Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

Does Michele Bachmann ‘Walk the Talk?’





It’s common these days to hear media talking heads refer to Michele Bachmann as the “Tea Party favorite” in the upcoming 2012 GOP primary race. Unlike Governor Palin who has always stated that the Tea Party doesn’t need one specific leader, Bachmann has tried to cast herself into such a role. She created a “Tea Party Caucus” in congress and gave the “Tea Party response” following Obama’s State of the Union Address last January.

The Tea Party is comprised mainly of independent-minded small government activists who are sick and tired of the way Washington is operating. These are people who are fed up with DC insiders cutting deals with officials at the expense of this country’s future. A bloated, centralized system of government with too many payouts has spawned the biggest grassroots movement in recent history. A person who professes to speak for such a group of patriots at the highest level had better “walk the talk.”

While Bachmann may talk a good game, her actions are leaving many with questions that she has yet to adequately answer. Steve Bannon discussed one of these questions during a recent interview with PV Radio that Ian posted on Friday, concerning her family receiving large sums in Medicaid payments for their clinics.

(Partial transcript excerpt, emphasis mine)

"And I think quite frankly, she’s got to learn to answer questions. Like Chris Wallace asked a very straightforward question, she had every opportunity to explain this. And she gave quite frankly, an unacceptable answer. The answer was very misleading. And that’s just not going to wash, particularly if you want to hold the banner of the Tea Party, you’ve got to almost be a purist. That means, if you believe in limited government, then you’ve really got to believe in limited government. You can’t talk about limited government and take the benefits from the large state."

Despite being an unlicensed "therapist" practicing a controversial form of counseling, Marcus Bachmann received more than $137,000 in Medicaid payments for his clinics in Minnesota. According to Michael Isikoff:

Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls."

The amount is a much higher than the previously reported sum of $24,000 that she answered for during that interview with Chris Wallace. Isikoff writes:

The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband’s clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann’s public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment.

Questions about the Bachmann family’s receipt of government funds arose this week after a Los Angeles Times story reported that a family farm in which Michelle Bachmann is a partner had received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

When asked by anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the story’s assertion that her husband’s counseling clinic had also gotten federal and state funds, Bachmann replied that it was "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn’t help our clinic."

At another point, she said, "My husband and I did not get the money," adding that it was "mental health training money that went to the employees."

But state records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota’s Medicaid program every year for the past six years. Karen Smigielski, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, said the state’s Medicaid program is funded "about 50-50″ with federal and state monies. The funds to Bachmann & Associates are for the treatment of low-income mentally ill patients and are based on a "fee for service" basis, meaning the clinic was reimbursed by Medicaid for the services it provided.

By stating that the payments were a "one-time" payment, Michele Bachmann was dishonest with the audience. She was clearly trying to downplay the issue, perhaps knowing that it hurts her credibility with that large group of grassroots conservatives across the country that she seeks support from.

Medicaid payments to her husbands business isn’t the only issue the congresswoman is going to face tough questions about. Michele Bachmann waves the Gadsden flag and calls herself an "outsider," yet she hired many DC "insiders" to run her campaign. She came under some heat for hiring Ed Rollins, but most of those criticisms died down when her people had stated that Bachmann forced Rollins to apologize to Palin’s staff. I never saw any press accounts one way or the other whether Rollins actually apologized, or if those where just more empty words from Team Bachmann. Perhaps someone in the press will look into that one day.

Steve Bannon was right when he spoke about holding the banner of the Tea Party. The people within the movement won’t allow politicians to use their cause to simply advance themselves. They are aware and educated activists who are not easily fooled. When an elected official stands with them and speaks their language, they had better back it up with their actions.



Tags: , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MPFKOTQZZEXG66P27THSBW7SHY Daisy May

    I did this and I did that…that`s all I hear from MB…does not come across as very humble.. And I am still waiting for MB to apologize to Gov Palin for Ed Rollins comments, and a few of her own. Waiting waiting Waiting

    Also MB owes an apology to all Palin supporters, but not until she first apologizes to Gov Palin. Personally I think it`s to late for an apology, would be empty and hollow, but nevertheless it is owed

    MB has proven to me that she does not have the proper judgment to be President. Also she needs a good fatherly spanking

    • Jim Wagner

      I like the question of "humbleness" in regards to MB. In contrast to Gov. Palin, these two women would be polar opposite from one another.  Gov. Palin is so respectful of the Tea Party movement and such a humble person, she would never assume to be its leader.  I know Gov. Palin is too honorable to attempt to "coop" this movement for political gain as MB (in my opinion) has done. 
      I have stood shoulder to shoulder with many TPers and I do not think I am the only one who resents MB for this. This may sound a bit harsh, but it is the way I feel.

      • palin45potus

        I also resent her hijacking the TEA Party, her wrapping herself in the Gadsden flag, trying to steal Sarah’s applause lines, and pretending not to notice while her hired stooge does his dirty work to taint her.  

        I also resent her strange silence while her "friend" was being accused of being an accessory to murder.  Then again, she was busy in her new job as self appointed leader of the TEA Party.

        • Jim Wagner

          I totally agree with you 45!

        • http://teamsarah.ning.com/profile/HymanRoth Hyman Roth

          "I also resent her strange silence while her "friend" was being accused of being an accessory to murder.  Then again, she was busy in her new job as self appointed leader of the TEA Party."

          I have MENTALLY "Liked" this comment 2,000 times.

        • vikings444

          Right on….

    • M_Minnesota

      People I talked to on that day in Minneapolis (Fundraiser Rally) did NOT give up their Wednesday(daytime job hours) to see MB.   The positives for that day is that SarahPac got some great footage for her first major SarahPac vid.  The  "In this Together" video.

      The dress that Sarah had on was truly Presidential!! 

  • Palinpower

    Bachmann is a big phony. Her husband’s practice of turning gays into straights is junk science and I like Bannon for saying it like it is. Thank you , sir.

    • TexS2012

      yeah, she’s a phony, you can "hear" it in her speaking voice, which is forced and grates on my ears.
      It’s pretty amazing that she thinks she can be president of The United States of America. Does anyone  else get annoyed over people running for the highest office in the land/World while just hoping for a JOB in Any Administration? It’s all as phony as a 12 dollar bill.

  • palin45potus

    Stacy,  Very well written, timely post.  Thank Goodness that folks like you are speaking out now, and her record is being scrutinized.  I know I have had my eyes opened as I look into her past.  

    I bought her hook, line, and sinker before.  Not that I saw her as anyone near Sarah as far as my candidate of choice, but I did think she was fighting the good fight.

    But talk is cheap, as we’ve found while waiting for congress to deliver the goods they promised.  And now that she’s doubling down in social values talk, I’m not particularly interested in degaying people, and I think cheap stunts like public pledges are so 90′s.

    But thankfully, we look like we might get someone who does walk the walk.  When I heard Steve Bannon, found out that he works with Andrew Breitbart, the Reagan’s, and got Mark Levin and Tammy Bruce onboard this project, well, it gives me the feeling that we’re really early in something that’s going to be really big.

    Thanks for the good work that you do here!  I always like your writing.

    • StacyDrake

      You are too kind. Thank you.

    • TexS2012

      Landslide Victory!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1537873048 Nicole Olmstead Coulter

    Ouch!

    That’s gonna leave a mark, Stacy.

    Good job! :)

    • Sue Lynn

      Bachmann has been a huge let down. Another want a bee that Sarah saved their political ass in 2010 and We The People are not stupid. I can see right through her and the rest riding the wave Sarah has made. Sarah is about the people and has lived it out her entire career. Sarah has always been in public service for the right reasons. Even now she talks about her team and what they did together not taking all the credit for anything. 

      • palin45potus

        I know that it was partly because of Sarah’s appearance with her in Minnesota that I decided that "If Sarah’s putting it on the line for her, she must be good!"   What did it take her, 2 minutes after being sworn in that she decided that it was really time that the TEA Party got themselves a leader, one who’s sacrificed time and put it on the line for their beliefs.  But who could that be, a woman, ummm, ME!

        I don’t even want to discuss the Tucson episode.  But there was the character revelation in broad daylight, for anyone who pays attention.

        Having found that she’s all for Fed $$ into her pocket, lying about it, all captured on live TV, with a loose cannon attack dog who’s actions she still hasn’t explained, I think she’s gonna have some astroturfed poll numbers to puff her up, but the smell test has certainly been failed.  

        I expect her to double down on her Evangelical Christian creds, to tap into the Huck vote, but isn’t Sarah’s "Live by the good book, and respect other’s" approach what many are looking for? 

        Huge letdown indeed.  We can hope that candidates don’t let us down, but so far, Sarah is standing out like a floodlight.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-Lynn/1831312967 Sue Lynn

          I feel the same way…It’s sad to watch. Sarah does stand tall and will not let us down!!

  • skponggol

    Yesterday, she is still standing by the vow linking slavery to black family values:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/09/bachmann-stands-by-marriage-pledge-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/

    Now :

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2011/07/09/gIQANT3C6H_story.html

    A woman with " titanium spine " ? Sounds more like flaky spine.

    - " Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart said that the Minnesota congresswoman had only endorsed the 14-point “candidate vow,” which did not include the slavery passage. "

    - " However, the entire document was only four pages, including two pages of footnotes, and the slavery section was the first bullet point within the preamble. "

    Now, we know that this flake does not read anything before she signs anything. Another typical corrupt DC politician who has spent all her entire life signing away other people’s money without reading since it is not her money.

    • skponggol

      Four pages of documents also don’t know how to read ! No wonder she has so much difficulty reading and focusing totally on her teleprompter instead of speaking to the audience :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I

      This is the proper way of reading and using the teleprompter, direct from the grand master himself :
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNCALGHOC4

      Barack, teach this flake how to use her teleprompter !

    • ellengba

      Well given that the statement regarding the state of Black Families in 1860 vs. today is 100% accurate.  I think it’s fine if she sticks with the statement.  People making comments about the impact of the slave system seem to ignore the fact the slave would end within 4 years or 1860, and many Black families would register with the Freemans bureau.

      Today 70% of Black children are born to single mothers, and those are the lucky one’s given the rate at which Black baby’s are aborted.

      I thought the most shocking seen out of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina was the Black women and their children.  I hardly saw any men (lots of boys) with those women.  I saw images of men, but not images of families.  I suppose most of the Black families were not poverty stricken and had left in their cars before the storm.

      • Right_Wingnut

        You don’t insert that into a pledge leading up to a campaign against a black guy.

        • ellengba

          Why not?  Obama has an intact family, and he has done nothing to help the Black family.  His policies have driven up unemployment.  Hell he supports illegal immigration inspite of the harm it does to low-skilled workers.  He has killed Black employment by supporting a higher minimum wage, and illegal immigration.  His support of welfare does nothing to help Black men.  If young people cannot find work in entry-level positions how do they get the skills to move-up.  If they do not have jobs how can they form families.  Look what he’s doing to hard hat jobs.  Look what his policies have done to housing and in turn to construction.

          If unemployment if over 9 percent can you imagine what the rate is for Black men. 

          Republicans will never make progress in with Black voters if they are too scared to address the real problems that Blacks face.  Leave the fake self-esteem nonsense to liberals.  The Black family is worse off after 50 years of liberalism then they were after 300 years of slavery.  That should be a Republican talking point. 

          Hell the Republican Party saved Blacks from slavery, maybe they can save them from liberalism if they just tell the truth.

          • Jean_A

            We know what he is doing.  He is doing it on purpose.  We are going to have a battle on our hands and we don’t need people signing pledges without reading them for points or votes.  The guy pushing the pledge is a big Huck supporter and MB did it for the votes.  The problem is that Huck’s daughter is working for T-Paw and Huck’s seems to like T-Paw.

            If MB keeps it up she is going to bring down the Tea Party, the GOP(probably a good thing), and maybe Gov. Palin.

            Everytime this woman does something nutty the corrupt MSM finds a way to link her to the governor.

            • ellengba

              Why is the pledge nutty?

              Forgetting Huck and MB for the moment, what is actually wrong with the pledge.

              Why remove the factually correct statement regarding the Black family?

              • susiepuma

                because it’s garbage – just like the rest of those stupid pledges…. if the person who is elected is Sarah Palin – she don’t need no frickin’ pledges – if it is anyone else – it won’t mean a thing because it is just pandering to a small group of people & will be ignored once that person is in office if elected – like I stated before – black Americans WILL NOT vote in large numbers for Sarah Palin – they believe everything the Dems/Progs tell them & sorry, they also will be forced off the gravey train that LBJ instituted back in the 60′s – sorry, it takes courage to get an education (whether college or vocational school), get a job, have children only if one can afford them, etc. – you all know the drill – this mantra applies to ALL Americans …….

                • ellengba

                  It might take courage to get an education.  Or, it might take quality schools were learning takes place.

                  You might hate pledges, but I say so what.  If some organization wants a pledge from a politician for their support so be it.  I do not my problem with pledges, or the politicians who choose to take them.  I like to see more pledges and oaths, and more living up to the pledges and oaths.

                  If a statement is factual who cares if Blacks will vote in large numbers for Sarah Palin.  If she gets 10 or 15 percent she wins.  What Blacks will vote for Sarah Palin liberal Blacks or conservative Blacks?

                  You know welfare is a honey trap.  It is a systemic trap with poor schools, public housing, and earned income tax credits.  Very poor people low-skill people receive in excess of $40,000 in benefits.  They do not have the skills to earn the income to replace those benefits.

                  Free housing, free child care, and a check is given to single mother.  In a community with no jobs why would a woman give up those benefits.  What about the men they not have jobs so they just hang around.  They have nothing to offer the woman who receives income and benefits from the state.  The men are just love interest.  These women end up with babies from different fathers so the children are not raised in families, because most men do not desire to raise other men’s children.

                  This is by design.  Republicans need to offer real solutions to this problem.  It’s not a Black problem it’s a poverty problem.  Government programs for the poor have been discouraging family formation for generations.

            • ellengba

              Look MB is not going anywhere.  I’m just thinking tactically about the type of Black voter that will be drawn to the Republican Party.  90% to 95% of Blacks vote democrat.  How is the Republican Party going to get conservative Blacks to vote Republican?

              They are going to get conservative Blacks by addressing the issues that they are concerned about.  Make fun of Huck, but he got Black votes.  Obama is toast if he loses some of his Black voters.  If Obama is down to 85% meaning the Republican candidate getting 15% well ask techo what happens to democrats if the only hold 85% of Black voters.

              How are Republican going to get those votes. Republicans will get those votes by aggressively appealing to Black conservatives.  Black conservatives care about the Black family.

              • Guest

                It is NEVER a good idea to have on the same piece of paper…the mention of slavery AND a republican candidate.  PERIOD!!!  It doesn’t matter WHAT it says.  It will be twisted in the worst ways and Sarah Palin is too smart to sign something like that.  It is just more proof that Michele Bachmann does NOT have the common sense to be president. 

                Republicans don’t need to reference slavery to get black votes!!!!  You can talk about the degradation of the family WITHOUT mentioning slavery!!!

                • ellengba

                  Sorry, but if liberalism is worst for the Black family then 300 years of slavery, then the party that fought to end slavery has the standing to mention it.

          • SaraPFan

            Agree. Agree. Agree.

            Republicans are so timid about talking about how Dems destroyed black marriages and stunted black population.

            After slavery ended, blacks registered as Republicans and held seats in Congress. The Civil Rights legislation was voted into law by a Republican congress.

            This should be a talking point surrounding the marriage pledge. Most blacks don’t know the truth behind black history in America. This would have been a good issue to start real education like Palin did with her bus tour. This would have pit black ministers/churches against race baiters. But the Republicans packed down by removing stastical data from the marriage pledge.  

      • JeannieBinVA

        Honestly, ellengba, just listen to yourself. "100% accurate" indeed. 

        There’s no telling what percentage of slave children grew up in the same home as their 2 parents, given that an untold number of slave children were the product of rape by their mother’s owner, his male sons or other male relatives, plantation visitors, or any white male in the vicinity. 

        Furthermore, there was no such thing EVER as a slave "household", two-parent or otherwise, because to be a household requires some measure of ownership or authority or self-direction or control over the living quarters and those living there by the adult/s present, and that was NEVER the case. Any parent or child could be sold or moved to other quarters at any time, on the whim of the owner or any of his family members. They could even be sold at the direction of a plantation creditor, for heaven’s sake. This was the expectation of every slave’s life from beginning to end, and it became the reality at some point in most slaves’ lives. A slave child’s parent had no authority to direct even his or her own life or living situation, much less their children’s lives.

        In context the clear implication of this introductory statement is that it is better that children grow up as slaves and as the children of slaves, as long as they are in a two-parent living setting — however temporary or uncertain — than it is for them to grow up as free individuals in a single-parent household. Don’t even get me started on what this says about your negative, highly judgmental view of widows/widowers and war widows/widowers, not to mention rape victims who are single and choose to give birth.

        I can’t begin to understand how you, or the so-called "Christian" people who devised this pledge, or even a typical, pandering politican like MB, can hold such inhumane beliefs.

        For the record, I reject the whole notion of a candidate signing ANY special-interest pledge. The only purpose of such documents is to elevate one group of Americans and denigrate everyone else. The only document a candidate or officeholder should pledge to uphold is the U.S. Constitution. Period.  

        • SaraPFan

          What about during the Reconstruction?  Single mothers? What about during the Great Depression? Were 70%, single mothers? What about during the Civil Rights era?  Single mothers? The Dems government programs have divided black families. The sins of slavery "dividing" black families will not erase the greater divisions caused by the Democrat welfare programs.

          • JeannieBinVA

            Sorry, SarahPFan, if you have to defend slavery in order to make your argument, you’ve already lost the argument. Slavery and its horrors are indefensible on ANY level. 

            It’s idiotic to compare parenthood in later eras to a situation like slavery where parents had no control over or responsibility for any aspect of their children’s existence, but any white person could choose to exercise complete control over both black parents and their children. It shouldn’t be difficult to see how insulting and hurtful it is to black people to take one isolated, meaningless – not to mention unprovable – statistic out of context like that. 

            As for later eras before the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts really started to take hold in the 70s and 80s, growing up in a two-parent household is of limited value if neither you nor your parents can speak your mind freely, get an education or medical treatment, vote, travel, have ANY legal rights or expectation of justice in the courts, work in most jobs or professions, go into most restaurants or businesses, or even walk down most streets holding your head high, without being threatened, punished, arrested, or killed for trying it. 

            There are plenty of single parents out there — some of them single by choice, some by circumstance – who are doing and have done remarkably fine jobs raising their children, just as plenty of two-parent homes produce rotten kids. Every time this subject comes up my first thought is of all the war widows over the years, decades, centuries who raised their children without a father. Were THEY all terrible mothers, too?  I just don’t see the point in condemning people (or their children) on the basis of marital status, which is what this type of pledge seems to do.

            • SaraPFan

              We are not defending slavery. We are making a comparison about the how Democrat legislation negatively affected the strength of black families. BTW, I am black and not in the least offended. I am not a victim of the race baiting card.
              You are correct stating that many women choose to raise their children in single households–70% of black children are brought up by single mothers by choice because they recieve government incentives to do so. You are attempting to derail the conversation by invoking widows or children whose parent was in the military. That is very low.
              Black families are in worse conditions than slavery times, Reconstruction are the Civil Rights era. We don’t get an education (as you’ve mentioned), we don’t have a freedom to choose where to send our children to school, we don’t get to choose medical services (as you’ve mentioned especially when Obamacare gets into full gear), we are threatened and ridiculed when we vote (take the New Black Panther video intimidating voters who were not brought up on charges by Holder).

              So again, the Democrat machine has reverted to blacks in slavery times and even worse. I know my black history and what the Democrats are doing to blacks are indefensible.

              • JeannieBinVA

                My bad. Living as slaves was downright paradise for black children, as was living in the post-slavery era without any rights or prospects, because they were more likely to have 2 parents (at least for a short time). And nothing else matters. Got it. /s

                I can’t imagine what makes you think so badly of black women today that you assume (1) a majority of them choose to be single parents, and (2) they do so because of government incentives. We all know of so many success stories coming out of single parent households — Ronde and Tiki Barber, for example. Their father abandoned the family when they were just toddlers. All of the Dem programs were in place then, but their mother worked multiple jobs to give them a good start. Doesn’t she count? And the many, many single mothers like her (and some single fathers, too) who sacrifice heroically to make sure their children do well?  

                And why is it "low" to mention war widows/widowers? They are single parents, too. 

                I am not defending Democratic policies. Personally I think the Dept. of Education, just for starters, should be abolished. It is criminal to be spending that much money and yet have such poor outcomes, along with repeated cheating scandals like what’s just been reported about the Atlanta schools, and so many school systems with 50% or higher drop-out rates. 

                But coming down hard on Democratic policies does not require elevating slavery as a preferred state of existence. It doesn’t work as an argument, and beyond that it’s just plain wrong, both factually and morally.   

                • ellengba

                  I am sorry you are so dense.  I am sorry you think making a comparison of two bad things is the same as saying one is good and one is bad.

                  Getting rid of the Dept. of Education is so far beside the point.  It does not provide economic incentives to produce children out of wedlock.  It has not created a generation of Blacks were fathers have not relevence to the family.

                • SaraPFan

                  We are on different paradigms. No one "defends" slavery. Didn’t we have a civil war? I’ll digress because I am not going to beat a dead horse highlighting glaring statistical data. 

            • ellengba

              No one is defending slavery that is the point.

              Liberalism has been more destructive to the Black family then Slavery.  That would not be shocking if anyone was saying Slavery was good.

              No the point is that such an evil vile institution was not as destructive to the Black Family as liberalism.

              If I were to write that Blacks have not had full-employment since slavery only an idiot would think I was advocating bringing back slavery, or defending slavery.

              End liberalism it is destructive.

        • ellengba

          Are you purposely obtuse?

          Have you ever heard for the Freedmen Bureau wih helped to reunite families? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen's_Bureau

          You could look at the first census after 1860, which would be 1870 and see the families that were registered.  So yes we can look at data to see families.

          Hell I can look at my only family.  My Great Grandmother, whose raise my father and her 5 grand children was the daughter of slaves.  She was born on a plantation in Mississippi.  I can look at their census card which indicates that their family had been been slaves in Mississippi since the 1700s.

          She and her husband who was also from mississippi moved to Tennesse where her only child a daughter was born.  I can follow her through census records.  They moved north to Chicago, and then to Ohio.  My father was born in Ohio in 1927.  His mother would die of TB in the 1930s.  My Great Grand father owned his home in Ohio, my aunt inherited the home in the 1970s.  I can see on the census record that his wife, his son-in-law, and his 5 grand children were his household.

          I can tace my Grand father too.  He was from North Carolina.  I know that his father owned his farm and was not was not freed by the Civil War he was a free land owning Black prior to the Civil War.  I can know that he lost his wife, and married again.  I can tell this because the census record records list the relationship to the head of household.  He has children, but his wife has children and stepchildren.  I also know whether they were owners or tenants, and what their occupations were, and their literacy.

          On my father’s side of the family we had slaves and they had intact families going back to the 1700s.  We’ve are still intact families today.  My father was married to my mother over 50 years.  He lost his wife my mother in February.  My brother is married to his wife and they have 3 sons.  My husband and I have two children.  My other brother die without he and his wife having any children.  My sister has never married and has no children.  Of course, we have also never been on welfare.  My mother family is from Maine and Europe and they we not slaves, but we were native americans, and canadians.  Census data is a treasure trove.

          Why would you care if a candidate signs a pledge, or if some organization asks them to?  Are you going to refuse to vote for a candidate because they signed a pledge?  Are you planning to dedictate to organizations how they govern themselves?  Is that how you understand liberty under the constitution?  Do you mind that school children start their day with a pledge, or that scouts make oaths?

          Get over yourself.

          Oh do you think a Blacks woman would not consider her child part of her family because of rape?  Do you think a Black man would not consider his child that he raised not his family because rape?  Do you think that man and woman would be aware, they might also be a product of rape?  How do we deal with adoption?  If a man has wife historically the children produce during that union are his children period.

          • JeannieBinVA

            ellengba, I’m glad you have such complete records about your ancestors during the slavery era, but it’s a stretch to believe that most slave stories mirror your family’s story. You’re lucky that the Mississippi Division of the Freedmen’s Bureau kept better records than the other 9 FB divisions, so descendants of slaves from Mississippi do have a more accurate data set from that period to work from.
             
            Of course I know about the Freedmen’s Bureau, but I also know it lacked the time, resources, and support to do more than a fraction of what Lincoln hoped it would do. The FB only legitimized some 50-60,000 marriages across the entire South, out of a population of some 4 million former slaves. Even adding the 5% of the black population who were already free before the war, this accounts for at most 20% of the adult black population in the South in 1870.
             
            Pre-1865 no Southern state recognized or recorded slave marriages, and census information on slaves was inaccurate, incomplete, and recorded nothing about slaves’ marital or household status anyway; meanwhile slave owners and creditors throughout the South could and did break up slave families at will. The 1870 census was a vast improvement over previous census counts, but it still provides only partial information on black households, and none at all on marital status or household relationships. Lots of needed plantation records have been lost or destroyed over the years, and many were inaccurate or never existed in the first place. By digging through other records one can find additional information for some black families, but even so the marital and household status of the majority of slaves in 1860 and former slaves in 1870 cannot be 100% factually verified.
             
            As for special-interest group pledges:  I was not referring to school children, Scouts, the rights and freedoms of any group, or the Pledge of Allegiance (which is a fully inclusive national pledge, not a special-interest pledge).  I was referring to candidates and especially officeholders handcuffing themselves by pledging to obey the dictates of one small group of voters to the exclusion of every other voter and consideration. IMO officeholders have a constitutional and moral duty to work for and represent all their constituents — and, as President, all Americans – not just the members of select special interest groups.
             
            The child-of-rape issue is way too complicated to deal with here, but with the countless number of slave girls and women raped over so many decades, no doubt every possible feeling about the children of rape was felt and acted on many times over.
             
            I know I haven’t changed your mind about any of this, but regardless – Cheers! I’m just so glad Sarah seems to be making some moves, finally.

            • ellengba

              I hate to point this out again, but the pledge said children BORN IN 1860.  It is statement that going forward at the end of three hundred years of slavery WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE RAISED IN FAMILIES THEN TODAY.

              No one is speaking about what happened during the 300 years.  The point is the family emerge after 300 years of slavery more intact then it is today.

              I clearly said I looked at CENSUS RECORDS for my family’s history.  The census record asked the question about parents and grandparents so you do not need to find a prior non existent record you have the respondents statement about their family history.

              I was pointing out the family where created and unified with the help of the Freeman’s Bureau.

              It is real a pity that you cannot understand something so simple, and are refusing to understand the conversation was about the period of reconstruction not the period of slavery.

              Nobody said family were intact in 1860, or 1800, or 1760.  It said a child born in 1860.  That is child who is 5 years old when slavery ends, and ten years old in 1870.  In 1870 we can look a census records and see if the child is in family.  We can look a the Freeman’s Bureau to see how many ex-slaves choose to register there families.  How many choose to marry.

              Today the figure is 30%, it was hire AFTER slavery.

  • Right_Wingnut

    Not only that, but she was a tax collector for the IRS…

    http://nationaljournal.com/politics/tax-collector-or-tax-litigation-attorney-closer-look-at-bachmann-s-past-20110709

    Of course, she likes to refer to herself as a Tax Litigation Attorney

  • Guest

    Out-flippin-standing!

  • conservativemama

    This is why I love this website.  You guys do a superb job of presenting the facts.  Bravo!

  • skponggol

    - " Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart said that the Minnesota congresswoman had only endorsed the 14-point “candidate vow,” which did not include the slavery passage. "

    - " However, the entire document was only four pages, including two pages of footnotes, and the slavery section was the first bullet point within the preamble. "

    Can you sign an agreement but not agreeing to the main points in the agreement ? Then what’s the point of signing an agreement if you disagree witht the agreement in the first place ? Is she a lawyer or is she a flake  ? Or is she just another IRS tax collector ?

  • Right_Wingnut

    She also lied about earmarks in the Wallace interview. She’s requested many since her first term, including $200,000,000 for a bridge THIS YEAR. How does she justify this? She doesn’t think transportation projects count!

  • donberk

    Both hands in the cookie jar, then she lied about it. Nice. Expect more ‘the dog at my homework’
    excuses from MB.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Norton/100002228997007 John Norton

    Good clip of steve digging at MBs idiosyncracies. First off the dems and Obama can put back the peoples money Back… that they stole out of the medicare fund a half a trillion Then boot the people off that didnt put anything in that will make it solvent once again then the folks on medicade start utilising the free clinics like they used to then instead of leaving IOUs  in the SSI acct. replace what the repubics and dems pilfered from it. that my friends is a start and the Gov. knows it to.No Mas chewing around the edges.
      Its Time way overdue and that s why Gov.Palins FB posting today. I recon shes just had enough already.So havnt we all…

  • Sue Lynn

    Bachmann has been a huge let down. Another want a bee that Sarah saved their political ass in 2010 and We The People are not stupid. I can see right through her and the rest riding the wave Sarah has made. Sarah is about the people and has lived it out her entire career. Sarah has always been in public service for the right reasons. Even now she talks about her team and what they did together not taking all the credit for anything. 

  • TheTotalConservative

    Michele Bachmann will never have my respect again. To think that I once greatly admired Bachmann. Michele Bachmann is nothing like Sarah Palin. Bachmann is a Slimeball. A Lawyer and Politician. Bachmann has to fake it. I think Sarah Palin’s Resigning is a Sign of Character and different from anything we have ever seen. Palin sacrficed for the Good of Alaska and slimeballs there don’t know it. I believe she loved being Governor and better at it than anyone before her. The state once again is in the hands of the Corrupt Bastards.

    • xthred

      Preach it bro’

    • Sue Lynn

      You nailed it! I will never vote for another lawyer ever ever ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • independents4palin

    What Ed Rollins did after Michelle Bachmann hired him, attacking Gov.Palin who has not announced was disgraceful, even for hiring someone like Ed Rollins shows where Bachmann lies and its not with the Tea Party she claims to be the leader of, which she is trying to hijack the Tea Party herself is shameful. Sarah Palin has said she is not the leader when people were saying she was. She said there should not be a leader in the Tea Party, I guess Bachmann didn’t get the memo. Her husband  supposely turns gay people straight is laughable. Bachmann accepts federal money for her farm and her husbands clinic. She signs a pledge that also state that at least with slavery, black families were at least together or something. I am sure more is going to come out. Michelle Bachmann is way out of her league. She should be fighting in congress instead of missing votes and not doing her job in her district. I hope she loses both, which by the way it looks she just might.

    • Jim Wagner

      Agree Inde:  I smell what your stepping in!

    • Sue Lynn

      That is what your tax dollars is being spent on things that have no business in the public square. 

  • section9

    Brutal. Just brutal. 

    I hope to G-d this guy is Sarah’s media person.

  • skponggol

    Michele Bachmann Defends Medicaid Payments To Husband’s Clinic:

    "Medicaid is a valuable form of insurance for many Americans and it would be discriminatory not to accept
    Medicaid as a form of payment," a spokeswoman for Bachmann’s campaign said in a statement on Wednesday responding to questions about the payments. "As a state-sponsored counseling service, Bachmann and Associates has a responsibility to provide Medicaid and medical assistance, regardless of a patient’s financial situation."

    Then why is this hypocrite opposing ObamaCare ? By opposing ObamaCare, she is opposing the expansion of the Medicaid program, " a valuable form of insurance for many Americans", which should only be valuable exclusively for her patients.

    By opposing ObamaCare, she is "discriminating against those clinics who are accepting Medicaid as a form of payment", except those clinics runs by her unregistered husband.

    By opposing ObamaCare, she is against those "state-sponsored counselling service who have a responsibility to provide Medicaid and medical assistance, regardless of a patient’s financial situation" but patients would be welcome to use Medicaid when visiting her unlicensed husband’s clincs, regardless of their financial situation..

    Btw, she admits that the clinics run by her husband, who is an unlicensed mental health practitioner, is a "state-sponsored counselling service" and not a profit-oriented business entity. It survive on handout and taxpayers’ money sponsored by the state.

  • xthred

    Stick a fork in her.

  • Escaped_Teleprompter

    Bachmann has a dubious voting record, which needs to be brought to light, questioned and challenged.  Just recently, she voted with Democrats to pay for Obama’s illegal Libyan war, while earlier proposing cuts to veterans’ disability benefits.   Veterans should realize that according to Bachmann, veterans do not deserve their disability benefits, but billions should be given to Obama to wage an expensive, unauthorized war in Libya. 
    Links:
    House Votes Down GOP Attempt At Defunding Libyan War…
    Bachmann voted with Democrats to defeat GOP attempt to cut off funds for the Libyan War.
    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/24/house-votes-down-gop-attempt-at-defunding-libyan-war/
    .
    Decepticons exposed supporting Obama’s war
    http://theconservativetreehouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/decepticons-exposed-supporting-president-obama-including-michele-bachmann-allen-west-and-darryl-issa/

    ArmyTimes: Bachmann plan would cut veteran disability benefits.
    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/

    Veterans Groups Criticize Bachmann Plan to Cut Benefits
    http://tinyurl.com/3lm8c4b

    Quote Palin: " Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much
    more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. "

  • Reynolds88

    I would agree that the explanation or answers to the questions seem to be somehow a deflection or misleading.  I dont understand though why some see the problem as the acceptance of Medicaid since almost every doctor and health clinic in the country accepts Medicaid and Medicare.  In fact, many simply wont accept Medicare since the reimbursement is too low.  Medicaid is for disabled poor people and I am glad Bachmann’s can deliver mental health care to those who might otherwise be the mentally ill forgotten souls on the street. This is the system we live with.  Sounds to me like this clinic may provide services similar to the Salvation Army who are one of the last line of help for the desperate. 

    She needs to take a little more time to carefully explain her positions.  All flourish and platitudes are not going to cut it and that seems to be the issue that I can see.  This MB approach of saying, "Listen to me and please don’t confuse me with the details" is what politicians always say and that is not enough.

    • lanahi

      The clinic only "treats" homosexuals so they won’t be gay.  It isn’t a mental health clinic so much as it is a scam by an unlicensed "doctor" who got his Ph.D. through correspondence courses. An investigation into this would be interesting.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bobbi-Duvall/100000116205371 Bobbi Duvall

      Her husband’s clinic is run by an UNLICENSED practitioner (her husband) and uses dubious means of treatment, i.e., not generally accepted by other mental health practitioners.  He "treats" homosexuals so they won’t be gay.  Give me a break.  This is junk science and, of course, he accepts Medicaid because a lot of his patients are poor, uneducated people who are loony enough to go to his clinic in the first place!  Also, she lied about the amount of Federal/State funds they received.  She said "a one-time payment of $24,000″ when actually the clinic has received, in addition to that payment, at least $160,000 over 6 years.  If she isn’t honest about this, she is going to lose her credibility.  (She also hasn’t explained all the money her farm (a partnership) has received in subsidies {over $250,000} from the government(s).)  As far as I am concerned, she lost her credibility immediately when she tried to say that she was the starter of the Tea Party movement and then state that she was the "leader" of the Tea Party.  The woman is a lawyer (although she has never stated that she was a collector for the IRS – which she was) and a politician – that’s all – so what can you expect??
       

    • susiepuma

      The problem is that many, many, many of the programs paid for by Medicaid (the American taxpayer) are out and out fraudulent and have no place in the program.  There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse that needs to be eliminated…………. IMO – trying to turn homosexuals straight is like the Greek guy pushing the rock up the mountain –

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets