home

The Impressive Michele Bachmann . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections
Posted on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:34:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thought I'd try the phrase on for size before she gaffes too badly. Anyway, I am a firm believer in pumping up Bachmann because we want her to win the GOP nomination. Romney's the guy who can beat Obama. Maybe Pawlenty I suppose. But Bachmann can not. As a result, I will now make fun of Kevin Drum stand-in Andy Kroll who points to Nate Silver for the proposition of "throwing cold water" on Bachmann's big weekend. The problem is Silver is actually quite bullish on Bachmann:

I haven’t said anything about the performance of Michele Bachmann in the poll, who drew 22 percent, just a point behind Mr. Romney. Really, there isn’t much to say other than this: these are terrific numbers. [. . .] I would consider her the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses and a legitimate contender to win the Republican nomination.

Throwing cold water? I think Nate is revving up "the impressive Michelle Bachmann" line. (Note: Nate doesn't know much more than me or you about these things, but people think he does.)

Speaking for me only

< Political Positioning And Change | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Impressive Michele Bachmann . . . | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    What if things got so bad Bachmann did win? I've heard this so and so can't beat candidate X and it didn't work out so well.

    Spelling alert, BTD: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    "Michele" not "Michell."

    As to the substance, I think Bachmann is exponentially more viable and dangerous than someone like Palin.

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    Neither is viable.

    Parent
    Spelling still wrong - there should (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    only be one "l" in "Michele."

    "Viable" in terms of getting the nomination - that's as far as I can go at this point.

    Parent

    Is it worth correcting? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:21:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Since you never know which of the posts (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    is going to end up on the sidebar, via the blogads network, I think it looks better - makes TL look better - if the headlines are spelled correctly.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    Accuracy is preferable to sloppiness.

    Parent
    I could see her getting the GOP (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    nom much more easily than winning the general, where she'd be playing the extremist Barry Goldwater to Obama's moderate and sane-seeming you know who.

    I definitely think she has more gray matter between the ears than Sarah Palin, and a better overall on the issues, with even a few particulars thrown in.  I think she's also going to prove to be the better campaigner than Palin was.

    Whether that will be enough to topple the Mittster, or whether GOP voters will get nervous at the prospect of rolling the dice with her at the top of the ticket, we'll see.  But I don't underestimate her nomination chances.

    Parent

    She's already toning down the more (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:02:57 AM EST
    extreme stuff-- or at least she's phrasing it more rationally.  And somebody pointed out (maybe James Fallows?) that she looks quite different than she did on that memorable Hardball when she called for a media investigation of who in Congress is anti-American.  She no longer looks like one step up from a bag lady, wild-eyed and with clothing and hair in semi-disarray.  In fact, she looks fabulous.

    The Dems need to get Kirsten Gillibrand out there more...

    Parent

    "Neither is viable" (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    and both are dangerous. But it's not really an issue as neither will reach the general election unless Palin decides (as I still suspect she might) to go it alone as an indy.

    Parent
    you spelled her (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    first name wrong

    Gacy? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:40:00 PM EST


    Parent
    I admit (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    at first I was wondering if it was intentional snark.

    Amando for prezident!  He'll never gaff.

    Parent

    David Carr called the (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    Republican lineup 'the contest for tallest pygmy".  And while Romney may seem to tower over others of the tribe, we need to remember that if we marry Mittens, we get the TeaParty Republican in-laws (or outlaws) as a part of the ceremony.

    Representative Bachmann may not land a job on the History Channel, but President Obama is not gaffe-free, just a little more teflon-coated. Just last month, when signing the guest book at Westminster Abbey he dated it, May 24, 2008.  Now, that may be understandable since 2008 was a good year for the president, but then there was that comment during the presidential campaign that he had visited 57 states, with, he thought, just one left to go.

    I think we might be better directed to "pump up" Obama by continuing to let him know that he is dealing with a cheerless base and that that base needs some serious and substantive attention.

    Your last (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    sentence says it. It seems everybody is just hoping that the GOP nominates an unacceptable candidate. It's a pretty tacit admission that Obama has been pretty abysmal as a President for the most part.

    Parent
    And what about (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    toasting QEll glass in hand, yapping away, not noticing that everybody else was standing at attention, empty handed, while the band played "God Save the Queen"? (He probably thought the music was ment to underscore his words.)

    Or his Medal of Honor Gaffe where he claimed to have given Jared Monti the medal in person when in fact Monti died in action in Afghanistan 2006 and received the medal posthumously.

    "First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously."
    And ... "You guys"? Seriously?

    Parent
    Lol, this is hilarious (none / 0) (#22)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    A YouTube of Obama's gaffe at Buckingham Palace is titled
    Queen humiliates President Obama at Buckingham Palace by refusing toast
    Of course! It's the Queen who doesn't know (her own) protocol. :D

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:09:04 PM EST
    just that she doesn't like toast.

    She prefers saltines.

    Parent

    The band jumped the gun (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:06:33 AM EST
    as I heard it.  Obama was just told, This happens and then that happens, and then you do etc., not the protocol for what you're supposed to do if the band jumps the gun.

    Not his fault, IOW, I don't think.

    Parent

    Wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    God Save the Queen stop you in your tracks.

    Parent
    And you believe that? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:24:10 AM EST
    The band jumped the gun
    Or as I heard somewhere else: "The English simply don't know how to behave accordingly when in the presence of the US President".(!)

    Are there really no limit to the excuses made (up) on behalf of Obama? Didn't he notice everyone else was standing at attention? Didn't he know/ recognize "God Save the Queen"? Is he unable to use his own senses?

    Sorry, I just don't buy the "Not his fault".

    Parent

    I heard he was the lone gunman (none / 0) (#74)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:52:08 AM EST
    Being two is not an acceptable excuse.

    Parent
    Yeah, actually (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    Some article laid out the rules for how these things are supposed to proceed, and the band clearly jumped the gun.

    I think you're working way too hard to denigrate Obama.  Did you like his tie, or was that insensitive and stupid and deliberately insulting, too?

    Good grief.


    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    I think you're working way too hard to denigrate Obama.
    I am? Actually I "work" "way" harder on calling out the media and other apologists for never seeing any faults with him.
    his tie[?] insensitive[?] and stupid[?] and deliberately insulting[?]
    Huh? "You talkin' to me?"

    Quite an impressive imagination you've got there. Or is it "creative reading skills"?

    But hey, 'Good grief' back at you. :)

    Parent

    And here (none / 0) (#92)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    (not that it matters to you, I'm sure) is BBC weighing in
    Barack Obama was probably not aware that he was doing anything unusual when making a toast "to the Queen" and then continuing with a short speech. According to protocol, however, he should have stopped after the toast.

    The band, taking its cue from the word Queen, struck up with the national anthem leaving the president struggling to make himself heard.

    But I guess they don't know diddly-squat about British Royal Protocol anyway.

    Parent
    Somewhere in the TL archives of 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:37:06 PM EST
    I noted my reaction to John McCain's unveiling of Sarah Palin. I said at the time that she reminded me of Michele Bachmann.

    I say we go with that.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:07:41 AM EST
    since fewer of any of us knew who Bachmann was than even Palin.

    Parent
    Sure, I'll play! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    Isn't that Bachmann brilliant?  Wow, she really knows her American history, huh?  And she. . .

    Nope, sorry, I just can't do it.

    I need to clean my keyboard now, as it has been put to obscene purpose.

    I think she said (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:09:51 AM EST
    "the presidency of the United States."  That's how she usually phrases it, for some unknown reason.

    I'm frankly less bothered by that than I am by Obama's repeated "the thing is, is that."

    Parent

    OMG, I HATE that double "is" - (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:54:11 AM EST
    it just grates on my ears, and for the life of me, I don't understand why people do it.  Why can't they just say, "the thing is, that...?"

    Between that and the substitution of "goes" and "went" for "says" and "said" - I struggle not to scream, lol.

    Parent

    I've mellowed on stuff like this (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:04:17 AM EST
    We don't have an English Academy, and as a consequence there's no official language rulebook.

    Parent
    How do you feel about "uptalk?" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:18:37 AM EST
    You know, like every statement sounds like a question?  And it's like, really annoying?  

    Yeah, I know there's no English Academy, andgarden, and there are a lot of things far worse in this life to be bothered by, but I guess because (1) I come from a generation where grammar mattered, and (2) I work in a profession where I'd rather be perceived as intelligent, not empty-headed, it's more on my radar on a daily basis.

    Call me crazy - others have - but when I deal with people - allegedly educated people - who sound like they never got past high school-speak, and everything sounds like a question, I feel like there's a decided lack of "there" there.

    Parent

    You mean the way people (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:34:37 AM EST
    speak in Fargo (and India)? Yes, I find that irritating too. As to the decline in quality of written language of the years, I have a theory that powerful men were long protected by underpaid and overeducated secretaries.

    But I also think that learning the "rules" of grammar is, to a large degree, like learning to read. Some people take to it more naturally than others. For my own part, I don't remember a time when I couldn't read, and I can't recall any instruction in English grammar beyond that which was technical and non-obvious. For others, I think it is a lifetime struggle. And it can also vary by age. I was personally unable to learn either Latin or French in middle and high school (long story. . .).

    Parent

    You're probably right on (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    both counts.

    But.... my dad, a foreign language teacher, used to say that "because it sounds right" is actually a far better guideline for proper grammar/sentence structure than knowing the rules per se.

    Generally, if you read, you absorb rules for what "sounds right," whether you have a clue how to diagram a sentence or not.  Exceptions, of course, for the small percentage of people who have some kind of genuine cognitive deficit.  But in general, crappy spoken language is an indicator of somebody who doesn't read much. (Writing is actually a whole 'other deal.)

    Parent

    Here's one that sounds wrong but is (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    almost always right: "if I were" instead of "if I was."

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    Actually, if you read a lot (other than law cases!), "were" would sound right and "was" clangingly wrong.

    But point taken.  It's not 100 percent.

    Parent

    It's not just about (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    how much you read, but also about how you read.

    When I was a little kid I would read more than any other kid I knew, including my very grammatically correct siblings.  But I just fly through books.  I don't read the same way they do, I read multiple sentances at once and retain a mental image, not words.  I've never figured out how to train myself to read more slowly (one side benefit - I love rereading books, there is almays something new there).  When I was younger I would routinely fail the fairly simple standardized English exams.  My parents never told me until years later once it had more or less self-corrected.  My grammar is still not great, but I guarantee you it's not for lack of reading.

    Parent

    I suffer from this too (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    And I love to reread my favorite books and usually find something new most times too. I did well whenever asked for a rundown of what I read because I simply described the picture in my head, it was usually vivid. But I also remember other classmates receiving high marks too and when I would read their summation, if they had picked up on a different theme I usually felt like they had read a different book. My grammar is less then terrific though, it always has been, it was one of the few things that required my studying. And I notice that the more I type, the more phonetically yet grammatically incorrect I type :)

    Parent
    Oh, give me a break! (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:25:07 AM EST
    Both of you are totally fine and have far better command of the language than most people.  Neither one of you would ever say, "the thing is, is that" or other common cringe-making abuses of the sort that drive me around the bend.

    You guys are NOT what I was complaining about!

    Parent

    "The thing is, is that"...yeesh. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:09:28 AM EST
    I had a client  some years back who used that phrase all the time - I mean, pretty much every time the discussion shifted back to him; since these were phone discussions, he couldn't see me rolling my eyes, and I hope he didn't hear my frequent deep breaths as I tried to stop hearing that as I focused on what followed.

    When my girls were in their teens, we had an outbreak of "like," along with "goes" and "went" as substitutes for "says" and "said."  I started interjecting some variation of, "wait, what did she like?" or "where did she go?"  "They went where, again?"  Or I would hold up a finger each time they said "like;" when I got to ten, I told them that was it - they had used all the "likes" they were allotted, and from that point, when I heard it, I would interrupt.  When they couldn't get through a sentence without the interruption, it made them aware of what they were saying, and over time, it got better.

    They'd get mad, but I'd tell them, "someday, you're going to want people to hear you as the intelligent and educated young women you are, it's going to matter what you sound like, and the only way to break a habit is to first become aware of it."

    I still hear it from them a bit, in casual conversation - heck, I've been knowm to do it myself - but listening to them interact at their jobs, it's clear they know when and where it's okay, and I'd like to think I helped with that!

    Parent

    It is hard to get rid of that vernacular (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    It is from my teen years too and I can easily slip back into it. What is worse is if a group of us get together who used it, we easily slip back into it and nobody even notices.

    Parent
    Good for you (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    I grew up in an era before this kind of speech was so widespread and contagious, but my mother certainly corrected me (nicely!) when I used sloppy or incorrect language.

    What maddens me the most in "teen speak" these days is when there's no verb at all-- "So she said no, and I'm, like, Whoa!"

    Parent

    well you are certainly nicer (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    than my siblings are about it!

    I guess I am just used to being constantly corrected, the "English majors" that they are... (they weren't really english majors, that's just what I call people who constantly correct me)

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    But it took me years to train myself into that.

    Parent
    Two mistakes (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    even highly educated people still make:

    1. Using "infer," when they mean "imply."

    2. Not realizing "irregardless" is not a word, its just "regardless."

    Boy, do I hate people who point stuff like this out.

    Parent
    I hear that... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    if ya understand what the person was trying to say, thats all that really matters in my book....I believe the term is nit-picking.

    Something too robotic about perfect grammar and the perfect choice of words...commoner talk, chock full of errors, just feels more human and sincere imo.

    Like say "ain't" for example...I'm an avid user.  Whenever some nit-picker says "ain't is not a word", my standard retort is "you know what it means dontcha? Then it's a word."

    Parent

    I've always been a firm believer (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    that I have every right to make up words.  Language is always changing.  As long as people know what I mean, than that word works.  I tend to go the German route for English words I make up.  String a couple words together, maybe cut out a superfluous syllable or two, and voila - brand new word is formed.  Since it's derived from other English words, people still know what I'm trying to say.

    Language has never been my strong suit.  Although I'm probably better at grammar than I am at spelling.

    Also, people who have been around other languages can easily make mistakes in English.  Sometimes I have a hard time remembering which construct or rule goes with which language.  For a long time German sayings would creep into my English vocabulary, even though they didn't really make sense in English, just because that's where my subconscious was.  Start mixing in Spanish or - god forbid - Chinese, and you can have some problems, even in your native language.

    Parent

    Hey, I hear both you guys (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    And, I'm the furthest thing from a "grammar cop" that there is.

    The point is that it makes a difference depending in what venue the grammar is used. On the "street," whatever gets the point across is cool in my book. But, if the conversation is taking place in a more formal, proper setting, then it makes a difference. If you're being interviewed for a college application, or its a job interview, the interviewer certainly knows what the correct grammar is. For your own benefit, you should too.

    Parent

    Time and a place... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    to be sure Shooter...but even in formal settings, I think to judge a person's intelligence by their grammar or vocabulary is akin to judging a person by their shoes.  It's just the window dressing.

    There are people with perfect grammar and extensive vocabularies without an original or profound thought in their heads, and on the flip those who speak street exclusively that are downright profound in their thinking.

    Parent

    It's not a question of intelligence (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    It's a question of inattention and sloppiness on the part of educated people.  Folks who don't have that advantage obviously, my heavy judgmental attitude doesn't apply to them.  But it's one reason they get stuck in a lower socioeconomic group.

    As for those eddicated folks-- I absolutely cringe when I hear what comes out of the mouths of TV journalists.  Apparently, all those J-schools they go to don't require a reasonable degree of mastery of the English language.

    Brits for decades have learned "proper" English from the BBC.  God help us if Americans are learning it from cable news channels.

    Parent

    I haven't noticed... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    if I understood the journalist, they spoke the language successfully...mission accomplished.

    Now the BBC, on rare occasions I'll be like "wtf that limey just say?" :)

    To each their own G-Falc, we've all got our pet peeves, it just doesn't bother me...now the sloppiness of the reporting and reliance on press releases vs. investigative journalism, that's my pet peeve with tv journalism.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:22:24 AM EST
    I'd happily tolerate mangling the English language if they were otherwise doing their job.


    Parent
    I second... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    I make up words and forge new slang on the regular...slang & figures of speech are the true beauty of language, and it is constantly evolving...I feel ya sister.

    Parent
    One can argue that (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    control of language is a way to exclude people from power and privilege.

    For instance "Axe" instead of "Ask..." or the creation of words such as hateration or truthiness.

    Another way the elites try to maintain poeple in subordinate positions.

    Parent

    Like the catholic church... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    back in the day performing mass in latin...tradition or an attempt to keep the rubes in the dark and keep the rubes needing the clergy to be "saved"?  And all for a measley 10%:) lol

    Parent
    But when most folks had so little, (none / 0) (#99)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    that 10%from the rich meant something, lol!  

    Maybe that should be our new grift, selling indulgences.

    Parent

    I can't help it though Jeff (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    I still giggle with everyone axing everyone else down here. But I also giggle when Nor'easters throw an R on the end of everything and the kitchen sink. We were watching Cuomo on the news and he starts talking about this new lawr. What the hell is a lawr? I know what a law is and I know what a lawyer is, but not a lawr.

    Parent
    My Aunt hated the word (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    unthaw. I heard many lectures about the vile use of unthaw. I never use the word unthaw because of her.

    Parent
    Depends how you define "official" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    There most certainly are rules for grammar, sentence structure, etc.  The point is not to torment people but to make meaning clear.

    I'm sorry, but lazy, sloppy use of language by educated people drives me nuts.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    Anyways

    I was like

    She was like

    Parent

    Listen, I think Bristol Palin hasn't fallen far (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    from the tree that is her mother - as in, she's way too opportunistic for my taste - but if she's being truthful, that Levi had sex with her without her consent, I don't find that something to make jokes about.

    Given the battle we women still fight over this issue, surely there must have been something else you could have used as an example of the dimwittedness and short attentions spans of the American public.

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:06:32 PM EST
    What on earth does one politician's child have to do with a completely different politician?

    This is the woman (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    who stared off-camera for the entirety of her State of the Union response.  I thought that would hurt her.  Apparently not!  She is a champ at gaffe recovery, or I guess, non acknowledgment.

    No I think you may have (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    something there -- she is much more likely, iirc, to acknowledge some of her groaning gaffes ... some of them perhaps ... than say Sarah Palin'.  E.g., her remark a few mos ago about the Revolutionary War starting in Concord, NH.  The next day she said she'd just made a mistake.

    Palin of course with her rambling incoherent story about the midnight ride of Paul Revere just went on Fox the next day and dug herself in deeper.

    Both are gaffe machines like Biden, but Bachmann, not Palin, seems capable of admitting error, to her credit.

    Not that I'm going to vote for her -- her far Right politics and religious fundamentalism are just too nutty for me.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    that's what I find interesting about her thus far.  She is not constantly (as far as I know) trying to distort the English language to justify something she said or did.  I would nevvvvvvverrrrrrr vote for her but in a field that has thus far included Trump, Palin and Newt, Mr. "Cheating is patriotic," she is practically a breath of fresh air.  Instead she just embraces old school crazy, like "don't fill out your census!" and "socialism!!"

    Parent
    I've had her winning the nom (none / 0) (#8)
    by seabe on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    since she first put her toes into the pool, back in late 2010-early 2011.

    I figured I'd change my prediction as it goes on -- and I still expect to change that prediction. However, if anything, I've grown more bullish as these things have gone on. It's a shame the July debate got cancelled.

    Bachmann (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    is dangerous.
    Palin is dangerous.
    Romney is dangerous.

    But so is Obama.

    Rooting for Bachmann as a means of getting another weird and perplexing four years of Obama & Co. is an activity which must be strange indeed for those engaged in participating in it.

    I see. (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:08:50 PM EST
    It's back to making the old discredited Bush=Gore arguments.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:23:06 AM EST
    Root for Bachmann.

    Parent
    Kos picked her to win the nomination.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:58:40 PM EST
    I don't think she can last without making a monumental gaffe. She's too crazy. That interview with Chris Matthews 2 years ago leaps to mind.  Then again, the GOP sent Sharon Angle and Ken Buck to the general Senate election in their respective states, so Kos might be right.

    On the other hand... (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    look who the democrats elected as vice president....

    Parent
    Kos? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Shawn on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:59:17 PM EST
    Now we KNOW she won't win.

    Too bad.

    Parent

    Or...what about this combo (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:03:43 PM EST
    What if--somehow--the usually on-message Repubs try to pull the party together by anointing Romney the top nominee with Palin as his VP pick? Wouldn't that touch the bases in philosophy & geography? (Come to think of it, that will be my "bet" for now.)

    Parent
    Ay yi yi...my gaffe...meant Bachman (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:07:00 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:08:10 PM EST
    they won't pick Palin for VP, been there, done that but they might pick Bachmann for sure.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:08:34 PM EST
    missed your gaffe update :)

    Parent
    Rep. Bachmann clearly missed her calling. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    She has the large hands and long fingers of a concert pianist.  And, youse guys, don't be insulting Iowa.  She probably received an excellent secondary education.

    I believe she moved to MN (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    at a young age, so didn't get that quality Iowa education.  

    Besides, no self-respecting, educated Iowan would ever, ever confuse John Wayne Gacy with The Duke.  

    Parent

    Despite my excellent secondary school (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    educ. in Iowa, I was unaware John Wayne was born in Iowa, much less Waterloo.  Donna what's her name, Jean Seberg from Marshalltown, sure.  

    Parent
    John Wayne... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:20:36 AM EST
    ...was born in Winterset.  John Wayne Gacy was born in Waterloo.  

    Johnny Carson was born in Corning. These are things that every true Iowan knows and hold dear.  

    Perhaps your excellent secondary education and standing as an Iowan was counteracted by your years in AA at that university.

    Parent

    And Winterset is in Madison County, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    where there are covered bridges. Also the setting for the Worst.Novel.Ever.

    Parent
    The movie was any better? (none / 0) (#113)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    A good friend of mine parent's had some land down there--across the road from one of the bridges.  Spent many a weekend down there raising hell away from the 'rents in High School.

    Great two lane highway for letting his Olds Cutless 440 loose on the way down from the big city too.  Ah youth...

    Parent

    Herbert Hoover: West Branch. (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    P.S.  We didn't move to Iowa til 5th grade.  Who knows what they all learned b/4 I got there!

    Parent
    and for what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    there's a casino in Osceola called "Terribles." It has an 80 foot cowboy in front you can see for miles!

    Apropos of nothing, it's on a barge in a man-made lake.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    that explains a lot!  :)

    Parent
    Donna Reed. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:02:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Who are you to question... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:48:20 AM EST
    the Notorious G.O.D.?

    She was called to work collections for the IRS, and she answered this divine call:)

    How that flies with the Tea Party I have no freakin' clue...I mean he I-R-F*ckin'-S!!!  

    Parent

    I've (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:58:32 AM EST
    thought the same thing. She worked for the IRS?

    Parent
    If you're a tax lawyer, the IRS is a (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:07:44 AM EST
    great place to get started, seeing the application of tax law and regulations from the inside, then going to a private sector law firm where you take what you learned and put it to use defending and representing clients who have IRS issues.

    I know of quite a few tax attorneys who have taken that route, and it has served them - and their eventual clients - well.

    Parent

    I'm sure it is a great place... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:21:22 AM EST
    for a tax lawyer...but not for holy-roller right-wingers seeking holy-roller right-winger votes.

    It ain't exactly god's work...render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that.

    I thought she was a legit crazy true-believer at first, starting to rethink that...another full o' shite chameleon, or maybe just a master of self-delusion.

    Parent

    Maybe Not the Top Spot (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Maven on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    but if the nomination goes to a relatively sane candidate like Romney, I think Bachmann could well have the inside track for the VP slot, since that could potentially assuage some of the concerns of some of the hard-core wingnuts.

    Relying too heavily on early polling numbers to try to gauge the true width/depth of her (or any candidate's) support is often an exercise in foolishness, as the high-flying 2008 campaigns of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, et al. would attest to.  Right now, Bachmann's still considered a fresh new face, but six months from now, that shiny new-candidate finish will likely have more than a few dings in it, and may have rusted all the way through.  Time will tell.

    Agree, if MB doesn't embarrass (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:16:53 PM EST
    herself and the party too much with too many howling gaffes, and also begins to refrain from going too far out on the Tea Party ledge with ultra-extremist positions which would not be viable in a general election, if she can remain just sympatico with the TP and basically get through the primaries as a tough pol who gets better as the season wears on, she would be a prime VP candidate.

    And the evidence from her various political efforts in MN seems to be that she is good on the stump -- and that people underestimate her at their peril.

    As I say, she's Palin plus about 10 IQ pts and maybe 10% added gravitas.

    But too many verbal blunders, too many far right positions -- she'll be toast.

    Parent

    The difference between Palin and Bachman (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    is that Palin started out her life as a TV sports talking head. Bachman started as a determined issue activist (incidentally, working for Jimmy Carter).

    Bachman is a Christian fundamentalist of the kind that Palin might be (and tends to play on TV).

    Parent

    I heard Bachmann say (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    she has a post-doc in federal tax law.  She was a tax lawyer before running for Congress, and even being a bad tax lawyer takes a pretty sharp mind, seems to me, and a LOT of hard work.

    Parent
    That would be (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:29:56 AM EST
    post-doctorate, for those who missed it.

    Underestimate her at your own peril. (Not referring to you, gyr)

    The high numbers she's gotten here must have surprised even her, and if she knuckles down, gets some real good training on how to project to audiences she could be the sleeper of this campaign.

    Dumb she's not, and plenty dangerous.

    Parent

    Her gaffes (none / 0) (#109)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    don't bother her supporters.  They grow in number with each gaffe.

    Exposing her gaffes seems to trigger the George Costanza rule; exposing her never seems to work out.

    Parent

    exactly n/t (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:05:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Desperately as Romney wants to be pres (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    I think he'd slit his own throat rather than be saddled with Bachmann not just on the campaign trail but potentially in the White House.

    Parent
    Problem Is (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    This is the Presidential election after the Citizens ruling (it was before the last election, but too close to make a difference).  I don't want anything even near crazy getting those funds.  

    Hoping Bachman wins the primary and counting a flop for the election is playing with fire.  I'd rather lose to Romney, then have another idiot scare like Palin.  Give crazy enough chances and they will pull one out.

    Tom Petty has asked her to stop using 'American Girl' for a theme song.  For pro business people, those R's sure have a hard time grasping music rights.  They hate those artsy types until they need a theme song...

    She lied about being born in the same city as John Wayne.  Which is nutz, why lie about that, I can't imagine anyone changing camps because of that coincidence.

    Chris Wallace asking her on Fox News if she was a 'flake' was classic.  He later apologized to the viewers, not her.

    The flake (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:49:15 PM EST
    thing is awful I think. Did anyone ask George W. Bush is he was a flake or Dick Cheney? I mean the lady has bad ideas but that's a condescending statement that they only make to women candidates it seems.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by dk on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    I mean, didn't TPaw come on with some hairbrained, absurd economic "Plan" a few weeks ago that called for all sorts of crazy tax cuts and then just assumed there would be 5% annual economic growth ad infinitum?

    I mean, if that isn't a sign of a flake, I don't know what is.  And yet, correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't see the word flake ever applied to him.  Or stupid, or whatever word du jour is applied to Bachman or Palin (both of whom have atrocious policy positions just as bad as TPaw's).

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    His crazy policy was taken seriously but Bachmann is considered a flake for holding similar policy positions?

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    Biden saying that the election was all about a "three letter word":

    J - O - B- S.

    Parent

    Agreed Somewhat (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:58:19 PM EST
    It came from Fox News, so mostly I thought it was funny because of that.

    The flake comment itself, was disrespectful only because it was applied to one person.  And considering the source, I will assume the powers that be over there don't want her in this election and that was a warning shot.  Just a guess.

    Personally, I would love to see the media call a horse, a GD horse, instead of a unicorn that can solves all our woes with magical 'lowering taxes increases revenue' powers.  Not so much the name calling, but this business of never refuting the obvious BS is IMO one of the major reasons we are a divided nation.  

    Bachman is a flake, a year ago she was on the fringe of the fringe, today she apparently is a solid conservative candidate.  If someone doesn't point out candidates most nonsensical views, one of these idiots are going to end up running the country.  Oh wait...

    Parent

    gotta agree here (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    Hoping Bachman wins the primary and counting a flop for the election is playing with fire.

    She might actually make GWBx2 look 'ok'.

    Parent

    I won't (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:47:57 PM EST
    disagree with your characterization of Bachmann...

    But Barack Obama doesn't appear to me to be the picture of mental stability either.

    Now that is a first (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    Other than some far-right types, I have never seen nor heard anyone speak or write anything suggesting that our President "doesn't appear...to be the picture of mental stability...."  Perhaps, you are tired & merely stretching a lot.

    Parent
    Yep, christine, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    some here are getting a little carried away with their reflexive anti-Obama rhetoric.  Not even close to being in the wacko category, by most objective measures, even from most of his political opponents.  Can't even say that of his policies.

    You can say that about some of Bachmann's policies and statements, but not the moderate stances of O.

    Odd vibes on this board today -- as if we've stepped into another dimension where TalkLeft is actually a board to covertly promote the GOP.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:22:17 AM EST
    it has come to that...

    If you are against Obama's bizarre continuations of some of Bush's most reviled policies, you are characterized as being promoting the GOP.

    And, frankly, this statement by Obama:

    "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    is so stupid in its content, so reactionary, so reminiscent of the segregationists' rationalizations of the sixties, that it reeks of a the same kind of numbheadedness of a Bachmann - even though it is couched in a somewhat more intellectually acceptable phraseology.

    The wars are an abomination.
    The treatment of our returning veterans is an abomination.
    The lack of help for people losing their homes is an abomination.
    The patriot act is an abomination.
    The continuation of Gitmo is an abomination.
    The continuation of the policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial is an abomination.
    The use of the act which permitted the US government to go after escaped slaves to justify a modern military tribunal is an abomination.

    They are also extremely stupid and dangerous policies.
    They are worthy of the GOP that you have posed as the enemy.

    Parent

    Simply put, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:26:52 AM EST
    following irrational policies denotes mental instability.

    Of course, his aggressive pursuit of the renewal of the patriot act (as an example), may denote the same kind of rationality that Bush possessed.

    I think that saying that Obama has become somewhat unstable is kinder that saying that he is deliberately and consciously promoting cruel and unfair policies that benefit the entrenched corporations and injure the poorest among us.

    Either he knows what he is doing, or he doesn't realize what he is doing.

    Parent

    All this is fun, (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:02:37 PM EST
    to guess, speculate, try out different possibilities, but the reality is the landscape a year, year and a half from now will be unrecognizable.

    There are so many "Black Swans" circling above things might be unrecognizable as soon as next week, for that matter. (Greece) September 14, 2008 was a day like any other; September 15, Lehman filed for bankruptcy and the explosion that followed told everyone that the world as we knew it had come to an end.

    There are so many financial & political grenades laying all over the world, their locking pins pulled, and the detonation gears ticking towards Armageddon. Exaggeration? I haven't found an economist yet that thinks its an exaggeration. Financial derivatives, in spite of them being a major cause of the crash of '08, have, under the total capture of the White House, grown exponentially since then. Estimates are that they represent a sum greater than the total capital stock of the world many times over.  

    Guessing the players and outcomes next years may be fun now, but I think the issues, as serious as they are today, will be literally life or death a year from now.

    I don't see anyone on the scene today, from either party, that exudes confidence for the mess he/she will be inheriting.

    Depressing.

    Prediction (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:14:02 AM EST
    Perry's not going to run.  He's got too many odd skeletons in his closet, and probably some we don't know about.  He also isn't quite deluded enough to think he belongs on that stage, I think.  He's your classic big fish in a small pond type and my sense is that he knows it.

    My opinion, FWIW (none / 0) (#82)
    by TJBuff on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:09:09 AM EST
    Double-dip recession or another bank crisis and McCain will be able to beat Obama.

    The scariest thing to me (none / 0) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:35:47 AM EST
    about Bachmann is that she's nutty religionist. She constantly touts the Constitution but obviously has no clue what really says.

    If Bachmann was elected president, I'd be at the Canadian border the next day requesting asylum for religious persecution and political stupidity of my fellow Americans.

    No more scary to me then the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    nutty environmentalist this president is.

    Parent
    GOP primaries still winner take all? (none / 0) (#84)
    by pitachips on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    I'm somewhat confused. I've read conflicting reports about them possibly going towards a proportional system like the Democrats.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    Please let her be the nominee, when it comes down to toe to toe with the guy who had better pick a pro choice supreme court justice, he will easily and handily whup her. She has the ability to sound really great when she is playing to a crowd of Republicans, and she has the ability to lose it and become very scary when it is time to talk to all of us and verbally go anywhere beyond Republican party extremist rhetoric :)

    The Impressive Michele Bachmann . . . | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment