OMG, as my nieces say: can you believe that interview published this week in connection with the ongoing Michele Bachmann campaign investigations?
There’s some real shockers in that piece, it suggests the makings of a hot t.v. criminal courtroom drama. it’s an interview with pastor peter waldron, a former ‘bachmann for president’ staffer whose charges triggered the current michele investigations.
this is a damn good piece! i mean, pastor waldron was *there* when this stuff is alleged to have taken place. the pastor was on the inside, man — and he is now a whistle blower who is determined to *blow that whistle,* folks.
there’s some damned funny stuff in there (including the allegation that bachmann campaign staffers tried to get the liturgy changed in churches to further the campaign!)
… and how about waldron’s suggestion that michele should have been very alive to her campaign’s alleged theft of private property–because michele was “not just an attorney” but “a federal prosecutor” who “knows the law” because she “put a lot of people behind bars…”
WHAT?!! She was a “what?” She put ‘who’ behind bars?!! When? hey, this is the first time i’m hearing about any of this, and i’ve been writing about her for about a decade. (michele worked as federal tax attorney for the us government back in the eighties, and has steadfastly refused to discuss the specifics of any cases she litigated against US taxpayers during that time. and now here’s pastor waldron telling us michele’s “put people behind bars?” wow… is the pastor telling us that michele bachmann began her career by putting u.s. citizens “behind bars” for *not paying enough* in federal income tax?” oh, for a follow-up question to the pastor about *that* claim.
so you can read this piece about the alleged improper payoffs to senior campaign staffers, alleged money laundering to avoid accountability, alleged theft of a private political email list from a computer, which was allegedly carried out by senior bachmann campaign staffers, alleged bears eating alleged boy scouts — just kidding about that last one, but this waldron interview has everything else. including a photograph of michele posing with an abraham lincoln impersonator who looks like “zombie lincoln” (and i’m not kidding about that; look here.)
a mother jones reporter has pronounced michele bachmann’s political career dead. this is a sub-genre in michele bachmann literature: “attempted political epitaphs for michele bachmann.”
i should have been collecting these all along, over the years. it’s been so long since i read the very first attempt to write her political epitaph — that i can’t remember who wrote it or when. it was probably some liberal or progressive (like me.) over the years, it’s been liberals and progressives who’ve submitted the majority of failed Bachmann epitaphs.
Why is that? well — i guess in most cases we could put it down to wishful thinking. don’t get me wrong: i’m not saying that most liberals and progressives are ‘wishful thinkers.’ that is not my opinion and is far from being the case. what i’m saying is: there are some liberals and progressives who are wishful thinkers…and over the years, they have occasionally succumbed to that, and tried to wish bachmann away by announcing that her career was over — when it was not.
Why would they want to succumb to wishful thinking? A lot of reasons. They might feel free to do so, because there’s no ‘punishment’ if you happen to be wrong in your assessment of bachmann’s career. Another reason: there’s a competition for funding and political attention span. “how can I raise money for *my* candidate or vital cause, if this marginal lunatic bachmann is taking up so much space in media real estate, grassroots fundraising, and audience attention? best to try to convince my fellow Dems that she’s ‘over, no longer a threat, the struggle to defeat her is a waste of time and money.”
the washington post has concluded that bachmann has lied about a very important matter (again) during a house floor debate on april 26.
bachmann told congress that she had voted against the budget control act out of concern for the american poor. bachmann claims that she and her republican colleagues foresaw the ‘calamities’ that would affect the poor if the bill was passed and sequester resulted. (the calamities include cuts to big government programs that help the poor, including ‘Head Start, Meals On Wheels, and children’s nutrition programs.’)
bachmann says she voted against the bill because she was concerned about the poor. the washington post fact checked her statements prior to the vote on the bill — and concluded she’s lying about why she voted the way she did. (they rated her statement ‘four pinocchios.’)
how do they know she was lying?