[jogiba]

It's going to be fun watching them crash and burn in 2012.
http://republicanretardclub.blogspot.com/2011/03/michele-bachmann.html

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

---

Last edited by jogiba; 08-08-2011 at 07:04 AM.

[Nesster]

Michelle Bachmann's Intellectual Worldview | The New Republic

Ryan Lizza's terrific profile of Bachmann finally delivers what we've been waiting for. And he does it by doing what nobody else has done -- examining her worldview seriously and with depth. It's difficult to summarize, but Ryan finds a massive trove of intellectual influences that are very, very radical. Bachmann emerges from a fairly coherent far-right Christian school of thought. Among other things, it lends some perspective to the way we use terms like "theocracy." Someone like Rick Perry may transform the country into the kind of place where non-Christians are a kind of second-class citizen, but Bachmann is truly a theocrat, who believes in the absolute supremacy of biblical law.

This is just one segment of the piece, but it traces the relation between what appear to be odd gaffes and her genuine belief structure:

Bachmann’s comment about slavery was not a gaffe. It is, as she would say, a world view. In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with Eidsmoe, her law-school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.”
While looking over Bachmann’s State Senate campaign Web site, I stumbled upon a list of book recommendations. The third book on the list, which appeared just before the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s Farewell Address, is a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.
Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”
African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”
In his chapter on race relations in the antebellum South, Wilkins writes:
Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.

For several years, the book, which Bachmann’s campaign declined to discuss with me, was listed on her Web site, under the heading “Michele’s Must Read List."
What I love is that Ryan immediately proceeds to quote Bachmann describing her passion for "liberty." One consistent aspect of the Tea Party movement is a certain brand of Constitutional fetishism. Liberals have viewed the Constitution as a great but flawed document that pointed the way for America's broader principles but required updating and perfection over subsequent generations. The right has instead fetishized it as a perfect document. That principle, and the right's professed love f liberty, come into fairly dramatic contradiction over an issue like slavery. The argument of somebody like Wilkin's is ultimately the glue that holds those apparently contradictory positions together. How can the Constitution have been perfect and liberty the vital principle? Because slavery wasn't so bad.

Now, to be sure, Bachmann is obviously not pro-slavery. But she is the product of a worldview that comes from some very, very dark places.

[jeffkrol]

Here's a sampling of Michele Bachmann's reading list. She has publicly endorsed all of these books at some point:

Treason, by Ann Coulter. Standard conservative fare arguing that liberals aren't patriotic.
A Christian Manifesto, by Francis Schaeffer. Lizza says this work "argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn't reversed."
Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, by Nancy Pearcey. Sample quote, as explained by Lizza:

She tells her readers to be extremely cautious with ideas from non-Christians. There may "be occasions when Christians are mistaken on some point while nonbelievers get it right... Nevertheless, the overall systems of thought constructed by nonbelievers will be false--for if the system is not built on Biblical truth, then it will be built on some other ultimate principle. Even individual truths will be seen through the distorting lens of a false world view."

Christianity and the Constitution, by John Eidsmoe, for whom Bachmann was a research assistant. This is why Bachmann frequently insists that the Founding Fathers opposed slavery, despite owning slaves. Eidsmoe, Lizza says, holds that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams "expressed their abhorrence for the institution" of slavery, and "many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves." Why? The slaves couldn't make it out there in the free world: "It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible."
Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, by J. Steven Wilkins. Wilkins, Lizza explains, "is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North." He also argues that slavery wasn't so bad. Sample quote:

Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.

You know it's actually scarey that she ever won any election......
Michele Bachmann's Love Affair with Revisionist History - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

[mikemike]

It seems like the people rooting the hardest for her primary success are the liberals just so that they can have a foil. That is the only way I see Obama winning reelection, if the alternative is so undesirable. I doubt that wish will be granted.

[shooz]

You're a Bachmann fan?

[Tom S.]

Don't count too heavily on it.


First off, I am not a tea partier, nor am I a fan of Bachmann (quite the opposite, in fact), but what has transpired over the past weeks have left a large share of the American public asking themselves wtf is going on? If you have a strong stomach, check out where your 401 K is at the end of stock trading today compared to where it was only a month ago.

Democrats are beginning to implode, with many dumping Obama and hoping Hilary will come back and run against him. The Republicans aren't any better off. It would not surprise me to see some dark horse candidate (do they get any darker than Bachmann?) come along and enough people grasping at straws support them.

[shooz]

check out where your 401 K is at the end of stock trading today

Hedge fund managers are robbing you.

YAY!!!!!!!!

[jeffkrol]

no time to read it ............
The New Yorker explores Bachmann’s political and Evangelical roots - Politics in Minnesota

[causey]

After watching the two videos: frightening imbecility...

[deadwolfbones]

The Transformation of Michele Bachmann : The New Yorker

While looking over Bachmann’s State Senate campaign Web site, I stumbled upon a list of book recommendations. The third book on the list, which appeared just before the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s Farewell Address, is a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.

Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”

The Bachmanns attended Carter’s Inauguration, in January, 1977. Later that year, they experienced a second life-altering event: they watched a series of films by the evangelist and theologian Francis Schaeffer called “How Should We Then Live?”

Schaeffer, who ran a mission in the Swiss Alps known as L’Abri (“the shelter”), opposed liberal trends in theology. One of the most influential evangelical thinkers of the nineteen-seventies and early eighties, he has been credited with getting a generation of Christians involved in politics. Schaeffer’s film series consists of ten episodes tracing the influence of Christianity on Western art and culture, from ancient Rome to Roe v. Wade. In the films, Schaeffer—who has a white goatee and is dressed in a shearling coat and mountain climber’s knickers—condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view. “There is only one real solution, and that’s right back where the early church was,” Schaeffer tells his audience. “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”

The first five installments of the series are something of an art-history and philosophy course. The iconic image from the early episodes is Schaeffer standing on a raised platform next to Michelangelo’s “David” and explaining why, for all its beauty, Renaissance art represented a dangerous turn away from a God-centered world and toward a blasphemous, human-centered world. But the film shifts in the second half. In the sixth episode, a mysterious man in a fake mustache drives around in a white van and furtively pours chemicals into a city’s water supply, while Schaeffer speculates about the possibility that the U.S. government is controlling its citizens by means of psychotropic drugs.

[deadwolfbones]

Also:

Bachmann usually describes herself vaguely as a “former federal tax litigation attorney,” but, in part because she was new, she didn’t do much litigating. I talked with six of Bachmann’s former colleagues in the small I.R.S. office where she worked. Three of them still work there. No one would speak on the record, but they all said that Bachmann was not on the job long enough to gain much experience.

Two of Bachmann’s five children were born while she worked for the I.R.S., and all six former colleagues said that the primary fact they remembered about Bachmann was that she spent a good portion of her time on maternity leave—the I.R.S. had a fairly generous policy—and that caused resentment.

“Basically, the rest of us that were here were handling Michele’s inventory,” one former colleague said. “In her four years, she probably didn’t get more than two, two and a half years of experience. So she was doing lightweight stuff.” A second colleague said, “She was an attorney here, but she was never here.” (Bachmann declined a request to respond.)

[redrockcoulee]

Don't count too heavily on it.


First off, I am not a tea partier, nor am I a fan of Bachmann (quite the opposite, in fact), but what has transpired over the past weeks have left a large share of the American public asking themselves wtf is going on? If you have a strong stomach, check out where your 401 K is at the end of stock trading today compared to where it was only a month ago.

Democrats are beginning to implode, with many dumping Obama and hoping Hilary will come back and run against him. The Republicans aren't any better off. It would not surprise me to see some dark horse candidate (do they get any darker than Bachmann?) come along and enough people grasping at straws support them.

Too many on what you call left of centre are fed up with Obama always trying to compromise with a group that thinks a compromise is when they always get their way 100%. That and the fact that he is right of centre anyways I am sure many think why not be the opposite of the tea party and finally vote in a liberal and make no compromises as well. Clinton is not the answer for those people as she too is a moderate conservative.

[Jools]

Great links.
Not that I needed it.
But I say, Run Bachmann run.
If we Americans are that dull, scared or ignorant and she wins so be it.
Lord help us.

[shooz]

We'd be better off electing the Pope.

[jogiba]

You Tube

You Tube