Archive for September, 2010

Ooh, Bachmann’s scared!

September 30, 2010

Why do we think that? Because according to Politico, her new campaign advertisement lumps George W. Bush in with Nancy Pelosi and others that she has decided are “bad guys.” Hey, 2008 is calling to get its campaign strategy back.

That post makes much of the famous kiss Bachmann gave George W. Bush after a State of the Union address, during which time she left her hand on his shoulder for such a long time that it looked pushy or even creepy. Let’s have another look, shall we?

Sure doesn’t seem like she had a problem with him back then.


Wait, shouldn’t it be the other way?

September 26, 2010

Formalizing something that everyone already knows to be true, Sean Hannity and his wife give $10,000 to MICHELEPAC.

Bizarre statement about what God wants for corporations

September 25, 2010

It’s always a little embarrassing when other countries’ media takes a look at Michele Bachmann. Our image overseas is bad enough as it is. But the BBC did a sort of a trend story on American conservatives broadening their agenda, and it included this quote from Bachmann:

Ms Bachmann, for example, told the Values Voter that the financial woes of American auto companies – which she says were the result of too-generous pension plans – are an example of contravening a basic Christian principle: “Thou shalt not covet what does not belong to us.”

Really? Christians are against generosity to the aged? That might be news to actual priests and ministers. We also doubt that a pension plan, which is money earned through many years of work, could be considered “covet[ing] what does not belong to us.” But go on, lady, continue picking on retired people drawing fixed incomes and calling yourself a Christian in the same breath.

This is of course leaving aside the issue of her grammar.

Another Bachmann claim rated “pants on fire.”

September 24, 2010

We’re not actually sure PolitiFact, the source of these ratings, has ever awarded her anything less. When Bachmann lies, she lies hardcore! That’s why the public is no longer surprised when stuff like “the U.S. Census will put you in an internment camp” comes out of her mouth.

This claim was that Nancy Pelosi has spent $100,000 on alcohol at taxpayer expense while flying back and forth from Washington to her district on Air Force planes. This is a privilege afforded to all Speakers of the House. According to PolitiFact, it turns out that the $100,000 figure applies to all non-reimbursable costs, including baggage handling, food, room rentals, ground transportation, etc. In fact, Pelosi’s domestic flights don’t even have alcohol on them. Thus, LIE.

EDIT: We were wrong. Bachmann does not have a perfect “Pants on Fire” rating. All of her ratings are either “Pants on Fire” or “False.” However, zero of them are rated as anything like true. Just for fun, here’s a graphic showing Bachmann’s ratings from PolitiFact, courtesy of DumpBachmann:

Bachmann backs book claiming to “expose” threats of sharia law

September 21, 2010

That’s Islamic law, which is a religious legal system similar to the Jewish beit dins or whatever they have at the Vatican. But according to this guy, it’s actually a “legal-political-military doctrine” that is a “totalitarian threat.” The MinnPost claims the guy is making the case that attacks by terrorists are driven by sharia and not by a few extremists. We believe them, but are uninterested in verifying it directly by wading through a PDF that we expect to be full of offensive prejudice coached in academic language. The MinnPost also says the author of this book believes Hezbollah is training on the U.S.-Mexican border — why, because there’s not enough desert in the Middle East? Because the travel costs are so low? Edit: More from MNIndy backing up the claim that this author is a nutbag.

The really ironic thing here is that American social conservatives would LOVE to implement a Christian version of sharia and are busy trying all across the U.S. This is where legislation against same-sex marriage and equal pay for women comes from. The line between “traditional values” and the burkha is not very thick — both are intended to keep women handicapped and subservient. It’s just when OTHER religions want to do it that Christians (or maybe “Christians”) suddenly see a threat to individual rights.

Clinton-based schadenfreude

September 20, 2010

Hunters, fishers and conservationists on Bachmann and the Legacy Amendment

September 19, 2010

Long story short, they thought she supported it. One report we read suggested that she’s told them so as recently as this year. So, more evidence of blatant lying by Michele Bachmann. Classy!

It’s worth noting here that this tax increase was 3/8 of one percent. That’s not equivalent to zero, but it’s pretty close, which is probably another reason why Minnesotans voted for it.

Bachmann fundraising push again paints her as center of liberals’ universe

September 18, 2010

Despite large amounts of evidence to the contrary, Michele Bachmann appears to be raising money with the claim that “big-name liberals” are “coming out of the woodwork” to oppose her. (We are sure that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like Bachmann, but then again, much of Bachmann’s own staff appears to not like her, so go figure.) Anyway, Politics In Minnesota quoted the following:

My race is quickly becoming one of the most expensive House races in the country because of the influx of cash from the left…

If you follow this at all, you know that this claim is the ripest bullshit — it’s one of the most expensive House races in the country because Bachmann’s been raising insane amounts of cash and starting new PACs. She has raised literally three times as much as Clark, according to this. Luckily for Bachmann, the rise of Glenn Beck shows that some conservatives are easily scared and immune to facts.

St. Cloud Times fact-checks Bachmann just by reporting the facts

September 17, 2010

The article is actually rather dry unless you enjoy reading about tax policy. But the reporter actually does his job — that’s how you know it’s print and not TV — and as a result, all of the claims are explained. And when Bachmann’s claims are explained, the thick underlying layer of bulls**t that’s almost always there is exposed. E.g.:

The ads’ spokesman, “Jim the Election Guy,” suggests Clark voted to increase Minnesota’s sales tax — a claim that could mislead voters about Clark’s role in the tax increase.

In one ad, “Jim the Election Guy” says Clark voted to raise sales taxes on corn dogs and deep-fried bacon at the State Fair. In another, he says Clark favored a tax increase on school supplies.

Clark told the Times she voted for the sales-tax amendment in the election booth in 2008. So in that sense, Clark supported increasing taxes on the above items. But her state Senate vote didn’t raise taxes. It only put the measure to a statewide referendum, and voters responded by endorsing it.

To be fair, the article does document that Clark actually has raised taxes a number of times. But just listing the facts ignores the underlying question: Was it for a good reason? Republicans have given up asking that question and now treat taxes the same way they would treat Satan, but those of us with critical thinking skills might want to look into what those taxes funded and whether we think it’s worth our tax dollars.

DFL accuses Bachmann of federal election law violation

September 16, 2010

Dump Bachmann has the story, of course. The DFL is referring to the “a tax for that” ad, not the State Fair one. (There is apparently no law against pissing off the Minnesota State Fair.) It has to do with Bachmann’s failure to put herself at the end of the ad for long enough. This may be the first time in recorded history that Bachmann has turned down an opportunity to be on television for four seconds.