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.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Aren’t the foster children adults now?

Isn’t it a bit suspicious that of 23 not a single one comes forward on their own to endorse her?

[rintense]

From Redstate:

The bottom line for this race has been and is, Arizona voters aren’t fond of McCain’s policies but the respect him personally because of his service and his status as a POW. Those same voters are more approving of Hayworth’s policies but harbor a visceral hatred for him personally. There’s more, related to demographics and a little related to endorsements, but the real bottom line is that JD Hayworth is toxic and probably half of McCain’s vote total will be from people who can’t stand JD. The internals for the latest poll are here, and the headline reinforces what I’ve noted above: JOHN MCCAIN TROUNCING J.D. HAYWORTH BUT HIS JOB RATINGS STILL SOFT.

Among all voters, 60% have a favorable opinion of John McCain and 37% have an unfavorable image. This puts his image ratio at 1.6 to 1, which is decent for an incumbent. When looking at John McCain’s image rating by voter subgroup, it quickly becomes apparent that women have a more favorable opinion of him than men. Among all female voters, 66% have a favorable opinion of John McCain and 30% have an unfavorable opinion of him. Among all male voters, 54% have a favorable opinion of him and 44% have an unfavorable opinion. JD Hayworth’s image rating is “upside down” with 38% having a favorable opinion of him and 50% having an unfavorable opinion of him.

Now, if you had been paying attention back during the primaries, you would have noticed I said over and over again Hayworth's problem wasn't McCain or Palin- it was a public perception of HIM. He needed to address those issues first and then go after McCain. If people don't view you with a shred of credibility, there's no way you can beat even the worst RINO.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Don’t disagree. You have mail.

[dirtboy]

Aren’t the foster children adults now? Isn’t it a bit suspicious that of 23 not a single one comes forward on their own to endorse her?

I think we should leave the foster kids out of this. I know Bachmann has put the subject into play, but it's not up to the foster kids to come forward.

Bachmann took on the toughest foster kid situation - teenagers. There is little gratitude for such a job and a lot of headaches. I'm not going to judge her on this particular subject, other than noting she did take on a thankless job.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Technically I agree but we are not talking about kids anymore.

[dirtboy]

Technically I agree but we are not talking about kids anymore.

So? It wasn't their choice to be in the situation they were in at the time, they should be left out of this.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I am trying to understand - if a foster parent took care of me for several years and then was running for PRESIDENT, wouldn’t I want to come forward as an adult and share my experience with her and endorse her?

[dirtboy]

That's entirely up to the individuals, but I am not going to judge Bachmann by a lack of any of those individuals coming forward.

Would YOU want to subject yourself to the inevitable media meat grinder that would follow?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Since you asked I would definitely go to the wall for someone who helped me like that, yes.

[liberalh8ter]

Let's not forget the L.A. Slimes is withholding video of the Obama’s partaking in a little mutual admiration society farewell dinner for Rashid Khaledi.

[dirtboy]

That’s your choice. But I can see why someone would NOT want to come forward. So like I said, a lack of any of them coming forward should not be a factor in judging Bachmann.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” John McCain has at one time or another taken a stand against every tenet of Conservatism. “

Nuff said

Cut!

Print!

Lunch!

[EDINVA]

This morning I happened to catch Chris Plante while this was being discussed. He played her response to the ‘flake’ question and she did, in fact, say she’s ‘raised’ the 23 foster children.

I don’t know about YOU, but if *I* had 15 seconds to disprove Wallace’s ‘flake’ theory, and to set out my entire life’s resume, I might use shorthand like that, too. When given time to introduce herself, she didn’t use the word ‘raised’ but spoke of taking them into their home. I can’t think of another word to use as shorthand for that.

To be honest, if *I* had been asked about being a flake on national television, I might have suggested Wallace f off, and left the set. There’s a very good reason I’m not a pol.

[stephenjohnbanker]

;-)

[Once-Ler]

To date, not a single word of hers concerning her support for the bastard McCain in the 2010 Arizona primary - after the 2008 elections had ended and when she was supposedly a free individual not bound to the RINO McCain - has been repudiated. Not...one...word.

She has also not repudiated the majority of AZ GOP primary voters who proudly rejected JD and his Government Free Money infomercial by 30 percentage points 59-29.

[DoughtyOne]

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.  Bachmann is not obligated to do what the supporters of another candidate want her to.  If you want to write her off over this, go ahead.  If you're that willing to dismiss her, you probably weren't her target group anyway.

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.  I find it rather interesting that you think Bachmann owes Palin something for getting support to keep a Conservative in Congress.  If you're a fellow Conservative, you do that sort of stuff out of dedication, not pay-back.  You are assuming that Bachmann ordered Rollins out to bash Palin.  I don't think she did.  Rollins did this on his own, and it is reported Bachmann told him to appologize.  That's good enough for me.  It will be good enough for anyone who likes what Bachmann has been doing up to this point.

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.  No, evidently you dont.  Rawlins addressed Palin's history.  Trying to make something out of nothing is not vetting, it's an attempt to destroy.  Have I or have I not said that I disagree with Rollins doing this?  Yes, I have.  So where do you get the idea that I categorize what he did as fair.  I merely categorized it for what it was, not whether he was right or not to do it.  He addressed her history in a manner I didn't like.  With Bachmann, people here were actually trying to make the case she misappropriated Congressional funds.  They were trying to imply she broke the rules of Congress, or misappropriated funds.  That's not just a recitation of historical fact, it's an implication of wrong doing or quasi criminal behavior.

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.  Yes, actually you have.  What you don't like, is her decision wasn't identical to yours.  She decided to repremand Rollins internally, and not publically.  She has addressed other matters, and in time will address still others.  You don't run her campaign.  You don't like what she is doing.  Many of us do.  I don't have to agree with everything she does, to still support her.  You don't have to disagree with everything she does not to.  You've made your deicision.  I've made mine.

Which is NOT a good sign for her campaign.  I think that's mighty kind of you, giving us the expert opinion of someone who doesn't support Bachmann.  And no, no matter how much you try to state otherwise, supporters don't write a candidate off for doing nothing more than what Bachmann has done.  It just doesn't work that way.

Her supporters, from their actions on FR, may be content with that approach.  Yes, you're right.  Bachmann's supporters are level headed.  They aren't going to over-react to every news cycle release.

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 appreciate the editorial, but like the ones I have read in the LA Times in the past, I'm just not buying what you're selling.  I have followed Bachmann for years.  I have just now learned of new people who are running (the last few months).  I'm going to watch them all and make a final determination later.  The one thing that I know for sure right now, is that Michelle Bachmann's candidacy is alive and well.  I understand you think differently, and I encourage you to continue to think along those lines if you like.  All I am asking is a reasoned approch to the vetting process.  Reciting facts and making idiotic statements based on them, is not the same as trying to infer a member of Congress has misappropraited funds.  One may infer poor judgement, but the other infers quasi-criminality.  I think you're smart enough to know the difference.

[DoughtyOne]

...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.  Hmmm, but there was nothing out there about John McCain right?  Look, I don't like that infomercial either.  Does it come even close to touching the tops of McCain's shoe soles, as related to lifetime of B. S. McCain was hip deep in?  Of course not.  http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html  When you make statements like this, you infer that you know nothing of McCain's history.  You act as if this one bad mistake on Hayworth's part disqualfiies him, while the absolute mountain of McCain's well thought out mis-steps meant nothing.  That's not just silly, it's about as destructive to a view of your own personal political savvy as it gets.

And Bachmann is starting to take the same kind of path.  Yes, in your mind I'm sure she is.  DirtBoy, come on guy, you're killin' yourself here.

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.  The LA Times article came out yesterday, but you're convinced that Bachmann has destroyed herself because she has not responded as of this moment.  Wow.  I may be the only person out here who thinks this way, but you're placing an awful lot of faith in the LA Times here, and absolutely non in Bachmann.  I think that speaks for itself.

But go ahead, blame the critics with Bachmann just like you're blaming JD's self-immolation on the critics.  What you describe as self-immolation, just cracks me up.  Hayworth self-destructed, and by contrast McCain was pristine as the driven snow.  Seriously DirtBoy, you know better than that.

End result will be the same.  Sounds to me as if you're praying nightly for it.  Sad...

[dirtboy]

Hayworth self-destructed, and by contrast McCain was pristine as the driven snow.

Debate is pointless with you on this. Where did I say McCain was pure as the driven snow? I didn't. But Hayworth was a poor choice to take him on. The informercial was just the final nail in the coffin - and it started with the Abramoff scandal, which, contrary to the opinions of some, was a real issue with real stink, and that stink was all over Hayworth.

You don't appeal to replace a DC insider with a former DC insider who got voted out. It typically doesn't work out well.

[dirtboy]

The LA Times article came out yesterday, but you're convinced that Bachmann has destroyed herself because she has not responded as of this moment.

And you miss the point. Bachmann filed her disclosure about income from the farm how long ago? And wasn't ready with a statement that matches that disclosure when the inevitable questions arose? Smart campaigns anticipate these issues - and when they come across one they didn't anticipate, they have a rapid response team ready to quickly jump on them.

Bachmann is not running a smart campaign so far. The signs are there, and more and more people are realizing this. Sadly, about the only ones not realizing it are ... the Bachmann camp.

Sounds to me as if you're praying nightly for it. Sad...

That's pretty pathetic and slimy. I saw Bachmann as a logical 2nd choice to Palin (who I think will probably NOT get in the race). But in a very short time, Bachmann has soured me on her prospects. I am hardly praying for her to fail. But so far she has been underwhelming in being able to manage a national campaign - probably because she never has run for anything larger than a Congressional district to date.

I have not repeated any issues that were not buttressed by actual facts. If that automatically puts you into a defensive posture, that speaks more of the problems with your candidate than it does about me.

[rabscuttle385]

She has also not repudiated the majority of AZ GOP primary voters who proudly rejected JD and his Government Free Money infomercial by 30 percentage points 59-29.

You do realize that Arizona's Republican primary is an open primary, don't you?