Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota
July 20, 2009
by Karen
|The New Agenda welcomes profiles of any candidate for governor, US Senate or US House. These profiles are the work of their authors and do not constitute an endorsement by The New Agenda. If you’d like to submit a profile, send it to blog@thenewagenda.net .
Michelle Bachman graduated from Anoka High School from Minnesota in 1974. Like all children, she went beyond her home boundaries and attended Virginia’s William and Mary Law School where she graduated with a degree in tax law. However, she returned to Minnesota and served as an attorney in civil cases until entering politics as a Minnesotan state senator in 2000. Six years later, she went onto the national stage
As a member of our country’s congress, Bachmann supported many bills, her most recent being H.R.502 which would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve health care choice by providing for the tax deductibility of medical expenses by individuals” and also H.R.1750 which would “provide for the use of information in the National Directory of New Hires in enforcing sex offender registration laws” She is a strong advocate of the foster care program and of drilling for natural resources in America. Bachmann has stated on her website:
From reserves in the mountain West to ANWR to the outer-continental shelf, we have untapped resources that can increase energy supply and reduce prices. And, constantly improving technology gives us the ability to explore while preserving our natural heritage for generations.
And, we must never stop exploring alternative energy. France gets 80% of its energy from clean, safe nuclear energy. Yet, the U.S. hasn’t built a new reactor in three decades. We cannot limit our capacity for ingenuity in the search for energy answers.
She is a critic of former president Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program, declaring that it is “a one-size-fits-all approach to learning that does not work well for every student. That’s why I’m an original cosponsor of H.R. 1539, the A-Plus Act, which would allow states to develop their own curriculums under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Education.” She believes that Bush’s program does not provide the educational independence that schools need to be successful in teaching the future generations. Furthermore, she targets wasteful government spending:
We also must instill accountability throughout the appropriations process and shed more light on taxpayer spending for congressional “earmark” projects. I have taken a bipartisan pledge to not seek any earmarks this year and am working with like-minded Republicans and Democrats to reform this system which has become little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense. I am also a cosponsor of H. Res. 479 which would ensure all earmarks, including those in tax and authorizing bills, are disclosed to the public and subject to being challenged on the House floor. And I am a cosponsor of legislation which would authorize a “presidential line item veto,” a tool which would allow the President to identify wasteful and reckless spending provisions in legislation and cut them out.
Editor’s Note: The title of this post has been shortened in order to clarify the fact that, as originally stated, this blog entry is neither an endorsement nor a statement of support of the candidate’s positions. We invite readers to submit profiles of any female candidate for national office to blog@thenewagenda.net.
Well,
This is surely a test for the TNA.
There must be some other women – republican or democrat – who could run for governor. She is an embarrassment as a politician!
If Bachman is not your cup of tea, please consider channeling your energy into submitting a profile of a female candidate who is more to your liking.
LVL and Purple Pose, it would be useful to all of us participating in this dialogue if you actually centered your discussions on your policy disagreements with the congress woman, instead of on insults.
The information provided above tells me that I could support this congress woman on the three bills described; but If I have information on things that I would not support, or furthermore that I would oppose, I would do that, without affecting my support for the 3 initial bills. We can just discount people because we do not agree with them on everything….much less insult them.
A guy perspective:The notes above, to me indicate the big problem. Women simply do not support women. aw it with HRC,Palin and now this Congresswoman.Excuses are found as to why a person can not be supported rather than seeking the grounds common to most women that creates the groundswell of support necessary to elect woman to high office. Cong Bachman is a knowledgable, intelligent woman. I have seen her on Fox Cable. Her agenda may not be yours, but the goal is to elect more woman to office- and it is time to make tat issue #1 and policy differences subordiante to that. Conservative womnan should support Judge Sotamayer. Liberals Palin and Bachman. Otherwise you will always be divided by your agendas and males will continue to dominate the political world.
Oh, I thought LVL was kidding…weren’t you?
Oh, I just read some stuff on Bachmann on Wikipedia, and yeah, I can see why some people would have issues with her.
Wanting to investigate members of Congress for anti-Americanism seems a little much.
I went to wikipedia first, and it was difficult for me to figure out how much was smear, distortion, and fact. So I just stuck to her official webpages. I was pleased to find Thomas.loc.gov which is a very neutral source. The librarian at the campus first introduced me to Thomas when I was researching for a class paper.
Karen, are you a right-wing Republican?
There’s nothing particularly feminist about her except that she’s a woman.
All,
I don’t think we should take our thinking caps off when we support women. While I don’t support Bachmann’s politics, I wouldn’t vote or support her because:
1. She has a history of making absurd and unintelligent comments
2. She is not a feminist and has never supported a women’s rights agenda
In support of TNA, I can take a pass on #1 but why support a women who probably would not support a women’s rights agenda?
I am not a political operative and do not know a wealth of women city councilwomen, state congresswomen and senators, but surely there are women in Minnesota that meet criteria’s #1 and #2.
I need a clarification, are we to support women regardless of party, whether or not they have supported a women’s rights agenda in the past and whether or not they would support a women’s rights agenda in the future?
Now, I am NOT a political expert – and am doing the best I can at making voting decisions based on whether someone would, or would not support women. Her voting record looks bad to me:
http://www.votesmart.org/votin.....amp;go.y=9
Do you people really want to support someone who suggested loyalty oaths?
Amy Siskind can answer your main questions, but I can only answer for why I wrote about Bachmann. Based on her votes alone, I do not see how she is detrimental to women. True, it does not help women, but there is a difference between opposing a position and supporting a position. If she were to joke about a rival female politician being gang-raped, then I would consider her detrimental and would not have written this article about her. As far as I know, she has not done that.
Karen-
Going by what’s on her official web pages is ridiculous. The material on wikipedia is well documented and a search of “Michelle Bachmann” on youtube reveals many television interviews documenting her tin foil hat paranoia about “anti-American” members of congress, ACORN, and the census. You either subscribe to her rantings, think them to be harmless and irrelevant, or believe these interviews to be a fabrication.
LVL, how do you define women’s rights agenda?
Nothing Bachman has ever said is anti woman. Is she a conservative republican,yes? But is that mutually exclusive with opposing discrimination against women, supporting equality for women, opposing sexism in the media?She opposes these things. A conservative woman congresswoman can be a feminist too. That is not exclusively the realm of liberal women is it? And yes, unless the woman supports sexism,discrimination against women and opposes equality for women you should support them. Political agendas( left or right) should be subordinate to electing females to office.
OMG! This site is turning into Freeperville. Michele Bachmann?!? She’s the nutjob who hid in some bushes to spy on a gay rally, who not only favors a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage but opposes absolutely all civil rights legislation designed to protect gay people, who believes that all gay people are pedophiles, who called for an armed revolution to fight climate control legislation, who refers to any attempts to increase the pitiful minimum wage in this country or to otherwise help poor and working class people as “Marxist”, who called for investigations of members of Congress for “anti-Americanism”, who would like to require public schools to teach creationism, who opposes abortion AND contraception, who votes against equal pay legislation such as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, who is championed by misogynists such as James Dobson and Phyllis Schlafly, etc., etc. I could go on and on. What’s next, a profile of a member of the American Nazi Party? I’m starting to believe that as long as that individual was a woman, some people here would seriously consider voting for her.
Bruce,
While I would not go as far as Sasha (I believe Sasha is advocating a progressive, or liberal philosophy – that I believe as when), I believe a women’s right agenda at least includes voting for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and supporting equal and far pay for women and affirmative action for women’s advancement in business.
Hi All,
Karen wrote a piece about a woman politician who interests her.
You are all welcome to do the same.
Remember – big tent – inclusive – different strokes for different folks. We love diverse opinions – if you can find a woman that inspires you enough that you want to take the time to research and write a blog piece, please do.
Amy,
I mean no disrespect to Karen – we all have the right as US citizens to support who we want – but should the TNA be giving publicity to a women who does not support some of the basic women’s right legislation that TNA would support? I am not sure a big tent strategy of “women just support women” works when there are some women who do not believe in supporting policies, practices and legislation that enable the TNA goal:
“The New Agenda seeks to achieve safety and opportunity for all women by addressing issues which unite us and by advancing women into leadership roles”
That goal has to specifically mean something in terms of policies, practices and legislation or it is just a platitude.
LVL, I have taken absolutely _no_ offense at your comments about my article. You have been very nice and reasonable in your comments, and you make some valid points. We seem to have a similar view on Michelle Bachmann, but our views are nuanced differently.
I have been trying to find politicians of all sorts. For instance, I wrote about Lynne Williams of the Green Party, which is closer to the Democratic side than the Republican side on the political spectrum. The Greens attract more disenchanted Democrats than disenchanted Republicans. I discovered Lynne Williams on an earlier blog post here and decided to write about her. I found Lynne Williams and Karen Handel to be impressive politicians, even though they are directly opposed to each other.
If there are any politicians you like, I will be more than happy to write about them. I need some more ideas for articles.
LVL,
We are not endorsing this candidate.
It’s one writers perspective on a woman running for office – who like all candidates has fans and foes.
vote gender, if she has the basic qualifications, the only way to gain political power, otherwise some man gets the benefit of the doubt and gets the power – 2 VP candidates in all these years, that can’t be blamed totally on men
goesh,
Well, if I voted in the republican primary, I would vote for Michelle against a male – if he also would vote against the equal pay act – but in the general race I would not vote for her against a male if the male would vote for the equal pay act and other policies I thought added women.
Voting gender for gender’s sake gets you better representation of women in politics but it will not get you the advancement of women, particularly rural and poor women, if the female candidate will not support policies that promote women’s rights and advancement in business, the sciences, domestic violence, etc. I am not looking for figureheads – male or female – I am looking for champions of women’s rights and advancements.
- few and far between are male champions for women’s rights- let me count them on one of my hands – there can be little advancement without a base of political power (representation), in my opinion………
LVL, We are having an odd conversation. A male says vote gender and a woman says only if…Those only if’s are what has kept women from power. Someone will always have an only if for any woman candidate. women will never break the glass ceiling- and we will all be drinking mint julips in unison chanting IF ONLY…
Goesh,
My thought is representation alone does not give you a base of power, advocacy on appropriate policy, practices and legislation does. In fact, the reason you want the representation is because you expect, or assume you are going to get the advocacy on the women’s rights issues. If not, you are just wasting your time.
Bruce,
Well my “IF ONLY” is that a women support women’s rights, particularly the aggressive advancement of women in business, politics and all professions through aggressive affirmative action (which is essentially the TNA position), equal pay legislation and domestic violence and employment discrimination enforcement. What’s the difference in having a women politician if she does not support women’s rights issue? What exactly have you gained?
I believe there are plenty of women – republican and democrat – who disagree on the role of government, abortion, foriegn policy, etc. but agree on the advancement of women’s rights. I want to vote for these women!
Remember – big tent – inclusive – different strokes for different folks.
I generally don’t have a problem with your big tent approach, but I do believe there need to be some limits. What if someone wanted to do a profile of a member of the American Nazi Party? Would that be okay with you?
Here’s the thing: If you start inviting bigots like Bachmann into your tent, you’re going to lose the people they’re bigoted against as well as those people’s allies. I’m a bisexual woman, and many of my friends are gay. Quite frankly, reading the headline “Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota for Congress” felt like a slap in the face to me. I sure as hell never expected to come across a post in praise of Bachmann on a feminist blog. Let’s not forget that not all women are white, heterosexual, middle or upper class, US citizens, and Christian — the only type of woman Bachmann and her ilk care about at all. But, if Bachmann had her way, even they won’t be entitled to equal pay for equal work, contraception, or abortion services. And if they become victims of gender-motivated violence, Bachmann will make sure that the resource/cash-strapped local DA’s office charged with prosecuting the crime won’t be eligible for Federal assistance. Not that any of this is really surprising coming from someone who has accepted money and endorsements from Phyllis “marital rape ought to be legal” Schlafly.
Sasha, I am sorry that this upset you. I want to remind you that I do not affiliate with any political party, and I do NOT want you to think of me as some anti-homosexual bigot. She is the third politician I have covered, and so far my articles have been Republican, Green, Republican… opposite ends of the spectrum. the next politician I will write about will obviously be a liberal.
How about Michelle Obama. She has really grown in to the rle of First Lady over the last 6 months, proving herself to be a bright, intelligent woman.
It is clear that Michelle is not just an appendage as a wife, but is very much a great woman with her own mind, she could even be a Presidential candidate. She is young enough and smart enough to follow the lead of Hillary Clinton.
Amanda – would be terrific if you or others want to write about Michelle Obama.
Right, the Thirty Percent Solution:
http://thenewagenda.net/2008/0.....-solution/
I came across Michelle Bachmann, when she introduced a bill to get a congressional medal to Alice Paul for getting us the right to vote. Too bad the bill did not make it.
I also listened to her discussing the stimulus debate. she sounded very reasonable to me. I probably get accused of being some right wing republican. just a year ago I thought all enlightenment would lay with the democrats and only stupid people would be republicans.
the word “stupid” is just as useless as the word “honest” and means something different to everybody. it was mainly used by democrats to ridicule republicans.
the debate about women banding together and really start gender voting is important. we saw how other minorities do it. Obama getting 90% of the African American vote in the primary. as a Clinton phonebanker, I talked to many African Americans who had a very difficult time to vote for him and did not like him at all, he was not their style, some prayed to God and somehow each and everyone very politely apoligized to m but they had to vote for him. that is banding together and that is why a minority of 15% of the population could get their own president. They acted as a voting block which could not be ignored.
don’t tell me that women are not able to to do that. they were and otherwise we still would not vote. after years and decades of talking to politicians and lobbying the democrats, Alice Paul used the strategy to campaign out in the Western states where women could vote and instill in them the idea that they had to help their sisters in the east and south who could not vote. they had to vote against the democrats from their state (the politicians they knew and liked) to show that Washington democrats that women were a voting block and could throw a general election, if they would not amend the constitution and gave all women the right to vote. and after several democrats who were thought to be sure winners, Alice Paul took he fight directly to the president with picketing the white house.
we need to remember that without banding together we would not have the vote today.
Abigail Adams said to her husband president “remember the ladies” and he did not remember them when they drafted the constitution.
Frederick Douglas a former slave who was a member during the first womens convention where Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott read the 11 sentiments to over a hundred attendents. the last one after sentiments such as women should be able to keep the money they earned, or keep their children when the husband died, the last sentiment about voting rights was considered the most radical one. Douglas Frederick argued convincingly, that the women needed the voting rights to be represented in the law making process which would help achieve all the other sentiments. taking control is by political representation.
some of the commenters here seem to think that men would represent her better. I don’t think so. never heard of the all boys clubs, the many strategies they have to keep women out. you may agree on one topic with your male democrat, but check on how many others, especially if they concern women, they agree with you.
and pro abortion is no feminist stance to me. Of course women need to have control over their bodies, but the control needs to start earlier. how com, that in 2009 we still have so many young women getting pregnant when they don’t wish. abortion is a lousy remedy. the mass media who brainwash us, that only democrats are intelligent and the right way to go, also teach that we have to be sexy and available all the time with preparation from preschool time on. ever heard that sex is only sometimes fun, sometimes boring and the more pressure there is out the more boring it gets. and that women particularly when they did not develop their god given potentials, they may end up in dependent marriages they can’t get out with the stage set for abuse.
if all these males who represent us so great in politics, had sought of a strategy to stop violence and rape, it would not exist just like lynching does not exist. If sex in general was so great, why are we having sex workers and guys who are willing to pay?
The early sexualization of girls by commercials
is unacceptable, but what is your chance that any male representative is going to do anything about it.
I would vote in a heartbeat for Michelle Bachmann over Chris vanHollen (my ignorant congress representative) if that were my choice, despite that I don’t think nuclear energy is safe and clean.
these guys are carrierists. if president Obama says he needs nuclear power these guys will vote for it, no matter what their environmental stand was in the past.
Altho re: Sasha’s comment, I don’t recall conservatives being this toxic decades ago.
I think Michelle Bachmann would get TNA’s support if she was attacked because of her gender, meaning TNA would speak out against that, but the title of Karen’s article should probably have a question mark at the end of it, and her article should include a more complete history of Ms. Backmann’s views. I voted for Sarah Palin even though I’m not your typical conservative republican, but would never have voted for her if she had Michelle Bachmann’s history.
Perhaps Michelle Bachmann would be a good target for feminist groups to try to reach out to her and have a conversation with her…
Thank you, Marille. I also wish her bill for Alice Paul passed. That would have been awesome.
marille,
I wish Ms. Bachmann’s bill would have passed as well. Thank you for the comments.
I don’t think African Americans voted for Obama is block numbers simply because he is Black, they voted for him because they believed he would advocate for policies and legislation that they support. He has followed through on that belief by appointing many African Americans in his cabinet and key posts and – in particular – placing advocates for Civil Rights and Affirmative Action in the Attorney General and Labor Secretary positions.
African Americans, however, were torn but did not support Justice Clarence Thomas, even though he was Black, because they did not preceive that he support policies – particularly affirmative action – that they supported. African Americans are not running to support Michael Steele even though he is Black because the republican party – in their view – does not support policies that benefit African Americans.
As I mentioned in another post, I will always support a women who meets the minimum requirements of a political position and advocates for women’s rights. I would not vote for a women – just because she is a women – if she would vote against legislation that would aid women in employment, domestic abuse cases, child care, etc.
Voting for such a non-women’s rights advocate might align with the 30% solution but it would not advance women overall.
Karen wrote (discussing sources for this profile):
“I went to wikipedia first, and it was difficult for me to figure out how much was smear, distortion, and fact.”
Karen, my name is Bill Prendergast. I’m a contributor to a blog called Dump Bachmann–so you know that I’ve already developed a very strong opinion about this political figure.
You should not have dismissed any unpleasant facts found on wikipedia because they sounded like smear and distortion to you. What you should do is to go back to the wikipedia article check the footnotes for any claims made about Bachmann that you believed to be “distortion or smear.”
You will find that in practically every case–the footnote is to a reliable source and satisfies Wikipedia editors test for encyclopedic documentation. You will that most of the incidents mentioned are independently attested, and that the quotes attributed to her are well sourced–even if they seem to you like “smears or distortions.”
Because Rep. Bachmann is a controversial figure, there is an ongoing dialogue between Wikipedia editors about what materials should and should not be included in the article you used. Much of the sourced factual material that reflects poorly on Bachmann’s judgment and integrity has been edited *out*, because of concerns about the length of the article.
The fact that what you found on Wikipedia seemed unpleasant to you, does not mean you should have dismissed it as “smears and distortions” and substituted material written by Bachmann’s staff instead. It would be a mistake to take a similar approacht to , say, an short biographical profile of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Limiting your research for this article to materials provided by Rep. Bachmann is also a kind of “distortion,” and (I’m sorry) but in this instance the kind of research you did calls your personal judgment and the value of the publication you represent into question.
Rep. Bachmann has already been identified as a political extremist and conspiracy theorist on the editorial pages of two major Minnesota daily newspapers. She has been roundly criticized by major media for implying that anti-Americans are serving with her in the Congress of the United States, and expressing concern that the President of the United States harbors anti-American attitudes. There innumerable documented statements like this, recorded over her last nine years in politics. The statements (and her occasional on-camera denials that she made such statements) are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact because they have been recorded and are available to you.
If you wish your profile to be of value to your readers, I suggest that you check what I and others are saying in this thread against the facts easily available to you in the footnotes to the Wikipedia article–and revisit this profile you’ve written.
Sincerely
Bill Prendergast
Bill, I have encountered numerous smears during my research over the election of 2008, which took months. I had every right and reason to dismiss what I read on wikipedia as either smear or distortion because the exact same smear/distortion was applied in 2008.
LVL, many blacks voted for Obama just because he was black and many blacks supported Thomas just because he was a black man.
Karen–
I think you are mistaken. If you ever had a right and reason to dismiss what you found on wikipedia as smear and distortion, it no longer exists–because what I’m directing you to is not wikipedia–it’s the sourced material in the wikipedia footnotes, that I am suggesting you look at.
That material is provided to wikipedia by contributors who sourcing various statements about and quotes from Bachmann *independent of Wikipedia.* In some cases, the source is *Bachmann herself.*
The substantive judgments of the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Cloud Times–which I mentioned–were not arrived at by looking at Wikipedia or Bachmann campaign pages. They are based on Bachmann’s documented record of bigotry and conspiracy mongering.
I can’t understand why you’re deciding to stand by reporting that distorts who this person is, and why she’s important. If a reader looks over what you have written about Ms. Bachmann, she will not understand why this figure has risen to national prominence. Note what you have faithfully copied into your article as research–in your profile, we find a dearth of legislative achievement by MB: a number of positions and resolutions she has adopted are mentioned, but you will see practically no successful legislation or repeal of legislation or successful initiatives.
That’s after nine years in elected office–yet it is conceded that she is a national figure. That reason that she is–is what she alleges publicly. That is why she is a figure of interest to so many millions of Americans on the right and the left and the middle.
You carefully edited out established facts, because they “sounded like” smears and distortions to you, personally. That’s not fact-checking. As I said, it reflects poorly on this publication to run this a political profile, and I hope you will change your piece to more accurately reflect the reality of the career of Michele Bachmann.
Bill et al,
I just want to weigh in here.
Karen is a hard working college student who is taking the time to research and learn about women candidates and other women’s issues.
As such, please go easy. We have invited you all to contribute blog pieces on any women candidates or issues that you would like. TNA is an organization, not a blog. Our blog is a meeting place to exchange ideas.
Karen is not endorsing Bachmann, nor is TNA. Karen is a young woman learning to do research. Let’s go easy folks.
Marille – we would love a post about the historical aspects of what you have written about above. We really would love content about the struggles that women endured to get the right to vote. Could you make your comment into a blog piece?
Thanks all,
Amy
Okay, Amy. I understand. Karen is a hardworking college student who is learning to do research. I will go easier on her.
But I don’t want to patronize her, and I’m sure you don’t want me to patronize her. I writing up a piece on this article right now, for the Daily Kos. Whether Karen is a student or not, you guys are the ones who are running this piece here–as your profile of this political figure.
So this criticism is no longer directed against Karen. IYou, the sponsors of this organization, not Karen, have to be accountable for what you run and the quality of the information you distribute.
Here are some minor things which you can correct easily. Bachmann’s name is spelled wrong, in the title of the article. At the end of the article is a long passage about Bachmann’s opposition to earmarks and her public pledge against earmarks. She sinced reversed her position and abandoned her pledge on this, and is now accepting earmarks.
Karen–since you are a student learning research methods, I would give you the following advice. Announce that you are a student learning research methods, when called upon to defend the quality of a piece you are written. If you don’t, readers will hold you to the same critical standards they use to evaluate any adult researcher.
Moreover: it doesn’t gain you anything, to stand by a bad or inaccurate or distorted piece of reporting. If a reader is bringing real and well-founded criticism to your reporting, it’s a gift not an insult. Use the gift, to improve the accuracy and sourcing of your work. You are representing not just yourself, but the organization you are writing for. You owe it to them to be critical of your own work and research, in the editing stage.
All I got to say is I love Michelle Bachmann.
Thanks Bill. I’m sure Karen will take your advice and make those changes.
Just a thought – it might not be such a great reflection on you personally Bill to be so overly critical of a very young woman learning her way in the world all over the blogosphere. You made suggestions and let Karen learn and rewrite her piece.
I, for one, as a mother, if I saw you coming out to post all over about a girl learning to research in college, I might wonder. Just a thought. You’ll do as you wish.
Amy, I’m sorry that I don’t impress you very well on a personal level. But you must understand at least two things:
1) that I was not the only one critical of this article your organization posted as a profile of Bachmann. Your regular readers saw deep flaws in it even before I was even alerted to existence and showed up here. (Check the comment thread above.)
2) You shouldn’t criticize me for being “overly critical” of a young woman learning her way on the blogosphere. As you well know, I had no way of knowing that Karen was “a young woman” or a “student learning research” when I made my criticisms of this piece. If you want her or any other student to be treated more gently in the future by casual readers–I suggest that you post that information in such a writer’s by-line in the future. I don’t think it is quite fair to assign me the role of “bad guy” because there are facts you didn’t disclose at the outset.
I’m passionate about accurate reporting, and I know that people who cite this profile of Bachmann as a source of information about her will assume it’s been vetted properly–*they* won’t know that Karen is a student and you’re asking for breaks for her on that basis. There are other people involved here besides us–unsuspecting readers looking for female role models in politics, for example. They can be taken in by this, whatever personal breaks the writer is entitled to.
I’m holding the Kos post on this, in light of your information and opinion. This is not about “getting” Karen, it’s about the quality of information on the Internet and about how a women’s empowerment website can accidentally disseminate poor information. I’ll check back tomorrow to see if there’s a revision.
I really appreciate that Bill. Sure, there was no way to know that Karen was a college student from the face of it, that is why I wrote the comment.
We will see to it that Karen rewrites the parts of the story that are factually incorrect. I’m sure she appreciates the constructive criticism.
Please come and visit us again – and if you have anything to contribute in the way of women’s issues, we’d love to have a blog piece from you as well.
Regards to you, too, Amy, and best of luck with your work. My criticism of the piece is not so much that it gets facts wrong–it’s that it leaves the most important and representative facts out.
As for writing on women’s issues–II’m not qualified; the only subject I’m really up on is the career of MB. But I’ll bet that Bachmann’s career is actually of great interest to a feminist–probably for the wrong reasons. She *is* a powerful and influential woman, but she’s a species of Bible literalist, anti-feminist. She would probably prefer that women most observe the Bible verse: “wives, be submissive to your husbands.”
Will people please stop repeating the “African-Americans only supported Obama in the election because hes black!” distortion? John Kerry, who by no means was as charismatic or eloquent as Obama was, got 88% of the black vote. Obama did 7 percentage points better, mainly attributable to the fact that he simply helped increase actual turnout. Blacks support Obama not out of your own projections of racial solidarity, but because HES A DEMOCRAT AND BLACKS VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC. Clinton (Bill) was and still is very popular among African-Americans, and in all liklihood, blacks will go overwhelmingly for Obama in ‘12 and whoever the democratic nominee is in ‘16. some basic polling and analytic skills would do some of you a lot of good, if only to dispell some of the myths you like to use to justify why absolutely any female candidate, even a true nutjob (and thats not sexist, she’d be just as nutty if she were a man) like Bachmann should be voted for.
I hope that TNA continues to profile all women who are running for significant political office around the country. I trust that the Progressives in the Democratic Party will vilify and demonize the conservative Republicans without any help from TNA.
Go easy on her because she is a hard working college student taking the time to research and learn about women candidates.
Great that she is doing research. And I do applaud her work and effort. But then that research should be thorough. If she finds smears about MB, she should research to find why they are there. Perhaps they are well-earned.
Karen is not endorsing, nor is TNA.
But you have presented a very favorable piece about MB and while it may have truth to it, it is not the whole truth. (I don’t doubt that Michele Bachmann is a woman candidate. I doubt that she is interested in women’s issues, other than one woman with initials MB.)
For example, I could state that MB often talks about Obama. That is true. What she says is that he may be un-American, now that’s the Whole Truth. See the difference?
Chances are by the next election, this piece will be quoted and written about so much that it will in fact end up being an endorsement, whether it was intended that way or not.
I could go on and on, but better than what I say is what she says. Just do a Google search of — YouTube+”Michele Bachmann” — and watch a few of the videos out there. Listen to her own words. Watch her on her own YouTube videos or Fox. But also watch her on Hardball, The Ed Show, or other videos if you really want to get an accurate portrayal of who she is.
I disagree that any woman candidate, no matter who, no matter the beliefs, is a better choice for women voters than any man candidate. To vote based on one simple characteristic is to abandon all thought. It is taking the easy way out and abdicating our responsibility in this great democracy. We might as well just do away with all campaign literature, all debates, all GOTV, and simply put names on a ballot with the designation of either M or F.
Karen is not endorsing Bachmann, nor is TNA.
The headline “Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota for Congress” followed by a puff piece that fails to mention even the most widely known criticisms of Bachmann sure as hell sounds like an endorsement to me. Articles such as this are the reason I can’t recommend The New Agenda to any of my friends. Unfortunately this isn’t the first time TNA has cheered on a homophobic bigot who opposes equal pay legislation such as the Ledbetter Act.
many blacks supported Thomas just because he was a black man
Some did and some didn’t, but the point is that supporting Thomas didn’t work out so well for African Americans, did it? When you look at Supreme Court decisions in civil rights cases, you’ll find that the only justice more hostile to African Americans than even Scalia is Thomas. Lesson learned.
Hi Bill=)
I totally agree with you that accurate reporting based on facts on is needed desperately everywhere.And that you did not know , same as anyone else here the details about Karen so maybe shouldn’t have been singled out.
And not to go off subject.But your passion for fact based reporting is great no question.So please do not take this as a disrespect in anyway I just want to merely point out a fact that you might have overlooked in your comments pertaining to Mrs. Bachmann.
You claim Mrs. Bachmann to a Bible literalist and anti-feminist. I find this to be untrue.You quoted the bible verse 1 Peter 3:1.
If you read the full chapter and not just take a verse out of contents,then you will see that the “submission” that you are talking about is not literally “submit to your husband”. You have misunderstood the verse there by misunderstanding Mrs. Bachmann.
If Bachmann took the verse literally as you say she does.Then Bachmann would in no way shape or form be any type of career woman let alone a Congresswoman.
So I would think that, and no offense, that what you stated concerning her being a Bible Literalist and anti-feminist is not fact based statement.Because everything that Bachmann has done and accomplished proves that she is fact a feminist and believes that women have a place in our nation’s government and in the workplace.Just because she is a Christian does not mean that she is anti-feminist.In fact the Christian Bible is not anti-feminist or anti-woman at all,and that notion is a severe and extreme misconception by many.
1 Peter,the chapter that you took the verse from,is a clear example of that.Especially when read in full contents instead of taking one verse and misquoting it.
I have personally worked in male oriented environments for the better half of 9-10 years.And I think that you and I could both agree that men, all men, take a great offense to women that assert themselves or that do not talk to them in a certain manner.
The quote “wives be submissive to your husbands” actually does not mean submission,but how to approach your husband as not to damage his ego.Men by nature have an ego,and therefore need to be approach differently then what we would to other females.I think many wives can agree to that as well=).
The verses after that clearly state for a woman not to use her looks or how she dresses to get things from their husband,or men.
3:3Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing,
3:4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
Which is actually pretty Feminist to me.That we are to be valued for ourselves not our appearances.
The following verses go on to teach men how they are not only to protect their wives and women but to respect them as well,thus doing God’s will.
3:7 Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.
3:8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
I find these passages to not only be very Feminist and Pro-woman, but also great teachings as to how men should treat women as well.
Then there is the most powerful verse for women’s equality in the Christian bible in Genisis that woman was made from the rib of man to by set as his equal,not form to be above him or to be beneath him.
So although I understand that you are for reporting based on facts and not spin.I know I am.
Again no disrespect,but I believe in making those comments about Bachmann you put your own spin on the facts, based on your own views of her religion.
I think that the back and forth regarding where to draw the line relative to the stated goals of TNA and a female candidate is good stuff. I agree with Sasha, CA that the headline sounds like an endorsement, an unfortunate error in my view.
Now, Bill Prendergast:
You spent a great deal of effort trying to establish that you are all about the facts, just the facts. In the process, you use terms like* ilk* and *species* (as in not human) to define this woman. That does not fit with someone who is all about the facts. You threaten to expose TNA if it does not bend to your will. Well, if it does bend to your will it should then just fold up the tent, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, this Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann holds citizenship that is identical to Barack Obama’s citizenship. Further, it is not an offense against either God or country for her to run for office.
Chris, the metric to pay attention to was black support for Obama over Clinton in the primary, 93%.
Sasha, studies show women’s issues come to the fore when 30% or or more of the legislature is female. I think the studies are based on African nations, several of which have over 30% female representation.
There was a recent WaPo article about the Supreme Court mirroring the same sentiments but it went on to say that when there is a critical mass in the room, men no longer behave like sexists and watch what they say.
Hi all. This is my first visit to your forum so forgive me if I’m overstepping my bounds. I’m a politically active Minnesotan who’s never joined any specific party. I’m a moderate with many conservative views who feels that the GOP has abandoned reason in recent years.
I live just a few blocks outside Ms. Bachmann’s District and have followed her career with much horror and embarrassment. She is among the very worst of the modern GOP radicals and gender has nothing to do with it.
Her radical and irrational behavior is of such volume it’s impossible to hit all the low points so I just urge anyone interested to visit DumpBachmann.com and/or look her up on YouTube. Her interviews are outrageous and her clips from C-Span are chilling.
Please. Do not make a judgment of Ms. Bachmann without research. I will leave it to your conscience and reason to make a wise decision.
Why the Supreme Court Needs a “Critical Mass” of Women by Dee Dee Myers
http://www.vanityfair.com/onli.....women.html
“Critical mass means different things in different organizations. In national legislatures, the number is around 30 percent. On corporate boards, one study suggests the magic number is three.”
Can you imagine how different the Thomas and Sotomayor hearings would have been if 30% of the Judiciary Committees had been women? It doesn’t matter if it was Democratic women, Republican women or Bachmann, that **** wouldn’t have happened.
Sasha, studies show women’s issues come to the fore when 30% or or more of the legislature is female.
Donna, I’m aware of this study (to my knowledge, there’s only been one; if you know of more, please provide citations if you can). In any event, the findings do not surprise me because, generally speaking, women are more likely to care deeply about women’s rights than men. Consequently it makes sense that a larger percentage of women in the legislature would result in progress on the women’s rights front. It does not mean, however, that every single woman — regardless of her politics — is an asset to the struggle for women’s equality. Obviously an anti-feminist woman like Bachmann who votes against equal pay and access to contraception will not help women attain equality any more than a man with the same politics will. Fortunately many women who go into politics do care about women’s rights; let’s focus on getting them elected.
Ok, so Clinton did better than Obama in many states (particularly southern) among white voters, regardless of other demographics (age, education, income, etc). Are you willing to say that those white voters, all over America, only voted for Clinton because she, like them, is white? See, it doesn’t make sense when you follow out the line of thinking. Obama also positioned himself as the more liberal, unconventional candidate, which certainly appealed to economically liberal black population. Its just misleading and almost offensive to say African-Americans supported Obama overwhelmingly because of his race. You think Michael Steele would’ve gotten that kind of support? No way
Jessica–
I know what you’re talking about, because I’ve read your post and I’ve become somewhat familiar with some evangelical arguments about “the proper role of women” and the applicable Bible verses.
I’m not a Christian, but I’ve been listening to evangelical radio for about ten years now because you have to do that to report on Michele Bachmann. So I get the *conservative* evangelical arguments about the role of women; I don’t receive all of the different Christian views on how to interpret the Bible on the subject of women. I don’t pretend to have a grasp on all of them, because the interpretations seem to differ from sect to sect, from church to church, sometimes even from believer to believer. There seem to be many, many different Christian interpretations of the same Bible pronouncements–and I’m certainly not the person to tell anyone how to interpret them.
Here’s why I mentioned the “wives, be submissive to your husbands” issue, with regard to Bachmann. There is video of her currently available on YouTube, video in which she is seen describing how God came to her and advised her to take certain courses of action during her lifetime. During this video, she says her husband told her to “study tax law,” something she said that she had no interest in doing. Bachmann then tells the audience that the Bible says “wives, be submissive to her husbands.”
So it’s really her, paraphrasing and applying the verse in a church–it’s not me, doing that.
Thank you for explaining your view and interpretation to me.
John Hornung–
You seem be irritated by some things that I did *not* write or say, and that is unusual.
“You spent a great deal of effort trying to establish that you are all about the facts, just the facts. In the process, you use terms like* ilk* and *species* (as in not human) to define this woman. That does not fit with someone who is all about the facts.”
John, surely you do not believe that I was trying to convince readers here that Michele Bachmann is not human. We are all of us, members of a species (homo sapiens) and we are all us, of some “ilk” or another. Me, you, everybody. That’s not derogatory or dehumanizing language.
“You threaten to expose TNA if it does not bend to your will.”
I did nothing of the kind. I did not demand that TNA bend to my will, Amy offered to amend the article. I told everyone here that I would write about the unamended piece on the Kos–that’s not a threat to “expose” anything, since nothing printed here is “a secret” and TNA presumably wants people to read it. They need to correct the story or stand by it, there’s no issue of threats or exposure.
“Meanwhile, this Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann holds citizenship that is identical to Barack Obama’s citizenship.”
Who is challenging that statement? Are you under the delusion that I am?
“Further, it is not an offense against either God or country for her to run for office.”
Once again: who is challenging that statement? Are the delusion that I am? All I am writing in about is the fact that this story–cribbed from Bachmann’s campaign pages–does not give readers a fair and accurate description of who she is and what she is about, politically. Yet it is presented here as a brief biographical and political profile to introduce readers to Bachmann.
If you want to truly understand what is going on here–please to the subject, and address what I said, not what you thought I said or wish I said or pretend I said.
John, you’re concern trolling at this point.
Chris, 93% of blacks voted for Obama over Clinton in the primary due to race solidarity. I’m sure they remembered the peace and prosperity of Clinton years as well as and could see Obama’s corporatism and libertarianism as well as I.
Sasha, Dee Dee Myers is a seasoned politician and cited it above. We know 17% isn’t cutting it. Her article explains the concept of critical mass very well.
donna darko,
I do not know exactly what “concern trolling” is, but I apologize for being a nuisance. I will make one more comment to Bill and then stop – have work to do tonight.
Bill Prendergast:
From your earlier posts:
12:11pm: I writing up a piece on this article right now, for the Daily Kos. Whether Karen is a student or not, you guys are the ones who are running this piece here–as your profile of this political figure.
So this criticism is no longer directed against Karen. IYou, the sponsors of this organization, not Karen, have to be accountable for what you run and the quality of the information you distribute.
12:32pm: I’m holding the Kos post on this, in light of your information and opinion. This is not about “getting” Karen, it’s about the quality of information on the Internet and about how a women’s empowerment website can accidentally disseminate poor information. I’ll check back tomorrow to see if there’s a revision.
Bill, I still see this as a treat made in order to get TNA to bend to your will.
Selected words and phrases from your earlier posts:
…political extremist and conspiracy theorist… Bachmann’s documented record of bigotry and conspiracy mongering… but she’s a species of Bible literalist, anti-feminist.
Bill, in my world when you quote her ranting about anti-Americanism you are dealing in facts. When you use phrases like those above, whether or not they are attributed to others, you are engaging in vilification. Extremism, bigotry etc. are always a matter of perspective or opinion.
Okay folks – seems it is time to move on from this comment chain.
To be clear, TNA is not endorsing this (or any at this point) candidate – nor was Karen. Karen was merely researching and reporting on a woman who is running for office.
We encourage all our new viewers here to submit pieces on any women candidate from the left, right or center – we are non-partisan and interested in learning more about any women who plan to run for office. We really like to get content from different writers as this lends to a diversity of voices and opinions on our blog.
TNA is inclusive for all. We hope that the new faces will find a home in our community.
Welcome!
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...