May 5th, 2008 • 10:13 amAnother Anti-Michele Hit Piece
It’s getting old to read the trash that the left spews out about Michele Bachmann. The latest dumping is in this editorial by Pat Welter in Monday’s SC Times. Here’s what Welter said that I find objectionable:
He knows it’s time to recommit to our ideals and find ways to get beyond what divides us. And because he knows how to build coalitions, because he is not an “either/or” politician who says “my way or the highway,” Tinklenberg gets things done. And importantly, he does it in an ethical way. We need that in the 6th.
Frankly, it’s impossible for me to think of a former lobbyist as appealing to our higher ideals. As for Tinklenberg getting things done, that isn’t difficult when you’re spreading the money around. That isn’t the type of leadership we need in Washington. There’s already too many hogs at that trough.
I’d argue that someone that’s already decided to impeach President Bush before articles of impeachment are even debated in the House Judiciary Committee and before he’s even been elected isn’t ethical. Doesn’t Mr. Tinklenberg think that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the justice system? Shouldn’t he at least know what the charges are before forming an opinion? Shouldn’t he base his opinion on something resembling verifiable proof?
That isn’t ethical leadership. That’s unprincipled pandering for votes to win an endorsement. That isn’t what we need in Washington.
What’s needed is Michele Bachmann’s type of principled leadership. To my recollection, Michele doesn’t pander for votes. She says what she thinks. What’s most impressive is that Michele has a set of unshakeable set of core beliefs, which include prosperity and freedom at the top of her list.
The differences between an anything goes politician like Mr. Tinklenberg and a principled politician like Michele are numerous and obvious. The last thing we need is another anything goes politician in Washington.
Technorati: Editorial, Elwyn Tinklenberg, Ethics, Lobbyist, Michele Bachmann, Reform, Earmarks, Election 2008
Entries RSS2 Feed
If this is the same Pat Welter that I am thinking of, then everyone who reads her statement should vote opposite. Pat Welter, if this is the same one I’m thinking of, is the former (and ineffective) principal of North Junior High School in St. Cloud.
It’s obvious that the feminist would vote for Tinkle-berry. He’s the best choice for feminists. Which is precisely the reason why the normal people in District 6 should be voting for Michele Bachmann
Comment by Yomi Mizuhara • 05May2008 @ 5:11 pm
Michele Bachmann is a do-nothing grandstander. She does press conferences, but has accomplished nothing during her years in the legislature and congress. The 6th District would have been much better served if Jim Knoblach were in office. He had always been a working legislator.
Also, Michele Bachmann says different things to the mainstream media than she does to her base. Why else would she want a no-video taping rule at the 6th District convention?
Comment by Eva Young • 07May2008 @ 10:24 pm
Eva, You’ve hated Michele for as long as I can remember.
While I think that Jim Knoblach would’ve been a fantastic representative, I’m more than satisfied with Michele’s performance thus far. I love the fact that she hasn’t abandoned her principles. I love the fact that she’s still one of the most ethical people in Congress. And I especially love that she’s trying to keep taxes low.
Comment by Gary Gross • 08May2008 @ 2:47 am
Gary, my point is that Michele Bachmann is in many ways, similar to Al Franken - though with different ideologies. A do nothing grandstander - who has no record in her years in the legislature of actually accomplishing anything. It looks like it’s the same in congress.
Knoblach is a different story. Knoblach held the same social issue positions as Michele Bachmann, but he was also interested in other issues, and would have delivered for the 6th District.
Bachmann likes to claim TABOR as an accomplishment. The facts are that she was offered the opportunity to have her bill heard, and she refused - more than once.
Comment by Eva Young • 30May2008 @ 9:52 pm