I am not questioning Michele Bachmann’s integrity. But I want to make it clear that the lit piece she is distributing doesn’t correctly portray the facts.

In her clarification, Bachmann changes goalposts from her lit piece. In the lit piece, she refers to 2000-4, and specifically mentions the 2001, 2, 3, and 4 scorecards. Phil’s lifetime score goes back to 1997, and I can assure you that Krinkie could give an explanation for each vote he took.

By focusing on the scores, especially a 1 point differential, Bachmann opens herself up to this kind of criticism. By saying she outperformed Krinkie in those years, she begged people to check the facts.

If instead she had simply argued that she was as fiscally conservative as Krinkie, and her scores show that they are nearly indistinguishable, there would have been little grounds to criticize her. It would be nitpicking. But as the lit piece invited nitpicking by claiming that a 1 point difference in lifetime scores shows she outperformed Krinkie, she invited people to point out that the numbers don’t add up, and invited a discussion of the 2005 score issue.

That was a mistake, and Bachmann would do well to drop the lit piece in my opinion. It is not accurate, and any fair examination of the facts shows that. In no way shape or form did her lit piece suggest that Krinkie and Knoblach’s votes from 1997, 1998, and 1999 were included in those scores. In fact, by referencing on 2001-4 by year, she made it clear that she was comparing the time they were all in the legislature together.

I wish this issue would just go away. I am quite fond of Michele personally.

What would I have to say to make that happen?

Her response posted by the Student for Bachmann rationalizes, but doesn’t justify her leaving the 2005 Taxpayer League record off that lit piece.

[[See for yourself that my lifetime rating through 2004 was 96% and Rep. Krinkie's lifetime score was 95%, the reason I "broke my pledge" as they charge, is because we had one vote to cast on a single bill. That bill presented a choice to either oppose the cigarette tax or support a very good PRO-LIFE bill. I chose life; the life of an unborn child is something that you don't say "No" to. I will ALWAYS defend life from conception to natural death; it is our duty to defend those who cannot defend themselves, no matter the cost.]]

The MCCL doesn’t give Phil Krinkie a break for voting against them - he was rated on this vote - and the pro-life groups and other candidates attacked him for this. Krinkie took responsibility for this vote and took his lumps.

Jeff is correct on one thing - in 2000, Krinkie had a 92% rating. The bill they docked him for was voting in favor of a compromise tax cut. In the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 - Phil Krinkie had a 100% taxpayer’s league rating.

Now, that is a true statement. However, if that is what the Bachmann campaign intended to say by their literature, they were not at all clear on that point. They certainly seemed to say that they were comparing the years 2000-2004, and not lifetime ratings.

If just those years are compared, David Strom’s statement on the TL website is accurate.

(Though, as stated above, it’s understandable Bachmann would not include 2005, as she had a decision to make on whether or not so swallow a poison pill. That she sided with a pro-life issue is not in any way an indication of how she votes on fiscal matters.)

Also, it is true that Krinkie said this in his letter:

“My rating from the Minnesota Taxpayers League for each year from 2000 to 2004 was 100%.”

However, as the Taxpayers League documents show, Krinkie’s rating in 2000 was not 100%, but was, rather, 92%.

I now sit back and await the chorus that Krinkie is a liar, a slimeball, has no integrity, etc…

(Now, I in no way think Krinkie is those things. Just wondering if those who are so venomous towards Bachmann will hold Krinkie to their same standard of truth.)

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/03/reaction-to-krinkie-and-strom-calling.html

Marcus,
In an above-the-board campaign Bachmann would not have drawn first blood in the ugliness. The fact that she is doing it all behind the scenes makes responding a little more difficult. However, since the GOP has been saying that character matters for how many years the need to call Bachmann’s ugliness out into the open is necessary for the sake of the party, the sake of the principles that the party preaches and for the sake of the integrity of our positions when we criticize Clinton, Kennedy, etc.

The 11th Commandment is ONLY a shield to protect the slimeballs of the party. Sorry, I would rather a slimeball lose than to hold my nose and let them win. Character matters, and in Bachmann’s case she is showing more and more how little character she honestly has.

I have no doubt that if she dropped out tomorrow the race would be cleaned up again and focused on facts, issues and truth.