Michele Bachmann Is a Real Face of the GOP and Tea Party

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Please put her comments into full context and don't cherry pick.
Bias much?

Kevin of IL 4:38AM March 30, 2011

Woody Alford of WA:
You state that you are a "retired engineer." What kind of engineer were you? My Uncle is a civil engineer, and he always, carefully researched the entire background and requirements of an assignment. He carefully researched political news, also, because he knew that newscasters and pundits are not required to tell the truth, and most corporations pay big money to have newscasters and pundits tell lies about the politicians, and misrepresent and distort thousands of chronicles of government and politics.
It is odd that my Uncle has come to totally different conclusions than you do about the political landscape we have witnessed in the last several years. The only way to learn the truth is to seek primary documents. Did you, Woody, come to form your opinions based on primary documents? If you read a newspaper, a magazine, a book, watch television and/or a film, listen to the radio and/or listen to a recording about any political topic, how could you say that any of them were primary documents? If not found in a primary document, how do you know truth?
You feel quite free to disparage, but where are your citations? Do not worry, you won't be sued for libel and slander; you do not have to tell the truth on the Internet either. If anyone accused you of lying--no problem--anyone, anytime, anywhere, and in any media forum can lie! We will lose our democracy because of this, however.
How can you make intelligent decisions about a candidate's character, ethics, veracity, and leadership if all of us are free to lie to one another? How do we elect a representative for, we the people, if we do not actually know the truth about this candidate? Your statements (below) fall into the realm of propaganda. That is legal too! When we lose our democracy because we could not determine what was propaganda and what were facts, which candidate is worthy and which candidate is not, I hope you will happily thrive in our corporate oligarchy.
Your right to vote should be based on the truth; if you do not search for the truth, you deserve what you get. The representative for you will be based on which corporation paid the most money to win the election of the candidates of the Corporation's choice. You will probably vote for who the corporation wanted anyway; News Corporation, for instance, DOES have the best propaganda--and you like propaganda, obviously.
Woody's Propaganda Statements:
"dim witted Democrats..."
"scares you poor morons..."
"He is the most laughed at president we have ever had...."
"...he is found out to have been supported by Muslim extremest, and that Socialist bunch out of Chicago.....?
Could you provide citations for the above statements? If not; you are spitting into the wind.

Ann Keenan of MI 11:22PM February 05, 2011

I cring when I watch her.

JWH of PA 7:10PM January 31, 2011

Where were you when barry was SPENDING US OUT OF RECESSION ? You think there is no consequences for spending ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD ? Barry unheard hugh debt.
Drastic cuts must occur. They (government) has squandered social security piggy bank too. Cuts will be steep on everywhere. Nobody will be happy.
I wish vets could be a special exempt group. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Those injured in war must be exempt.
I for one want illegals off the gravy train first. I am 100 % for AZ newest law taking away business license for companies hiring illegals. We need citizens filling jobs & not drawing unemployment.
The quicker we turn our economy around, the less likely we will harm our veterans benefits...

Bill Hedges of MO 11:38PM January 30, 2011

Take it easy on P Fenn. The market for democrat campaign consultants took a sharp downturn last November. More democrat campaign consultants are chasing fewer re-election campaign contracts. And their recession will likely double-dip in 2012.
I doubt very much this piece was written for serious public consumption. Reads more like he's giving a free sample to democrats that survived the Nov. 2010 midterms, to give them a good idea of what he could do for them as a campaign consultant.
Let's hope they bite. The only thing P Fenn apparently left out was the four-digit product code they may need to mention to get a 10% discount off his services.
What probably frosts the P Fenners royally is that Obama has Ryan and the traditional republicans looking over his shoulder. Ryan and the traditional republicans have Bachmann, DeMint, Paul and the Tea Party looking over their's and Obama's shoulders. And from outside of office, the whole lot of them have Palin looking over all their shoulders. P Fenn seems to interpret that as a divisive situation for the right, and staked his claim here to exploit that tact. That's the drawback of being on the outside looking in, with your nose pressed up against the window. P Fenn's missinterpretation of exploitable divisiveness within the right is really bench depth. All things, not just Obama, are being pulled back to the right, from multiple sources of pull. Upcoming court decisions will likely add to those sources of pull.
Can't really say that there's much of a pull from the left post mid-terms. At best Reid is scrambling to keep Obamacare repeal from being debated and voted on in the Senate.

dom youngross of OH 7:43PM January 30, 2011

Is Michelle Bachmann another one of those Republicans giving the back of the hand to our vets while their supporters chant "USA! USA! USA!"? Can anyone see the irony in this?

Uncle Sam of DC 6:30PM January 30, 2011

Is this bruce person for real...God God!!!

zoie of IN 10:48AM January 30, 2011

"What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details":
•"President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
"UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added."
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Bill Hedges of MO 8:14AM January 30, 2011

Although she later explained this was only a "suggestion", had she had a positive response, I'm sure she would have pushed the issue.
I'm a conservative, however, Bachmann is one to be watched (...only to be sure she stays in line!).

Haberdashery of ID 8:07AM January 30, 2011

"So why do they say he had a surplus?"
'As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors."
"Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security."
"Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:"
"Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy."
"When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bill Hedges of MO 7:39AM January 30, 2011