It may not hurt him in the primary, but it takes the shine off of him to more moderate voters.
This? Is going to be AWESOME. 
The Onion summed it up best:
“Michelle Bachman Announces Bid to Be Discussed More Than She Deserves in 2012”
Here’s her video announcement, linked here for your commentary and amusement.
What does “take your country back” mean, really? Is it code for something?
If it means," remove some of the inordinate influence of wealthy corporate shills on our government," is she at all sincere?
Or is it something more like, “get us back to a time when a non-white couldn’t possibly be elected president”?
I think it is entirely possible that someone like Bachman could pull enough support to get the nomination and in effect hand Obama a second term. All it would take is someone to generate a lot of excitment in one of the sub-groups (tea party, etc.) while all of the rest of the field remains uninspiring.
They misspeak- they really mean “take the country backward”.
The only Michelle that should be in the White House is Michelle Obama!
I don’t see his stance as racist but I do agree it’s creepy and wrong. Thanks for the info.
“I don’t mean any old Muslim, I mean a militant Muslim.” Wtf? I’d be uncomfortable with a militant anything in my cabinet, and there’s nothign to suggest that enough Muslims are militants in the US that you’d have to worry about it versus any other religion. Which even if it was an excuse it wouldn’t excuse not distinguishing between Muslims and militant Muslims in the first place.
Yea, I’m glad someone finally has the courage to stand up and say “I won’t put Islamic Terrorists in the US Cabinet”.
Still, I wonder where Herman Cain stands on carpet bombing the Ozarks or turning Arlington Cemetary into a theme park? Until I’ve heard him bravely speak out against these things, I just don’t know.
Sometimes I think Bachmann makes Sarah Palin look like Plato.
Then Palin says something else. I’ve learned: Bachmann and Palin are at their sanest and smartest when they shaddup shadden’ up.
Michelle Bachmann has Sarah Palin beat all over. Sarah Palin only has megalomania. Michelle Bachmann has lots of other manias, too.
Oh, I hope, hope, fervently hope Bachmann gets the nomination. Then, when she loses, maybe, just maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.
What did he actually say?
ETA: Wait… is that** Jas09**'s link?
I pretty much hope the least-crazy-possible person gets the nomination (which would be Romney, or in an ideal world Huntsman), because it’s entirely possible that whoever gets the nomination might win.
Here is the exact exchange:
[QUOTE=CNN]
MCELVEEN: Thank you.
While we’re on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.”
Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?
CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.
And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.
And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.
Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey – there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.
KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.
What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have – my term, not his – a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.
CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?
KING: Please let’s make it clear.
CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their – you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization –
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty clear to me from that that Mr. Cain views Muslims with a much higher level of scrutiny with respect to their loyalty to their country than non-Muslims. Whether that is warranted or not is up to the viewer (obviously the crowd agreed with him - he received much applause).
I so do not want to hijack this thread, but:
I really have to wonder what people like Herman Cain and Juan Williams are thinking when they openly and clearly state that they are prejudiced toward people because of their appearance, having themselves no doubt been heavily subject to that very same prejudice.
There are two ways to respond to prejudice directed toward you: 1) reject such prejudice and appreciate that people have different backgrounds, upbringings and views of the world or 2) redirect that prejudice toward a weaker group.
We know which course they chose.
Got it, thanks.
Yes. I have wondered. I think I’ll go ahead and spin this off right now.
New thread in GD: Herman Cain and Juan Williams (and beyond)
Bachmann alone should be fodder enough for this one. 
If Bachmann can be tied to Dominionism/Reconstructionism, I hope the Dems won’t be shy about highlighting that.
IIRC, in 1990-1991, the state Republican parties started blocking anyone who was not committed to tax cuts in all circumstances. This has prevented the entry into GOP politics of any new old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, & diminished the pool of Republicans either “electable” or “experienced.” The general quality of brain has thus gone down. Granted, the parties were already willing to take that kind of litmus test by the late 1980’s, so I guess they were already a bit daft. But I’m pretty sure that’s, “what the fuck happened to the party.”
Join us defectors to the Democrats! One of us! One of us! Someday the Blue Dogs may outnumber the Pubbies, & we can have a proper realignment. 