Archive for the ‘Michele Bachmann’ Category

Tom Steward’s article contains some spot-on analysis of the impact Michele Bachmann’s announcement will have on the DFL and the DCCC:

Strategists say it’s not a good day, however, for Graves’ chances to wrestle the seat out of the Republican column.

“Graves doesn’t have Bachmann to run against and partly I think he was benefiting by her being a lightning rod,” said political analyst David Schultz of Hamline University. “So now he’s got to worry about perhaps now there may be another Republican running who’s less of a lightning rod and doesn’t come with all the baggage Bachmann has.”

“Jim Graves’ candidacy is based on the fact he’s not Michelle Bachmann,” said Ben Golnik, a Republican consultant. “Graves went from a slight shot to virtually little chance of winning against a Republican candidate with a fresh slate.”

Jim Graves shouldn’t be underestimated. He’s got tons of money he can spend on his campaign. The media will take every opportunity to pretend that he’s a “new Democrat.” The DCCC will dump tons of money into the race.

That said, Graves’ only shot at winning in 2014 hinged on his ability to remind voters that he isn’t Michele Bachmann. That strategy disappeared this morning about 3:00 am. Whether it was Pelosi vilifying her or Bill Clinton vilifying Newt Gingrich, the reality is that Democrats need to a) run as something they’re not and b) run against a boogeyman.

When Michele’s video got noticed, the DFL’s and the DCCC’s biggest boogeywoman disappeared.

The loss of Bachmann also complicates Democratic messaging and fundraising well beyond the borders of her district. “Bachmann has been a great boon for Democratic fundraising and MSNBC has loved her,” Schultz said. “She’s become basically the person they get to rail against for ratings and to fund raise against and in the state of Minnesota she has been part of the face of the Republican party in Minnesota for the last eight to ten years. Her leaving just makes it harder for people to identify a boogeyman to run against.”

John Hinderaker’s post highlights just how foolish Democrats sound in their messaging with this commentary:

This morning the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email commenting on Michele Bachmann’s announcement that she will not run again in 2014. The email employed the breezy, low-rent tone that the Democrats have perfected. You wonder who writes these things; is it a 22-year-old slacker, or is there some middle-aged guy who gets paid millions to impersonate one?

In their email fundraising appeal, they talked themselves into a circle. They started with this:

THIS IS HUGE! Now that the Tea Party’s ringleader has called it quits, Boehner has to be wondering who’s next to go. If we can sweep up 17 Republican seats, we can take Boehner’s Speaker’s gavel and win a Democratic House for President Obama!

Then they say this:

Bachmann’s announcement is a huge blow to vulnerable House Republicans, so we need to put the pressure on them while they’re still reeling.

The DCCC essentially said that she’s a crazy nutjob who is the key to the Republicans keeping their House majority. That’s as credible as saying that Jim Graves is a policy heavyweight. Now Graves is a man without a boogeyman to run against.

Randy Krebs, the Editorial Page editor at the St. Cloud Times, has repeatedly shown a willingness to apply a double standard to the LTEs he approves. It’s appalling that he’d approve this LTE. Look at this assertion of fact:

Because Bachmann is a tax attorney and once worked for the IRS, I find it ironic that she wants a deeper probe toward the actions that the IRS took. Nobody raised this kind of fuss when the IRS took similar action toward Democratic groups when Republicans were in the White House.

Claudette Moran is the idiot that wrote this LTE. Her accusations should be highlighted because they’re baseless. What proof does Claudette Moran have that the Bush administration used the IRS as a weapon against its political opponents? What proof does Krebs have of the Bush administration using the IRS as a weapon against their political opponents?

It’s guaranteed that the NY Times would’ve written a series of articles criticizing the Bush administration had the IRS been used as a weapon against their political opponents.

Krebs’ penchant for approving LTEs that make baseless accusations against Republicans is well-documented. This isn’t the first time he’s let a Republican hater make wild accusations. He’s especially notorious for approving this viled crap if Michele Bachmann is the person being accused.

It’s time for Mr. Krebs to show us proof that the Bush administration used the IRS as a political weapon. If he doesn’t produce that proof in a timely fashion, then people should think of him as being an unprofessional editor who’s willing to use a lenient standard for LTEs criticizing Republicans but who uses a tight standard for LTEs written by conservatives.

When Michele Bachmann joined with 4 other conservatives in calling for an IG investigation into whether the Muslim Brotherhood, I wrote an LTE that cited Andrew McCarthy, the man that prosecuted, then convicted, the Blind Sheikh and Walid Phares, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These terrorism experts said that the “National Security Five” were justified in asking for this investigation.

Pretending to be a terrorism expert, Krebs said that these men’s information and opinions were tenuous. That’s the explanation he gave for why he wouldn’t approve my LTE. Krebs couldn’t permit an LTE that supported Michele Bachmann even though national experts verified the accuracy of her statements. Meanwhile, Krebs didn’t hesitate in publishing an LTE that made wild, baseless accusations that can’t be verified.

That certainly isn’t the picture of professionalism. Unfortunately, that isn’t surprising.

Wednesday night, Michele Bachmann was interviewed by Greta van Susteren about the IRS scandal. What she said is quite pertinent to the scandal:

Here’s the first exchange between Greta and Michele:

GRETA: And, of course, we’re all chewing on the news that Bret Baier sent me that he was at the end of his term at the end of the month and President Obama making the announcement that he’d resigned just a month early.
BACHMANN: Well, he was the perfect scapegoat. He was exiting the stage anyway and so they might as well make it look like they’re chopping his head off on the way out because it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

By the time Jay Carney gives the daily press briefing, people will be criticizing President Obama for attempting to pull a fast one on people. This scandal will hurt the administration because the IRS has a history of intimidating people and because of the fear IRS audits have caused.

Later in the interview, Ms. Bachmann talked about a major TEA Party press conference:

BACHMANN: This is a major press conference where all of the major TEA Party organizations from across the United States are coming together. We are having a major press conference at the Capital. Joining us will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee. There’ll be many members of the House of Representatives. But it’s to give a voice to the TEA Party because they are livid as you can imagine and these leaders want to react and tell their story publicly.

People have asked where the TEA Party has been. Frankly, they’ve been hiding after the left successfully vilified them. Rest assured, though, that they’ll be fired up after they’ve been targeted by the IRS. Rest assured, people will sympathize with them because people hate and fear the IRS.

Later, Rep. Bachmann dispatched with the notion that a couple agents went rogue:

GRETA: So I’m curious with the IRS, doing this, what is the usual time period for people to get their tax exempt status from the IRS?
BACHMANN: Well, within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly within 2 years. It certainly doesn’t take the IRS to do it. But I knew this was a phony story last Friday, when the story came out because when I was a federal tax attorney and did this work, we had very strict jurisdictional limits within the IRS because we were handling people’s tax data. We had to act within that tax zone. We had very strict procedures where we check a lot of boxes. Our supervisors up the food chain check them. It’s impossible for them to go rogue.

In short, President Obama and his handlers are attempting to sell a BS story to the American people. The thing that’s going to trip them up are little details like this. If people “up the food chain” are checking these applications off, then this must be a cultural systemic problem, not a couple rogue agents acting irresponsibly. If you read the type of intrusive questions that the IRS asked some conservative applicants, you’ll realize that it’s ideological and possibly systemic.

Now that Jim Graves has officially announced that he’s running against Michele Bachmann, people wonder if he can defeat her. John Stossel’s article highlights Graves’ weakness:

Most Americans, even those who are legislators, know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.

Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.

Don’t count on it.

Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, “the Secretary shall promulgate regulations …”

“Secretary” refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They’ve already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.

A couple of weeks after announcing his candidacy last time, Graves made an appearance at a weekly gathering at a St. Cloud bar to visit with conservatives. During that visit, he stopped past my table, at which time I asked him if he supported the PPACA. Though he stopped short of endorsing that specific legislation, he did attempt to sell the ACA as market-driven health insurance reform. More on that later.

The thing is that legislators don’t vote on sweeping principles. Legislators vote on specific legislation. Since there’s no chance that Graves would’ve been one of the legislators shaping the legislation, he would’ve been forced to vote yea or nay on the ACA.

Thanks to Graves’ insistence on not getting pinned down to anything, we don’t know if he would’ve voted for the PPACA. What we know, though, is that he’s attempting to not talk about the ACA. His issues page includes this line:

But today, too many Minnesotan families are struggling under the weight of rising home mortgage payments, skyrocketing health care costs and increasing college tuition.

The only other reference to health care on Jim Graves’ issues page is about the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. I don’t blame Graves for evading the issue. If I were a Democrat, I’d want to evade talking about health care. Stossel’s article provides the reason why the PPACA is a touchy subject for Democrats:

Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost — depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.

On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.

Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.

Its quality has improved, while costs dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cellphone numbers.

Mr. Graves isn’t foolish. He knows what constitutes a free market. He knows that the ACA is the opposite of a free market solution.

Michele Bachmann has been right about this issue from the outset. She submitted the first bill to repeal the ACA and replace it with a specific plan. Michele’s plan included eliminating the preferential tax treatment for corporations buying health insurance by giving individuals the same tax treatment that multinational corporations get. As a result of that provision, Michele’s plan made health care portable, which is a huge liberating force for employees.

While we don’t know what Graves’ solution to health care is, we know with certainty that Michele got it right with health insurance reform the first time. When Democrats are in the minority, talk immediately focuses on compromise. Minnesotans in the Sixth District have the choice of voting for an evasive man or voting for someone who got health care reform right the first time.

With health insurance premiums skyrocketing since enacting the PPACA, why would Minnesotans vote for someone who dodges the issue? Why wouldn’t they vote for the candidate who got it right the first time?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, Jim Graves made it official today by announcing that he’s running against Michele Bachmann again:

In a statement, the AmericInn Hotel chain founder took a veiled jab at his opponent’s national reputation as a lightning rod. “These days, Congress is all about scoring political points rather than actually solving problems, and Minnesota’s 6th District, my home, is losing out because of that more than anywhere,” he said. ”I’m not interested in celebrity, only in solutions.”

That last statement is rather rich considering the fact that Graves told me that he thinks the PPACA is a free market solution to our health care problem. The PPACA is a one-size-fits-all disaster. First, it isn’t a solution. Second, it’s an expensive disaster that’s getting worse with each new onslaught of regulations.

If Graves can’t even identify a disastrous policy like the PPACA, then he’s worthless. Getting the biggest things badly wrong isn’t a virtue. His happy talk about being a new Democrat is BS. New Democrats don’t attend fundraisers hosted by Barney Frank, one of the men who caused the housing bubble to burst. New Democrats don’t defend the PPACA, which Graves tried doing with me.

Graves’ schtick is spin. That doesn’t mean people should take him lightly. He came close to defeating Michele in 2012. Then again, that’s largely because of high voter turnout durning a presidential election and because Michele focused a bunch of attention on her presidential campaign.

Since getting re-elected, Michele Bachmann has focused on solving major problems in the district, including working on widening the I-94 and Highway 10 corridors, not to mention her work in getting the Stillwater Bridge rebuilt.

Another big question awaiting is whether Nancy Pelosi will let Jim Graves be a centrist. She’ll let him talk like a centrist during the campaign. The question is how long that’d last if he’s elected. If he’s elected, Pelosi would likely have a slim majority in the House, meaning she’ll need every Democrat’s vote on the big issue.

Graves will run another dishonest campaign this cycle because that’s his only shot at winning. Make no mistake: Jim Graves won’t hesitate in hitting below the belt if that’s what’s needed. We know that because it’s what he’s done in the past. Graves got a bunch of union workers to lie for him during a campaign ad. These displaced union workers accused Michele of political grandstanding and not giving a damn about them. KSTP ran Graves’ ad through their Truth Test:

Bachmann was in the district on Memorial Day weekend in Stillwater attending events when the explosion happened but didn’t go to the scene. However, a Bachmann staff member was there within an hour.

I know the Bachmann staffer who got to the Verson site within an hour of the explosion happening. Jim Graves didn’t care about this extraordinary performance. He had his sights set on winning an election. If he had to accuse Michele of not giving a damn, that’s what he’d do. If that meant ignoring the facts on the ground, New Democrat Jim Graves wasn’t about to hesitate in putting that disgusting, dishonest ad together.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most of the pundits on local TV shouldn’t be on TV. Former state senator Don Betzold is one of those pundits. While criticizing Michele Bachmann for not supporting expansion of the North Star Corridor to St. Cloud, he insisted that extending the corridor would solve I-94’s congestion problems. He hinted that expanding I-94 wasn’t a priority.

That last part parrots a line from MnDOT Spokesman Kevin Gutknecht:

But Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the I-94 widening doesn’t rank high on the agency’s long-term list of priority projects. “There are projects like this all across the state — really good projects, really important projects, projects that have tremendous support like this,” he said. “It all really boils down to the funding piece.”

Anyone that thinks fixing I-94’s congestion problems isn’t an important problem worthy of solution isn’t qualified for a MnDOT job. Either that or he’s a political hack attempting to undercut a sitting US congressperson.

But I digress.

Betzold’s commentary suggested that expanding North Star was a solution. It isn’t. In fact, it’s a death trap that should be avoided at all costs. In addition to the construction costs, the taxpayers’ subsidies that help bring the cost to riders down total tens of millions of dollars over the next decade. Without those subsidies, the cost per rider would be wildly expensive.

Then there’s the consideration that people don’t like transit that much. The DFL frequently insists that transit is the wave of the future. It isn’t. Americans love the freedom of driving. We love being in control of our lives. That includes the ability to go where we want to go when we want to go there. Transit doesn’t give us that option.

What transit lacks in mobility, it makes up for in subsidies. We shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing private industries. If they can’t make it without subsidies, that’s proof they aren’t viable. A key economic principle is that if something isn’t sustainable, it can’t be sustained indefinitely. I’d take that a step further. If something can’t be sustained, it’s likely heading for a quick collapse.

The only thing as painful as listening to Betzold was hearing Tom Hauser call the I-94 project an earmark. Earmarks typically are dropped into a conference committee report in the dead of night. They don’t go through the scrutiny of a committee mark-up. The I-94 project Michele Bachmann proposed went through the committee process. It was done in the light of day. Most importantly, the I-94 project isn’t pork designed mostly to prove she’s ‘bringing home the bacon.’ The I-94 project Michele proposed is actually a solution to a major problem.

Contrary to what Mssrs. Gutknecht and Betzold said, anyone who’s been trapped at the bottlenecks where I-94, 694 and 494 connect knows that that’s been a major problem for a generation. Anyone who’s tried getting on I-94 near Bass Lake Road or Highway 101 knows that those have been problem areas for a decade.

If that isn’t worthy of prioritizing, then nothing is. Mr. Hauser is usually a pretty good reporter. This time, though, he slipped.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This recent LTE is titled “We all want the same things.” It’s possible that the LTE was written by someone wanting to be polite and professional. It’s possible that it’s accurate most of the time. It’s impossible to say, though, that it’s right the vast majority of the time.

This part of the LTE shouldn’t be underexamined:

When he came into the room to speak to the Chamber of Commerce, all the members stood up and applauded. He could have owned that room if he would have said a few things: Thank you for all the jobs you provide in Minnesota; thank you for being the economic engine that drives this state; thank you for taking out time in your schedule to talk about the issues today that are important to Minnesota; and we can work together to make some difficult decisions and compromises to make Minnesota the greatest state to do business in.

It’s true that Gov. Dayton would’ve been a hero had he said those things. Likewise, it’s true that that isn’t in his, or the DFL’s, nature. Gov. Dayton and the DFL have repeatedly stated that funding K-12 and higher education was the cornerstone to a thriving economy. At other times, they’ve said that funding transportation was integral to prosperity. While it’s true that those things contribute to economic growth, there’s no question that they’re only part of the equation that delivers economic prosperity.

Based on the DFL’s actions and the actions of their political allies, the DFL apparently thinks that crippling regulations, especially on precious metals mining and frack-sand harvest, won’t hurt Minnesota’s economic growth. The frack-sand moratorium will hurt job and income growth. North Dakota has a booming need for this sand. Minnesota’s environmentalists’ response has been disdain or outrage. They want to prevent this industry from getting started.

That’s hardly the picture of “everyone wanting the same things.”

Conservation Minnesota (with special emphasis on the CON) is doing everything possible to prevent Iron Rangers from providing for their families. Though other states have proven that it’s quite possible to harvest copper, gold, nickel and other precious metals in an environmentally friendly way, Conservation Minnesota has fought hard to prevent the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects from starting.

That isn’t the picture of “everyone wanting the same things.”

I’d agree that everyone professes to wanting the same things. President Reagan was right, though, in saying you can’t love jobs but hate the employer. Though that was said 30 years ago, President Reagan’s statement accurately depicts the DFL/ABM/Mark Dayton/Paul Thissen/Tom Bakk mindset perfectly.

Gov. Dayton and other likeminded politicians think that businesses aren’t contributing “their fair share” to Minnesota’s economic health. They’ve taken the jobs these companies have created for granted. The thought of actually appreciating the benefits these companies provide Minnesota’s families and communities doesn’t cross the DFL’s mind.

The truth is that the DFL doesn’t consistently want what Minnesota wants. The DFL frequently talks about using a “balanced approach” to balancing Minnesota’s budget. That’s a nice-sounding thing but it doesn’t make sense. That implies that Minnesota’s problem is revenue-based, not spending-based.

For instance, Don Betzold was on At Issue With Tom Hauser. He was discussing Michele Bachmann’s plan to expand I-94 and Highway 10. He said “She (Bachmann) can’t have it both ways. I wish she had supported extending the North Star Corridor to St. Cloud.”

Betzold’s argument is fatally flawed, starting with the undeniable fact that all transit lines, North Star included, require massive taxpayer subsidies. Betzold also ignored the fact that, without the taxpayers’ massive annual bailout, North Star ridership wouldn’t put a significant dent in the I-94 traffic.

I’m not alone in thinking that North Star shouldn’t be extended to St. Cloud. I’m not alone in thinking that the taxpayers’ subsidies, aka the taxpayers’ annual bailout of transit, is a good investment. By definition, that means the DFL doesn’t want what Minnesotans want on this issue.

It’s time Minnesota’s taxpayers stopped pretending that the DFL pretty much wants what they want. The facts don’t bear that out.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the past, demented Michele Bachmann haters argued that she didn’t care about her district. While it’s true she took time to run for president, it isn’t true that she doesn’t care about what’s best for her district. Her getting a new Stillwater Bridge built is proof she cares about the Sixth District. This Pi-Press article offers more proof that Rep. Bachmann cares about the Sixth District:

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann sought Monday to muster support in Minnesota and Washington for money to add a new Interstate 94 lane in each direction between the western Twin Cities suburbs and St. Cloud.

The congresswoman came to the state Capitol along with supporters from local government and businesses to talk about the project, as well as a related push to upgrade U.S. 10 that runs parallel to the heavily traveled interstate. Backers of the I-94 project are trying to amass $25 million for the first construction phase of an expansion that could reach $100 million when fully complete. The improvements to U.S. 10 are priced at $300 million.

Of course, the Dayton administration sought to diminish the importance of the I-94 project:

But Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the I-94 widening doesn’t rank high on the agency’s long-term list of priority projects. “There are projects like this all across the state — really good projects, really important projects, projects that have tremendous support like this,” he said. “It all really boils down to the funding piece.”

It’s interesting that MnDOT spokesman Kevin Gutknecht hints that widening I-94 isn’t a good project or an important project. The notion that one of the two busiest highways in the state doesn’t qualify as an important project is utter nonsense.

This stinks of political gamesmanship on behalf of the Dayton Administration. Sixth District voters will remember that when Gov. Dayton asks for their support in 2014. I’m betting they won’t like it that his administration prefered playing political games rather than doing what’s right for economic development in central Minnesota.

The other thing that’s worth noting is that Michele didn’t airdrop an earmark into a transportation bill conference committee report. She’s putting the project through the committee where it can be researched in the light of day. Michele’s projects, including the Stillwater Bridge project and this project, both went through the committee process. The Stillwater Bridge project was signed by President Obama because it withstood the scrutiny of the House and Senate transportation committees.

Years ago, Rep. Bachmann pledged not to be a porkmeister like the late Jack Murtha or Minnesota’s Jim ‘Bike Path’ Oberstar. She’s kept that promise while still looking out for what’s best for her district. Minnesota needs more politicians who are committed to doing things in the light of day rather than away from the people’s scrutiny.

I expect this post to get tons of comments from Michele’s left wing haters. Their comments will expose them for the partisan haters that they are. Remember their hate-filled comments the next time you enter a voting booth.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The DFL started setting up a phony storyline to propel them back into the majority in the Minnesota legislature during Gov. Dayton’s State of the State Address in 2011. At a time when nobody was thinking about a possible special session to pass the budget, Gov. Dayton asked the legislature to pledge not to shut government down.

By early May, it was clear that Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen were hoping for a government shutdown. At midnight, July 1, 2011, the Dayton/DFL shutdown became reality.

Along the way, the DFL and ABM started talking about the do-nothing legislature. What’s interesting is that the DFL legislature didn’t submit a budget nor did they submit a set of redistricting maps. The DFL won’t talk about that because that cost Minnesota taxpayers $188,000 in exchange for…nothing.

Here in Central Minnesota, the goal is to go 12 for 12 in ’12. The goal is to elect Jeff Howe, Jim Newberger, David Fitzsimmons and Nick Zerwas to their first terms in the House. We expect to re-elect Tim O’Driscoll, Steve Gottwalt, King Banaian and Sondra Erickson to the House. We expect to send Michelle Fischbach, John Pederson and Dave Brown back to the Senate while adding Mary Kiffmeyer to the Senate.

While I haven’t studied the entire state, a couple of races caught my attention. John Carlson is matched against Tom Saxhaug in SD-5. I’m picking Sen. Carlson to win by 8-10 points. Carolyn McElfatrick is paired against Tom Anzelc in HD-5B with Larry Howes matched against John Persell in HD-5A. I expect McElfatrick to win by 4-6 points. I expect Howes to squeak out a victory against Persell.

When the dust settles, I expect Republicans to keep control of the Legislature, mostly on the strength of their recent candidates. The fire-breathing zealots that Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen whined about will be returned to torture Mssrs. Bakk and Thissen. Republicans will have a 71-63 majority in the House and a 38-29 majority in the Senate.

As for the congressional races, John Kline, Erik Paulsen, Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack will win re-election. Rumors from Tuesday night that Alida Rockefeller-Dayton-Messinger is demanding Ken Martin’s head on a platter shouldn’t be taken seriously, though understanding why nobody’s heard of his whereabouts should be taken seriously.

The quality of the GOP legislative candidates will be a major reason why Republicans did so well. The leadership at the BPOU and congressional district levels, with a couple exceptions, will be a GOP strength, too.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jim Graves says he’s a new type of Democrat. Let’s remember that he was the guest of honor at a fundraiser hosted by Barney Frank. Likewise, Graves didn’t sound like a new Democrat in this video:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When Melissa Harris-Perry asks him about GOP extremism, listen to what Graves says:

Let me ask you this question. We’re trying to figure out if the extremes that are often represented by the woman that you are running against, whether or not that is ultimately going to bring down the republican party in the short term or if not in the short term, —

No question about it. Michele Bachmann epitomizes everything that’s wrong on the women’s issues. She has engaged in a war on women. She would like to take women back 50 years, go back to a male dominant society, control women’s reproductive rights, control everything about women. Definitely it’s a war on women and it will definitely be a very important issue in this election.

HARRIS-PERRY: It’s interesting to hear you say that because clearly Michele Bachmann is a woman. So you have sort of a complicated thing going on here where you’re saying she herself is a woman and mother and yet her positions are positions that don’t lead to sort of greater equality, fairness for women in general, who would be your constituents if you won.

GRAVES: You look at the her voting record, she votes against reproductive rights, she votes against even women to have access to birth control. This is a woman that would like to take that entire half of our society back 50 years and go back to a male dominant society. This is really why I came out of my comfort zone. I’m a strong believer in freedom and equality for everybody. And when you see…she’s endorsed Akin. She is on the wrong side of this issue right across the board. No question about about that.

It’s apparent that Mr. Graves is a one trick pony. Actually, that isn’t true. He’s a totally unreliable one trick pony.

It’s apparent that Mr. Graves will say and do whatever Nancy Pelosi tells him to do if he gets that far. Michele, on the other hand, has stood up against the GOP when they got things wrong.

The bottom line is this: Jim Graves sounds like a new Democrat when nobody’s paying attention. Otherwise, he’s just another DFL chanting points machine.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,