Not a member? Sign up now
Michele Bachmann's perfect storm of weekend soundbites
By Alex HeiglAugust 29th, 2011, 11:15 amComments (29)
Well, we all had a good time being distracted by Hurricane/Tropical Storm/News Outlet Ratings Godsend Irene. But now it's Monday, the coffee's brewing, and there's muck to be raked. Rick Perry might be garnering a lot of ink for that whole "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" statement, but I'm here to tip the scales back to my personal favorite GOP candidate, Michele Bachmann, whose Florida trip provided all of us with some wonderfully illuminating quotes.
First, she referred to the U.S. as "the king daddy dogs when it comes to energy," which, aside from being debatable, is one of the more bizarre turns of phrase I've ever heard. Then she promised to kill the Environmental Protection Agency and just drill the hell out of the "mother lode of treasure" that is the U.S.'s untapped natural gas, coal, and oil deposits, so, you know, there's that.
So, talking like a Gold Rush-era prospector, check. But what of Irene, Michele? Certainly you've got thoughts on that.
"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians... We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."
I guess the irony of referencing hurricanes and morbid obesity in a state constantly beset by hurricanes that also boasts an obesity rate of twenty-seven percent was lost on her.
Then, speaking from a local sub shop in Jacksonville, Bachmann started a sentence with "Can you imagine if good businesses like Subway," before being drowned out by the crowd yelling "Angie's," the name of the sandwich place she was actually in.
Oh, Michele. Don't ever change.
Tags
Michele Bachmann
Commentarium (29 Comments)
I am so with you on this one Alex - total entertainment. Disturbing to remember that six months from now it will be all Rick "Goodhair" Perry all the time; no fun at all and nothing to laugh at either.
I'm not afraid of intelligent females. I am afraid of idiots and crazy people that have a chance of being elected because most voters are also idiots and crazy people. Intelligent and conservative are opposites so referring to anyone as being both is ridiculous.
@Carter: I was with you until the last sentence. I know intelligent conservatives; they simply proceed from different principles than I do. For example, if someone genuinely believes life begins at conception (and no one can "prove" it one way or the other), then it makes perfect sense to use government to prevent or limit abortions. One can also legitimately believe in the primacy of the legislature or the primacy of the executive; one can legitimately dispute the level of activism judges should take, and on which side of a restraint/interventionist line it is better to err on. I disagree with intelligent conservatives often, but I respect them.
My problem is with the idiots (both conservative and liberal) who take hypocritical positions, deny facts and science, are unable to comprehend cause and effect, and construe "liberty" to mean the freedom to do what they like and to prevent others from doing what they don't like. Bachmann falls in the latter category.
"For example, if someone genuinely believes life begins at conception (and no one can "prove" it one way or the other), then it makes perfect sense to use government to prevent or limit abortions."
Perhaps, but the hypocrisy still doesn't make sense. It doesn't explain criminalizing the doctor, but not the mother. It doesn't explain the attack on sex education or birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't explain the pro-war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty arguments that inevitably follow. And it certainly doesn't explain why pro-lifers are obsessed with foetuses and yet consistently aggressively fight against health care for babies, children, adolescents or adults.
It's not just the original principles that are at odds, it's the difference between logical consistency versus faith.
@greg: Please note that I'm not defending the conservative political agenda, just saying that there can be principled distinctions, and that one can hold political views I (and you) disagree with and still be principled.
Conversely, you link a whole bunch of "conservative" positions that don't necessarily follow from being anti-choice. For example, a libertarian could be pro-gun and pro-choice. Or, for that matter, as a liberal, I'm conflicted between my gut-level desire for a broad reading of the First Amendment, but a narrow reading of the Second. If you read up the chain, you'll see I do rail against hypocrisy and ignorance, but it's a disservice to ourselves and to the quality of good debate that I think you and I both believe in to write of all conservatives as hypocritical or ignorant or deluded. It's simply not true.
Why is it you liberals are so afraid of an intelligent conservative female. Those "sound bites" aren't even worth writing about and here you are acting like any little mis-speak is a mortal sin. Do you know how many times your favorite community organizer mis-spoke throughout his campaign?
No you don't because the press gave him a complete free pass. Bachmann may not be the most polished speaker but at least she has a brain and real life experience. Give her a break.
nothing you said here is accurate. nothing.
Absolutely! Had the press not given Obama a free pass, we would have heard all about his preacher, his citizenship, and his association with Bill Ayers before we elected him!
In all seriousness, though, PLEASE run Michelle as your 2012 presidential candidate. We DARE you.
There's "a little gaffe," and there's "calling the wrong name in bed." Something tells me that calling the local sub shop "Subway" when you're talking about championing small businesses is somewhere in between. I don't demand verbal perfection in a politician, but I certainly consider it indicative if they constantly stuff their foot into their mouth
Along @Ditto's point, there's also an occasional misstatement -- remember Obama referring to something like 57 states? And then there is repeated verbal blunders that reflect a disordered mind and profound ignorance. Bachmann has the same pattern of saying things simply, unbelievably wrong, just like Bush.
Oh, and Bachmann's not intelligent. If you think a law degree from Oral Roberts University is a mark of intelligence, then you must think being president of the Harvard Law Review makes you the second coming of Einstein. She's a mushmouthed ignoramus.
that's right, all people who dislike bachman are liberals and all liberals like Obama
Whenever I see a post that starts with "you liberals" the following statements are usually bogus and riddled with numerous unfounded accusations.
The W&M degree is conveniently forgotten. As to the Harvard Law Review, simply review the articles he authored or coauthored.
@"@profrobert": Are you seriously trying to make a case for Bachmann's intelligence?
@"@profrobert" um, huh? Are you really questioning the integrity of Harvard (2nd in the nation) for the sake of defending Bachmann? Can you really not admit that Bachmann is a little questionable in her intellect and speech capabilities that much that you have to go to those lengths?
Bachmann's law school (She got a degree for tax law from W&M) ranks 28th ( http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html ) But, if you are going to go to the lengths to try to redeem the stupid things Bachmann says by saying that her degree is equal (or better in some way, I don't know your position exactly) to Obama's then you are factually mistaken. Besides the fact that she still says stupid shit (and not in just speech gaffes but in the doesn't comprehend the gravity of the situation way) and even if her degree were greater or equal to Obama's that wouldn't make those things she said completely void.
Also, I'm not attacking W&M, I'm sure it is a fine school. I am just pointing out a bad argument. My problem with Bachmann is not that she might be under-qualified for president because of the quantity/quality of her degrees but that she might be under-qualified by how she speaks, fails to answer questions directly or even correctly and out-right lies often. Now you can argue that Obama, or whoever, does this also, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that Bachmann does it an embarrassing amount of times.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
Ah, yes, the famed LL.M. in tax from William & Mary law school. It's not exactly the tax LL.M. program at NYU, which is the best in the country. In fact, in the 2012 U.S. News rankings (which admittedly are of dubious value, but they do count for something), it's not on the listed top 11, behind such legal academic powerhouses as Loyola-LA, San Diego and Chapman. http://www.llm-guide.com/board/102079 And what was she qualified to do with her tax LL.M.? Become a law professor (like Obama)? Go to a major firm and become a star in the tax department? Join the Tax Division at the Department of Justice or at a U.S. Attorney's Office? No, she became a flunky at a regional IRS office. How impressive.
In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
This is a recurring theme in American politics, unfortunately. Compare the platform of the mid-19th Century Know Nothing Party with today's Tea Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-nothing_party#Platform I think they would have gotten along very well.
Funny but it seems to me that the 2008-2010 Congress qualifies more as the Know Nothings.
What the fuck happened to the Republican party?
You don't really need to answer that, but you probably will.
It pandered to the ignorant so long it became the very thing it was pretending to be.
I try so hard to be objective about the republican party but there is no longer any republican politicians I can admire and it makes it hard for me to not judge the party as a whole.
Maybe only Richard Lugar.
John Huntsman deserves a little credit since he is the only one who doesn't believe Jesus rode dinosaurs.
No doubt it was the leathery racists. They ruined everything.
Nah. It was probably the lack of education and lobbying thing.
Oh. I also want to say. What the fuck happened to the Democrat party?
Kewl you suhold come up with that. Excellent!
poR2Ya fwalnrnngijy