My Skills be Questioned
It seems that I have upset a few with my Conversation with Senator Michele Bachmann. ( Part 1 /Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 )
The always available Eva Young and friends have thought it was less than informational. And told me I asked softball questions, and no follow ups. Well, since I was giving the interview, MY FIRST EVER BTW, I thought I did quite well. Now, unlike the media folks that have interviewed the Senator before, I agree with Bachmann on the marriage amnedment, so the tough questions some seek answers to are not ones that concern me. I don’t care to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic, if you know what I mean.
This was a cassual conversation of lunch. If you go here, you’ll see just why I was given the chance to do this interview. That may explain some things to those of you who thought I was too soft.
I am doing this part against my better judgement, but I want people to see just how the other side is thinking and reacting to me. These are some comments left here on my site.
From dumpbachmann:
Residual Forces has some “interviews†with Michele Bachmann. There seems to be no effort to ask tough questions to address the real issues.
I did address the real issues. They were my issues and the ones that I saw as relavant to the topic. The petty he said she said and rhetoric is getting a little too emotional, and has gone well beyond rational. i kept this grounded to the issue at hand, which if case you have been led astray, protecting traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
From dumpbachmann:
Sure, Michele. Latinos, African Americans and “other races†all vote as a bloc. They all hate gays just like you. Every single one of them. And since you represent the “white†race, I guess all white support you too.
Don’t you ever get tired of lying Michele?
Whites, as you say don’t vote as a block either. No one groups votes in a bloc. there is strong support for this amendment in those communities. How do you explain that? How do you explain that there is 68% support for this amendment making it to the ballot? How? I’d like to know why a bill like this passed in Oregon? Why did California have a similar proposition? Those 2 states seem to me to be safe from laws that would protect marriage between one man and one woman. How did the voters ever decide to pass these laws then?
I’m going to quote Eva quoting me now, that is kinda cool.
Triple A: I asked the senator if she hated anyone, it has been part of the rhetoric, and I thought it should be asked. Her answer was, No!
EY: Oh really? Then why did she refuse to shake the hand of one of her constituents who met with her during the gay rally? She claimed this was because her husband has pneumonia, but she was seen later that day hugging constituents, and shook Corbett Johnson’s hand (who is straight) in Forest Lake on Saturday. Why does she say gays are “after our children†if she doesn’t hate gays.
I have refused to shake many hands in my life. i used to work at a liquor store that served many different types, and we knew that some had very contagious diseases, because they told us. Does it mean that I hated them? I have refused to shake hands when mine were full of grease and dirt. Was I hateful? I have refused to shake the hand of a man who had just insulted me and America personally. Does that make me hateful? I have too not shook hands because of illness. Hateful?
I do not blame Senator bachmann for not shaking hands with some people. She has some opponents with very questionable motives. There is a site opperated by one person that has left a comment on this site that is … well, disgusting to me. It appears that it is well thought of and liked by the Senatorss opponents. I would be a little suspicous of the motives of a group of people that use the imagery and words as they do to make a point too. If your side really wants to shake hands with the Senator, here’s a few tips. Don’t act in such immature ways, and by all means don’t stalk her, don’t trap her in a room, and when she is having a townhall meeting, don’t interupt it with your own views when you don’t live there.
Here is where I am personally attacked:
You asked some good questions in this interview, but failed to ask follow up questions. I encourage you to use the opportunity to do more than ask the softball questions when you get an opportunity to interview someone like Bachmann.
It’s too bad you didn’t ask her about her lies about the Cupertino School district in California. She claimed the schools banned the declaration of independence. Even the teacher suing the district has acknowledged publically that this did not happen.
Once again, I did the interview. Me, not you. I have watched hundreds of interviews when th equestion I wanted asked, wasn’t. What does “someone like Bachmann” mean? Is she somehow less that human? I do not think the people who think different than me are? Do they think that of me?
I plead ignorance, I don’t know what the school reference is. But again, I was asking questions that mattered to me!
This is where I had to edit my first comment. I will not provide an outlet for prfanity.
Maybe we should be allowed to vote on whether bigoted a%$#@#^s like Michele Bachmann should be tarred and feathered and run out of Minnesota on a rail. If the majority of Minnesotans agree to that in a poll, I guess that means it’s alright, according to the Logic of Michele.
First off, I hope someday you will see the hate you have in statements like that. Speech like that will never get you anywhere. Second, a state that elected a wrestler for governor will not tar and feather some one. Third, calling some one a bigot does not make them a bigot.
Eva Young:
I’d like to be able to vote on whether adulterers should be able to get married. Why can’t we add that to the amendment. Adultery is mentioned in the 10 commandments after all.
So would I Eva, we actually agree. I am guessing here, but if you can put aside your differences, I bet the Senator would support you in an effort for the state to make marriage harder to do, so that the marriages are stronger, last for life, and will not be so damaging to the family. But I’m guessing that you are only saying that to try to score a point.
Swiftee, an allie of mine chimes in:
You’ve got Eva and her trash so shakey and upset I can hear the pea rattling in her empty head from here.
I do not know Eva, so I cannot atest to her brain matter. But I’m not seeing a whole lot of rational thought in the arguements so far. I don’t see a structured, consistant arguement for gay marriage so far from what I’ve read from her.
Then that person with the other site has some more constructive criticism of the Senator:
Michele is an affront to all men and women named Michele whether they spell their names with two L’s or one.
My namesake needs to get a life!
Oh, if you put it that way, I agree with you completely, I don’t even know what I was thinking. Please, grow up. I never made a single comment about the Andy that was commenting here before. I did put in a small note so that some of the readers would know that it was not me. I never said that he was ruining the name for everyone.
So what have we learned? Nothing. I was trying to have a conversation with some one I agreed with. The point of this interview was not to satisfy the opponents, I went into this with the hopes of giving people a chance to have the actual words from the Senator be read. What is a beautiful side affect, is that the opponents semm to be even more frenzied now. How dare I allow the Senator speak her mind, and not constantly bring up a bunch of useless crap that has nothing to do with the facts at hand.
Those facts, that this amendment will pass with a whopping 68% or more if the few DFL Senators are willing to give the voters a chance.
Way too many mainstream media don’t do beyond press release journalism. I call this the James Guckert School of Journalism.
I never said I was a journalist. I am a blogger there is a difference. Do you consider yourself a journalist?
If you want to go into hack reporters, I’d love to. But, again, that will do nothing to solve this dispute, so let’s stay focussed.
Asnswer this Eva, is a good journalist one that only asks questions that make some one you oppose look foolish? Do they have to take a side on an issue, becuase if they were a good ‘journalist’ they wouldn’t? Do they have to oppose the person they are questioning in order to be credible?
It appears to me, that your problem with my interview with the Senator, is that I ddidn’t get her to say what you wanted to hear. I don’t think that is what interviews are for, sorry to burst your bubble.
“don’t trap her in a room, and when she is having a townhall meeting, don’t interupt it with your own views when you don’t live there.”
Respectfully, I agree, except that Michele was not trapped anywhere at the Scandia meeting, which I assume is what you were referring to. Her allegation that she was “held agains her will” is a lie. I was a witness and that is a flat out lie. And, contrary to her other allegation, the only people at that meeting who weren’t area residents were the two shills planted in the audience by the Senator and Rep. Vandeveer. Michele is not an expert on who lives in the Scandia area. She had no basis for that assertion. It would be valid for her to say, “we surveyed the room and folks said they were from Scandia, but I don’t know if that is true or not.” That would be valid. But she didn’t say that. She lied again. We had an election judge at the meeting. He confirms that the only folks in attendance who were not from the area (other than the senator and representative) were the two who came and left with Bachmann and Vandeveer.
“Her allegation that she was “held agains her will†is a lie. I was a witness and that is a flat out lie.”
Finally, an actual eye witness!
Hey Webster, are you the “retired nun” or the “petite little elf” bathroom barger?
What exactly, was said in that bathroom?
Re: the non-handshake.
I’m the guy on the other end…
My hand was not dirty. In fact, I had just eaten lunch and washed my hands after lunch. I even had a shower that morning just like I do every day. I shaved and brushed my teeth too. I was dressed in casual business attire in a typical fashion that one would commonly expect for a meeting with a Senator. I don’t have a contagious disease or any other disease for that matter. Actually, I have high cholesterol, is that a disease? There were no questionable motives… not on my part anyway. However, an easy argument could be made for the Senators motives.
In short, Michele Bachmann was RUDE, and not only that it was and is my opinion she LIED to me. She said, “My husband has pneumonia and I don’t want to catch anything.” If that’s true and she refused to shake my hand because she didn’t want to “catch anything”, then you tell me, why did she shake other hands and hug others moments after the meeting?
Hey phred,
If you are the non-descript individual you represent yourself to be, by what measure do you decide that the Senator picked you out, of all others, for rude treatment?
According to all moonbat accounts everyone at that meeting was anti-Bachmann and had gone to that meeting for the expressed purpose of making that point known to her.
And now according to you, she was having a group hug after the meeting.
Pardon me for noticing…something smells fishy here.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to ya Fred. I was at the marriage rally. Yep, I got more photos, some are up, more to come.
I have no way to confirm or deny your statements. Whether or not she did that to you still means nothing. I get very cold treatment from Sen. Betzold and Rep. Bernardy, they in fact asked me to stop asking questions at my townhall meeting and let the others have a chance. And do you know what I did? Exactly that. I did not use that as cannon fodder or rhetoric. I sat and listened to the other people. From what I’ve heard, the people at “the scandia event” did exactly the opposite.
Polite people receive polite behavior. Just a thought.
Swiftee:
You’re very good at making assumptions, but you are wrong in this case. Clearly, you’ve taken what I said out of context and added your spin. But that’s fine, if you have readers to impress feel free. BTW, is your last name Swift? If so, we may know eachother.
Oh, do you like the smell of fish? I don’t, so why don’t you ask a ‘real’ question and make it a little less fishy?
Fred
triple-a:
“Polite people receive polite behavior. Just a thought.”
I totally agree. But, apparently some people have a different definition of polite.
Fred
Let me see if I can be a real journalist here.
So Mr, Fred, you apparantly had a little bit of a run in with Senator Bachmann. What exactly happened?
Wow, she refused to shake your hand. Can you talk me through the entire thing? How did it start? Did you walk up and stick out your hand? Was she doing the pope like rope line where she was shaking hands as she came in? How did you greet her when you came face to face? Did you identify yourself? After she refused to shake your hand, what exactly did she say? Were there any other people that could corraborate your story? Did any one get a picture of the event? Were you affiliated with the group that published the event and the Senator’s schedule for the day, in order to get her opponents there?
How’s that for a start Fred?
I’m getting better at this interview thing I guess.
Swiftee – Fred was at a different meeting with Bachmann – not the Scandia meeting. Fred was at a constituent meeting during the gay rights rally at the capitol. You are confusing Bachmann’s rudeness in refusing to shake the hand of a constituent with BathroomGate.
Triple A asks:
Asnswer this Eva, is a good journalist one that only asks questions that make some one you oppose look foolish? Do they have to take a side on an issue, becuase if they were a good ‘journalist’ they wouldn’t? Do they have to oppose the person they are questioning in order to be credible?
EY: A good journalist does fact checking, and also asks follow up questions to get beyond the original question. Politicians – and not just Bachmann – tend to spin on the first answer. It generally takes several followup questions to get to the real meat of the issue.
Triple A:
I have no way to confirm or deny your statements. Whether or not she did that to you still means nothing. I get very cold treatment from Sen. Betzold and Rep. Bernardy, they in fact asked me to stop asking questions at my townhall meeting and let the others have a chance. And do you know what I did? Exactly that. I did not use that as cannon fodder or rhetoric. I sat and listened to the other people. From what I’ve heard, the people at “the scandia event†did exactly the opposite.
EY: That’s quite different that refusing to shake the hand of a constituent. If there were multiple constituents at the meeting, it was not rude for your Senator and Representative to try to make sure everyone had a chance to speak.
Fine, so I’ll ask again:
What Fred, in your opinion was the reason that the Senator declined to shake your hand? What made her single you out?
Clear enough for you? Good, now take a stab at telling the facts and avoid any temptation to engage in “lies” of omission.
Or drop it and concede it all happened in your head, your call.
Fred?
Fred?
*crickets*
Thought so.
I think his talking points ran out.
Fred explained what happened – and the explanation stands for itself. My question is why not ask Michele Bachmann for the reason she didn’t shake Fred’s hand.
Why not ask Sen. Betzold why he told me to shut up? I asked 6 to 7 questions, and all of them were respectrul. They were legitimate questions. In fact they were welcomed questions by some in the room. Did I feel stiffled? Yes. Did I cry that some one wasn’t nice to me and set out on a public witch hunt for answers? NO.
Fred said this on Dump Bachmann:
It’s funny, After visiting Residual Forces blog I responded to triple_a and swiftee regarding the non-handshake and they follow up with further questions. However, at the same time they’ve banned me from posting an answer. Politics at it’s best!
Apparently they chose to ignore me and pretend it didn’t happen rather then make an attempt to understand it.
EY: It’s hard for Fred to respond to your questions on this blog, when you ban him from the blog.
Did Betzold say the words “shut up” in a group meeting? I thought he just wanted to allow other constituents to ask questions rather than let you “hog the show”.
I never banned anyone. I had to install spam controls, I got 40 comments and trackbacks in 2 hours. Itmay have errored in not allowing him, and I will check on that. It as not and is not intended. As of this point, I welcome all commenters. (Until a time where the comment content crosses over my sensitivity. As long as they are constructive comments, they are welcome. I believe that debate is the only way that problems can be solved. If I can’t fix the glitch, I have a online comment form that he can use, and I will add it to the comments. I am an equal opportunity comment blog.
I think its was Rep. bernardy who said why don’t I let some one else ask a question. Sen. Betzold followed by agreeing. But they didn’t have a problem letting the school teacher (who admitted that she was from outside the district) from a 3 to 5 minute tyraid on how horrible Bush and NCLB was, and that it is going to kill our children. But when I ask a gentleman who said we needed to raise license taxes on gasguzzlers whether he would be willing to consider an exemption for businesses, since pick-ups fall under that category, and his plumber would have to raise his rates in order to make up for the increased regulation? The man agreed with me, and he asked me a question. that’s where I was cut off. I was one of 3 or 4 people that were political opponents who came to that meeting. The crowd was obviously stacked with DFLers. I just wanted to let the Sen., Rep. and audience know that there are other ways than to raise taxes.
Hopefully you fix the problem then. By the way, you might be interested to hear Dale Carpenter and Glen Stanton debate the issue of gay marriage.
http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/gay_marriage_debate__c_2004_maclaurin_institute.mp3
It should be working. Fred is more than welcome to comment. if he still can’t have him use the comment form at the top of my main page.
As to the debate, I only listened to the intro. Its Saturday night and I’ve got better things to do. As to the intro of it, it doesn’t deeply divide our country. A very small part is POed that they are considered different.
An example of something that divides the nation would be the whole red and blue state deal, the relevance of the UN, whether France is our friend or enemy. Those are divisive issues. The idea of protecting marriage is a uniting force. It is only divisive from the point of view of the small minority. An overwhelming percentage of America wants to protect marriage, a very small few want our definition of marriage changed.
Amending the constitution to marginalize a group of people is a very divisive issue, and it’s divisive to both Democrats and Republicans.
Check out the Lawfully Wedded site:
http://www.lawfullywedded.com
This is run by Chuck Muth – a card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy, but who opposes federal and state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.
[...] d orders from some folks. To me this is bullying. The comments on my posts Marriage Rally My Skills be Questioned and my Bachmann interview 1,2,3,4 have been f [...]