That's right. Michele Bachmann eats her own homework. Don't blame the dog.
Chris Matthews, true enough did not read her any Miranda rights, " ... You have the right to remain silent, the right to have counsel present, and anything you say may be used against you ... ".
Miranda rights were Warren Court stuff, and Michele probably thinks they and their opinions are anti-American. Activist judges instead of reactionary ones. So, with no warnings from Matthews, she cannot complain based on ideology, and really, how much a trap is it to allow her to bloviate about her beliefs, opinions and ideology?
Jason Lewis "traps" her that way all the time on his right wing talk radio for idiots show. And she thinks he's kind of cute.
She just said what she's often said, more or less, to her core constituency without local press being attentive enough, or for reasons I am not privy to being unmotivated to ever run her to ground for being who she really is.
And now, she revises and extends her remarks.
First, credit Blue Man for posting this link, there is now this explanation online from PiPress and Politico, by Bachmann, about imagined traps and distortions:
By Rep. Michele Bachmann
Last Friday, all the liberal special interests from California to Vermont found a new outlet for their energy, their frustrations and their money. That would be in defeating me.
In a matter of 48 hours after I participated in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball," more than $640,000 from donors across the country flooded into my opponent's campaign. Almost to a one, these are people who never would have considered voting for me if they lived in Minnesota. In fact, most of them have probably never voted for a Republican. These are strong supporters of Barack Obama who want to see more liberal policies enacted in Washington.
These are not people who know anything about my policy views. They don't know anything about my record of reaching across the aisle on issues ranging from support for small business to foster care improvements, an issue near and dear to my heart as a former foster mother to 23 troubled teens.
Or about my record of standing up to my own party when the occasion calls for it — such as opposing the $700 billion Wall Street bailout — and standing up to members of the other party when they try to push through tax hikes or limit personal liberty.
These are not even people who know anything about my opponent or his positions on the issues —
They have been riled up by a spin machine in serious overdrive as we come down the homestretch to Election Day.
Despite the way the blogs and the Democratic Party are spinning it, I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama's patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress.
What I did was ask legitimate questions that Minnesotans have been asking me: What does Barack Obama mean by change?
I make a statement in an interview. Chris Matthews distorts it — as he is paid so well to do. The liberal blogs contort it even more. The speaker of the House and other Democrat leaders utter absolute lies about what was said in the interview. Then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee picks it up and runs with it, buying $1 million for negative ads so that they don't have to talk about the issues.
And it's the issues that the voters in Minnesota's 6th District want to talk about.
The Democrats don't want to talk about the pocketbook issues that are really on the minds of Minnesotans. Those voters were concerned about how much it cost to fill their tank with gas this summer, but that pales in comparison to how much it might cost to heat their homes this winter.
They want to know how they're going to pay their mortgage and their grocery bills. Again, my record and my opponent's are clearly different when it comes to the family budget.
But when you can't win on the issues, you steal the election with a couple of lies and $1 million worth of mud. And the media reports and Democrat responses to my interview on "Hardball" have been echoing the outright lies of the liberal blogs.
That is an excerpt, please read the entire item. I think she's only digging the hole deeper instead of digging out. However, you read, you reflect and form your opinions, and if in the Sixth District, then you vote based on your interpretations, not mine.
I am curious why she did not say, "echoing the outright lies of the anti-American liberal blogs," but she has reasons, I am sure, when making her choices of words.
My view is that ego and hubris, alone, made her go on national TV and blow her reelection. Nothing else did. It is false to say everyone but her were responsible for her being caught this time speaking her mind nationwide, not on her favored cozy-friendly right wing hate radio where she is used to speaking her mind to her core constituency.
Speaking her mind, such as it is. It is the exact precise YouTube posting of exactly what she did say that has generated reaction and support for Elwyn Tinklenberg. Bachmann is correct in saying the money was contributed without knowing much of who Elwyn Tinklenberg is. Just knowing he is the other major party's candidate running against Bachmann has caused the reaction. In effect, her words, on video and not any distortion of her words, is what now is working to her extreme disadvantage. And what she'd want to reinvent by afterthought. She spoke her mind, it was seen, as she spoke, undistorted, and there was reaction to that and that alone.
However, what to me rings most hollow and false in that PiPress-Politico "revised and extended" version of things, is that if it's the issues she really thinks people want to hear about, then isn't that precisely what her response to Matthews should have been - "Let's not get into name calling or neo-McCarthyism concerns, let's stick to the issues. That's what people in my district want to hear about. That's what people nationwide should be basing their voting on."
Bravo Michele, had you said that. There's no trap to that. If it's a sincere belief she holds and not an after-the-fact sophistic device being used now to distort real truth, it is not only what she should have said but what she'd have been expected to say.
Instead - willingly given answers in a quite different direction at the time she first spoke makes this ex post facto posturing look false, contrived, and insincere. (Three words Bachmann critics used often in the past.)
____________
The one key qualification I would reemphasize, and it is a major one, all of the nationwide cash for Tinklenberg is anti-Bachmann reaction money, not based on merit, if any, Elwyn Tinklenberg actually might offer.
_______UPDATE________
In the PiPress-Politico item, I omitted the opening explanatory blurb:
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said on MSNBC's "Hardball" Friday that Barack Obama may have "anti-American views" and the media should conduct a "penetrating exposé" to determine whether members of Congress are "pro-America or anti-America." Politico asked Bachmann what she meant. Here is her reply: [... see above extended excerpt]
Isn't it wonderful how she responds to the elements of that question? Especially so, since she could have digressed into name-calling, revisionism, fact-shaving, and excuse making.
Again, read the entire new item if you feel my excerpting might misrepresent things, view the "Hardball" online video, here or here, or read the transcript, here; then read Bachmann's item again and form your views based on that half-hour or so of study. I am certain that if there is more to the "Hardball" exchange that Bachmann feels is exculpatory or explanatory, she would post a video and link on her campaign website. I have not looked there. You might. Finally, see here, here, here and here, for related content.
Of the reported situations, Bachmann's might be the one with the most blowback, in that it's allowed her DFL challenger to get tons of money and recognition he had been wholly unable to raise based on his own appeal and merit. You don't see John Kline shooting his mouth off stupidly, and Bachmann should simply have emulated her GOP Congressional mentor and soulmate again this time, and kept the sock in her mouth while leaving Tinklenberg to the normal consequences of his own ineffective campaign.
________FURTHER UPDATE________
Has any reader seen on the web whether Gary Laidig has made any comment about the situation? I expect it would be hard to get him to stop laughing long enough to say much. Leaving a comment if anyone knows would be appreciated.
________ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS_______
Bachmann seems to be hanging tight with criticizing Obama, whom she is not running against, where one would expect her to criticize Tinklenberg, who is her DFL opponent. Is "against America" different from "anti-American"?
Text highlighting, and excerpting is done of Fox and Hugh Hewitt follow-up Bachmann commentary; see here and here.
If anyone suggests the ThinkProgress links present excerpting that is taking things out of context to distort the gist of a real retraction, apology, or expansion of Hardball opinions Bachmann expressed, please in a comment give links or detail.