Guestposter Kevin Diaz: Jewel meets Bachmann, and it’s magic

June 20th, 2007 – 4:50 PM by D.J. Tice

diaz_1.jpgWashington Correspondent Kevin Diaz reports on a capitol odd couple that included a Minnesota pol:

Former foster mom and freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann bonded this week in Washington with formerly homeless singer and recording artist Jewel.

The two appeared together before the House Ways and Means Committee about the educational needs of the nation’s estimated 510,000 foster children.

The Minnesota Republican has been a foster mom to 23 children.bachmann2.jpg Jewel, who remembers playing for Eskimos and Aleuts in the bush of her native Alaska, once lived out of a van.

Bachmann, an evangelical Christian, and Jewel, who sang the Top 10 hit “Who Will Save Your Soul,” both are the products of broken homes.

“If anyone needs a leg up in life, it is foster children,” Bachmann said, according to an account in the St. Cloud Times. “They are great kids. They just want to know that somebody loves them.”

Jewel, who followed Bachmann at the witness table, paid her as jewel.jpgnice a compliment as a lawmaker can expect in Washington:

“Hearing the congresswoman, I wanted to camp out on her lawn and live with her, I liked her so much.”

Kevin Diaz

19 Responses to "Guestposter Kevin Diaz: Jewel meets Bachmann, and it’s magic"

Bill Prendergast says:

June 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Ah! It’s Mr. Tice who is the mysterious “administrator”, apparently. Good; accountability–always a plus in journalism.

Thanks for the piece, Kevin Diaz. But I still think you should apologize for your pre-election description of Michele Bachmann as a “child saftety advocate” in the pages of the Strib, without checking out the facts on that. Her voting record on children’s issues stank, when you told Strib readers that she was a “child safety advocate” (“Gee, just like her opponent Patty Wetterling,” thinks the unsuspecting reader, reading Diaz.)

Michael Blaine says:

June 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Does Kevin Diaz work for the Strib, or People Magazine?

Michael Blaine

Cash N. Carey says:

June 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

It is great to have a positive comment on a conservative Christian. Thanks Kevin.

MB/BP – It just gets to you deep down doesn’t it to know what a good person Michele is. How many foster children has she raised? Looks like she places her money where her mouth is.

God bless you Michele! says:

June 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

I’m very impressed with Michele Bachmann. It takes a special person to be a foster parent, and I’m glad to see that someone in Washington cares enough about people in need to actually help personally.

littlemissinfidel says:

June 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Yawn…maybe the Strib wouldnt have to fire everyone if they concentrated on NEWS, and readership and advertising numbers. Huh, ya’ll disgust 50% of the population that arent moonbat liberals, and then its such a surprise that you don’t have anyone that actually wants to pay for your newspaper? duh frickin duh

littlemissinfidel says:

June 20th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Kevin, will you like comb your hair and stop wearing a vest and a big chocker? Please?

Bill Prendergast says:

June 21st, 2007 at 12:37 am

In a story about 6th District race campaign financing, Strib reporter Kevin Diaz noted that Bachmann opponent Patty Wetterling was a “child safety crusader.”

But Diaz went on to add this:

“Bachmann, known as a crusader against abortion and gay marriage, is a mother of five, a foster mother of 23 teenagers and a child-safety advocate in her own right.”

WHAT? An incredible claim, given Bachmann’s horrific rating from the non-partisan, non-profit Children’s Defense Fund.

In 2005, Bachmann received a 17 out a possible 100 rating from the CDF for her votes on children’s issues in the Minnesota Senate.

For 2003-2004, Bachmann’s rating on children’s issues was zero.

Bachmann voted against a bill that required Child Protective Services to investigate allegations of child neglect.

Bachmann voted in favor of cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the Health and Human Services budget and dropping more than 38,000 people from public health care coverage over the next four years. Children and families represent the largest number of people dropped from coverage.

And Bachmann voted to limit medical coverage for newborns.

So spare me the stuff about how much Bachmann cares about children. She cares about children who are in the room with her, once they’re out of sight she votes against them and their continued health. The stuff that Diaz and the Stib print about how much she cares about kids is sheer “photo op,” professional journalism at its worst.

Like hell she cares about children, like hell she’s a “child safety advocate.” My a55 is more of “child safety advocate” than Michele Bachmann.

Les says:

June 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am

Two stories on our freshman legislatures. One about funny Amy, one about Mindless Michelle testifying about education.

So Bill, who’s doing thier job, and who’s playing at it?

Why dont you have something to say about the candidate who ran as a “tough prosecutor”, yet puts in her two cents for keeping an illegal alien in the state? Where’s that “I even prosecute Dems” attitude now?

Mark the sequel says:

June 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am

Bill P says:

WHAT? An incredible claim, given Bachmann’s horrific rating from the non-partisan, non-profit Children’s Defense Fund.


Bill, we all know you despise Bachmann and we know the reasons why, especially given your propensity to share them anytime, anywhere. But calling the Children’s Defense Fund non-partisan is like calling AFSCME, NARAL or Focus on the Family non-partisan. Marian Wright Edelman and her successors have all been big-government liberals. Of course CDF rates Bachmann poorly; they rate all Republicans poorly.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pm

M the S– I’ve heard that argument before, about CDF–is there a child advocacy group that *praises* the voting record of conservative Republicans on children’s health care?

The thing about Bachmann and children is not that some group rates her poorly–it’s her *votes*, the yardstick that anyone would use to rate a legislator on how much she cares about children and children’s issues.

If Bachmann’s votes on children’s health issues were admirable, I would praise her for those votes. They’re not admirable, and that’s why *Bachmann* doesn’t talk about her legislative record on children’s issue–it’s horrible; she concedes that when she refuse to talk about it.

So instead of actually achieving something for the children of MN, we get her talking about her 23 foster children (how many times has that been reported in the last six years?) and the photo op with “Jewel”, and the Strib describing it all as “magic.”

Pardon me for puking in face of hypocrisy.

Royinoslo says:

June 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Two things our Congressbabe could do to shore up her “rep” as a child safety advocate is get behind efforts to make sure all children are covered by health insurance, and make sure they are all taught sex education to raise the likelihood that they be responsible and safe.
How ’bout it, Michele?

Bill Prendergast says:

June 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Roy said:
Two things our Congressbabe could do to shore up her “rep” as a child safety advocate is get behind efforts to make sure all children are covered by health insurance, and make sure they are all taught sex education to raise the likelihood that they be responsible and safe.
How ’bout it, Michele?

Roy, Michele’s off the record answer to that one would be: “Why should I? What’s in it for me?”

She’s reaped great political rewards from raising 23 foster children. The papers are still covering that, in place of substantive news about her record. It’s as if the Strib decided to run her campaign literature instead of covering her policy and voting.

The fact is that the 23 foster children are her chief claim to fame, besides the anti-gay stuff. If she left the 23 foster childrend off her self-promotion agenda and was restricted to talking about her legislative achievements–she’d have virtually nothing to talk about, after six year as an elected official.

She’s bitterly partisan,she’s only broken with the GOP on one issue: No Child Left Behind (which her wackier supporters see as a big government attempt to prepare America’s children for “s0c1ist one world government.) She’s not going to support universal health care for kids (“a big government program/expansion of the welfare state”) or federal sex education programs (“besides abstinence?” GAK! say her evangelical masters and supporters.) Not unless you can show her what’s in it for her; not unless James Dobson comes out for the same big government programs. Fat chance.

John E Iacono says:

June 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm

to BillP:
Just because she does not buy into every government program that flies by does not mean Michelle Bachman hates kids — just the typical wasteful ways of throwing money to government employees who are supposed to care but often don’t.

This represents a difference in philosophy about the role of government, and says nothing that would allow her to be described as not caring about children. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

Mark the sequel says:

June 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am


Like I’ve said before, we disagree. Conservatives generally (and I mean generally) aren’t eager to let self-appointed governmental experts dictate how children should be reared. CDF is a lobby for self-appointed governmental experts, so they don’t appreciate conservative approaches to these issues.

I’m reasonably certain that my wife and I are better equipped to make decisions for our children than Marian Wright Edelman is. It would be one thing if CDF were willing to just have governmental authorities deal with children who don’t have competent parents, but they want the government to make fundamental decisions about and for all children, often in direct conflict with what parents might wish. Perhaps you are comfortable with that, but I’m not.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 am

M the S–

So, getting back to what I asked you–you’re saying you couldn’t find *any* child advocacy group that recommends conservative GOP candidates on children’s health issues? Is that right?

If so, it explains why CDF looks “partisan” to some people–if liberal Dems vote *for* funding vaccinations to schoolchildren and conservative GOP vote to cut that funding–well, yes, CDF is going to recommend Dems over GOP and I suppose looks “partisan”, if you completely ignore the issue of children’s health.

Second: you are still content to attack CDF rather than defend Bachmann’s votes–which doesn’t surprise me: you say you would support governmental authorities dealing with children who don’t have “competent” parents–Bachmann won’t even do that.

Look at this one again, which I already printed here: Bachmann voted against a bill that required Child Protective Services to investigate allegations of child neglect. Bear in mind that except
in cases like child neglect or “parental incompetence (as you put it)”–
it’s not like the policies are being imposed over parent’s objections. They *want* their kids to get their shots. You’ve raised a non-issue in Bachmann’s defense.

It’s the votes, the votes you have to explain in order to defend her, Mark. As I said before, it’s not about what CDF thinks, it’s her votes you have to explain if you want to play the apologist for her.

For that matter, why won’t she explain them or talk about them or even mention them, if they’re defensible? If her votes represent (as John says) “a difference in philosophy about the role of government”–then why doesn’t she talk about these votes, instead of trotting out her “23 foster children” story for the thousandth time.

And John–what “philosophy of government” wants to see more sick children in the world, rather than less? What is that “philosophy of government” worth, if it produces a result like that?

Mark the sequel says:

June 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm

As usual, you miss the point, Bill. I’m not here to defend Bachmann. She can defend herself, or not. I don’t have any reason to be her apologist. I simply objected to your calling CDF a non-partisan organization, when clearly it is not.

But if you want to keep playing Wile E. Coyote to the Bachmann’s Roadrunner, go right ahead.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Okay, then–you claim that CDF is partisan. This is very easy to clear up, and this will be the third time I’ve given you the chance to do it.

What is the name of the NON-partisan children’s advocacy group that is giving conservative Republicans (like Bachmann) “good marks” on their children’s health votes?

If your whole problem with my analysis is that CDF is blatantly partisan, you should be able to point to some credible non-partisan organization on Childrens’ welfare that distributes good marks to Dems and GOP “more fairly.” Right?

If you can’t, I guess we’re both stuck with the fact that fact that the CDF analysis tends to favor Dems over Republicans for the most obvious reason–the reason that the Dems have a better record on supporting children’s health than GOP.

But keep trying. If you really care about children’s health issues–ask ‘em why they cut children’s health care– write your GOP representatives and see if you can get them to explain those votes. They don’t like to talk about them.

I’m glad you’re not here to defend Bachmann by dismissing CDF criticism of her voting record as “partisan.” Because that’s a stupid argument. Look at the votes, Mark, the votes.

Mike B. says:

July 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I’ve been hearing about Bachmann’s 23 foster kids without much in the way of details. Can someone enlighten me about what she actually does or did as a foster mom? 23 foster kids plus her own brood plus a career would seem to leave Michele spread rather thin IMHO.

lloydletta says:

July 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm

For the true story about Michele Bachmann –

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.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.