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.
Labels: Republicans
11 Comments:
Let the record show Tuesday nights debate in Forest Lake started before Michele entered the building. Someone needs to buy her a new watch. I always make sure to arrive at least 15 minutes early for any job interview.
Tony can I pass along a big "thank you" on Wetterlings behalf? You're doing a swell job.
For myself, I think I'm beginning to undersand the nuance behind your "principal before party" rhetoric.
Allows a guy to play both sides of the fence against the big finish when you can claim that all of your prognostications were spot on no matter what the outcome.
The joy's of hubris aside however, I'd prefer to do what it takes to keep any more members of "the reality based community" from getting anywhere near the halls of power.
But that's just me.
BTW, if you play your cards right I'm guessing you're on trackto earning yourself a spot on the dumpster diver hall of fame.
Truthfully, Swiftee, I could not care less about your input. The more I see your reaction the more I know these two truths are, well, truths:
1) Partisans (in both parties) have no principles...at least none that they are actually willing to stand up for
2) Party over Principles is overtaking the ranks of both parties...and its effect is alienating those who actually can think outside of a Party Position Paper.
I have no prediction for the 6th...it really comes down to this question: Can the Republicans overcome the number of people from within they drove away (which may be small in numbers, but has a multiplier effect) OR will the Democrats be able to hide Wetterling's positions from the public enough to bring out large numbers of uninformed zombies.
Personally, I advocate a "Present" or "None of the Above" vote.
And if doing so costs the GOP the seat then they should use that stinging sensation as a reminder in the future to select better candidates.
You never answered the question I subtly posed to you (perhaps it was to subtle for you to understand?). What is the one specific principle to which you are beholden to? I know it is not character, as you overlook character issues in your chosen candidates. I know it is not fiscal conservativism or small government or even roads over transit because you rhetorically fellate the Governor while denigrating Jeffers. So, what is that ONE principle you hold dear?
Or is it really that you have only a loyalty to the party and hold no principle for which you would buck the party and its endorsed candidates/incumbents?
And, for the "thank you on Wetterling's behalf" you need not thank me. You need to thank Bachmann. She is the one providing the lies. Oh, that's right, "Character matters" was only a campaign slogan for you...a lying candidate needs to be covered up for if they are in your party and destroyed if they are not in your party...right?
Don't thank me...Bachmann is the hypocrite. Don't thank me...if there were not a coward among the GOP leadership I would not be the sole person on the far Right calling a spade a spade...regardless of Party affiliation.
Ironically the reason I joined the GOP from the independent ranks was the "character matters" issue. For Republicans-first people it is only a campaign slogan. It is that principle which drove me to leave the GOP and go back to the ranks of the independents.
"if you play your cards right I'm guessing you're on trackto earning yourself a spot on the dumpster diver hall of fame."
Great, more posts by you filled exclusively with half-truths and misrepresentations. Should be interesting to see how your distortions will be written this time.
"I know it is not fiscal conservativism or small government or even roads over transit because you rhetorically fellate the Governor while denigrating Jeffers."
LOL...you asshat, I endorsed Sue Jeffers way back in April!
"So, what is that ONE principle you hold dear?
Having at least a hint of a clue about what I intend to talk about before I open my mouth.
You should try it...if you think that Wetterling wouldn't mind too much..pffft.
"LOL...you asshat, I endorsed Sue Jeffers way back in April!"
I stand corrected.
"Having at least a hint of a clue about what I intend to talk about before I open my mouth." That is an interesting one to vote on. Who are the candidates this year that advance that...NOONE.
Actually, that is an interesting dodge of the matter within the question...so I ask it again (more directly since any implicit premises seem to repeatedly avoid you): What
is the one principle which you will not vote against?
And, to be frank, if Wetterling wins because someone points out Bachmann's behind the scenes lying and hypocrisy you need to thank Bachmann for being a liar and a hypocrite.
She should not be casting stones from a glass house...and it seems she is doing a lot of that.
Why you insist on thinking that I'm trying to help the Wetterling campaign is beyond me...I would like them all to lose because I find them all objectionable on either a platform and/or individual basis. But, I guess, continue trying to kill the messenger if that is what it takes to make you feel better about your horse. Typical partisan...you actually are no better than the "liberals" in that you would rather avoid the issue and instead attack the messenger.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong...I see you are unable to do the same.
The reality is I will skip the race when I vote...or write someone in. None of the candidates deserve my vote. Wetterling, by virtue of slight character issues and her platform; Bachmann entirely for her character issues; Binkowski for his platform.
I choose noone, root for noone and hope for none of them. Thus, it is folly for me to say which I would "hold my nose for" and pull the lever. I will not vote AGAINST someone which means I will only vote FOR someone. If I do not find reason to FOR someone then I will skip it and brace myself for 2 years of being "represented" by someone I deem unworthy of my support.
Simply the possibility of the GOP losing control of Congress or losing the 6th CD is not sufficient for my support. That is a problem with (1) the performance of the GOP while in power and (2) a problem with the candidate selection process of the GOP.
There is no "disillusionment" with Bachmann for I have never been "illusioned" by her to begin with. From the very first moment that I shook hands with her and talked to her there were problems. It became clearer for me at the little debate last fall.
I'm not trying to convey a message of "punish the 'R', kick them out" and I think that is an improper mixture of my major advocacies. My message is, in the 6th, that none of the candidates are worthy of being voted for...so skip it. It is not the fault of the voter that the parties forwarded unworthy candidates. My other larger message is that incumbents are, well, the problem with this country. Booting out 100% would do this country good. Who replaces them would be left to the primaries and general elections. As for the other 'R' in the state...only two of them will I not be voting for. Pawlenty (for abandoning fiscal conservativism recently) and Kiffmeyer (for incompetence in her office, and partisanship in an office I believe should be devoid of it).
"Is there no other way to gain support for this feeling than to work towards handing the seat to someone who..."
Sorry, but I do not accept that someone deserves my vote because of parameters beyond their merit...thus Bachmann will not get my vote simply because "someone else might". That is, in essence, voting AGAINST someone...which I will not do. I railed against the "anyone but Bush" mentality because it is dangerous in the end. To embrace your idea that 'the opponent' is so dangerous to the country requires a premise that she is that powerful. I don't grant that, but for the sake of argument I will continue on that premise. If she (and the rest of the Democrats) are so dangerous that they can wreck a state and country in simply two years then they would be the first.
Furthermore, to destroy the country would also require the country is weak...so much so that only 2 years is needed to destroy it. I reject that.
It also implies that the Republicans (whom you wish to return to power) are incapable of halting a Democrat agenda anywhere near as effectively as the Democrats have blocked the Republican agenda. I cannot reject that as it is proven over the past 6 years how ineffective a GOP majority has been. But if the GOP is so incapable as a minority then why should they be granted power in the majority either? Again, this is the fault of the GOP in their selection of candidates.
"I'm guessing that your blogging about this and using your influence to hurt MB is NOT going to accomplish your stated goal - to "teach the R's a lesson"
Again, I am not looking to teach the R's a lesson. I am only taking each race in which I have a vote and voicing why I choose one way or another. The fact that Bachmann's character is so poor that she leaves herself in such a position is not my fault. If she did not lie, there would be no lie to expose. Funny thing is, the lie was in the e-mail summary...I do not otherwise open the e-mails from any of the candidates.
"and instead will simply mean that your voice, and any like-sounding voices, will end up being marginalized because of the anger people are going to have towards you."
That happens to anyone that publicly speaks out against the party's darling. Period. That is THE ONLY reason Swiftee comments...to further attempt to marginalize. And I guarantee he (and his lemming brethren who think Bachmann is God's gift to the GOP) will continue what they have done to this point: misquote and misrepresent, fail to print corrections, etc.
That is how it works with both parties. Dissent from the GOP is not permitted...just look at how Andy treats Jeffers supporters, or how Kennedy supporters treated Grams supporters, or how Eibenstiener supporters treated Carey supporters...dissent is NOT welcomed within the party. I saw this in every single convention over the past two years, each caucus...dissent is not allowed within the GOP. I know that first hand. I have heard it second hand from many, many people.
"You don't effect changes of philosophy by cutting off dialogue and relationship."
I'm not trying to cut off dialogue...contraire, I'm trying to allow dialogue on the character issue (which was the GOP clarion call in 1996 and 1998...guess character means little anymore to the GOP). Observe insted the dialogue between you & I...respectful and open. Observe the dialogue from Andy, Swiftee and the rest of the Bachmann-is-wonderful crowd. Attack the questioner, ignore the question. So if in allowing dialogue it means cutting a few ties to the thin skinned...so be it. Cutting ties to those who fail to even try to understand the questioning...so be it.
The biggest difference is that while you & I understand each others positions we still disagree. That is the dialogue being open. On the other hand Swiftee and Andy and others simply resort to namecalling and ignoring even the question...there is no understanding. Without understanding the opposition, the doubters or the ambivolent there is no chance to get better or even join forces on converging causes.
Why did Pawlenty win in 2002? Because in understanding the opposition he was able to mold his message and unify the conservatives...unify the fiscals, socials and moderates. It is because the questionING was accepted and addressed, unlike now where the questionER is attacked.
"I choose noone, root for noone and hope for none of them."
Bullsh*t.
You're actively promoting the campaign of a left-wing goofball over the campaign of a dedicated conservative candidate who is far and away the best choice based upon any criteria you choose...
Ya know, for a guy whose out here claiming the moral high ground, I'd expect you would have the balls to just come out and admit that you prefer the lefty.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself...you're certainly not fooling your pals the dumpster divers; you are probably their most oft quoted supporter.
Really, don't you think it would be most ethical for you to take some time off of this website and join the dumpsters?
Swiftee, you are more obtuse than people give you "credit" for.
I do not prefer any of the candidates...yet your fragile mind mistakes apathy for all as opposition of one.
The fact is that of the 3 candidates ONE of them has very serious character issues (liar, hypocrite, charlatan, etc) and has been relatively ineffective as a legislator. The latter can not be fully blamed on her as the colleagues in her party are too weak-spined to offer much assistance. Her public tactics outside of the Senate chambers, while entertaining and theatrical, are more damaging to her cause than helpful.
The other two I disagree with most of their platform. Wetterling has some character issues which I think are now becoming exacerbated by being in a tight campaign (and frankly, her character issues are replacing her political inexperience). Binkowski's platform is less objetionable than Wetterling's but not good enough to support.
I support none of the three...actually oppose all of the three.
I keep telling people that my readership is a smart bunch...and always have to remember that you are the example that forces me to add, "for the most part". I suspect that is the REAL reason you are unable to hold a conversation about the topic at hand.
That being said, I no longer wish to engage in shooting each other personally. It is unproductive and serves no purpose.
If you wish to discuss arguements, thoughts, issues, candidates, etc then I welcome the change from you and look forward to that. Look at the rest of the comments for an example of that.
If you wish to continue your banality just know it will go without a response...which is what all of your comments should have been given: no response.
"That being said, I no longer wish to engage in shooting each other personally. It is unproductive and serves no purpose."
Why stop digging now Tony? China's down there somewhere for sure!
Post a Comment
<< Home