I'll bet you that nothing that badly written was ever signed by Ronald Reagan. Or even Dubya, for that matter. This is not about grammar. This is about being Ready for Prime Time.
There is ZILCH that is "sleazebag" about shining the light of truth on a politician.
“Sleazebag tactic”? What in hell are you talking about? Brices found a real letter about a pretty fishy-smelling Big Donor scandal, and the letter is written at a pretty mediocre to low-average level, communications-wise.”
Exactly, Finny. Bachmann took official action on official government letter head. And it’s somehow dirty pool to analyze it?
This is not a discussion of the candidate’s children or an unfair generic attack on the candidate’s appearance or anything of the sort. Anything in Sarah Palin’s record as Governor is fair game as well and she will have to answer for that. And I am sure she is quite prepared to do so without all the whining and the crocodile tears that have been displayed here.
And for those who are willing to give Bachmann a pass for this abominable letter because: a) it is only grammar; or b)some staffer wrote it, my rejoinder is that sloppy writing such as this is evidence of sloppy thinking. And I do not believe a staffer composed this letter, at least the final draft. It is a very important letter on behalf of her major donor to a high ranking official of the Department of Justice. It isn’t a “constituent service reply.” If she let a staffer write a letter of this import, and allowed her name to be signed to it, as some have suggested, then that raises additional questions about her judgment. Perhaps she will address them. Indeed, she can lay the matter to rest quite easily by releasing all her emails and correspondence from this year so that the entire issue might be properly investigated.
The PC police have so emasculated some of the weak minded here, even some who profess to be Sarah Palin supporters, that they can’t tell the difference between fair comment on an issue of public policy and a personal attack. This comment focused not principally on the substance of the issue (her recommendation of a pardon for a felon who was a prominent and recent donor to her campaign) but the PROCEDURE by which she handled the issue, that is: the official letter. It examined the coherence of Bachmann’s arguments and the intelligence and lucidity with which she expressed them. Some here apparently think the coherence of a candidates’ arguments and the ability to express themselves is not a relevant inquiry for a Presidential candidate. I happen to disagree. If Ronald Reagan had been able to express himself only at the level of this letter, he would have been materially less effective as President.
Some of you have never been involved in a real campaign. I am not talking about the recent weak-kneed Bush-McCain-Dole affairs, in which the GOP candidate was too cowed to say anything that might be perceived as negative about his opponent. The Reagan campaigns of 1976 and 1980 were bare knuckle affairs. Reagan’s 11th Commandment had to do with personal attacks, which he never favored. Policy issues and another candidate’s own statements, written or oral, were always fair game. And he was quick to pounce on any such weaknesses in his opponents, whether it was George Bush or Gerald Ford or Phil Crane. If you are too young to remember the Reagan campaigns, and so did not participate in them, then I suggest reading Craig Shirley’s excellent books, the Reagan Revolution and Rendezvous with Destiny which treat both 1976 and 1980, respectively.
If the post offended some of those with weaker sensibilities, as it surely did, given their personal invective toward me, then so be it. So far, after 125 replies, not a single critic has refuted, or even taken issue with, the substance of post. Some have liked it. Some have not. None of those who have disliked it have refuted the particulars of the post, because it exclusively treats Bachmann’s own words and actions, in her official capacity. If that is not relevant to her fitness to be President of the United States, I don’t know what would be.
And if she and her supporters can’t answer for what she wrote and did, in her official capacity, in the GOP primary, how in the world are they going to fare against the Democrats, who would be using REAL gutter tactics against Bachmann, as they have against Palin, in the [highly unlikely] event that Bachmann were to be the GOP nominee.