From Sam Stein at THE HUFFINGTON POST:
WASHINGTON — Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has built a large part of her conservative appeal on strict opposition to federal intervention in the free market. Her real-time criticism of the Troubled Asset Relief Program earned her plaudits among the base voters who will soon decide Republican primary elections. Her pledge to repeal President Obama’s health care law, on grounds that it imposes an across-the-board government solution, has become a focal point of her presidential campaign.
When it comes to the agriculture industry, however, Bachmann’s record doesn’t match the fiscal conservative hype. A Freedom of Information Act request for communications the Minnesota Republican has had with the Department of Agriculture shows that she leaned heavily on federal officials for help — never more so than when it came to aiding the pork and dairy producers in her state.
On Oct. 5, 2009, Bachmann wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack praising him for injecting money into the pork industry through the form of direct government purchases. She went on to request additional assistance.
…snip…
At the time, the pork industry was facing a two-pronged calamity: fallout from the H1N1 influenza crisis and the ripple effects of the recession. Pork producers had lost nearly $4.6 billion in equity since 2007 and Vilsack, sensing greater market doom, had injected funds into the industry at least four times since that spring. In March 2009, the USDA purchased $25 million in pork, in April it made a $50 million purchase and in July it bought 775,000 pounds of ham, according to reports. In September, just one month before receiving Bachmann’s letter, Vilsack had signed off on $30 million in additional federal purchases of pork.
Seeking to balance the narrow political interests of her district (which is affected by the ups and downs of the pork market) with her broader message of reining in government spending, Bachmann urged Vilsack to ensure that “any federal funds expended are used wisely to provide timely assistance to struggling producers.” Clearly, however, she welcomed the crutch of federal funds, pleading that producers had not experience a situation as dire “in decades.”
So, kids, I was wondering why Batshit Bachmann is so interested in pork for the pork industry. We all know that she’s been way too busy chasing TV cameras to actually have done any real work for her constituents, so it can’t have anything to do with that. Perhaps she has pigs on the farm that she’s been receiving socialist subsidies for for years? I don’t think that’s it. I think I’ve figured it out. Have you looked at old pictures of her compared with new ones? Nothing above her eyebrows move. Now, what comes from pork? Botulism. And what’s botulism used for?
Mystery solved.
Original images:
HYSTERICAL RAISINS 
Well now, that botox theory will raise and eyebrow or two. Or she’s just in the pocket of agribusiness since she’s a rabid friend of the rich.
of course, she’s in the pocket of agribusiness, but now when she pops her head out of the pocket, she’s not all wrinkly.
Good coverage of Lawrence O’Donnell:
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/21/6912667-the-socialism-of-bachmann
Here’s Bachmann reaction to the story:
larry o rocks. he gets down to the nitty gritty and tells it like it is. i have a problem with some of the guests he has (does anyone really give a shit about what little meggie mccain has to say about anything?), but i like his show for the most part.
i wonder how long botox batshit bachmann will be able to dodge the question about her big fat earmark.
Another “don’t do as I do, do as I say”. Then again, with her, nothing really surprises me.
And maybe her love of pigs is, she needs SOMETHING to get rid of all the slop she’s pitching in lieu of real campaign ideas.
Could this be the first example of a situation where political pork was, indeed, pork? 😀
i’ve seen her husband. i can’t really blame her for preferring pigs. 😉
In all seriousness, the Republican Party – and especially the Tea Party, deeply believe in Marxism. For big business. They want, no, demand, tax expenditures for corporations. The conservative Supreme Court just decided any corporation big enough to be the target of a class-action lawsuit is too big to lose a class-action lawsuit.
Bachmann is not flip-flopping on this at all. She’s showing the true stripes of those on the right.
no, she’s not flip-flopping. but her hypocrisy is now out there for all to see. she can’t deny she wrote the letter. how are the teabaggers going to defend her now?
“How are the teabaggers going to defend her now?”
Easily. Just watch.
😆 Petunia Bachmann. Awesome! 😆
It’s not socialism if Republicans are doing it?
nope! especially when they’re lining their own pockets.
You even worked in her porky shadow. Impressive. 😆
it’s the little details that pulls the nonsense all together.
Swine-gate?
Love the Little Annie Porkly kind of rendition & the Socialism Special!
Wow!
we always knew nothing she ever said was kosher.
Maybe she could give her expert advice to the Georgia gov who has the brilliant idea to run the Mexicans out of the state and harvest with paroled felons instead. The felons are walking away because the work is too hard. They are set to lose a billion in the field, just like Colorado did a few years back, when some dickhead got a bright idea: let’s run all the Mexicans off! She could pray a lot about it and then spend a twelve hour day in the hot sun to show how many buckets she could fill
did you hear that botox batshit bachmann and mr. bbb didn’t marry because they loved each other, but because they and bbb’s friend all had visions that they were supposed to marry. 😯 and this is who the rethugs think can be president? i’ll let matt taibbi tell you about it:
Good detective work, my dear Nonnie. 😉
i’ll have to change my agent 9999 and replace the gun with a magnifying glass. i’m a detec-a-tive! 😀
You shouldn’t have used the Pork Store Logo. It was copyrighted Material. You should remove it before you get sued. You infringed on the owners copyright.
You can’t just lift logos from the internet, change them and call them your own.
Unless you are the owner of the copyright, you don’t have standing. Also, parody is protected under Fair Use. Now piss off.
Its not a parody of the logo. It is a satire of the logo. For it to be a parody it would have to been making fun of the logo itself.
Using the logo to make fun of a political candidate is satire.
Also, you can make all the changes you want. It was & is still a copyrighted piece of original artwork that the author can’t lay claim too. To go so far as to attempt to copyright already copyrighted artwork is even more preposterous.
i think the person you should have a problem with is the one who posted this. that’s where i found the sign. i read the disparaging remarks about the sign, and i didn’t think it was quite fair, so instead of linking to that page, i only linked to the image itself. as to copyright infringement, as stated by another commenter, parody is fair use. i don’t make any profit from my posters, and i can’t see any harm that has come to the store. i saw that i was being vilified at signs101. the person who started the thread left out that i had linked to the original sign. i do respect the work of others, and if you look through the site, you will see that i always link to the original images i use. i was hoping that he would comment over here so we could discuss the issue. one of the things he said was that i should have at least linked over to his site. i would have been happy to do so, if i knew where it was. i would have definitely given him credit for the original design, and i would be happy to do so now. i’ve seen many instances of people using my images without my consent and without attribution. i don’t go around threatening them. instead, i chalk it up to the nature of the internet.
by the way, even though this post is almost 3 months old and the only attention it has gotten is from the thread at signs101, i did change it further. upon looking at it again, i realized that having brooklyn in the background didn’t make much sense, so i replaced it with minneapolis.
Here is Dan’s page. Go send him a message. He is a nice guy. I am sure the two of you can work things out. http://www.graphicd-signs.com
as you can see, i changed the image and deleted the link to the original sign. i’ve written to dan and explained my side of the story. i hope this puts an end to all the drama.
Pingback: Lipstick & a Pig | HYSTERICAL RAISINS