The American Spectator

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.10.11 @ 2:54PM

"Hypocrisy is asserting a standard for everyone else, and then engaging in behavior contrary to that standard oneself. There is nothing hypocritical about maintaining that the stimulus shouldn't have passed, or that the EPA should be abolished, and then making use of stimulus or EPA funds."

No, Mr Lawler, you are completely wrong. Either you believe that the EPA shouldn't exist and the stimulus shouldn't have been passed, and that they are wasteful - and therefore, you do NOT benefit from them financially, or you don't denounce them and don't milk them.

BTW, this was NOT the first occassion that Bachmann milked pork dollars. She has frequently requested pork projects for her district as Congresswoman, and when the House GOP adopted a pork moratorium, she fought to exclude transportation spending from it. She also continues to milk farm subsidies on behalf of her long-dead father in law to maintain the farm that he owned before he died. So, like many other conservative politicians (including Ron Paul and Sarah Palin), Bachmann opposes Big Government spending... except when she doesn't. She opposes Big Government spending and programs... except those that benefit her district or state. Her district and her entire state (not to mention her farm) benefit nicely from the DC gravy train.

Bachmann is a phony fiscal conservative. I hope this information will be widely spread in Iowa before Feb. 6th, 2012.

Lesser Weevil| 8.10.11 @ 3:13PM

It's a fine line. I remember some years ago, a National Review contributor, who had evidently grown old and poor, wrote a letter to William F. Buckley saying that he was adamantly opposed to Social Security and had refused the benefits, but with poverty pressing down on him, he was beginning to waver. Buckley's advice: take the money. A government that seizes your money and then doles it out again is pernicious, but until you can change the system, you have to accept reality. Just as a thought experiment, what would happen if all of the conservatives in the US renounced any form of government benefits? The liberals would rejoice, as all of that freed-up cash could be used for further mischief. I do agree with you that if Bachmann is slyly working to perpetuate these subsidies (as opposed to merely accepting them), that would be unconscionable.

Dixie Pixie| 8.10.11 @ 4:12PM

OK.... I will bite.
Which is the greater offense against the people who elected her to office?

Option One....Take the EPA money and be their supporter thus giving the appearance if not the reality of being their bought and payed tool.

Option Two....Take the money and work for the elimination of the EPA and its works thus being traitorous to the concept that money buys loyalty.

Option Three....Do not take the money and not only deprive her citizens of the use of that money but allow the EPA to use that money far more effectively in the achievement of their goals.

Personally I say take the money and shaft the EPA with their own money and call it rough conservative justice.

Mimi| 8.11.11 @ 7:14AM

Heh Dixie.....Did you ever think of writing a BOOK? You could title it ...
THE WISDOM OF DIXIE a sure best- seller!

Dixie Pixie| 8.11.11 @ 9:35AM

Greeting Mimi
It is always good to hear from you especially when bringing such wonderful rhetorical flowers.

No I have not thought about writing a book.
I will leave that to Ken.

Besides what Yankee would buy a book on Southern Wisdom?
Can you imagine what the New York Times Book Review would look like?
Granted, ticking off the NYT is a better reason than most for writing a book.
I just don't think I am that wonderful a writer to go commercial.

What happen to “Booger” anyway?
His “Letters from Bahney Fwank” were a blast.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 5:58PM

Do Your Homework.

Dr. Ron Paul,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Dixie Pixie| 8.10.11 @ 11:54PM

Clint....It is a simple dual binary concept.
Binary One...Either take the EPA money or not.
Binary Two...Support the EPA or not.
Pick one of four options.

I stated my option, what is yours?

Clint| 8.11.11 @ 12:12PM

On board with ending the EPA are Dr. Ron Paul & Clint.

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.

Rise Up.

Dai Alanye| 8.10.11 @ 7:49PM

It is NOT hypocrisy. Not if one owns a dictionary, at least.

There is a question of political judgment, though. As with Ron Paul's playing both sides--that is, loading the budget with earmarks, then voting against it--you lose a lot of the strength of your argument.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 8:17PM

Then You Don't Understand Dr.Ron Paul's Principled Constitutional Stand.

Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.
" Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.

Stand & Fight.

Solo| 8.10.11 @ 2:56PM

Yeah...she could say that. But then...so could every democrat.

Sparky| 8.10.11 @ 3:47PM

"Hypocrisy is asserting a standard for everyone else, and then engaging in behavior contrary to that standard oneself." Your definition is incorrect. Hypocrisy is professing beliefs that one does not actually hold; it is a form of insincerity. For example, Rev. Ted Haggard preached against homosexual acts, then engaged in them. However, I doubt very much that he was a hypocrite. I suspect that he truly believed that engaging in homosexual acts was sinful, but found the attraction of the sin to be more powerful than his will to resist that attraction. In one way or another, we all share this failing. It isn't hypocrisy; it is weakness.

Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 3:59PM

Ok, so she's no worse than Ron Paul on this.

Clint| 8.10.11 @ 6:06PM

Do Your Homework.

Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.

"REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS:

But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Wayne | 8.10.11 @ 4:09PM

The left loves to use the term hypocrisy for a reason. Here is how it works. If you are conservative you are required to only PAY for the federal programs you don't like. If you RECEIVE any benefit then you a hypocrite.

I have been against Medicare since I was in college in the late '60s. But to a liberal I am a hypocrite when I am 65 and receiving the benefit I had to pay for for 45 years.

We are supposed have a big KICK ME sign on our backs. Just take from us for you government programs, then tell us we are a hypocrite if we get a benefit.

The GOP has fallen prey to this nonsense far too long. I have no problem with Bachman having received some benefits for his district - NONE. The key is she willing to kill the economy and freedom killing programs and departments of the federal government. I think she is.

JP| 8.10.11 @ 4:12PM

All Bachman has to do is ask her Progressive detractors how many tax accountants have they on retainer. Do any of them use the many loopholes Congress writes. How many take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction? How many deduct for medical expenses?

All of these deductions "cost" the federal government over hundreds of billions of dollars.

Oldefarte| 8.10.11 @ 4:45PM

Shazam, doesn't Bachmann and her husband own NURSING HOMES? Geewillikers, don't nursing homes provide medical/housing to the poor/indigent? Wow, gadzooks, what hypocrites the Democratic Party are, huh??????

carlito| 8.10.11 @ 5:44PM

So, if the Congress passes an appropriation to the states to fund abortions, Bachmann is therefore obligated to ensure that the abortion money is distributed in an efficient manner in Minnesota?

Only if [like you], one is hypocritical about hypocrisy.

Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 11:42AM

Being in FAVOR of governmental providing of abortions in order to prevent the typical/historical physical/sexual abuse/death of numerous children born to indigent morons who have neither the financial means nor the moralistic desire to care for their children, I am neither a HYPOCRITE nor a STUPID MORON WHO ASININELY BELIEVES THAT ABORTION PREVENTION BY STUPIDS WILL PREVENT A LIFETIME OF CHILD ABUSE!!!!!

Regular Ron| 8.10.11 @ 7:02PM

Wow. I expect this kind of bias from the Weekly Standard or NRO. But not here.

Besides Antle, this place is hard to read.

Paul McGrath| 8.10.11 @ 10:53PM

All of this is irrelevant. As much as I respect her, Bachmann is not going to beat Obama. Nor is Palin. Nor is Paul. And definitely not Romney. It's going to have to be Perry, warts and all, or Christie, warts and all. Nobody else matters.

Ryan| 8.11.11 @ 9:34AM

It's a lose-lose scenario, honestly. We need to stop treating both sides as positives. They're both negatives.

The problem with earmarks is that they are targeted government spending. Dropping earmarks, however, doesn't drop the spending. Government size and waste isn't necessarily reduced by reducing earmarks, because it's not like my taxes are reduced or the deficit is reduced when that money is in DC already.

It's a step, though, toward cutting the budget.

Micheal Morgan| 8.11.11 @ 11:10AM

Words are neither singular or static. They frequently have multiple difinitions in a modern dictionary. And they have changed in meaning (for example gay -used to mean currently happy, now means homosexual activist).

Micheal Morgan| 8.11.11 @ 11:22AM

One of the true hallmarks of conservative theory is local control. Earmarks is central control, exactly what we are fighting against. The Federal budget should be allocated to approved programs and projects then let the heads of those projects dole them out as needed. So much Government waste has been caused by having too little of one color of money and too much of a different color of money. Let there be one color , project color, and everything a project needs is funded from project color funds. Yes and arrest any project head that uses project funds for personal use to keep Government honest.

John Lofton| 8.11.11 @ 1:21PM

Would it be hypocritical for Bachmann to be against robbing banks but take money she knew was from a bank robbery and spend it "efficiently?" Of course that would be hypocritical. Lawler's attempted defense of Bachmann is ridiculous.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican
Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com