Michele Bachmann denies benefiting from government aid

latimes.com ^ | June 26, 2011 | Richard A. Serrano

[Berlin_Freeper]

...Bachmann and her staff declined to talk to about the government assistance for the L.A. Times article. But asked about the issue on "Fox News Sunday," she insisted that she and her husband had not benefited at the expense of federal and state taxpayers.

"First of all," she said, "the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That's mental health training money that went to employees."

As for the farm, she said it belonged to her father-in-law. "It's not my husband and my farm," Bachmann said. "And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm."

As the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday, however, in financial disclosure forms, Bachmann reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.

[mountainbunny]

Government money given to you to train your employees is using government money. You benefited from government money.

'Cause you didn't have to pay money to train your employees, and you got to reap the benefit of their training.

Anyone who denies this is an idiot, or dishonest, or so bad in business that they shouldn't run a banana stand.

I sorta like Michele Bachmann, but this is the worst argument she could have possibly made.

[org.whodat]

Not possible, she would need to be running to attempt that and she isn’t. Let me know when that changes.

[rintense]

She was #2 for me too. Now she’s #4. I’d still vote for her. With declared candidates, she’s #2 behind Cain.

[EDINVA]

I am referring to the debate of 2 weeks ago when the JournOlists got busy with shooting down that the Bachmanns “raised” 23 foster children, claiming that she had said that at the debate. There was a thread on here about it. It was quickly debunked by posting a transcript of the debate, showing she said they brought 23 foster children into their home, nothing about ‘raising.’

If Michelle Bachmann said today she ‘raised’ the foster children, she had best rethink how she casts that service. I’ve known several foster parents, seen them bring in God knows how many kids, yet never thought of them as ‘raising’ the kids, that is not the nature of foster case. In fact, we had a kid live with us for a while after his single mother died, and believe me, I would NEVER say I ‘raised’ him!!!

[mountainbunny]

Barry Soetoro will be a 2 termer.

It's a bit early for that. Hold your horses. Good Heavens.

We’ve managed to pretty much trash every one of our candidates. Goodbye America. Hello Amerika.

How very dramatic of you. With the 'k" and everything.

It isn't trashing someone to point out that they are (at best) naive to claim that government money taken for training one's employees isn't taking government money.

It is taking government money.

I don't know what the correct response is (maybe there isn't one), but this wasn't it and no one has to sit on their hands, whistle, and pretend that it's the truth when it is not."

"Trashing" someone would be to criticize them for unwarranted reasons. There are plenty of reasons to say that this is wrong. It is always right to say that doing the wrong thing is wrong.

[mountainbunny]

Housing I can’t help you with, but I saw gas under $3.40 today and butter is around $3.00 last time I was at the warehouse store (can’t recall if it was Costco or Sam’s, bit one of those).

What sort of butter is $6.00 a pound besides Irish butter?

Unemployment is another story. If whomever ends up the conservative candidate doesn’t talk about the job situation about every other sentence, they are missing a golden opportunity.

I know people who have done all they can to get another job but haven’t, and are hurting so badly.

Of all the things that hurt America right now, the job situation is the scariest.

[EDINVA]

I’ve long since given up on watching the Sunday Morning talking heads. Do you have a link? I’ll watch the segments you are referring to.

What I was referring to was a story written immediately after the recent Fox GOP presidential candidates’ debate. It was posted at this site. Some JournOlist took it upon herself to write the story, shooting down Bachmann for saying she and her husband had ‘raised’ 23 foster children. Said JournOlist went togreat lengths to prove the Bachmann was claiming credit for something they hadn’t done. She interviewed a child services manager in the Bachmanns’ home town to track down more information and said that foster care situations usually are only 3 months, but can be a few years, depending on the situation. Thus, the Bachmanns could not possibly have ‘raised’ 23 foster children. So, obviously, Bachmann lied!

Alas, the JournOlist’s efforts were in vain, as a transcript of the debate with Bachmann’s actual statement showed that she said (and I paraphrase) “we brought 23 foster children into our home.” Nothing about ‘raising’ them.

Anyone who knows anything about foster care knows that foster parents do NOT “raise” the children, it’s not the nature of the program. By definition, foster care is temporary. Adoptive parents ‘raise’ the children.

I will really appreciate your sending me the links to the shows. This is something Bachmann will have to be more clear about in the future.

[DoughtyOne]

To say that a cheap shot, on a LSM outlet, reinforcing a LSM stereotype, by a professional campaign, is the same thing as cheap shot, on a bulletin board, by an individual poster, isn't true.

I think that's a fair comment. It is going to be nice to turn to a certain facebook page and see the apologies flying tomorrow though. Heh heh heh...

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

No, you need to pay attention to what issues you raise, if you don't want to deal with the blow-back. You tried to slam Hayworth, stating that he couldn't even beat the likes of McCain. There's a whole lot of garbage that goes along with that statement, and you didn't touch on any of it, did you. You know damned well Palin announced for McCain, campaigned for him, and interceded on behalf of him with the Tea Party. So was it just Hayworth that ran a bad campaign, or was it that Palin and many RINO Republicans backed McCain over Hayworth? It was the latter and you damned well know it.<>Sorry, honey, you can't face the fact Hayworth lost the election on his own.   Can't deal with the reality you're confronted with, so you try to talk down to me.  That's desperation.  You tried it earlier with the panties comment.  You're running on empty here.  These silly comments of yours don't strike down the reality of what I presented to you.





Plain and simple.  The facts don't back that up.  The facts are Palin and RINO Republicans pulled out all the stops for John McCain.  Well, they were successful.  If Palin and those RINO Republicans hadn't jumped in to help John, you COULD say Hayworth lost it on his own.  As it is, that just isn't true and you know it.

If Hayworth was so great, why didn't the Tea Party support him? Oh, I forget. You give Palin credit for making sure the Tea Party didn't. Show me the proof Palin interceded on McCain's behalf with the Tea Party.  If you don't remember Palin showing up at Tea Party events and claiming that she and John were one with them, then your memory is defective.  Don't blame me for that.

As far as the garbage, you'd best go back and check the posts because you will see that *I* (as well as most Palin supporters) supported Hayworth. As far as your silly, hysterical whine about 'implying' more about Hayworth's loss, give me a break.  I'm not giving you a break, as if you deserved one.  You made untrue comments and I've pointed out why they were untrue.  Now deal with it.

The man LOST because of his own campaign failures and the record that got him voted out of his previous seat.  The state was moving more Left.  As I understand it his reapportioned seat left him without a base.  As for him losing because of his own campaign failures, he couldn't get Republicans to come out and make appearances with him.  They were dedicated to making sure the Lion of Arizona would return with his seniority, so he could do more damage with it.  Being ignorant of that dynamic isn't very flattering to you.

By trashing Hayworth for not being able to win of the likes of McCain, you forgot to mention Palin's actions connected to this election. You can't make one comment, then get excited when someone brings up a major player and issue that you didn't. Don't come to me trashing a Conservative for not being able to get elected, when you know damn well one of the major reasons he couldn't.

So Sarah Palin controls the masses in Arizona. Gotcha. Hayworth's own ineffectual campaign had little to do with it. My God, I feel sorry for you that you actual BLAME Sarah Palin for Hayworth losing. Not even he does.  Here you go trying to dismiss Palin's part in McCain's victory.  How can you look yourself in the mirror and obfuscate like that?  And then you go on to say you actually feel sorry for me.  LOL

McCain is not just a RINO. McCain is a Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, Tides Foundation, Leftist agenda introducing and passing anti-Conservative card-carrying Leftist RINO. As for Bachmann endorsing the ticket in 2008, that's a far cry from supporting a single man who has spent the last thirty years with his fingers dipped in s--t in Washington, D. C. What's more, you damn well know this.<>Aw, is little DO getting mad???  I don't like seeing people pretend to be Conservative and then obfuscate on Conservative issues.  Ronald Reagan got mad about the mcirophone.  I get mad too, and this time it's about you trying to dismiss Palin's actions related to Hayworth's loss in 2010.  Oh Palin had nothing to do with it.  Then why did the McCain campaign pay millions to get her spots on the radio across the state non-stop month after month?  Was that because McCain knew those spots were having no impact, but wanted to blow millions on them anyway?  Your premise is absurd and you know it.

Honey, you're the one who set the standard of betraying conservative values by supporting a RINO.  Once again, if you have something to say, say it.  Here you go again using the same smear tactics that have been the stock and trade of this thread.  If you can't make a strong arguement, you try to destroy the person you're talking to.  Good luck with that.

That's across the board, honey. Too bad you seem willing to make exceptions when it justifies YOUR definition, huh.  Once more, you still haven't said anything of merit.  Once more you insinuate that I have done something wrong without saying what it is, so I can respond.  THIS is what you consider to be the actions and tactics of a Conservative?

If you've got something to say Ace, say it.

You already said it, Sparky, by defining YOUR conservatism.  Once again, you are displaying that you are not willing to discuss matters in a reasoned adult manner.  You dismiss things the person you support did.  You watch as people slander good Conservatives.  And now you have stated directly that I have supported a RINO and thus my Conservative credentials are in question.

You're an ass. You tossed out that baggage comment to make it sound as if Hayworth had done something either illegal, an offense of Congressional rules, or of such significance that he didn't deserve to be elected back to public office. You just didn't want to get called on it. Well, I'm calling you on it. What did J. D. Hayworth do that reaches the level of John McCain's whole thirty years Congressional and Senate activity on behalf of Leftist ideology?

Wow you really love to project don't you? I have no damn clue what charges were even leveled at Hayworth. His baggage is HE COULDN'T WIN RE-ELECTION to his OWN SEAT! My God, are you thick.  You are one dim manipulating propagandist individual.  Not winning an election is not what most people would typically think of as 'his baggage'.   What's more you know it and are being misleading, or you don't know it and are displaying a lack of comprehension skills.

That propagandist ploy didn't fly over my head, and I'm calling you on it.

What the hell are you pulling out of your rear now? Leftist ploy? Or are you trying to read people's minds again? Or wait, hearts. My bad.  Whatever it is, it's sure better quality stuff than you've been pulling out of yours.  You stated that Hayworth had baggage going into 2010.  Baggage in this connotation is generally accepted by people to mean something bad he had done.  Losing a prior election is not something that is typically thought of as baggage.  So the inference is that Hayworth had done something wrong, but when called on it you could claim you only meant he had lost an election.  You're playing games here.  Either that our you're in over your head discussing this political matter.

You post this tripe against Hayworth and defending supporting McCain, but in your mind I'm the creepy one?

Tripe? Look at how hysterical you are about an election loss.  I'm addressing reality, and you are dismissing it as hysteria.  As far off the mark as you are here, you're the one reaching the level of hysteria, trying to defend the defenseless comments you have made.

You should really up the Lithium.  Once again, you are dimissive of facts.  You can try to belittle me all you like, but you can't change the facts.

Let me be clear again and see if you understand... I did not support Palin's endorsement of McCain. Understanding why she did it is NOT being ok with it. But you fail to grasp that concept. Again, check your meds.  You have stated numerous times, or have inferred numerous times that Palin's actions on behalf of McCain didn't accomplish anything.  So what we're left with, is the fact that you cannot deal with the reality that Palin came to the state and campaigned for McCain.  You can't deal with the fact that she misrepresented McCain from the platform of Tea Party events.  She also created spots that McCain played on the air throughout the state for months on end.  So let's do be clear.  You are dimissing the impact of Palin in the state, yet stating that you did not approve of her doing it.  Then why try to deminish what she did, what she contributed to, the efforts she went to, the constant persence in the state on behalf of McCain aired on media outlets?

If you don't support something, you don't try to demish what it was that took place.  You admit to what took place, acknowledge the damage it did, and cease trying to shift that damage onto other innocent people.  Palin sold out you and I and Hayworth.  That is not Hayworth's fault.  His loss was most certainly not even close to being exclusively of his own doing.

You tried to score points based on my comment about what you know to be right in your heart, and you respond that was rather creepy. Then you talk about my underwear. In fact you even describe me as getting my panties in a twist. I'm trying to understand you envisioning that scene in a good way. So far, I'm not having any success. Are you sure you're on the right forum. Perhaps you ment to sign in to, "I like to think about your twisted panties dot.com"

On the right forum? Care to ask the site owner that question, who has declared this Palin Country? Or is it the fact your poor sensibilities were offended about your panties?  I don't think it's appropriate to address me in a semi-sexual manner.  You wouldn't want me to try to demish you based on your sexuality.  I don't like you trying to belittle me in the same manner.  Did I ask you that question based on your support of Palin, or did I address you in that manner based on your abusive manner?  Twisting my reaction to your insulting behavior, to make it seem I am challenging Jim's forum policy, is merely one more way you have tried to win this discussion in a questionable manner.

Aren't you woman enough to impress folks by using your intellect instead of your abilty to destroy people?

I never said Bachmann was. I never even said she is my first choice either. I have said that I like her among others, and will continue to check her out over time. I still don't like the hit squad antics on this thread, and I'm going to defend her from that type of nonsense.

Yet you were part of the biggest Palin hit squad around and had no problem with that.  I have seen the charged atmosphere around here.  It's not productive.  It is ultimately very destructive.  I am not going ot waste my time going into Palin threads and tweaking her supporters.  I seldom say anything directly about her.  If I have something to say, I address actions without bringing in personalities.  I do not attack her.  What associations I have here is none of your business.  I conduct myself in a fairly decent manner, and I expect you to do the same.

Funny, you're appointing yourself to a role you condemned others for.  You are one dilusional individual.  I entered this thread because I was fairly certain Bachmann would be attacked here.  I objected to what I saw, and I confronted people on point.  Michelle Bachmann is a good person.  She does not deserve to be treated the way some FReepers have found it reasonable to treat her here.  She is a respectible person, and she deserves respect on this Conservative forum.

You are one of the biggest liars on this forum.  Three fingers are pointing at you right now.  I'll leave it to others to judge who is dealing with reality and who isn't.

[wardaddy]

They are not DU idiots...they simply must have Sarah Palin or nothing..

Palin was my first pick too but I like Bachmann as well

The behavior by some here is plain awful...Bachmann is a decent woman conservative

And their scorched earth support of Palin will win over no one

I asked JR where the forum was on this given how these people are acting so disgusting about Bachman...he will support Palin, Bachman or Cain
Its in my ping history for anyone who doubts

So these Bachmann haters are on their own unsanctioned

I suggest they read the history of pissant and rabs ...that shoe fits more than one foot

[DoughtyOne]

Going into this response, I wouldn't vote for any of these people either.  None the less, there's no need to smear these men unfairly, even if they are unacceptable to us as a Conservative Presidential nominee.

I consider Romney on par, and Huckabee a close second followed by Newt and Huntsman.

Look, your comments to the contrary, none of these men are qualified for or deserve your sladers about them being even remotely like John McCain.

Each of them have done things that evidently make both of us question their character.  Each of them have done things that evidently cause both of us to question their Conservative credentials, at least in part.  Not one of them is even close to being something like John McCain.

John McCain has at one time or another taken a stand against every tenet of Conservatism.  He has taken action to support gun control on occasion.  He has taken action to aide a stridently pro-abortion Democrat over a Republican.  He has supported globalist objectives.  He has echoed Obama on numerous occassions.  He has formed a relationship with the absolute worst of the worst world players we are aware of.  He joined George Soros, John Kerry, Terressa Heinz Kerry, the Tides Foundation, Russel Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and many others to introduce and push leftist policy objectives.  He began pushing global warming legislation long before it became a cause celebre even for the Hollywierd set.  And he has re-introduced it a number of times.

John has also made very transparent efforts to subvert other politicians on our side.  His association with Lindsey Graham is a good example.  The new Senator with the first name of Scott, who won a special election was called into John McCain's office within 24 hours after being sworn in.  And even Palin herself, a person I had a lot of respect for, was pressed to support the likes of him for re-election.  She stated she supported his policies.  I don't think she would have done that without John worming his way into her trust, and misleading her.

As much as I find Romney to be unsupportable, perhaps more unsupportable than any of the others, he is a distant second so much so, that it's hard to even compare him to a man like John McCain.

John McCain sided with Vietnam over our own veterans and troops MIA.

These men would NEVER get my vote. Never. I learned that lesson in 2008.

Okay great.  I'm glad to hear it.

Of course, I'm sure this will queue your standard 'They aren't even close to McCain blah blah blah' post. Yeah, we get it, Sparky. You hate McCain. We do too.

You don't even know who the man is.  How can you hate him?  If you think the above people are like him, you haven't a clue who this guy is.  Yeah, I know you think you get it.  That's the problem.  You don't, but you think you do.  So what you do is dismiss the message, and try to belittle the messenger.

You need to understand who the man is, if you want me to buy off on your disrespect for him.  McCain is in a category all by himself, when it comes to subterfuge of Conservatism and Conservatives.

Read up: http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html

[DoughtyOne]

FreeReign, it looks to me like you mean well here. I can understand the reasons for your comments on these people. I still cannot agree that any of them are as bad, or even come anywhere close to John McCain. Neither you or I would support them, but that doesn’t mean they are like McCain.

I just referred another FReeper here for some background on McCain. Please check it out.

Yes these other people frustrate us. They do things that are truly bad. None of them have a rap-sheet like McCain.

http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html

[dixiechick2000]

Navy pilots aren’t fond of him, either.

[DoughtyOne]

They’ve got a lot more of a right to dis him than I do. While I’ve had some serious reservations about his military years, I’ve chosen not to go there. I do think there is something there though. His Vietnam/MIA/Veterans related moves in the Senate, caused me to distrust him seriously.

By itself, I might not put too much credence on it. Coupled with his lifetime of instances of questionable character, low morals, and absolute subterfuge at the expense of our nation, causes me to think it’s all one long disgusting record for which he’ll never get what’s coming to him.

[dirtboy]

That still doesn't give others license to dredge up things that aren't true, to try to make a big deal out of them. And that is what has taken place.

Well, Bachmann gave fuel to that fire by not taking Rollins publicly to the woodshed in the first place. Actions (or lack thereof) have consequences. Palin has been an ally for Bachmann. For whatever reason the Rollins attack was done, it came across as disloyalty to an ally. And hiring a slimeball like Rollins was a bad move in the first place.

Wrong or not, Rawlins was addressing some issues that were on the record. He's not going to be the only one doing so either. In 2012, the other side will be doing that, and it's going to get vicious.

Ah, so when Rollins does it to Palin, it's a public service, but when we vet Bachmann, it's bashing. I see where this exchange is going.

Guess what? It's gonna get a lot harder on Bachmann, and I have yet to see here develop a process for taking on these issues. Which is NOT a good sign for her campaign. Her supporters, from their actions on FR, may be content with that approach. But she will not significantly widen her base until she learns how to do more than pretend these issues don't exist - even in response to the media, such as this article and the NR column on ethanol, the campaign did not respond. Not smart. And not ready for prime time. My entire point about her campaign so far.

[dirtboy]

I sorta like Michele Bachmann, but this is the worst argument she could have possibly made.

And that is my point about her and her campaign. She either doesn't respond to these issues or responds badly. She needs to be better prepared. She sets hereself for a lot of doubt when she says one thing and her disclosure form says another. Who are we to believe, her or her lying disclosure form?

And her supporters on FR largely take the same approach. Change the subject, attack the messenger, drag Sarah Palin into the thread - we've seen it all time and time again. But that won't get Bachmann anywhere - instead, folks will start to wonder just what is going on. Not a way to get traction, only a good way to keep spinning your wheels.

[dirtboy]

just as some hacks did with J. D. Hayworth.

Hayworth destroyed himself. How he could even contemplate running for office in the Tea Party era, knowing full well that the government money informercial was out there, c'mon.

And Bachmann is starting to take the same kind of path. She has to know full well that a disclosure form is out there saying she got money from that farm - a simple denial just isn't going to cut it. But go ahead, blame the critics with Bachmann just like you're blaming JD's self-immolation on the critics. End result will be the same.

[jla]

Any Conservative Who doesn't like Palin or Bachman, is no Conservative.

I find much to admire in each of these ladies, yet I will vote for neither, as well as any of the other declared candidates. All of them, to some extent, are ethically corrupt.

Also, I highly doubt that you qualify as arbiter of whom is conservative (lower case) and whom is not. And there are two 'n's' in 'Bachmann'.

[shoff]

Most of the current candidates are new to the big leagues. They never had to answer some of these questions during local elections. They will make mistakes but the better ones will learn and get better. I would not be surprised if the DNC feeds these questions to reporters to do their work for them.
I know it is disappointing to see favorite candidates make mistakes while opposition gets a pass but watch over time and they will get better. I see this in local elections when a candidates starts they are not as polished or as good at addressing a crowd. Over time the cream rises to the top.
This is one of the reasons no one in power want to see Palin enter the race. There are no new questions they could feed the media. This favorite of tactics would not help her opponents of whatever party.

[rintense]

The state was moving more Left. As I understand it his reapportioned seat left him without a base. As for him losing because of his own campaign failures, he couldn't get Republicans to come out and make appearances with him. They were dedicated to making sure the Lion of Arizona would return with his seniority, so he could do more damage with it. Being ignorant of that dynamic isn't very flattering to you.

And the fact you can't face the reality that the man LOST because people simply didn't like him is pathetic. Once again, why didn't Hayworth win re-election?

Here you go trying to dismiss Palin's part in McCain's victory. How can you look yourself in the mirror and obfuscate like that? And then you go on to say you actually feel sorry for me. LOL

Look, honey, you're the one giving Palin all this 'power' and 'influence' over the people of Arizona. If freepers are smart enough to see why Palin made one campaign swing for McCain, surely the people of Arizona are. And if voters are so heavily influenced by Palin, then you're giving her far more power than she deserves- and back-handing the people of Arizona for being dupes. Again, why is it so hard to accept people just didn't want to vote for Hayworth? Wow.

I don't like seeing people pretend to be Conservative and then obfuscate on Conservative issues. Ronald Reagan got mad about the mcirophone. I get mad too, and this time it's about you trying to dismiss Palin's actions related to Hayworth's loss in 2010. Oh Palin had nothing to do with it. Then why did the McCain campaign pay millions to get her spots on the radio across the state non-stop month after month? Was that because McCain knew those spots were having no impact, but wanted to blow millions on them anyway? Your premise is absurd and you know it.

What's absurd is you blaming Palin for Hayworth losing. And you know it. The fact you can't find any fault, or any objectivity as to what Hayworth would have and could have done better paints an ugly picture of your psyche, bordering on obsessive with McCain.

Yes, we get you hate McCain. Who doesn't? But the level to which you've taken it- and pass it along to others, is ridiculous.

Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Here you go again using the same smear tactics that have been the stock and trade of this thread. If you can't make a strong arguement, you try to destroy the person you're talking to. Good luck with that.

You've done a great job of that yourself, darling. You're the one who set the definition of conservatism and contradicted that with your own words. You've truly perfected the art of circumlocution.

Once again, you are displaying that you are not willing to discuss matters in a reasoned adult manner. You dismiss things the person you support did. You watch as people slander good Conservatives. And now you have stated directly that I have supported a RINO and thus my Conservative credentials are in question.

Huh? What RINO did I saw you supported? Give me facts, man, not what your perceive. Did you or did you not imply it was OK for a conservative to endorse a RINO in a Presidential election?

Whatever it is, it's sure better quality stuff than you've been pulling out of yours. You stated that Hayworth had baggage going into 2010. Baggage in this connotation is generally accepted by people to mean something bad he had done. Losing a prior election is not something that is typically thought of as baggage. So the inference is that Hayworth had done something wrong, but when called on it you could claim you only meant he had lost an election. You're playing games here. Either that our you're in over your head discussing this political matter.

And I'll ask you for the umpteenth time: Why did Hayworth lose his own seat?

I'm addressing reality, and you are dismissing it as hysteria. As far off the mark as you are here, you're the one reaching the level of hysteria, trying to defend the defenseless comments you have made.

Oh? I'm not the one screaming about Palin being the reason Hayworth lost.

You have stated numerous times, or have inferred numerous times that Palin's actions on behalf of McCain didn't accomplish anything. So what we're left with, is the fact that you cannot deal with the reality that Palin came to the state and campaigned for McCain. You can't deal with the fact that she misrepresented McCain from the platform of Tea Party events. She also created spots that McCain played on the air throughout the state for months on end. So let's do be clear. You are dimissing the impact of Palin in the state, yet stating that you did not approve of her doing it. Then why try to deminish what she did, what she contributed to, the efforts she went to, the constant persence in the state on behalf of McCain aired on media outlets?

If you don't support something, you don't try to demish what it was that took place. You admit to what took place, acknowledge the damage it did, and cease trying to shift that damage onto other innocent people. Palin sold out you and I and Hayworth. That is not Hayworth's fault. His loss was most certainly not even close to being exclusively of his own doing.

Ok genius. Show me concrete numbers, percentages, etc. that prove your theory. Show me what percentage of people voted for McCain because of Palin, and then show me the percentage Hayworth would have won by had Palin not endorsed McCain.

Aren't you woman enough to impress folks by using your intellect instead of your abilty to destroy people?

Ah, so now tossing the 'woman' card out there. I am plenty woman enough to spot someone who deflects truth and casts blame. Destroy people? Wow, now you're assigning me power you've given Palin. Unreal.

What associations I have here is none of your business. I conduct myself in a fairly decent manner, and I expect you to do the same.

Yes, because you're a model citizen on FR ('You're an ass'). And a bit testy too.

You are one dilusional individual. I entered this thread because I was fairly certain Bachmann would be attacked here. I objected to what I saw, and I confronted people on point. Michelle Bachmann is a good person. She does not deserve to be treated the way some FReepers have found it reasonable to treat her here. She is a respectible person, and she deserves respect on this Conservative forum.

And yet, you've been on the sidelines while the same thing happens on a daily basis to Sarah Palin, and then change the narrative to attack her for endorsing McCain.

How utterly liberal of you.