You're looking for truth? Have you forgotten who these people are? These are just talking points. Talking points work so much better than the truth. Many of the swing voters are busy. Some of the swing voters are lazy. All, thanks to the Star Tribune, are Wellstoned. When you have no shame or conscience, go Left young man. It's still a winning strategy. Real evidence? From the DFL? Where have you been?

give it up. you people are pissed that your neonazi friend is going down.

you poeple are leviticas crowd pigs.

I'm glad to see that at least one person is determined not to be upsnuck by the deadly leviticas crowd pig.

Hmm..."mel"?

Naaaaaah...*

(*That's a semi in-joke for Mitch.)

Let's just all be thankful that you are not in military targeting or imagery analysis.

I'm glad you have found some closure on this matter, but the image doesn't show her on her knee one way or another. It is too pixelated.

When you are talking about shadows and reflection, it sounds really nice but you are not taking into account things like cloud cover, time of day, what type of film (digital), etc, etc, etc...you know, the types of things that imagery analysts like to use.

Are you really trying to prove a political statement incorrect by a photograph? If you don't like Bachmann she's spying...if you support her she is sitting down resting behind a bush at a pro-gay rally...what could be weird about that?

There are very few clues in this image concerning her actual direction. Your best bet with shadows can be taken by the objects across the street and from the glare on top of the school bus. You can tell it is mid-day because the sun is high enough to cast a reflection on the near side of the bus but to also cast a shadow towards the camera on the statue closest to the viewer.

What is she doing there in the first place? That is her, correct? She was out there watching the rally behind a bush (surely she didn't have her back turned the entire time). The body guard is clearly facing us. You can see his white undershirt at his wrist.

The only other real clue here would be to see where Bachmann is positioned on the sidewalk. This would be an easy (but time consuming) experiment. Take several different photos from the steps of the capitol with the subject in roughly the same place as Bachmann. If she is on the part of the sidewalk closest to the bush, it is unlikely she is sitting down...but rather kneeling) If she is closer to the curb, then she is likely on the curb...with a truck barreling down on where she is sitting.

The point is that you can't tell one way or the other which way she is facing. Are you honestly trying to make up stuff about pixels? She was behind the bush...call it what you want. This is the point of dispute...not what's in the image...we can all see that it is her with a bodyguard-type behind a bush at a gay rally.

What do you call that? I'm sure you've seen a rally or two at the capitol. You can watch them from up close up in the doorway or from down by where the speaker parks his motorcycle.

All of your guesses on convex, reflected light, irregular lines, etc...way off. Not enough data. Not a good enough image. Certainly not a good enough imagery analyst.

Stick to the political argument on this one...the image one goes nowhere and it doesn't matter...she has admitted to being out there. After that...well who can spin it the best. You just made crap up.

Sponge,

So you agree with me that the Dumpies are wrong to assert that this picture definitely shows Bachmann is "hiding behind the bushes" and "spying" on the rally?

Sounds like you do.

No further questions.

Other pictures show her walking within plain view of the camera at the same. with out those pictures you cant prove that is bachmann behind the bush. Its illogical that she would hide behind the bush to avoid discovery, then walk away in plain view. So any suggestion that she was spying is just nonsense.

Whatever a Leviticus pig is, I guess I don't mind being one...notice the spelling moron Mel. I guess it's not hard to believe you're not up on Bible spelling because "who would be...GAH?!". (Said like a bratty 14 yr old girl...you know the sound if you have had one or were one).

The picture is fairly inconclusive on the matter of her kneeling. I'm glad we are able to come to that agreement after all the talk of shadows and pixels. However, one still has to label the act what she is doing. Some people have chosen "kneeling" or "spying". Bachmann has chosen "resting" or "sitting".

Either way, what is she doing behind the bushes? The description of this matter is spin...either way. I like to think of her as hiding behind the bushes "lustfully gazing" upon the rally. The only differnce between my spin and yours is that I didn't make up a bunch of stuff about an image to back up my comment.

She shouldn't have been behind the bushes in the first place. Then the spin would have never had happened about this particular event. Crouching, sitting, resting, spying, "lustfully gazing"...BEHIND A BUSH. She could have been playing Pinochle for all we know...it still doesn't matter...as it would have been Pinochle behind a bush at a gay rally. Would you go to a DFL convention and hide behind a bush? Or would you either walk in and watch or catch the news or some blog? This is about her bad judgment...spin it how you like, but don't try to make stuff about the picture to make your point.

"She shouldn't have been behind the bushes in the first place. "

Really?

So, as a general rule, all public figures should never go out, lest anything they do in any location be interpreted (and misinterpreted) by zealots who oppose them?

That's different only in degree from telling a rape victim "you shouldn't have been OUT that late!"

By the way, you didn't answer my question, Sponge. You agree that there's no basis in that photograph to guess WHAT the Senator was doing, right? Because if I can't, nobody else can...

If you are gonna use the photos from our site, at least use the larger size version that we put a link to:
http://photos17.flickr.com/19255055_5d1f68dce7_o.jpg

And btw, this isn't MY picture. The picture was taken by Matt from paradise is who i am blog (blog has been deleted), and was also published on Eleventh Avenue South - the Eleventh Av South post can be found by searching Bachmann bushes.

If you look at this photo, it's much clearer not blown up. Did you distort as well as blow it up, Mitch?

Take a look at the photo Carson linked to:

http://photos17.flickr.com/19255055_5d1f68dce7_o.jpg

You can see that her right knee is pulled up in front of her - her other leg is behind the bushes. Her elbo is resting on the knee.

The photo that Carson, and now I have linked to is much sharper than your distorted pixelated images, Mitch.

I've blown up Carson's pic to about the same proportions as Mitch's example and one can clearly see the senator crouching/sitting/urinating behind the shrub.

http://martianginhonky.org/bachmanncrouch.jpg

You don't have to thank me.

She looks like she was crouching or squatting. I really don't think she was urinating..... If she was doing that, she'd have been wetting her pants.

Mitch, come clean, you were distorting the picture, not just blowing it up.

OK obsessive jerk offs:

look at the crowd in the zoomed out picture. Note the direction they are all facing. Presumably a speaker as their gazes are all focused at the same point.

Find that point.

Trace a line back to where Bachmann is hiding.

From the speakers vantage point she would have been in crear view.

And if you are hiding the last thing you want to do is be noticed by the moonbat holding the microphone.

"By the way, you didn't answer my question, Sponge."

My heavens, are you really that thick?

"The picture is fairly inconclusive on the matter of her kneeling. I'm glad we are able to come to that agreement after all the talk of shadows and pixels."

How much clearer do you need me to say it: the picture doesn't support any adjective or adverb you want to put before "behind the bush". In order to get that word, you need to spin the sucker politically. There is nothing in the picture to support anyone claims. And as someone who just spent a large amount of time on a post where you made some pretty ridiculous claims about the nature of the image, I would be a little less trigger happy about making fun of the way other people try to spin the image. How much clearer do you want your answer?

"That's different only in degree from telling a rape victim "you shouldn't have been OUT that late!"

This is just horseshit. Do you think Senator Durbin should have said what he said about Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin? Do you think he should have said what he said politically? The correct answer is no. Why? Because of misinterpretations by zealots who oppose him...right? If you have a good point or a good issue, you should be aware of your surroundings enough to not give your opponent an open shot. This is absolutely nothing like rape. /Nothing what so ever. And since we're on the topic of "degree", your ridiculous comments differ only in "degree" from Durbins ridiculous remarks: way over the top, not on target, and insulting. Rape? Grow up. Bachmann is running for f-ing Congress, she shouldn't be behind bushes at gay rallys. This has nothing to do with misinterpretations of zealots...this is about not giving the "zealots" even more ammo to shoot at you with. Rape? Are you kidding me?!

That's nonsense and you know it.

Mitch, Michele Bachmann was describing some of the signs she saw at the rally (Kersten's article describes one mean-spirited sign that said "Go to Hell, Michele"). How would Bachmann have seen such a sign if she wasn't facing the crowd?

Learned Foot: Welcome back. On the obscessive jerkoff issue, I assume you are talking about Mitch here, since he's been the one blowing up and distorting the Bachmann in the Bushes photo to expand on some point, which he has not made.

Mitch: You've been spending LOTS of time at the Dump Bachmann site lately..... commenting profusely on the threads.

BTW, Jan Hogle has refuted Kersten's column which parroted Bachmann's claims about Bathroomgate in today's strib. Check the counterpoint page. I thought that would cheer you up.

"Mitch, come clean, you were distorting the picture, not just blowing it up. "

Always with the conspiracy theory, Eva. No, I just blew up the photo from your site, the one you published earlier in the week.

"Mitch, Michele Bachmann was describing some of the signs she saw at the rally (Kersten's article describes one mean-spirited sign that said "Go to Hell, Michele"). How would Bachmann have seen such a sign if she wasn't facing the crowd?"

Huh?

You're serious?

What - does the Capitol have one of those "Star Trek" transporter rooms, where she could beam directly over to the curb on Constitution? No? Then I presume SHE WALKED AROUND THE CROWD at some point to GET THERE.

"Learned Foot: Welcome back. On the obscessive jerkoff issue, I assume you are talking about Mitch here,"

When you get frustrated, Eva, I notice you dive straight into the puerile name-calling. But I'm sure you'd never do that at a meeting, or with a photo, right?

" since he's been the one blowing up and distorting the Bachmann in the Bushes photo to expand on some point, which he has not made."

Cleversponge made it for me; there is NO way to tell what Bachmann is doing from the photo, even though you and your minions say you can.

"Mitch: You've been spending LOTS of time at the Dump Bachmann site lately..... commenting profusely on the threads."

Actually, my boredom finally waned. I've not been there for a day or two, and have no plans to return. It's an echo chamber, a "Daily Kos" in miniature; for the most part, a group of people motivated by

Commenting profusely? Huh? Perhaps you've noticed, Eva, I'm a pretty prolific writer. I write eight hours a day at work, and probably 1-2 hours on the blog. A comment is one minute of random jotting. Nothing "profuse" about it.

"BTW, Jan Hogle has refuted Kersten's column which parroted Bachmann's claims about Bathroomgate in today's strib. Check the counterpoint page. I thought that would cheer you up."

Why would it have any emotional impact at all?

This may be a difficult concept, Eva, but work with me bit here: just because you are obsessed with Michele Bachmann doesn't mean that I am, even though I have an opinion or two.

Chew on that for a while.

I have a blog with a single minded goal of defeating Michele Bachmann in the electoral arena..... That means defeating her should she fall back to running for reelection to the state senate, or stopping her from getting elected to congress. The blog has been having its effect. Unlike the Students for Bachmann blog, which focuses on other issues besides Bachmann, my blog on Bachmann has a single goal. Lloydletta - my other blog covers other topics. Lloydletta gets much less traffic and press attention than Dump Bachmann.

I think it's the pot calling the kettle back about that blog being an "echo chamber" like Kos. Your blog - and comments - often seem to be an echo chamber.

You've been over on Dump Bachmann calling the other people there names, then denying you call people names - and get rather huffy when I use the phrase "Whine in the Dark" to refer to your blog. As I said before, Mitch, you need to learn to laugh at yourself. I got a good laugh out of the Dump the Bachmann Dumpers blog - which seems to have died.

Swiftee is over on DB still ranting about how I'm manic depressive and bringing up the same old, same old.

As far as the photo goes, this one is blown up a bit, and seems much clearer than yours.

http://martianginhonky.org/bachmanncrouch.jpg

Here's the image of her walking away:

http://www.eleventh-avenue-south.com/archives/Bachmann%20Bushes3.jpg

Hat Tip to Eleventh Avenue South:

http://www.eleventh-avenue-south.com

"Learned Foot: Welcome back. On the obscessive jerkoff issue, I assume you are talking about Mitch here,"

When you get frustrated, Eva, I notice you dive straight into the puerile name-calling. But I'm sure you'd never do that at a meeting, or with a photo, right?

EY: Actually, it was the ever so Learned Foot who used the term, obscessive jerkoff, I just was making an assumption about who he was referring to, since he didn't make it clear.

Cheers.... Have a good weekend.

"I have a blog with a single minded goal of defeating Michele Bachmann in the electoral arena..... That means defeating her should she fall back to running for reelection to the state senate, or stopping her from getting elected to congress. The blog has been having its effect."

Maybe, although I suspect over the long term the effect will benefit Bachmann. You sling a lot of groundless mud at the Dump, and eventually that'll be to Bachmann's benefit. The beauty of it is, you'll never see it!

"I think it's the pot calling the kettle back about that blog being an "echo chamber" like Kos. Your blog - and comments - often seem to be an echo chamber."

It's not a great stretch to notice that I draw a crowd that is probably right of center. But a lot of your commenters, Eva, are amazing - you could toss out a photoshop of her eating a puppy, and half of them would chant "Bachmann eats puppies!". Oh, yeah - and their inarticulate abuse of anyone who dissents from the "Bachmann is a Nazi" line is hilarious.

You don't get that here.

"You've been over on Dump Bachmann calling the other people there names,"

Now, Eva, you're freestyling. I don't call anyone names.

"and get rather huffy when I use the phrase "Whine in the Dark" to refer to your blog."

Eva, you're no better a clairvoyant than you are an ethicist. I wasn't "huffy" (certainly not "rather" huffy), I was shaking my head at the pure fourth-grade-ness of it all.

"As I said before, Mitch, you need to learn to laugh at yourself."

Eva, I'm a 42 year old follicle challenged single father who's been in three careers and had more missteps than a rockette on meth. I laugh at myself plenty fine, thank you. Just not necessarily on cue.

"Swiftee is over on DB still ranting about how I'm manic depressive and bringing up the same old, same old."

Note to Swiftee - leave the bipolar stuff alone. There's plenty of better material out there.

There, Eva. How's that?

"Actually, it was the ever so Learned Foot who used the term, obscessive jerkoff, I just was making an assumption about who he was referring to, since he didn't make it clear."

And again with the technicalities. "I didn't KNOW who he was referring to". "The hand was just on the doorknob". "The email was public, even though the address was rendered private via technical means". Problem is, Eva, technicalities only get you so much indulgence.

Perhaps the funniest thing about all of this "imagery talk" is not only did you make up stuff about a picture that you blew up on your own, but you tried to sound intelligent about the matter of imagery analysis by talking about straight lines and shadows...and so on and so forth.

I then come along and tell you that your picture...the one on your site...shows nothing either way and that it doesn't matter what anyone says about this picture because it's all spin anyway.

I have never blown up this picture. I like to think that your site is on the straight and narrow and that you provided the best possible blow up of the image in question. You did not. Several of the links above do have clearer images where you can clearly see that her right knee is facing the camera.

So...recap. You use a crappy image. You make stuff up about the image. I tell you that you can't see shit in your image. You tell everyone that this is proof that you are right (about what we'll never be clear), and then you say something about rape.

Unknown to your readers is the fact that there ARE images out there that clearly show the right leg of some lovely blue pants propped up infront of Michele. Now I know we like to think she is a jack of all trades, but a contortionist is not one of em.

What to take away from this:

you made stuff up about a poor-quality image in order to back up your spin (there's that word again) that Bachmann wasn't spying. Could she still be "resting"? Yes. Could she still be "sitting"? Maybe, just maybe, if Bachmann (or the people defending her on this one) had enough "believability" or they had a bit better message or better talking points/arguments that didn't center about exactly what you can and can't see in the image...then maybe this thing wouldn't have been so bad.

Instead, the spin went from heels, to resting, to who knows what. When you screw up in politics, you need a unified and consistant message...she did not have this. Also, she should have known better. This isn't a matter of difference in degree from rape. Intelligent people make intelligent assumptions about likely outcomes. This is why we have safety procedures for weapons handling or why we don't drive our car through a busy intersection on a red light. Politically, your better politicians avoid crouching/hiding/spying/lustfully gazing behind bushes because they know any likely outcome can't look good. Rape? I still can't believe you said that. Hopefully, you will be full of outrage today on your radio show concerning Dick Durbin...being that your comments only differ in "degree" from his.

Also, double check image coverage. Always double check image coverage. You need to have the best image available before you start to make comments about it.

My, sponge, but you ARE the dramaturge, aren't you?

I didn't know there was a better image out there.

And despite whatever expertise you claim, rightly or wrongly, in imagery, the fact is that even the NSA can't *determine people's thoughts or motivations* from a photo. Not even you.

Not even Eva.

My point really has nothing to do with the photo; it has to do with the hysteria of the anti-Bachmann zealots. It's on display daily at the Dump. I think if word of that got out, it'd HELP Bachmann.

"I didn't know there was a better image out there."

Here is a link to the post where Mitch got the photo. Notice the line "Click here to see a larger copy of the image."

Oops, forgot the link. Here it is:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/06/revisionist-history-of-bachmann-in.html

And despite whatever expertise you claim, rightly or wrongly, in imagery, the fact is that even the NSA can't *determine people's thoughts or motivations* from a photo. Not even you

..my god, that's what I have been saying ALL ALONG? Do you always make arguments without reading anything? That's the whole damn point. It doesn't matter what's in the image. That's up to the spinsters after the fact. how many times have I said that in this comment thread? Good lord.

And "dramaturge"? That's almost as bad as "younglings". You have work awaiting for scriptwriting in Star Wars 7,8, & 9.

You didn't know because you didn't want to know..which can be said for many opinions written on this site.

Sorry if your vocabulary isn't up to the test, sponge - although reading your site, I'm not surprised. I'll type slower.

Don't want to know? Sorry, Sponge - I already do know.

I never heard that Bachmann likes to eat puppies. I'd assume that she doesn't. I have heard that she said once "I eat democrats for lunch - and I'm hungry".... Doesn't one of Learned Foot's pals over at Koolaid Report eat "moonbats".

The best material on Senator Bachmann is the senator in her own words.

Sponge hit the nail on the head....

Let me elaborate: you people are expending so much effort (in your Kos-like, snark-heavy, evidence-light way) to impugn someone with whom, at the end of the day, you have simple policy and social disagreements. You're using faulty logic, innuendo and a whole lot of cheap-shooting to state a case that is, at its root, bogus to the core.

The photo is just another example of the kind of fourth-grade, peabrained approach that so many of Bachmann's detractors resort to in absence of anything other than disagreement.

Problem is, Eva, you've played so fast and loose with fact that one can not really be sure that you're getting "the senator's own words" from you people.

Mitch: Problem is, Eva, you've played so fast and loose with fact that one can not really be sure that you're getting "the senator's own words" from you people.

EY: Give a specific example where I've "played fast and loose with the facts". I've given sources for the quotes. You can check them out for yourself. Unlike you, I do issue corrections when I make mistakes.

Pot, Kettle.... Black.

Eva,

I caught you mis-citing and misleadingly citing a couple of "constituents".

Having cleaned adopted roads before, I suspect you played fast and loose with how messy the road you "cleaned" was; most people and groups clean their roads once or twice a year; if you catch ANYONE's road before they get to it, it's going to be a mess.

And of course, you haven't "corrected" your grossly unethical behavior in sending my private email address all over hell and half an acre. You keep issueing this self-serving explanation that ignores the fact that all email addresses on Yahoo are masked from external view - which was why I used it on MNPOL. Your "explanation" to your readers is constantly self-serving and incomplete.

You "Correct" things when caught. I correct whatever I need to. I'm the judge of that, by the way, not you.

Pot black huh-whah? I've never given out anyone's private data to insane strangers. I'm no species of kitchenware at all.