Posted on 06/24/2011 8:57:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Michele Bachmann's efforts in 2007-8 to have Drug Dealer and Money Launderer Frank Vennes pardoned for his 1987 convictions have begun to receive some light scrutiny in the media. Some embarrassing details have emerged, including the fact that, while Bachmann was lobbying hard to secure a pardon for him from President Bush, Vennes himself was engaged in a brand new, massive $3.65 billion ponzi scheme, for which he was recently indicted by a Federal Grand Jury. Worse yet, Vennes and his family had donated money to Bachmann--a lot of money--in the 2006 and 2008 campaign cycles, $27,400 to be exact, making Vennes her largest donor by far. The most charitable thing one can say about this affair is that it showed colossally poor judgment on Bachmann's part. The propinquity of the donations and her efforts to secure a pardon could suggest a darker, even improper, motive, if the pardon efforts were proven to be a quid pro quo for the campaign cash. See the link below if you are interested in any more of the sordid details.
What struck me about the Vennes matter was not that Bachmann exercised poor judgment (which she certainly did) or that her lobbying on behalf of Vennes so soon after his huge donations to her were unethical and created at least the appearance of impropriety (which they certainly have). It was none of those things that I found so egregious, because politicians typically engage in such shenanigans on a daily basis, and Michele Bachmann is nothing if not a typical politician. What really struck me about the whole affair, and has been heretofore overlooked, is the letter Bachmann penned on Congressional stationery to the Pardon Attorney at the United States Department of Justice. By all means, read it and draw your own conclusions:
The specter of the lamestream media baying at the moon and salivating over the prospect of a veritable treasure trove of malapropisms within Sarah Palin's 24,000 emails made me wonder about Bachmann's talents as a wordsmith. To pique my curiosity further, the same lamestream media that was so sure it would find multiple "silver bullets" of incoherence within Palin's emails has pronounced Bachmann not only "coherent" and "disciplined" but downright "articulate." (Meghan Daum, LA Times, 6/23/2011) To their chagrin, Palin's emails turned out to be written more competently than most CEOs, scoring an impressive 8.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test on which Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream Speech was an 8.8 and the Gettysburg Address was a 9.1. Indeed Palin's routine emails were more competently composed, according to this measure, than was Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, which came in at 7.7. And Bachmann? Well, I would love to have the Flesch-Kincaid test applied to her letter to the Pardon Attorney, a high ranking Justice Department official appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. How, I wonder, would it score? Let's take a look at it, piece by piece.
Her third sentence is not only awkward, but also an unsupported non sequitur:
"As a U.S. Representative, I am confident of Mr Vennes' successful rehabilitation and that a pardon will be good for the neediest of society."
How, one might wonder, does her status as a U.S. Representative make her "confident" of Mr. Vennes' rehabilitation? Evidently she intended to remind the Pardon Attorney of her office, fearing that perhaps he had not noticed the letter head. After this bit of gratuitous horn blowing, Bachmann stumbles through the remainder of this awkward sentence in two parts, but without the same, parallel grammatical structure:
"I am confident of...and that"
This grammatical error, known as faulty parallelism, is rather more common among elementary school students than Congressmen, especially those who who constantly bray about their two law degrees and their experience as a "tax attorney for the IRS".
The next sentence, if you can call it that, is at once inane and downright painful to read:
"Granting a pardon to Mr. Vennes should be considered because pardons were intended to restore people to society like Mr. Vennes; people who have demonstrated true reformation and for whom mercy is due because the legal system cannot deliver a morally acceptable result."
The first part of it is an incomplete, circular thought, punctuated with a semicolon. The second part is an incomplete sentence. In between she opines that "mercy is due" when in fact mercy is never "due." If mercy were due, it would be justice, not mercy. And she inexplicably charges that the legal system in Vennes' case "cannot deliver a morally acceptable result." Is there some thought behind such a charge? How is it that the legal system failed to deliver a morally acceptable result? Vennes was convicted on his own guilty plea of crimes for which the government had overwhelming evidence. How was his conviction not a "morally acceptable result?" Anyone who would make such a statement does not understand the meaning of the phrase "morally acceptable result." Her use of the English language is as imprecise as her syntax is mangled.
The next sentence is no better:
"Mr Vennes' application shows he is a just recipient of a pardon"
Wrong again, Michele. He is not the just recipient of a pardon, since he had not yet received it (and, happily, he never did). What you meant to say was that he would be the just recipient of a pardon. Michele Bachmann, let me introduce you to the subjunctive mood. You should have met in the fifth grade, but I suppose it's better to meet late than never!
The letter meanders on, a string of words in search of a coherent thought. At points the Congresswoman waxes profound:
"So why does Mr. Vennes need a pardon if he is so successful? So he can help more people than he does."
She goes on to elaborate on the utility of a pardon for Mr Vennes and how a pardon will free him "to help so many more":
"Mr Vennes still encounters the barriers of his past and especially in the area of finance loan documents."
Indeed, those pesky prior money laundering convictions sure do get in the way of your ability to borrow money from banks for the needy (or for other worthy purposes like...ponzi schemes?). It raises the question, however: Does Bachmann believe it licit to go into debt in order to fund charitable activities? She notes in the third paragraph that, in just the previous three years, Vennes has directed over 10.7 million dollars to the "neediest in our society" (not to mention the $27,400 he steered into her campaign coffers). It does not appear that he was in dire need of loans for charitable activities or much of anything else.
The letter finally ends with this sentence:
"Knowing that pardons have been decreasingly granted , I am asking that courage be mustered to do justice for Mr. Vennes."
Decreasingly granted? This sounds like the syntax of a third grader. How about: "While I understand that pardons overall have declined of late..." There are any number of concise ways to express this thought. Bachmann chose none of them. I have seen many letters from Congressmen and Senators, and this one, which incidentally addresses a very important subject, is by far the least articulate of any of them.
If Sarah Palin penned such a ferociously illiterate missive, it would be on the front page of the New York Times as Exhibit A for her incompetence and incoherence. Yet Michele Bachmann, now the darling of CNN, the L.A. Times, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, is called both "coherent" and "articulate," in spite of this stark evidence to the contrary. Ask yourselves why these two are treated differently.
After reading her mangled syntax, poor word usage and incoherent ramblings, I shudder at the thought of the Congresswoman from Minnesota turned loose upon an Inaugural Address. Fortunately, the chances of that are even slimmer than Mr. Vennes' current pardon possibilities.
What they appear to have is Vennes, who is shaping up to be Bachmann's Rezko.
Rollins went after Palin, and now Bachmann is reaping the negative externalities of his decision.
Thanks for another foolish vanity to prove how wonderfully literate you really are.
Maybe Ariana Huffington could hire you.
Cheers!
Focus your fire on our enemies.
LLS
Is this product of your obviously superior literacy skill written to impress us, the readers, or do you read to yourself in the mirror?
That's not a good sign.
Just goes to show you that her judgment is is just not up to being President. Whether it`s hiring Rollins,sending him out to trash Gov Palin,not apologizing for it, couple other things and now this.
For sure her comments of her own about Sarah, and her comments through Rollins, was all I needed to know.
Some of you might ask, what other comments she made? Sarah Palin has nothing to do with my decision of running or not (I paraphrase)
couple things along those lines. Just the idea that she would even consider running against Gov Palin, was all the poor judgment I needed to see.
“Sleazebag tactic”? What in hell are you talking about? Brices found a real letter about a pretty fishy-smelling Big Donor scandal, and the letter is written at a pretty mediocre to low-average level, communications-wise.”
Exactly, Finny. Bachmann took official action on official government letter head. And it’s somehow dirty pool to analyze it?
This is not a discussion of the candidate’s children or an unfair generic attack on the candidate’s appearance or anything of the sort. Anything in Sarah Palin’s record as Governor is fair game as well and she will have to answer for that. And I am sure she is quite prepared to do so without all the whining and the crocodile tears that have been displayed here.
And for those who are willing to give Bachmann a pass for this abominable letter because: a) it is only grammar; or b)some staffer wrote it, my rejoinder is that sloppy writing such as this is evidence of sloppy thinking. And I do not believe a staffer composed this letter, at least the final draft. It is a very important letter on behalf of her major donor to a high ranking official of the Department of Justice. It isn’t a “constituent service reply.” If she let a staffer write a letter of this import, and allowed her name to be signed to it, as some have suggested, then that raises additional questions about her judgment. Perhaps she will address them. Indeed, she can lay the matter to rest quite easily by releasing all her emails and correspondence from this year so that the entire issue might be properly investigated.
The PC police have so emasculated some of the weak minded here, even some who profess to be Sarah Palin supporters, that they can’t tell the difference between fair comment on an issue of public policy and a personal attack. This comment focused not principally on the substance of the issue (her recommendation of a pardon for a felon who was a prominent and recent donor to her campaign) but the PROCEDURE by which she handled the issue, that is: the official letter. It examined the coherence of Bachmann’s arguments and the intelligence and lucidity with which she expressed them. Some here apparently think the coherence of a candidates’ arguments and the ability to express themselves is not a relevant inquiry for a Presidential candidate. I happen to disagree. If Ronald Reagan had been able to express himself only at the level of this letter, he would have been materially less effective as President.
Some of you have never been involved in a real campaign. I am not talking about the recent weak-kneed Bush-McCain-Dole affairs, in which the GOP candidate was too cowed to say anything that might be perceived as negative about his opponent. The Reagan campaigns of 1976 and 1980 were bare knuckle affairs. Reagan’s 11th Commandment had to do with personal attacks, which he never favored. Policy issues and another candidate’s own statements, written or oral, were always fair game. And he was quick to pounce on any such weaknesses in his opponents, whether it was George Bush or Gerald Ford or Phil Crane. If you are too young to remember the Reagan campaigns, and so did not participate in them, then I suggest reading Craig Shirley’s excellent books, the Reagan Revolution and Rendezvous with Destiny which treat both 1976 and 1980, respectively.
If the post offended some of those with weaker sensibilities, as it surely did, given their personal invective toward me, then so be it. So far, after 125 replies, not a single critic has refuted, or even taken issue with, the substance of post. Some have liked it. Some have not. None of those who have disliked it have refuted the particulars of the post, because it exclusively treats Bachmann’s own words and actions, in her official capacity. If that is not relevant to her fitness to be President of the United States, I don’t know what would be.
And if she and her supporters can’t answer for what she wrote and did, in her official capacity, in the GOP primary, how in the world are they going to fare against the Democrats, who would be using REAL gutter tactics against Bachmann, as they have against Palin, in the [highly unlikely] event that Bachmann were to be the GOP nominee.
You should pull that grammatical stick out of your ass and go do something worthwhile.
Palin has been vetted to hell and back. Bachmann must expect and withstand the same intense scrutiny fair or unfair from every possible angle. She cannot and must not expect any free passes. Let’s see how she holds up. Thanks for posting this BC and I’ve no doubt much more of her history will come into view as the weeks roll by.
Back atcha, Sarahfan. The LSM should not be allowed to get by with the latest meme that Bachmann is so “articulate” and “coherent”. Her own letter debunks this myth.
Good post, BC. Notice you’re taking flak from the Bachmannistas, which is amusing. Criticism of the substance of her words, actions, and positions is entirely appropriate. Critique of her judgment, record and leadership? Same thing. Keep up the good work. It needs to be done. Michele Bachmann’s new-found admirers in the MSM aren’t going to do it...at least not yet.
As a Palin supporter, I had never said a negative word about Michele Bachmann on this forum — despite things I was hearing about her intentions towards Palin as far back as January — until she sent her paid Nixon hack Ed Rollins out to do her dirty work and trash Sarah Palin publicly. That changed everything for me.
Palin had gone to Minnesota, drawn a crowd of 11,000 for a rally with Bachmann and helped her raise $2 million and that’s her payback? Hell with that. Game on, Michele.
One other tidbit for ya — I heard last night that Bachmann is sending out letters under the banner “National Tea Party Survey” that, when you tear open the envelope, is strictly a fundraising letter for her congressional PAC leveraging off her association with the Tea Party. Nice, huh?
As they say over here in the Colonies, “Welcome to the NFL”...LOL.
YUP, she’s illiterate alright. Throw her into the ovens with the rest of the grammar challenged and people who can’t read—you know, the illiterate ones.
I sometimes wonder if Christ himself came to Earth and ran for President, someone would complain that he was not clean-shaven.
But then again, this whole Vennes thing is nasty indeed. Illiteracy??? Not so much. Pointing out mediocre grammar, that’s just anal, figuratively and literally.
“..see if he looks leftwing to you, he sure doesn’t to me..”
From my post - “would be” also from the post:
even if they aren’t left wing, they’re still idiots.
Also the poster is obsessed with vocabulary.
Same here, Al. When she sent the sleazy Rollins out to do her dirty work for her, Bachmann lost me. She will get no quarter from me henceforth. As Truman said, we won’t give her hell; we’ll just tell the truth and she’ll think it’s hell. If the truth offends, I am sincerely sorry, but I retract nothing.
I wonder if that Tea Party Survey is in any way related to the National Tea party Alert that was doing the hit pieces on Palin...the group that had Romney’s fingerprints all over it and was run by the failed Congressional candidate from MA, the friend of Mitt.
And, Bachmann told him to apologize. Get over it.
Further, only in the mind of someone with no morals or ethics does that justify some unleashing the same sort of lies and hate that have been used against her against Bachmann.
Those sort of attacks have consequences. They divide conservatives and cause resentment toward Palin.
If this is the way conservatives behave, why would anyone want to be one?
Said the President, according to many news sources, “If it was me, I’d resign.”
...I also won’t spend a lot of time harping on the fact President used the incorrect form of the pronoun “me.” The truly correct phrasing would have been, “If it were I, I would resign.” Note that “I” is a subject pronoun."
Well, you know, except for the fact that the guy was a felon several times over, and was engaged in yet more felonies while she was trying to pardon him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.