No matter what supposed flaws she has, Bachmann would be light years better than that idiot man-child Barak Hussein Obama who we have now. You guys keep keep trying to find something, anything ... John Wayne versus John Wayne Gacy ... quick - off with her head!

"But it was John Wayne Gacy, the "Killer Clown" who raped and murdered 33 teenage boys in the 1970s and who was put to death in 1994"

Just so the press reports all the facts: that would be the same John Wayne Gacy who was a Democratic Party precinct captain at the time, and was famously photographed with Rosalyn Carter just months before he was arrested for his crimes.

Not surprising that Ms. Bachman didn't have as much interest in him as those "progressives" who share his politics and values.

John - if Bachmann has real "flaws" they pale in comparison to the idiot messiah-child BO. He is nothing but flaws.

It's kind of hard to know what Obama's flaws really are when Bachmann continues to lie about his record. Here's another one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/27/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-barack-obama-has-released-al/

Here's another of her many lies about Obama's policies:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-there-has-been-just-one-ne/

Let's stop with the name-calling and focus on the issues, please.

Issues? Okay, how about President Man-Child's policy calling for a 9.1% unemployment rate? Great policy! I'll take Bush's 5-6% unemployment rate any day. Just like FDR, all BO has done is prolong the recession.

Renee, It's kinda hard to know about BO's flaws when the so-called "objective media" did nothing before the election to vet the guy because they were afraid of being called racists. If you can't criticize BO like you would any other President, doesn't that make him less than a man?

Now BO has a record, and every time the Republican candidates are criticized for the usual small, petty personal issues the media always focus on, they need to turn the argument right around and hammer and hammer and hammer BO's terrible, terrible record. He has no knowledge of American economics, commerce or history, and he won't release his college transcripts. I truly feel sorry for him.

Why don't you list some of the flaws instead of name calling? You'd have more credibility if you could discuss the issues and show data to support your arguments.

Renee, if job loss has truly turned around, why is the unemployment still above 9%? That's right, I forgot, only Democrats can have a "jobless" recovery? What a joke! If the guys on SLN were'nt such cowards, they'd really be going after this administration with some really good, well directed satire. But alas, their messiah was in fact a false prophet!

Renee - here's all the data anyone needs - 9.1% unemployment - 9.1% unemployment - 9.1% unemployment - would you like me to repeat? Now, go spin that for awhile!

Every one should read the following article: "President Quixote's Legacy: Confused,
Ill-Educated and Not Too Bright" in American Thinker, by Monty Pelerin

It's on www.lucianne.com right now.

Here's an interesting section: The number of Obama supporters seems inversely related to his time in office. Many wonder what happened to "The One We Are Waiting For." Obama assumed office in difficult economic times. After a couple of years of excuses -- which included "the problems were worse than we knew" and the generic, all-purpose "it's Bush's fault" -- Obama now owns the original problems and new ones of his own doing. An incomplete report card on his "accomplishments" would include the following: the economy worsened discretionary military efforts ("kinetic" if you prefer) increased

The GOP needs a better choice then Michelle " I've done nothing for the 6th district" Bachmann.
She only will divide us more, and solve nothing.

"the problems were worse than we knew"

This is actually true. We nearly had global financial collapse (remember Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers -- the worst bank failures since Great Depression?).

We could install a Republican president today and it wouldn't matter. The fallout from this will go on for the next 10-20 years -- doesn't matter who is in office. We are experiencing structural dislocations in the economy, much like what happened at the dawn of the industrial revolution.

But go ahead and continue the rants about Obama if it makes you feel better.

Renee advised me that I "react with vitriol and emotion, and emotional arguments won't work with thinking people." Well what happened in 2008? You so-called "thinking people" elected a man who was all style and no/no substance.

Stimulus!? Stimulus!? FDR did the same and only prolonged the great depression! Henry Morganthau Jr, FDR's close friend who served as his Treasury Secretary, lamented in 1940 in his personal diary, that despite all the spending, it did nothing to improve the economy. All a "stimulus" does is take money from the productive side of the economy and devote it to the unproductive side of the economy. Too bad the DEMONCRATS are so focused on elusive "equality" of outcomes, because a sharp but prolonged drop in the U.S. corporate tax, the capital gains taxes and personal income taxes - accompanied by significant budget cuts - would raise tremendous revenues for the government and would bring us out miserable economic situation.

Dems were responsible for the housing/banking crisis of 2008. Read the book "Reckless Endangerment" by a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times business correspondent. By the way, where were all the so-called regulators - such as Barney "Uranus" Frank who was the head of the House Financial Affairs Committee at the time? Where is that Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson who earned millions in corrupt profits by playing up the bad loans necessary for "affordable housing?" They - in addition to Bill "America's first black president" Clinton - were all Democrat operatives working Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for personal profit as they exploited the American middle class ideal of "affordable housing." Where is that Bill Clinton who started the ball of "affordable housing" with the reinvigoration of Carter's Community Reinvestment Act in 1994? Where is that Angelo Mozillo who lent BO - and other corrupt Dem congressmen and senators - the money to buy their houses via extravagant terms?

"FDR did the same and only prolonged the great depression!"

He saved many from starvation. Literally. People were starving.
The "stimulus" was a moral imperative. Men in the CCC sent their pay home
so their families could eat. It was a program that built infrastructure AND saved lives.

I read a fascinating book recently (and damn if I can't remember the title, I got it
at the Woodbury Public Library); it included letters from Minnesotans to
the governor during the Great Depression. The letters would make you cry. Hundreds wrote
to beg for coats and shoes so they could get through the winter. They asked for food for
their children, because they had none.

Maybe the FDR "stimulus" took money from the productive side and devoted it to the unproductive side.
Maybe he should have let those people die. We don't know what our nation was facing because we weren't there. All we have to go on are the stories and letters. My parents lived through the depression, and my mother in particular, saw starving schoolmates.

A budget reflects our morals and priorities, and our level of civilization.

Yes, Renee, it's our duty to take good care of those who really need and deserve our help. I have no problem with that whatsoever; I give to charities and I buy food for panhandlers instead of giving them cash. DO YOU? Or, do you just believe leftist ideology is sufficient??
Both FDR and BO used so-called stimulus funds for partisan political purposes; BO for his union cronies; FDR for areas in the country where he needed more political support and patronage. The southern black sharecroppers, for example, suffered immeasurably from FDR's lack of real assistance. Many other areas of the south suffered as well. He also despised business - just like BO - because he failed at it several times in his 20s and 30s.
Buzz is correct: the worst economic situation we've faced since the great depression was the Carter economy of 1979-80 when we had double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, and double-digit interest rates. We were also rationing gasoline, and there were lines to buy gas. We could have come out of this recession a year or two ago if not for BO's policies.---Honestly, he seems like a nice family man. But he's in over his head and his policies have delayed a return to economic growth and prosperity. The left believes the pie for all is only one size and that if someone earns more, it's bad for everyone else. Truth is - based on strong historical economic performance - we have always and will again continue to grow the pie for the benefit of all.

Buzzwindrip - I'm curious about why you say we need another Truman or Reagan at this point in history? I wasn't alive for Truman and I wasn't politically interested when Reagan was president. What qualities do you attribute to Reagan and Truman that would be valuable now?

I know people who don't feel Reagan or Truman were good presidents will disagree with most/all of what you say, but I've not heard Reagan and Truman put together as ideals.

Rachel,

Bachmann has made gross errors in her prepared speeches (prepared in advance). These could be fact checked by staff, but she either skips this step, or she is intentionally lying/misleading with her statements.

Many of the gaffes from prepared-in-advance speeches are mentioned in this article:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/124643578.html

Rachel,

How did I misread your point? Since the topic is Michele Bachmann as a candidate, I think pointing out her assets and deficits is fodder for discussion here. She has a little problem with truthiness. That's well established fact. For some people it matters -- for others, not so much.

I'm not attacking you, as you have a right to your opinion. I'm simply showing the other side of the argument. I understand that some people might want the forum to be pro-Bachmann all the time, but how boring would that be?

I think Bachmann is a lovely person, quite beautiful in fact. But, like everyone else, she has her flaws. Whether you think those flaws are irrelevant to serving as POTUS is up to you to decide.

" I would encourage you to post positive comments in response to these articles"

Not everyone will agree, and I'd like to see both sides here in this forum. Healthy debate should be encouraged, and in fact I think Bachmann herself would encourage it (both sides of the debate), because it is part of the democratic process. In fact, she spends a lot of time criticizing Obama -- if she were only allowed to express positive comments it wouldn't be much of a horse race, would it?

Rachel, are you, by chance, Rachel Horn, Bachmann's hired spokesperson?

Earlier I asked if this daily column was paid content (paid for by the Bachmann campaign). The editor did not answer my question. Perhaps you know?

Thanks.

Correct, Renee. Absolutely NO funding comes into Patch, period, for this column. Not from Bachmann's campaign or her supporters. This was my idea to start this column and Nick was my first choice of freelancers to pen (type) it. My guess is that Nick will include that and Tom Petty's cease-and-desist of usage of "American Girl." I don't know the content of his piece until he turns it in, but my guess is these two things are on his radar.

Please people, stop the jabber and ask Michele "What are your accomplishments to date, for your time in office, that have a direct benefit to us as your constituents? Please tell us specifically what legislation you have enacted that is helping us today?" Ask her these questions, and when she answers check the facts. She has held no leadership position in congress . . . none and has no significant legislation to hang her hat on. Most if not all of her fundraising can be shown to benefit herself, it got her to where she is now with very little benefit coming back to the people. Follow her actions and the money, not just her words.

I don't have time to respond to every comment (I have a job to do), but I do want to point out differences between 1979-80 recession and the present situation. I find this comparison most interesting and stimulating.

1. The income differential had not broken the 15% to the top 1% level in the 80 - 82 dip.
We never recovered from 2001 due to the income differential remaining over 15% (21 to 23%).

A big problem in this country is the loss of the middle class, and wide gap between rich and the rest, and that is an ongoing problem (like 1929).

2. Rate of growth of GDP/cap has continuously declined since 1980. Going into this recession we were at less of a position than 1980/capita for everything but debt.

3. Personal income has been below personal consumption for 99% since 1996. We began this "recession" in a deeper hole than 2001, which was, in turn, much deeper than 1980. Also, the blue collar path to middle class we had no longer exists, nor the retail path to middle class we had in 1980.

4. Housing collapse (which was not a trait of 1979-80 recession) has wiped out over a trillion dollars in household wealth; foreclosures continue and housing sector will not see a turn around for several years.

I don't know about the rest of you, but most people I know are not partying like it's 1929. Most are struggling more like it's 1933.

A couple more news items:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/06/poligraph_bachm_6.shtml?refid=0

http://minnesotaindependent.com/82532/marcus-bachmann-donated-to-campaign-for-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage

http://www.sctimes.com/article/20110629/OPINION/106290002/1006/Opinion

If Rachel H is Rachel Horn, Bachmann's paid "outreach coordinator," there needs to be full disclosure. If not, Rachel and others who think Bachmann isn't repeating calculated lies for her own gain (very Christian of her, by the way) should read this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/bachmanns-waterloo/

One more fact checking piece -- Bachmann's Waterloo:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/bachmanns-waterloo/

Okay, Scott, I did my homework. Turns out that if the New York Times chooses to publish your letter, they will contact you and ask you, among other things, "Do you have a connection to the subject you're writing about?" because "readers should be able to judge your credibility and motivation." Maybe the Patch should adopt the same guidelines if it hopes to be a reputable source of news in the Valley. And I couldn't be Obama's chauffer . . . I'm not a Democrat. I'm just interested in keeping Rep. Bachmann's finger far, far away from our nuclear arsenal.

As a former journalist, I guess I come down on the side of journalistic integrity vs. a rousing debate waged by anonymous participants. The Patch needs to decide if it's going to adhere to journalistic principles -- seek truth and provide a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues -- or if it's going to be just another internet message board where people spew vitriol and hide behind their anonymity. If you stand by your opinion, why not put your name next to it?

Each side of the commenter discussion is duly noted. For the record, I encourage users to post under their first and last names. This is something I am currently having conversations about with a few other Patch editors.

I for one, will always post my name with my opinion. If you are not willing to stand up for your beliefs, if you hide in anonymity, then who are you? Integrity is everything.