Michelle Bachman front runner? Arrrrggghhhhhh!

Anderson Cooper blog.

"For the second straight day, Republican presidential candidate and Rep. Michele Bachmann's at the top of a new poll of likely Iowa GOP caucus goers.

According to a survey from the American Research Group, 21 percent of people questioned say they are backing the congresswoman from neighboring Minnesota for the GOP presidential nomination in their state's caucuses. Bachmann was at nine percent in ARG's April poll."


Iowa....  "where the corn is as high as the elephant's eye, An' it looks like it's climbin' clear up to the sky."  Oh wait, that's Oklahoma.  Never mind.


Maybe it's because she knows how get government subsidies for her family farm, while maintaining her status as the darlinng of the Tea Party?


Maybe it's a protest against gay marriage?  Iowa got gay married by judiciary, and Bachmann's clinic supposedly "cures" homosexuality by prayer.  And get gov't money for that too?


No to mention, ok to mention, gov't subsidies for her many foster children.


Wikipedia has an extensive bio (link above).  Someone needs to catch her tweetiing naked photos of herself to soldiers in Iraq.  Not gonna happen.







Views: 299

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Isn't it really about the money?  Which Republican gets the most corporate lobbyists supporting him or her?  Whoever has the biggest 'war chest' and 'deep pocket' supporters will win the presidential campaign because they can advertise the most.   It's how a candidate is marketed. Now matter who wins in Iowa.


Isn't Romney still in the lead on this measure of 'success'?  I see Michele Bachmann as a performer with a microphone who can come across well to the far right Christian social conservatives but who scares the pants off the politically conservative branch of the party.  She would need to moderate her views on social issues to gather up support with average Americans, I think.  But since she's a self proclaimed 'woman of principle', she won't be moderating her views anytime soon...she's riding the Tea Party Express as  far as she can take it.  (I don't think she could win against President Obama and I also think the GOP knows it.)  What will really get interesting is when these tea party candidates like Bachmann and Pawlenty start taking hits at each other...when they take off the gloves, so to speak.  Unless they continue to just go after President Obama's 'failed policies' and talk nicey nicey about each other.

Much as I don't like Romney, I hope you are right. He's probably the least-bad of the bunch, though it's hard to say about some of them.  At least he's been chief executive of a large and genearlly liberal and diverse state. 

Here's a recent story about fundraising that I just read today:




It's too early to say who'd 'winning' with the American public, but the article makes some interesting suggestions!

Polls suffer from self selection bias as well as efforts of opponents to skew those polls, think of all of the polls that PZ Meyers has pharygnulated. I haven't looked at the poll but I'm sure it was a poll of which Republican/Conservative/Tea Bagger is the most popular among the crowd of running Republican/Conservative/Tea Baggers. 


I wonder what would happen if the poll had a list of EVERYBODY that was/ or could run?


Tweeting nudie photos to the troops would be something that a true patriot would do in support of those hard up soldiers serving a long way away from home.


See, everything can be spun to make the hero of your team look good.


I have a hard time being worried about republican/conservative/crazy mo-fo's running in the next presidential election.  The Republican party and the Tea Baggers won the last election with claims of job creation, which hasn't happened.  Instead, both seemed to stick with an anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-helping-people-who-got-fucked-by-the-economy-focus to their legislative efforts.  Oh, and then there is the focus of the Republican party on doing everything in their power to try to make the President look bad, you know, instead of trying to solve any critical problems.  Don't believe me?  Look at the crap going on with the debt ceiling talks.  The stock market LIKES the idea of a higher debt ceiling and would be HAPPY with a higher debt ceiling.  But if the debt ceiling isn't raised with permission of the Congress then whatever negative market fluctuations will be used to paint Obama as the guilty party.  If Obama bypasses Congress, which I think is constitutionally allowed, then Obama will be painted as being a tyrant even if the stock market responds positively. 


Who can forget the absolute unwillingness to raise taxes, by the Republican and Blue Dog Democrats, even though they constantly squawk about wanting to PAY DOWN the national debt.  I don't know about you, but when I've got bills to pay I need to make money to pay them.  What I cannot do is stop making money and still expect to pay my bills.  The same principal applies even to the government.



This is all getting so frustrating...no matter what President Obama brings to the table, the GOP leaders say 'no way'.  I think both parties agree on making spending adjustments here and there, but the Tea Party and Grover Norquist pledge signers (see http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137800715/the-man-behind-the-gops-tax...) are unwilling to budge on 'principle'.  Like it would be a sign of weakness to come to a compromise on a very bipartisan issue: The Economy.

I'm so tired of GOP leaders saying 'this is Obama's economy'.  They don't want to appear to be supporting the president on ANYTHING...even if it means cutting their own throats in the process.

"Who can forget the absolute unwillingness to raise taxes, by the Republican and Blue Dog Democrats, even though they constantly squawk about wanting to PAY DOWN the national debt. I don't know about you, but when I've got bills to pay I need to make money to pay them. What I cannot do is stop making money and still expect to pay my bills. The same principal applies even to the government."

First of all, government does not "make" money unless they print more. It takes it through coercion backed by force from people who create wealth. Your assertion that they need to "make" more money means that they need to take more from people through taxes. When you need to make more money, you provide more goods or services and people pay you VOLUNTARILY for doing so. If you equated what government does to the individual, instead of providing more goods and services for a bigger pay check, you would go door to door demanding money from people. If they didn't pay you, you'd then go back with a gun and take their stuff. Then, if they still didn't pay you what you wanted, you'd then go back with a gun again and then put them in a cage.

Increasing debt is a way for politcians to have their cake and eat it too.  It's gutless.  As a nation we need to either decide that we will pay for infrastructure and services, or do without them.  We need to make a choice about which ones we want.


If we don't need roads and bridges and dams and levees and airports, fine - we can sell them off and quite building/maintaining them.  If we are not interested in health care for all, fine - we should tell the hospitals to turn away people who can't pay, and let them die.  If we don't want defense (mostly offense anyway) - fine, pull the troops back and quit buying expensive weapens systems. 


If we do want those things, then the politicians need to get a pair and raise takes.


Same for the voters. If they don't want health care, then they need to stop demanding it.  If they don't want highways and bridges, then live closer to work.


Back to Bachmann, if she is against govt support, then she should pay back the money that she's received in govt support.  She should also state clearly what programs she would stop - enough to pay down the debt - and let the voters decide if they agree with that, rather than vauge soundbites about lowering taxes and cutting programs.

And people are bound to disagree on the role of government.  They always have!  The libertarians seem to think the smaller the government, the better.  The conservatives don't like government regulation in any way, shape, or form.  The liberals want the government to provide safety nets (entitlements) to protect people at the margins of society that have no means to support themselves: young, old, disabled, etc.  It all defines a range of how much intervention people want government to have.  Unrestrained individualism on the far end with little government intervention to the other extreme of 'the nanny state'...which I take to mean 'over-involvement' on the part of government...communism.


Personally, I think the public sectors and private sectors can work together in partnership in some areas.  It would be helpful to figure out who is best at what! The government is successful at some things that the private sector struggles with and vice versa.  


What concerns me with the notion of cutting back social services is what would fill the vacuum for our most vulnerable citizens?   Will non-profits step in?  Will religious organizations be the 'charitable' ones?  If everybody could pay their fair share of taxes (with nobody being 'over burdened'), this conversation might take a different tone.  The fact that some people can afford to get tax lawyers to discover tax shelters, tax loopholes, and tax writeoffs shows that the system is unfair and needs to be reformed.  The wealthy concentrate their wealth...it's what they do. 


But who will have the political stomach for tax reform?  I heard that Congress was fussing over the lightbulb...talk about having their priorities screwed up. Our 2 parties cannot even decide about efficient lightbulbs.


The American Public is willing to pay what is fair because most people can see how directly related tax revenues are to social and municipal services. Lowering taxes even more and cutting government spending to the bone will have the unintended consequence of cutting public sector employment and education funds in a time when Americans are struggling to find employment. 

And she wants to steal the VA disability payments out from under disabled vets.  They could probably fund 20 disabled vets on the government subsidies she gets alone!  Is she afraid some disabled child or veteran is going to take her share?
I'll be honest, it makes me sad when I think about how many Americans back the more outlandish Republican candidates, when they're all just basically cartoons.
I suspect this is going to turn into a "who can love jesus more" contest between her and Rick Perry.  I keep thinking it is just a nightmare.  I need to wake up!
"I suspect this is going to turn into a "who can love jesus more" contest" = best phrase of the day. You rock!


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service