Ahead of the debate, Minnesota Independent reporter Andy Birkey and Texas Independent editor Patrick Michels discussed how their home-state candidate is viewed back home, how religion plays a big part in both candidates’ politics and the “outsider” personas they have cultivated on their way to the national stage.

But Bachmann’s voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives has not reflected her rhetoric at last night’s debate. From the transcript:

ANDERSON COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from foreclosure, in the state of Nevada?

MICHELE BACHMANN: That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house.

I’m a mom. I talk to these moms. I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around. We will turn the economy around. We will create jobs. That’s how you hold on to your house.

Hold on, moms out there. It’s not too late.

As The American Independent’s sister site The Minnesota Independent previously reported, in March, Bachmann voted to defund the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) in a bill titled the “FHA Refinance Program Termination Act.” Within that same bill, Bachmann voted against an amendment that would have saved a portion of HAMP for senior citizens whose mortgages are in negative equity, or “underwater.”

The Minnesota Independent has also reported that Minnesota’s 6th District, which Bachmann represents, suffered the highest foreclosure rates in the state in 2008 (estimated at 5,227) and 2009. Nevertheless, the congresswoman has voted against all but one measure aimed at foreclosure relief during her time in office, including: the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which included provisions to help struggling homeowners, signed into law by former President George W. Bush; the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act; the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, intended to provide funds to communities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes; and the Expand and Preserve Home Ownership Through Counseling Act, the goal of which was to improve homeowners’ financial literacy.

In February 2009, Bachmann talked about the national foreclosure crisis on her blog in a way that did not reflect the sympathy she was trying to convey to women during Tuesday’s presidential debate:

When President Obama released his plan this week to prevent home foreclosures, the point he wanted to get across to everyone watching was that money from folks who have been making their payments on time will not just be handed over to those folks who got in over their heads and bought a house they knew they couldn’t afford.

It’s estimated that around four million homeowners are in danger of foreclosure, and in order to help them out, part of the President’s plan creates a $75 billion program that would go towards reducing a homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment. That breaks down to about $18,750 per home.

Now, we can debate whether this is the right thing to do as it may seem that you’re rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules.

Watch snippets from last night’s debate, including Bachmann’s statements on foreclosures and her promise to moms, produced by HuffPost Politics:

Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty – despite the slew of GOP prospects for 2012 (most of whom have at one point said they are exploring the idea of setting up an exploratory committee to explore a presidential run), only Pawlenty has officially started such a committee, which he announced March 21.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation announced Wednesday that it was pushing the debate (to be moderated by Politico and NBC) from May 2 to Sept. 14

Actually, there is one Republican who has officially filed his candidacy for 2012 — and that’s Fred Karger, a little-known political activist who made his announcement March 22 and submitted his papers to the Federal Election Commission the next day. Karger, who is openly gay and has been excluded from numerous Republican events, formed his exploratory committee in July 2010 and has already done a bit of campaigning around the country — but the odds that he would be invited to a highly publicized debate are still slim.

Karger announcing his candidacy on CBS:

TAI spent two afternoons with Karger last week when he was in Washington, D.C., for the Victory Fund’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference. While Karger’s chances of gaining the 2012 nomination may be slim, he could play an outsized role during the nomination cycle. Much in the way that Ron Paul challenged doctrinaire Republican views during the 2008 Republican campaign, Karger could serve as the alternative voice during debates that forces other candidates to face issues they may rather avoid.

Karger is a long shot candidate by any definition of the term. He holds low name recognition, does not fundraise at the same level as other potential candidates and will face difficulty winning over any socially conservative voters. His qualifying experience comes not from elected office but from his career as a political consultant; he has worked on numerous campaigns, including Ronald Reagan’s presidential bids, and he was a senior executive at The Dolphin Group, a consulting firm most famous for creating the Willie Horton ads in the 1988 presidential campaign.

He may not stand much of a chance of winning, but Karger is the closest thing to an official candidate in the field at this point. He has a presidential exploratory committee, and made headlines recently when he began airing ads in Iowa — a full 14 months before caucus day. He is making his tenth visit to New Hampshire this week and has been to Iowa five times throughout the year, only trailing Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich in Iowa appearances.

Karger’s current ambitions are focused solely on proving his initial viability as a candidate in order to qualify for the nomination debates next year. “I’ll do whatever it takes to put pressure on these debate organizers, and I’ll pick my battles,” Karger said.

“I had two goals for this year: one was to satisfy the leadership,” he said, discussing the leaders of the LGBT rights movement who he hopes will support his campaign. “I had to prove that I was serious because everybody said, ‘oh it’s a stunt’, which is a natural assumption with my personality and background, but it’s not. And number two, [to show] that I am credible. A lot harder to prove, but I think I’ve accomplished it with the kind of attention I’ve gotten and the devotion [to traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire].”

No matter what Karger says about — or how others perceive — his presidential run, he is aware of the reality that his candidacy would largely revolve around forcing other Republicans to address gay rights. “If I do nothing else, to kind of make this issue, to put a face on this issue as opposed to what happened in previous elections like 2004 where the gay community was getting used as a political tool to strengthen the president’s reelection,” he said. “If I can do that I’ll have done quite a bit.”

He hopes his candidacy can help other generations of LGBT individuals feel comfortable with their identity. Karger largely stayed in the closet throughout his consulting career. He lived a double life, spending his days organizing campaigns for conservative politicians, but in his personal life, supporting gay rights activism.

He recounted one incident early in his career that taught him the importance of keeping his identity hidden in his professional life. In 1978, he made a political contribution to the No on Prop 6 campaign, a measure which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools.

“I took it upon myself, I’m 28 years old, I’m working for the Republican conservative running for attorney general by day, and by night, I’m helping the Republican’s opposition,” Karger said. “And I wrote a check for $100 … to this campaign. It was to get the sponsorship of the Los Angles County Young Republicans.”

He did not disclose that donation to his Republican employers at the time, but the contribution became public through campaign finance disclosures after the campaign. Two years later, that contribution came back to haunt Karger when he was working on the Senate primary for a conservative Republican candidate Ray Hanzlik.

“Ray got a letter from one of my detractors from the Young Republicans, saying ‘how can you have someone like this working for you who supports the homosexual agenda,’ and had a copy of the campaign [donation] page that had my name in there, and then a couple newspaper stories about the event and the Young Republicans,” Karger said. “He [Hanzlik] just throws this down on my desk and says ‘you should know who your enemy is, this doesn’t affect me one iota, but I want you to have it.’ And I still have it. It really sent a chilling effect on me and kept me — I never gave another contribution of $100 or more, since that’s the [reporting] threshold, for many years. It kept me more in the closet I think. It scared the hell out of me, because I could easily be fired. It’s difficult situation in Republican politics to this day.”

Karger did not come out to the general political world until after he retired from his position at The Dolphin Group in 2004, fully investing his time to gay rights activism. Through Californians Against Hate — the group he founded to work against Proposition 8 — Karger has been at the forefront of opposing the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and linking anti-gay funding to the Mormon Church. He has organized boycotts of businesses that contributed to anti-same-sex marriage campaigns and filed frequent complaints to force these campaigns to disclose their sources of funding.

As he has switched from an activist into a potential candidate, Karger has turned his attention to pushing for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay citizens from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

“This is kind of a political football that people’s lives are being tossed around, 14,000 people have already been discharged under “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” it costs $355 million for the government, so it’s ridiculous. It’s discriminatory, the president should have done it with a stroke of the pen and not be enforcing it,” he said. “I fault Republicans in the Senate because I think there was a breakthrough with some of the moderates who were willing to do the right thing and they’re unfortunately tied to the leadership.”

The focus of his potential campaign may be primarily directed at LGBT civil liberties, but Karger would challenge the other presidential candidates on a host of other issues if he qualifies for the nomination debates.

He could create headaches for current frontrunner Mitt Romney. “I fully embrace his Romneycare for Massachusetts,” Karger said when asked if he agrees with the former Massachusetts governor on any issues. Karger opposed the federal health-care reform bill but said he supports state-based systems such as the measure Romney shepherded through as governor, which was substantively the same as the national bill.

His policy views are certainly unique among Republican ideology. Karger, a longtime member of Republican Majority for Choice, is staunchly pro-choice.

“There are no moderate voices out there; there are no other possible potential candidates who are even pro-choice. Even some of the libertarians are not,” Karger said. “I think that is extremely important, a major Republican issue. To me keeping government out of people’s private lives, that’s a basic tenet of the Republican Party.”

Karger breaks ranks from the party platform on a number of other issues as well. He gives lip service to the general conservative principles of smaller government and a strong national defense, but when he is forced to discuss specifics, there are few moments where he would agree with the rest of the field’s stated positions. He opposes Obama’s troop expansion in Afghanistan and advocates for removing soldiers from the ground while using advance military technology from a distance instead.

If he were in the White House today, Karger would extend the Bush tax cuts for one year, but he is unsure what he would prefer in the long term (these comments were made prior to the deal reached between the Obama administration and Senate Republicans Monday night). However, he does not share the zeal of his fellow Republicans for tax cuts for the rich. “I’m not for giving tax relief to the super rich,” he says. As to Republican claims that the $250,000 annual income marker is too low to describe a family as rich, Karger said, “it’s not exactly middle class.”

As for what Karger would do to help stimulate the economy and restart jobs he only offers vague comments about being an optimistic figure in the White House who would encourage consumers to get out and spend money again. He would like to cut down on government bureaucracy, but is unable to name anything specific. “The issue area is newer to me,” he said, but explains that he has been meeting with experts in various fields to bolster his credentials while he is still in the “exploratory” phase of the campaign.

Karger’s willingness to admit when he does not have enough information is notably refreshing in a landscape where politicians are prepared to spin any question lobbed their way. But this very attribute that is charming in a one-on-one situation would damage any possible sense of legitimacy if it continued through presidential debate appearances. He could run circles around people speaking on LGBT civil rights issues, but the seasoned campaign veterans he would face have honed messages on any major policy points.

Beyond expanding his ability to respond to the issues of the day, Karger faces a number of challenges in order to be seen as a viable presidential candidate. However, his consulting experience may give him an edge in conducting a headline-grabbing campaign necessary to boost name recognition as an underdog candidate.

“I need to be creative and I need to do things very differently,” he said. Different is definitely one way to describe his strategy to date. His campaign hands out swag — including frisbees — that is covered with “Fred Who?” a direct acknowledgment of the fact that he is currently unrecognizable to voters. He has already begun running ads in New Hampshire and Iowa, likely far before any other candidate will enter the airwaves

“Normally, you’ve got to be a little cautious in a campaign, but when you’re a longshot you generally throw caution out the window; what do you have to lose?

“I got a lot of my inspiration on a lot of what I’ve done, like announcing [his possible candidacy] in New Orleans, like this [ad] from David Plouffe, because in that book he said we have nothing to lose so we took chances,” Karger said. Plouffe served as Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, and his book “The Audacity to Win” has been described by many as an instructive manual on how to wage an insurgent campaign (even Newt Gingrich gave the book credit recently).

Fundraising will be the largest hurdle to overcome for a Karger campaign to gain any traction. “That’s languishing, and I’ve not really asked, I’ve not done what I’m about to do. I wanted to wait until the midterms were over and now the holidays,” he sayid. “After the first of the year is when I’m going to start doing that. It’s my least favorite part of it. Again, I have to prove that I’m serious, because why would people contribute to what looks like Fred going around and riding in parades and doing all this.”

He has set his sights significantly below the figures other candidates are likely to spend, but his preliminary budget still requires a high sum. “It’s a modest budget by presidential candidates, but it is a hell of a lot of money, $5 or $6 million. But I can do my two state strategy initially and I can make a big impact.”

Uploaded on Tuesday night, “So You Think You Can Be President — Debate Remix,” only has about a thousand views so far, but it is a masterfully edited commentary on the three presidential debates. The video, remixed by Jonathan McIntosh, deserves a wider airing.

The accompanying promotional text tweaks the candidates for staking out similar positions on energy policy, while also knocking the U.S. voting system in general:

In this week’s episode only two weeks before the election, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have their feet held to the fire over shockingly similar positions on both energy… Who will be this season’s champion and take home the grand prize? You’ll have to watch and decide that for yourself, then participate by casting your vote* for your favorite performer on Nov. 4th!

*Some restrictions may apply. In certain areas these include, but are not limited to, faulty electronic voting systems, racist voter laws and/or voter roll purges. See your local polling place for details.

It’s a bit long, at nine minutes, but the surreal mood builds over time:

PRODUCTION NOTES: By splicing the political cant of modern debates with the hyperbolic feedback of celebrity judges, this mashup imagines a world where politicians are called out on their double-talk in real time.

With a tone that bordered on mocking, McCain disparaged Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to the agreement. From the transcript:

But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Sen. Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia , which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is — there’s a billion dollars that we — our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.

Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free.  So Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that’s helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that’s killing young Americans.

And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay — without us having to pay the billions of dollars — the billion dollars and more that we’ve already paid.

Free trade with Colombia is something that’s a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

Obama cited the Colombian government’s spotty human rights record and its blind eye toward  the assassination of labor leaders as reasons for his opposition.

Human Rights Watch issued a 142-page report today on Colombia’s efforts to rein in paramilitary groups. It concluded that the trade agreement has been an effective carrot for encouraging Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to crack down on the paramilitary “mafias” that engage in drug trafficking and murder opponents, including trade unionists.

A proposal that President Uribe floated in 2007 to allow politicians who collaborated with paramilitaries to avoid prison altogether would have had a devastating impact on the investigations. Fortunately, President Uribe tabled this proposal after it became evident that it would become an obstacle to the ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It is unclear what would happen if the pressure related to ratification of the trade deal were dropped.

The human rights organization appears to side with Obama on whether the agreement should be ratified in the near future, recommending that the U.S. Congress “[c]ontinue to delay ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement until Colombia shows concrete and sustained results in reducing impunity for trade unionist killings and dismantling the paramilitary mafias responsible for many of the killings. This means that Colombia must show meaningful results in investigating and holding accountable not only paramilitary leaders but also their many accomplices.”

Clearly, McCain’s comments last night demonstrated a willingness to overlook the potential human cost of his ideological pursuit of unrestricted trade.

The most exciting moment for me was watching Triumph the Insult Comic Dog scare the bajeezus out of a Newsweek reporter in the media filing center.

The real star of the evening: Joe the Plumber. McCain found an exploitable middle-class archetype with which to hammer Sen. Barack Obama, and he ran with it.

And ironically, it was McCain who made the first reference — aside from Bob Schieffer’s passing mention in his introduction — to the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging more than 700 points Wednesday, during the closing remarks.

But enough of that. I have pictures from the Spin Room!

Enjoy:

Richardson, who said he has now campaigned in 15 states for Obama, sounded plenty confident when handicapping the debate. “This is the debate where Obama clinches the deal with the American people,” he predicted. Richardson said he will be stumping for the Democratic ticket next week in New Mexico and Colorado.

Gov. Bill Richardson, shown here in Colorado, has been stumping for Obama at grass-roots events in more than a dozen states. (Credit: Obama Flickr.)

We spoke just before the debate began on Wednesday night, in a carnival tent at Hofstra University that was bursting with politicos, reporters and free swag from Anheuser-Busch, which is sponsoring the debate.  Richardson also chatted with Rep. Rahm Emanuel and CNN’s Ed Henry, swaping debate analysis.

The one-time presidential candidate joins a large chorus of “Obama Spinners” — that’s what the campaign literally calls them! — who will talk up Obama’s performance, no matter what, when the final debate ends.  Organizers cordoned off a large swath of the Hofstra gym for spinners from both campaigns.

Sen. John McCain has disavowed “low road” political attacks, but many critics argue that his reliance on Bill Ayers and misleading advertising has left him mudslinging while claiming he opposes mudslinging.

One politico just sent me a clip of a “debate” from the old Batman television show. In it, the caped crusader faces off against a villain who also swore off mudslinging — while playing guilt by association, anyway.

The text accompanying the YouTube video says the villain, Penguin, must be a Republican.

That is just not fair to all Republicans, of course, but some of the Penguin’s arguments are reminiscent of the McCain campaign’s latest salvos.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a memo whose subject was John McCain’s plan to “whip” “That One’s” “you-know-what.”

The memo’s gist is that Obama will counter-punch McCain’s attacks by condemning the GOP presidential nominee’s failure to outline positive plans for the economy:

Even though Sen. McCain has said he doesn’t “give a damn” about Bill Ayers, his campaign has admitted that if he talks about the economy, he’ll lose…  On the big issues, this debate is one last chance for John McCain to do what he has failed to do throughout this entire campaign:  explain to the American people how his economic policies would be any different at all than the failed Bush agenda he has supported every step of the way…

The memo also flags a problem for McCain from today’s New York Times:

After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, [a new] poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.

Obama is promising to reinforce those perceptions at the debate before, during and after McCain brings up you know what.