Why Did Michele Bachmann Bravely Run Away From Voting on Congressional Office Budget Increases?

Reader Aubrey Immelman notes: I notice Rep. Bachmann did not vote on H.R. 2918. Minnesota media should ask her why she did not join the majority of her Republican colleagues in voting against the 8 percent increase in the budget for members' office expenses the House approved for itself. It's noteworthy that the National Taxpayers Union has characterized the increase as "fiscally reckless" in the current economic recession and has vowed to include members' vote on the spending bill in its ratings of lawmakers. Perhaps DB readers should write the National Taxpayers Union and request comment on Michele Bachmann's cowardice. UPDATE: A commenter notes that Michele Bachmann was with her stepmother who died that day.

Mitch Berg: Another Right-Wing GOP Pack Rat of Rancid, Rotting Ideas (and Politicians)

Right-wing blogger Mitch Berg calls me a bobblehead for asking if he was a PRT-promoting pod person. In the same post, he claims the Dump Bachmann blog has "no informed, logical readers". The reason I asked if Berg was a pod person is he linked, in this post to PRT promoter A.T.E's blog and used some of the same arguments that pod people use when they argue that PRT is un-tested and deserves more taxpayer money to prove it is "faster, cheaper, better" than conventional transit. When Conrad Defiebre corrected Berg in the comments that PRT had in fact been tested on three continents and failed, Berg argued that conventional transit requires subsidies... a Pod People boilerplate argument that Dean Zimmermann used recently and Bachmann used in this MPR article from 2004: "People on the right, people on the left, we have the common goal of moving people with transit, but doing it in the most cost-effective manner, in fact, in a manner that may end up costing no government subsidy, it may end up paying for itself," Berg may not be a PRT-promoter, but he knows that PRT promoters still infest the MN GOP so he will not reject the notion that PRT is a lousy idea promoted by Republican politicos like Bachmann or Krinkie. Berg's problem... and the MN GOP's problem is they have become compulsive hoarders of bad ideas and bad politicians... how long did it take for the MN GOP to get rid of Rep. Mark Olson? They just can't discard old, awful ideas like PRT.... the MN GOP big tent now resembles one of those garbage houses that get into the news now and then. The point is the MN GOP isn't going to win elections promoting dumb ideas like PRT. It didn't help Ray Cox. It's also likely that the MN GOP's rapid slide into political obscurity will accelerate unless they also dump Michele Bachmann.... just saying.

Tips on How Michele Bachmann's Office Could Save Money

Michele Bachmann embarrasses Minnesota yet again. She's mentioned in an St Louis Today on how congressional offices could cut spending: Shut up. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., one of the House's biggest spenders in the first quarter, spends a lot of time making stupid statements on TV, such as "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under Democrat President Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it is an interesting coincidence." Actually swine flu broke out under President Gerald Ford, a Republican. Think of the time her staff spends apologizing.

Superseding Indictment in Petters Case Mentions Foundation Bachmann Lauded in Pardon Letter

The Petters-Fraud website has the new superseding indictment of Tom Petters (PDF). A list of wire communications are presented as evidence. Among them this mention of a wire transfer of $4,060,000 from the Fidelis Foundation to "PCI's account". PCI is Petters Company Incorporated. Michele Bachmann lauded the Fidelis Foundation in her pardon request for Frank Vennes Jr.: Bachmann wrote: “As a U.S. Representative, I am confident of Mr. Vennes’ successful rehabilitation and that a pardon will be good for the neediest of society. Mr. Vennes is seeking a pardon so that he may be further used to help others. As I know from personal experience, Mr. Vennes has used his business position and success to fund hundreds of nonprofit organizations dedicated to helping the neediest in our society. The Fidelis Foundation, backed by Mr. Vennes, has directed over $10.7 million in total gifts in the last three years, and the Fidelis Foundation has ranked #6, #9 and #7 as the largest grant-making foundation in Minnesota over the past three years.” The Fidelis Foundation is a Plymouth, Minn.-based nonprofit organization “organized to assist Christians in discerning, clarifying and implementing God’s call and direction in their life,” according to the group’s tax filings. Its chairman is G. Craig Howse, Vennes’ lawyer, and the organization leases office space from Howse for $1,300 a month. Howse has donated $5,000 to Bachmann’s campaign committee since 2007. Interesting! Especially in light of Bachmann's campaign against ACORN. Craig Howse and Fidelis was mentioned in a recent article about a dispute between the Living Word Bible Camp and neighbors on Deer Lake in Business North : The camp is represented by Twin Cities attorney Craig Howse, who gained unwelcome media attention recently as board chairman and finance committee member of Fidelis Foundation. The foundation made what the Minneapolis Star Tribune described as “large, unconventional loans” to Twin Cities businessman Tom Petters, who is now jailed on federal fraud and money-laundering charges. (Howse, who has not been charged, agreed to an interview for this story, but did not call back by deadline.) Speaking of Tom Petters, here's a quick sketch I did on Tuesday of Tom Petters at the Federal courthouse in St. Paul:

Bachmann is a Big Spender of Taxpayers' $$$

Politico has an article about increased spending by congress members: While businesses across the country are cutting back, members of the House saw their own office budgets increase by an average of 7 percent between 2008 and 2009 ...and which spendthrift congress member is featured in the article (with picture)? Rep. Michele Bachmann spent more than $100,000 on printing and franked mail in the first quarter. Her chief of staff said the filings included the office's biggest mass mailing of this year and that she expects lower printing and mailing costs over the rest of the year. Bachmann is always complaining about government spending, but Bachman is no different than her mentor George Bush when it comes to wasting the taxpayers' $$$.

Bachmann's "Psycho Talk" About the Census

Bill Prendergast Explains it All for You

Sister Wendy couldn't have done a better job... Comics Reporter: Close Reading Of Ken Avidor Cover There's a series of comic books out there featuring women in and sort of in politics that has received an inexplicable amount of attention for how clumsily they're done. A similar comic PR-wise with almost nothing in common with those comics content-wise is False Witness, a comic about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann by Bill Prendergast and a number of other Minnesota cartoonists. It has a bit of an edge about it concept-wise as well, as in underground comix tradition Prendergast asserts that the book is a corrective to local media coverage. Here's one of those editorials-as-promo pieces, where Prendergast dissects an astounding-looking cover by Ken Avidor. Nice of them to give me all the credit for the cover, but truthfully, the cover idea and the comics inside are Bill Prendergast's words and vision inked by members of Minnesota Chapter of the Cartoonist Conspiracy. You can also learn what the cover of FALSE WITNESS: THE MICHELE BACHMANN STORY is about (and purchase copies online) at the www.biasedliberalmedia.com website.

Michele Bachmann Announces She Will Commit a Crime

by commenter Anna: Michele announces that she will commit a crime If you listen to the interview there's so much there I just don't know where to begin. She completely misrepresents the status of the Coleman/Franken race . . . she says, "we're still in a recount with our US Senate race". That's a lie. The official recount is OVER, and we're at the State Supreme Court review level, after a judicial panel already ruled for Franken (she conveniently doesn't even mention those facts). Oh, and those other "personal" questions on the census form? Like whether there are preschool or elementary school children in the house? Those are used to plug into formulas that are used to provide proper funding to programs at state and local levels. Refusal to answer is not only against the law, it works against a community's best interests . . . federal funding for these programs, at the proper levels, is important. Bachmann apparently doesn't understand why we need to get the census right, so that we can obtain a snapshot of our communities and determine the important issues, and make policy based on demographics in those communities. I can't believe this woman is in Congress.

PARDONGATE: Craig Howse Back in the News (In Deer Lake)

An interesting article about a dispute between the Living Word Bible Camp and neighbors on Deer Lake in Business North. A familiar name is mentioned: The camp is represented by Twin Cities attorney Craig Howse, who gained unwelcome media attention recently as board chairman and finance committee member of Fidelis Foundation. The foundation made what the Minneapolis Star Tribune described as “large, unconventional loans” to Twin Cities businessman Tom Petters, who is now jailed on federal fraud and money-laundering charges. (Howse, who has not been charged, agreed to an interview for this story, but did not call back by deadline.) Howse also represented Bachmann's pardon pal Frank Vennes Jr. and was a big contributor to Bachmann. .. and a church Dump Bachmann readers may be familiar with: Newton said the camp appears to be connected with Living Word Christian Center, a controversial megachurch in St. Paul that preaches “prosperity gospel,” the notion that God rewards the faithful with material wealth. Ron Hunt said there is no connection. In fact many unrelated religious groups use the name “Living Word.” The camp adopted the moniker in 1976, four years before the St. Paul church existed. A posting on www.reedconstructiondata.com, a national database of construction projects, lists Living Word Bible Institute (a defunct branch of the St. Paul church) as owner of the Grand Rapids camp and Amcon Corp. as the general contractor. (Eagan-based Amcon built Living Word Christian Center’s main center.) But representatives of both Amcon and the Christian Center said they were unaware of the Grand Rapids camp. A spokesman for Reed Construction Data was unable to determine where the information came from. Interesting.

Is Mitch Berg a PRT Pod Person?

Right-wing blogger Mitch Berg has a post on his blog fisking an article by former Star Tribune reporter and editor Conrad deFiebre at Minnesota 2020 about a misleading exhibit at the Minnesota History Center about transit. Conrad deFiebre wrote the following: Worse yet, the exhibit also includes plenty of promotion of personal rapid transit, a thoroughly failed technology that has been embraced by both the rabid right and the lunatic left, mainly as a foil to responsible transit proposals. Mitch Berg admits that PRT is hopelessly pollyannaish" but criticizes Conrad deFiebre for saying PRT is “thoroughly failed”. And let’s be clear: Personal Rapid Transit seems to be a rather pie-in-the-sky proposal that’d crisscross cities with small rails for tiny, taxi-like rail cars whose destinations could be programmed for anywhere on the system, rather than shuttling back and forth on a single line. It’s utterly un-tested, and it’s the kind of thing that draws all sorts of fawning resolutions at caucus-time demanding government support, and its cost estimates (which are usually about 10% those of light rail lines per rail mile) strike this tech/engineering industry hanger-on as hopelessly pollyannaish. But “Thoroughly failed?” It can not “thorougly fail” unless it’s been “thorougly tested”. Not true. There have been many PRT experiments over thirty years costing hundreds of millions of dollars... all failed to prove that PRT was "faster, cheaper, better" than conventional transit. The PRT guys will argue that these experiments were successful, but the PRT guys will argue for the sake of arguing. So how many chances should the PRT guys get? Lets hear what Mitch Berg's colleague David Strom says about PRT: Does Mitch Berg really think PRT deserves another chance? Is Mitch Berg wondering that maybe former Rep. Mark Olson was right when he said PRT could be the next Microsoft? Does Mitch Berg believe Minnesota's own would-be PRT industrial magnate Bill James' claim that PRT will employ millions of people?: Here is the video I made about the MNHS exhibit for The Uptake: UPDATE: Conrad deFiebre responds on Berg's blog: Thanks for the kind words about my reporting career. No thanks for some of the slants in the rest of the post. My main point was the lack of balanced comment about personal rapid transit in the History Center display. There were no discouraging words to match those heaped on light rail, and I think that is a disservice to the public. And, this being a free country, I’m allowed to argue that point with stronger language than was appropriate in a newspaper report, even with invective. A few other points: 1) I didn’t write the headline, which I agree poorly reflects the article. 2) Ken Avidor, whatever his merit as a cartoonist, was not a “source” for my article. He was what we call a tipster. He alerted me to the slanted History Center display, but I checked out his information on my own. 3) I documented waning opposition to responsible transit development in a recent post at Minnesota 2020. 4) PRT has been exhaustively tested on three continents and come up short in nearly every case. 5) I’ve reread my piece and still can’t discern Berg’s alleged puffery about light rail, except for a single sentence that reports the Hiawatha line’s ridership and economic development successes. Berg responds by attacking me: Conrad, Re your right to argue: true, and fair enough. And I’m arguing back. Re your other points: 1) Fair enough. 2) Perhaps a fair point, but it looked like your conclusions about PRT were pretty indistinguishable from his. While I think it’s a pie in the sky fantasy as techology at this point, technology (and especially new engineering concepts) rarely succeed or conclusively at the prototype stage. At any rate, he’s not a name I’d advertise as a tipster if you want anyone outside the fever swamp to read the reference and not shake their heads and move on. Just saying. 3) Interesting, and worth a post on its own. 4) True. And noted in this blog in the past. 5) I wrote somewhat imprecisely; “Puffery” was a pre-caffeine word choice. But claims as to light rail’s success are pretty much devoid of context: while the Ventura Trolley’s ridership is high, it still only generates 30% of its operating revenue from fares. That’s hardly a bargain for the taxpayer; were it more widely known, it might cause some of that waning opposition to wax again. Thanks for writing. Mitch Berg is absolutely correct, I am a terrible cartoonist and unlike Mr. Berg, an untidy, unkempt, loathsome, public nuisance... and if you are a revolting denizen of the "fever swamp " as I am, or just eager to gawk and join other upstanding citizens like Berg who "shake their heads and move on", come to Drinking Liberally on June 25th and meet me in person. If you purchase Bill Prendergast's Bachmann comic book and bring it, I will sign the wretched cover I did for it.

Bill's Michele Bachmann comic book is now in print and can be ordered

Yes, that's right. I received the first 500 print copies of the first issue the other day, and they look good. Cover is by Ken Avidor, and a bunch of very talented young Minnesota artists inked my pencil drawings inside. I already mailed Ken a free copy, but everyone else here has to pay. It's $4.95, including shipping and handling, and--it's all TRUE. Makes a lovely gift for Bachmann haters (or even Bachmann lovers, if you're passive aggressive.) The first issue is about how she got started in politics. Twenty four pages of electrifying black and white comics that have never been printed before. To order it, you go here: http://www.biasedliberalmedia.com and then you press on the "Contact or Purchase" link at the top/left of the page. You will be taken to a page which has a little "PAY NOW" button. You can use that to buy a copy via Paypal, which doesn't seem like real "spending." And there's a little animated cartoon of Michele there now, too, you know. I think the book's very funny, though it starts out sad. I would have announced its publication here on Dump Bachman first--but would you believe it, there were people who ordered advance copies and I promised them I would fill their orders first. I expect every man-jack of you to go to that website and order a copy of the first issue (you too, dare2sayit, it's only the price of a six pack of Bud) and tell me what you think. This isn't a Dump Bachmann publication, it's a Bill Prendergast thing--so if you don't like it, don't write to Eva or Ken. But I think you will like it.

How a Bachmann "Tele-Town Hall Meeting" Works

I "attended" my first one today, so I thought I'd tell you about it. The first thing you need to know is that it's nothing like a traditional town hall meeting, despite the name. The idea behind the traditional American town hall meeting is that the people's elected representative will appear in person before interested members of the constitunency, and take un-screened questions in the order they are asked by members of the audience. That's not what's going on here, at this Bachmann Tele-Town Hall Meetings." What's going on here is, essentially, a conservative talk radio format without the broadcasting. Let me explain. The first thing that happens is that a constituent who's interested in these meeting receives a pre-recorded call from Michele telling them that such a "meeting" is scheduled or in progress. That happened to me today. So I dialed in. When you do that, you hear a pre-recording of Michele welcoming you to "meeting" and telling you that you must press "STAR/3" to get into the phone queue to ask her a question. Then you're placed in a phone queue and you can listen to Michele conduct what is essentially an "over the telephone" conservative talk radio show, starring Michele Bachmann. What you hear, as you're waiting for her to take your question, is Michele taking other people's questions--presumably the people ahead of you in the phone queue. The phone event lasted about fifty-six minutes after my arrival, according to my cell. Michele made introductory remarks and then took (I think) about nine different calls from constituents. Of those callers, at least three claimed to be acquainted with her personally. Seven of the callers asked questions indicating that they admired her and shared her worldview. One call was a rather desperate call for help from a women who had recently lost her job (as has her spouse) and was looking at being thrown out of her home. Bachmann responded by telling this caller that we hadn't made it easy enough for small businesses to operate so that people like her and her husband could keep their jobs, and that people who had jobs should now be working at peak performance to make sure they kept them. She also said that the caller should stay on the line after she "went off the air" so that Bachmann's people could help her with her problem. (I would really love to know what actual help Bachmann's office is going to offer these individuals. I don't understand why Bachmann couldn't explain publicly what help *is* available to constituents with the same problems as this caller. There are a lot of people with similar problems in her district, more than ever.) All of the questions, except the one from the desperate unemployed constituent, were "softball"--they were directed squarely at her latest GOP talking points of choice. They were questions about subjects that Bachmann has been speaking out about this week: the closing of GM dealerships, what can one person do to be heard on the fact that they don't want "this national health care system," "what does our future look like in terms of paying off this debt that the Obama administration's taking on, "thanks for being a voice of sanity in Washington, Michele, but what help is available for the small business person"= no specific help, "Obama's determining who to help by throwing darts at a dartboard"-- Fifth call was little weird, the caller sounded very depressed and talked about "a direct slap in the face for veterans" but then meandered into an auto dealership bankruptcy question--why is the government "playing policeman" to bail out the banks but not the auto dealerships? Sixth call was from a guy claiming he'd met Michele on several different occasions; he wanted to know why the courts were taking a pass on the traditional judicial processes regarding troubled businesses with regard to the Chrysler/Fiat deal. That set off Michele, she started talking about foreign cars being little more than "cardboard boxes on wheels." Seventh call: guy wants to know about shocking day to day variations in fuel prices and profits, what does Michele think we should do about that? Michele: drill, baby, drill, we've got more oil here in the US than Saudi Arabia, drill in an ANWR, drill in this state, that one. Eighth call was the foreclosed, unemployed lady I mentioned above. The ninth caller said she was a '75 graduate of Anoka High, but this drew no response from Michele (who grew up in Anoka.) She thanked Michele for helping to get her cousin a visa from Poland. Then she said that there be no jobs this summer resulting from her house re-model because Obama's banking policy forced banks to take federal money that they didn't want and this had resulted in cuts to her husband's dividends. So you see how this went, and what you're likely to face in the future if you participate in one of these "tele-town hall meetings." It seems that you wait in the queue to take your turn, but there's no guarantee that she'll answer your question if you wait an hour on the phone. The screeners seem to be checking questions in advance to locate questions that Michele would like to answer; these questions that she will take and answer at length come from admirers who address the subjects she would like to talk about. One mystery that seemed to have been cleared up: during one answer she talked about the threat posed by the "deconstruction of free market *economics*", which is apparently what she was trying to say on the floor of the Congress the other night. (Instead she talked about the threat posed by the "deconstruction of free market *economists.*") Neither phrase makes sense, since deconstructionism is an act of literary and textual criticism and can't pose a threat to freedom or "private wealth creation." But at least now we know the nonsensical phrase she was *trying* to use, on the floor of Congress. Halfway through, Bachmann reminded people listening that it was okay to call in whether they agreed or disagreed with her. But apparently no one disagrees with her, because no calls like that got through. At the end of the event, Bachmann thanked everyone who participated (or tried to participate) and told people like me that they could hang on, press "STAR/3" again--and leave her a voice mail, if she didn't "get to" their question. And that is how she runs a "town hall meeting" these days. None of the calls were critical of Bachmann's performance as a district representative; none were critical of her worldview or her lack of proposals for alternatives. All in all, the effect was one of a politician being asked, over and over again by different callers: "What is your next talking point for this week?" and then listening to the politician's five minute answer read from a fact sheet, plus conservative digressions. The questions *are* pre-screened. I know that for sure now, because my question was screened. A screener named Larry broke in and asked me what my name was, where I was from, and what question I had for Congresswoman Bachmann. I I.D.'d myself and told him that my question was going to be about the nature of these "tele-town hall meetings." He said, okay, and put back on hold. I never heard from him again, but he had told me that he would "mark my file for follow-up." (I didn't know they were keeping a file on me.) In case you're wondering what I would have asked her--it wasn't a "hostile" question at all. I was going to ask her whether recordings of these tele-town hall meetings and her answers to constituent questions would be made available to the public. I was going to ask her if there was any public forum in which she answered un-screened questions from constituents publicly, answering each question in the order it was received. (I could have asked her a hostile question if I wanted to--"Where the heck do you give off giving the government advice on the economy when your district has the highest rate of home foreclosures in the state"--but I thought that a question like that would be unlikely to get through to her and the reach the people listening on the telephone.) So that's what a "tele-town hall meeting" is like. It's not a "town hall meeting" at all. And calling this Bachmann event a kind of "town hall meeting" doesn't make it one, any more than calling my pecker "the 26-incher" makes it one.

From Britain: Bachmann mentioned in the right wing terror despatches.

I got this one from a friend, via the Dusty Trice blog. It turns out that a major British newspaper, the Guardian, did a story on the uptick in right wing killings in the US since the election of Obama: and our girl is mentioned, specifically. The author of the piece cites and summarizes the string of politically motivated murders that's been going on lately: Tiller, the Holocaust Memorial killing, the Pittsburgh police officer shootings, etc. Then gets around to trying to explain why. Here's an excerpt: Far-right shootings raise fear of hate offensive in America ...So serious has the problem become that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report warning about the problem in April. Though the report was greeted with howls of protest by conservatives, its central thesis of an upsurge in far-right extremist violence seems to have come true. "The DHS report was not crying wolf. It was spot on," said (Professor Jim Corcoran, an expert on America's far right at Simmons College, Boston.) The report said the economic downturn and Obama's election represented "unique drivers" for rightwing groups. It warned that "rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength" and added that new technologies, especially the internet, made "it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent or pre-empt a violent extremist attack". Another factor driving the rise in extremist attacks has been statements by some conservative politicians and media commentators, especially on the Fox News Channel and talk radio. Some of Fox News's most popular talking heads regularly accuse Obama of being a socialist or a communist who is a threat to American democracy. Bill O'Reilly, who hosts a nightly show on Fox, regularly called the shot abortion doctor Tiller a baby murderer and nicknamed him "Tiller the killer". Glenn Beck, one of Fox's most well-known TV presenters, has even aired patently false rumours that Obama is building "concentration camps" for Republican supporters. "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain't good," he said on one broadcast. Those comments echo those of Republican congresswoman Michele Bachman, who has said that Obama is planning to set up "re-education" camps for young people where they would be trained in political correctness. Such outrageous sentiments, carried on a mainstream news channel, are potentially dangerous and could incite people to kill, some experts say. "It is dangerous. They are just promoting conspiracy theories in what is supposed to be the mainstream media," said (Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which closely monitors hate groups in the United States.) One popular conspiracy theory is that Obama plans a crackdown on gun laws in America. The subject is a popular one among conservatives, despite the absence of evidence. It has led to widespread ammunition shortages across the country as gun supporters hoard bullets. The problem has become so bad that some police departments have even had to ration their ammunition supplies. It can also have a deadly impact. In April in Pittsburgh Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers he believed might be trying to take away his weapons. Poplawski, a white supremacist, had come to believe that Obama was planning a crackdown on gun ownership. Okay, so he spelled her name wrong, so what. The point of posting this here on Dump Bachmann is: even waaay over there in Britain, they can see that Rep. Bachmann is an irresponsible nut who doesn't care whether people live or die as a result of her *utterly* unfounded conspiracy accusations against the government. At this rate, the Hungarian papers will be calling her a nut by August. And her charges are *utterly* unfounded--no one outside the right believes the things that Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann and others are charging. The American re-education camps, the concentration camps, the charges of Marxism and global socialist takeover of the United States...you won't find that *anywhere* in world scholarship on American government, except in the loony visions of the extreme right. And now Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Bachmann are taking those views *out* of the nuthouse right, and trying to make them *the* views of America's conservatives--all the while knowing that innocent people are going to be killed in their attempt to do this. Waaay over there in Britain, they can see the connection between 1) crazy right wing rhetoric coming from people like Bachmann, and 2) right wing extremists who respond to that rhetoric by killing innocent people and cops. But here in Minneapolis and St. Paul--the papers just can't seem to make that connection. For the Strib and PiPress, it's...some kind of...incredible...coincidence or something, not worthy of comment or coverage. You have to go to all the way up to St. Cloud before you meet a reporter who's even willing to acknowledge that she's an "extremist." Good luck trying to convince an editorial board here in the Twin Cities to tell people that she's a dangerous nut peddling crackpot conspiracy theories to people who are just dying for an excuse to kill other people. Another point: the author of the article promises you that some media commenters and "some conservative politicians (plural)" are a factor in the rise in killings. He then names "several media commenters" in the piece above... but one, and only one, "conservative politician." And guess who that is. I don't know that any other Republican WHO HOLDS OFFICE is making the same kind of charges that MB is: charges that Obama is a "tyrant," a "Marxist," is planning to end the sovereignty of the United States. I know there are plenty of GOP pundits and rank-and-file Republicans who make those charges regularly. But at this writing I don't know of any GOP elected official, who's charging that the president of the United States is a tyrant, etc. And I guess the reporter who wrote the piece couldn't name any prominent member of the federal government who was doing that either. Because there's a good reason that elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution *don't* call the president a tyrant. When you call the leader of the country "a tyrant"--you invite his assassination by "freedom loving people." Here's the link to the Guardian story. Read it; it's a festival of right wing nut house violence, with many incidents described in a relatively short article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/14/rightwing-extremists-racists-us

Scary Bachmann for Governor Scenario

Below, Eva posted MPR coverage of Michele's speech to the Republican State Central Committee. And just before that, Eva posted a Polinaut piece about how Michele's acting "cute" about whether she's run for governor. Both are very interesting and informative. But among the many things I hate, are political horse race pieces about "who *might* run for this or that office." This is the water cooler gossip of political volunteers and reporters, and for some reason they think that their water-cooler gossip is more important than, say, regular coverage of the mortgage crisis in the Sixth District of Minnesota. I don't frikkin' care who *may* run for governor, I care who *is* running for governor, and if a reporter or editor spends a lot of time filling print space with endless stories about their coy conversations with coy politicians who *may* run for governor--well, even if the person does later turn out to be a candidate, I consider a "big scoop" like that a waste of the reporters' time, the editors' time, and--worst of all--my time. I care more about who's eliminated from America's Next Top Model this week than I do about a dozen articles on who "may or may not run"--and I'm an exceptionally literate American. That kind of journalism is pointless, time-filling nonsense--but reporters would much rather do that than research and interpret some boring old statistics about what actually matters in the day-to-day political life of their district. It's a lot more fun to call up some elected dickhead and ask him if he's planning to run for Congress or Governor than it is to go over campaign finance reports with a fine tooth comb to find a story. And it makes the reporter feel important, too, that the elected dickhead is willing to talk to him, and it makes the elected dickhead feel important, too, that a reporter is asking him. So the news accounts of this kind of story end up being a sort of transcription of "feel good phone sex" between both parties, only less interesting for the readers. But I suppose we must bear this cross, too... The only reason that kind of story is important to readers of this blog, is that this year the speculation on who will run for governor actively concerns our very own nut, liar, and bigot. Like most of the others, she's making coy noises when asked if she'll run. But unlike the others... ...there's a much more important story to be told here. It's NOT the story of "whether she *may* run for governor." It's the story of "how she could win, if she ran for governor." That's a *scary* story, like so many stories about Bachmann. But it's a story that needs to be told, because we've got to be ready for this one if it does come to pass. It begins like this: For those who haven't been following this one, here's why Bachmann needs to run for a higher office than the one she's got. 1) The religious right has poured a lot of money and consulting and time and effort into the career of Michele Bachmann, ever since she ran for local school board in Stillwater Minnesota, all the way back in 1999. They have been promoting her ever since, and they want their investment to "pay off" in terms of political influence. Having a Congresswoman from the Sixth District of Minnesota as their puppet is nice, but it doesn't represent a sufficient return on the national religious right's investment in her career. They want her to go higher, and they'll work to that end, and they're very wealthy and they have their own media and they can make or break a GOP candidate, whether in this state or nationally. 2) Bachmann has to move up, or her career ends right here in this congressional backwater (like Marilyn Musgrave's.) Her ultimate aim and the aim of her national backers--in my opinion--is to join or lead a White House ticket. You can't get to a White House ticket unless you've been a successful general, a senator, or a state governor. So it stops here, for Bachmann, if she doesn't get to the Senate or the governor's mansion. Since she's got into Congress, she's given every indication that she wants to move up. That's why she's been all over the TV since she's gotten into the Congress, neglecting the immediate concerns of her district. She tried and succeeded in making a name for herself as a national "go to" girl in elected office for conservatives and the religious right. There's no point in doing that if she doesn't intend to move up the political ladder; there's no point in the Republican and conservative leadership *allowing her* to do that, unless they are considering a move up the political ladder for her: making her a possible contender for a White House bid. (If it sounds ridiculous to some of you that someone as ill-informed, un-intelligent, and un-accomplished as Bachmann could ever be considered as White House material: all I can do is remind you of the careers of Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. If you think it can't happen, then you must conclude that Quayle and Palin never made it on to a presidential ticket. When you're a rank-and-file conservative voter, so, so, so much depends on physical appearance and mouthing the right wing rhetoric--and achievement and delivering on the rhetoric counts for so, so little.) Next: how does she get to the governor spot? I think it would be generally conceded by news watchers here in Minnesota that if she wants the GOP nomination--it's hers. 1) She's notorious as a nut all over the USA these days, but her conservative voting credentials are nearly impeccable (In Congress, she's voted "no" to practically every viable solution to any important issue of the day, and introduced "conservative sounding" legislation that goes nowhere. That, in the eyes of the conservative voters and funders, is a fine record.) So she's got the GOP conservatives in this state, if she wants them. 2) She's got the national and local religious right in her back pocket. Those people can kill a GOP candidacy if you piss them off--yes, right here in Minnesota, that's why Pawlenty was always so careful to court them. (I've got him on tape, courting them on evangelical radio, and elsewhere. He never liked to advertise it when he went before mainstream media, but he was careful to kiss their butts.) If she wants that nomination, she has thousands of volunteers and fundraisers and door-knockers and donors who wouldn't even get out of bed for any Republican who "stole the nomination from Michele." She has those people--not just in this district--but all over the state. The conservative churches will organize for her, too, and she's got the "pro-life is my issue" Catholics. The state GOP political graveyard is filled with bodies of Republicans who underestimated the effect of evangelical participation in state and local politics. Michele and her national backers do not underestimate its importance. 3) Her name recognition is of the highest order. After Pawlenty and Coleman are out, who will compare to her in the GOP for name recognition? After Pawlenty and Coleman are out, she will be last man standing in terms of being "the most famous conservative in Minnesota." That's got to help, in terms of getting the nomination. She can get to a TV camera or radio microphone any time she wants to--but more importantly, she automatically gets an audience when she does so. Can Marty Siefert or any of the other dwarves say the same? The media will crown her the favorite from the "get go" because her name is the most familiar, because what she says is news (nationally), and because she's "good copy" (that's the notoriety thing, working for her in this case.) 4) Money's not going to be a problem. She's always followed the big money, she's paid her dues to finance community she's supposed to be regulating--and they're paying her back, regularly, in cash. Also you get the money that comes in from out-of-state in small contributions from the religious right and wing nuts. That adds up to a lot, those five hundred dollar donations from individuals in Georgia and Florida and California who seem to care so much about who's elected in Minnesota. Then you have the national GOP as a possible source of funds. I have no doubt that Bachmann's insanity makes some of them queasy. But they've got the money, they've got very few candidates that have any kind of a popular following (at present) and they accept this looney as a conservative--how can they avoid sending her money, if she's a conservative lock on a GOP nomination? So those are the reasons why she probably has a lock on the GOP nomination, if she "suddenly feels the tug" to get it. Next question: can she win? At this writing: no. She's never lost an election (except that first one for a small town school board), but she's never won a majority in her Congressional bids. But what about two years from now? 1) We have an on-going discussion here of why she's suddenly scheduling public events about issues that concern more voters than the ones in her base. This year, she began doing photo-op events about women's health, social security, etc. in addition to the usual kind of stuff she does-- events about "lower my taxes," "our teachers are propagandists" and there is "no man made climate change." I say she's doing that to expand her voting base; others here say she's doing that to "stop loss" of, for example, her women voters. Either way, the photo-ops about "sane" issues create future pictures for campaigns for governor or senate. Anybody who's paying attention regularly knows that she doesn't give a damn or a dime about the "sane" issues. But these "sane issue events" indicate she's trying to reach out beyond the conservatives who love her--to grab some of the people who aren't paying much attention. Conclusion: it's necessary for her to do that if she wants to run for gov, and--it may work. 2) The Independence Party. They showed strong in the Senate election, because there's a lot of unhappy people out there who hate Democrats and Republicans so much that they'll actually go out to vote for "nothing." That's worked to the advantage of several GOP politicians when their party had a more disciplined organization than their Dem opponents. The GOP doesn't have the disciplined organization it once had--but Michele Bachmann, the individual, still has a *very* disciplined organization behind her--a *national* organization, compared to other state Republicans or Democrats. And the people in that organization don't "argue the basic issues or identity politics or get caught up in in-fighting or bitching about what's fair or not fair." Unlike Democrats: they are disciplined and *focused*--focused on getting their puppet in there, by reacting to the political reality as pragmatically as possible. A political set-up like that is positioned to exploit IP splitters, and make the most of it to Michele's advantage on election day. We know that's true, because we've seen it here in the Sixth District, the last two times around. 3) Most important, I think: you hear a lot from conservatives about how "they hope Obama fails." Obviously that's not just an ideological hope--it's primarily a careerist hope. The lockstep conservatives stand no chance of controlling government again, *unless* Obama fails. An Obama failure--defined as a significant failure to improve the economy or a failure to maintain national security--is the only way to resuscitate the GOP. (That's why they're on the radio every day telling us that Obama has *already* failed.) Right now the unemployment rate is a little over 9%, our state is broke (which is why Pawlenty's jumping ship now). They're still laying off and foreclosing on homes. If it's as bad as that when it comes time for the governor's race--Michele, with a lock on the GOP nomination (and for all her craziness and her rotten record on her district's economy) stands a good chance of winning. That's right! I said it. If that happens, then the unthinkable happens. Because: despite her craziness and her rotten record on her district's economy--Michele, with the lock on the GOP governor nomination, *becomes the only viable, electable alternative to* a Dem party that's perceived as failure. So that's the doomsday scenario I'm turning in, for this week. Not sayin' it's gonna happen--just saying that I think that's their plan. Comment and tell me where I got it wrong.

Michele Bachmann Speech to Republican State Central Committee

MPR covered the speech. Kudos to MPR for covering the convention.

Michele Bachmann Won't Take Running for Governor Completely Off the Table

Polinaut: Bachmann won't take run for governor completely off the table POSTED AT 6:32 AM ON JUNE 14, 2009 BY TOM SCHECK (0 COMMENTS) I spoke with GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann at the GOP State Central Committee meeting yesterday. I asked her whether she would be interested in running for governor in 2010. She said she's happy with her job in Washington, but wouldn't completely rule out a run for governor. "It would have to be if I felt like I was supposed to do it and right now I feel like I'm where I'm supposed to be. If my heart moved in the other direction and I had the tug, I'd do it. I wouldn't be afraid to run for office. I just don't feel the tug." To be clear, Bachmann said she's happy in Washington but wouldn't completely rule out a run for governor when pressed. Several Republican activists and consultants say they think Bachmann would be the odds-on favorite to win the GOP endorsement if she entered the race. The last time, Michele Bachmann packed the caucuses with her supporters. Other candidates didn't do this. Never the less, if it had been a 2 candidate race, rather than a 4 candidate race, there would have been a possibility of blocking endorsement.