Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess
I don't and didn't disagree with that, Corkey. Not at all. I actually said I think the cost of protecting our President should not have a bottom line. My original post was an attempt to perhaps suggest that the article actually be read. If it is read, without bias, it is clear the statement came from other officials and Bachman was merely commenting on that information.
It was an attempt to once again say "hey, don't just read the headline or the slant, but read all of the information provided". I just get really tired of folks getting all bent out of shape and making assumptions based on half truths, ya know?
Thanks.
|
Here's my problem with this:
IF Ms Bachmann had, over the last 18 months or so, had proven herself to be a fair-actor then okay. However, Ms Bachmann has *repeatedly* made statements that are, at very best, wildly inaccurate. To wit:
Ms Bachmann has stated that there were FEMA camps being set up in which the Obama administration would put their political opponents. Do these camps exist? No. Is there ANY evidence such camps exist or were planned? No. Yet, she has repeatedly said this.
Ms Bachmann has stated that the expansion of Volunteer for America and Americorps was meant to create a cadre of young Marxists who would go out and be the Obama administration's thugs. Is this, in fact, what is happening? No. Is there any evidence that anything remotely LIKE this is happening? No.
Ms Bachmann has stated that the HCR bill had provisions for 'death panels' in it. Did it? No. Was there any evidence that would point to something even remotely like a death panel? No. There was payment for end of life counseling but that was simply to allow people on Medicare to have Medicare pay for any EOL counseling that they might seek (Medicare didn't pay for it).
I could go on and on. So when Ms Bachmann latches onto an off-the-cuff remark and runs with it on national television, it seems reasonable to dismiss what she is saying as having no more veracity than any of the statements above. What's more, Ms Bachmann is NOT speaking as a private citizen. If you or I want to rant about the money it costs for Mr. Obama to travel or even what it costs for him to use the toilet at the White House that is fine. We are private citizens with very limited sphere of influence. On the other hand, if a sitting member of Congress, who aspires to be House majority leader, starts parroting things without fact-checking them that is a different kind of matter altogether. It is irresponsible and i am being *very* generous.
Lastly, my concern--and you can dismiss this if you wish--is that Ms Bachmann will, as House majority leader, have the power of the purse. The White House cannot spend money not approved by Congress. Now, it doesn't take a particularly active imagination to conjure up a scenario where the House slashes the White House travel budget for FY 2012, just before the Presidential election. Now, Mr. Obama either has to stay in D.C. and not campaign OR he has to take the risk and travel on a seriously restricted budget. He has to do this and travel to places where people have been convinced--thanks in no small part to the effort of people like Ms Bachmann--that the POTUS is a Marxist, Manchurian-candidate, terrorist. The geometry of THAT scenario is too horrible to pursue further.
Baseless non-logical claims that may make us emotionally satisfied, or which comport with a pre-existing ideological commitment bother me and I'm not going to just pretend that it is just as likely that Ms Bachmann's parroting of this claim has anything to do with reality as, well, any of the OTHER statements she has made in the last 18 - 24 months regarding this administration.
Cheers
Aj