Michele Bachmann Sucks, Too

FacebookGoogle+RedditTwitterPinterestTumblrEmailShare

This is a Guest Post.  Please feel free to submit your article for consideration.

Jack Camwell is author of the blog Christian Fearing God-Man and blogs about politics, culture, and other interesting topics.  Be sure to check him out!

Michele Bachmann Sucks, Too

By Jack Camwell

From what I’ve been reading about the debate last night—which I fully intended to watch, but the call to Deadwood was simply too strong—Michele Bachmann seems to have impressed a lot of pundits.  I guess she was poised, confident, and made few (if any) factual errors.

Sorry to say it, but I think she still sucks.  It’s not my general disdain for Tea Partiers that I have arrived at this conclusion: it’s because of everything else.

I’ve been known to make a few factual errors here and there, but it’s usually on minute details.  For instance, I made some reference to the Court Packing thing with FDR and I said that it happened in the ‘40s.  Some commenter, likely from Crooks and Liars, thought that the fact that the Court Packing incident happened in the late ‘30s that somehow my entire argument was invalidated by that slight mistake.

But Michele Bachmann doesn’t make tiny factual errors.  Hers are usually large and egregious.  For example, she seems to think that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire.  And apparently she likes to make up numbers in terms of tax-payer burden.

What ticks me off about it is that for some reason, some conservatives still think that she’s an “able politician.”  Making up statistics and being woefully inaccurate about your nation’s history does not signify an able politician to me.  It shows that she is just another average American who is stuck in her own pre-conceived notions.  The difference between her and anyone else is that she’s easy on the eyes, articulate, and can generate campaign funds.

I can forgive all of that, even the factual errors (so long as she admits that she is mistaken and corrects herself), but what I can’t forgive is the notion that she will “bring common sense to Washington.”  Wouldn’t you question the “common sense,” of someone who apparently doesn’t feel that factual accuracy is important?

But isn’t that what they all say, that governing the most powerful nation in the world just takes a normal, average Joe approach?  The problems with which our federal government is faced are so easy that all it takes is a little common sense, right?  If only there was a non-intellectual visionary to lead us, someone who understands that politics is really just a simple matter of plain observation and action to bring sanity to Washington DC, then the nation would surely prosper forevermore.

In that regard, Bachman is no better than Obama.  How many times did Obama evince that all what was needed was a fresh perspective?  And how many campaign promises has he had to revise or completely abandon?

After three years in office, I think we can safely say that Obama realizes that there is no magical panacea that will cure all America’s ills, nor is there some idyllic hopeful horizon just waiting for the right person to sail us there.  Similarly, there is no “common sense,” approach that is going to make American politics work better or any differently than its current form.

The fact of the matter is that government and politics are incredibly complex institutions, and their complexity is directly proportional to the size of a nation.  We’re a country of over 350 million people, a fairly large size in terms of land mass.  These 350 million citizens have all sorts of varied interests, sentiments, and political alignments, and there are forces and ideas constantly at odds with each other.  So, we’re to believe that governing a large country with such diversity just takes a little common sense?

If Michele Bachmann were to be elected president, she’d share the same fate as Obama: she won’t realize just how screwed up it is until she’s there, and prudence would most certainly force her to change her approach.

 

 

 

 

About Harrison
Owner and operator of Capitol Commentary.

25 Comments on Michele Bachmann Sucks, Too

  1. I thought that Bachmann did very well in the debate, but I still will not vote for her. I was very hard on her for her history blunder and while that alone would not prohibit me for voting for her I just don’t think she is the person for the job.
    In fact, I don’t know who is.

    • “I don’t know who is . . .”

      I’m in the same boat Steve. Although I’m leaning towards Ron Paul in terms of consistency with my own political convictions, I don’t know if he’d have a chance of beating Obama.

      At the moment, it would seem that Mitt Romney, with his credentials as a seasoned governor and his ability to generate campaign funds, would be the most likely candidate to beat Obama.

  2. MB is still a novice on the national stage. She’s running to increase her name recognition. Good luck to her.

  3. I don’t know much about Bachmann, either, and this article would’ve been a perfect opportunity to delve into her track record as a tax lawyer, a Minnesota state legislator and a member of Congress. Apparently, the author thought otherwise.

    /bummed

  4. I’m going to have to disagree with you, Jack. I think Obama knows exactly what he’s doing in the sense of trying to create a more Socialistic United States. I think what he is completely ignorant on is what his actions will produce in the world.

    I did not watch the debate, either, so I cannot comment on it. I know little of Bachmann except what I have seen on television. She strikes me as an ideologue who is reaching beyond her station going for the presidency. She has been a House member since 2007 and seems to have taken the path of swimming against the current and being a woman in order to get noticed. Who knows what her real feelings are on the matter.

    Regarding making up facts, was it done to cover up her ignorance or was she simply ignorant of what really happened?

    • I have no doubt that Obama has a clear vision in his head now, but I think the vision is different now from when he was on the campaign trail, as indicated by his policy reversals.

      As to your question about making up facts, who knows why she says what she says. If I am cloudy on some fact, I generally don’t use it in any debate until I’ve looked it up to make sure I’m correct.

      If I do speak incorrectly, it’s because I know I’m close enough to the truth to not look entirely stupid, and because I’m too lazy to look it up. Whenever I write responses to things on blogs and what not, I try to do it recalling only facts that I have memorized. I only turn to research if I just absolutely don’t know anything about the subject.

      I’m not sure why I do it, but it’s probably because I hate feeling like people of lesser intelligence suddenly look smarter simply because they can go google something. I do a lot better in a face-to-face debate, where one is only as good as the brain between his ears, and his merits aren’t decided on how well he can type something into a search engine.

      • Ok look at Cain when he was asked about the Palestinian “right or return.” He said he didn’t know what that was. He was mocked. I think most of these people are just terrified of saying “I don’t know.”

        Perhaps I’m being sexist, but a lot of these female candidates remind me of my mother when she used to nag me to have breakfast or pick up my room. In fact, I had to tell her just last night that if I wanted to leave my socks on the floor in my room that was my right and she could vacuum around them!

        • I agree with the fact that they’re afraid. I’ve always believed that admitting when you don’t know something is the first step to no longer being a dumbass.

  5. Just Google “michelle Bachmann gaffes” and you can see how incredibly inaccurate she is. She makes Dr. Seuss look like a neuroscientist.

  6. I’m definetely still dating around but I do know that MB was leading the charge in trying to defund ObamaCare in the latest budget. I don’t think she got the credit she deserved for her effort.

    And enter “(any prominent figure’s name here) gaffes” into Google and it will, no doubt, turn up a treasure trove of results.

    Does the fact that this particular President is particularly underrated in his gaffe-tasticness demonstrable of him being an economic illiterate and ignorant of his executive powers as per the constitution?

    And does Bush’s numerous gaffes and malaprops causal to his expansion of government in the name of “compassionate conservatism”?

    Perhaps we’d all be happy with that smooth-talking yet ethanol-loving, AGW-believin’, RomneyCare-owning Mittens?

    To paraphrase Mike Singletary, “Give me issues. I want issues!”

  7. I was anxiously looking to learn more about Michele by reading the reasons of why this author dislikes her. Unfortunately I reached the end of the piece without a single fact or data as to why “Michele sucks”. It was all opinion and abstractions and not a single factual reason.

    He could have criticized her economic plan or her entitlement and budget propositions, or any other of the many issues that Michele consistently is debating, but no, there was only none-specifics and generalities.

    To the contrary, I find her economical revival plan quite acceptable and very specific. So much more specific than most of her competition in the Republican side – with the exception of Pawlenty.

    She proposes to reform the tax code with a two tier marginal tax rate of 25% and 10%; bring down the corporate tax, the Capital gains tax and eradicate the state tax. She will stop debasing the currency and flooding the economy with new printed money. she talks passionately about the economic theories of Milton Friedman and Von Mises. She accurately pint points most of the blame for the economic crisis to the CRA bill from the times of Carter and Clinton plus Freddie and Fannie GSE’s. And much, much more, that the author of this piece completely ignores or is unaware of.

    I find Michele Bachman capable, smart, knowledgeable, and a possessor of the characteristic most needed and most lacking in our politicians of today – guts.

    • Here’s a factual reason for you John: she’s an idiot. Sorry you missed that finer point of my article. What with all the ineptitude of Obama that people tout as their reasoning for disliking him, would you begrudge me the same reasoning for not liking her?

      Capable? Smart? Knowledgeable? Knowledgeable of what, pray tell? Knowledgeable of American history? Or perhaps the Constitution?

      Short of calling me stupid, I think you’ve readily displayed that you disapprove of me decrying the horse you’re backing, rather than being upset that you have been left in want. If I recall, it wasn’t you that asked me to write an article about her. So perhaps you should look for the author’s meaning rather than trying to find your own.

      Oh, and I’ll bet you to forgive my egregious error on the population of the nation. We are all now better for knowing that we are only a country of 311 million vice 350 million.

    • Johnny G., I’m with you. I was hoping to read a little more about her stand on the issues rather than the fact that someone thinks she’s an idiot or something.

  8. Side note: talking about knowing your facts and throwing stones in a glass house, this is NOT a country of “over 350 million people”. At last count – 2011 based on the 2010 census – the United States of America has 311,530,000 people.

  9. What do you think of the theory that Michele Bachmann is actually running for vice-president? I think she is no dummy and she has a game plan.

    • I heard if she runs for president she can’t run for re-election in the House. No matter what you think of her or her politics, she is putting her money where her mouth is. Personally I think she’s going for the Big Chair but would settle for VP. If she fails and loses her seat she can enter the private sector and make a killing or, as she would probably say, become an advocate for a smaller government.

    • Ha Ha Ha, You are probably right, Harrison.

    • And Joe M. parachutes into a righty firefight. ;) Hey, Joe!

  10. Agreed Harrison, Obamanations ‘leadership’ is purposeful and full of intent. As is the people he surrounds himself with.

    When being 100% factually accurate is a Life and Death matter, then it will matter to me. Otherwise last time I checked, we humans weren’t named ENIAC [the first super computer in world].

Comments are closed.