Good Monday morning, Fellow Seekers,

Last week, guest poster Karl Bremer revealed that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann — who generally opposes big government, who has specifically denounced the impact of agriculture subsidies, and who recently voted against the big agriculture bill that would extend the current subsidy programs through 2012 — has also benefited personally from federal ag subsidies through her partial ownership of a Wisconsin farm operated by members of her husband’s family. Bremer (and I, in my introduction to his piece) raised the question of whether it was hypocritical of Bachmann to profit from a big government program she opposes.

In the comment threads and on other blogs, some decent arguments were made in Bachmann’s defense. Bachmann would arguably have a conflict of interests if she favored programs from which she benefited so what should she do, abstain? Do we blame members of Congress, who opposed "tax cuts for the rich" but nonetheless benefit from them? Is it fair to hold Bachmann responsible for her in-laws’ farming and financial practices? Fair questions, interesting questions, the answers to which might contain a good response to the questions that both Bremer and I asked of Bachmann before publishing.

In my new role outside the norms of mainstream journalism, I still humbly aspire to fairness, knowing that it is often in the eye of the beholder. But since Bachmann declined to answer any questions nor offer any comment (and both Bremer and I offered her the opportunity) it’s hard to for me to summon much regret that these points were not made in the original post.

I tend to give significant respect points to public officials who will at least take the tough questions and defend their policies and statements. In 2006, when I covered Bachmann’s successful race for Congress, I gave her some of those points for at least replying to questions, although I often found her answers to be crafty, bordering on dishonest.

The congresswoman and her communications team has pretty much stopped pretending to respond to any questions I raise, which dates back at least to my role in bringing unwanted attention to her Feb. 2007 blunder about an alleged plan to divide Iraq and create a terrorism safe haven. Bremer — who is actually her constituent and was during her years in the state Senate — has an elevated right to expect responses but says he has never received any to his many communications with Bachmann’s state or federal offices. I will defend the congresswoman’s constitutional right to respond when, how and to whom she chooses. But she is getting a reputation for shunning tough questions and critical audiences.

For what it’s worth, if Rep. Bachmann chooses to issue a statement about the ag subsidies from which she has profited, and her attitude about those farm programs, Black Ink will publish it verbatim, while reserving the right to pose follow up questions. When she chooses not to engage, she makes it harder to treat her side of the discussion fairly, but I will continue to try.