Click the Biker
"Which way to Rolling Thunder?"
He's looking for monthly donors
Sign up, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Or give what you can
Posted on 07/11/2011 1:42:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As a conservative activist in an area of the country largely believed to be a remote suburb of the Twin Cities, I am increasingly encountering a general assumption — at family gatherings, on the air, and in casual conversation — that I am a big supporter of Michelle Bachmann. I fully realize, of course, that I am supposed to be. I'm just not.
The problem with Tea Party-type Bachmann supporters is that they haven't been paying attention. You'll hear it said that, "At least, she's better than Barack Obama." So was John McCain. You'll hear it said that, "At least, she doesn't have all the negatives of a Palin candidacy." That's because she doesn't have Sarah's record, or her guts, either. If she did, Bachmann would never have been proffered an apology for merely being called a "flake." The former governor of Alaska is a conservative. Her would-be political clone only plays one on TV.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Bachmann is insincere. Her voting history and her life story all indicate that she is. What I am saying is that, if you listen to her words and not the hype, you will easily perceive that Michelle's stock in trade is playing both sides of the Republican divide. Allow me to explain.
In scams, you have the role called, "cooling out the mark." It's kind of like the "good cop — bad cop" thing, where one person's job is to make sure that the person being scammed doesn't realize it, or at least doesn't try to do anything about it. This, by default or on purpose, has become the Bachmann role on the national Republican scene.
Whenever the GOP leadership decides to stab its base in the back, to let us down, to put political expediency above principle — and one could set one's clock by this phenomenon — it is Bachman who goes all over the airwaves making excuses for them. Listen for it. It will always be Michelle who is there to "cool out the" — well, "remark." I remember Bachmann being at the forefront, for example, of the "Repeal and Replace" groundswell that helped drive the huge Republican victories of last November. Now that that uproar has died down, her silence is as deafening as anybody else's.
On Hannity a while ago, Bachmann was touting herself as a "unifying" figure. There are Democrats and independents who approach her to express their support, she contended. The obvious question arises: Why? Why, at this extremely early stage in the game, would that be the case? Are they schizophrenic, or do they also perceive that she is not who she claims to be?
The only unity it is possible to achieve is the unity of a return to our national identity, based as it is on the Declaration and the Constitution, with their ineluctable recognition of the sovereignty of our Creator, God. The quixotic attempt to bridge the gap of the American political divide in any other way has already been attempted. Just ask Newt. The famous definition of stupidity as doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result, applies to conservatives as well as liberals.
As the primary season unfolds, I have diligently been trying to give Bachmann the benefit of the doubt, but in order to do that, there has to be some doubt there to work with. And as I say, I understand why people tend to assume that I back the bright, family-friendly, Palinesque-but-not-actually-Sarah-herself conservative activist from my own geographical region, who is ever ready to carry the Tea Party banner as far forward as serves her own political purposes.
I know I am supposed to like Michelle Bachmann.
I just don't.
[Something creeps me out a bit by Bachman and I can’t quite put my finger on it.]
Bachmann gives me the same feeling as Sharron Angle. Both great ladies, I supported Angle to the death here in Nevada, but they don’t always catch the nuances. I really don’t see Palin making political mistakes (not that you can’t criticize some decisions, but they are generally pragmatic errors rather than due to a tin ear).
A second preference is nominating someone who can win. This is an existential question as I do not believe my country can survive two terms under Obama. Winning in 2012 (for the Republican candidate) will require surviving what will certainly be the most concentrated assault on truth and reason since Hitler and Goebbels convinced the German people that Poland had attacked them. Can Bachmann handle that with complete grace under fire and ability to wrong foot the opponent and the press? Neither she nor any of the announced candidates have shown me they have the steel spines and fast reflexes required.
Finally, there's just an unidentifiable something that I don't like about her. Part of that may stem from the kid gloves treatment she is now receiving from a press corps we all know is just waiting for a signal to reverse all that and tear her limb from limb. I hate it when anyone tries to set me up, and especially when they are so stupidly obvious in the attempt.
To anyone who's a big fan of the lady I would say I wished I liked her, but I don't. If she gains the nomination I will vote for her. But I think she would actually make a far weaker candidate against Obama than Gov. Palin.
McCain, Romney and Huckster. That's who we had in 2008 by Feb 5, "Super Tuesday." You didn't need cross-overs or moderates.
She has certainly been a leader in calling for and writing a bill to repeal Obamacare. She formed the Tea Party Caucus. She has been a leader in writing bills and advocating responsible spending by the federal government. She has been a leader in the cause of life, and in the cause of limiting federal power over the individual. She has sponsored 38 bills in her time in federal office all to that effect. She cosponsored over 500 bills that others have written, also championing limited government.
Check her record HERE and do a search of the leadership she has provided.
She doesn't just talk, she acted. After high school, she went to Israel and spent the summer as a volunteer at Kibbutz Be'eri, working. This is valuable experience and knowledge. She has since visited Israel several times.--she is a friend of Israel.
She then went to college and stuck with her education gaining a BA degree and moving on to graduate school, where she obtained her JD. She also stuck it out and worked through by continuing with her education, until she earned a Masters degree in tax law; while getting married and raising 5 children.
She worked 5 years as a lawyer for the IRS. She knows government finance and tax laws, and what is wrong with them, from the government side, to the private side as a business owner. Her family also owns part of a farm.
She worked on two Presidential campaigns.
She founded a charter school.
She ran a treatment home for troubled teenage girls.
She and her husband own a mental health clinic, where they have 50 employees. She knows all about meeting a payroll.
She ran for State Senate and won that seat and finished her 6 years there. She ran two election campaigns for US representative, and won both--first woman from her state to do so. Finishing one term, she ran for another. She has showed up for 95% of the votes in the house.
She is knowledgable, disciplined, consistant and reliable.
Bachmann actually ran against and beat, 18-year incumbent Gary Laidig for the Republican nomination for State Senator for Minnesota District 56.
Fair enough!
I like your attitude!
I have to agree with you.
My conclusion is exactly the opposite as yours.
Ah but we’re told here the governor of Alaska is more important than any other governor in the USA. We’re told Perry’s 10 years as governor of Texas is meaningless because he’s just a figurehead whereas Palin was a CEO.
Well then she won’t get the nomination so what’s the problem. It’s the primary season, let anyone who wants to run, run and let the voters decide who they want and what is important.
So if Jim DeMint decided to run for president you’d say the same thing?
This is exactly how I feel about it. She pushed the very ethics bill that was the “cause” for her trouble in office! Why didn’t she bother to at least introduce legislation to adopt a more equitable ethics process to protect herself and future governors?
Also, it wasn’t the first time she stirred up a hornet’s nest and walked away.
She did the same thing on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she only stayed on for 11 months after being appointed.
Okay, where are Sarah’s accomplishments?
Try reading the 540 legislative bills that Bachmann has written and sponsered or cosponsered.
What bills did Sarah write? I know she sponsored the ethics bill that was the cause of her quitting her governor job after only 2 years.
On tax policy, Alaska governor Sarah Palin has a rather uninspiring, albeit brief, record. The following is some information gleaned from State Tax Notes.
Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”
There are good reasons for an oil-rich state to tax oil production, but a fiscal conservative would usually use any tax increase to reduce taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I see no evidence that Palin offered any major tax cuts. She did propose sending $1.2 billion of state oil revenues to individuals and utility companies in the form of monthly payments to reduce energy bills, but that sounds like welfare to me, not tax cuts.
Palin has offered a few narrow or minor tax breaks, including:
•A tax credit for film production in the state, offering about $20 million per year in breaks.
•A cut in an annual business license fee from $100 to $25 (the legislature went half way to $50).
•A one-year suspension of the state fuel tax to save taxpayers about $40 million.
•A repeal of tire taxes to save taxpayers $2 million.
•A tax credit for commercial salmon harvesting to save taxpayers about $2 million.
That’s about it.
Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.
Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.
Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.
Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.
As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
So we shouldn’t discuss, is that’s what you’re suggesting?
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.