Craig Westover
Wow. He states this yet is also suing MDE for defamation of character. What irony and hypocrisy.
Well done.
I think it's also an example of what we have been discussing, which is the complete inability of the LLL (loony liberal left) to address any issue directly. Instead, they simply say that something is a view held by the RRR (Radical Religious Right) and that so-and-so is an RRR who, ipso facto, holds that view. Note, they have never challenged the view itself , nor done anything but suggest (usually breathlessly, with ominous organ music in the background if possible) that the candidate (or anyone, for that matter) actually holds this view. In short, a complete and slanderous fiction. Which is what Brodkorb is being sued for, I understand. Wow. Somebody got a Ph.D in B.S.
What is Michele Bachmann's position on contraception? Inquiring minds want to know.
While we are at it, if she opposes stem cell research, does she also oppose in vitro fertilization? After all, the embryos used in stem cell research come from discarded embryos from fertility clinics.
Michelle Bachmann "a right wing extremist Christian" theocrat who would ban contraception? What would ever give anybody an idea like that?
Inquiring minds or vindictive hearts?
Bachmann’s positions, political or personal (and there is a difference) aren’t going to change your opinion of her, Eva, one way or another. Nor are they going to sway an intelligent voter – one way or the other. Once again you go for the nit when the real issue is Olson’s total disregard for the truth – not lying, but ignoring the relevance of truth, in defining Bachmann without any connection to reality.
Your follow-up question is an example of just what a tar-baby issue this is. Put your fist in and you’ll never get it out. Bachmann has decided not to take the bait and throw a punch. Not to waste campaign cycles on an a politically minor issue. If voters want to take her silence into consideration and cast a single-issue contraceptive vote on that issue alone, that’s their right. Bachmann’s silence is a statement, and in this case, I think it says she’s pretty politically saavy.
Craig, you said earlier in an e-mail that you did ask Bachmann her position on birth control and she said she had none. So you're saying that when querying a candidate for congress, there is something wrong with demanding a position on an issue that is clearly a part of Bachmann's religious right repertoire--restricting or outright banning of birth control? This is hardly an issue outside her realm of interest.
Bachmann's protege, Sen. Brian "Welfare Healthcare" LeClair, has stated he doesn't believe Planned Parenthood's clinic should not be allowed to dispense birth control prescriptions in Woodbury. Does Bachmann agree with that?
How about abstinence-only birth control? Is that what Bachmann supports? And abstinence-only sex education in schools? What about family planning funds for developing countries--does she support unfettered access to them or restrictions on how they can be spent, such as for abstinence-only programs? How about allowing licensed pharmacists to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill--where is Bachmann on that? Does she think pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to sell condoms as well as birth control pills because of their personal beliefs?
These are the real issues here, Craig, not the red herring of Blois Olson's motives or approach. And Bachmann will be held accountable for her views on these issue eventually, whether she wants to or not.
Oops--I meant to say Brian LeClair doesn't believe Planned Parenthood SHOULD be allowed to dispense birth control prescriptions in Woodbury.
I'm confused. You have a whole string of questions on which you believe Sen. Bachmann ought to take a strong public stand, yet in the very first paragraph you have already decided that she is of the "religious right" and you therefore, apparently, know the answer to all these questions already.
If she takes a well-reasoned position you consider consistent with the "religious right," you will oppose her on that basis. If she takes a well-reasoned position contrary to what you expect, you will call her a hypocrite, and demand that the religious right reject her. If she takes no public position, even for good reason (like having not considered it a matter for government), you will shout that she is hiding something.
Craig is right. There is no interest in the truth or even a persuasive argument on the issues. This is the BS that is going to ruin our political system, if we don't do something about it. You have to clean the barn every so often or you can't sell the milk.
OK folks. Here's Michelle Bachman's chance to prove she's not a right wing nut. Let's hear her state publicly that she does not support any laws curtailing contraception or the right to privacy in family to choose contraception.
The truth is that Michelle has been a Ralph Reed "stealth candidate" from the get-go and that the mainstream of Minnesotans would not support her if they knew her true position on most issues which are straight out of Dobson/Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed and the John Birch society.
I find it hysterical that anybody who asks tough questions of these people are accused of being the "loony left" and "liberal", not confronting the true issues and just "BSing."
Michele's website says:
Michele believes that human life must be protected from conception to a natural death.
EY: The real issue is what is Bachmann's position on these issues? Banning contraception and In Vitro Fertilization is the logical conclusion for those who believe that "life begins at conception", and think it should be enacted into law. I am not asking for Bachmann's personal position on these issues. I am asking what she thinks the government should be doing. Does "protecting human life" mean banning the birth control pill and emergency contraception (plan b) because these act as abortefacients?
I've got Blois Olson's apology letter to Bachmann posted here:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com...d-in-
vitro.html
"The truth is that Michelle has been a Ralph Reed 'stealth candidate' from the get-go and that the mainstream of Minnesotans would not support her if they knew her true position on most issues which are straight out of Dobson/Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed and the John Birch society. "
It must be a wonderful thing to know things that no other Minnesotan knows, and that perhaps the candidate herself does not know.
Michelle Bachmann might consider individuals from the liberals' "Who to Hate Book" as being too leftist for her taste, or maybe not, but regardless, it doesn't mean she agrees with them. You're just doing guilt by association from another angle. You do not KNOW what she believes until she tells you and, if she were a typical politician, until she actually DOES something to show her belief.
Now, when you get some good solid information on one of these issues, bring it up and I'll disagree with you. She would get my vote easily, were I in her District.
Craig -
You seem pre-occupied with gays. I knew a guy in college who hated gays like you. Guess what? He came out of the closet 4 years later. Every flippin nut who obssesses about what 2% of the population does has issues. My question is this: are you gay? Do you need a hug? Nice macho act, idiot.
Er, Brian.
FYI, This site doesn't tolerate personal insults. You get one free, that's it.
Before you insult, you might want to check things out. I'm a heterosexual conservative that not only opposes the defense of marriage amendment, but openly supports same-sex marriage, contray to the opinion of my readership base -- a stand few Democratic politicans that claim gays as a constituency are willing to take.
That you jump to ill-founded conclusions doesn't make you an idiot, but it does make you look a little foolish.
Again, your thoughts and ideas are welcome, but if you want to insult people, go play someplace else.
Commenting by HaloScan
