On Sunday's Meet the Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham said “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qaddafi” by discussing the possibility of cutting off funding for military operations there. He also said it was a boo-boo for Republican candidates to think that getting “to the left” of Obama on war is a path to victory in the GOP primary. At National Review's The Corner , Mark Steyn joined Mark Levin in disparaging Graham. (Levin calls him “Goober.”) Laura Ingraham has also mocked his previous “shut up” comments: Daniel , re
Continue reading …Gosh, I would have thought that someone in Wisconsin's or America's labor movement would have caught Scott Bauer's clear June 15 understatement of the net pay hit many unionized public sector workers in the Badger State will be taking as a result of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, commonly known as the “Budget Repair Bill,” once the law's provisions become effective on July 1. That error is in the following sentence from Bauer's report (“New lawsuit filed against Wisconsin union law”): The law also requires workers to pay 12 percent of their health insurance costs and 5.8 percent of their pension costs, which amount to an 8 percent pay cut on average. The AP reporter apparently spent time which should have gone towards getting the facts right to ensuring, as he did in a June 14 story (covered at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), that the law was described as “polarizing” as often as possible. Bauer's frequent use of the P-word also seemingly distracted union supporters who read or heard portions of Bauer's report from noticing the error I will explain shortly. As shown below, Scott's magic word was found in his write-up and in two of his audio teases: Geez, Scott, we get your blatantly biased point. Bauer's reporting error is in stating that public sector employees will now pay “5.8 percent of their pension costs.” What's really the case is that they will now pay “5.8% of their gross pay” into the State of Wisconsin Retirement System. That's a big difference. As Bauer presented it, assuming for the moment that employer pension costs average the 18% of pay noted here (see Page 2 of the linked document), that would only be 0.87% of gross pay (.058 x .15), roughly 5% of gross pay less than actual (5.8% minus 0.87% is 4.93%). While we're at it, Bauer description of Wisconsin Act 10's impact in the quote above as “an 8% pay cut on average” is also incorrect. It's not a pay cut at all, as no one's salary is going to change as a direct result of the law. Act 10's provisions will cause “an 8% reduction in net pay,” which is nowhere near the same thing. Scott Bauer should spend a bit more time working on accuracy and precision and a bit less time inserting “polarizing” words into his reports. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …NEW ORLEANS — A Barack Obama impersonator was ushered off the stage after he mocked the Republican presidential hopefuls and joked about the real president’s biracial roots to a room full of conservative activists Saturday. The Republican Leadership Conference turned the podium over to impersonator Reggie Brown, who drew raucous applause from the GOP’s supporters when he projected lewd photos of Rep. Anthony Weiner, the New York Democrat who just resigned after the furor over his sexually charged online dalliances with a former porn actress and other women. Brown later played up the mass exodus of advisers to candidate Newt Gingrich’s campaign and said Gingrich’s supporters “are dropping faster than Anthony Weiner’s pants.” The audience grew more uncomfortable when Brown turned to the candidates who are looking to make Obama a one-term president. The impersonator took a shot at former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, saying Pawlenty missed the conference because “he’s having his foot surgically removed from his mouth.” “Don’t worry: it’s covered under Obamneycare … along with spinal transplants,” Brown said. Pawlenty has struggled this week after previewing his criticism of former Gov. Mitt Romney’s health care overhaul in Massachusetts that was a model for Democrats’ national plan. Pawlenty first called it “Obamneycare,” a hybrid of “Romneycare” and “Obamacare.” But when given the opportunity to use the term while sharing the stage with Romney during a debate Monday night in New Hampshire, he balked. Pawlenty later said it was a mistake not to offer a stronger criticism. The impersonator joked about Romney’s Mormon faith and about polygamy, and Rep. Michele Bachmann’s tea party support. Organizers then cut off Brown’s microphone and turned on music. He was shown off the stage. The jokes came a day after Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour urged Republicans not to be distracted from a message honed solely on jobs and the economy. “If we let people in the Obama campaign take America’s eye off the ball, then that’s their only chance to win,” Barbour said. Brown opened his routine with jokes about Obama’s biography as the son of a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya. “My mother loved a black man and, no, she was not a Kardashian,” the actor said, referring to the reality television family. Khloe Kardashian is married to basketball player Lamar Odom of the Los Angeles Lakers. Other family members have had black romantic interests on the E! television series. Brown also joked about rumors of the president’s birthplace. Obama was born in Hawaii, “or as the tea partyers call it, Kenya,” he said. Brown highlighted photographs of past presidents such as George W. Bush at the beginning and end of their terms. He showed a picture of George Washington at the start of his term and then projected an image of former first lady Barbara Bush as though it was the nation’s first president as he left office. Brown then projected a picture of Obama at the start of his term, followed by a picture of Fred Sanford of “Sanford and Son” as a representation of what Obama would look like when he leaves office.
Continue reading …NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words “under God” from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship. In fact, this happened twice during the show's introduction (crude amateur video follows with partial transcript): I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and justice for all. Seconds later, the Pledge was repeated with even more words omitted: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all. How disgraceful. (Grateful hat-tips to many readers. Better video will be added when it comes available.)
Continue reading …After months of being asked, Jon Stewart finally appeared on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend. The primary discussion point was bias in the media which the “Daily Show” host continually told Chris Wallace is far more prevalent on FNC than at all the other news organizations (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: You love to take shots at FOX News. JON STEWART, HOST: Yes, I do. WALLACE: Over the years, you have called us — and we're going to put this on the screen because this is heavy stuff. STEWART: Please. WALLACE: “A biased organization, relentlessly promoting an ideological agenda under the rubric of being a news organization.” STEWART: Rubric. WALLACE: And — I actually think that's slightly the wrong use for the word rubric. “A relentless agenda-driven, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system.” STEWART: Yes. WALLACE: Where do you come up with this stuff? STEWART: It's actually quite easy when you feel it. You got to feel it in your soul, you know? WALLACE: Well, here's the deal. Are you willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media, about ABC, CBS, NBC, “Washington Post,” “New York Times”? STEWART: No. WALLACE: Would you say the same thing about them that they are — in your words — a propaganda delivery system relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda? STEWART: No, I wouldn't say that. Yes, he really said “No.” Not surprisingly, Wallace pressed the point: WALLACE: Why not? STEWART: MSNBC is attempting that. I think they're attempting. They've looked at your business model and they have seen the success of it. And I think they're attempting to be a more activist organization. WALLACE: You don't think “The New York Times” is a liberal organization? STEWART: Now. WALLACE: Pushing a liberal agenda? STEWART: “The New York Times,” no. I think they are to a certain extent. Do I think they're relentlessly activist? No. In a purely liberal partisan way? No, I don't. Only a liberal New Yorker would say on national television the New York Times isn't biased. Makes you wonder if he's ever read any of their editorials, doesn't it? STEWART: I think is this — FOX is a very special — WALLACE: I want the shutters to go from your eyes because I'm going to prove it to you in the next few minutes. STEWART: Oh, OK. I don't — I'm excited about that. WALLACE: Here we go. STEWART: Can I tell you this? I love to learn! WALLACE: Even you make fun of the fact that “The New York Times” and the “Washington Post” when this document dump of 24,000 e-mails of Sarah Palin was released, and they got so excited about it, they asked their readers, help us. Go through these 24,000 documents. STEWART: Right. WALLACE: How do you explain the fact that they would do that? They would ask the readers to help them go through the Palin e-mails — inconsequential as they turned out to be — STEWART: Right. WALLACE: — but they never said help us go through the 2,000 pages of the Obama health care bill? Great question, right? Here was Stewart's absurd answer. STEWART: Because I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's towards a liberal agenda. It's light fluff. So, it's absolutely within the wheelhouse. I mean, if your suggestion is that they are relentlessly partisan and why haven't they gone and backed away from Weiner? Now, they jumped into the Weiner pool — so, with such delight and such relish, because the bias — WALLACE: Some things are indefensible. STEWART: — the bias of the mainstream media — oh, I'm not saying it's defensible, but the bias of the mainstream media is toward sensationalism, conflict and laziness. Got that? So the Post and the Times weren't exhibiting bias when they asked their readers to assist them in going through Palin's email. They were just sensationalistic and lazy. As I've said for many years, it takes a staggering amount of rationalizations to be a liberal these days. A bit later, Stewart elaborated: STEWART: Here is the difference between you and I — I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background. There's no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand and the thing that in some respect conservative activists will never understand is that Hollywood, yes, they're liberal. But that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I'm a comedian. WALLACE: All right. I want to thank you for saying that because — STEWART: Yes? WALLACE: Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik — put it up on the screen — says that is your dodge. “Stewart has never held accountable in his media criticism, is he? When he is wrong, he goes in a tap dance of saying he's only a comedian and shouldn't be taken seriously.” Another great question. Here was Stewart's absurd answer: STEWART: OK. Let's talk about that — when did I say to you I'm only a comedian? I said I'm a comedian first. That's not only. Being a comedian is harder than what you do. What I do is much harder. I put material through a process, a comedic process. That's preposterous and largely made Zurawik's point. Whenever Stewart is accused of partisanship, he brings up the fact that he's a comedian and that's supposed to make it okay. It doesn't matter that he said “comedian first” versus “only a comedian.” It's still a veil that he hides behind to shield himself from criticism of being biased: WALLACE: But you are a political commentator. The comedy has a political — (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Some of it. Some of it? Actually, most of Stewart's commentary is political and largely filtered through a liberal prism. When he asked Wallace moments later if the host felt that way, the answer was affirmative: STEWART: Am I an activist in your mind, an ideological partisan activist? WALLACE: Yes. STEWART: OK. Then I disagree with you. You can't understand because of the world you live in that there is not a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change because that's the soup you swim in. And I appreciate that. And I understand that. It reminds me of, you know — you know, ideological regimes. They can't understand that there is free media other places because they receive marching orders. So, in Stewart's view, what he does on Comedy Central is “free media” that's not receiving marching orders. Yet how often do his segments largely reflect Democrat talking points echoing what comes from the shills at the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and MoveOn.org? Despite this, like so many of his liberal counterparts, Stewart's finger is always pointing at Fox for its conservative leaning encouraging Wallace to press the point: WALLACE: How do you explain me? Do you think I get my marching orders? STEWART: I think that you are here in some respects to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it, without your presence. So, you are here as a counterweight to Hannity, let's say, or you are here as a counterweight to Glenn Beck, because otherwise, it's just pure talk radio and it doesn't establish the type of political player it wants to be. Wallace is a counterweight to Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? How do Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, and all the liberal contributors to Fox fit into that mix? If you add up all the conservative contributors to ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS they don't total the number of liberal contributors to Fox. Also, couldn't one make the case that conservative contributors to the New York Times and the Washington Post are there as a counterweight to both paper's distinct leftward leaning? I wish Wallace had mentioned that. Yet moments later, Stewart did say something rather telling: STEWART: The embarrassment is that I'm given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does. Well, that is indeed embarrassing, but not for the reason Stewart ascribed: WALLACE: I don't think — STEWART: — not because I have an ideological agenda. WALLACE: I don't think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, finally, they're getting somebody who tells the other side of the story. Exactly. The only credibility Stewart has comes from folks on the left that are disappointed in the news media. Dissatisfied people on the right – given Fox's ratings this is a huge figure – are finding real alternative news sources to receive information without the biases prevalent elsewhere. These sources don't include comedians. It's only the left that hold up comics as reputable disseminators of information. Wallace demonstrated why this is such a bad thing a few moments later: WALLACE: I'm suggesting that there is bias, and that you only tell part of the story. STEWART: Oh, there's no question that I don't tell the full story. I mean, I don't disagree with that. But I don't not tell the full story based on a purely ideological partisan agenda. That's my point. My point isn't — WALLACE: I think your agenda is more out there, and you're pushing more of an agenda than you pretend to. Without question, which makes you wonder if Stewart was being completely honest Sunday or spinning a yarn to preserve whatever appearance of impartiality he miraculously retains with his fans. But as the segment drew to a close, the “Daily Show” host seemed to lift his veil a bit: STEWART: I've existed in this country forever. There have been people like me who satirize the political process and who have satirized — what was it that Will Rogers said? You know, how crazy is it when politicians are a joke and comedians are taken seriously? WALLACE: That assumes a kind of — and this is where I think you're wrong and you don't get it — STEWART: That may be right. WALLACE: — is that there is not a single marching order. There is not some kind of command. There is not a talking point memo. I'm saying — (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Well, that I disagree with. WALLACE: I am sitting here talking to Jon Stewart and I'm trying to get it, trying to understand you, and trying to see whether or not you recognize that what I believe is true, that there is as much bias on the other side as you subscribe to Fox, and why you seem to go easy on that. STEWART: I think that there is a — probably a liberal bias that exists within the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints, but I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years. And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some extent they're right. People on the right are called racists and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with — and homophobic and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and to feel that they have been vilified for those things. And I've been guilty of doing some of those things myself. WALLACE: I accept your apology. (LAUGHTER) WALLACE: I want to thank you for coming on. Interesting way to conclude, wouldn't you agree? In the end, you have to appreciate Stewart being willing to do such a lengthy interview with Wallace, and allowing his hair to come down a bit. Say what you will about the “Daily Show” host, unlike so many of the cowards on the left, he'll go on Fox and face the music. It will be interesting to see how he reports this on his own show next week. Stay tuned.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media I think we just got a preview of what we can expect from Texas Gov. “Good-Hair” Rick Perry if he decides to enter the GOP presidential primary, which he’ll be doing soon if this speech at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans is any indication. Perry gave what could be described as a barn burner of a speech with all of the typical Republican, Ayn Rand, freedom-loving, history revisionist talking points that of course the audience there just loved. As Rachel Maddow reported this week , unfortunately for Perry, when reality comes up against his lofty rhetoric, they don’t seem to square so well with each other to put it mildly. What’s obvious to me after watching Perry and some of the other speakers at the event is that Republicans, after wrecking the economy and after enacting their extreme right wing agenda in states with Republican governors across the country, plan on making the economy front and center in their campaign rhetoric, facts and public opinion be damned. Partial rough transcript of Perry’s speech below the fold, and if there’s any doubt that Republicans are dying for this guy to get into the presidential race this year, listen to the chants by the crowd at the end yelling “Run, Rick run!” and “Perry 2012!” And question for anyone here, is it just me, or does this guy give anyone else nightmares from sounding like a George W. Bush clone on steroids? PERRY: Our party cannot be all things to all people. It can’t be. And our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let’s quit trying to curry favor with them. Let’s stand up. Let’s speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our elect more conservative Republicans. Let’s stop this American downward spiral! We’re going this. And it’s happening because of too much spending, too much interfering and too much apologizing. You know, in my mind there’s always been two kinds of politicians; those who seek office to gain personal power and those who seek office to give power back to the people. In state Houses across this country and in the United States Congress, conservative politicians, conservative leaders are working to return the power to the people; turning back the tide of this unchecked spending and unbridled interference in state affairs. You know, let me share something that’s not a secret, but I’m tellin’ ya’, they will never willingly give up an ounce of power in Washington D.C. until the American people stand up and demand that we adopt reform! Never will they do that! This administration may get up and mouth words about job creation, but they clearly consider enterprise a dirty word. And they think the fruits of our labor needs to be… spread around. Or, the word I like to use from their core ideology, be redistributed. […] You know in November of 2008, there were too many Americans who voted for some vague promises about hope and change and they ended up with unprecedented deficits, unrestrained spending and unacceptable unemployment. Americans voted for hope and got nothing but greater economic misery. In November 2010, Americans expressed their frustration with that misery and they voted for conservative Republicans. In the United States Congress and state Houses all across this country we have seen Republican leaders turning the tide. November 2012 is not very far away. But we’ve got to be ready to elect Republican leaders up and down that ballot who will make government smaller so that opportunity can get bigger. I’m preaching to the choir here. I understand that, but America’s greatness is not found in the size of its government. America’s greatness is resides in the hearts and the minds of our people; their innovative approaches to solving problems and their ability to endure, even in the toughest of times. If we want to stimulate the economy, we don’t need more government spending. We need to unleash the private sector in America, the individual citizens who put their hours in at the job, who pay their taxes; they’re doing their best to take care of their families. The good news is, we’ve got the wind at our back right now. As Americans are waking up to the realities of their previous choice, they’re settin’ things right with their votes. The challenges facing state leaders as we pursue these balanced budgets across the country we share with you, they’re going to pale in comparison to what we’re going to see in 2014, when that runaway train known as Obama-care hits our budgets. If the Congress or the courts don’t derail Obama-care, state budgets will crumble under the massive financial burden. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is startin’ to slow that train down but we need to keep sending them reinforcements to bring that effort to a clear conclusion. Together… together we must keep America moving back to preeminence because our values and conservative ideas are the world’s greatest hope. Like you I still believe America is special! I see a stronger America, built on the solid foundation of spiritual strength, of individual liberty, of self-determination. We must recapture that vision and begin the hard work of lighting the way for millions of Americans who are adrift in this sea of economic misery. Let’s lead ‘em to the safe harbor of American renewal and the shores of American exceptionalism! Let’s anchor them! Anchor them in the future of good jobs and a country founded on great ideas. Restore the notion of a government of the people, for the people, by the people! If we don’t do it, who will? If not now, when? There is no greater goal, no more crucial time than right now to take and make our stand to restore our economy, our families, our country! And I happen to know that we can! And I know that you will! God bless you and thank you all for being out here today! And god bless the United States of America!
Continue reading …Washington Post reporter Rachel Weiner profiled the battling online conventions in Minneapolis this weekend — Netroots Nation vs. Right Online — and found that the happier warriors were on the Right. On page A4, the headline was “At dueling political gatherings, room for mutual admiration.” Look who's the face of the Netroots (including on their homepage ) — radical (if temporary) Obama green guru Van Jones: Over at Netroots, there was talk of the enthusiasm and media attention on the other side. “The tea party changed the discussion,” said Van Jones, the former White House “green czar” who is launching a new economic campaign called Rebuild the Dream. “What they were able to do is take pre-existing sentiment and preexisting groups that were not visible and they got those visible. They got those people heard.” Netroots still has clout. Four senators were at Netroots; none came for RightOnline. (Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, was scheduled to attend but could not make it). The head of the Democratic National Committee spoke at Netroots; no top officials from the Republican National Committee attended RightOnline.
Continue reading …Congresswoman will come under scrutiny about hardline politics. But will she be able to reach beyond her Tea Party base? Mary Cecconi is the only Democrat to have beaten Michele Bachmann, the rising star of the Republican right, in a popular election. “It’s my claim to fame!” she laughs. Her victory came in a race in 1999 for a seat on the school board of Stillwater, Minnesota, a tiny, picturesque river town on the banks of the Mississippi. Bachmann – then known locally as a conservative education activist – had unexpectedly run as part of a slate of rightwing Republicans. The move politicised what had previously been a non-partisan affair. It failed. Cecconi, the incumbent, held her position. It was a minuscule electoral footnote yet it saw the political birth of a woman who just 12 years later is running for president and electrifying the radical right wing of the party. Bachmann, who announced her White House run last week, and then shone in the first major Republican debate, is eclipsing Sarah Palin as the new darling of the Tea Party. She is an evangelical whose husband runs a controversial Christian counselling service. She is a Minnesota congresswoman who has vowed to repeal healthcare reform and lambasts Barack Obama as a socialist. Like Palin, she makes political capital of her role as a mother to a large family: five children of her own and more than 20 foster kids. She is also a glamorous woman in a party that is frequently dominated by older white men. Yet her remarkable story began with that Stillwater race and Cecconi, now head of a parental lobbying group for schools in Minnesota, is not the only person to remember it. Joan Beaver, a now retired Stillwater high school teacher, recalled the election as heralding a shift in the town away from smalltown moderate Republicanism towards more extreme rightwing thought. “The town changed,” she said, noting that the shift occurred after the development of suburban housing estates and an influx of wealthy newcomers. Bachmann was part of the influx. She was born in Iowa, although the family moved to Minnesota when she was young. After a divorce, her mother remarried and Bachmann spent her childhood in a family of working-class Democrats. The real change came during adolescence, when at 16 she became “born again”. She went on to study law at the religious Oral Roberts University, which taught a biblical worldview alongside its legal classes. By the time Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, arrived in Stillwater with their burgeoning family they were staunch members of the religious right. She home-schooled her own children, but by law had to enrol her foster children into local public schools. It was that experience – she saw the state curriculum as too liberal and politically correct – that led to her becoming involved in educational activism, and ultimately politics. Still, to Beaver it seems strange to see the Bachmann she knew from Stillwater school politics striding across the American political stage with officially declared ambitions to capture the Oval Office and become the most powerful woman in the world. “She has more perseverance and staying power than anyone expected,” Beaver said. Many on the American left see Bachmann’s presidential ambitions as little more than a joke: the punchline to a gag about how far right the Republican party has drifted. She is mocked and lampooned by those who expect her to fail. But not all of her opponents in Stillwater are joining in that ridicule. Cecconi is certainly not. She recalls going to an education meeting only two days after beating Bachmann in 1999. Bachmann was supposed to be playing second fiddle to a speech by education campaigner Michael Chapman. But instead she had become the main attraction: “She was amazing. She held the room in her hand.” A year later Bachmann would run for – and win – a state senate seat. Shortly after that she would run for the US Congress in the sprawling district of which Stillwater is a part. She would emerge victorious from that, too. Now she is running for the White House. Cecconi has a warning for those mocking her: “She has got as far as she has by people underestimating her. I am not going to underestimate her.” Even Bachmann’s admirers, however, sometimes confess that her passionate style of ultra-rightwing politics has its drawbacks. “It is very attractive to some folks, and she certainly does not hesitate to say what she thinks. But that can upset others,” said Edwin Cain, a Stillwater-based lobbyist who has worked frequently with Bachmann. Indeed, it is not hard to find Bachmann critics, even among Republican supporters in the town. Though she makes her home here – in a million-dollar house on an upmarket estate near the golf course – this is not automatically Bachmann territory. The town is prosperous and thrives on a tourist economy; Main Street is packed with bistros and bars and represents a slice of urban city life with a hint of liberal values. Preston Norris, who works in a bar, voted for Bachmann for Congress but will not do so for the presidency. “She has some views that are just too much for that office,” he said bluntly. It is not hard to see what those views are. Bachmann’s criticism of homosexuality is open and brutal. She has led the charge against gay marriage, even at the cost of a once-close relationship with a lesbian stepsister. In 2004 Bachmann said of gay people: “It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It’s anything but gay.” She is on record as viewing homosexuality as a “disorder” or a “sexual dysfunction” and is a staunchly anti-abortion Christian conservative. She believes Obama is “the final leap to socialism” in America, and has accused him of wanting to set up youth indoctrination camps for teenagers. She has called for investigations into fellow congressional politicians to see if they are “anti-American”. She once claimed to know of a plan to give up half of Iraq to Iran. She is against raising America’s debt ceiling for running up its deficit, and wants to repeal healthcare reform in its entirety. She is a firm sceptic on the dangers of global warming. She once introduced a resolution seeking to prevent the dollar being replaced by a foreign currency, despite the fact that such a move is already illegal. She has called the Environmental Protection Agency a “job-killing” organisation. Such extremism can lead to some very odd ideological bedfellows. Away from Stillwater, in the rural hinterland of Bachmann’s vast congressional district, she is more popular. Here, in a landscape of deeply religious small towns and rolling farms, Bachmann’s support is solid. In Buffalo, a small community beside a lake of the same name, one Bachmann supporter was delighted she was running. “I think it’s great! She can win and I have found the president very disappointing,” said one elderly woman who declined to give her name. Asked what was most disappointing about Obama, the woman said: “He has not been honest about being a Muslim.” Such beliefs are unusual, but not exactly unknown in these parts. Not far from Buffalo lies the town of Annandale, which acts as the base for a rightwing Christian ministry called You Can Run But You Cannot Hide. Led by the drummer of nu-metal band Junkyard Prophet, Bradlee Dean, the ministry has made its name by denying Obama’s Christianity and also promoting slurs against gay people, accusing them of child abuse and even once suggesting they be executed. Yet Bachmann herself has headlined a fundraising gala for Dean and his ministry. That sort of thing has so far passed under the radar of most American media, but seasoned Bachmann-watchers, such as Stillwater writer Karl Bremer, whose Ripple in Stillwater blog has chronicled Bachmann’s career, believe that will not last for long now: “She has to soften her image. But her image is already on the table. She is in the big leagues now. It is not just a little congressional race.” Bremer believes Bachmann’s politics and career are about to get the sort of scrutiny they have long deserved. Indeed, he has already chronicled much of it on his blog. “She has got plenty of skeletons in her closet,” he said. One of those skeletons could be her relationship with Frank Vennes, a man who served time in jail for cocaine distribution and money-laundering after being convicted in 1987. After his release, and apparently after finding God while in prison, Vennes became a friend of Bachmann and a big campaign donor for her elections. However, Vennes has recently been indicted on charges stemming from a Ponzi scheme and could end up behind bars again. That is a juicy story. As are Bachmann’s links to the mysterious “Bobby Charles Thompson”, who disappeared after the collapse of his apparently fraudulent fundraising organisation, which had been portrayed as a navy veterans’ group. Arrest warrants have now been issued for Thompson, whose real identity is not known. But what is known is that Thompson’s group donated campaign funds to Bachmann. Then there is the issue of the Bachmann family farm in Wisconsin. The large rural property has been the recipient of considerable government largesse in the form of agricultural subsidies, despite the fact that Bachmann is a vociferous critic of government handouts. Yet Bremer’s blog has reported that the farm has reaped the Bachmanns about $154,000 of government cash since 2001. That is obviously not illegal but – given Bachmann’s virulent dislike of state welfare – it could make for some interesting headlines. Finally, there are bizarre incidents such as the one in 2005 when Bachmann accused two lesbians of trying to lock her in a lavatory and keep her prisoner. The women claimed they were just trying to talk to her about her anti-gay beliefs, but Bachmann went to the police. However, the authorities dismissed her claims. “Both women simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms Bachmann,” wrote the county attorney, who declined to press the matter. To her supporters – and there are many of them – such incidents do not matter. They are either irrelevant or part of the media plot against her. “The media beat up on her. I don’t know why,” said Lee Bohlsen, chairwoman of the Republican party of Washington county, in which Stillwater lies. Bohlsen is an enthusiastic fan, praising Bachmann’s attention to detail and warm personality. “I definitely think she can win. She is unwavering and she has a very strong character,” she said. Indeed, there is no doubting Bachmann’s political talents. She ticks all the same boxes as Palin but has a more polished image, even more conservative credentials, and a family and religious outlook that makes Palin look positively liberal. She also has a prodigious, widely admired work ethic and a fierce sense of mission. “She is absolutely hard-driving and passionate, but that does not make her unpleasant to work with,” said Karen Effrem, a conservative education activist who has worked with her. “It makes her a dynamo. I’m pleased she is running.” Reconciling the liberal and conservative visions of Bachmann is impossible. Her detractors and supporters inhabit different worlds. But it has led to speculation that Bachmann might privately not believe all she says in public: that her ambition is simply to bask in the spotlight. Perhaps, like Palin, she may have more of an eye on realising her value on the lucrative TV talk show circuit than on winning a political race. Bremer is unsure of the theory and not keen to test it. “Does she believe what she says? Or is it just a road to success?” he said. “I don’t know the answer to that – but I do think she should be stopped.” Michele Bachmann US elections 2012 Sarah Palin Tea Party movement Barack Obama US politics United States Republicans Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Bill Maher threw potential GOP presidential candidate and current Governor of Texas Rick Perry under the bus and ran over him a few times during his New Rules segment on Real Time With Bill Maher this week. MAHER: And finally New Rule, if you think the Republican presidential candidates can’t possibly get any lamer, then you haven’t met the new Republican flavor of the month, Rick Perry. If you’re not familiar with Rick, he took over as governor of Texas from George W. Bush, who’s now referred to as “the smart one.” Rick carries a gun even when he’s jogging. He wears cowboy boots with a suit, and the boots say, “come and take it”, which sounds kind of gay to me. And he threw such a tantrum when Obama won, he actually talked about Texas succeeding from the union, because that’s what America needs; a President of the United States who’s not really sold on the whole “United States” concept. Now, last week, Rick Perry announced that he rented out a 70,000 seat football stadium in Houston, for something called the response, which sounds like a home pregnancy test, but actually is to quote the governor “a Christian prayer service to provide spiritual solutions to the many challenges we face as a nation.” Or as stadium employees are calling it, batshit day. I guess the idea is to get together in a big group and pray all at once. That way the signal is stronger and god doesn’t lose you when he’s going through a canyon. But here on planet reality, may I point out that there is no such thing as spiritual solutions to national problems. If that’s where we are as a country, if our official government policy is “yee haw… Jesus take the wheel!” then we’re dead already. On his JesusPalooza web site, Perry writes, there is hope for America. It lies in heaven and we will find it on our knees. He also says some beyond our power to solve. What?! I thought we were the can do people. And if Perry thinks only god can solve our problems, why is he even in government? Why doesn’t he just stay at home and light a bunch of candles like Sissy Spacek’s mom in Carrie? Here’s an opposing view. Not only are our problems NOT beyond our power to solve, they’re actually fairly easy to solve. You have a giant budget deficit, like Perry has in Texas, raise taxes. Federal tax revenues haven’t been this low since 1950 and THAT, plus two wars and a recession are the reason we have a huge deficit. It’s not because god is angry over the gay kissing on Glee. It doesn’t require prayer to solve it, it requires a calculator. Politicians like to say, “We need new ideas.” Bullshit. “New ideas” is just a secular version of spiritual solutions, someone who’s going to magically fix everything. What new idea is going to solve our health care crisis, a magic pill that makes obese children crap out gold bricks? We don’t need new ideas. We need the balls to implement the ideas we already know work, cut corporate welfare, slash the defense budget, tax the rich, support the strong unions that created a middle class in the first place, build infrastructure and take the profit out of health care. By the way, Rick Perry isn’t just talking when he says he has spiritual solutions. Back in April when faced with a devastating drought, Rick did what any solutions oriented, 21st century civil servant would do. He proclaimed a day of prayer for rain, because we’re ancient Mayans now. Here’s what Texas looked like back in April with the drought in red. And here’s the Eden it is here today. If the words of Sister Mary Ignatius, god answers all your prayers and sometimes the answer is no.
Continue reading …