Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) yesterday on Meet the Press:
President Obama was given a war that is won in Iraq, and he’s choosing to lose the peace. That’s a desecration of the memory of 4400 Americans that gave their lives to liberate Iraq. And also, it’s over $800 billion that we have expended. I believe that Iraq should pay us back for the money that we spent. And I believe that Iraq should pay the families that lost a loved one several million dollars per life.
I’m not sure what’s more offensive here, Bachmann’s claim that by withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq (i.e. adhering to an agreement signed by the Bush administration), President Obama is betraying the blood of the martyrs, or her suggestion that Iraq should compensate the U.S. for a war that left over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, some 300,000 maimed, and over 4 million displaced.
Let’s reiterate what we just witnessed: a contender and one-time frontrunner for the nomination of the Republican Party declared that America should eliminate food stamps, Medicare and the expansion of Social Security, before stating that America should emulate China’s social safety net. And the Republican audience cheered her. At some point the pearl clutchers and bipartisan fetishists are going to acknowledge that there is a political civil war in this country, that the right wing is going off the rails at an accelerated pace, and that these people represent a grave threat to democracy should they ever take power again. It’s not just the Bachmanns of the world are living in a dystopic fantasyland. The GOP base is living there, too.
David Atkins, on Michele Bachmann’s statements from Saturday night’s GOP debate. (via pieceinthepuzzlehumanity)
You want to know why we have an Arab Spring. Barack Obama has laid the table for Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America.
My palm just smashed through my forehead. Clean up time.
It is possible that Rick Perry encouraged HPV vaccinations in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons. But it is Bachmann, not Perry, who would put girls and women at greater health risk based on moral confusion and public health illiteracy.
Gerson is not typically someone I look to for sound opinion, but he kind of nails it in this op-ed for the Post.
The United States is experiencing an anti-science resurgence not seen since the 1920s. This spring the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill supporting creationism to be taught in science classes. Presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are on record for denying climate change and doubting evolution.
Bachmann suggests “putting all science on the table and then letting students decide,” while Perry believes teachers should “teach both creationism and evolution.” […]
That approach is not science. It does not differentiate between knowledge derived at through the scientific method from that of the Socratic method (discovering truth, not through experimentation, but debate).
By telling students that they can “believe in evolution” if they so choose, teachers reduce a scientific theory to mere opinion. Not teaching this difference encourages students to think that scientific theories can be debated in the same way people debate politics or sports.
Science must be debated, but unlike personal or political opinions, scientific theories must be debated on the veracity of data and the results a theory predicts: results that conform to rigorous, measurable standards. Theories are accepted only after data generated from exhaustive, repetitive, controlled experimentation suggests that a particular hypothesis is the most likely candidate to explain the phenomenon in question.
Therefore it is not only incorrect but also unethical to suggest that scientific theories are mere opinions to “believe in” based on personal or faith-based preferences. For example, should a teacher suggest that heliocentric theory (a sun centered solar system) is false because it conflicts with the Biblical account of Joshua halting the movement of the sun?
Moreover, should superceded theories have equal time with consensus theories? Should teachers give equal time to flat earth theory or suggest the miasma theory of disease (the idea that disease is caused by bad air) is as effective at explaining illness as germ theory? What of the alleged merits of astrology?
The above theories have a place in education but should rather be used as examples of how science works to root out untruths and discard false ideas. […]
Michele Bachmann told a barefaced lie the other day. She was asked in the Republican candidates’ debate with the other Republican contenders, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”
Bachmann answered: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”
She either lied, has changed her mind, or she says one thing to a national audiance and another to her hard-right evangelical followers.
Here’s what she said in answer to the same question in 2006: “The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”
Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center, Bachmann talked about “receiving Jesus” at 16, studying hard, meeting her future husband at college, and earning a law degree. “My husband said ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.’ Tax law! I hate taxes—why should I go and do something like that?” she told the audience. “But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband.
The real story here is that Bachmann understands just how extreme her part of the evangelical movement is. She also understands that a certain amount of godly lying will be needed to mask that. She understood that the question she was asked the other day was about a biblical teaching that is misogynistic to the core and advocates total submission of a wife to a husband. It is teaching she’s signed on to long ago.
The people, churches and groups that shaped Bachmann’s thinking are far more anti-woman than most Americans fully comprehend.
Read the whole thing, seriously. The worldview of the Bachmanns and “Reconstructionists” and Dominionists” is not an acceptable framework for governance. There is nothing reality-based in a worldview that tries to emulate pre-Enlightenment (pre-Renaissance?) thinking; a view that attempts to strip and de-legitimize all of the gains towards civility and equality that have been fought for since the inception of our democracy.
That this article was written by a former devotee makes it even better. All the gaffes, non-science and lies that spew forth from Michele Bachmann’s mouth are secondary - higher office is just a means to an end for her. Honestly, she doesn’t even pay attention to reality - only the mystical, fairy tale, heaven on earth, god’s law, female submission theology that makes her one of the most despicable political creatures currently walking the halls of congress.
This morning on CNN, contender for the GOP nomination and Iowa straw poll winner Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) told host Candy Crowley that DADT “has worked very well,” and if she were president she would “probably” reinstate it.
CROWLEY: If you became president, would you reinstitute the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the military, which said that gays could not serve openly in the military.
BACHMANN: The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has worked very well. And I think…
CROWLEY: Would you reinstitute it then? Because it’s been set aside.
BACHMANN: It worked very well. And I would be in consultation with our commanders. But I think yes, I probably would.
Jesus. This GOP line-up is pure spectacle.
But, as frightening as a president megalomaniac is, Andrew Sullivan had this to say for perspective on the Iowa Straw poll:
Michele Bachmann’s vote total is about the same number of people who have visited this site in the past hour on a Saturday night.
I offered a plan, which is very different than Presidnt Obama, who offered no plan. My plan was to tell the markets, “there is no problem with default; we will not default.”
Republican presidential candidate MICHELE BACHMANN, on CBS Face The Nation.
That sounds like a great fucking plan, Michele.
Over the 40-year history of the EPA, there’s simply no evidence of the kind of mass murdering of jobs that politicians claim. In fact, since the agency was created in the early 1970’s, GDP has grown by 200% and common pollutants have dropped by 63%. But the facts don’t seem to matter when it comes to environmental issues this campaign season.