A DeBate on De-Bachmann

An amazing patriot (@TeaPartierTom) wrote me an eloquent, respectful and compelling email I want to share with you.  As all 22 followers of my blog know, I am “mad as hell” at Michele Bachmann, I’m not going to take it anymore!  Michele is a nice lady, a good mom and a Christian with some pretty serious faults of truth avoidance in my opinion – but she is certainly a conservative on policy and cares deeply about this country.  Very touching email followed by my (SHOCK! not as touching) reply.  (No picture illustrations in his for fear I would be editorializing his message.)

---

Dear PolitiJim,

You have done an amazing amount of research on these candidates and I see how you have backed up your findings with references from various sources.  I commend you for your meticulous efforts.  I, however, have a different view of the upcoming elections.

Let me first establish the premise behind my idea of how this election will unfold.

When I was in my 30s during the 90s I had a conversation with a man who was of voting age when FDR was running for the first time for POTUS.  This fellow was the service manager for a Ford dealership in my area and at the time, soon to retire.  During our conversation I asked him why he thought FDR won.  Without hesitation, he said "Prohibition"; meaning of course the repeal of it.

I refer to this conversation of years past because this election may boil down to the simple fact that there is one candidate who is absolutely clear in her public speaking that she will do everything in her power to get this socialized form of health-care and Marxist crown jewel repealed.  In fact she is devoting her life to it.  It is that important.  She is crystal clear and consistent in her stance on this single issue and I think this may be enough to propel her into office.  Electing her at this time would be such a blow to the progressive movement its repercussions may very well be felt for decades to come.

I realize that Obomacare hasn't been fully implemented and that its impact on us thus-far has been soft, but I can tell you that here in contemporary liberal Northeast Philadelphia, the people are generally pissed t. f. off to put it bluntly.  They aren't as vocal as when it first passed by only democrats, but I assure you the anger still remains.  It was expressed in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Our state legislature like so many other states has fundamentally transformed. You see Obama has created jobs.  He is skilled at creating jobs for republicans and conservatives if they would just take them.  Like low hanging fruit, you simply have to be near the tree and reach up a bit to partake.  I think Obama will be defeated in a landslide greater than Carter's no matter which republican candidate runs against him unless of course he drops out.  If for some reason he wins, and I can't fathom it, its all over anyway.  It will take some sort of reset to achieve individual liberty and property rights again.

This is where I think you may not be seeing the forest through the trees.  This election will be a referendum on Obama plain and simple.  The people were duped for the most part and they will pass judgment on him with their choice.

I think someone relatively new, solidly conservative (a benefit to someone who has not had to cave in to liberal demands so much in her conservative district) somewhat articulate and with historical impact since she would be the first woman to be POTUS, is the best choice.

But what the hell do I know.  I'm an automobile mechanic.

The real truth is I'm an automobile mechanic who has been driven so far as to research and join my local Tea Party group and try to straighten things out again in this country because I want my kids to live in at least as free a society as I grew up in, if not more so.

Before Obamacare, my biggest political acts were voting in most elections and watching the news the next day to see if who I voted for won.  I then went on going about my business and did not pay very much attention to politics.  Then TARP happened. Then Obama happened. People were saying he had a close relationship with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, yet he was elected anyway.  Then Dodd-Frank happened; then GM became government motors, then Obamacare happened. (not sure of time-line but who cares) They were talking about something called cap and trade and open ballots to install unions in work places.  What is going on?!?

They threw the frog in the pot of boiling water.  That's what went on.  And the fact that they did scares the hell out of me because no one does all these things without thinking that they would get away with it.  These people found their window of opportunity and jumped through it to implement their plans just like that slow moving hard striking tortoise they use as one of their symbols.

This past September 17th you would have found me in Phoenixville PA (roughly 1 hour drive from my house in Philly) taking a vacation day from work to hang out with other Tea Party people who but for one I hadn't ever met before all with the purpose of taking turns reading the United States Constitution via a loaned electric bullhorn to anyone who would listen, and some did.  It was one of the most profoundly invigorating experiences of my life and a day I will never forget!

You see, Obama and his progressive ilk have been instrumental in fundamentally transforming me.

No longer am I asleep.  I am now a defender of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in heart and mind, the only documents that shield us from tyranny.

Now, if Newt, who once considered himself a progressive, decides to speak with passion and denounces the progressive movement forcefully and straightforwardly while staring into the camera and people's eyes, I shall reconsider my vote.  Please, feel free to include what  I've written here in your blog, Jim.

May God bless you and guide you in your works for our country's sake,

Eugene T. Colsher

---

I would die for this guy and I hope you would too.  This is the kind of guy that helped WIN the Revolutionary War and will help us win this one against tyranny of government.

I would like to publicly thank Mr. Colsher for his respectful tone to set an example for the rest of us of why we are in this together.  I need to become better at this kind of civility even among conservatives.

My reply:

I'm not sure if you saw two posts of mine since we last engaged.  One is THE DRINKING SCALE OF THE GINGRICH BIG GOVERNMENT GAFFES where I try and go through the major positions where he could be considered "progressive."  Your email says that HE considered himself a progressive and that is untrue.  He claims he was more liberal in his first year but explains in his book that the Reagan Revolution converted him.  In fact, Rush Limbaugh mentioned yesterday that he first became aware of Gingrich as the founder of the Conservative Opportunity Society – a group of Republican lawmakers who stayed up all night to give speeches in an empty chamber on CSPAN.

I agree with you Bachmann and Santorum hold more conservative positions on Immigration and the role of government.  But you don't get a 94% lifetime CONSERVATIVE rating, the endorsement of the NH Union Leader (that endorsed Reagan by the way), and the endorsement of Newsmax founder Christopher Ruddy by being a progressive.  You just don't.  Even his endorsement of George Bush's Senior Drug solution was a way to initiate health savings account and to start integrating private solutions although the outcome seems now like a terrible mistake. 

I posted another article "Why Bachmann Can NOT Be Nominated."  That one got a bit personal because I was an early supporter of hers and defended her vociferously against the terribly unfair attacks of Tim Pawlenty.  I urged others to disqualify the Minnesota Governor from distorting tiny facts, packing outrage behind them, and smearing her falsely.  I feel she has now done WORSE in overtly lying about other candidates records to score points most recently Gingrich.  (I would still support Santorum if he would convince me he could actually "govern" and lead - but I see no leadership skills in him at all and the polls reflect it.) 

Do Conservative Values Alone Make A Good President?

The act of getting people to vote for you isn't the same as inspiring millions to a cause that results in OTHER elected officials joining  to follow your initiative.  As a mechanic I'm sure you've had people try to fix their own cars and made it worse.  Your experience tells you it isn't just about changing a certain part, it is about knowing where to look for a problem - and knowing what other systems and parts that one change can impact.

Electing Bachmann or Santorum rather than someone with executive experience (like Obama) is the same analogy.  Would you hire the salesman who quoted your home remodel or the actual general contractor?  While not technically an executive, Newt ACTED like one even getting comments that while Speaker, he was acting more like President than Clinton was at the time. I would still prefer a principled conservative governor with excellent communication and leadership skills.  It is clear however that Gingrich knows how the politics of Washington work to get revolutionary bills passed, he knows how to fashion legislation to pass political and legal muster and he can  sell “big” ideas to legislators AND the public.  We have no track record Bachmann can do any of those and that Santorum can only do one.

Great conservative POSITIONS or POLICY by itself doesn't mean a candidate will make a good President.  Just because we like their positions, doesn't mean they are able to convince NON-conservatives why their cause is just.  Remember, true combined social/fiscal conservatives make up less than 25% to 30% of the general election electorate.  You and I may be against Gay Marriage, but to the MAJORITY of American voters, they perceive a gay marriage ban as forcing bible laws into a public forum even if they are against it themselves.  It's why Clinton survived impeachment.  They don't want you to touch THEIR particular sin. 

Reagan was brilliant in this on the abortion issue because he not only said he was pro-life, he explained why EVERYONE should be pro-life.  He also didn't sound threatening or angry which allowed those who disagreed not to be scared by it.  Bachmann and Santorum however have at times exhibited an annoying, fearful tone when they are asked about these issues at times becoming often being over-defensive.  Bachmann is getting better at it since the media knows it won’t play with the mainstream, but while her substance plays well with conservatives, it turns off the predominantly non-evangelical voter.

There is a "cool" quality we want in a President that emotes control I saw in Bachmann early in her campaign but not much since.  Santorum always looks like the kid we would pick next to last for kickball.  Still waiting to see that "in command" thing from him.  Unfortunately the majority of independent voters (and many in both parties) don't really pay attention to policy. They picture the person and ask themselves, "Do they look like a President?" or "Do they seem to know what they are talking about?".  Obama got elected because he was calm, cool and "looked" like he was in control of the facts at all times, even when he talked gibberish.  Look at Reagan over Dukakis, Bush over Kerry.  Presidential but “relatable” wins.

I agree with you that Bachmann would be great at repealing Obamacare.  She explained it better than anyone in the early debates.  You know what candidate actually got ANOTHER party to agree to reverse government?  Gingrich.  With Welfare Reform. He sent it to Clinton twice before finally getting a version he would sign.  It sounds like I'm selling Gingrich but what I'm really selling is both KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE of getting something through Congress.  I'll take it on faith that Bachmann has the knowledge. In terms of legislation or inspiring a nationwide initiative however, where is the experience?  And the legislative branch is supposed to be her strength.  In comparison read the article by Tony Blankley  - Gingrich's former aide - on how shrewd he was at MAKING things happen even with a very divided house.  Ideals are wonderful.  But having IMPLEMENTED even a medium "idea" a few times is invaluable.  

Although I hate Warren Buffet's politics, he is a very successful investor.  His philosophy is to bet on proven competence rather than speculation.  For instance, he would invest in a group of managers that have successfully made an ice cream chain somewhat more profitable for many years, than invest in a drug that could cure cancer and potentially return thousands of time more.  Why?  Because he's learned (as MF Global just has) it's not easy to start or run ANY business.  Experience of a consistent .250 batter is always better than .165 batter who can hit 50 home runs.  BETA was much better technically than VHS.  Apple has ALWAYS had superior technology to the IBM personal computers.  The problem isn't the product - it's knowing how to make the product work and make people aware of it at the right cost.  The old adage that you can "build a better mousetrap and they will beat a path to your door" is lie.  Because if you don't know how to build it at a cheap enough price, with quality control you will sell the one mousetrap you made and the other people who can't wait 2 weeks for you to build the next one will buy an inferior one easily available at Wal-Mart to catch the rat.

Bachmann has also excelled in consistently talking about how we need to elect a conservative majority in both the House and Senate.  If you look at reactions at the Jewish Congress and Conservative HQ meetings, Gingrich gets consistent, sustained standing ovations.  And a packed house and popularity equates to campaign donations and more voters.  Gingrich orchestrated the biggest change in party control since 1791.   Now Gingrich alienates other legislators too and the Dede Scovozza flap (which he unendorsed too late) shows he isn’t perfect.  But for me since Gingrich not only accomplished this in the past, but did so historically, it is at least a push in my mind.

A Referendum on ObamaCare

I thought the “getting rid of prohibition” analogy was quite interesting and hadn’t thought about that before.  I’m not sure it has risen to a single issue APART from the economy, but you are right that it will be important.  Gingrich's past efforts on Welfare Reform and vocal attacks on ObamaCare  was the first priority listed on his original website and I trust Santorum, and Perry would make it too since the deadline is so near and public for implementation.  Even Mitt Romney and Jon Hunstman would make this a priority since they understand the FINANCIAL impact this would have on the economy - not for the sake of stopping healthcare socialism though in my opinion.  (Since I wrote this I was alerted to a video from LAST YEAR where Romney says he would KEEP parts of Obamacare, so I”m less sure about him.) 

But Rush Limbaugh, the ULSTERMANN REPORT and others clearly see that Obama will spend $1 Billion to attack the GOP Nominee on everything BUT Obamacare.  Just look how Cain lost the ability to talk about 9-9-9 in a few articles from partisan media.  After Perry fell, Bachmann couldn't even recover a small portion of her original followers that ended up with Cain, in part, because of her dishonest attacks about Gardasil.  Please, ANYONE give me ANY indication that either she or Santorum have proven they can break through the attacks to take the initiative and public awareness back.  Gingrich has been doing it all debate season and did again Thursday night.  After weathering the attacks on the Freddie Mac non-issue (emails show he was telling Freddie to change their model), he got the loudest applause of the night in discussing how to rip apart the runaway judiciary and had the constitutional and historical understanding of how to do so.  If ANY of these people are challenged by Obama or the press, who do you feel understands the issues and legalities better than Gingrich?  In my book Santorum would be a distant second.  Romney can BS with the best but the rest would be worse than Chelsea Clinton doing an investigative interview of her father's fund raising improprieties in the 90’s.  This election is too important to take a chance on a novice politician with no national stature much less an amateur communicator or leader.  Fighting the media could be AS important as any other single virtue of our candidates to defeat the liberal establishment in 2012.

I concede that Bachmann’s positions are more consistently conservative although I’m not sure she fully understands WHY they work in every instance or the nuances needed to enact them into law.  You will see from my DRINKING SCALE article I am concerned about Gingrich on a some major issues.  I'm pleading with someone to give me more than platitudes to point me somewhere else.  Bachmann's inability to answer the basic question on the judiciary in the Iowa debate PLUS her dishonesty on otherr’s records PLUS her lack of ANY management - make me very concerned SHE could be our conservative Barack Obama.  And I mean a conservative ideologue (like Barack is with Marxism) who has never managed anything or any organization of consequence and has no clue what she is doing in GOVERNING.  At least Obama ran a good campaign (although he clearly committed vote fraud at an unprecedented level).  She hasn't authored a single major legislative initiative since becoming a Congresswoman.  Her claim of leadership?  She "led" thousands to protest ObamaCare in Washington.  Did it stop it?  Weren't they going anyway?  I thought we decided "organizing" wasn't a qualification for President anymore.

And I also think of a general election and how average people  - not you and I who are tuned into politics - will think about our candidate from THEIR perspective.  Think about our experience with Herman Cain.  He seemed like a good guy but at first, but we didn't support him.  We watched other candidates go up and down and no major movement.  He introduced a BIG plan (999) and suddenly there was a banner to follow!  He looked and acted like a leader with a big idea.  Allegations came, and we didn't know if they were true or not. (Can’t blame us, we just met the guy!)  Another allegation came and now we were less sure although we also noticed some poor handling of his campaign.  Then Gitmo.  Then Libya.  Ugh.  More allegations.  Then whatever.

No one outside of our circles know Santorum or Bachmann.  Michele has been caught in numerous gaffes, and although they pale in comparison to what Obama has done, the MSM won't care.  Like Palin she must be demonized and marginalized lest she further hurt the Democrat base.  Unlike Palin, she has no real record of accomplishment to fight from or even the leadership skills Palin showed. The general public's perspective (like us with Herman) is to be shocked by any charge, wait to see how it was defended and then make a decision and at some point decide they are good or bad until the NEXT charge comes along. 

That problem doesn't exist with Newt to a large degree.  If you think he, his daughter and his close friends are lying about his personal reformation – fine.  Don’t vote for him.  I understand it is a leap of faith for some and he himself admits he was morally flawed and hypocritical back then.  But the general electorate could care less.  Clinton had RAPE charges, on top of everything else, and still got elected.  The only thing most Americans care about is CAN YOU FIX THE ECONOMY.  It pains me to say, but if we don’t think this comes down to just the economy, we ARE stupid.

It is strange, but the absence of Cain, NO ONE is really talking about their economic plan.  Lawrence Kudlow rightly pointed out that of the remaining candidates, only Gingrich and Perry have a compelling plan. Can ANYONE name what Bachmann’s economic strategy is?  Perry is 20/20, Mitt is 59 pts with a 25% capital gains, Newt is a comprehensive plan very similar to 999 (but higher corporate tax rate at 12.5%).  And I didn’t have to look one of those up.

If our worse fears are realized and the Marxist in Chief utilizes the new National Defense Authorization Act to effectively declare martial law, who do you suppose would be more effective in challenging and fighting it?  Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum?  Gingrich has been defending Republican initiatives to liberal attacks to a national audience for over 35 years making intellectual and emotional arguments.  Isn’t that why Bush plummeted, when he refused to defend his policies to the American people?  Who looks more like Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher as being someone to rally around not for a conservative, but the average public?

All this may lead you to believe I'm supporting Gingrich.  I'm not.  Yet.  Santorum still has a remote shot and there are rumors of others who still might jump in.  In no way can I support Bachmann unless she apologizes to Gingrich, Perry and Cain, and starts pushing big plans and solutions.  Anyone have a clue what her "big vision" is besides being "Constitutional" (the same thing (God forbid) Ron Paul says)?

We conservatives believe in a free market.  And a free market of ideas.  There is no affirmative action for conservative policies – EVEN among conservatives.  If Bachmann and Santorum can’t inspire and sustain a following for their own candidacy AT LEAST equal to Romney, what basis leads us to believe they can do so among people who DON’T share our values?

Eugene then replied to my rant.  Apparently, unlike Rush Limbaugh, after I’ve spoken there is STILL more to be said.  Actually, he makes some more great points.

Dear PolitiJim. 

You really are a bird brain aren’t you?  That is the most idiotic…. (just kidding.  His response is below and the last word on the matter.)

---

Dear PolitiJim

I like Bachmann because, like Reagan, she represents the idea that our Founding Fathers meant something more than just a bunch of guys that had had it with their king who was an ocean away and too cash strapped and technologically deficient to do much about an American Revolution.  This is an example of what I was taught in college history courses as well as listening to another professor say that the most remarkable thing that President Calvin Coolidge did was die.  On the other hand this same professor lauded the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Lyndon Johnson to radically influence American's lives.  What they did was delink us from our Constitution big by big not little by little.  They have subverted our property rights and one by one added on another plank of the communist manifesto. We have a President today that said very soon after being elected that we were "...weeks away from Fundamental Transformation", for God's sake.  Look at where we are now and tell me that the answer is to throw out the vision of our country's founding.  Our debt has surpassed our GDP!  We're practically on an elevator to hell with the bottom button pressed!

The very first thing we should do as we consider the candidates is look back and say gee, ya think these changes we made over the past 100 years or so have helped to put us in the hole we're in right now?  I think they did.  I also think that if we approached the problems that these changes were supposed to address by relying more on the great wisdom of our Founding Fathers and less on the advice of Karl Marx we would be a lot better off today.  You say that there was corruption, yet I think there were great statesmen as well over the course of our history.  They just were not elected in many cases and why because it would involve sacrifice on the part of those in control and who have influence.  Well they have ultimately been led here, too.  At least their heirs have been.  I'm sure that not all of the descendants of the once wealthy and powerful have maintained such status today.  Hell, some of them might be turning wrenches like I do to earn a living.  It has been the case in this country that wealth and power can be fleeting and that someday it might be necessary to have the opportunity to build wealth through hard work and Firm Reliance on Divine Providence.  It is the goal of many in high society to deny such opportunity to the common American citizen in order to facilitate and maintain their own stature.  This necessitates control without regard of consequences when left unchecked by Constitutional protections.  This brings us back to the intentions of having our particular Constitution in the first place.  Our Rights are given to us by God as written in the Declaration of Independence with our Constitution written to protect those Rights.

Why do you think Beck asks where is George Washington?  Because he did what the King of England said would make him the Greatest man in the World and relinquished his power after his second term as President.  Now we've come to a crossroads and people like myself can see it plain as day.

I think there are people of influence in this country who are intentionally trying to collapse our economy in order to build another society-some type of oligarchy I believe.  I don't think their new society will reflect the views of our Founders so I am in opposition to their efforts to say the least.  This is where I find Newt Gingrich insufficiently equipped to tackle such an affront to our American way of life.  Newt like Romney and some others, to me represents someone that would have us walk slowly toward Obama's transformation while Obama would have us at full sprint in comparison.  We need to answer Obama's perversion with not only an equal response, but an overwhelming response that even Sun Tzu would be surprised by and let the chips fall as they may.  All you have to do is look at the rest of the world.  Socialism SUCKS!  Communism FAILS!  Fascism KILLS!  I'll go a step further.  We owe it to the whole world and The Almighty Himself to reestablish our United States as Founded.  Electing Bachmann would put us back toward the straight and narrow.  Electing Gingrich will only be a half-hearted effort; a "poke-check" as opposed to" taking the body" to use ice hockey terms as I played many a game.  A poor poke-check might allow the other player to turn you and go in on the goalie where a good taking of the body would allow your offense to take the puck the other way and into your opponent's defenses.  I think that if Bachmann gets the nomination she will attract some great Americans to add to her campaign team to help improve her delivery and refine her approach, but her core is sound and she relays the sense of urgency that might be necessary to jolt some Americans into focusing more acutely to the situation at hand.

What times we live in, huh!?

Eugene T. Colsher from the birthplace of LIBERTY, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Posted in: 2012,campaign,michele bachmann,Newt Gingrich,ngfiles,politics,rsfiles