Bachmann calling the kettle a no-show--posted by Tony Garcia on 8/08/2006
There are many character issues that have made me advocate people skipping the 6th CD race. One of them (which is typical in all politicians) is hypocrisy. Something else that I hate in politicians is the lying done...or half-truths...to decieve people not paying close attention.
Enter Michele Bachmann's latest mailing.
...one out of four, the sixth district deserves more. What would your employer do if you only showed up twenty five percent of the time?Now I will tip my hand here. Bachmann is talking about Wetterling attending one in four events. The first question is: are these "four" simply based on invitations or are they based on confirmed appearances?
Key question, especially in dealing with Bachmann. Her letter continues:
It is a sad day when a Congressional candidate decides veterans and local businesses are not worth the effort to show up. I received an invitation to attend a candidate forum sponsored by both the [....] and the [...]. Even though I had a previous commitment, my scheduler made it work. Given that Patty cancelled the day of the Forest Lake forum in 2004, I can understand why allowances were not made for candidate schedules.Interesting attack. But her stone-throwing continues (a concept that she, as a Christian/Charismatic should understand):
I am disheartened that Patty Wetterling continues the "no-show" trend from the 2004 election cycle and chooses not to debate. It is a choice. My campaign and the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce held open the whole month of August for a forum including Patty Wetterling. After more than 30 days, it is disappointing that she still has not committed.Hmm, look at the bold face there. A choice, indeed, yet Bachmann's campaign claimed in her defense of her own inability to hold to commitments that circumstances beyond a candidate's control are what cause someone to no-show, not a cognizent choice to no-show.
Look at the underlined item. That answers the previous question...Bachmann is using dishonest campaign tactics (no surprise there). Per Bachmann, Wetterling is a no-show for NOT committing to an event. Interesting. If, in light of Bachmann's release today, it is objectionable (and proof of being unqualified for Congress) for a candidate to not even commit to an invitation then it stands to reason that confirming and then not showing up is even more objectionable (and stronger proof of being unqualified for Congress).
Considering that each of the 3 candidates have this morning been sent an invitation for interviews on our show let us hold Bachmann to her own standard. Michele...you better not no-show...not even by failing to commit to an interview.
Why the determination on this from me? Because of the hypocrisy (or in the parlence of Republicans, the flip-flop) and the double standard by Bachmann and the blind eye from her supporters. Because of the "do as I say/demand not as I do" attitude that flows in every aspect of Bachmann's public life AND the "protect ours from criticism of the thing we attack others for" attitude from her loyalists.
From my own witness alone Michele Bachmann's Congressional campaign has displayed a disregard for confirmed commitments on 2 of 3 occassions. This is a detailing of the 3rd event. On top of that was an interview in August that was confirmed, no-showed and then rescheduled and an event that was scheduled in February which was confirmed, no-showed, rescheduled, no-showed and rescheduled to her convenience. Then during the entire event she complained about how the scheduling was terrible for her...and trying to blame ME for the choice of dates when it was HER PERSONALLY the selected the time.
Be wary of the steaming loads that come from her mouth...she did not hesitate for a minute to lie about people during the endorsement run, she will not hesitate for half that long to lie about people during the general campaign and she will not bat an eyelash about lying about her own record. She is a charlatan, constantly claiming to be ethical, of higher standards and a follower of religion. (For the record, if THIS person the shining example of the Religious Right and devoutly religious people then a more solid case has been made justifying for being a Philosophical Theist instead of joining any church!)
And this is what Republicans hold up as a great candidate!
********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.
********** UPDATE ********** 8/9/06
Added a comment and made a factual correction.
********** UPDATE ********** 8/10/06
Welcome to the readers of Pair O Dice. Hopefully you will be able to digest a fact that is evading your referrer: I don't like any of the candidates in the race. Binkowski and Wetterling for their platforms; Wetterling for some character issues; and Bachmann for some serious character issues.
I will skip that race on the ballot as none of them deserve a vote. I advocate others doing the same. The issue is this: Wetterling's platform will be picked apart by damn near everyone; Bachmann's platform will be picked apart by everyone else; Binkowski's will be but his campaign is not a threat to win. Thus, my objections to Wetterling & Binkowski are already covered.
My objections to Bachmann are shared by many within the GOP, but they are being covered up for the lone sake of winning. I disagree with the philosophy that winning every race in every election is the prime goal. You have to stand for something. It used to be that the GOP stood for "character matters", but they don't. They have devolved to "gotta win", and for some they devolved to a worse point in "gotta make the Dems lose". That is not standing FOR anything. The Dems fell into that as a party since 2000. The fact that the GOP has slid into that mentality in recent years is troubling and a sign of piss-poor leadership. That mentality quickly filtered top-down to many of the activists I personally interacted with earlier this year. THAT was the reason I left the GOP to its own demise. I have no obligation to help or support poor GOP candidates. If the members of the GOP don't like that fact they should do a better job of offering good candidates to the voting public.
And, in the narrow-minded thinkings of your referrer, to not support his horse means supporting the opposition. That is fine thinking for the obtuse and for the unintelligent. But the open-minded individual understands the idea that sometimes there is noone worthy. That is what I happen to believe of the 6th Cong. District.