Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann says more dumb things…

Michele Bachmann says more dumb things…

Michele Bachmann discusses Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances.

If Clinton were elected, “effectively she would be Obama’s third and fourth term in office,” Bachmann said, calling Clinton “the godmother of Obamacare.”
But while Obama was “new and different,” Clinton is an old-timer who is less likely to excite voters, she said. Plus, she’s a woman, and she isn’t black, which Bachmann hinted is one of the reasons why people voted for Obama. “I think there was a cachet about having an African-American president because of guilt,” she said. “People don’t hold guilt for a woman.”

So, Bachmann thinks that people (presumably white people) voted for Obama because he’s black. It was guilt that drove them to elect Barack Obama over John McCain, whose vice presidential selection could have only been worse if it were Bachmann herself. This guilt also carried over to 2012.

Also, why do some conservatives have no problem saying, with a straight face, that liberals voted for Obama because of his race but deny that any conservatives voted against him because of his race?

Here’s a free clue for Bachmann: In the history of this country, racism and sexism have always trump any trace of guilt.

I consider Hillary Clinton eminently qualified to serve as president. I understand that many conservatives would disagree. However, if we’re considering her gender, I think it might behoove America to muster some excitement, throw on some pants, and finally arrive to a party attended by England, Germany, Argentina, Switzerland, Ireland, Finland, Lithuania, Costa Rica, Brazil, and South Korea that managed to elect a female head of state.

Of course, knowing America, if it ever did elect a female president, it would act as if it did it first — sort of like the history of rock and roll.


Posted by on February 20, 2014 in Political Theatre


Tags: ,

Roots Welcome Michele Bachmann to ‘Fallon’ With ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ |

Roots Welcome Michele Bachmann to ‘Fallon’ With ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ |

Roots Welcome Michele Bachmann to ‘Fallon’ With ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ |

In a supreme act of crudeness, the house band for “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon,” The Roots, chose to play the Fishbone song “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” as GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann walked on stage.

There’s been an ongoing debate as to how politicians should be treated on late night talk shows. Should they be grilled with tough questions as if they’re on “Meet the Press” or should they be allowed to pitch their product while the smiling host offers some good-natured ribbing that serves to humanize them? The latter is consistent with how any other celebrity guest is received. The former is probably well beyond the skill set of a late night talk show host.

I’m not a fan of Bachmann but if I took leave of my senses and invited her to my house, I’d extend her an appropriate degree of respect. I might not break out my favorite Tuscan red but I wouldn’t serve her some nasty, vinegar-tasting mess from a box. I definitely wouldn’t call her a “bitch.”

The media mostly considers this a puckish prank on The Roots’ part. This is a curious response to such flagrant disrespect of not just a woman but of a sitting member of Congress.

That could just be the fuddy-duddy in me, though. I’m sure if David Letterman’s band had played Tribe Called Quest’s “Sucka Nigga” as Herman Cain walked on stage, the fall out would be about the same.

By the way, Fishbone’s “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” provided the background vocal riff for Prince’s 1995 “Billy Jack Bitch.”



Tags: , ,

It’s Official: Herman Cain Is a Jerk…

Presidential candidate Herman Cain apparently confused GQ with Maxim given his comments in a recent interview with the men’s magazine.

Chris Heath: What can you tell about a man by the type of pizza that he likes?

Herman Cain: [repeats the question aloud, then pauses for a long moment] The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is.

Chris Heath: Why is that?

Herman Cain: Because the more manly man is not afraid of abundance. [laughs]

Devin Gordon: Is that purely a meat question?

Herman Cain: A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.

According to Cain, a manly man also hasn’t had a bowel movement since 1978. I might not question the motives of someone else who used the word “sissy” in the 21st Century but I’m less inclined to do so in Cain’s case, given his statements on gays.

(By the way, this Piers Morgan interview with Cain makes me smile wider than Marilyn in “Bus Stop.”)

Chris Heath: Why do you think that most black Americans traditionally vote Democrat?

Herman Cain: The reason is because many of them are discouraged to even consider an idea or a candidate that’s not Democrat. They are brainwashed to not consider an alternative idea if they perceive you as a Republican.

Chris Heath: Who’s doing the brainwashing?

Herman Cain: The Democrats.

If Democrats are capable of brainwashing on this scale, then how did they lose the House in 2010? Why haven’t they conquered Poland? Is Cain’s plan to woo the black vote to state that we are feeble-minded buffoons who Democrats have manipulated for almost 50 years? That makes as much sense as selecting “Move Bitch (Get Out the Way)” as your wedding song.

Could Cain consider for a moment that Republican policies — not just on civil rights but on social programs that would disproportionately impact minorities — might play some factor in the party’s inability to effectively reach black voters? Or perhaps blacks don’t enjoy ads like this:

Or this:

Once done insulting blacks, Cain stated that if fellow candidate Michele Bachmann was an ice-cream flavor, she’d be “tutti-frutti.” Classy.

Devin Gordon: Do you think that there is a greater tendency among the Muslim faith for … extremism?

Herman Cain: That would be a judgment call that I’m probably not qualified to make, because I can’t speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community. I have talked with Muslims that are peaceful Muslims. And I have had one very well known Muslim voice say to me directly that a majority of Muslims share the extremist views.

Chris Heath: A majority?

Herman Cain: Yes, a majority.

Devin Gordon: Do you think he’s right?

Herman Cain: Yes, because that’s his community. That’s his community. I can’t tell you his name, but he is a very prominent voice in the Muslim community, and he said that.

Chris Heath: I just find that hard to believe.

Herman Cain: I find it hard to believe.

Chris Heath: But you’re believing it?

Herman Cain: Yes, because of the respect that I have for this individual. Because when he told me this, he said he wouldn’t want to be quoted or identified as having said that.

Alan Richman: Are you talking about the Muslim community in America? Or the world?

Herman Cain: America. America.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wish Rachel Maddow was right and the Cain campaign is just a “performance art project.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 14, 2011 in Political Theatre


Tags: , , , ,

Recurring Feature: Michele Bachmann says more things that don’t make sense…

Michele Bachmann at the recent 1,000th GOP debate:

What Obama actually said about Occupy Wall Street:

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded… And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

I guess that’s “standing” with Occupy Wall Street. Is this what has happened in the past three years? Sarah Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists” and now Bachmann is accusing him of palling around with… U.S. citizens asserting their first amendment rights? OK.

What would really make this weird is if Bachmann had a completely different opinion regarding another set of U.S. citizens asserting their first amendment rights. I’m sure she’d never allow herself to be videotaped being that disingenuous.

We have two angry grassroots groups in the country. One option is for our elected officials to work together to resolve the issues fueling their rage. The other is to marginalize them based on politics and essentially treat them like the Red Sox vs. the Yankees.

What will they do? What will they do?

Bachmann is probably right about Obama and Israel, though. Israel most likely does not view Obama as a friend because, as Mitt Romney recently pointed out, the president was critical of Israel’s prime minister.

“President Obama’s derisive remarks about Israel’s Prime Minister confirm what any observer would have gleaned from his public statements and actions toward our longstanding ally, Israel… At a moment when the Jewish state is isolated and under threat, we cannot have an American president who is disdainful of our special
relationship with Israel. We have here yet another reason why we need new leadership in the White House.”

It’s simple: If you make “derisive remarks” about a country’s leader, then you are no friend of that country. Bachmann and Romney are frequently critical of Obama, who is the U.S. leader, so they have basically confessed to hating the U.S. and all it represents. Wow — and they didn’t even think their mics were off.





Posted by on November 13, 2011 in Political Theatre


Tags: , , ,

Woman on the Moon…

Michele Bachmann’s performance as a presidential candidate continues to resemble Andy Kaufman’s career as a wrestler.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, Bachmann declared that Iraq should reimburse the U.S. for the war. Yes, the one the U.S. started. Yes, the one that destabilized their country and killed more than 100,000 civilians.

“I believe that Iraq should reimburse the United States fully for the amount of money that we have spent to liberate these people,” Bachmann said. “They’re not a poor country; they’re a wealthy country.”

Bachmann is also waiting for African-Americans to pay back the U.S. for the travel costs and in-flight entertainment associated with the Middle Passage. I believe Herman Cain has already written a check for his share.

Maybe Bachmann has uncovered the secret to ending the U.S.’s economic woes. The nation’s new chief export can be warfare: The U.S. military will come to your country, blow it to bits, and all for no money down and a reasonable payment plan. You don’t even have to worry about minor details such as when, where, or if you even want this service at all. The U.S. will take care of that. It’s what we like to call the “old surprise visit” a la “A Clockwork Orange.”

According to Bachmann, demanding payment for the Iraq War is for the Iraqis’ benefit, as well:

“I think that they need to do that, because what we will be leaving behind is a nation that is very fragile and will be subject to dominance by Iran and their influence in the region, and that’s not good.”

See, Iraq is already fragile after we slammed it in the kneecaps with our military baseball bat, so we need to stick it with a bill for roughly $700 billion.

Bachmann is currently pushing the “Noble Reason” for the Iraq War — liberating the nation from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. This surfaced after the “Self-Defense Reason” was proven about as legitimate as any part of Heidi Montag.

To review, the “Self-Defense Reason” was that Hussein was either involved in 9/11 or supportive through training or might assist Al-Qaeda or was at a dinner party that one of bin Laden’s wives threw and on and on until everyone in the U.S. was thoroughly confused. This was actually educated and perhaps tactical confusion, as the connection to the facts grew more tenuous in the months immediately after 9/11:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The intent to save the Iraqi people and “bring freedom to the galaxy” is buried somewhere in the Iraq War Resolution but ultimately the whole invasion was based in U.S. self-interest, which resulted in 4,796 U.S. and Coalition casualties. So, more U.S. citizens died in Iraq than died on 9/11 in an effort to avoid a similar attack on the U.S. that never materialized.

Bachmann and other conservatives are attacking President Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq. It’s hard to make sense of this: We know for a fact that ending the debacle will save U.S. lives. The Iraqi government gets it. That’s why they graciously want us to leave.

…the Obama administration announced it will withdraw all American troops from Iraq by year-end, at the behest of the Iraqi government. Bachmann said Iraq needs more continued U.S. troop involvement to prevent Iran from gaining influence in the region.

Bachmann called the Iraqi government’s insistence that American forces be removed from the nation “outrageous”…

“That’s the thanks we get after 4,400 lives have been expended?” Bachmann said, referring to the number of American troops who have died in the Iraq war.

The families of U.S. soldiers in Iraq will probably be content with the return of their loved ones from a war zone. They will find a way to do without the handwritten thank-you note and a bottle of wine.

It astounds me that we’d actually discuss staying in Iraq when its government wants us gone. If the situation were reversed, I think we’d be pissed. That’s called an occupying force or, as the U.S. refers to it in its history books, “manifest destiny.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 23, 2011 in Political Theatre


Tags: , ,

Money, Money, Who’s Got the Money?…

Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times on August 14 in which he suggested members of a new congressional “supercommittee” looking at ways to balance the budget to “raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, and even more for those making more than $10 million.”

President Obama immediately agreed with Buffett’s argument. Mitt Romney immediately disagreed, trotting out the old Vaudeville act that high corporate tax rates is the primary motivator for businesses either not hiring or sending jobs overseas (this has also been said about minimum wage laws and employee health insurance benefits). You could remedy this, of course, with tax breaks that benefit those companies that invest in American jobs but who has time for that?

Romney had to say something but he’s on shaky ground contradicting Buffett. It’s not like the guy made his money starring in action movies or kicking field goals. He most likely knows a thing or two about the financial world. Romney’s entire campaign is that the country needs a president with both experience and proven results in the private sector. Buffett’s success in that area makes Romney look like the assistant manager at the local Shop Rite.

Of course, Romney’s position was the epitome of rationality compared to Michele Bachmann’s, who openly and unabashedly attacked Buffett at a campaign event in (of course) South Carolina — to borrow from “Kiss Me Kate,” GOP primary campaigns “open in South Carolina/We next play Texas/Then on to 1950/Lots of closeted gays in 1950!/Our next attack is illegal immigrants/That stingy, dingy menace…”

“We also believe, unlike Warren Buffett, that taxes are high enough already,” said Bachmann … “I have a suggestion. Mr. Buffett, write a big check today. There’s nothing you have to wait for. As a matter of fact the president has redefined millionaires and billionaires as any company that makes over $200,000 a year. That’s his definition of a millionaire and billionaire. So perhaps Mr. Buffett would like to give away his entire fortune above $200,000. That’s what you want to do? Have at it. Give it to the federal government. But don’t ask the rest of us to have our taxes increased because you want to have a soundbyte. We want to have real job creation in this country and that’s what we’ll stand for as fiscal conservatives.”

We might claim that taxes are “high enough” already but evidence — such as our crippling debt — might demonstrate otherwise. This brings us to the two separate views of how the U.S. taxpayer relates to the national budget deficit. There is the conservative view that the government is an employee of the U.S. taxpayer. In that scenario, it’s inappropriate for an employee to demand a raise just because he’s behind on the car payments for his Mercedes and, worse, has a $200-a-day cocaine habit that might result in his dealer breaking his legs if he doesn’t pay him on time. His employee’s debts aren’t his issue. But the country’s debts are our issue. They have a direct impact on us and our way of life, and thus stating “our taxes are high enough” is in many ways tantamount to saying that you’ve paid American Express more than enough already even if your credit card is maxed out.

However, Buffett is not suggesting everyone’s minimum payments be increased in order to reduce the credit card balance — just those in the best position to do so. The vast majority of our debt is attributible to our imperial presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (by the way, it’s wise to consider what caused the fall of the British empire). As Buffett points out, it’s usually the poor and middle class who sacrifice the most in blood for these wars. It would then be in the spirit of “shared sacrifice” for the wealthy to chip in more to pay for the tanks.

Bachmann should know that Buffett has already written a “big check.”  She also ignores the actual substance of Buffett’s editorial when she talks about the “redefinition” of “millionaire” and “billionaire.”

Buffett did not suggest no one could make more than $200,000. President Obama has said he wants Bush-era tax cuts for those individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000 to expire after next year. But those people would not have to hand over every dollar made over $200,000, just a higher percentage of that income. And, if the Bush-era tax cuts expire, they’d have to hand over a higher percentage of money made on the stock market.

In 2009, roughly 2% of U.S. households had reported taxable income of more than $250,000. They earned 24.1 percent of all income, and paid 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes. Here again we have two separate views on wealth in the U.S. One side believes it’s unfair that 2% of households would earn 24% of all income. While the other side believes it’s unfair that those who earn just 24% of all income should pay almost half of all taxes.

Bachmann would “prefer to lower tax rates for the rich and broaden the tax base, making more Americans pay tax. Currently, nearly half of Americans – those at the lower end of the economic spectrum – do not pay income tax.”

If that’s the case, Bachmann is actually running on a “higher taxes” platform — just one that she would deem more equitable and, curiously enough, would affect more of her potential voters than Buffett or Obama’s proposal would. The only problem is that Americans at the bottom of the income ladder are arguably “too small to fail” — increase their taxes and you don’t cut into disposable income, you cut into basic survival. You might be able to reduce expenses in the former category (less iPods) but in the latter category (food, rent), you are less flexible, so then you might wind up running up debt, which would benefit credit card companies and banks (all those interest rates! All those fees!) and would result in healthy profits and bonuses for the executives at those companies who I’m sure will create jobs or re-invest in the economy or whatever else it is they do that makes things so neat for the poor.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 17, 2011 in Capitalism


Tags: , ,