TTC,

"Sharah"?

Michele has been out of town so much this year, I wonder if she even remembers where her district is!

You gotta love this one:

"A religious scholar writes in the British newspaper The Guardian that Bachmann belongs to a segment of the Christian right trapped in an alternative "parallel culture" with its own standards of "Christianized" truth."

This "parallel culture" is akin to the Parallel Universe that FOX News exists in.

cmon..this is standard stuff for someone running for a larger office. This is not something new for either a democrat or republican.

yeah..Paul, we all care so much about some "religious scholar" in a stupid British rag has to say. Here's a news flash..she wins here in our district by land slide amounts, has MILLIONS of people who agree with her...and Fox out performs all the other news outlets. Sounds like a fringe thing to me....wait..maybe you're on the fringe.

Michele Bachmann has outed herself as a bigot and a fool, bogesmn. I highly doubt she would have a "landslide" victory during any future election. She is toast.

Patty..you are the definition of ignorance....have you seen how she wins elections here? Educate yourself. Please.

patty..you are so typical....you don't agree with her so she is a bigot...a fool....maybe you are the bigot...maybe you are the fool. If fact, I would bet that is the case. Can't you find a different playbook for the discussion of ideas rather than resorting to the old tired playbook of liberals like yourself? We get it..you can't compete in the arena of ideas so you have to attack attack attack. Try to shut people up by calling them names....it's old news. It's tired. Again, if you did any reading or research you would know that Michele will win out here no problem. Did you see what she did to her last "challenger" out here? Unfortunately for you...she's very popular in her district...and although she is too extreme to be considered on the national level, she has MILLIONS that support her around the country. If only she was a Marxist, pro choice, community organizer...then she would be the front runner for president.

I live in her district too. She's a nut, pure and simple.

I see her on TV, the internet and in print everyday. She's an extremist. She actively works to divide Americans from each other. That's reprehensible.

My grandparents would have been shocked and repulsed by Mrs. Bachmann's words and actions, just like I am.

Please don't claim to speak for my grandparents, they're all dead for more than 20 years. But they were all honest, hard-working, educated and loving people. They loved their kids, and gave them a better life than they had.

Mrs. Bachmann is shrill, divisive and mean-spirited. There are so many examples of her bad behavior, it's incredible.

Interesting link about people who claim to know the Founding Fathers

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

I will not insult Michelle Bachmann, but I will have to question whether L. Stanton believes that Bachmann is the smartest woman she has ever met. I believe L. Stanton is defending Bachmann's conservative stances as her intellect. I believe that Bachmann is true to her far right conservative values, but lacks the intellect and ability to compromise for the benefit of all of her constituents. It is hard to believe that Bachmann believes that she was elected to alienate the moderate and liberal population in her district. Her willingness to divide her district the way she has makes me wonder whether she would be able to take on any leadership role if it involves working with moderates and liberals, much less being the President of the United States.

@David B. Cruz,

Your comment about Bachmann and Mrs. Stanton is spot on. Thank you.

Great story from Politifact about Michele's frequent lies, made up "facts", and misstatements.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/

Good points... don't mind paul. He's in the minority here and obviously is behind his buddies that are so calm and big tent. You know...like Pelosi...Obama...those people. The accepting group that refers to conservatives as "the enemy" and calls anyone who has a differing opinon as extreme. You see, people like paul are for diversity and are "big tent" until you don't share their beliefs. Then, you are the problem. Then people like paul throw out the names....Nut...extreme...etc...that's they old tired playbook of his side. Absent of ideas, but full of names to call people who don't agree with them. Bachman does say some silly things at times..but do we have to grab all the soundbites of stupid divisive things that Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Gore, etc etc have said. Please...

Of course they will still follow her, the Liberal media will always work to undermine the conservatives.

It would be nice if they kept us updated on where and what our great Senators are doing, but even combining the two into one article would probably leave a blank page....

Shawn, my main comment is this:

If Michele is the really 6th District representative, when will she actually start representing us? She certainly hasn't been any help to us for the past 5 years.

Well put, Linda.

Shawn, I totally understand. She is our "Rep", no doubt.

Shawn
You say you "attempt" to show both sides but I'm not sure that usually works out.  The problem is that the mainstream liberal media typically piles on Republicans like a bunch of lemmings, so the majority of the news on specific topics only provide one viewpoint.  

Let me point to serval of your reference "sources"
Politico
NBC
CNN
CBS
MSNBC
ABC
Huffington Post 
Washington Post
New York Times 
The list of the liberal media reference sources goes on and on

So it really doesn't matter what issues you are reporting on, if you use the above sources to support what one of them are saying, it's like letting the inmates run the asylum. 

I challenge you to start a regular report on Sen Franken and show both sides opinions on what he is doing for the great state of Minnesota.

DK,

Senator Franken holds a statewide office, so his work is not directly tied to our community. Al represents the whole state, Patch is "hyper-local", so covering Al and Amy would be outside the scope of the Patch's mission.

ttc1934 said: "your views might be more palatable if you were not so rabid, so obsessed. Bachmann spreads "hate". of course you don't. Bachmann is divisive. of course you are not. Bachmann is a hypocrite. of course you are not. Bachmann is annoying, shrill, etc. of course, you are not. au contraire: of course you are: you are all of these things. and any rational person would know it. as I have said before: look in the mirror.interestingly also you claim to be a Catholic. yet, you are obviously an avid supporter of abortion rights, same sex marriage and probably other things that the church condemns. and, yes, there are some aspects of evangelical theology (e.g. the idea that, crudely put, once you are converted, God will reward you with wealth and power) that are not Christian in the strict sense of the word. but I doubt that a majority of evangelicals hold such beliefs (tho' I have heard watered down versions of such views preached even in Catholic churches)."

You are/were Catholic? I have to say I've never heard the prosperity gospel in a Catholic church. Priests take vows of poverty, unlike the millionaire televangelists . . . .

Hey Deek,

PS, this is the Woodbury Patch, not the Stillwater Patch. But you're welcome to come and hang-out. We enjoy having you here!

You're welcome.

Shawn,

Thanks for clarifying the point that Patch is hyperlocal. Always good to get the real facts.

Patty, your statement about being too extreme for the general population holds true for Banking Barney Frank, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.  The UE rates, foreclosures, and the rest have some merit, but you imply that Bachmann's agenda are to blame and Conservatives core values are to blame.  Pelosi thinks the Wall Street Protests are a great thing because it is grassroots America, but called the TEA Party a bunch of Nazis, and apparently didn't know, or forgets that it was a grassroots group started by a blogger. 

Did Obama inherit the best situation when he took office? No, probably not.  But many past Presidents have done the same.  What the General Population wants is the President to lead the country and stop blaming everyone else and making excuses. This isn't a pro life thing, a gay thing, a Black, Hispanic, or Caucasian thing, it's an American thing.  Americans need to get back to leading the world, but first we need a President that is willing to lead our Country. 

Patty, you stated that "Additionally, gay marriages could actually bolster the economy", so could explain that?  That's an economic growth approach I think the general population is unaware of.

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/11/an-economic-boost-from-gay-marriage

"A recent study (.pdf) conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government extended the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, gay weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry."

from DKnutson: "Did Obama inherit the best situation when he took office? No, probably not."

That's the understatement of the year. Banking had collapsed and Bush had initiated the 700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Unemployment rate had spiked and was moving higher. He inherited the worst economic mess since the Great Depression.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/767502-unemployment-rates-under-bush-clinton-bush.html

Renee,

Your source on the gay marriage boost to the economy is U.S. News?
Aren't they some kinda left-wing-pinko-socialist-communist propaganda machine?

Right after you Lefty's get done telling everyone how great gay marriage is for the economy you'll be telling us how great legalizing pot, cocaine, heroin, crack, and meth will be because we can tax that too and it will spawn new business growth.

yeah...Bachman..you jerk. How stupid are you to try and protect unborn children. what a bigot. Learn the use of the word before throwing it out in ignorance.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

I would say this fits Bachmann to a T.

The definition of Intolerant -

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

Sounds like Patty...to a T....

The definition of Intolerant -

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

Sounds like Patty...to a T....

Hey BogusMN,

Did you purposely post this twice? Do you like the sound of your own voice that much?

Just wondering.

One more comment, regarding Mike's comment, and Michele and "preacher" Mac Hammond.

The "Success Gospel" is NOT embraced by mainstream Christians. Ask a Catholic Priest, and you'll hear why.

This flawed belief is not a Christian concept, and oftentimes people on the Right Wing use it to argue for the "war on the poor" that some, but not all, fundamentalists are currently waging on the poor, and the middle class.

My Priest and I have discussed this several times, and he has made it clear to me that this fallacious concept is NOT Christian. In my opinion, it is also anti-Christian.

So the fact that a politician, like Ms. Bachmann, who hypocritically wraps herself in the flag and her supposed brand of Christianity, is very annoying to me.

Mike, very well put.

Especially the comments about the diferent times when the Liberals and Conservatives are/(were) complaining about the coverage of Mrs. Marcus Bachmann.

Thank you for your reasoned, and reasonable, perspecitve. And, in this case at least, the poilitical process seems to be working.

Renee
Barney Frank's and Christopher Dodd's liberal ideas about home ownership is what lead to the defaults of many home loans which is what started this whole mess. Wall street suffered from collateral damage because they had built investments on derivatives that were based on the faulty loans which Barney Frank encouraged. Yes, wall street and the banks should have known better and they are at fault for not knowing better. Frank said something like: "Let's roll the dice on this a little bit longer". Yeah he rolled the dice. And we lost.

Now their beating up on the banks which were only doing as Frank encouraged them to do.

And they're beating up on the rich people too. Why? Rich people are those who hire others. Have you ever got a job from someone who is dirt poor? No. The poor do not hire. It is rich people who hire and make jobs, not the poor. Unless, of course, we hand over the means of production to the government which would then make us communists. That's been tried. It doesn't work.

So lets see first the dems monkey with loan qualifications to cause the crises. After the crises they attack the banks, they attack the rich, they attack wall street. Hmmm.... who's using wedge issues?

Oh... and Wall street is actually quite liberal... they pushed for Obama.

"And they're beating up on the rich people too. Why? Rich people are those who hire others."

The problem is that rich people AREN'T hiring others, unless it's as the low-paid gardener or maid. Why not? Because demand isn't there for goods and services - the middle and lower classes have no money to spend.

That's the reality. US economy is shrinking because trillions have been taken out of this economy (home equity alone has taken a couple trillion dollar hit). It's called deleveraging.

The government can leverage up to counter deleveraging of the private sector (and this was done to some degree with stimulus and loans to auto industry, etc.), or do nothing (and even make cuts, as Obama is now proposing) and let unemployment rise to 20-25% or more. Obama is gonna kill us with that crap. Now is not the time to address deficits.

Those are the choices. Now we are seeing the results of massive deleveraging . . . a lot of suffering, and protests starting with the new poor class (previously middle class people). Look at the faces of the protesters . . . white, young, educated, frustrated. These are people who desperately want to work . . .

Do we tell them to suck it in, go without healthcare and food, and become the "lost generation"?

Do we ask the 1% to pay their fair share of taxes and help these people?

What would Jesus do?

ttc1934 said: "this is bloody nonsense. your knowledge of America's economic history is rudimentary, stereotypical to say the least. could recommend some good reading about the economics of the Depression (which arguably persisted much longer than it should have, probably due to certain New Deal and Fed policies). be that as it may you are not going to change your mind, that seems to be set in concrete. the most disturbing part of your comment, however, is your defense of mob action and mob psychology. if the TEA party hit the streets, you would raise howls of protest and condemnation. but leftist mobs are OK. i think that we are getting very close to intellectual dishonesty here. and yes you are sort of right about one thing: the Fed kept interest rates lower than it should have during the 1920's. and low interest rates do tend to fuel economic irresponsibility. so if true, what of the Fed's low interest rate policies now. there's a lot of fiat currency floating about at this time. are we making the same mistake over again. and is the Fed enabling the borrowing binge that we are indulging in today. if so, what will the hangover be like? and my thanks for taking the time to repeat my comments. aren't you the sly one?"

I'm repeating your comments because you keep deleting yours (after I reply and discredit your statements with facts and data).

To understand the Depression and credit crunches (like we have now) you can start by reading "The Great Crash" (Galbraith).

"your defense of mob action and mob psychology. if the TEA party hit the streets, you would raise howls of protest and condemnation. but leftist mobs are OK."

I'm not defending mob psychology, just explaining why/how it happens and stating the fact that protests did occur during the Great Depression era. This is simply historical fact. TEA partiers have had rallies, etc. (including in DC), and it's the same as any other show of support for a political ideology . . . no different.

Renee, it would be easy to debate numbers, because the fact is numbers can be made to present any argument, but I'll just go to the obvious, and go along with your numbers...

If everything was so bad, or according to you an understatement, why was the first things the President went to work on was Health Care and Green Energy?  You said He inherited the worst economic mess since the Great Depression." so it was known that the economy need attention yet time was wasted on ramming Health Care down our throats.  The fact is they had a hard time getting the bill through a Democratic Senate and House, because this was before the 2010 election, and just wasted time and money.  
No sense in bringing up the $550 million for solar panels that are not being built, just another fiasco.  

All that does is support the fact we lack leadership in the White House and at a time Obama could have passed jobs bills and whatever he wanted, he wasted time in areas that did nothing to help the economy, and will only cause more money to be wasted when the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare this month

Don't try to play stupid on the jobs thing, if Obama focused on the thing you said was broke, the economy, when he took office, passing a bill should have been easy, the Democrats controlled everything, yet they couldn't even pass a budget bill let alone anything else because they were stuck on health care and green stuff that doesn't even pay for itself. But just like you, they played the let's blame the other guys for what happens, we didn't do anything wrong..... Problem is they did NOTHING except get stuck on stupid.

The general population does not feel the Obama jobs bill will work, even his own party in Washington can't get on board. Watching the Democrats and Obama is like driving by a car wreck on the freeway, you want to look away but you just can't help it.

Obamacare.... It will be news to you, the very thing you try to stand behind, the Constitution, will be upheld and Obamacare will be overturned.... Stay tuned!

"Don't try to play stupid on the jobs thing, if Obama focused on the thing you said was broke, the economy, when he took office, passing a bill should have been easy,"

Not playing stupid. He did focus, and a stimulus bill was passed (2009). Remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? More about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

"The general population does not feel the Obama jobs bill will work"

Funny, according to Gallup poll, most Americans favor passage of the Obama Jobs Plan. See here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149447/americans-favor-obama-jobs-plan.aspx

"Obamacare will be overturned"

And you know this to be a fact, how?

Renee, Right from your link.....
The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress...

This was a SPENDING BILL not a JOBS BILL, and let me ask, how did this great idea work out?

Most people would love a JOBS BILL, the problem is nobody wants another SPENDING BILL, it didn't work before and it won't work this time either.

Love your comment about picking on the messenger, especially coming from the Queen of the Bashing....

Anyone can Google a word and put up a link, but most people understand that's a weak way to make a point. You can find links to articles and surveys to support whatever side of an issue you want to support.

Your reference to the Gallup poll is hilarious, it was a partisan poll, did you even read it?
"While fewer than half of all Americans favor passage of a jobs bill similar to Obama's" ......
The "majority" were Democrats, and a poll is DC is certainly going to produce more Democrats based on the demographics. It's not exactly a scientific poll.....

"The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions."

And you don't understand how this creates/preserves jobs and boosts the economy?

Seriously?

Okey-doky . . . .

Renee, your snarky tone is only exacerbated by the fact you are looking at everything with rose colored glasses.  

Somehow you think that expansion of unemployment benefits and social welfare programs stimulates the economy?  Are you serious? That helped as  much as the shovel ready projects that weren't so shovel ready.  All you think we need is more money to spend and the problem is fixed.   So obviously you don't understand  it's all the spending that's the problem.  Who do you think finically supports these programs, the unemployed and those on welfare?

So color me Silly because I don't understand how this creates/preserves jobs and boosts the economy?

"Somehow you think that expansion of unemployment benefits and social welfare programs stimulates the economy?"

Yes, it does, because people getting unemployment go out and spend that money immediately. It is more stimulative than a tax cut.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128449659

"The Moody team tested the economic impact of a number of government programs, including making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They found that unemployment benefits have the biggest bang for the buck. For every dollar spent on unemployment, the economy gets back $1.61. The return on tax cuts is much smaller."

You consider NPR a reliable source? Probably the most biased so called news source......

Let's see, unemployment pays less to a person than if they are employed, so they have less to spend into the economy, they are not working so they are not paying taxes, so the Government is paying out but not collecting, then the business they were working for is producing less, so they have less income for both the business and the owners, so once again less taxes being collected.

So yes, you are technically correct, they do go out and spend their unemployment check..... To survive on...... Not exactly stimulating the economy, just more money being paid out on the backs of fewer people.

"You consider NPR a reliable source?"

The source is Moody's Analytics (they are simply citing a study from Moody's). Moody's chief economist testified about the findings before Congress.

"So yes, you are technically correct, they do go out and spend their unemployment check..... To survive on...... Not exactly stimulating the economy, just more money being paid out on the backs of fewer people."

Without unemployment these people would have $0 to spend, and there would be negative impact to the economy, more foreclosures, etc. So, yes, it is a stimulus, far above having nothing to spend for food, housing, etc. In this sense it is a boost (creates demand), and prevents further destruction/even more unemployment.

Fox News, like NPR, also cites Moody's Analytics (and their chief economist) as an excellent econometric source:

http://nation.foxnews.com/unemployment/2011/10/09/moodys-economist-unemployment-will-stay-high

I agree shawn. I am not a fan of Rep Bachmann, I have said that many times before, but what is written here lately does not help any one. At some point it becomes a waste of time. Same words. Same people.

Patty,

Yes, Michele Bachmann DID cause the downfall of her own campaign.

Watch this video of Candy Crowley asking Michele about her campaign's implosion. This is real journalism - http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-candy-crowley-to-rep-bachmann-it-appears-that-your-campaign-is-imploding/

Bachmann is toast. Toast.

She claims to have strong support in New Hampshire. But the numbers show she has destroyed her candidacy in the Granite State.

If she wasn't such a mean-spirited candidate, Bachmann's collapse would be kinda sad.

But she's a Hater, so her campaign's collapse is good news for "truth, justice and the American way".

she will be re-elected here again....deal with it

bogesmn, my prediction is that Bachmann will not choose to run in District 6 again as it is much more lucrative to earn her keep as a sidekick to Sarah Palin. She now knows what it feels like to be a celebrity, and a notorious one at that.

well then Patty, you must really be ticked at our president who runs around like a celebrity. I'm sure you're consistent in your hatred and dislike. Gee..what a surprise...bringin in Palin now too. Bored with it. Who are your super duper political favs? Let's get them out here and compare them with the people you are ripping on. Let's see what extremists you are supporting

It depends on how the lines are drawn for her district (redistricting for 2012). Right now the 6th is gerrymandered Republican-indexed district, and even with that advantage she wins by small margins.

If that changes significantly, with the new lines, she won't run again. She has satisfied the rule to get pension and healthcare benefits for life (vested after 5 years participation, and with 3 terms in she'll have 6 years), so she's maximized her government dole going forward.

She's a smart woman -- her family has lived on taxpayer money for a long time. She has always worked government jobs -- IRS, state leg, Congress, foster kids (paid by state), and her husband receives government funding (Medicaid) in his business, and then there's the family farm subsidies.

Government handouts are a good gig, and the Bachmanns have shrewdly worked many angles of the system.

yes renee...Im sure she's taken on all these kids just for the govt money. I bet you're on the front lines then complaining about mothers having multiple kids on welfare. I bet you really hate the Kennedy's....or the Gore's.....or the late great paul wellstone who had very little money entering office, then died a multi millionaire....as long as you are consistent, that's all I ask.

bogesm said: "yes renee...Im sure she's taken on all these kids just for the govt money. I bet you're on the front lines then complaining about mothers having multiple kids on welfare. I bet you really hate the Kennedy's....or the Gore's.....or the late great paul wellstone who had very little money entering office, then died a multi millionaire....as long as you are consistent, that's all I ask."

The point isn't my consistency -- it's about MB's inconsistency/hypocrisy. While her words eschew and condemn big government and "nanny" government, she is personally feeding at the government teat.

That's the problem -- her actions don't line up with her words, and actions speak louder than words.

She claims to be anti-government, while at the same time working in government (and aspiring to lead said evil government). There is a contradiction inherent in this position, and it eventually comes back to bite her. Just sayin' . . . you can't portray the government as all bad with one hand, while saying you're going to use government to achieve something good . . . this creates cognitive dissonance, and figuratively causes heads to explode . . . it's why people call her crazy. She needs a class in logic.

Renee,

ttc sure does get excited and long-winded in her defense of Michele, doesn't she?

Hi Linda,

The Patch is not slanted.

And how does your comment:

"Are you even a Republican and planning to vote to endorse one?"

even figure into the conversation? I don't understand where that is from.

Are only Republicans allowed to express their views? Kinda like on FOX News?

One more thing Linda, Politico, NBC, CNN, CBS and ABC clearly do not have a so-called "liberal slant".

And D. Knutson, as if his want, has omitted the fact that Patch pulls lots of stories from FOX News, US News and Bloomberg. These are not liberal sources. Patch takes from all kinds of sources.

Calling the Patch slanted is simply not true.

Paul
I stand by my comment regarding where information is referenced, the majority comes from most of the sources I listed, anytime you want something negative to use against the right all you need to do is check those sources.
Everybody that reads these comments knows almost every reference you and Renee use come from the lefts biased media sources.

DEEK!!

Again, your assertions are patently false. Stand by them all you want. That's doesn't change the fact they are false.

Paul
Can you focus on one thing?
Good grief..... you are all over the board with your one sentence comments and posts. The only common thread is that you are constantly blasting other people and their opinions because they don't agree with you. That's a typical Liberal thought process, "everybody must agree with us because we know what's right for everybody, and how dare anyone think for themselves".
Critical thinking is definitely not a Liberal value.

DEEK!!

The common thread is that I believe Mrs. Bachmann's campaign tactics are dishonorable and foolish.

She reminds me of Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin. Her disrespect of President Obama is extremely annoying to me. So I call her on it. Nothing wrong with that.

My opinion is that Ron Paul's economic views are crazy. Go back to the Gold Standard? What a foolish idea.

Thomas Woods ideas come straight from the 19th century (Austrian School), so yeah, he's batty as well.

Her performance in the debate tonight was a real stinker. She'll be gone from the campaign trail soon enough.

It's not a blueprint. It's a huge misprint.

PPS - All of my comments are coming from the Woodbury Patch. I don't log in to Stillwater.

I saw your last post TTC, and don't worry, I'm in no danger of getting arrested for gambling, I'm not taking that bet. That's a given, all you need to do is look at the "oh, one more thing" comments from "Polly want a cracker". Polly's just repeating all the talking points from the playbook.
If we don't make a comment every so often to Polly & Renee how can they be the victims, after all they believe somebody has to be the victim.....