My conversation with Michele Bachmann: ‘I’m a lovable little fuzz ball!’

Rep. Michele Bachmann
MinnPost photo by Raoul Benavides
Michele Bachmann: “I don’t fear the left, and maybe that’s part of the loathing that they feel toward me.”

I had never met Michele Bachmann, and when I mentioned to liberal friends that I was going to interview her, the response was universal: “Idiot,” “right-wing nut job,” “buffoon,” “moron” — and those were the printable comments.

Google her name and the amount of vicious and vulgar material that pops up is stunning. Wading through it is an eye-opener, and the level of animus directed at the Republican from Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District should trouble thoughtful critics of Bachmann.

I know some of her past comments have gotten her into trouble — the episode with Chris Matthews on “Hardball,” when she called Barack Obama “anti-American,” being the most egregious. (She later said it was a “misstatement” and took back the comment.)

But I found her to be passionate about her beliefs. I also found her to be straightforward, intelligent, humble and gregarious — at one point, she called herself “a lovable little fuzz ball.”

I was interested in talking with her about the issues of the day. So I asked her about the upcoming terrorism trials in New York (“an absolutely terrible idea”), the looming crisis with Iran (“they’ve perceived signals of weakness coming from the United States”) and the health-care debate (“big-government socialism”). And along the way, she described how her political views developed, why she outrages liberals and what she reads about today.

What follows are excerpts — unvarnished Bachmann — from our conversation, organized by topics.

We met at the University Club in St. Paul on Dec. 1, the morning of President Obama’s speech announcing that he would be sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. I asked her if she thought that was a wise move. Here’s what she said:

“The president was adamant earlier this year, stating this is a ‘war of necessity,’ this is the war we have to win. In Iraq, we saw a tremendous turn following the surge. And now, in Afghanistan, August was one of our bloodiest months. September was even worse. Things were going down hill very quickly. I think it surprised a lot of people that the president didn’t act sooner when things were going so badly.

“I just read an article by [classicist and military historian] Victor Davis Hanson, who I think is a brilliant man, on how the West fights wars. He wrote that in the West, we tend to want to do things very quickly. But the enemy we are fighting doesn’t have a quick timeline. They view things in terms of generations. …I don’t know that the American people have bought into the long view of war. They know that they don’t want to have terrorists succeed — we see that in the Fort Hood killings, and the evidence seems to indicate that it was a terrorist act. That, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being brought to New York for trial — all of these things underscore the necessity of finding out exactly what is President Obama’s view of terrorism.”

On bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for a criminal trial in civilian court:

“I think it is terrible, an absolutely terrible idea. I think the president is entirely wrong, and I think he is putting our nation at risk, I think he is putting the people at risk. Worse, he is blurring the lines between a military conflict and a criminal trial. If we’re serious about terrorists, then we need to act in a military fashion and defeat them. If this is a criminal effort, then it really makes no sense for us to be involved militarily.”

On U.S. policy toward Iran, which recently approved construction of 10 new uranium-enrichment facilities:

“I think we are very late in addressing the Iranian issue, and the Iranian threat. Iran obviously doesn’t fear the West. It doesn’t fear the United States. I think they’ve perceived signals of weakness coming from the United States. At this point, we have difficult options, as does the state of Israel. Very difficult options. … I think that quite a long time ago the U.S. should have intervened with economic sanctions that were worldwide. … Tehran has said repeatedly that the Holocaust never happened, while, at the same time, it is threatening a holocaust against Israel. And not only Israel. Iran has also made threats against the United States. The issue ultimately is the safety of our nation, and Iran poses a threat to that security.”

On the health-care legislation before Congress:

“Shortly after the president was elected, he came to a private, closed-door meeting — no media present — down in the basement of the Capitol building to meet with House Republicans. It’s the one and only time he’s done that. During the course of the hour he was with us, and in answer to a question, the president said to us that he would prefer to be a one-term president and achieve his agenda rather than being a two-term president and not achieving his agenda. I think he recognized that there may be a very high political price to pay [for health-care reform], but I don’t think he cares. This will be the federal government taking over 18 percent of the economy.”

On why she elicits so much outrage and loathing among liberals:

“I don’t know. I’m a lovable little fuzz ball! I have no idea what they would have to fear. I guess you would have to ask them; they would have the better answer to your question. I am doing my job. That’s what I was elected to do. I don’t fear the left, and maybe that’s part of the loathing that they feel toward me. I’m not afraid to speak out on conservative positions and on issues. We’re a deep-blue state, we’re a strong liberal, Democrat state.”

On growing up in a family of Democrats and why she changed her views:

“My [parents] were FDR Democrats, and then Hubert Humphrey Democrats. We were all very proud to be Democrats. As a matter of fact, my husband and I met while we were working on Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign. We were so proud of Walter Mondale, and so proud that he was going to be the vice president from Minnesota. … But we were so profoundly disappointed when we saw how the country was negatively impacted by the Democrat administration, by the decisions that were made. After that, I voted Republican in the next presidential election. …

“It was the liberal policies that affected the country so negatively. That’s what impacted me. To see how unemployment shot up, how inflation went through the roof, the interest rates that people were paying, lines for gasoline. When I saw how profoundly the country was impacted, I saw that all of these ideas that were spouted in high school classes, and in college classes — they may have looked good in textbooks, but when they were put into effect they really played out poorly in the real world. …So I rejected liberalism because I saw with my own eyes how these policies played out.

“When Ronald Reagan was elected, I saw how lower marginal tax rates boosted the economy. It was a living laboratory — leftist ideas versus conservative principles — and I saw how the conservative ideals led to prosperity. I prefer prosperity! The fruits of liberalism are high unemployment, high interest rates, inflation and lack of prosperity. …”

On the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate:

“I won’t close the door on anything. But, you know, I never anticipated going into politics. I never saw that as my future. I was an accidental state senator. I didn’t intend to run for office, and then I was recruited and encouraged to run for Congress when my predecessor, Mark Kennedy, ran for the Senate. So, elective office wasn’t something that I sought out. . …So, no, I don’t have my sights set on the U.S. Senate, or on anything else.”

On what she reads:

“I read varied books, and I read a lot. The book I’m reading right now I just adore. It’s my second time through it. It’s Gov. [William] Bradford’s journal, ‘Of Plymouth Plantation.’ It’s a marvelous book. They came to these shores in 1620, and he wrote the book in about 1650 or thereabouts. He wrote literally in the King James English. So it’s very difficult to read, but it’s … spellbinding. The depth of commitment of this band of brothers provided the ember of what America really is: the American spirit. So I read Bradford’s journal for inspiration.

“I read very little fiction. Occasionally I’ll read a Vince Flynn novel — he’s a St. Paul guy, so I want to support the hometown team. I like science, and have read Christopher Horne [author of ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming’] and [atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred] Singer on climate change. I also love biography because it teaches us so much about human nature.

“But I also read great works of history, especially Paul Johnson’s books. The book I’ll be reading on the plane today is former Justice [Joseph] Story’s primer, ‘Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.’ It was written for high school students, but I think today graduate students would have a difficult time with it.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (45)

  1. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 12/09/2009 - 08:06 am.

    Generally, people who have met Michele and worked with her and against her like her personally. By all accounts, she is a very nice lady.

  2. Submitted by Karl Bremer on 12/09/2009 - 08:18 am.

    What a novel idea for a “journalist” to interview a politician and not challenge any of the “facts” spewed forth by their subject. Not a single question about the district she purports to represent, nor a question about the single committee on which she sits. Were these conditions of the interview? Why not just give Bachmann a guest editorial column and save the trouble of the interview? And people wonder how she got elected here. Twice.

  3. Submitted by Jeff Klein on 12/09/2009 - 08:44 am.

    It’s a common sentiment among supporters of Bachmann/Palin/Kersten/etc. that the reason liberals don’t like them is that we just can’t handle these plain-spoken, honest, sincere conservative women; somehow this just crushes our little liberal selves. I don’t get it. The reasons liberals don’t like them is exactly why they say they don’t: because it depresses us that this is the competition, because this competition doesn’t engage in honest policy debates based on facts and logic but instead engages in emotional debates based on stuff they’ve made up and religious certainty. The left wishes for an honest, intellectual and thoughtful right wing to help us better the country and instead we get this. That’s what we don’t like about them.

    When a liberal calls Bachmann a “moron” or an “idiot”, trust me, it’s not just random name-calling – you might note that McCain, though not popular among liberals, was never in my recollection called a “moron” or an “idiot”. Why? Because he doesn’t give evidence of that being so. Bachmann and Palin do. Liberals call them idiots because as best we can figure, they meet the definition of idiot – specifically people that appear to live in a fantasy land and have poor rational faculties. I don’t know what else to call them.

    How about an example? She left the Democrats because she saw Reagan’s policies revive the economy. They also created the biggest non-wartime debt in our nation’s history. Clinton’s policies, on the other hand, created MORE economic grown AND NO DEBT. So what gives? I guess she just can’t figure that out, and I guess that is evidence that she just may be, well…

  4. Submitted by Paul Andersen on 12/09/2009 - 09:25 am.

    Great article!!! Like usual, Bachmann is underestimated by the liberals, particularly in regards to her intellect and articulation, notwithstanding some of her verbal mis-steps. As a “Ron Paul Republican” I REALLY ENJOY Bachmann, whereas I don’t prefer Palin! For me, Bachmann has the capacity to pontificate on a variety of subject matters……..and the LEFT IS unable to accept that……..for her sake, I hope they continue their folly of belittling her……she only rises in stature:)

  5. Submitted by Paul Scott on 12/09/2009 - 09:35 am.

    Wouldn’t it be cool if they printed an interview with Michelle Bachmann and no one commented?

  6. Submitted by jim spice on 12/09/2009 - 09:39 am.

    I can’t speak for all liberals, but I’ll admit a bit of, maybe not fear but, trepidation about the likes of Bachamann gaining additional political influence. For me, this is based on the anti-intellectualism that pervades her brand of conservatism. When she can discount evolution as having “never been proven,” one is left to wonder what other notions to which she may subscribe which have yet to be revealed.

    In isolation, she would be of little import. But when coupled with a party that puts forth three presidential candidates that raise their hands when asked who did not believe in evolution, along with an electorate with a penchant to support such people, yes, I’ll admit a bit of, shall we say, apprehension.

  7. Submitted by Martin Flom on 12/09/2009 - 09:45 am.

    It appears to me that the radical indoctrination received by Mssrs. Bremer and Klein really took hold. Do they not believe history? Have they ever read any? Liberalism is a very destructive sickness. Do not be surprised if either Palin, Bachmann, or both are on the next presidential ballot. And that ticket wins!

  8. Submitted by david granneman on 12/09/2009 - 10:37 am.

    hello jeff
    you are right – liberals never called mccain names. the reasons for this is that he is not a conservative politician. you only reserve you name calling to CONSERVATIVES. liberals instead of the intelligent option of discussing the merits of a person’s ideas – they would rather call names.

  9. Submitted by Dan Kitzmann on 12/09/2009 - 11:02 am.

    Karl, in the penultimate sentence of your post are you implying that Bachmann was elected, and reelected, because the media is too easy on her? I think Bachmann an embarrassment, but to say the media is in the tank for her, or at least her unwitting accessory, is a real stretch.

  10. Submitted by Thomas Edman on 12/09/2009 - 11:31 am.

    Wish you had asked some follow-up questions. Not really a conversation was it.

  11. Submitted by Tom Horner on 12/09/2009 - 11:33 am.

    The article’s weakness is that it fails to challenge Rep. Bachmann on matters of fact which, in turn, promotes a dialogue that is more about personality than substance. Name-calling is all too common by liberals and conservatives. A Google search (the gold standard of fact checking, right???) returns more than 1.7 million hits on “McCain and moron” with the name-calling seemingly equally divided between liberals and conservatives. To the substance of the Bachmann interview — and to cite just one example — she states with no apparent irony, “I think that quite a long time ago the U.S. should have intervened (in Iran) with economic sanctions that were worldwide…” Wouldn’t the logical follow-up question be to ask whether George Bush’s unilateral action in Iraq pre-empted any meaningful worldwide action in ANY foreign policy? This article is a disappointment, not because it gives voice to Rep. Bachmann or because it rightly acknowleddges her passion, but for not giving voice to those who legitimately question her divisiveness and her unwillingness to do any of the hard work (and often, for a minority member, the unrewarded work) of achieving legislative goals. If her role is to be a celebrity, she is very effective. If her role is to be a member of Congress, there should be a higher standard and the media should hold her to that standard.

  12. Submitted by Lance Groth on 12/09/2009 - 11:34 am.

    Here’s an example of why I call Bachmann an idiot.

    When she was a state senator and her big issue was defeating gay marriage – back when she had security following her around and was hiding in the bushes spying on a rally – she stated in front of the cameras that there was no more important issue facing us than defeating gay marriage.

    That’s right, the country was at war, the state was broke, the climate increasingly coming unhinged, the country drowning in debt, lack of sufficient energy supply/peak oil, global deforestation/habitat loss, millions of people around the globe lacking clean water or enough food, species extinction proceeding on the order of the great mass extinctions in the paleontological record, millions of Americans lacking basic health care coverage, signs of the impending economic crisis were already plainly visible, on and on, a hundred issues more important than Bachmann’s obsession with gay marriage. But to her, that one social issue trumped all else.

    What else can you call a person who says such things (and her record is full of similarly absurd statements) than an idiot?

    Of course, she also said God wanted her to run for political office. I guess He realized we were in need of comic relief…?

  13. Submitted by Karl Bremer on 12/09/2009 - 11:36 am.

    Dan, in a word, yes.

    When you know how much crazy, ugly, hateful and unethical stuff about Bachmann that hasn’t been written that should have been–particularly in the mainstream media–you might understand. Sadly, it’s impossible to get them to correct the inaccuracies and lies they help Bachmann perpetuate, let alone do any actual reporting on her. Instead, we get yet another softball “interview” explaining to us libruls why we hate strong conservative women.

  14. Submitted by Mac Riddel on 12/09/2009 - 11:47 am.

    Well, this interview was a complete waste. All Bachmann got were big softballs thrown at her. Not once did she have to answer a tough question, nor use her brain. Very disappointing, but I guess she wouldn’t have agreed to an interview if she had to put in any effort.

  15. Submitted by Charlie Quimby on 12/09/2009 - 12:00 pm.

    The interviewer says the negative liberal response to Bachmann was universal. He should get some more liberal friends, who might add: self-serving, ineffective in her job, divisive, intolerant, dismissive of science and media-craving.

    None of these make her an idiot, but they do make her frightening to anyone who wants elected officials to address real issues with effective policy.

    I hope we can have some unvarnished Jesse Venture next!

  16. Submitted by Wayne Swickley on 12/09/2009 - 12:02 pm.

    I got as far as her saying, “I think [bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for a criminal trial in civilian court] is terrible, an absolutely terrible idea,” without a follow-up question from the interviewer, something along the lines of, “Why do you think that?” or “What do you think will happen because of this?” when I realized that this was less an interview than a platform. The remainder of the article further established my observation as accurate.

    Perhaps there were indeed challenges on some of her statements that were covered in the full-length interview — I’ll grant that these are excerpts — but I doubt it.

    I’m angry that I’ve wasted this much of my life on this page.

    I agree with #14. A complete waste. Of an awful lot of people’s time.

  17. Submitted by Jeremy Powers on 12/09/2009 - 12:05 pm.

    Afraid? The day I’m afraid of this clueless, baseless drivel will be the day after my lobotomy and when I lose any and all ability to communicate. That ANYONE thinks these comments should be coming out of the mouth of an American elected representative says more about this country’s educational failings than all of the half-baked studies by Minnesota’s alleged business groups.

  18. Submitted by Bill Schletzer on 12/09/2009 - 12:07 pm.

    For you right wingers who insist that liberals question the intelligence of Palin and Bachmann, how about William Buckley. One poster above insists we don’t question McCain’s intelligence because he isn’t conservative. Well McCain isn’t an idiot like Palin and Bachmann, but he’s no rocket scientist either. On the other hand no one would question that William Buckley was a very intelligent person by any measure. I might not have agreed with him often but he was a formidable foe. I believe he would have scoffed at people like Palin and Bachmann.

    Please, when discussing Bachmann boners, please don’t forget the one about how she had secret information about Al Qaida(spelling?) plans for dividing Iraq, but then had to back off when asked about it.

    To the poster above who says the left doesn’t like Bachmann because she is so good at pontificating, you are right. Democracy needs dialog and people able to hold reasoned discussions. Pontificators would do better in a theocracy, which apparently many of you want. Palin and Bachmann on a winning presidential ballot. That would truly be America’s nadir.

  19. Submitted by Dan Kitzmann on 12/09/2009 - 12:09 pm.

    I am not in Bachmann’s district; I’ll take your word for it that there is a bunch of bad stuff about her the MSM does not report.

    Rather than reaching for quasi conspiracy theories, though, don’t you find it more plausible that she was elected twice simply because most of her constituents preferred her to her opponents, and indeed would prefer her no matter what alleged bad stuff is reported about her?

    Why anybody would vote for her escapes me. It perhaps supports the hypothesis that most people (liberals and conservatives) vote for candidates on emotional, not rational, grounds.

  20. Submitted by Michael Hunt on 12/09/2009 - 12:11 pm.

    I absolutely love the rose-colored glasses worn by the conservatives commenting here. Let me make it clear, do you understand that there are intelligent conservatives and stupid conservatives? It’s not the “conservative” part that causes us fear, it’s the “stupid” part.

    There are plenty of conservatives out there (Pawlenty, Paulson) who I don’t agree with and would never vote for, but are certainly intelligent and don’t cause me “fear”. Then there’s Bachmann.

    But honestly, if some of the conservatives commenting here don’t see that difference, then it demonstrates to me the level of thought that lies behind a vote for Bachmann.

  21. Submitted by Marta Fahrenz on 12/09/2009 - 12:16 pm.

    That poor “lovable little fuzz ball,” picked on by those nasty liberals. Talk about a love-fest interview at the University Club. Michael, try googling Barack Obama and see how much “vicious and vulgar” material you uncover. Bachmann is an embarrassment.

  22. Submitted by Don Berryman on 12/09/2009 - 12:45 pm.

    Wow, what a surprise, Bonafield likes Bachmanm. Likes her so much he writes an article that sounds like it was written by her PR team.

    But then again he has a crush on Katherine Kersten as evidenced by his handling of her, asking ‘tough’ questions such as “What is it about the liberal mind that opens itself so readily to this totalitarian impulse?”

    Well, his first job was with William F. Buckley Jr. at National Review. I can understand his point of view.

    What I can’t understand is why Minnpost sees fit to print this sort of whitewashed partisan pandering pulp.

  23. Submitted by Brian Simon on 12/09/2009 - 01:01 pm.

    How remarkably shallow. I don’t know whether to blame the editing, the interviewing or the subject, but I certainly didn’t learn anything of substance; nor were any of my preconceived notions challenged. I’m left wondering a few things, like:

    Does she really speak in soundbites? Or is that a result of editing?

    How does she rectify the inherent contradictions in wishing for small government, low marginal tax rates, and the need to fight ‘a long war’?

  24. Submitted by Brent Collins on 12/09/2009 - 01:06 pm.

    Gosh, you guys are taking this all too serious. Sure, she has said some stuff that you might disagree with now and again but lighten up everyone. She’s just a little loveable fuzz ball after all.

  25. Submitted by Ambrose Charpentier on 12/09/2009 - 01:08 pm.

    Bachmann says: “I read very little fiction.” I’m not surprised. She prefers to make up her own fictions about the world and those who oppose her views.

    Ask any gay person how they feel about this “lovable little fuzz ball.” Not an ounce of kindness in her body when it comes to gay people. Perhaps people hate her because she hated them first. Funny how if people hate her it’s all about them. She might take a look inside and sincerely ask why people hate her. But then she might not get to be on the cable shows every night.

  26. Submitted by David DeCoux on 12/09/2009 - 01:25 pm.

    Shouldn’t that picture have a caption? “Laugh it up fuzz ball”

  27. Submitted by Fritz Dahmus on 12/09/2009 - 01:42 pm.

    The reason liberals hate Palin, Kersten, and Bachmann is their very unliberal view of gay marriage and abortion. Their veiw of conservative economic policy is shared by many in this country….they seperate themselves from the pack with their aggressive religious views of gay marriage and abortion. That is why people hate them. By the way, one of the postings said Bachmann was an idiot for not understanding that The Theory of Evolution had been proved and she should start believing it! That poster needs to look up the Theory of Evolution….and discover why we call it a theory. National Geographic had a nice article on it last year. It was Darwin’s birthday or something…read it please!!

  28. Submitted by Daryl Hanson on 12/09/2009 - 02:07 pm.

    Jeff Klein you want facts: You forgot something….

    It wasn’t just Bill Clinton, there was that one thorny issue(s) called Newt and “the contract with America” that stood in the way of Clinton’s tax and spend. Bill C had to go the right to get things done. Remember John Kasich and his rubber chicken during the budget hearings in the house?? Facts are important..Reagan was no panecea but he was critical in ending the cold war “Remember Reagans talk at the Berlin Wall….definitely had more impact than Obama’s” The only problem with Reagan is he didn’t go far enough, didn’t cut enough, didn’t force Americans to realize that freedom comes with responsibility.

    Let’s have a real dialogue on what this country is about. Lets talk about what we can afford as a safety net? How much of the countries GDP should be spent toward social programs, education, defense or what ever. I don’t hear any of this on the left or right. Bush or Obama. All the rest of the blather is a waste of time. Washington needs to be down sized..too many cronies on the left and right standing in front of the Washington feeding trough trying to steal tax payers money with no limits in sight. Yes let have a discussion and facts do matter but I don’t think Americans understand what really needs to happen

  29. Submitted by Sheila Ehrich on 12/09/2009 - 02:18 pm.

    The “loveable little fuzzball” she was refering to was her brain.

    This interview is not why I read Minnpost. I have no problem with Minnpost interviewing conservatives or airing conservative points of view or issues.

    However, I do expect that those ideas and interviees will be challenged. To let Michael Bonafield interview both Kersten and Bachman without asking any challenging questions is a travesty and a waste of my time reading it.

    Either clue him in on what an interview is or let him go!

  30. Submitted by Tom Horner on 12/09/2009 - 02:32 pm.

    Whatever else one might say about Bachmann, she generates conversation! But to Fritz (#27) please don’t defend Bachmann based on her opposition to the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is not conjecture; it is a conclusion based on factual evidence. A scientfic theory is neither guess work nor hypothesis. Bachmann and others may choose to believe creationism, but in doing so they flout scientific knowledge, a compelling body of observable evidence and conclusions based on demonstrable facts — all of which combine to create the scientific theory of evolution.

  31. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 12/09/2009 - 02:56 pm.

    Iran has not threatened Israel, but Israel has threatened Iran with military action because it fears Iran MIGHT develop nuclear weapons SOMEDAY and PERHAPS use them on Israel. Why would Iran commit suicide by an attack that would surely result in a huge “raining down” of some of Israel’s nukes?

    That Ahmadenijad is a holocaust denier does not make him a war criminal. And though he may have said such a thing, “Iran” did not.

    Iran is morally and legally entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. Its oil wells are nearing empty and it has not maintained its refining capacity. Ergo, it needs to get energy some other way. It seems to me that Iran resents greatly the US/Israel/some European countries assuming that weaponry is its goal.

  32. Submitted by Thomas Edman on 12/09/2009 - 02:58 pm.

    I really hope that Michael Banafield and the editors are paying attention to these comments, and what they imply about expectations for MinnPost.

    Actually, I’d really like a direct editorial response. You guys need to build trust as intelligent alternative to other outlets. This ‘conversation’ doesn’t do it.

  33. Submitted by Howard Miller on 12/09/2009 - 03:02 pm.

    For a warm little fuzzball, Mrs Bachmann says some pretty nasty things about people with whom she disagrees.

    The least interesting interview is one where a partisan describes what the opposition is about, or thinks, or when the partisan ascribes motives for the opposition’s actions. Mrs. Bachmann’s views of the political left, the President, many in Congress are not consistent with being a warm little fuzzball as a human being.

  34. Submitted by Adam Wigfield on 12/09/2009 - 04:33 pm.

    I wish Eric Black was given the assignment to interview Rep. Bachamann. He may have finally gotten to the bottom of her comments about Iran partitioning Iraq and making half of it a terrorist safe haven zone. Of course she had to back down from her statements because she made them up. But we all need to be concerned about someone respresenting us that may not have a full grasp on reality.

  35. Submitted by Jean Schiebel on 12/09/2009 - 04:42 pm.

    She isn’t just a Fabricator, she actually believes the stuff she makes up.
    I just hope the Democrats don’t shoot them selves in the foot in the 6th District.
    She is an embarrassment to our state and needs to be replaced.

  36. Submitted by Chris Steele on 12/09/2009 - 06:26 pm.

    Michelle Bachmann might be “straightforward, intelligent, humble and gregarious” but it’s hard to detect the “intelligent” part of this assessment from what has been posted.

    Mr. Bonafield should provide more (some) evidence to support his assertion.

  37. Submitted by Paul Andersen on 12/09/2009 - 06:44 pm.

    I’m GLAD that Tom Horner is NOT representative of Conservatism!
    Bachmann HAS recieved approval from a variety of Conservatives (note I didn’t say Republicans) ranging from GEORGE WILL to Ron Paul to Vin Webber…….
    I’ll take their opinions OVER the likes of a Tom Horner ANY DAY

  38. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 12/09/2009 - 09:42 pm.

    Say what you like. The congresswoman resonates with the folks that vote in the sixth. She does a good job of articulating the concerns of her constituents. The sixth is her niche.

  39. Submitted by Aubrey Immelman on 12/10/2009 - 02:12 am.

    Not only does Bonafield fail to ask penetrating follow-up questions, he also fails to report the facts.

    Yes, after saying Obama may have anti-American views, she said her words didn’t come out right, but she never retracted her McCarthyite statement.

    First, rather than retract her comment, Bachmann tried to rewrite history by saying “a trap was laid” by Chris Matthews and then she blatantly denied that she had said what she plainly said, saying, “It’s an urban legend that was created.”

    Here’s the documentation:

    Beyond having little news value, the article is tainted with misinformation.

  40. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 12/10/2009 - 07:39 am.

    I don’t agree with Bachmann on a lot of things. However she has every right to say what she believes how much ever I disagree with her. Atleast she does not make stuff up like Katherine Kersten.

    And to all the progressives who are angry at her for her rhetoric on gays, take a look at your own back yard. I lived in St. Louis Park, supposedly one of the most progressive areas. What you had out there was one of the most segregated cities in the state of Minnesota.

    At least in places like Bachmanns suburbs they make an effort to include minorities in things like city commissions. In St. Louis Park your application to places like the Parks commission would actually disappear.

    So much for getting all frothy about Michelle Bachmann.

  41. Submitted by Ben Irwin on 12/10/2009 - 08:38 am.

    I wish she represented my district!!

  42. Submitted by Rebecca Hoover on 12/10/2009 - 09:42 am.

    There are two problems with Bachmann as a leader. First, she is cruel. Second, she is a demagogue who specializes in inciting mob instrincts.

    When one looks at the policies Bachmann supports, she is routinely on the side of violence and cruelty. Much like the bad guys in the Old Testament, Bachmann responds to almost every issue with a cruel position that will increase the suffering of others. If an action will result in the death or pain of others, Bachmann supports that action. One can count on Bachmann to support war, forcing women and children into hunger and deprivation, and use of cruel methods.

    At the same time, Bachmann is a dishonest demagogue. For example, even in this article, she says “I saw how the conservative ideals led to prosperity. I prefer prosperity! The fruits of liberalism are high unemployment, high interest rates, inflation and lack of prosperity. …” Bachmann ignores the fact that many of the most prosperous nations on the earth are very liberal. For example, Sweden is very liberal and government plays an important role from birth until death. And,yes, the taxes are high but the Swedes enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world as well as one of the longer life expectancies. Some Swedes like to joke that their aim in life is to “live comfortably and die in a state hospital”. This sounds rather good to me.

    I find it ironic that Bachmann ignores the fact that the New Testament principles of dedicated work and concern for neighbors and the poor are the principles that build strong and prosperous nations. Bachmann is about as warm as fuzzy as Hitler to me. Or the witch in The Wizard of Oz.

  43. Submitted by jim hughes on 12/10/2009 - 04:49 pm.

    In toay’s world, when someone denies the facts of evolution, it’s impossible to have much regard for their opinions on any factual issues.

    Bachman is already over-covered by a factor of about 10. I’m disappointed to see her acquiring yet another soapbox here at MinnPost.

  44. Submitted by Don Brandli on 12/11/2009 - 05:29 pm.

    So, Michele likes to read non-fiction and history. Let me recommend a couple books to her, every politician and American. They are “Confessions of An Economic Hitman” and The Secret History of the American Empire” by John Perkins. He gives aclear eyed look toward the future and a compassionate plan for the future.c. Maybe Michele will give these a second read also.

  45. Submitted by Elizabeth Dunn on 12/11/2009 - 10:17 pm.

    The trouble with Bachmann is that she’s not so much a legislator as a publicity hound. MIchele is brilliant at getting TV face time and print media coverage. But she has no legislative accomplishments to show for her years at the state capitol or in D.C. How could she when she is running off to TV and radio studios all the time, and organizing gimmicky photo-op events?

    The real work of lawmaking takes place in meeting rooms and offices. It involves reading, researching, analyzing, synthesizing, discussion, give-and-take, patience, savvy and people skills. It’s not glamorous, there are no klieg lights, but that’s where the real work gets done. And whining that she’s only a member of the minority party does not wash; members of Congress who are willing to do the hard work develop the respect of their colleagues and become effective legislators regardless of party.

    Michele lacks either the will or the ability to be a true lawmaker, which is what she is paid to do. She’s offered up some cute resolutions, like the recent one calling for a plaque to be installed in a statuary hall, but she has not delivered anything of substance. I believe the 6th CD can do better.

Leave a Reply