The Congresswoman with the crazy eyes, part II, crazy in the head

[pikey_pete]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I used to joke that I hoped Michele Bachmann would become the Republican presidential nominee but I find myself losing my nerve.

I made the same joke about Perry. I have since sworn off jokes about republicans

[Steve_MB]

@Starving_Artist

It’s Newsweek’s fault that it deliberately chose a photo designed to make her look crazy.

That’s like Michael Moore complaining about someone publishing a photo that makes him look fat.

[Steve_MB]

@elucidator

Well, OK, how? Did they tell the photographer “Don’t snap the picture until she looks crazy!”

Well, they could have told him not to snap the photo until she didn’t look crazy. Of course, then SA could complain about the photo being full of wrinkles and crow’s feet and age spots…

[Hampshire]

submissive [səbˈmɪsɪv]
adj
of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility
inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination; “submissive servants”; “a submissive reply”; “replacing troublemakers with more submissive people”

Well, apparently this definition wrong.

According to ol’ crazy eyes submissive means to show someone respect.

[Beadalin]

Here’s a much better photo of Michele. In a just world, this woud grace magazine covers coast to coast.

[mkecane]

So much for Newsweek making her look bad: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/Corndog1-384x288.jpg. She does that well enough on her own. She’s sort of like the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Edit: Great minds, Beadalin.

[Beadalin]

Heh. Nice work, mkecane.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

A 2002 film has surfaced in which Bachmann says that Minnesota education reforms"could lead to a second holocaust.

Aug. 11: Mother Jones reports that in 2002 Bachmann filmed a movie with the message that Minnesota’s educational standards could lead to a second Holocaust – a claim first made by an education activist colleague of Bachmann’s at the time, Michael Chapman.

Bachmann and Chapman together made the two-hour feature, called “Guinea Pig Kids II,” in which they gave a presentation warning that education reforms abandon Christian documents in favor of secular documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that this was part of a dangerous globalist plot.

In the film, Chapman made the allusions to Nazi Germany. He suggested that school-to-work programs, which help students identify skills needed to get jobs in their specific fields, are an echo of Nazi concentration camps. Later the film displayed an image of a desolate looking landscape with the banner “Work Makes Free!” superimposed on top – a rough translation of the phrase that hung in the Auschwitz concentration camp.

How dare anybody say this woman is crazy?

[GIGObuster]

Bachmann calls the film series How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaeffer — who was very influential in the 1970s and '80s — “life-altering,” <snip> [T]he movies “condemn the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism” because those movements removed God from the center of life.

She is indeed like Theodoric of York!

[QUOTE=Saturday Night Live - Steve Martin]
"**
Theodoric of York**: Perhaps she is right. Perhaps I’ve been wrong to blindly follow the traditions and superstitions of the past centuries.

Maybe we barbers should test those assumptions analytically. To experimentation and scientific method.

Perhaps this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning.

Like natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation, perhaps I could lead the way to a new age.

An age of rebirth.

A Renaissance.!!
Nah!!
[Goes back to bloodletting and torture of the peasants]
[/QUOTE]

[Measure_for_Measure]

I’m with SA on this one. Take enough pictures and you will capture anyone with an unflattering expression, as every professional photographer is aware. I’ve seen plenty of highly telegenic shots of Bachmann. This was Tina Brown’s way of generating buzz for Newsweek. Unfortunately for the Washington Post Corporation, Brown is way more expert at raising a magazine’s profile than making it into a profitable operation. See the New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

Cheap shots like this tend to favor those under attack though: I don’t think conservatives need to worry too much. In fact it’s a good way of deflecting attention away from her nutty comments, crazy behavior and laughable US congressional record.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If you ever see her in person, you’ll see that that’s pretty much her natural look.

[elucidator]

You tapped that ass, didn’t you, Doggyknees? C’mon, you can tell us, we won’t rat you out. Was it better than self-abuse?

[gonzomax]

@elucidator

You tapped that ass, didn’t you, Doggyknees? C’mon, you can tell us, we won’t rat you out. Was it better than self-abuse?

He nailed Marcus.

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Measure_for_Measure

I’m with SA on this one. Take enough pictures and you will capture anyone with an unflattering expression, as every professional photographer is aware. I’ve seen plenty of highly telegenic shots of Bachmann. This was Tina Brown’s way of generating buzz for Newsweek. Unfortunately for the Washington Post Corporation, Brown is way more expert at raising a magazine’s profile than making it into a profitable operation. See the New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

Cheap shots like this tend to favor those under attack though: I don’t think conservatives need to worry too much. In fact it’s a good way of deflecting attention away from her nutty comments, crazy behavior and laughable US congressional record.

I saw Bachman being interviewed this morning. The “crazy eyes” were definitely there. It’s nothing to do with Tina Brown choosing pictures. I had to turn off the interview because she was talking nonsense.

Also, Brown made a ton of money for Conde Nast with Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. VF was ready to fold for the second time before she turned it around. That success is the reason that the Newhouse’s put her in charge of TNY and she succeeded. You can never know exactly what is happening financially with Conde Nast because it is a private, family owned business but Tina certainly was instrumental in making many millions for the company.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@R.P.McMurphy

Also, Brown made a ton of money for Conde Nast with Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. VF was ready to fold for the second time before she turned it around. That success is the reason that the Newhouse’s put her in charge of TNY and she succeeded. You can never know exactly what is happening financially with Conde Nast because it is a private, family owned business but Tina certainly was instrumental in making many millions for the company.

Here’s my cite:

@New York Times

Ms. Brown’s magazines have generally proven better at spending money than earning it.

The New Yorker broke into the black in 2002, four years after she left but also for the first time since Condé Nast bought it in 1985. Ms. Brown points out that the magazine’s losses had slowed significantly by the time she left.

At Vanity Fair, Ms. Brown had a reputation for spending lavishly on writers and photographers, expenses that put the magazine deeply in debt. But in her final years as editor, it began to turn a profit, though not every year, according to one person with knowledge of Vanity Fair’s business. This person spoke only on the condition of anonymity because Condé Nast is private and does not release specific financial information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/business/media/21-tina-brown-newsweek-daily-beast.html?pagewanted=all

Admittedly, the quote was a little different than I remembered it: I’m not sure how to characterize it. Charitably, she took businesses in the red and brought them to near break-even status, generally accompanied by sharply higher costs. I’m not aware of her ever heading a highly profitable operation. “Made a ton of money” seems wrong. I concede again that she generates a ton of buzz, which props the brand. I remain less than impressed.

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Measure_for_Measure

Here’s my cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/business/media/21-tina-brown-newsweek-daily-beast.html?pagewanted=all

Admittedly, the quote was a little different than I remembered it: I’m not sure how to characterize it. Charitably, she took businesses in the red and brought them to near break-even status, generally accompanied by sharply higher costs. I’m not aware of her ever heading a highly profitable operation. “Made a ton of money” seems wrong. I concede again that she generates a ton of buzz, which props the brand. I remain less than impressed.

Let’s just say, I have some inside knowledge of those situations. A huge amount of money was invested in the relaunch of Vanity Fair. The first issue was a sell-out and then sales dived. It was at the point where something had to be done or all of the investment would be lost. Tina Brown stepped in and got it on track. Her first cover was of Madonna in a red dress and it was a sensation. VF still survives.

The New Yorker was a “vanity” (I guess there’s a pun in there) purchase by the Newhouse’s. Si Newhouse wanted the magazine. It was a thinly traded public company. They bought it out in two stages and took it private. To revive it they moved Brown from VF to TNY and there was a revival of the magazine. Even if she didn’t make it hugely profitable, she stopped the hemorrhaging so that, in and of itself, means that she made or saved Conde Nast a lot of money. It still survives. I think the Newhouse family will tell you she earned her pay.

[Measure_for_Measure]

R. P. McMurphy: Interesting. I should add that Tina Brown hasn’t had much problem finding employers willing to fund her efforts, which further supports your case.

[Plumbkrazy]

I disagree with most. I think it’s a great photo of her, considering it’s her. She has crazy eyes in the photo because she has eyes, and she’s FUCKING CRAZY. She’s a cunt too, but that’s for another topic.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Well at least they didn’t go with their first coiver…

[E-Sabbath]

bachmanneyezed