OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING

So Michele Bachmann, proud Christadictorian of her class at Regent University, apparently thought it was a good idea to sign on to some no-name Christian right group's anti-gay marriage manifesto. The Iowa-based organization, Family Leader, wants candidates to pledge to be faithful to their spouses, "vigorously defend" opposite marriage, and oppose a grab bag of other things (porn, the imposition of Sharia law in Iowa) just to remind everyone that they are nuttier than my shit after a day at the cashew farm.

Dozens of news networks, newspapers, and blogs have run this story; the link I provide above is from the ABC News website, a generic mainstream source of news if ever one was. It's very interesting that the ABC News item, like nearly every mainstream news report on this story, omits mention of the following part of the Family Leader manifesto:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

I…see.

I've been expecting the Normalization of Deviance process to begin with Bachmann and it appears that her much-praised performance at the first GOP primary debate (inasmuch as "Wow, she doesn't sound nearly as bonkers as she is!" is praise) lit the fuse. Beaten into terrified submission by Fox News ratings and forty years of right wing pant-shitting over That Librul Media, the mainstream news industry treats Republican lunatics with kid gloves once it becomes clear that he or she is a "serious" – defined in this instance as financially and politically viable – candidate. If Michele Bachmann is a legit contender for the nomination then it's imperative to give her Fair, Balanced treatment, which is conservative for going out of their way to take her seriously and make her look respectable. Whatever needs to be overlooked in that process is acceptable collateral damage to reality.

It will be interesting to see going forward how often the Sunday Bobblehead crowd presses her on all of the truly, magnificently insane shit she has said and supported over the years. The Bachmann team is in overdrive trying to backtrack some of her previous statements and positions but in the internet age no candidate can effectively soften the kind of statements she has put out for public consumption…unless of course the Beltway media simply decide not to bring it up, instead letting her set the agenda out of desperate fear of being accused of Librul Bias. Or perhaps they honestly believe that any individual who can contend for a major party nomination is to be taken seriously by definition, which creates an environment wherein whatever brand of Crazy happens to have the GOP in its thrall at any given moment becomes the new normal.

25 thoughts on “OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING”

  • She is clearly batshit crazy. This has been well established for some time now. What the "mainstream" media don't do to further this point, commercials will take care of later on. This is what we have PACs with unlimited funds for.

  • Life is too mundane for Bachmann to make it very far in the primary heats. While it'd be fascinating* to see the "batshit crazy" candidate scramble to the top of the heat, we don't live in that world. The nomination process is designed to flatten the inspiring, dull the sharp-witted, and deaden the soulful, and to choose the candidate who best allows him/herself to be rendered as generically inoffensive as possible. Crazy people can't be tamed–it's why we usually end up with the lunatics on the *bottom* of the ticket–why the Veep debate is usually much more entertaining than the title bout. Bachmann's team can massage all they want, but, idiomatically speaking, bitch'll still be crazy, y'all. We should just enjoy the ride while she's with us, refusing to keep her hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times, because–though the permissive nature of the MSM may be slackening–it won't be long before she drops a 'macaca,' or a Howard-Dean-yeeha, and then, that'll be that…

    *In the same way that watching an ebola virus replicate in real-time is 'fascinating.'

  • A child born into slavery was likely as not to be the result of an owner sleeping with his property, so yes, I guess that could be called a two parent household. At least until the mother or child was sold.

    Good times…

  • America never had slavery, it was freedom-chattel.

    But seriously, you only need the most cursory knowledge of slavery to realize that one of the primary grievances of the abolitionists was that slavery tore mothers, fathers, and their children apart. This was easily one of the most common appeals to 19th century Christian morality and sentiment.

    Or for fuck's sake, just read _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.

    So here's a question: How many books do you think Bachmann has ever read?

  • She used to read Gore Vidal… She seems to be fairly literate and intelligent, unfortunately neither of those are a guarantee of sanity. I suspect she may win the GOP nomination by a landslide, and scare enough people that she loses the Presidency by a landslide,too!

  • I would still rather see Ron Paul pro legalization take center stage than Michelle Bachmann anti-fun message.

    Anyway, some how your site never remembers my name from the last time and I get to create a new one each time…

  • Middle Seaman says:

    Crazy is now sane. Bachmann is walking the street crazy, the only missing element is spitting and talking to herself. But that's OK. By the time it will matter, the really crazy Boehner and Obama will bury us six feet deep with their budget cutting insanity.

  • SiubhanDuinne says:

    They dropped the kids-were-better-off-under-slavery clause? So we would all forget, or write it off as an amusing typo? They must not know that there is life eternal on the intertubes and that a thousand years from now, historians will be able to see which version Michele Batshit actually signed.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    It was on Chris Matthews' show a couple of years ago where this loon had her tin-foil hat national coming out party.

    And yesterday, Chris and his panel, including Mrs. Greenspan, agreed that yes, she is a serious candidate.

    Well, yes, she is, and will be, if you stupid and irresponsible fucks don't show how crazy she is. YOU'RE the fucking gate-keepers!
    You need to start mocking idiots like her. She's just as, if not more than, extreme as Gohmert, Steven King, Kingston, and a whole host of House and Senate loony-tunes. And you also treat THEM seriously instead of mocking them.
    Why?
    Because you're determined not to be tagged as "Liberal," so you don't criticize them.

    Yet you openly mock Dennis Kucinich, who is smarter than any three of these imbeciles combined together. He said he may have seen a UFO, and you'd have thought he'd just admitted to cannibalism.
    Jesus fucking Christ on a unicycle, is saying you may have seen a UFO any more extreme than signing onto some neandethal's pledge, basically saying that n*ggers had it better back in the day 'cause they Massa let's them keep and raise they little pickaninnies? Something so obviously fucking stupid, you should turn to stone to atone.
    And is saying you may have seen a UFO any more mockable than believing in some old, white, bearded sky wizard, who punishes whole groups of people because some of them like to stick their dick in a not approved orifice, or like to lick a clit, but don't have the requisite 'johnson' to 'consumate' the act in proper, missionary only, fashion?

    I would also bet my life that Dennis Kucinich knows where Lexington and Concord were and are, and that John Quincy Adams wasn't a Founding Father when he was he was eight. Or that, maybe the 3/5ths shit about black people in the fucking Constitution meant that maybe the fucking Founding Fathers weren't really tirelessly working to eradicate slavery, or else maybe they'd have given the poor black slaves the other 2/5ths of a percent and their freedom. JAYZUS!

    But no. Kucinich is treated by the MSM like some exotic, some loon. Because he's a Democrat. And a damn fine Liberal. And he's short!
    Bachmann, et al, on the Republican side are all serious. Even if they fucking tell people that no they weren't hungry, they just had lunch on a UFO, the MSM will treat them seriously. And the press will say, 'Well, Republican candidate X didn't mean to say that – he/she meant to say they just had lunch at an I-HOP.'

    We are a nation of profoundly stupid and ignorant people. Largely because we allow people who are even more profoundly stupid, ignorant, and incurious than we are, dictate news and information to us.
    Why?
    Largely because they're better looking than most of us.
    I await contrary evidence.

    In a few years, we'll be The Dominionist Christian Fascist States of America, where coporation, through people like Bachman, Perry, Gohmert, and Kyl, and their ministers, will rule. And most of the people reading this will be locked up, to keep us away from the saintly and godly masses of morons, to keep their thoughts and actions pure.

    2013+ (?)
    DOA
    USA
    RIP

    "See you in the gulag."
    I'll save you the lower bunk.

  • Monkey Business says:

    Bachmann is both too dangerous to be allowed to possibly win the nomination for President, and too useful a campaign to kill right away.

    Ideally, you let her run until Super Tuesday. See if people are going to come to their senses, whether she's legit or just noise, and go from there. After Super Tuesday, you either hitch your wagon to her in the name of idealogical purity and hand Obama reelection, or you bury her, rally around Romney, and promise her a spot on the VP shortlist.

  • anotherbozo says:

    "We are a nation of profoundly stupid and ignorant people. Largely because we allow people who are even more profoundly stupid, ignorant, and incurious than we are, dictate news and information to us.
    Why?
    Largely because they're better looking than most of us.
    I await contrary evidence."

    c u n d, I agreed up until "because." I submit that the best analysis isn't cause>effect but a downward spiral of an animal eating its own tail. We are stupid so we elevate good-looking infotainers who give us less and less useful information so we can get stupider. To do otherwise would be to go against the preferences of the corporations that control the infotainers, but if we voted with our feet and cost them money we could reverse the downward tilt, cause corporations can be counted on to love short-term profits. Conspiracies take intelligence to perpetuate. This is not to say that all hope is not lost, because it is.

  • terraformer says:

    Of course, they refer to themselves in all caps as the "FAMiLY LEADER"; I wonder why the little "i" though. Must be something about there not being an "i" in HATE.

  • @CUND Gulag

    “Or that, maybe the 3/5ths shit about black people in the fucking Constitution meant that maybe the fucking Founding Fathers weren't really tirelessly working to eradicate slavery, or else maybe they'd have given the poor black slaves the other 2/5ths of a percent and their freedom. JAYZUS!”

    Leaving aside math inconsistencies, you might want some context for your view of the “3/5 ths Compromise” in the writing of the Constitution.

    The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths” of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It was not a statement on relative worth of Black versus White people, but had EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the slave holding Southern states.

    If you study the period there was massive opposition to slavery in both the North and South among the Founders, many of whom participated in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but the reality was stark: Confederacy I (i.e. the US operating under the Articles of Confederation) was failing and the future of the Union was certainly in doubt.

    The 3/5 ths Compromise was one of the important “deal makers” to allow the Constitution to get ratified. Without it, no deal and most likely no continuing Union. Along with the 20 year importation limit on slaves (1808) the US under the Constitution was able to move forward on a trajectory where slavery was going to decline.

    Would you have preferred no Union?

    It is not a debating tactic of a “false choice” as the US was really unlikely to be able to continue to function as a nation state w/ a central government under the Articles of Confederation.

    //bb

  • "..whatever brand of Crazy happens to have the GOP in its thrall at any given moment becomes the new normal."
    There you go. I wish I shared Mr. Dryden's sense that she's going to fall by the wayside during the primaries. I suspect that was then, this is now. The rules of history are being turned on their heads as we speak – these are truly interesting times in which we are living. I have a horrible feeling that we are watching the beginning of a terrible national nightmare – she has more lunacy per ounce than Sarah Palin could ever dream of, almost as much vindictive resentment, and metric tons more energy and drive per square inch. Palin would love the Presidency to fulfill her Evita-dream needs, as long as she didn't have to actually do any work for it. Bachmann may be delusional and basically insane, but she's the bad kind of insane – the Joan-of-Arc kind.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    bb in GA says,
    Thanks, and I'm fully aware of why that 3/5ths was put into place.
    Basicallly, it was to give the South enough electoral clout and representation in the House by having a minority of rich slave owners and their local dupes to be able include that 3/5ths when they vote to beat back future attempts at ending slavery from their far more numerous Northern neighbors, and to allow the spread of slavery in the new territories.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    Also, too, there's a very strong argument that without Eli Whitney's cotton gin, slavery in the South would have died a natural death much earlier because humans picking and sorting cotton was becoming way too expensive. And the cotton gin made slavery a viable economic option again.
    Here's just a brief taste of that argument, if you're interested.

    http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=31

  • Chris Mathews did actually do a reprise of her mad ass performances on Hardball yesterday so maybe there's hope that the Villagers will now take this on as a form of entertainment.

  • "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

    Child enslavement! That's the ticket! Perhaps if we treated spoiled white children like peons, forcing them to work on U.S. farms–and in what remains of U.S. manufacturing plants, we could boost the economy by employing more Americans, Wal-Mart could stop depending on Chinese slave labor, and American families would finally "get right with Jeebus!"

Comments are closed.