1. princely54 says

    In this case, its more like ‘America’s Transvestites’.

    Sorry if that offends transvestites, but damn if that doesn’t look like drag to me. That Kabuki make up and hair…

    What a shrill, fear-inducing, petty speech and delivery. If I were a Tea Bagger, I would be embarrassed.

  2. Strepsi says

    Agree with @PATRICK NYC — we can laugh and be flippant, but she has a growing audience.

    She got national airtime on a News network to air the views of what should be a fringe nationalist theocratic movement, and treating it as a de facto political Party. This should all be more scary than funny to all of you.

    Because of course, the Tea Party’s self branding as being only about fiscal responsibility and less legislation is a lie. What’s the first thing the Tea Party backed winners have done since November? Yes, created MORE legislation to ban gay equality. They are a theocratic movement.

    And yes, she and Palin affect the mind-set and votes of millions of Americans.

    We outside your country have learned NEVER to underestimate the stupidity of the majority of Americans… after you all elected George W Bush for a SECOND time….

  3. walter says

    she is still singing her theme song”if i only had a brain”. the people of her district must be munchkins singing follow the yellow brick road. they better look behind the curtain to see who is pulling the strings. is the tea party really as dumb as the people who they run for office? look at the candidates they fielded dumb dumber and dumbest. goproud and lcr look to these people and see if you see any hope for the repuks?

  4. Rowan says

    Strepsi too true but the left in America can never connect the dots and spend all their energy hating Obama aster only 2 terms!

    Smart they are not! Racist? Possibly…..

  5. D.R.H. says

    Agree with Strepsi. Intelligent Americans still have yet to figure out that the majority of Americans are idiots barely capable of reading. This is the reason these buffoons are enjoying the type of success that they are. Most Americans are afraid of intellect and well-spoken politicians and instead prefer the type of chest-thumping idiots that populate the Tea Party Express, don’t ‘cha know.

  6. kodiak says

    She blames the whole financial mess on Obama. Not the banks. Not the Bush presidential residencies. It’s all about misinformation as a path to power. I like when she says “let americans buy insurance from whomever they want”. As if they could afford to buy it. She’s living in a bubble. Lower taxes aren’t gonna help those who can’t afford care.

  7. says

    the founding fathers were sort of right on not giving the vote to everyone

    there criteria was all wrong = white , male, landowners

    BUT , maybe an IQ test to limit who can vote would be nice

    there was a study that the vast majority

    1- have an IQ of and under

    2- like 90% of said population with an IQ of 140 and under believe in boogedy boogedy sky fairy

  8. Bart says

    Michelle never lets facts get in the way of her charts.

    The most obvious is all this liberty she spews out and limited government NEVER gets limited of marriage equality or offers liberty to gay men and women. Period. So it’s utter bullsh*t because people like idiot Michelle have never had the courage of their own words. They don’t stand behind what they say UNLESS it’s for their own good (middle class and rich straight white folks.)

    And of course…did anyone here Michelle offer up one, all I’m asking is one, spending cut? Did she mention how this debt came about? A wrong war we were thrown in by Bush, a housing crisis caused by the past two Presidents (hey, everyone should be able to afford a 400-500K house, shouldn’t they??) and the Dick Cheney deregulation on business, banks, and oil companies that led to the economic disaster as well as the greatest natural disaster in American history. Again, Michelle, you’re an idiot and can’t seem to remember past yesterday.

    How long has Michelle been in office? Where are all these great money saving proposals she’s been offering up? Hey, Michelle, how about those earmarks for your districts? You ready to get rid of those? And that amazing health care plan you have, how about you give that up until we all get something similar? Step up, Michelle. And finally if you believe in liberty for all Americans so much then you MUST believe in marriage equality and getting rid of DOMA because that’s just more government regulation on the freedoms of Americans. Right, Michelle?

    Michelle believes that the framers of our Constitution abolished slavery. I guess she’s never read the document. I guess she never graduated seventh-grade history. I guess she’s just an embarassing moron.

    Bottom line: she’s hopelessly caught up in her own lies and not bright enough to even realize it.

  9. Danny says

    Michelle has tread in territory that even orthodox republicans know enough to avoid.

    I’d like to ask her if she thought the banks should have been allowed to fail or if unemployment benefits should be curtailed or if the mortgage banks should be more closely regulated. All she does is throw around rhetoric with no content. She’s a perfect example of Twain’s adage that “there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

  10. says

    well, rodney

    my own ranks at 156 so 😛 yeah toss the 140’s out

    You would never know by my typos.

    Anyway; high iq and 25 cents gets squat

  11. Matt S says

    Her graph is woefully dishonest. Bush’s budgets did not include the trillions of dollars he used to fund the wars. Obama did include those expenditures. Hence, Obama’s number are more honest than Bush’s and if you add in those amount to the Bush tabs, you’d have a MUCH different graph.

  12. Goodcarver says

    Her looking off camera is disconcerting at best. And WHO did the make-up job….the what-ever-it-is under her eyes looks like a zombie! The lady (and I use that only politely)is an idiot!

  13. Montana says

    Michele Bachmann did not say how we got here from eight years of poor leadership, two wars without end, diminsihed Civil liberties. Its like she crawl out from under a rock just to complain about our current President. We all know that Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works started the Tea Party, grasroots, please. She like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Linda McMahon, they are just not right but funny. I especially like the clip of Bachmann saying that the founding fathers abolished slavery, wow, what a liar, not the first or last time that will happen. Does anyone with self-respect real believe her?

  14. Lnonie says

    What’s this drag queen bitching about? Obama’s speech was a right winger’s wet dream.

    Capital of conservatism

    Democrats are as responsible as Republicans for the right-wing climate in Washington.

    January 26, 2011

    THE DOGMAS and delusions of conservatives and Corporate America are still dominating national politics–and their most effective advocate has turned out to be a Democratic president.

    That’s the conclusion we drew from President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. The man who not long ago was derided as a “socialist” by the right wants to “make America the best place on Earth to do business” and to work with Republicans to shrink the deficit with a five-year freeze on federal spending–non-security-related spending, that is.

    Are we exaggerating? After all, Obama served up his proposals with appeals to tolerance and rhetoric about helping those in need. He said that the real measure of the success of the economy wasn’t the stock market but “the success of our people.”

    Plus, sitting in the audience in Congress was the new Republican majority in the House–their snarling about “job killing” and “anti-business” policies temporarily quieted by the spotlight on Obama’s speech and the calls for more “civility” following the Arizona shootings.

    Compared to the union-hating, immigrant-bashing, budget-slashing Republicans, Obama can’t help but seem progressive and reasonable. And that’s been his strongest appeal for the millions of people who voted for him two years ago and are disappointed today–at least he’s not them.

    The media recap of the State of the Union speech will portray the national “debate” on an incredibly narrow spectrum, with Obama and the Democrats as the left-most extreme and the Republicans as the right. But this misses the fact that Democrats and Republicans agree on so much more than they disagree–and that both parties have dragged the debate to the right.

    In fact, Obama’s speech was filled with the same tired phrases heard over and over from Republicans and Democrats alike: “[T]he challenges we face are bigger than party.” “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation.” “Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.” “[T]he American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects.” “[L]et us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families.”

    Cover up the name, and you could easily imagine those quotes coming from not only Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Senior or Junior. This teaches an important lesson about mainstream politics–about how the two-party system contains sentiment for real change and reinforces a status quo where the interests of the business and political establishment are preserved, whichever of the two parties are in charge.

    Two years ago, the enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, despite the evidence of his thoroughly mainstream views, was about what he was–a symbol of the possibility of a new direction and new priorities in U.S. politics. Today, what support he retains is about what he isn’t–a fire-breathing Republican.

    That will be the Democrats’ strongest argument in the months to come–anyone who criticizes Obama from the left will be told they’re ignoring the fact that things would be worse if the president wasn’t there to blunt the Republican assault. Don’t like Obama’s five-year spending freeze? Well, isn’t that better than the slash-and-burn proposals from House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan?

    But if the last two years prove anything, it’s that the “lesser evil” in office is producing both lesser and greater evils. The way out of the “lesser evil” trap lies beyond the two-party system–in movements of ordinary people organizing for justice.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    IT TAKES an effort to remember the transformed political climate after the November 2008 election–with the celebration not only of the end of the hated Bush regime, but of the victory of the first African American president in a country founded on slavery.

    Time magazine captured the expectations for the new administration with a cover image that superimposed Obama’s image onto Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s–with the headline “The New New Deal.”

    Obama did win passage of a $787 billion economic stimulus package after his first month in office. But while unprecedented in size, it was underpowered compared to what was needed to pull the economy out of crisis. And though the stimulus is portrayed by Republicans as out-of-control spending, it was chump change compared to the trillions of dollars that flowed into the coffers of the big banks, courtesy of the Federal Reserve.

    But at the same time as the stimulus was passed, the Obama administration remained in thrall to many dogmas of the past. When the crisis continued to drag on–even as profits came roaring back for the banks and Corporate America–Obama refused to champion anything even approaching a “New New Deal.” On the contrary, the administration came up with warmed-over neoliberal solutions at best–like tax breaks for businesses to create jobs, even when it was clear that corporations weren’t hiring no matter how good profits got.

    Obama’s failure to take decisive action on jobs gave the Republicans–an irrelevant minority in both houses of Congress when Obama took office–an astonishing opportunity. Right-wingers who never missed an opportunity to attack the poor and serve the rich got to pose as defenders of the working Americans who were left out in the cold while the new administration continued to bail out Wall Street.

    When the debate began on health care reform–the centerpiece initiative of the administration’s first two years–Obama made it clear with the guest list to his first White House summit that any legislation would have to be acceptable to the health care industry.

    That meant any genuine reform proposal–like a single-payer system where the government provides coverage to everyone–was “off the table.” Even half-measures like the “public option” for the uninsured were bargained away in the face of industry hostility. The final legislation contains limited regulations to end some of the worst insurance industry practices–but it will also increase the power of insurers by forcing millions of people to buy inadequate policies from private companies.

    The role of the Republicans in all this was the other side of the coin to the Obama administration’s concessions. Though it seemed completely out of step with public sentiment at the time, the Republicans’ fanatical opposition to all reform served business interests by further marginalizing more radical proposals–and by undermining support for even milder measures with a campaign of distortion and lies.

    This year’s “debate” over the health care law is following the same dynamic. The new Republican majority in the House passed a bill to repeal the health care law altogether. But this is a symbolic act–the Senate, still with the Democrats in charge, is unlikely to even hold a vote on repeal, and Obama would veto the legislation in any case.

    But the repeal charade further reinforced the concessions made to business–with the Obama administration declaring it would “discuss” changes to the law on Republican terms.

    So the pharmaceutical-medical-insurance complex gets a law that helps it in all kinds of ways, with the prospect of weakening still further the provisions it doesn’t like. And the one segment of public opinion that will get no hearing at all in this “discussion”–even though it’s the largest single segment, according to recent polls–are those who think that the health care law should be changed to further reform the system.

    It’s become the logic of U.S. politics: The right wing captures the initiative with wild and reactionary rhetoric, and the Democrats concede half the way or more–until the “middle ground” has been pushed far enough that Corporate America and even most Republicans are satisfied.

    So it was with the big issue of the lame-duck session of Congress after the November election–repeal or extend the Bush tax cuts for the small fraction of the richest Americans who enjoy a bonanza worth tens of thousands of dollars every year.

    Republican defenders of the “little guy” suddenly forgot their hostility to Wall Street bankers and took a hard line calling for an extension. Obama and the Democrats complained and conceded, complained and conceded some more–until the final deal became exactly what the Republicans had been demanding all along: a temporary extension on all the tax breaks, including for the super-rich.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    THE SHIFT to the right in mainstream politics has taken place almost across the board. Tellingly, the only partial exceptions were on issues where people mobilized a show of support for the kind of change Obama’s election seemed to promise.

    In the first year of Obama’s presidency, for example, the struggle for LGBT equality reached a new level of mobilization and organization. Last year, the immigrant rights movement mobilized large numbers against Arizona’s SB 1070 racial profiling law and inaction in Washington–including a wave of militant protests in favor of the DREAM Act, legislation to provide limited legalization for some undocumented youth.

    Even these important struggles weren’t strong enough. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring LGBT people from serving openly in the military was finally overturned, but on a conservative, pro-military basis–and efforts to overturn the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act covering LGBT people failed. The DREAM Act came to a vote in Congress, but the measure was cynically tied to funding for the Pentagon war machine, and the Republican minority in the Senate had enough Democratic backing to block the bill.

    Nevertheless, these movements show what’s needed–pressure organized from the grassroots to demand change. What we need is a stronger mobilization, both numerically and politically–and more movements.

    The deteriorating conditions facing U.S. workers are creating the potential for these struggles to burst out.

    The drive for austerity at every level of government is leading to unprecedented attacks on social programs and on unions representing public-sector workers, from our schools to public health care and beyond. The bitterness that these assaults have stoked has already been translated into action on a small scale in cities around the country, as a look at the Movement News section at shows. The question is whether these struggles can develop, link together and pose a broader challenge.

    Many of the fightbacks that take place will be against the outrages of the right–whether in the form of pro-corporate, anti-worker policies pursued by Republican politicians, or bigotry and hate directed at scapegoats, from immigrants to Muslims and more.

    Some of the people involved in these struggles will remain convinced that Barack Obama is on their side–and most will believe that the Democrats are at least a lesser evil compared to the Republicans. The struggles themselves will teach them lessons about the role of the government and the state, and where their own power lies. So it’s important for activists who have come to more radical conclusions about the Democrats to not exclude those who haven’t.

    But at the same time, the last two years show how important it is for the left wing of our movement to insist that we not tailor our demands and activities to the requirements of supposed allies in Washington who are anything but.

    One important lesson for the movements of the future was expressed most brilliantly by the great radical historian Howard Zinn, who died a year ago this week:

    There’s hardly anything more important that people can learn than the fact that the really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in–in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating–those are the things that determine what happens.

  15. Jbrandonloberg says

    i’m convinced that people like Bachmann don’t know what they believe in; they’re simply trying to capitalise on conservatives’ righteous indignation after the 2008 election.

    i don’t remember who said it first, but it’s a case of being sore losers, as opposed to having a legitimate grievance pertaining to any one issue. As i’ve said many times in the past, conservative Republicans are chagrined because they had such high hopes for Bush, and when he couldn’t deliver, the inevitable consequence was Obama, and the Democrats’ takeover of Congress. That’s what happens in a two-party system. Love him or despise him, Obama’s election in 2008 was far more an eventuality than it was a victory. The GOP ran McCain–and especially Palin–as a crapshoot; they knew it was doubtful they would win, but they wanted to see what would happen. Today’s teabaggers, and pols like Michelle Bachmann, are merely manifestations of conservative hand-wringing; recalcitrant children whining about their decline in power. However, just as entertainers (take Marilyn Manson, for example) are blamed for the sometimes overzealousness of their fans, the outlandish rhetoric and apocalyptic tone employed by people like Bachmann, and does make an impression upon those with compromised intellects. Consider the so-called ‘Hutaree’: it’s impossible for any rationally thinking person to take a group like this seriously, and my guess is even the FBI didn’t seriously give shrift to the notion that they posed any legitimate threat to the government, however, if a few far-right nutjobs decided they could catalyse a revolution by gunning down government employees or blowing up a post office, that’s more than enough reason to intervene. Bachman, Palin, Beck, etc. should consider the volatility of their audiences’ mental health, and avoid feeding the animals.

Leave A Reply