswoman herself–with the dates and sources. It’s under Bachmann quotations. I am not ashamed of collecting that stuff and recording it; you should both be ashamed of trying to damage control for a bigot, liar and nut.
Last comment is in moderation. No obscene language, just a rebuttal of false charges by Mark and Cash.
Hey, don’t pick on BP. He is priceless.
He even writes novellas over on the Westover blog, so
he must be quite needy.
It all reads the same: MB blah, blah, blah
Different MB day, same blah.
And if anyone could judge a nut, it would be BP.
As for the thread, this is why Dems avoiding Fox (or MB dodging EB) is so in vogue,
people who give hour upon hour of interviews will invariably say controversial
things, so avoid “journalists” who may be unfriendly and ask tougher questions.
I just find it flipping amazing that people will micro-breakdown interviews looking for that
“gotcha” thing. Most people would know who they would vote for based on yes/no
answers to 10 basic questions: abortion, tax, war, tort reform, schools, etc.
The rest is simply the unending,vicious smearing of people in public service starting
with W and Kerry and working down to even local officials.
I, however, thrive in leaving the politicians alone and mocking those criticizing
our public servants. 
)
I am wondering if this guy will lose his job too ( I doubt it though).
Malik Shabazz Calls Michelle Malkin a Prostitute On National TV!
“No Justice… No Peace!”
Malik Shabazz, leader of the The New Black Panther Party, says he will not apologize for defending black women…
Then… Calls Michelle Malkin a political prostitute for the white racist on the O’Reilly Factor!
Michelle Malkin: One of your members said to one of the Duke Lacrosse players that he was a dead man walking. You’re not going to apologize for that?
Malik Shabazz: I can’t confirm that’s true. Will you apologize for being a political prostitute for Bill O’Reilly a white, male, chauvinist, racist as a woman of color?
Michelle Malkin: You want to call me a whore on national TV?
Malik Shabazz: Yes… For a woman of color you should be ashamed of yourself.
Dump Bachmann isn’t anti-Christian. Michele Bachmann doesn’t represent all christians, and criticism of Bachmann isn’t anti-christian. As Black so eloquently showed in this post, Bachmann has a little problem with that bearing false witness commandment.
Bill Prendergast is absolutely correct that Bachmann is a nut, liar and a bigot. This post of Black’s demonstrates an example of nuttiness and her lies. Her bigotry against gays is legendary.
I did the original research on Bachmann’s ASSS contributors. I matched names and address of their contributors against contributors to Bachmann’s campaign. It totalled over $50,000, and there’s probably more in her year-end report that came in after the election.
The ASSS website is here:
Their supporters signed this pledge:
“I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education.”
You can search their contributors here:
http://www.schoolandstate.org/proclamation.htm
You can search Bachmann’s contributors here:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
Do your own research if you don’t believe me. You’ll come across some other interesting contributors besides these ASSSes–multimillionaire advocates of using eminent domain to take public property, John Birch Society authors, and of course a passell of Lake Minnetonka fat cats.
“The fact that the district is by far the most conservative district in the state means that Bachmann should win handly each time she is nominated.”
So, Mark, are you saying that the 6th district voters simply cannot learn? –that they simply will not turn against Michelle Bachmann REGARDLESS of what she says or does, as long as she is a conservative? I choose to give them more credit than that. They are Minnesotans, after all, which tells me they know when to say “enough!”
“Bachmann has admitted that she took the money from these people.”
And exactly what is the matter with that? It was not that I did not believe you, I just wanted the information. They have the right to contribute to whomever they want. THe amount of money that Bachman raised from outside of the state was much smaller than Wetterling. People have the right to contribute to the candidate that best espouses their interests.
In fact, I agree with their position!!! Public education is a failed government monopoly that maximized the value of its entrenched interest groups like the teachers, retired teachers, and unionized public employees rather than the interests of the children.
“Mark, are you saying that the 6th district voters simply cannot learn”
Learn?? Learn what? Michelle Bachmann’s positions on social issues is much closer to the 6th District voters than yours or Patty Wetterling’s.
Again, the opposition candidate for teh congressional seat never used any of these things she said or did as part of her campaign. Why? Because it would have been detrimental to do so.
Mark: Patty Wetterling’s campaign claimed the same position on the gay marriage issue as Michele Bachmann to the mainstream media. She said different things when she was talking to gay audiences. Her campaign returned a check to the Human Rights Campaign. On the social issues, the abortion issue is a bigger challenge than gay issues in the 6th district. There has been polling done on that topic which supports this.
She chickened out on her Almanac appearance, and how much you want to bet that she’ll go back to KKMS to whine about this one.
“Patty Wetterling’s campaign claimed the same position on the gay marriage issue as Michele Bachmann”
OF course she did, which just proves my point. If such talk and positions are “nuts” why does Patty Wetterling adopt them?
Patty Wetterling saying different things to different audiences on the gay issues hurt her with parts of her base. She wasn’t about to get the bigot vote, who were voting on that.
She was also an abysmal debater, attacked Bachmann for her support of a value added tax (without also saying that Bachmann wanted to look at replacing the income tax with a VAT), then didn’t know the difference between a flat and value added tax.
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)