One of the Galganov.com visitors sent me an email correcting several of the facts concerning my last editorial that “spoke” about Michelle Bachmann’s Sunday morning performance on the FOX News Chris Wallace show.
I take great pride in the accuracy and integrity of what I write. And if I make a mistake, I will own-up to it and correct it without delay.
There were three issues the letter writer dealt with:
1 – The amount of money the Bachmanns received from the government for their small healthcare business was NOT $1 million. But was in fact, according to him just $30,000.
I won’t research the amount. And will take his word for it. But, other than getting the amount wrong, it changes NOTHING.
Bachmann is strident in what she says about governments NOT giving money to businesses. So, whether it is just $1, or $1 million dollars, the principal is still the same. The Bachmanns applied to the government for taxpayer funds.
As I wrote to the letter-writer . . . it’s like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are, or you are not. Either you’re for governments giving TAXPAYER money to private businesses, or you are not.
So, from what I take from this . . . in her case it was OK to take money from the government because it benefited her. But when it comes to others it’s NOT OK.
HERE’S A PERFECT EXAMPLE:
As the story goes – Churchill once asked a very disagreeable woman if she would sleep with him for several hundred thousand pounds. She said that she would.
So, then he asked her if she would agree to sleep with him for 100 pounds, to which she responded with: “do you think I’m a prostitute?” to which he responded by saying that we already established what you were, now we are simply negotiating the price.
NOT THAT I’M CALLING MICHELLE BACHMANN A PROSTITUTE.
2 – He wrote that the money the “Family Farm” received, as a subsidy from the government did not go to Bachmann or her husband, whose parents actually own the farm.
I never said that either of them received any of that government subsidy money. What I wrote, was that it was convenient for Michelle Bachmann to talk about the “Family Farm” as part of the folksy-type image she wanted to portray.
BUT – When confronted with the Government Farm Subsidy, she was no longer part of that “Family Farm”. To me, that is just downright phony and hypocritical.
3 – The writer also wrote:
“She affirmed the right of New York to pass the law but also affirmed the right of seeking a constitutional amendment defining marriage which, if passed, would subsume any state law. “States rights” should prevail over many Federal laws as well as judicial activism and anything short of a constitutional amendment.”
Now, I don’t know if this is exactly what she said on the subject somewhere else. But, if it was, does it make any sense to you? Or is it just “lawyer-speak”?
And is it as clear to you as: I will move to have the New York law repealed when I become the President of the USA, which is what I heard (paraphrased).
Either way, no matter how it’s spun . . . on one hand, Bachmann is all for the supremacy of States’ RIGHTS. But on the other hand, when it doesn’t suit her own religious and social beliefs, she is ready to repeal State laws.
4 – The last issue the writer covered was Bachmann’s response to a question from Wallace, when he asked her how she felt when others in the media called her a “FLAKE”.
Instead of laughing it off and coming up with a glib retort as Sarah Palin always does, she simply called it “insulting”.
Sure it’s insulting, but that doesn’t make it untrue, not that I think for a second that she’s a flake, but, if left unchallenged, what will the people whose votes she REALLY needs in 2012 think of her if she wins the Republican nomination?
A great many people watch FOX News – But not everyone. And most people do not pay attention to real news. And they do not question what is served-up to them on a media platter of spin, distortions and lies, and believe what they want to believe.
And to the great detriment to society, MOST people believe the crap they see on television shows like Saturday Night Live, and on the vast array of LEFTIST comedy pundit programs like John Stewart’s show.
Simply saying that you’re insulted by being called a flake by some within the media, is saying NOTHING at all in response, other than that you have a thin skin.
Some people actually think that Chris Wallace was unfair and disrespectful to Michelle Bachmann, but that’s not the way I saw it.
What I saw was Wallace giving her a chance to deal with FOUR issues that the LEFT will use against her and the Republican Party in a campaign where the Gentlemen’s’ Rules of The Marquis Of Queensbury do not exist.
If Bachmann does win the nomination, you can be sure that I will do whatever I can from this Web Site to support her campaign, since her lapses are not deal-killers for me.
But they are not hope and confidence inspiring.
Just so you should know: The amount of negative emails I received were but a few compared to the huge number of emails I received from people who watched the Chris Wallace/Bachmann Interview, all of whom in essence saw and heard the same things I saw and heard.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Whomever the Republicans choose to be their Presidential Candidate, he or she will also be responsible for carrying all of the Republicans on his or her shoulders for every Congressional Seat (Senate and House) coming up for election in 2012.
And in passing, the letter-writer who was upset with my editorial and wanted to set the record straight, conveniently forgot to mention Bachmann’s decision to push for an EARMARK for her State, even though she is publicly against EARMARKS.
As I said on my Internet Broadcast last night – Bachmann can’t suck and blow at the same time.
And just so you should know: I asked the letter writer for his permission to print his letter in this Editorial with full accreditation, less his email address, to which he did not respond.
There is no Audio Editorial associated with this Commentary.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov