Quantcast

Bachmann Speaks

By Jesse Taylor
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:19 EDT
google plus icon
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

imageRep. Michelle Bachmann lets us know who the real victim was when she declared that significant portions of America hate themselves and that some of her Congressional compatriots should be investigated for treason: her.

Last Friday, all the liberal special interests from California to Vermont found a new outlet for their energy, their frustrations and their money. That would be in defeating me.

I’m not suggesting there’s a separate America that hates the rest of us, but seriously, fuck those maple syrup-chugging burrito surfer assclowns.

In a matter of 48 hours after I participated in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” more than $640,000 from donors across the country flooded into my opponent’s campaign. Almost to a one, these are people who never would have considered voting for me if they lived in Minnesota. In fact, most of them have probably never voted for a Republican. These are strong supporters of Barack Obama who want to see more liberal policies enacted in Washington.

That’s a lot of words to say that people who support your opponent donated to him because you went on TV and acted like the drunk narrator in a 1950s filmstrip about the Soviet menace.

These are not people who know anything about my policy views. They don’t know anything about my record of reaching across the aisle on issues ranging from support for small business to foster care improvements, an issue near and dear to my heart as a former foster mother to 23 troubled teens. Or about my record of standing up to my own party when the occasion calls for it — such as opposing the $700 billion Wall Street bailout — and standing up to members of the other party when they try to push through tax hikes or limit personal liberty.

They seem to know about your most important policy view, which is that they should be arrested for suspicion of planting bombs under your Chevy Tahoe. That, to me, seems to be a far more relevant position as it relates to their lives than how much you support the new diner opening up downtown.

These are not even people who know anything about my opponent or his positions on the issues — though they are willing to donate to him based on a few minutes of listening to the political echo chamber.

They have been riled up by a spin machine in serious overdrive as we come down the homestretch to Election Day.

You: think they’re terrorists. Your opponent: does not.

Decision made! So far, Bachmann’s entire case seems to be that the financial supporters of her opponent are only aware of her brutal and violent ignorance, and not the other things which in no way mitigate the fact that she wants to urinate on their hemp-wrapped corpses.

Despite the way the blogs and the Democratic Party are spinning it, I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress.

It’s true. You just called some random but rather large segment of the population anti-American, you only said that Barack Obama hates America, which surely isn’t questioning his patriotism (only his love of country and dedication to its well-being, which is totally different), and you surely didn’t ask for another HUAC.

By name, at least.

What I did was ask legitimate questions that Minnesotans have been asking me: What does Barack Obama mean by change?

And then you answered it by pointing out that he means stealing your babies and converting them to Islam.

He sounds good when he talks about hope and change — there’s no denying that. But what types of policies would come from an Obama White House? He hasn’t had a long record in office, but what we do know is that he’s been rated the most liberal senator. Beyond that, we have to look for other ways to discern the substance behind his pretty platitudes.

Why isn’t it appropriate to ask about the formative relationships he’s had? The types of relationships that may have influenced Barack Obama’s views on public policy and on government decision making? Why is the media more intent on learning the type of plumbing license Joe the Plumber has than on exploring the obvious questions about Barack Obama’s formative relationships with people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers — people with views far outside the mainstream, where most voters find themselves?

And why haven’t we locked them all in Guantanamo until this whole thing can get sussed out? I keep hearing questions about why we haven’t investigated Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, but then I look at the thousands upon thousands of articles involving those two men and Barack Obama, and also realize that Barack Obama didn’t spend 90 minutes of nationally televised airtime talking about how much John McCain’s policies were going to damage Bill the Professor or Jerry the Preacher.

For at least two years, the American people are potentially looking at a liberal policy agenda dominating Washington from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, it’s conceivable that the Democrat majority in the Senate could be large enough that the traditional minority right to filibuster would be entirely eviscerated. So why isn’t it appropriate to ask what that policy agenda would look like?

For at least six paragraphs, the American people have been reading an incoherent whine from a sitting member of the U.S. Congress. In fact, it’s conceivable that the Republican Congressperson could be the whiniest person that any mainstream American has encountered in years. So why isn’t it appropriate to point out that not only is she a whiny pisspants, but she also wants to see me in an orange jumpsuit and shackles because I’m on MoveOn.org’s mailing list?

Of course, none of these points has been noted in any subsequent media reports of the interview. It’s like a political version of the children’s game of telephone. I make a statement in an interview. Chris Matthews distorts it — as he is paid so well to do. The liberal blogs contort it even more. The speaker of the House and other Democrat leaders utter absolute lies about what was said in the interview. Then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee picks it up and runs with it, buying $1 million for negative ads so that they don’t have to talk about the issues.

Here’s the entire transcript of the interview. Unless saying “Bill Ayers” forty five times in seven minutes somehow magically transforms his name into a substantive policy question, ohmygodyou’refuckingnuts.

And it’s the issues that the voters in Minnesota’s 6th District want to talk about. Everywhere I go, people ask about the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and they want to know why we’re saddling taxpayers with generations of debt to pay for risky decisions by Wall Street financiers. There’s a clear distinction between my position on this bailout — I opposed it both times it came before the House — and that of my opponent, who says he would have supported it.

…So, uh, did Ward Churchill design the bailout, or what? What mystery of wingnut logic takes you from an unhinged rant about the un-American activities of your fellow Congresspeople to the injustice that you couldn’t have a substantive policy conversation Bill Ayers while you Bill Ayers were on Bill Ayers Hardball?

The Democrats don’t want to talk about the pocketbook issues that are really on the minds of Minnesotans. Those voters were concerned about how much it cost to fill their tank with gas this summer, but that pales in comparison to how much it might cost to heat their homes this winter.

They want to know how they’re going to pay their mortgage and their grocery bills. Again, my record and my opponent’s are clearly different when it comes to the family budget. I’ve always stood up for lower taxes and against wasteful government spending.

There is a response to this. I just can’t figure out how to phrase it patronzingly enough to convey the utter disdain I hold for Michelle Bachmann’s utter existence. In my head, I imagine sounding like Garrison Keillor when I say it, though.

But when you can’t win on the issues, you steal the election with a couple of lies and $1 million worth of mud. And the media reports and Democrat responses to my interview on “Hardball” have been echoing the outright lies of the liberal blogs. Is it really any wonder people are so cynical about politics?

Up until I read this article, I was under the impression that the way you stole an election was to fill out a bunch of fake voter registrations that were sure to get tossed out using names of fictional characters, football players and porn stars. Now all you have to do is lie and spend a million dollars?

Well, fuck, Obama’s already got the money, and John McCain is allergic to American cheese. I’ll take my ticket to the inaugural now, please.

Jesse Taylor
Jesse Taylor
Jesse Taylor is an attorney and blogger from the great state of Ohio. He founded Pandagon in July, 2002, and has also served on the campaign and in the administration of former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. He focuses on politics, race, law and pop culture, as well as the odd personal digression when the mood strikes.
 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
Google+