[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.

[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.