Bachman goes Boom!

[techs]

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...boom.html?nav=rss_blog

Warning: It's a BLOG

Five days ago, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann seemed headed to a relatively pedestrian reelection win in her suburban Twin Cities district.

Then this happened (the excitement begins around the seven-minute mark):
(video here)

Those comments, made to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last Friday, alleging that Barack Obama held "anti-American" views immediately lit up the blogosphere, energized the campaign of former Blaine Mayor Elwyn Tinklenberg (great name!) and turned Bachmann's race from an afterthought into one of the most high profile House races in the country.

Tinklenberg has raised more than $800,000 in the aftermath of Bachmann's comments and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider has called this a "$1 million mistake" on the part of the Republican incumbent.

The DCCC, sensing opportunity, began airing an ad hitting Bachmann on her opposition to government regulation of the financial industry -- the leading edge of a seven-figure television buy that runs through election day.

And, the Cook Political Report -- one of the most highly respected handicappers of Congressional races and The Fix alma mater -- moved the race (subscription required) from likely Republican to toss up yesterday.

Of the race, Cook House editor David Wasserman wrote: "Bachmann's comments likely changed the complexion of her reelection race overnight and helped to turn the race into even more of a referendum on her."

Even though Bachmann's 6th district is comfortably Republican -- President George W. Bush carried it with 57 percent of the vote in 2004 -- its GOP roots may not be enough to save her from the tsunami she has created and, inexplicably, furthered with an op-ed piece in the Politico seeking to talk her way out of the controversy.

(Side note: Why was Bachmann, who was in a targeted if not top-tier race, appearing on a national television show to talk about Obama less than three weeks before the election? Anyone? Bueller?)




Oops. Do Americans have the good sense to send her packing? I can hardly wait. And wtf is it with a million dollars? That's some serious money.
I, like many others, had been trying to find out how she was doing in the polls, this is the first thing I have seen.

 

[AstroManLuca]

The problem with the 6th district is it's all suburban yuppies. Lots of churchgoers as well. Bachmann has lots of money, lots of kids, and she has that creepy smile of death that other WASPs love so much.

The money buys ads. The ads buy recognition and legitimacy. Two years ago, the woman who ran against her simply didn't have the money or the balls to take her on, despite Bachmann making several scary (to me at least) comments on why she was running for Congress (she said it was because God spoke to her and she spent three days fasting and praying with her husband until he spoke to her again).

I was also sure that her opponent this time around would fail, again due to a lack of funding and recognition. But this has turned things around. Hopefully, she gets the boot. It's certainly possible. But if not, it'll at least be a close race that puts MN-6 back on the map, and maybe the Democrats will put up some more money to beat her in 2010.

 

[MonkeyK]

It won't affect her. She was a psycho before she was elected, her district appears to embrace it.

 

[Lemon law]

What ever sums it up. She was a psychotic before she was elected, she will still be psychotic, regardless if she is reelected or not.

 

[Rainsford]

If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright. The real doozy is the claim she wants the media to investigate congress. Not at all, Matthews asked her if she thought liberals in congress were anti-american. Her response was she cant make that claim and it is upto the media in this country to find out.

So what we have here is the power of blogs and bomb throwing sites to feed propaganda to people to motivate them to do something. It is an interesting situation but I question whether it is good for the country.

I think what this teaches republicans is dont go on biased commentary shows period. They will corner you and get the underlings on the net to cut the clips to make you say something you werent saying and get people to believe it.

The only question is when will the republicans get as organized and use this ridiculous tactic on democrats? I doubt many will be as happy about what transpired if it was some safe democrat seat.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The problem with the 6th district is it's all suburban yuppies. Lots of churchgoers as well. Bachmann has lots of money, lots of kids, and she has that creepy smile of death that other WASPs love so much.

The money buys ads. The ads buy recognition and legitimacy. Two years ago, the woman who ran against her simply didn't have the money or the balls to take her on, despite Bachmann making several scary (to me at least) comments on why she was running for Congress (she said it was because God spoke to her and she spent three days fasting and praying with her husband until he spoke to her again).

I was also sure that her opponent this time around would fail, again due to a lack of funding and recognition. But this has turned things around. Hopefully, she gets the boot. It's certainly possible. But if not, it'll at least be a close race that puts MN-6 back on the map, and maybe the Democrats will put up some more money to beat her in 2010.

Patty Wetterling had plenty of funding but she was whiny and uninspiring. The seat was open and afaik the democrat national party put some money into it to help it move democrat in 06.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright. The real doozy is the claim she wants the media to investigate congress. Not at all, Matthews asked her if she thought liberals in congress were anti-american. Her response was she cant make that claim and it is upto the media in this country to find out.

So what we have here is the power of blogs and bomb throwing sites to feed propaganda to people to motivate them to do something. It is an interesting situation but I question whether it is good for the country.

I think what this teaches republicans is dont go on biased commentary shows period. They will corner you and get the underlings on the net to cut the clips to make you say something you werent saying and get people to believe it.

The only question is when will the republicans get as organized and use this ridiculous tactic on democrats? I doubt many will be as happy about what transpired if it was some safe democrat seat.

I didn't say this was good or bad, although I think her words were given plenty of context...I saw the video too, and while Matthews was being his usual asshole self, what she ended up saying was pretty outrageous. But opinions on what she said aside, my point was that this CLEARLY is a factor that will have to be considered, for better or worse.

But you're wrong about this being a Democratic tactic, Republicans have been doing this for many elections now, only instead of just letting things move around the Internet in a relatively unguided but productive manner, stupid quotes potentially taken out of context and jumping all over missteps are well funded centerpieces of the campaign of many Republicans. You can't possibly think this is more ridiculous than the amount of flack Kerry ended up taking for saying things like "global test". And like it or not, it's NOT a ridiculous tactic, if only because it works. And don't let one case like this fool you, Republicans are WAY better at doing this than Democrats. Part of the reason I'm happy about the flack this woman is taking, other than the fact that she doesn't belong in Congress, is that this is the same kind of thing Republicans have been doing to Democrats for YEARS, mostly with far less to back up their attacks.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright. The real doozy is the claim she wants the media to investigate congress. Not at all, Matthews asked her if she thought liberals in congress were anti-american. Her response was she cant make that claim and it is upto the media in this country to find out.

So what we have here is the power of blogs and bomb throwing sites to feed propaganda to people to motivate them to do something. It is an interesting situation but I question whether it is good for the country.

I think what this teaches republicans is dont go on biased commentary shows period. They will corner you and get the underlings on the net to cut the clips to make you say something you werent saying and get people to believe it.

The only question is when will the republicans get as organized and use this ridiculous tactic on democrats? I doubt many will be as happy about what transpired if it was some safe democrat seat.

I didn't say this was good or bad, although I think her words were given plenty of context...I saw the video too, and while Matthews was being his usual asshole self, what she ended up saying was pretty outrageous. But opinions on what she said aside, my point was that this CLEARLY is a factor that will have to be considered, for better or worse.

But you're wrong about this being a Democratic tactic, Republicans have been doing this for many elections now, only instead of just letting things move around the Internet in a relatively unguided but productive manner, stupid quotes potentially taken out of context and jumping all over missteps are well funded centerpieces of the campaign of many Republicans. You can't possibly think this is more ridiculous than the amount of flack Kerry ended up taking for saying things like "global test". And like it or not, it's NOT a ridiculous tactic, if only because it works. And don't let one case like this fool you, Republicans are WAY better at doing this than Democrats. Part of the reason I'm happy about the flack this woman is taking, other than the fact that she doesn't belong in Congress, is that this is the same kind of thing Republicans have been doing to Democrats for YEARS, mostly with far less to back up their attacks.

Republicans are doing it now. The whole "Joe the Plumber" pageant was exactly this kind of blatant misrepresentation. The only difference is that it wasn't some pundit doing the deed--it was John McCain himself doing the misrepresenting. And he tried to sandbag Obama at the third debate with this tactic. Its only fitting of McCain's failed campaign that the guy he picked as his posterboy to symbolize his economic tax plan--turned out to be a tax cheat. Classic.

 

[Juddog]

The scary part about Bachman is that there are people like this that share her mentality that are spread through America.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Juddog
The scary part about Bachman is that there are people like this that share her mentality that are spread through America.

Sing along now:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

The starvation army they play,
They sing and they clap and they pray
'Till they get all your coin on the drum
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
They holler, they jump and they shout.
Give your money to Jesus they say,
He will cure all diseases today.
If you fight hard for children and wife
Try to get something good in this life
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight;
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry.
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

 

[Mani]

I'm not holding my breath, but this could seriously turn into one of the coolest stories of the election if her batshit-insane comments actually lose her the election.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The problem with the 6th district is it's all suburban yuppies. Lots of churchgoers as well. Bachmann has lots of money, lots of kids, and she has that creepy smile of death that other WASPs love so much.

The money buys ads. The ads buy recognition and legitimacy. Two years ago, the woman who ran against her simply didn't have the money or the balls to take her on, despite Bachmann making several scary (to me at least) comments on why she was running for Congress (she said it was because God spoke to her and she spent three days fasting and praying with her husband until he spoke to her again).

I was also sure that her opponent this time around would fail, again due to a lack of funding and recognition. But this has turned things around. Hopefully, she gets the boot. It's certainly possible. But if not, it'll at least be a close race that puts MN-6 back on the map, and maybe the Democrats will put up some more money to beat her in 2010.

I suppose if you can't find a candidate that's worth a shit you can always try and spend your way into office, right?

Also, if the 6th district is filled with a majority of people who share common political and personal beliefs with Bachmann why is it so "scary" that the people in the 6th elect someone of similar outlook? Isn't it more scary to think that a bunch of rich asshats from Califorina can throw an election in Minnesota and supercede the will of the voters?

God forbid we have a range of political ideological viewpoints represented in this country, as long as somebody knows what's good for us all, right...

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The problem with the 6th district is it's all suburban yuppies. Lots of churchgoers as well. Bachmann has lots of money, lots of kids, and she has that creepy smile of death that other WASPs love so much.

The money buys ads. The ads buy recognition and legitimacy. Two years ago, the woman who ran against her simply didn't have the money or the balls to take her on, despite Bachmann making several scary (to me at least) comments on why she was running for Congress (she said it was because God spoke to her and she spent three days fasting and praying with her husband until he spoke to her again).

I was also sure that her opponent this time around would fail, again due to a lack of funding and recognition. But this has turned things around. Hopefully, she gets the boot. It's certainly possible. But if not, it'll at least be a close race that puts MN-6 back on the map, and maybe the Democrats will put up some more money to beat her in 2010.

I suppose if you can't find a candidate that's worth a shit you can always try and spend your way into office, right?

Also, if the 6th district is filled with a majority of people who share common political and personal beliefs with Bachmann why is it so "scary" that the people in the 6th elect someone of similar outlook? Isn't it more scary to think that a bunch of rich asshats from Califorina can throw an election in Minnesota and supercede the will of the voters?

God forbid we have a range of political ideological viewpoints represented in this country, as long as somebody knows what's good for us all, right...

The lady is a nutbag and is unfit to govern. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

 

[sportage]

Oh...NOW I remember who she is.
She's one of those talking heads often on Larry King Live that looks like her face and smile was sprayed on just before airtime. Like they said, "hold that look", then spray her face down with some clear fast hardening film like goo stuff.
I wondered about her...
I think my grandma use to use the same stuff on her hair.
She would spray her hair down, and you could bounce golf balls off her head without
causing one dent. I believe it was invented by NASA for re entry stability.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The problem with the 6th district is it's all suburban yuppies. Lots of churchgoers as well. Bachmann has lots of money, lots of kids, and she has that creepy smile of death that other WASPs love so much.

The money buys ads. The ads buy recognition and legitimacy. Two years ago, the woman who ran against her simply didn't have the money or the balls to take her on, despite Bachmann making several scary (to me at least) comments on why she was running for Congress (she said it was because God spoke to her and she spent three days fasting and praying with her husband until he spoke to her again).

I was also sure that her opponent this time around would fail, again due to a lack of funding and recognition. But this has turned things around. Hopefully, she gets the boot. It's certainly possible. But if not, it'll at least be a close race that puts MN-6 back on the map, and maybe the Democrats will put up some more money to beat her in 2010.

I suppose if you can't find a candidate that's worth a shit you can always try and spend your way into office, right?

Also, if the 6th district is filled with a majority of people who share common political and personal beliefs with Bachmann why is it so "scary" that the people in the 6th elect someone of similar outlook? Isn't it more scary to think that a bunch of rich asshats from Califorina can throw an election in Minnesota and supercede the will of the voters?

God forbid we have a range of political ideological viewpoints represented in this country, as long as somebody knows what's good for us all, right...

What are you on? Californians can't vote in Minnesota. They can donate to the campaign, but in the end, the election will be determined solely by the people in that district. And if money from other parts of the state or the country happens to make things easier for one of the candidates to get more people to vote for him, what's the problem with that? House and Senate races across the nation are funded primarily by the parties, who get their money from all over the place. Bachmann got elected in '06 thanks to lots of funding from the Republican party.

Or do you want to insist that every state-level campaign only use money from donors from the people who live there? What's the point of that? They should pay for the candidates to advertise to themselves?

EDIT: Another thing... Even with the extra money Tinklenberg (her opponent) has raised, he's still behind on the amount of money raised. If he's still able to win the election, doesn't that say something about the "will of the people"? Elections are determined by voters, not by the number of donations.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright. The real doozy is the claim she wants the media to investigate congress. Not at all, Matthews asked her if she thought liberals in congress were anti-american. Her response was she cant make that claim and it is upto the media in this country to find out.

So what we have here is the power of blogs and bomb throwing sites to feed propaganda to people to motivate them to do something. It is an interesting situation but I question whether it is good for the country.

I think what this teaches republicans is dont go on biased commentary shows period. They will corner you and get the underlings on the net to cut the clips to make you say something you werent saying and get people to believe it.

The only question is when will the republicans get as organized and use this ridiculous tactic on democrats? I doubt many will be as happy about what transpired if it was some safe democrat seat.

I watched the interview.

Yes, Matthews was his usual caustic self. He's done the same sort of stuff to liberals as well. It's not about the guests, it's about Matthews ego. He and O'Reilly are cut from the same cloth, except Matthews doesn't lie.

BUT, Bachman is a complete fool. I would not want that woman representing me even if I were a Republican. She's trading on her looks, smile, vanilla personality, and religion. Is she likely to make the right decision on a tough national issue, like regulating the financial industry, or national security, etc.? Hard to say for sure, but I think she'd be worse than Palin. I didn't think the Republicans had anyone worse than Palin, but Bachman IS.

The people in that district need to give her a hard, cold look before they pull the lever.

-Robert

 

[Descartes]

It wasn't the brightest thing in the world to go against Chris Matthews on this subject, but I also agree that Matthews was trying far too hard to get her to equate liberals with anti-American sentiments. He just didn't present a very good argument.

So, as far as I can tell, she's just regurgitating the same Republican talking about that everyone else is.

 

[yowolabi]

If I was discussing my political views and an interviewer asked me about my anti-american opponents, I'd say: "Who said anti-american? That's ridiculous. I don't consider anyone anti-american just because they don't agree with my views. What I do feel is that these policies are bad for America, and here's why...." I wouldn't parrot the "anti-american" line back to anyone unless I felt t was applicable.

As a poltician/media-whore she should be even more careful with her words than I am. I've seen her on TV before and always disliked her. I don't really care if her words weren't as bad as liberal websites made them out to be, I think she'd be a good candidate to be replaced by somebody/anybody else. The citizens of her district will make that choice... all I did is contribute $20 so he can get his message out.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.
-snip-

I'm very ambivilent about that - people from all over the country donating to this candidate in a *local* race.

I don't like the idea of foreigners donating to national political campaigns, nor people outside of a district.

Money is very very influencial in campaigns. I don't see how *outside* influences are beneficial when the candidate is suposed to represent those only within their district.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.

It was a stupid move on the part of Bachmann, but the real lesson here is HOW stupid it ended up being and how quickly it impacted her campaign. And it's a good lesson for Republicans as well. You folks have spent the last several years getting away with calling Democrats anti-American, maybe this is a message that no matter how popular that idea is with your political circle, it sounds pretty stupid to those of us outside of it.

I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright. The real doozy is the claim she wants the media to investigate congress. Not at all, Matthews asked her if she thought liberals in congress were anti-american. Her response was she cant make that claim and it is upto the media in this country to find out.

So what we have here is the power of blogs and bomb throwing sites to feed propaganda to people to motivate them to do something. It is an interesting situation but I question whether it is good for the country.

I think what this teaches republicans is dont go on biased commentary shows period. They will corner you and get the underlings on the net to cut the clips to make you say something you werent saying and get people to believe it.

The only question is when will the republicans get as organized and use this ridiculous tactic on democrats? I doubt many will be as happy about what transpired if it was some safe democrat seat.

She wasn't blatantly misrepresented, Matthews just encouraged her to pursue her own views to their logical conclusion, and she willingly obliged.

And like Democrats get treated any differently when the go on Hannity, O'Reilly, or some other right-wing commentary show.
How blind do you have to be to make a comment like that?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If nothing else, this shows that the Internet really can be good for this kind of grass roots stuff. Some asshole Republican congresswomen says something ridiculous on TV, and within a very short amount of time, thousands of people from all over the country know about it and have the ability to take very quick action to help out her opposition. Raising money typically costs a fair amount of money to begin with, otherwise anybody could run for office...the current surge in donations cost the Democrats virtually nothing. No need for direct mail or TV ads, the online community did all the work for them.
-snip-

I'm very ambivilent about that - people from all over the country donating to this candidate in a *local* race.

I don't like the idea of foreigners donating to national political campaigns, nor people outside of a district.

Money is very very influencial in campaigns. I don't see how *outside* influences are beneficial when the candidate is suposed to represent those only within their district.

Fern

How do you feel about the NRCC and such then?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
I could agree with you if what she said wasnt blatently misrepresented. Matthews was trying to pin her into a corner and get her to make a broad statement about liberals being anti-american when she clearly was talking about people like ayers and wright.

She wasn't blatantly misrepresented, Matthews just encouraged her to pursue her own views to their logical conclusion, and she willingly obliged.

Misrepresented??

MR. MATTHEWS: So you think that's a fair critique of Barack Obama, that his view of America is so -- that America is so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists. You think that's a fair comment.
REP. BACHMANN: It's a fair comment, because Barack Obama does have a close association with Bill Ayers


Um, FALSE


MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.
REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views

Misrepresented? She "didn't mean what she said?" What if she tried this:

"No, I don't believe Senator Obama has Anti-American views."

Gee, that was fucking hard.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Or even "I don't think his views are what's best for America." No need to even refute what Matthews said, just clarify what she meant. That is, if that's all she meant.

 

[Pens1566]

I find her explanation equally full of BS ... "I didn't know what the hardball show was ... never heard of it". Right ......