It just keeps on coming
--posted by Tony Garcia on 4/17/2006
(H/T: Eva)
It seems that Michele Bachmann is a little shadier than I thought. I do not have TV (much less cable) in my house...and so it irks me to find out that I'm paying cable for a supposed champion of the taxpayer.
According to public data from the Minnesota Senate Office of Fiscal Services, Senator Bachmann requested reimbursement from the Minnesota Senate for cable television at her home in Stillwater. Bachmann submitted an itemized Comcast bill for reimbursement which listing cable service:OK, so she is against social services EXCEPT when it comes to her benefit. That would be a hypocrite!
Standard Cable (includes basic 1 $8.96, Expanded Basic $30.51, Basic 3 $3.32)
$19.99 (discount subtracted), paid on February 11, 2005.
Standard Cable (includes basic 1 $8.96, Expanded Basic $30.51, Basic 3 $3.32)
$24.69 (discount subtracted), paid on December 15, 2004.
Bachmann submitted a non-itemized Comcast bill for reimbursement on three occasions:
$125.00, paid February 11, 2005
$102.11, paid June 1, 2005
$76.38, paid March 14, 2005
Key questions to ask Michele are
1) During those months did your family refrain from watching any TV?
2) During those months did you use the TV for ONLY State Senate business?
3) How do you reconcile this with your "advocate for the taxpayer" position?
Hmm, I am willing to be the Republicans will still line up behind her at their endorsing convention.
7 Comments:
I think you unintentionally phrased the dilemma incorrectly.
Candidate that fights for "family values" which personally violates some of the tenets of "family values" OR 3 other candidates that fight for "family values" which do not violate personally those "family values".
But what strikes me as a more compelling question is this: What are "family values"...do they not include honesty and integrity? Or has that term truly been watered down to be ONLY about abortion & gays?
Narrowing your focus to just one indiscretion?
Expensing personal costs at taxpayer expense is just one of MANY issues with integrity that Bachmann has.
I think it is more telling that you are STILL reframing the question. The question is actually do you support a candidate that fights for "family values" which personally violates some of the tenets of "family values" OR 3 other candidates that fight for "family values" which do not violate personally those "family values"?
Integrity...is that a part of family values? I guess not.
Interesting rhetorical game you are playing in the interest of defending Michele. On the one hand you leave to consideration the topic of what is in the post, specifically the expensing of personal utility bills at the expense of the taxpayers she claims to fight for. Actually, you seem to glance over that contradiction within her actions. You seem only willing to consider the expensing of a little bill and sweep away the fact that it is a personal-usage bill.
On the other hand you throw away the limitation of considering things outside of the post to benefit the defense of this ethically-challenged girl ("anti-reimbursement for cable TV, or fighting for family values").
So, since you are playing both sides I will humor this dishonest rhetorical tactic by answering on both sides.
ONLY WITHIN THE POST: (Family Values defense of Michele not allowed in this side of the Metzler defense.) Expensing personal utility bills through the State Senate accounts is wrong. It is bad enough we pay legislators over $31,000 per year. Put on top of that a generous per diem and expenses that are related to their legislating is a large enough burden on the taxpayer. Then to have thugs decide to have the taxpayers pay for their personal use utility bills is suspect at best, should be illegal at worst. (If it is not illegal I think it should be.) Pile on top of that the fact that Bachmann claims to be THE best friend of the taxpayers of the 4 candidates means that THIS utility bill issue proves her hypocrisy. Or it proves that she is of the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality. You decide which is worse to you...either way that is not someone that can be trusted to stay clean in Washington.
CONSIDERING INFORMATION OUTSIDE THIS POST: (the part of the Metzler defense that includes Family Values) Bachmann claims to support "family values" and you uphold that claim for her. Oddly enough you have yet to define "family values". I think it is because my question exposed more in that term than the "family value" crowd likes to admit. "Family Values" is code for gays and abortion...and nothing more. Bachmann is carrying this banner to fool the theocrats (the segment of religious people who are more prefer a theocracy on Christianity than respecting separation of church and state). There are other people who are sucked into her (empty) rhetoric. The point of this post is that there is a clear picture about Bachmann's true character which is contrary to the facade she presents. See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and that is only the stuff I decided to take the time to write about.
Now convince me this is a person that a person who supports integrity can back.
Convince me this is a person who believes in the party.
Convince me this is a person that PRACTICES family values (that is, family values beyond just anti-gay and anti-abortion).
Finally, something I missed in your first comment. Ingratiating myself with delegates blah, blah, blah is not my goal. I really do not care what those delegates think about my pointing out Michele's hypocrisy. From what I have heard and witnessed the delegates to the 6th Convention are supporting Michele so long as she continues SAYING what she is saying regardless of the truth and regardless of what she actually does. They don't care how bad of a person she actually is as long as they get a couple more steps closer to a Christian theocracy. And if she destroys the 6th CD GOP's structure really does not matter to me...I'm not a Republican. But I will sit back and say loudly, "See, I told you so."
And you are kidding yourself if you think Michele has not stacked the convention. So, that is where you Republicans are at...there is really only a choice in the general election of "conservative in words only" Republican...do YOU stand behind her? To me, that sounds like a candidate that will not measure up to any other candidate.
But go ahead and explain how this woman, champion of "family values", lying, cheating and dishonest champion of family values is actually a candidate worth standing behind. Actually, explain how she is an example of "family values"...well, first for that we need the definition that you are going by for "family values".
And in the end my larger criticism of the GOP is demonstrated through your defense of Michele. It is a lie to say the GOP is about character. They are willing to (and are) embrace Bachmann as a candidate to represent them. I cannot see how ANYONE can say that "character matters" while defending this candidate with character equivalent to Hilary.
Michele Bachmann in her own words:
PER DIEM
"We keep telling Minnesotans that we're all going to have to 'share in the pain' as we work to solve the state's fiscal crisis.Cutting our own salaries will provide us a level of trust and credibility with our constituents that we wouldn't otherwise have." (Source: Senator
Michele Bachmann press release, February 4, 2003,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040422213645/www.micheleBachmann.com/press_releas
es/030204reduce.htm, Accessed November 6, 2005) (FLIP)
"We in the Legislature haven't had a pay raise since 1997, but think we have to set the example, not only by freezing our salaries, but by taking a pay cut." (Source: Patrick
Sweeney, "STATE GOVERNMENT: Two bills propose pay cuts for legislators", Saint Paul
Pioneer Press, January 31, 2003) (FLIP)
Senator Bachmann didn't set an example by cutting her own salary. She has accepted almost $30,000 in per diems since she introduced this bill. (FLOP)
This cable bill is just icing on the cake..... It's part of a pattern of behavior from Michele Bachmann.
What kills me is that she is one of the few legislators that should not be claiming ANY per diem...or at least claim the lowest amount. She does not have to pay for hotels, etc. Most of her meals should be taken care of at home.
What a scam she is pulling.
"H/T Eva"??
Pfft, have another cocktail Tony.
In the mean time, I'll take up a collection and see if we can't get you a TV. Or maybe it's time you just finish filling out those Section 8 and AFDC applications...then you can be pissed off that the state didn't provide you with a 50" plasma like everybody else.
Hmm I wonder if she got the 3 free months of Cinimax and HBO, if so I guess she support the public display of girl on girl action.
Post a Comment
<< Home