Posted on 06/22/2011 11:39:23 AM PDT by unseen1
Lawrence O'Donnell on Tuesday accused Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) of being a socialist.
"The Last Word" host, who has admitted on national television to himself being a socialist, did so by cherry-picking from an article published at the perilously liberal website "The Huffington Post" (video follows with commentary and full transcript at end of post):
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Michele Bachmann, as has been pointed out in this space before, has a family farm that has received over a quarter of million dollars in direct cash from the federal government. That is, of course, in addition to her federal salary of $174,000 for her real full-time job as a member of Congress. Thanks to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post today, with we now have yet another example of Bachmann political dependence, career dependence on socialism.
The Huffington Post obtained a letter Bachmann wrote on October 5th, 2009, to the Obama administration’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack thanking him for government intervention in the pork industry. That's right, government intervention in the market. She wrote, “Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed.”
Yes. This is the same woman who said this about the Democrats' health care reform bill.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/22/lawrence-odonnell-cherry-picks-huffington-post-call-michele-bachmann-#ixzz1Q1vV3cId
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Another logical fallacy from a liberal. Yawn.
They tried this with Clarence Thomas, remember. He cant dare be against affirmative action because he went to Yale and they had AA admissions.
Every single liberal in America has benefited from capitalism, dead white European males, and Reaganomics, so how dare they complain about it.
At least Newsbusters put up a reasoned line of defense. I disagree with it, because just about every wasteful government program can be rationalized by someone as being needed, but they at least took on the topic head-on instead of being like you and avoiding it.
Can you show me where Thomas has praised affirmative action the way Bachmann is praising government intervention here? Big difference.
Read the link. Newsbusters did an extensive sympathetic article on this, and not once called into question the veracity of the quote in question.
I addressed the issue. That issue is that I will weigh in on this once we have heard from Michele Bachmann.
That is what we should be doing when a person whon is a socialist scum makes accusations against conservatives.
If you don’t like being fair, that ain’t my problem.
I’m not a Bachmanite, but surely you can see the difference between the following two statements and how Huffington Post twisted the meaning by placing a period where there was none...
“Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed.”
“Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota...”
And in two days, when we haven't heard from Bachmann, you'll pull your old trick of calling it old news.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
"Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods," Bachmann wrote.
So she wants even MORE goverment intervention.
The more I see of Bachmann, the more I see someone who represents old-style DC politics while claiming to want reform of such.
Whereas Palin actually took on the GOP machine in Alaska and won - and then worked to implement actual reforms.
In other words, Bachmann talks the talk. Palin has walked the walk - well before the Tea Party came into existence.
Hence my preference for Palin. But I also realize she might not enter and has some serious issues in a lot of states. So I am more than willing to consider others.
But so far Bachmann has underwhelmed me.
And your problem with her representing her constituents in this matter is what?
You folks are certifiably insane. The difference between me and you is that I hope this is not true. Knowing the source, I can’t take it for granted that it is true.
You want it to be true because you think if we just get rid of Michele, it will elevate Palin. You want it so much to be true that you will jump to believe whatever Larry O’Donnell says.
Well, that would all be okay if Palin was a candidate, alls fair in the primary season, but she isn’t you see. Michele is a conservative candidate and some of you are doing your utmost to make sure she gets hurt.
If this allegation is true, it will hurt Michele, but in that sense, she would still be a million times better than Obama.
You got an answer, if that is not good enough for you, you can go pound sand.
So you, on the leading conservative board in the country, think there is nothing wrong with Bachmann pushing for MORE GOVERNMENT action. More pork. In this case, literally.
What if some of her constituents were welfare moms - would you be OK with Bachmann pushing for higher welfare payments for them? She'd be representing her consitituents, after all.
But it doesn't.
Oh, but it does, and you know it. I have a good history. Maybe not with lying wankers.
I didn't write that letter. Apparently Bachmann wrote such a letter, calling for MORE government pork. Literally.
Yet it's my fault. Gotcha. I feel real good about a leader where it's always someone else's fault.
Which is exactly the lame portrait you are painting of Bachmann with your posts.
Some history.
Whatever. I have been here longer than Palin.
Easy killer, just trying to understand your point. BTW, I am a fellow Palin-supporter.
That said, there are times when government action is warranted. I believe in smaller government...in fact I’d like to return to pre-20th century levels, but I don’t see this quote as an indication she is for bigger government.
Asking for MORE government purchases of pork is calling for bigger government. I'm sure you can find similar rationalizations behind EVERY wasteful government program.
What makes pork producers special? Just about every business was losing buckets of money in 2009. Once again, government was picking winners and losers, and Bachmann wanted MORE of it.
And government cannot shrink without the word ‘NO’. Someone has to say “enough” - NO more new programs, NO more automatic baseline growth of existing programs, NO more special favors. Instead, Bachmann was pushing for MORE, not NO.
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.