Mary Kiffmeyer's spokesperson, Kent Kaiser has a habit of sending out cookie cutter letters supporting Michele Bachmann. In January, Dump Bachmann reported on the same letter by Kaiser appearing in the St Cloud Times, Strib Netlets and the Scandia paper. Last week, as noted here, the St Cloud Times published another letter from Kaiser which made some interesting claims:
Some friends call me a tree-hugging nature writer for what I've penned for outdoor magazines. Some call me a taskmaster for the extreme canoe trips I've guided. Others call me a gun nut for my hunting enthusiasm. And, they agree: I'm sort of an expert on outdoorsmen issues.
Jeff Kouba, one of the authors at Bachmann v Wetterling commented:
Kiffmeyer's Kent Kaiser was my freshman year roommate in college. I don't recall him being a big hunting and fishing and canoeing person.
After I posted his comment on Dump Bachmann, Kouba is now backtracking:
Apologies to Kent Kaiser
In response to a post over at Eva's blog, in regards to a letter to the editor written by Kent Kaiser (which I posted here), I said I didn't recall Kent's interest in the outdoors.
I must stand corrected, and apologize for my faulty memory. Kent does have an interest in the outdoors. As I said, it was a long time ago, and any confusion or spin that Kent was not sincere in his letter was my fault.
Jeff made a similar statement in the comment thread to my post quoting him.
So my question for Jeff is, does he now remember Kent Kaiser's active interest in the outdoors? Has anyone read Kent Kaiser's byline in a nature magazine?
The comment thread also attracted the self-righteous MOB Parrot, Mitch Berg:
"The NRA is aggressive on handgun and hunting issues; but sportsmen tell me that nobody hunts with a Glock or Uzi. Handguns are a separate issue."
All the better; Bachmann at least understands the constructionist (and correct) interpretation of the Second Amendment. Wetterling is utterly ignorant, and has in fact been led by the nose by (likewise ignorant) DFLers to believe that the Second Amendment is there to protect sportsmen.
Yet another point for Bachmann.
mberg 06.05.06 - 5:04 pm | #
Mitch --
Does the Kaiser letter sound believable to you? I just can't imagine any true "sportsman" who actually votes on these issues would be satisfied by such specious evidence. Much less feel compelled to write the same glowing endorsement to two separate major newspapers! It's highly illogical that such incredible "grassroots" support could exist given that her web site "Issues" page doesn't even mention sportsmen/hunting/outdoors issues, only the very specific conceal-carry stuff.
If Michele wants to be "pro-sportsmen", why doesn't she just tout some legislation she's worked on, or even some proposals she has? She could easily write a letter herself with this information, or put it on her web site. Why ask a volunteer instead to distribute a vague puff piece on less-than-honest "grassroots" pretenses?
spycake 06.05.06 - 5:42 pm | #
Mitch,
Can you answer my question? Does the Kaiser letter sound believable to you, given the little information it presents and the broad, sweeping conclusions that it draws? Just curious.
spycake 06.06.06 - 8:42 pm | #
Spycake:
But you asked a serious question, so I'll answer it. I read the Kaiser letter; it stated some broad assertions. It's a letter to the editor, not a PhD dissertation; it didn't seem out of the ordinary in that context.
My question to you: what was the broad, sweeping conclusion? That many pols will pose with a shotgun before the election, even though they have a relentless anti-gun record? It's true; Ann Wynia, John Kerry and Roger Moe all jump to mind. So - leaving aside details about Kaiser's personal background, what's the conclusion that irks you?
MBerg
mberg 06.07.06 - 9:09 am | #
Mitch --
The "broad, sweeping conclusion" is that this guy we don't even know presents himself as an "expert on outdoorsmen's issues" and says he "can definitely tell a politician who is genuine about sportsman's issues" based on only 2 things: her conceal-carry handgun advocacy, and the inclusion of the word 'trapping' on her campaign literature (although not on her website, which contains no mention of outdoors or sportsmen's issues)
Those two things may be tangentially related to outdoorsmen's issues, but they really give no indication whatsoever how Bachmann has/will approach the broad spectrum of issues and policies that concern sportsmen, much less contrast her stance with her opponent's. When I read this, it made me curious about her positions because I'm a bit of a fisherman myself. But would "one of our own" (Kaiser's description of Bachmann to fellow sportsmen) not even bother to address ANY outdoors issues on her own web site?
Specious and misleading are the two words that come to mind. You may dismiss it as politics as usual, but this is the kind of fluff you see in small-town newspapers for city council elections, not multiple large papers in regards to a U.S. congressional race.
spycake
Dump Bachmann has covered Michele Bachmann's record on issues that concern outdoorsman. |
|