I've known Michele since the Maple River Days. There is no person in the state legislature with as a committed sense of integrity of principle and action as Michele. Sometimes that blinds her to alternatives -- I disagree with her on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment -- but in no way does she deserve the slanderous criticisms she has received for her position on this and other issues.

I think you have to expect a certain amount of heat when you take the far side of a controversial issue. I'm a gay libertarian and quite open-minded about many things and love the divergent viewpoints among my friends (they often can't stand each other).

I, however, have little tolerance for people that try to impose their opinions upon others. If she wants to talk to me about government efficiency then I'm all ears.

Mitch: Why should I care? I don't. Like I said, I don't have a dog in the race. But since "dumpbachmann" has been getting publicity lately, there's at least a fair chance that someone might trip onto the site thinking they're getting the whole unvarnished story.

EY: Here's from the site:

Michele Bachmann is Minnesota's Answer to Colorado's Marilyn Musgrave. She is obsessed with gays at the expense of representing her district. This blog is here to chronicle why Sen Michele Bachmann needs to be retired from the legislature - and stopped from any future political career. Send tips to dumpbachmann@gmail.com

This seems pretty clear that the site isn't a neutral site. Or are you going to criticise the StudentforBachmann blog for doing the same thing only promoting Bachmann?

Corbett Johnson is a Republican. I have never met Corbett, though he has called me because of the Dump Bachmann site. He's a good person. He did support Jane Krenz over Bachmann in the last election - but so did a number of other moderate Republicans.

Now I know you might say that Corbett is a RINO (and I'm sure you'd say that about me) - that's a common refrain among the far right within the GOP - that we need to thin the herd - and get rid of the RINOs. That's what drove Sheila Kiscaden, Dean Johnson and Judi Dutcher successfully from the party.

Also, I look forward to you disputing the claims from Karl Bremer rather than attacking Karl personally.

Well Craig, we disagree on Michele Bachmann. I talked with Rebecca Otto at a Minnesota Women's Political Caucus event - and Otto told me there were some anti-Bachmann sites that went too far - and she described a site that I had not seen.

Jim Bernstein is a former Republican - and I've got his story (from personal correspondance which I post with his permission) on Dump Bachmann.

The testimonial I notice Mitch didn't want to mention was from JB of Fraters - who called the Bachmann "Senator Eye Candy". Then ofcourse Tom Barnard refers to her as the "hot sexy minx". It says something about Michele that she had no problem with getting introduced on Barnard's show with this:

"We'll wrap up the sex survey here, and just when we're in the sexin' up mood, then we'll turn to Michele at 8 o'clock for a happy ending." Tom Barnard, KQRS Morning Show, May 12, 2005.

I would not coo "oh your awesome" to a radio show host who treated me like that.

"Michele Bachmann is Minnesota's Answer to Colorado's Marilyn Musgrave. She is obsessed with gays at the expense of representing her district."

And yet she keeps getting elected. I guess everyone in her district is a moron, right?

" This seems pretty clear that the site isn't a neutral site. Or are you going to criticise the StudentforBachmann blog for doing the same thing only promoting Bachmann?"

I could care less that you're partisan. Merely that you're disingenuous.

And it doesn't get better.

"Corbett Johnson is a Republican. I have never met Corbett, though he has called me because of the Dump Bachmann site. He's a good person. He did support Jane Krenz over Bachmann in the last election - but so did a number of other moderate Republicans.

Now I know you might say that Corbett is a RINO (and I'm sure you'd say that about me) - that's a common refrain among the far right within the GOP - that we need to thin the herd - and get rid of the RINOs. That's what drove Sheila Kiscaden, Dean Johnson and Judi Dutcher successfully from the party."

And thank goodness they were driven. I have yet to see anyone show me how the "moderate Republicans" differ in any substantial way from the DFL.

"Also, I look forward to you disputing the claims from Karl Bremer rather than attacking Karl personally. "

I did.

"Jim Bernstein is a former Republican - and I've got his story (from personal correspondance which I post with his permission) on Dump Bachmann."

Right, but you presented him without any background; he IS a rabid DFLer; when Mike Hatch says "jump", he says "off what?"

"The testimonial I notice Mitch didn't want to mention was from JB of Fraters - who called the Bachmann "Senator Eye Candy"."

Er, that's a keen reportorial eye at work, there, Eva. No kidding. JB's "testimonial" was pretty clearly hyperbolic.

"Then ofcourse Tom Barnard refers to her as the "hot sexy minx". I would not coo "oh your awesome" to a radio show host who treated me like that. "

I'm here to testify, it gets old after a while.

Mitch, if you really don't care, you really didn't need to spend 642 words saying so. (Hey - that's about the right length for a Strib op-ed, not that you would know.) Dump Bachmann is obviously doing a good enough job getting the word out about Bachmann's record without your assistance, although we all appreciate it.

Here's how it's done, Mitch: head over to my blog (click the name) where I point out your hypocrisy in less than 150 words. I'm not going to particularly care what you have to say unless you start using facts to back it up, and, accordingly, I spent about 2 minutes writing about this.

Just some friendly advice, blogger to blogger. Although, I can't say I'm really upset that you're spending so much time drumming up awareness of Dump Bachmann.

"Yeti",

I clicked over to your blog.

Wow. There's thirty seconds of my life I'll never get back.

You answer with a stawman (nobody said anything about posting "constituents", merely the disingenuity of failing to describe their backgrounds, of which Eva and, presumably, you, are fully aware) and unsupportable ad homina.

I posted facts ,"yeti". Karl Bremer is not just a constituent. Jim Bernstein is a DFL tool.

You posted nothing but snark.

A little advice, "one blogger to another": learn to write and reason. You're not ready for prime time in the snark biz OR the fact biz.

Big difference, theyeti; mitch's 600-odd words were worth reading. Your 150 were crap.

Actually Mitch, you didn't address Bernstein's background.

Yeti's blog is quite good. He doesn't just do snark like this:

http://theyetimn.blogspot.com/2005/06/db-of-day.html

Yeti has an excellent rebuttal of Bachmann's nonsensical Academic Freedom bill:

http://theyetimn.blogspot.com/2005/05/will-real-academic-freedom-please.html

I did address Bernstein's background; I linked to my American Bankers' piece. While he wrote at some length about his conversion to the dark side, he didn't mention how the insurance industry regarded him as a stooge for the bureaucracy who had a jones for sticking it to business. The perfect DFLer (or "moderate Republican", if you prefer).

While yet rebuttal may be OK, it's irrelevant, since I don't necessarily support it myself. Yet another of your faulty assumptions. All I know is, his "rebuttal" of *me* was the sort of thing I'd make my daughter go back and rewrite.

So Eva - why do you persist in saying I "censor" disagreement? I clearly have never done that; merely excised assholes. You have what looks like a need to demonize all who disagree with you (your last post on "dump"), while trying to wriggle out of answering for your mistakes.

Why so defensive? Why the need to retreat into strawmen and misdirection?

I'd really like to know why being a "loyal DFLer" somehow makes a person's criticisms less credible. Does this work both ways? Are Republicans forbidden to disagree publicly with Democrats?

I happen to be a Democrat myself, and I will do all I can to oppose Bachmann. She is the worst of the Republican party: a religious bigot and busybody who wants to strip people of their civil rights and enforce her own peculiar morality on others, and a self-proclaimed supporter of education who favors that howling anti-intellectual, Horowitz, and wants to replace our science programs with bronze age superstitions. I think us loyal DFLers would gladly step back and leave her be if responsible Republicans, if there are such things anymore, would make the effort to shun the troglodyte/theocrat wing of their own party.

As long as Republicans don't, though, we're going to bring the fight to them for you.

Just what dog do you have in this, Mitch? Seriously, why does it matter who this Bremer guy is? The fact is, he IS a constituent, and Eva labeled him as such, accurately. Usually, I can pretty well tell a person's political beliefs from what s/he writes; I don't need to affix labels to people for that purpose. Why should bloggers have to do just that for everybody we quote? I'm pretty confident that if I scrolled down the Shot in the Dark homepage, I'd find plenty of quotes that aren't accompanied by "By the way, this person belongs to the XYZ Party."

Why are you even making an issue out of this? Aren't there more important things to be doing?

And speaking of reasoning, take a gander at the long list of links at the top of my sidebar. At one of them (or it might've been at the comments here, I don't remember), I asked you to provide evidence of a specific instance where Bachmann's "Academic Freedom" bill would be needed to combat discrimination. You never responded. I'll gladly stop talking about this Bachmannalia du jour if you do.

"I'd really like to know why being a "loyal DFLer" somehow makes a person's criticisms less credible. Does this work both ways? Are Republicans forbidden to disagree publicly with Democrats?"

I'm not quite sure what the problem is, here. I've said it, I think, fairly clearly, and several times; I have no problem with anyone criticizing anyone. But for the fourth time, I'm criticizing Eva's notion of presenting the likes of Karl Bremer as if he's some typical bystander they roped in off the street to comment about Bachmann, someone who doesn't have the better part of a decade of anti-Bachmann activity. Which - again and again and again - he's entitled to, but he's hardly "just a constituent".

"I happen to be a Democrat myself, and I will do all I can to oppose Bachmann. She is the worst of the Republican party: a religious bigot and busybody who wants to strip people of their civil rights"

Religious bigot? Howzat?

Strip people of what civil rights? Seriously. I've talked with Bachmann a couple of times, I have no idea what civil rights she's "stripping" from whom. Gay marriage? There's a legitimate argument against it, put forth by people far to the left of Bachmann.

" and enforce her own peculiar morality on others, and a self-proclaimed supporter of education who favors that howling anti-intellectual, Horowitz,"

Y'see, PZ, it's there that you're starting to lose me. Howling anti-intellectual? Hardly - merely an apostate liberal, which seems to be something liberals hate worse than conservatives.

" and wants to replace our science programs with bronze age superstitions."

I have to confess, both sides of this argument leave me completely cold. I detest dogmatic atheism and many of its practicioners (speaking of howling anti-intellectuals!), while at the same time scratching my head and wondering why people feel there's any contradiction between religious faith and science.

" I think us loyal DFLers would gladly step back and leave her be if responsible Republicans, if there are such things anymore, would make the effort to shun the troglodyte/theocrat wing of their own party."

Nah. You'd just move the goalposts, again, so that everyone to the right of Arne Carlson would eventually be called an "extremist".

"As long as Republicans don't, though, we're going to bring the fight to them for you."

Right. Which introduces a question I'm going to have to post on one of these days.

"Just what dog do you have in this, Mitch? Seriously, why does it matter who this Bremer guy is? The fact is, he IS a constituent, and Eva labeled him as such, accurately."

Sure. And if I trolled opinions and called, say, John Hinderaker an "Eagan Resident", or Karl Rove a "DC resident", both of those would be literally accurate, too - and equally misleading.

" Usually, I can pretty well tell a person's political beliefs from what s/he writes; I don't need to affix labels to people for that purpose."

Well, that's great - but one can not assume that blog readers are as all-knowing. On the chance that someone is reading the dump and thinks "wow. Some average, non-affiliated citizens are saying THIS about Bachmann", I wanted to make sure they were getting the whole story.

" Why should bloggers have to do just that for everybody we quote?"

Er, they don't. You can call John Kerry a "Massachussetts attorney" and Howard Dean a "country doctor" and George Bush a "Texas Businessman", and it's all true, and yet all misleading, and I'll leave a comment pointing out that two of them are Democrat muckymucks and one is a Republican president. Like I'm doing now.

" I'm pretty confident that if I scrolled down the Shot in the Dark homepage, I'd find plenty of quotes that aren't accompanied by "By the way, this person belongs to the XYZ Party."

Go ahead and do it. Find an example of me quoting someone and leaving out a key (and known) factor about their past that would be material in interpreting what they say about a candidate.

Let us know what you find. That's what comments are for.

"Why are you even making an issue out of this? Aren't there more important things to be doing?"

Yep. And I do them, too.

"And speaking of reasoning, take a gander at the long list of links at the top of my sidebar. At one of them (or it might've been at the comments here, I don't remember), I asked you to provide evidence of a specific instance where Bachmann's "Academic Freedom" bill would be needed to combat discrimination. You never responded."

Because I have no interest in the Academic Freedom bill. For the third time in as many weeks - I don't necessarily support it, although I see with my own eyes that there is bias. I don't know that the ABOR is the answer to it; I DO know that Michael Boucher's glib, smug bias isn't, either. As a parent of two junior high kids, I'll settle for relentless, active confrontation of problems, until I can afford to homeschool them or send them to college, whichever comes first.

"I'll gladly stop talking about this Bachmannalia du jour if you do."

Talk about it all you want. I'll do the same.

Gay rights is a civil rights issue, and Bachmann opposes them. It's that simple.

Speaking of misleading labels, calling Horowitz merely an "apostate liberal" is a darned good example. Horowitz is a nutcase; when he was on the Left, he was a dogmatic extremist who represented an ideology most liberals detest. It's revealing that now he has changed his label to the right-wing, and he fits in much more comfortably.

This is not about atheism, either. I said it was about science programs, not religion, and that Bachmann wants to replace good, solid, evidence based science with the doctrines of the religious right. You claim to see no contradiction between religious faith and science; then why are you implicitly endorsing Bachmann's desire to corrupt science education?

"Gay rights is a civil rights issue, and Bachmann opposes them. It's that simple."

No it's not. Bachmann does not oppose "gay rights", that I've seen (and we've talked about it twice); she opposes gay marriage. If you want to dump Bachmann, then you also need to dump Oregon and Michigan, since gay marriage referenda failed there. I don't see where anything they did is worse than anything that Bachmann believes. But then, being straight, it's not an issue I'm supremely literate about.

"Speaking of misleading labels, calling Horowitz merely an "apostate liberal" is a darned good example. Horowitz is a nutcase; when he was on the Left, he was a dogmatic extremist who represented an ideology most liberals detest. It's revealing that now he has changed his label to the right-wing, and he fits in much more comfortably."

You keep tacking labels on Horowitz - and conservatives - but back it with...what? More labels? Calling someone a nutcase repeatedly (and then making an ofay association with his current company) isn't what I'd call dispositive. Horowitz is a brilliant guy with a passion for his beliefs that even his supporters find intimidating, a passion that occasionally takes him clean over the top. The parts of his opposition call him "nutcase" that can muster no better argument...whoah. I, a supporter, have just delivered a more cogent criticism of Horowitz than you, a detractor!

"This is not about atheism, either. I said it was about science programs, not religion, and that Bachmann wants to replace good, solid, evidence based science with the doctrines of the religious right."

Which I'm not defending, per se - although I'd like kids to know the empirical problems with absolute faith in evolution, too (the religious problems are their family and church's job), something the atheistaliban would, from my experience, like the schools to soft-pedal.

" You claim to see no contradiction between religious faith and science"

It's not a "claim". I see no contradiction. Does it make creation any less magnificent if it took umpteen billion years than if it took 4,000 or whatever? I don't think so.

Yeah, yeah, I know; to the atheistaliban, every mention of God is a rankling sore to be scratched into a bloody hash. Sorry.

"then why are you implicitly endorsing Bachmann's desire to corrupt science education?"

Now it's your own...I'll be civil and call them "preconceptions" talking. I've never said anything about it one way or another. I don't endorse it, tacitly or otherwise.

I favor teaching kids...no, I don't. I favor abolishing the elementary and probably the secondary school system as it is, public AND private. However, I favor teaching kids to think critically enough to really know WHAT they believe, as well as know; enough to be able to tell their teachers where they're wrong, when it happens.

I was a bio major once; I would vastly prefer that science classes taught the scientific method (and the real thing, mind you, not the PC travesty that passes for it in so many places these days), INCLUDING its limitations, and the things it HASN't divined yet...

Mitch:

I was a bio major once; I would vastly prefer that science classes taught the scientific method (and the real thing, mind you, not the PC travesty that passes for it in so many places these days), INCLUDING its limitations, and the things it HASN't divined yet...

HUH? What's the "real scientific method" - and what's the PC travesty?

Jeez, Eva, sometimes your obtusion is funny. Now it's just aggravating.

What part of the statement do you find confusing? When the scientific method is taught with predefined, politically correct conclusions in mind, then it's no better than teaching creationism.

It's a real problem:

http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/r-ws.html

See also: Education, most social "sciences".

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit