It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michele Bachmann’s political director defends Kent Sorenson against Bachmann allegations

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
We have all seen the story. Michelle Bachmann's Campaign Chairman, Kent Sorenson, has left the Bachmann Campaign and endorsed Ron Paul.

Well as part of the fall out, Bachmann made the claim that Kent Sorenson was lured to the Paul Campaign because of money. I do not like to put words in other people's mouth or speak for anyone other than myself, so I will let Michele Bachmann's own words and accusations speak for themselves.


Bachmann said Sorenson made the jump after "he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign."



"Kent said to me yesterday that `everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn't I,'" Bachmann said in a written statement. "Then he told me he would stay with our campaign. The Ron Paul campaign has to answer for its actions."


Well it appears some are going on the attack against Bachmann's claims unfortunately for Bachmann, these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said the campaign was not paying Sorenson and that he was puzzled why Bachmann would make such a claim against an elected official popular with Iowa conservatives. "We've always known Michele to be an honorable person. She should stop slandering an honorable Iowa state senator," Benton said.


Source 1 (with Bachman allegations)

Source 2

I have to say, this is election cycle is absolutely insane. I can not recall another time where there has been so much mud slinging, but the people who are coming to the defense of others are aligned with the people who are slinging the mud! This is crazy!!

Edit to add Kent Sorenson on CNN discussing his switch.

edit on 29-12-2011 by MrWendal because: added video




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I feel COMPLETELY vindicated in turning against Bachmann. She had some good statements during the Obama regime in the past few years that made me think I'd like to see her run but it became clear early on she was the sell out and another plastic political personality. This is the LOWEST I have ever seen a political candidate stoop and its clear that she is 'business as usual'.



Here’s Enos’ statement in full:

“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 
Yeah, I don't see this going well for her.

She makes accusations against one of her staffers leaving the campaign, who is then defended by another of her REMAINING staffers who basically calls her a liar.

Ouch.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
In my opinion this is the beginning of the end of her campaign. How can you possible recover from a situation where people within your own camp are calling you a lair? Seriously.. let us not mince words. These people speaking out against her accusations are the same people who have been working hard for her campaign and working towards getting her a win in Iowa and they are the ones coming out and saying, "this is a lie".

There is just no coming back from this. Maybe the lamestream media will try to pump her back up, but anyone with a 4th grade reading level will see it for what it is.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
She makes accusations against one of her staffers leaving the campaign, who is then defended by another of her REMAINING staffers who basically calls her a liar.


I think she, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich were 'extras' in the show to keep the spotlight off of Romney. Romney was selected early on to be the candidate.

The press, RNC, and DNC seem to be experiencing 7 Stages of Grief. They are nearing Phase 3. After Iowa they'll reset back to Phase 1. After South Carolina they'll be in Phase 4. They'll never see Phase 5.

1. SHOCK & DENIAL
2. PAIN & GUILT
3. ANGER & BARGAINING
4. "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS
5. THE UPWARD TURN
6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH
7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
In my opinion this is the beginning of the end of her campaign. How can you possible recover from a situation where people within your own camp are calling you a lair?


Agreed. I watched the interview with Sorenson. He seemed completely legitimate and like a normal person. Bachmann seems more comfortable reading the news off a teleprompter.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Your claim is debunked by yourself.

First you claim,



these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


Then you prove the opposite,



Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said


Jesse Benton according to your own post is a Paul official which then completely debunks your claim that

these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


What kind of garbage is this?
edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by MrWendal
In my opinion this is the beginning of the end of her campaign. How can you possible recover from a situation where people within your own camp are calling you a lair?


Agreed. I watched the interview with Sorenson. He seemed completely legitimate and like a normal person. Bachmann seems more comfortable reading the news off a teleprompter.


I may not be a republican but ditto to this. Ron Paul is a guy that stands for what he believes in no matter how much pressure the establishment may put on him. This guy seems to be made of the same cloth.

May not agree with all his views but he earned my respect with that interview.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tharamis

I may not be a republican but ditto to this. Ron Paul is a guy that stands for what he believes in no matter how much pressure the establishment may put on him. This guy seems to be made of the same cloth.

May not agree with all his views but he earned my respect with that interview.


Your post made zero sense.
Three hours before he turned up thumping for Ron Paul he was at a rally thumping for Bachman. He really stands for what he believes in all right. Glad to know your respect is given out so easily and undeservingly, it gives color to your opinion.


This guy seems to be made of the same cloth
and if anything, I do believe you just insulted Ron Paul with that statement,
edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Wow Tinfoil... most of us know where you're coming from but you jumped on this without even bothering to consult the sources. This one's gonna leave a mark (emphasis added):


The Paul campaign released a statement at 12:01 this morning from Wes Enos — Bachmann’s Iowa political director — defending Sorenson’s surprising departure and disputing Bachmann’s allegations.

Here’s Enos’ statement in full:

“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated.

“His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset.

“While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.”


Your agenda is clear but at least vet the facts before you make to maroon of yourself.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


No, the OP never supplied the facts, all he posted was what Benson said after the title of this thread said a Bachman offical. The OP only provided a Paul official making a statement and left the reader misplacing Bensons statement for some Bachman statement. The thread is bunk.


edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Your claim is debunked by yourself.

First you claim,



these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


Then you prove the opposite,



Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said


Jesse Benton according to your own post is a Paul official which then completely debunks your claim that

these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


What kind of garbage is this?
edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


Click both links genius.


Here’s Enos’ statement in full: “I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. “His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. “While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.”


You will find that statement, in the second link, which comes from within Bachmann's camp. Try reading all the information before attacking.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Your claim is debunked by yourself.

First you claim,



these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


Then you prove the opposite,



Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said


Jesse Benton according to your own post is a Paul official which then completely debunks your claim that

these attacks are coming from within her own camp!!!


What kind of garbage is this?
edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


Click both links genius.


Here’s Enos’ statement in full: “I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. “His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. “While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.”


You will find that statement, in the second link, which comes from within Bachmann's camp. Try reading all the information before attacking.


Why should anyone click a link when the premise of your claim is not supported in the information you supplied?
If I made a thread saying "x" said this or that then quoted someone else, it would get trashed in an instant.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by jtma508
 


No, the OP never supplied the facts, all he posted was what Benson said after the title of this thread said a Bachman offical. The OP only provided a Paul official making a statement and left the reader misplacing Bensons statement for some Bachman statement. The thread is bunk.


edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


No, I supplied the facts. Both links are there, it is your job to click them and be informed. Do you expect me to click the link for you and read both articles to you? Should I make a thread full of copy and paste so you can be lazy and not read the article, plus it's context?

What is bunk here is your clear and undeniable bias. It is funny to me how you appear in EVERY Ron Paul thread on this site attacking Ron Paul or supporters. However, your mistake is that I have not seen you in any thread where finding something to attack is difficult.

A perfect example is how you are here now, attacking the way I formatted the OP. Which is very easy to do, I will admit it. After reading it again, it sure does appear like I am attempting to mislead people, but it only appears that way if you read my opening post and do not click on the sources.

Once you click on the sources and read it all, you can see my perspective and it is obvious I am not attempting to mislead anyone. So in this thread you found something to attack (the way the OP is laid out) but you are not attacking the actual content of the post. Just like you, and a couple others, will not step foot in This Thread with your usual slander, bias, and unreasonable arguments.

Your are getting more and more transparent by the day and if I can see it. So can others.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Why should anyone click a link when the premise of your claim is not supported in the information you supplied?
If I made a thread saying "x" said this or that then quoted someone else, it would get trashed in an instant.


You click the link because it is YOUR job to be informed.

It doesn't matter if the information is something you agree with or disagree with. Your personal views should make no difference. It is about being informed and finding out for yourself.

I am a Ron Paul supporter. When there are Pro Paul threads, I click the link and see what is being said for myself. I do that because I like to think for myself and not rely on another person's interpretation, and I enjoy reading these articles because I like being right. I like seeing my opinion validated by another. I am not afraid of being right. I enjoy it.

But there is another side to that same coin....

I do the same exact things in threads that speak negatively of Ron Paul. I don't just read the OP. I look at the source. I admit I am a Ron Paul supporter, but if Ron Paul is a racist and it can be proven. I want to know! If Ron Paul is really a puppet and just like all the rest. I want to know! I will not rely on another person's interpretation of the facts, I will click the link and read it myself. I do this because I know I am human and I can not be right all the time. I make mistakes. I can be wrong and when I am wrong I want to know about it. I do this, because I am not afraid to be wrong.

So what are you TP... lazy, misinformed, or your just afraid to be wrong?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


WATCH that clip again....and the man being interviewed at time 2:30....where he says "...a Socialist like Ron Paul..."

Hilarious!!!

I really really really hope Ron Paul gets on the "ticket".. What a joyous comedy will ensue......



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MrWendal
 


WATCH that clip again....and the man being interviewed at time 2:30....where he says "...a Socialist like Ron Paul..."

Hilarious!!!

I really really really hope Ron Paul gets on the "ticket".. What a joyous comedy will ensue......


What clip are you watching? It can not be the imbedded video because at 2:30 he says, "I believe we had to make a clear choice, and I believe it was my duty to my family and to my State to make sure we are not electing a *unintelligible* socialist like Mitt Romney"

You sure you dont want to watch that clip again and edit your post?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Well, personally I think that is a dirty thing to do to a candidate,



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Well, personally I think that is a dirty thing to do to a candidate,



People change and endorse other Candidates all the time. I agree it is a clear black eye for Bachmann, and I do completely question the timing of this change, but the effects are what I am more interested in. I believe the effects we are seeing now, is a clear indicator that the end of Bachmann's run is very close. I beleive teh effects is many ways overshadow the initial story.

Having a person so close to a campaign just up and quit and endorse an opposing candidate is a huge story. The fact that the straw poll in just a matter of like 10 days away makes it an even bigger story. Yet having Bachmann come out and make such an accusation, which is then debunked by within her own camp actually overshadows the previous story. This is just not a common thing and you just dont see it. It doesn't happen. This is nuts to me. Campaign Managers, Aides, Supporters traditionally cover for a candidate. Actions like that brought us wonderful excuses like "misspoke" or "he was confused because he has had very little sleep in weeks". That is not happening here. Instead of having someone within her camp come out and make an excuse of any kind to take focus off a blatant lie, we have people from within that camp confirming the lie! This is simply amazing to me.

Can you imagine if someone within Herman cain's camp instead of using the "he has had no sleep" excuse when Cain fumbled the Libya question and instead came out and said, "Oh he just didn't know. He was confused on the issue". It would have been a media feeding frenzy. What if instead of of saying Bush "misspoke" his aides came out and said, "Well he is kind of an idiot and we have to tell him what to say and sometimes he screws it up". What if instead of Clinton aides saying, "He was unclear as to the definition of word 'is', they came out said, 'Yeah Bill got a BJ in the Oval Office, he just didnt want to admit it to his wife or anyone else.'. These things simply do not happen.
edit on 29-12-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
It is amazing, it isn't about Paul or whether I like or dislike him, but this guy from what I have read about him aint all that .

And I understand Paul's supporter's enthusiasm, but it is still a dirty thing to do. I have no respect for this Kent guy.
edit on 043131p://bThursday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)







 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join