Posted on 06/24/2011 8:57:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Michele Bachmann's efforts in 2007-8 to have Drug Dealer and Money Launderer Frank Vennes pardoned for his 1987 convictions have begun to receive some light scrutiny in the media. Some embarrassing details have emerged, including the fact that, while Bachmann was lobbying hard to secure a pardon for him from President Bush, Vennes himself was engaged in a brand new, massive $3.65 billion ponzi scheme, for which he was recently indicted by a Federal Grand Jury. Worse yet, Vennes and his family had donated money to Bachmann--a lot of money--in the 2006 and 2008 campaign cycles, $27,400 to be exact, making Vennes her largest donor by far. The most charitable thing one can say about this affair is that it showed colossally poor judgment on Bachmann's part. The propinquity of the donations and her efforts to secure a pardon could suggest a darker, even improper, motive, if the pardon efforts were proven to be a quid pro quo for the campaign cash. See the link below if you are interested in any more of the sordid details.
What struck me about the Vennes matter was not that Bachmann exercised poor judgment (which she certainly did) or that her lobbying on behalf of Vennes so soon after his huge donations to her were unethical and created at least the appearance of impropriety (which they certainly have). It was none of those things that I found so egregious, because politicians typically engage in such shenanigans on a daily basis, and Michele Bachmann is nothing if not a typical politician. What really struck me about the whole affair, and has been heretofore overlooked, is the letter Bachmann penned on Congressional stationery to the Pardon Attorney at the United States Department of Justice. By all means, read it and draw your own conclusions:
The specter of the lamestream media baying at the moon and salivating over the prospect of a veritable treasure trove of malapropisms within Sarah Palin's 24,000 emails made me wonder about Bachmann's talents as a wordsmith. To pique my curiosity further, the same lamestream media that was so sure it would find multiple "silver bullets" of incoherence within Palin's emails has pronounced Bachmann not only "coherent" and "disciplined" but downright "articulate." (Meghan Daum, LA Times, 6/23/2011) To their chagrin, Palin's emails turned out to be written more competently than most CEOs, scoring an impressive 8.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test on which Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream Speech was an 8.8 and the Gettysburg Address was a 9.1. Indeed Palin's routine emails were more competently composed, according to this measure, than was Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, which came in at 7.7. And Bachmann? Well, I would love to have the Flesch-Kincaid test applied to her letter to the Pardon Attorney, a high ranking Justice Department official appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. How, I wonder, would it score? Let's take a look at it, piece by piece.
Her third sentence is not only awkward, but also an unsupported non sequitur:
"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."
How, one might wonder, does her status as a U.S. Representative make her "confident" of Mr. Vennes' rehabilitation? Evidently she intended to remind the Pardon Attorney of her office, fearing that perhaps he had not noticed the letter head. After this bit of gratuitous horn blowing, Bachmann stumbles through the remainder of this awkward sentence in two parts, but without the same, parallel grammatical structure:
"I am confident of...and that"
This grammatical error, known as faulty parallelism, is rather more common among elementary school students than Congressmen, especially those who who constantly bray about their two law degrees and their experience as a "tax attorney for the IRS".
The next sentence, if you can call it that, is at once inane and downright painful to read:
"Granting a pardon to Mr. Vennes should be considered because pardons were intended to restore people to society like Mr. Vennes; people who have demonstrated true reformation and for whom mercy is due because the legal system cannot deliver a morally acceptable result."
The first part of it is an incomplete, circular thought, punctuated with a semicolon. The second part is an incomplete sentence. In between she opines that "mercy is due" when in fact mercy is never "due." If mercy were due, it would be justice, not mercy. And she inexplicably charges that the legal system in Vennes' case "cannot deliver a morally acceptable result." Is there some thought behind such a charge? How is it that the legal system failed to deliver a morally acceptable result? Vennes was convicted on his own guilty plea of crimes for which the government had overwhelming evidence. How was his conviction not a "morally acceptable result?" Anyone who would make such a statement does not understand the meaning of the phrase "morally acceptable result." Her use of the English language is as imprecise as her syntax is mangled.
The next sentence is no better:
"Mr Vennes' application shows he is a just recipient of a pardon"
Wrong again, Michele. He is not the just recipient of a pardon, since he had not yet received it (and, happily, he never did). What you meant to say was that he would be the just recipient of a pardon. Michele Bachmann, let me introduce you to the subjunctive mood. You should have met in the fifth grade, but I suppose it's better to meet late than never!
The letter meanders on, a string of words in search of a coherent thought. At points the Congresswoman waxes profound:
"So why does Mr. Vennes need a pardon if he is so successful? So he can help more people than he does."
She goes on to elaborate on the utility of a pardon for Mr Vennes and how a pardon will free him "to help so many more":
"Mr Vennes still encounters the barriers of his past and especially in the area of finance loan documents."
Indeed, those pesky prior money laundering convictions sure do get in the way of your ability to borrow money from banks for the needy (or for other worthy purposes like...ponzi schemes?). It raises the question, however: Does Bachmann believe it licit to go into debt in order to fund charitable activities? She notes in the third paragraph that, in just the previous three years, Vennes has directed over 10.7 million dollars to the "neediest in our society" (not to mention the $27,400 he steered into her campaign coffers). It does not appear that he was in dire need of loans for charitable activities or much of anything else.
The letter finally ends with this sentence:
"Knowing that pardons have been decreasingly granted , I am asking that courage be mustered to do justice for Mr. Vennes."
Decreasingly granted? This sounds like the syntax of a third grader. How about: "While I understand that pardons overall have declined of late..." There are any number of concise ways to express this thought. Bachmann chose none of them. I have seen many letters from Congressmen and Senators, and this one, which incidentally addresses a very important subject, is by far the least articulate of any of them.
If Sarah Palin penned such a ferociously illiterate missive, it would be on the front page of the New York Times as Exhibit A for her incompetence and incoherence. Yet Michele Bachmann, now the darling of CNN, the L.A. Times, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, is called both "coherent" and "articulate," in spite of this stark evidence to the contrary. Ask yourselves why these two are treated differently.
After reading her mangled syntax, poor word usage and incoherent ramblings, I shudder at the thought of the Congresswoman from Minnesota turned loose upon an Inaugural Address. Fortunately, the chances of that are even slimmer than Mr. Vennes' current pardon possibilities.
I asked that question last night on another forum and as best as I can tell from the response, it is not.
The envelope had "National Tea Party Survey" on the front and the enclosed letter inside had Bachmann's fundraising pitch with an attached "Tea Party" survey.
Isn't it, though? We're seeing it in action vis-a-vis Ed Rollins and Michele Bachmann.
That's what Bachmann did.
And her continued support for this felon is not a lie, but a matter of public record. "Hate and lies" is a comforting refrain for the uncritical thinker, but it can't be applied to every situation just because it's comforting.
If the press was this diligent on Barry Soetoro maybe they could have found his Kenyan birth cetificate by now.
This is maybe the fifth thread about ‘the letter.’ Read it a couple of days ago.
THIS thread is about its grammar somehow proving that Bachmann lacks literacy skill and, ipso facto, is not qualified to garner the GOP presidential nomination, much less the presidency. If one takes it upon him/herself to charge another with a flaw, one had best not him/herself exhibit that flaw, that’s all. Plank in your eye, and all that.
If this is the type of internecine battles the GOP primary boils down to, you can look forward to the re-inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama II on January 20, 2013, regardless of who the GOP candidate ends up being.
Your sarcasm misses the point.
The pardon would have kept Vennes' crimial history from the banks. The banks rely on such information to determine if a person is reliable enough to receive one of their loans.
It is up to the bank's when making a loan with their money to look into the future and determine if an applicant is a risk. It's not up to Bachmann to do that.
The bottom line is that Bachmann was being charitable with somebody else's money, the bank's money.
the syntax is average to below average no doubt but we don’t know if MB actually wrote this. If she did, I hope it was very off the cuff because it is rather sloppy. Maybe a staffer did write it. No one is perfect; I can give her a pass here and there for stuff like this. What bothers me more is why is she running and if she withdraws, whom would she endorse. It really does smell like she is a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, possibly to become VP.
Even more than the syntax is the idea that she would ask for a pardon for this man after he donated many $10000s to her campaign. That also smells very bad so much like politics as usual, stuff like clinton and obozo would do.
Very good! {^)
Even Palin supporters who think Brices' post is only about punctuation and spelling, need to read the letter again and look at it objectively, even WITHOUT considering its subject matter, which alone reveals pretty piss-poor judgment and gullibility.
It is the writing of a very poorly skilled communicator, and communication skills in someone who would hold the highest office of this land, I would say, are not exactly optional. The writing is not only repetitive, but convoluted and downright cringe-inducing. This sentence, for example:
So why does Mr. Vennes need a pardon if he is so successful?
Wha...? Huh?
This (again, I say aside from the subject matter in the letter, a whole 'nother talk show) is not about grammar, punctuation, and spelling. This is about someone who has the communication skills of a careless teenager.
*sigh*
That's kind of like saying with Clinton, it was only about sex. I make my living by writing and am one of the most forgiving folks you'll ever meet when it comes to people breaking "subtle grammar rules." I've been writing professionally for nearly 30 years and am still learning new things all the time about good writing.
When I write something for publication or something that is very important, I spend quite a lot of time making sure it says exactly what I want it to say, quickly and concisely. OBVIOUSLY, the writer of the letter either made no such effort, or was incapable of making such an effort. READ THE THING, for crying out loud!!!
STOP with the self-deception that Brices' critique is "only" about grammar. IT IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT BACHMANN HAS BELOW-AVERAGE COMMUNICATION SKILLS that would only be excusable in a very young professional. Bachmann is too old for this kind of crap. Brices is correct: sloppy, undisciplined writing in a document such as an official letter of this caliber, reveals more than sloppy thinking. It reveals LACK OF PERCEPTION.
That's bullsh*t. Writing internet posts as an activist hobby is one thing. As it happens, my hobby, writing, is also my profession. I make many errors in posting, but then again, no one is paying me to post and I am posting usually in haste. Therefore I'm very forgiving of others who do as well, particularly those who aren't writers by profession.
On the other hand, in a gig, where I'm writing as a professional, you bet your ass that there's no way I would let such sloppy writing go out as an end product. Any criticism I make of flaws in PROFESSIONAL writing, are based on the same standards I set for myself. In other words, I strive to remove that plank from my eye FIRST, when it comes to writing meant for job-related or professioanl consumption, as Bachmann's letter was.
A person who aspires to lead the most powerful nation on earth certainly needs to have better writing communciation skills than those of a blithe college freshman.
“communications skills of a careless teenager”
“...blithe college freshman.”
Double ouch, Finny. I admire a well turned phrase,and those were well aimed fair appraisals of the letter, reflecting your talent as a polemicist. My compliments.
BTW, Thanks for the defense. You actually defend the post better than I myself. You are quite correct in not allowing the critics to frame the issue as one of grammar, which it is not, but rather her overall deficit in communication skills and coherent logic. This writing is unbecoming to one who aspires to any high office. I would be embarrassed and angry if one of my teenage children sent such a letter to anyone, much less a high government official. I think it appropriate to hold a Presidential aspirant to a similar standard, at a minimum.
After what was done to James Traficant, Agnew and other, by our corrupt judges, I hesitate in being too judgmental as to the character of Vennes. Apparently you hate the guy, Sarah doesn't, why? A little background on him and his trial would be nice seeing you brought it up.
Everyone has been taken to task for their writings and speaking style, donors, whom they're seen with , etc. Can you post an example of a letter(s) from a Rep, of equal length, that you consider a fine piece of writing?
IMO Bachmann is equal to or better than most, and wish her well in her campaign.
That is why this this thread is valuable!
I have seen posters who favor Bachmann, Cain, or someone else get on threads about Palin, spewing every crazy lefty complaint against Palin; yet, when this thread went up, some of them and even some supposed Palin supporters attacked the author,you. This is a patently ridiculous thing for them to have done!
There is a Pawlenty pardon that, IMHO is even worse than this request for one, as it involves child molestation.
There is really NOTHING known about Cain.............thus far.
It may be early days, but we do need to know all about those who have already thrown their hats into the ring and those talked about, should they eventually do so. To be blindsided later, is objectionable, as far as I'm concerned!
The only one who has been vetted and has no skeletons is Sarah Palin. Every one of the rest has skeletons. Some we know (like Romney and Gingrich). The rest we have yet to discover. This Vennes affair is just the beginning of Bachmann’s examination. She will, I predict, receive far greater scrutiny than I gave her in this piece, which elicited so many yelps. Nothing is generally known about her tenure in the state Senate or her tenure with the IRS. Should be very interesting.
Let’s see if she acquits herself half as well as Palin.
Yes, we do know Romney and Newt's baggage, but I bet not all of it.
We know virtually NOTHING whatsoever about Cain.
We know just a smidge about Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Perry; though a tad more about Perry than Bachmann and Pawlenty.
What we know about Paul and Huntsman are an anathema to most.
Playing all nicey-nicey isn't the way to win a primary nor the general election and that has been true from the very beginnings of this nation. Our FFs were not "nice" to each other; especially not when they were running against each other. Their vocabularies were both broad and deep, which impresses many; however, what they said or wrote or had written by others, against one another, without using bad language, really is enough to curl ones hair...if not fry it off ones head completely!
I sympathize with Bachmann in falling for Vennes, I really do -- if she was really duped by him, I have to admit that I might have been as easily gulled; I like to think that it's because I want to see more good in people than there actually is (!), and for all I know, that's why Bachmann is defending Vennes.
Or maybe Vennes is innocent of intent to deceive. I don't know because I haven't gone to the trouble of researching it. Those things are where planks possibly remain in my own eye; it's why I haven't participated in discussions of how it certainly smells like political opportunism taking precedence over ethical principles.
At most I've written that it reveals pretty piss-poor judgement and gullibility, and I say that open-heartedly because I myself admit to being guilty of both often enough; one hopes to learn from one's mistakes.
But Bachmann is my age.
Now, will you please tell me, even within the context of the letter, what is meant by:
"So why does Mr. Vennes need a pardon if he is so successful?"
Or this perplexing riddle:
"... for whom mercy is due because the legal system cannot deliver a morally acceptable result."
What on earth is she trying to say? She's like Brad Pitt in SNATCH, for crying out loud.
Sorry, but if his worst examples of her writing were the worst, of it, this trivia isn’t worth my time to pursue.
I write (non-fiction, so to speak) for a living, and and am paid handsomely for it. I’m not bothered.
As far as this being like “only about sex”, your comparison is laughable. Adultery is a sin, and reflects poorly on one’s judgement. Not being persnickety about grammar means you’re normal.
Besides, even if weak writing were a possible predictor of being a poor leader, there are better predictors, at least for people who have already served in leadership roles.
Bachmann isn’t my first choice, but I will say that if she were elected, she’d surround herself with excellent writers.
![](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_m2qKabRzNLg/S05RYjX3c1I/AAAAAAAACaA/lc93FW0PO_Y/gal_palin-ny_1.jpgwidth="125") 2012 |
Spot on. Playing nicey-nicey is a losers' game.
Their vocabularies were both broad and deep, which impresses many; however, what they said or wrote or had written by others, against one another, without using bad language, really is enough to curl ones hair...if not fry it off ones head completely!
Well said! {^)
Profanity is the linguistic equivalent of brute force. It has its place, but sparingly. It's a much more demanding art to "curl hair" in Library Language -- but as you say, that curl can have a sizzle that makes mere swear words wither. Like Scipio in Wister's The Virginian, to a train he missed, as he's stranded in the middle of the prairie.
"Just because yu' ride through this country on a rail, do yu' claim yu' can find your way around?" he tells the departing train. "I could take yu' out ten yards in the brush and lose yu' in ten seconds, you spangle-roofed hobo! Leave me behind? You recent blanket-mortgage yearlin'! You plush-lined, nickel-plated, whistlin' washroom ...."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.