Brain, brain, what is brain?
I wouldn’t worry. Bachmann will be POTUS some time after the Nader-Kucinich Administration.
They were saying shit like that during the Clinton years, too. It’s short for, “we not only disagree with the people running the country - we don’t regard them as legitimate, period.”
As a centrist Republican (fiscal conservative, Federalist, social progressive, not a goldbug, Obama was born in Hawai’i, etc.) I welcome all of my loony brethren and sistren to enter the race. Let’s have a few more that believe that the Party needs “rescued” from non-traditionalist Republicans (like me) or that the Bible and not the Constitution should rule this land.
The more right-wing wackos that run, the more likely we will get a moderate nominated in 2012. I know there is another thread about what it means that Romney has tied Obama in the polls and tha low showing of Palin. It means that the “real Republican” party - teabag or not, does not resonate with America. And to be honest Mssrs Beck and Limbaugh, if it came down to Obama vs. Romney or Huntsman or Snowe would you seriously not vote for the Republican and in effect vote for Obama?
I must admit, she handled herself well at the CNN debate. She was clearly number 2 behind Romney.
Obama won with 52.9% of the vote in 2008 running a revolutionary campaign and replacing one of the most disapproved of Presidents in history. This time he takes on a more energized opponent with a more discouraged base of his own, after 4+ years of at least 7-8% unemployment and a crowning achievement that the public is AT BEST lukewarm about.
After all that just 3/100 would have to change their mind for a Bachmann ticket to get elected.* Not what I’d a very big margin for error.
*Yes, I realize it’s the EC that matters, but the two are pretty highly correlated for obvious reasons.
Bachmann’s probably a bigger threat than you all realize.
Here’s the thing. No one is REALLY enthusiastic about Romney. No one. Except maybe the Mormons, who see it as kind of an acceptance thing. Romney is about as fake as Nutrisweet, with the same bitter aftertaste.
Bachmann is the real deal. She walks the walk. She stands by her positions, even when people disagree with her, even when people attack her. She adopts foster kids- lots of them. She says Jesus with conviction.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think she’s batshit crazy, but she represents the misdirected anger of the Tea Partiers. The ones who’ve become absolutely convinced that their declining way of life is because the government taxes and regulates them too much, and because we don’t have Jesus in Government.
Now she probably terrifies the establishment of the GOP, the people who do the dirty work of big corporations. But the thing that is always out there, at the end of the day, the 1% that controls half the wealth STILL only has 1% of the vote.
There is a path for her to get the nomination. She wins Iowa, she does well in New Hampshire, she wins South Carolina.
For the General Election- well, if unemployment stays where it is at now or we have a double dip recession, Obama is toast, regardless of who the GOP runs.
:eek: You really think the American people would choose an idiot over a genius just because the economy sucks?!
I would call that cynical if I were too young to remember 1980.
Who?
From the debate the other night:
That’s right - Mitt Romney, the ‘moderate’ in the race, doesn’t think the Federal government should be assisting states with disaster relief. The states, or even better in his opinion the private sector, should be doing this. (How exactly would the private sector do this? Disaster relief consists largely of giving money and valuable goods to people who’ve lost practically everything and can’t pay. It’s a mystery.)
And then there’s Pawlenty’s tax cut plan - his proposed tax cuts make the Bush tax cuts look positively minuscule. (Link is to a chart that compares the two.)
There is no ‘moderate’ in this race. There’s just crazy, and crazier. It’s just a matter of degree of batshit.
There was no “debate,” it was just a bunch of people reciting their platforms. Romney’s answer was a complete non-answer to the question, just like virtually every other “answer” to the questions.
Yeah, but they at least usually try to match their non-answers loosely to the questions that were asked. King asked what we should do about disaster relief, and the canned soundbite that Romney chose to toss back at him was the one about “move everything to the state level, or better yet the private sector”. There’s no other way to parse that but to conclude that Romney thinks disaster relief should ideally be for-profit.
He should have either anticipated a question like this and prepared a soundbite relating to FEMA, or he should have taken the soundbite he used and appended something like “Now, FEMA is probably one of those few examples of something the Feds should keep, but most other things, get rid of those.”. Unless of course he really meant what he said.
Damn fine summary there RR. Sure you’re not a Dem? 
That’s completely irrelevant in this context. I was using ‘the debate the other night’ as an identifier so people would know where and when Romney made these remarks. In this context, I could care less whether it was a debate or a juggling competition.
I do not beleive Romney affirmatively said he would privatize disaster relief. He completely dodged the question and responded with a completely different topic. Until these correspndents grow a set, ask real follow up questions, and insist that the candidate answer the question with a relevant answer, this is the kind of junk we are going to get. However, if corespondents actually did do that, no candidates would show up.
He responded with completely generic GOP bullshit. Did anyone watch carefully to make sure that he didn’t have “Private Sector”, “Tax Cuts”, “Drill More”, and “Socialism Bad” scribbled on his hand?
-Joe
Maybe it’s the missing step between “Collect underpants” and “profit”?
The Daily Beast just put up a fascinating article on Bachmann the other day.
At some point, people are going to notice that she’s actually crazy.
Is it too much to hope that a Bachmann election and the subsequent Great Disaster would finally discredit the idea that pig-ignorant commoners can serve as an electorate?
I suppose other systems are as likely (if not more) to put raving paranoids in power, come to think of it.
Here’s hoping that more visibility makes her raving paranoia clear enough at the best time–whatever that ends up meaning.
Absolutely. I’m not convinced the train of thought of the average voter (or at least enough of them to sway elections) is any more than: If times are good, vote Incumbent. If times are bad, vote Challenger.
"At a megachurch event, Bachmann told the audience that “… God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, what in the world would that be for? And my husband said, ‘You need to do this.’ And I wasn’t so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said ‘Lord, is this what you want? Is this Your will?’ And after - along about the afternoon of day two - He made that calling sure. And it’s been now 22 months that I’ve been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ.”
So there it is, Dopers. NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN, or to even vote if I had my way. Invisible creatures speak to you, eh? Why would anyone consider voting for this mess?
What’s funny is, if we only had a space race again, I doubt people would be voting for “a fool for Christ.”
I’m only really hoping that someone says the same thing, except they replace God and Jesus with Flying Spaghetti Monster. She’s a better example of a symbol of The Fall Of the GOPs than Palin ever will be. (At least O’Donnel was HOT, little chunky, but HOT!) 