Michelle Bachmann gets it wrong AGAIN..
Prince Of Dorkness
Posts: 3,763
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery...
Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?
Asked if she stood by her assertion that the "Founding Fathers worked hard to end slavery given the facts," Bachmann said, "Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved."
________________________________
That happened this morning.
Michelle Bachmann is finding out that the "Gotchya Media" has that pesky "fact checking" and "follow up questions" that sank Sarah Palin.
This is someone who's been caught in SO many lies and mis-statements but when asked about them, she gets that glassed-over look and then starts to recite talking points about something totally different. This is someone who can easily speak to a crowd of her mindless supporters and say things like "the founding fathers fought tirelessly to end slavery" but when she's asked to back up her bullshit, refuses to admit she doesn't know what she's talking about.
How can ANYONE think this person should lead our country?
Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery...
Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?
Asked if she stood by her assertion that the "Founding Fathers worked hard to end slavery given the facts," Bachmann said, "Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved."
________________________________
That happened this morning.
Michelle Bachmann is finding out that the "Gotchya Media" has that pesky "fact checking" and "follow up questions" that sank Sarah Palin.
This is someone who's been caught in SO many lies and mis-statements but when asked about them, she gets that glassed-over look and then starts to recite talking points about something totally different. This is someone who can easily speak to a crowd of her mindless supporters and say things like "the founding fathers fought tirelessly to end slavery" but when she's asked to back up her bullshit, refuses to admit she doesn't know what she's talking about.
How can ANYONE think this person should lead our country?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
someone like michelle bachmann gains much of her popularity because she alienates so called "liberals" ... many of her supporters could care less about facts ... they only care that they hear the things they want to hear ... things related to their ideologies ... the more the "liberal" media attack her, the more popularity she gets ...
all things being equal - she should just be a footnote in the news but the fact she's got like 5 threads on the front of the MT page is another sign of how she gains in popularity ... these "missteps" do not hurt her credibility to her supporters ... all it does is embolden them ...
so ... my point is making another thread about someone who has already 5 threads about her on the front page is exactly what she wants ... more exposure ...
edit: ok ... 4 threads ...
Well yes and no.
Yes, it endears her more to the tea baggers. And that's fine. But it will mean she'll get the nomination and the VAST majority of the country would never vote for her. Someone like her will fire up the democratic base out of sheer fear alone.
And her style of "God chose me to be a lawyer for the IRS and take people's houses and God told me to be a Senator" might play well with the extreme right but that's even going to turn off the growing number of fiscal conservatives/social liberals in the party AND it will turn off any independents and swing voters.
Just like Sarah Palin... if you really want to destroy her, all you really need to do is show people video of her talking.
i've said it before ... someone like michelle bachmann can win based on your electoral system ...
every election it comes down to the swing states and the swing voters in those states ... the PR companies and the GOP have done a great job of demonizing obama ... the core republicans eat that shit up like it's crack ... that's why he did so poor in the mid-terms ...
all bachmann has to do is win the primaries and run a 100% negative ad campaign on obama and she can win those swing states ... she does not need to actually have any ideas or plans ... all she has to do is say the things republicans like to hear ... tax cuts ...
In a way, we are in agreement. This is what I've been saying. We differ in how we see her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you see her as a bad candidate for President. I don't see her that way. But, we agree about the exposure that will come from the Press trying to beat her down. It's evident here too.
I think the press will continue to try to over do it with her. This will be the response. I don't think she's Sarah Palin. I think she's more equipped to handle this and at some point the press will step over the line. People are tired of talking about B.S. semantical disagreements on issues like founding fathers. They really are trying to play "gotcha" on trivial issues, it's tired and old and people don't want to hear any more of it.
Instead, they want to discuss issues.... like jobs.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
these morons are trying to rewrite history. and when history is able to be rewritten like this, there is a problem.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you're right - i think she would be a horrible president ...
the thing is tho ... she ISN'T discussing the issues ... she's got no ideas or solutions ... her entire platform is based on regurgitating the talking points that republicans like to hear about obama and rallying her supporters around figureheads and people they relate to (john wayne) ... or the next joe the plumber ...
this is the strategy all right wing parties utilize to win elections these days ... they are a one topic party ... tax cuts ...
the other thing is that these things the media are highlighting are not trivial nor semantics ... they show a clear lack of understanding of history and an inability to be forthcoming when she is called on it ... i would have a little more respect for her if she said i was mistaken to think john wayne was from waterloo ... it's sort of like mark mcgwire ... i'd have a lot more respect for him if he came clean when he was in front of that hearing ... it also shows that she is prepared to spew out mistruths to suit her agenda ... sure, all politicians do it but that doesn't make it right ...
I actually fully disagree with you. here I think the problem with Sarah Palin was what you mentioned. No offense, but I don't think you've really watched Bachmann. She's not Sarah Palin. It's simplistic for those left-of-center to group Republican/Tea-Party females into one basket. They are not all alike.
Bachmann, unlike a lot of Republicans, doesn't regurgitate talking points. She has a mind of her own, which is one reason she occasionally makes slight mistakes, but it's also the reason she's seen as "real". This is the reason the press is picking on her for mis-statements. They don't like the fact that she's not using a teleprompter or talking points. She's actually fielding questions with her own mind... wow.
I actually think she has a lot of ideas from following her more closely over the past month or so. You can try to generalize with a liberal slant, and say each party is a one trick pony. I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. I could name about 50 issues that she would disagree with the current administration on that are not related to tax cuts.
For your last point, yes they are trivial. The media doesn't like it when a person really can story-tell and use facts that are not talking points. It goes over their collective heads and surprises them. They sit and scratch their heads then wait until next time they see the person to scrutinize on small semantical/trivial arguments, that had very little to do with her underlying point. They play gotcha, and the citizens are on to it. It won't work.
I said it a few weeks back and I meant it.... Bachmann is benefiting from this. She is a serious candidate and I think she could win in a debate with Obama.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
firstly, i didn't say she was sarah palin nor christine o'donnell ... secondly, feel free to point to any new idea she has for any key issue ... that hasn't been heard before and generalized ... sure, she's running on limited gov't and as a constitutional conservative but what ideas does she have ... all her stump speeches follows the same pattern ...
I watched her last night on hannity. She said literally the same stump speech answer to 3 different questions. "5 kids, blah blah, 23 adopted, blah blah, tax lawyer, blah blah, small business owner, blah blah." same thing on repeat. There was absolutely zero in terms of critical thinking demonstrated by her.
She isn't going anywhere, she will not win the nomination. Attack the leader. Oh wait, can't attack Romney because he is actually a Democrat.
Carry on with topic blasting the perceived leader...
Seriously? Let's be real here. Do you think Obama had more ideas on the stump?
Basic point, so far, I think she's been articulate in communicating the Republican message.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
And that message is that... um... what again?
1. government = bad.
2.cut taxes, specifically on the top earners since they have so many jobs to create,
3. cut spending for necessary government programs to take care of those in need, but at all costs don't cut defense spending.....
that's the gist of it...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i think that the white house and congress are essentially controlled by corporations ... that is the problem ... not the partisan politics that the media would like people to believe ... yes, i'm a socialist but i identify very little with the democratic party or barack obama for that matter ... i do think tho that his failures in the white house have as much to do with him and the constraints he has to work within ...
my dislike of michelle bachmann isn't so much the semantics or trivial issues as you like to put it ... it is simply the tea party and their value system as it pertains to issues that are important to me ... the environment, human rights, peace ...
I respect socialists who call themselves socialists. And I understand that you disagree with her viewpoint.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
We would all do well to spend as much time looking for solutions, planting trees and vegetable gardens (rural and urban) and doing something nice for someone as we do ranting away on our computer key boards.
Speaking of... off I go...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
and don't forget the all important:
4. "family first", AKA "NO GAYS".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Look it up
Www.google.com
Try not to post long copies when you read something.
It was pretty clear from the rest of the sentence he meant "48 states and two more to go," but whatever... I'll give you that... so there's one. Michelle BAchmann has had 3 this week and they were all MUCH worse than that.
And if we really want to even the playing field, have we seen Michelle Bachmann's birth certificate?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if thats what she was saying she wouldn't be scary
whats scary are her crazy beliefs on homosexuality, evolution, science, she would be a terrible president, but i hope she gets the nomination, because obama will destroy her.... if she ever becomes president the world is fucked
socially liberal republicans are okay, you may not agree with their economics but at least there not trying to shove god down your throat...
its the christian right that scares me