I May Have a Crush on Michele

Headline just for one of our commenters. When I watched this stop, I had to watch it again. It was a great 1/4 hour of political theater. It was the first time that I really started to believe there could be a President Bachmann. I am not signed on, but she has my attention.  Hey Chris Matthews, I know what you mean by that tingle.  I don’t even care that the 3 legged stool has 4 legs. I just love her (politically speaking).  Why, listen to her.  She understands what this nation needs.  She is not afraid to bring the coalition together by the force of her titanium spine.  She is a fiscal, social, and national security conservative devoted to the Constitution.  She is the real deal, she represents the heart of traditional America.  She is strong and sure.  I hate to say the little lady puts the men to shame. She is fearless.  She may become America’s Iron Lady.  She truly is an American girl whether Petty accepts it or not. The latest polls show she is catching fire in New Hampshire as well. No wonder after this kick off in the Granite State. You fiscal types will love this one.

22 thoughts on “I May Have a Crush on Michele”

  1. If she was a candidate from Delaware the DeGOP would get the FEC, FBI and wRONg Williams on her.

  2. She knows first hand about government handouts like farm subsidies ($250,000) and Medicare payments ($137,000).

    She’s one welfare queen who can root out the others.

  3. Time to ban Don from making comments since his was mean spirited and off topic!

  4. You can tell by some of the comments, and their teeny tiny content, how scared they are of Bachmann.

    The beauty of this thread will be the fun of seeing the assholes go public for us all to see.

  5. Also, who in the world is scared of michelle bachman? I may end up having to vote for her, but i doubt it.

  6. Yeah a gay guy with 6 children (5 survivors) that is just stupid. Call him bi if you want a credible slander. Would it make her less popular, not with guys who could imagine they have a chance. Go get your head on straight and have something intelligent to say.

    How is it taking welfare (as if that were wrong–how can people who advocate welfare condemn it), to receive payment for services? Is it not comendable to take Medicaid and get far less than the going rate for services? Many counselors do not take the program and neglect the poor. Only an idiot liberal could complain that someone who makes a sacrifice and serves the poor is somehow less for doing it.

  7. The thing that bothers me most about certain candidates, including Bachmann is the false pride that does not permit them to admit being wrong ever about anything.

    The whole Bachmann deal about the founders “worked tirelessly to end slavery” even though we had ten times more slaves in 1860 than we had in 1776. We had to amend the Constitution the Founders signed to end slavery. Mixing that up is not so bad, it’s just the weaseling after somebody points out a mistake. No, she starts talking about 8 year old John Quincy Adams, not a Founder, as proof Bachmann is right, never wrong. I don’t think that’s kind of self-centered hubris is a good trait for a President.

    If she simply said “well I kinda mixed that up, but I guess I was trying to say America is great and even though we had slavery eventually justice was done” I would be more inclined to consider her. But when you get into that business of that’s what I believe and I don’t care what the facts say, then we got a problem. When people got on Obama for voting against raising the debt ceiling, he didn’t start squirming into some convoluted crap about he wasn’t really voting like he voted, he just said it was a “mistake”, implying he now gets it. I like that.

  8. I don’t know about Michele Bachmann being a Margaret Thatcher. I can’t picture Bachmann writing this:

    From the pen of Margaret Thatcher:
    We have also given particular priority to building a modern health service. The Government stands by its record of support for the National Health Service. That can be measured in several ways—by the resources we have committed, the staff we have recruited and, most important of all for the public, the scale and quality of patient care we have provided. The last Labour Government cut back capital spending on new wards and new hospitals by over a third—the biggest capital cuts in health service history. We have restored those cuts. In Great Britain this year we will be spending well over £900 million. 159 new hospital projects each worth over £2 million are presently being planned, designed or built in England alone.

    Here is the Bachmann on the subject of health care:

    “In Japan, people have stopped voicing their opinion on health care…[A friend] said it’s because they know that they would get on a list, and they wouldn’t get health care. They wouldn’t get in, they wouldn’t get seen, and so people are afraid, they’re afraid to speak back to government. They’re afraid to say anything. Is that what we want for our future? That takes us to gangster government, at that point.”

    One is the Iron Lady, the other . . .

  9. If she was in Delaware she would have been savaged by now while the long time hacks of the GOP protect their little perch on a sinking ship.
    Look back at 2007-8 and see what no doer no brain twit Obama was and somehow we can’t take a look at Bachman.

  10. Disobedience, why do you refer to Obama as a “no brain twit”. What does that mean,what are you trying to say? If that’s supposed to be conservative it’s not.

  11. One is the Iron Lady, the other….is yet to be determined.

    Bachmann faces one nearly impossible obstacle to overcome. Barack Obama has failed for many reasons, not the least among them is that he came to the presidency with no executive experience and only four years of experience as a federal legislator.

    Ms. Bachmann is asking us to replace him with another president with no executive experience and only six years as a federal legislator.

    She might well be America’s Thatcher. But Thatcher was opposition leader for four years and had shown her mettle. Ms. Bachmann has a mighty hill to climb in that regards. No doubt she’s something very special. But We The People are not going to let another ingenue slip by us again that easily. She will have to prove herself in ways Obama never had to.

  12. Michael #15. Executive experience is always a good thing, but most important?

    What about the intangibles like character, wisdom, vision, temperament, patience, judgement, articulation. How the candidate views the world. Credentials are great, but intuition is how we vote.

    Abe Lincoln and Harry Truman had less executive experience than Jimmy Carter. Abe Lincoln, one of the least executive experienced of all, a backwoodsman, yet he enraptured, enthralled, changed the very soul of the Nation with visionary words. That’s what Presidents do.

    Barrack Obama had more experience in government than Lincoln. It’s hard to match prior experience to how Presidents lead.

    The other side of the coin is the wisdom of the electorate. I have a hunch you think President Obama “failed” the day he took office. This President is not of your Party, not of your tribe, therefore he is automatically a failure. Open minded voters is how we get good Presidents.

    Michael was hoping John McCain and Sarah Palin would be our leaders now. Naturally the Democrat winner is a failure 30 months into his first term.

    I think the voters were right not to pick McCain and Palin. Had nothing to do with executive experience. It was intuition. A hunch. I think voters were right in 2008.

  13. The reason McCain lost is because he was a career ‘moderate’ appeaser who provided no contrast to the Marxist Omaba.

    In my lifetime, conservative Republican presidential candidates win two terms (Nixon, Reagan, Bush II), and ‘moderate’ appeasers lose (Ford, Bush I, Dole and McCain).

    Wake-up. We need an aggressive conservative who will relentlessly attack the Marxist failure, Omaba. He is a sitting duck, ripe for a plucking. Every thing he does, fails.

  14. I was indeed hoping for McCain and Palin to win. If they had both the presidency and vice presidency would be in far better hands than they are in now.

    No, Think…Barack Obama did not fail the day he took office. I have written many times that he lost my trust months before when he broke his word to take federal campaign funds and live within the limits of them. From that day forward, I knew he could not be trusted.

    He is the first president since the end of World War II to never seen an unemployment rate less than eight percent. The smallest federal deficit on his watch is three times bigger than the previous record. The aggregate deficit he’s run up in just three years exceeds that of his last three predecessors put together. His health care program is such a disaster that his administration has written more than one thousand waivers in the first year. He has bowed to foreign despots while making the Prime Minister of Israel skulk in and out through the back door. He has alienated two British Prime Ministers. His response to the Gulf Oil Disaster and the Mississippi and Alabama tornado disasters would have gotten President Bush burned in effigy. Other than extending the Bush tax rates, which he did under extreme duress, its hard to imagine anything he’s done right.

    So do I think he’s a failure after thirty months in office? Nope, Think…not at all.

    Failure is too kind to describe him. Grant was a failure. Truman was a failure. So were both Johnsons. But all left the nation in a better state than when they found it in many ways. Barack Obama is far worse than just a failure. He’s a catastrophe on the level of Carter…Hoover…maybe even James Buchanan, the man who sat idly by planning his political comeback while the union broke up around him.

    I will say your points about Abraham Lincoln are good ones. Lincoln was a failure at everything he’d ever tried in life until he became president. And of course, he was perhaps the greatest president, who came to us in our darkest hour. But I’m not yet ready to compare Michelle Bachmann to President Lincoln.

    Despite winning in 1948, history does not remember Harry Truman that kindly, despite the romantic “Give’em hell” image. His lack of executive experience led to crises of confidence in his leadership that made him the only president in American history to lead his party to lose control of the Congress not once, but twice during his administration. He made the hard call to drop the atomic bombs, but it was largely down hill from there. His tenure was marred by strikes, inflation, recession and the Korean War.

    Voters are always open minded as a whole, but sometimes they make mistakes. Voters gave us Buchanan, Hoover, Carter, Clinton and Obama. But they also gave us Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan and George W. Bush to follow those failed presidencies. Soon they will choose Mr. Obama’s successor and I hope they choose wisely.

  15. Michael, I guess you know Obama has yet to reach the 10.8 unemployment Reagan experienced. A lot of your numbers are wrong. Americans don’t write the history of any President after 29 months you know that’s not the way we do things.

    29 months into Reagan’s presidency, in June 1983, the unemployment rate is officially recorded as 10.1. It’s 9.1 now. Does that tell us anything about Reagan or Obama having failed. I don’t think it does.

    On the deficit, even CATO refutes your numbers. Fibbing on numbers doesn’t help conservatives. The mistake you make is stopping the Bush deficits at 2008 – even though Bush set the spending for fiscal year 2009. It is not accurate to attach the FY2009 budget to the Obama record. Including the Bush TARP program, FY2009 (10/2008 – 9/2009) the deficit is officially recorded as $1.4T. CATO says the first full Obama FY 2010 was $1.3T. Did you know the deficit dropped 2009 vs. 2010? If you like Conservative numbers CATO is the place to go:


    If ultra-conservative CATO says Obama “inherited” the 2009 deficit where do you get figures to refute CATO? Only by omitting the fact fiscal year 2009 begins October 1, 2008.

    All the numbers clearly show Bush still holds the world record for most dollars added to the national debt. Doubled debt from $5.6T to $11.9. Reagan holds the record for almost tripling the national debt. Reagan inherited less than one T in debt from Carter, left office in 1988 with debt of $2.8T. Just go to treasurydirect.com. The official numbers are all there.

    Cooking the books to favor Republicans is not going to help us patriots fix America. We got to name names, keep score.

    I hope the national debt does not double or triple under Obama. But it could. Maybe go from the $11.9T Bush racked up all the way to $23T. Right now the debt clock is at around $14T. So don’t panic. We all know there’s a problem.

    President Obama is arguing we can lower deficits by going back to the Reagan or Clinton era tax rates. Close loopholes. Raise some revenue. What say you Michael? Think the Reagan tax rates would help us now?

  16. Wow. Think123 defending Obama, and attacking Reagan and Bush’s economic record. That’s okay. But then coming on here and pretending to be a Republican? Every American has a right to express their opinion, and I will stand side by side with anyone to fight to defend your rights of political freedom and free speech. But should Republicans really take “advice” from people who want to denigrate Ronald Reagan and mislead people about George Bush’s economic and budgetary record?

    No, Bush did not set the budget for FY 2009. First, the problem is that in January and February 2009, Barack Obama led a Democrat Congress TO ADD MASSIVE SPPLEMENTAL SPENDING, OVER $1 TRILLION, on top of the FY 2009 budget. The problem is not the budget set in CY (Calendar Year) 2008 for FY 2009 (which started October 1, 2008). The problem is the massive supplemental spending that Obama added on OUTSIDE the budget for FY 2009.

    So, yes, it is fair to add FY 2009 to Obama’s record and it is not fair to add it to Bush’s.

    Second, of course, it was the Democrats who controlled Congress in 2008. Remember that the Democrats took control in November 2006, and after that the economy collapsed and we had the mortgage crisis, following soaring gas prices. Under our Constitution, Congress sets the budget. The President only recommends a budget. Congress has the power to decide the budget.

  17. Jonathan, don’t confuse accurate numbers with denigrating Obama Bush or Reagan. Citing historical budget data is not an “attack”. It’s just a discussion.

    Don’t argue with me. Send your complaint to America’s foremost Conservative Republican economic think tank – the CATO Institute. Did you visit the link?


    I trust CATO Institute numbers. If CATO was backing what you say, I might be swayed. But CATO says you are wrong.

    And don’t start that “pretending” to be Republican crap. With $1.4T deficits the time for pretending is over. Country first. Party second.

    If I said Reagan and Bush did a great job lowering the national debt would that make me a good Republican. No. That makes me a dumb Republican.

  18. I would agree with you about the 2009 budget except that the President’s crew added nearly 800 billion mid year after he took office for the stimulus and 250 billion for other programs like mortgage relief (unfortunately poorly structured unless you were a big bank), cash for clunkers, and the HIRE ACT (the one program that actually paid off). Since he opened up the budget, at least half of the deficit is his his reponsbility. You can’t hold Bush responsible for spending initiated after he left office. I would say that you can’t hold President Obama for spending initiated before he took office, but he voted for most of it in the Senate so he gets partial repsonsibility. He would agrue the spending saved us from a depression and saved or created 2.4 million jobs not that he didn’t do it. Also President Bush did not spend most of the TARP authority, they saw it like a line of credit to use when needed not as a mandate. The money mostly consisted of loans that we would get back with interest so counting it like a deficit spending program is not valid. CATO counted the full TARP against President Bush when he only authorized a fraction of it. TARP 2 expanded the parameters so it could be spent without looking like it was a new program. President Obama expanded it and spent more in ways not originally envisioned.

    Bachmann backed by conservative economists would agrue the stimulus actually slowed our recovery and cost us nearly 300k per job. We could have had 3 times the results for the money with a better designed program of infrastucture, relief, and more tax incentives such as suspending the employer side of the payroll tax for hiring the long term unemployed. It was poorly designed and the high debt from it is actually slowing growth. It slowed the recession at the expense of future growth. Is that good policy? Some say yes, others no.

    I am not agruing the policy here. I am just saying that the normal rules do not apply because of the mid year changes.

  19. David, I think you get CATO’s point about the 2009 deficit. As far as adding $800B Recovery Act stimulus spending to the FY2009 deficit, my understanding is only about $200 billion stimulus was spent in 2009. It’s still not all spent. The biggest part of the Recovery Act is tax cuts, not new expenditures. It is surprising to see the 2010 deficit come in slightly less than 2009. Not sure how that happened. Maybe TARP repayments.

    Please note the CBO deficit estimate, published early January 2009, projected a $1.2 trillion deficit. Most of it attributed to lost revenue due to recession.


    I don’t think it matters much anymore who to blame for what when. I think we need to be truthful about numbers though. I responded to Michael because I don’t think we can afford to play games with the numbers. Maybe if it was not so serious we could do the political war thing. It’s fun. But not now. The challenge is to fix things. Get back to the tax rates we had in the good old days, close some loopholes, cut spending.

Comments are closed.