Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann

by | January 6, 2012 · 11:25 AM

Liberals, Ron Paul, and Science

By Luke Brinker

Ron Paul-friendly liberals have long mystified me. His bigoted newsletters display contemptible racial animosity, homophobia, and conspiracy-mongering. While he opposes American military adventurism, his foreign policy is anything but left of center. Paul may oppose the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and the military detention of American citizens, but is  a supporter of a Mississippi-style personhood amendment, an opponent of virtually every aspect of the social safety net, and a committed gold bug really a candidate liberals should admire, much less support?

Chris Hayes took to Twitter today to make a valuable contribution to the debate over the relationship between Paul and the left. “Since @ggreenwald on Ron Paul has stirred up an interesting debate about progressive priorities & allies, lemme offer a provocation,” Hayes tweeted. He followed up with, “I am stunned by how low on the list of priorities global warming is for most progressives.To me it’s the most important issue by quite a bit.” Hayes raises an important point I neglected to mention in my Paul-related posts last week. Paul emphatically denies the scientific consensus on climate change. And it isn’t only on global warming that Paul displays a decidedly illiberal attitude toward science. He may be an M.D., but Paul refuses to accept the theory of evolution. As Michelle Goldberg reports, the Texas congressman is deeply tied to far-right Christian groups, which helps explain his anti-science views. If Michele Bachmann’s science-phobic, religious fundamentalist views made her a liberal laughingstock, why should Paul’s denial of global warming and evolution not disqualify him from serious consideration, as well?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ron Paul

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 4, 2012 · 2:58 PM

Michele Bachmann’s Greatest Hits

By Luke Brinker

In an uncharacteristic bow to reality, Rep. Michele Bachmann ended her quest for the White House today, after finishing sixth in last night’s Iowa caucuses.

I can think of no better tribute to the Minnesota congresswoman than a compilation of some of her more notorious moments on the campaign trail. Here, in video form, are some of Bachmann’s greatest hits.

On working for the IRS: In August, the fiercely anti-tax Bachmann explained her employment history with the IRS by stating citing the dictum that “the first rule of war is ‘know your enemy.’”

On vaccinations and retardation: Following a September debate in which she took Texas Gov. Rick Perry to task for ordering Texas schoolgirls to receive the vaccination against HPV, Bachmann told the Today show about a supporter who approached her with the information that the vaccination made her daughter retarded.

On Revolutionary War history: In a speech in Concord, New Hampshire, Bachmann erroneously identified the state as the location of Lexington and Concord.

On the founding fathers and slavery: Like any good Tea Party member, Bachmann extols the virtues of the nation’s founders. Her affinity for them is so great that she incorrectly claimed this year that they were committed to ending slavery.

On the need for McCarthyism: Shortly before the 2008 election, Bachmann rose to prominence by calling for an investigation of anti-Americanism among members of Congress.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Michele Bachmann

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | December 29, 2011 · 12:27 PM

Should Politicians Really Be Faulted For “Game Playing?”

By John Stang

The days leading up to the Iowa Caucuses have gotten pretty nasty in terms of campaign ads.  Accusations have flown in terms of candidates being willing to change positions to pander to an audience.  The traditional problem for most candidates is that running in two separate elections is difficult.  First, there is the primary campaign, where a candidate must win the base of the party, which is much more ideologically rigid than the general electorate.  In the primary, the voters pick who is best for the party.  Second, the general election is where he or she must appeal to independents and undecided voters, who may not fall for ideological pandering.

Moreover, most politicians in order to even run for the presidency usually need to run for other political offices, Herman Cain aside, and be elected to those offices.  The former office is a regional one, for congress or governor, with a very limited constituency and not as ideologically diverse.  However, when running for president, campaigning around the country changes that dynamic.  Also depending on when each primary is set means that one group of certain party must be pandered to over another one (i.e. Iowa’s Evangelical Christian conservatives over New Hampshire’s economic conservatives).

This campaign has seen a lot of barbs traded by each candidate.  Certainly there are plenty of skeletons in each Republican nominees closet to judge them all.  For starters, Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan mirrors that of President Obama’s and his positions on abortion and Iraq have changed several times.  Newt Gingrich had three separate affairs, cheating on his first wife who had cancer, and was an unpredictable leader.  Not to mention that Gingrich took money from Freddie Mac before the housing crisis and supported Romneycare.  Michele Bachmann has stated many crazy positions about homosexuals and made numerous incorrect assumptions about history, all in the name of keeping her Tea Party base.  Rick Perry deregulated much of his state and the so-called “Texas Miracle” affected the social well-being of Texas (one of the lowest ranked states in terms of people with health insurance and high school graduation rates).  Rick Santorum’s hawkish foreign policy and bigotry towards homosexuals does not get moderates on his side.  Jon Huntsman supports gay civil unions and believes in global warming and evolution.  Finally, Ron Paul has his racist newsletters, and, well, you know the rest.

Whew…that was a lot.  It’s obvious some of those positions are more controversial than others.  Cheating on your wife with cancer and supporting civil unions are not in the same ballpark.  However, is it wrong to fault certain politicians for supporting policy positions like an individual mandate or cap and trade in order to win over potential voters in their states, hypocrisy not withstanding?  Massachusetts is more liberal than Texas and certain elements of Pennsylvania are more conservative than Minnesota, which are all different than being Speaker of the House.  Even putting out racist and survivialist newsletters to win over the odd mix of libertarians is  quite different.

We want our politicians to be consistent.  Yet, at the same time, we demand them to be malleable.  That requires each one to take different positions depending on what race they are a part of.  It’s like a trial lawyer that went back and forth between being a defense attorney and a prosecutor.  One minute, he might defend an alleged serial killer and the next minute prosecuting one for the state.  No one faults him for changing just because he needs to make living.  Politics is a uniquely tailored game that requires precise maneuvering, especially if one wants to make a career out of it.  Not to say all politicians need to become sophists or that they should not be held accountable if they do get caught in a lie.  I just wonder if we expect too much from our politicians by having them play these dual roles and if there we should see politics more like a game to get past all the serial hypocrisy.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | December 7, 2011 · 2:14 PM

The Complete Guide to GOP Candidates’ Climate Change Flip-Flops

By Luke Brinker

As a follow-up to today’s post on Jon Huntsman’s global warming U-turn, I figured it was only fair to point out that Huntsman isn’t the only 2012 Republican candidate to shift positions on whether humans are responsible for rising global temperatures and can (or should) do anything to solve the problem. For those keeping score, here’s a list of the 2012 contenders who have taken both sides in the climate debate:

Newt Gingrich

Then: “The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading

of the atmosphere … And do it urgently, yes. . . . I think there has to be a, if you will, a ‘green conservatism’ — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.” – At a debate with Sen. John Kerry, April 10, 2007

Now: There is ”evidence on both sides of the climate change argument.” – On Glenn Beck’s radio program, December 6, 2011

Jon Huntsman

Then: “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.” – On ABC’s “This Week,” August 21, 2011

Now: “There are questions about the validity of the science — evidence by one university over in Scotland recently.” – At the Heritage Foundation, December 6, 2011

Mitt Romney

Then: ”I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.” – In his 2010 book, No Apology

Now: ”My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” – At the Consol Energy Center, apparently apologizing for the position he took in No Apology, October 28, 2011

As for Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum: They’ve stood proudly and consistently against the scientific consensus. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer, two candidates who have been excluded from the primary debates despite serving as governors, have consistently accepted climate science.

Leave a Comment

Filed under climate change

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | November 13, 2011 · 6:36 PM

Media Marginalization and the 2012 GOP Candidates

By Luke Brinker

A stray email by a CBS political analyst has Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign lobbing accusations of bias against CBS News.

In a message – unintentionally sent to a Bachmann campaign official – before last night’s CBS/National Journal GOP presidential debate, John Dickerson predicted that due to her fading support, Bachmann would not be on the receiving end of too many questions from moderators Scott Pelley and Major Garrett. Predictably, Bachmann charges CBS and the rest of the mainstream media with marginalizing her voice at the expense of top-polling candidates like Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. When the media treat only a select few candidates as viable contenders, figures like Bachmann naturally fall by the wayside, her campaign’s narrative goes.

This episode raises two important points. First, while Bachmann is undoubtedly receiving drastically reduced coverage (Remember when she used to grace the cover of Newsweek?), that’s a function of lagging voter support for her presidential bid. After all, the media did gin up plenty of Bachmann coverage when she first launched her campaign, as the Newsweek cover and endless cable chatter at the time attest. With her Tea Party bona fides, the media saw Bachmann as a potential wild card who could ride a hard-right wave into contention in 2012. When that scenario didn’t pan out (thanks to the unsavory details of Bachmann’s bizarre personal beliefs and Rick Perry’s flash in the pan after Bachmann’s Ames Straw Poll win), media coverage declined. The question isn’t why the media aren’t covering Bachmann nearly as much anymore. It’s why they treated her seriously in the first place. A backbench congresswoman, her notoriety comes from making outrageous statements that fire up the base but do little to advance sound public policy. Her effort to win a House leadership bid after the GOP’s 2010 midterm victory went up in flames, raising real questions about her political chops. But because she’s good for ratings, the media pretended Bachmann had a realistic path to the nomination, if not the White House.

The second point to consider is why some candidates have never garnered serious media attention. Few people realize that a former congressman and Louisiana governor, Buddy Roemer, is in the race. Roemer has yet to participate in a single primary debate. Perhaps his refusal to accept campaign contributions greater than $100 and his support for the Occupy Wall Street movement indicate he’s out of step with today’s GOP, but he’s not some fringe figure. As Roemer ever-so-modestly tweeted this past week, “It’s a sad state of affairs when Former Gov. & Congressman w/ Harvard Econ degree isn’t invited to debate.” Sure, Roemer lost his re-election bid for Louisiana governor in the 1990s after finishing behind Klansman David Duke in a primary, but it’s unclear why he’s not viable but Michele Bachmann once was. Then there’s Gary Johnson – a two term governor of a swing state (New Mexico) with sterling conservative economic credentials. Of course, Johnson, unlike Ron Paul, is a true libertarian, supporting abortion rights and gay marriage, so his constituency within the GOP would be a limited one. But is that a good excuse for the fact that he’s participated in a grand total of two primary debates?

As a publicity hound, Bachmann surely hates the lack of attention she’s gotten of late. But having never benefited from serious media treatment, candidates like Roemer and Johnson have far more legitimate grievances to air.

(Photo credit: Associated Press)

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , , ,