37%: The percentage of House votes Rep. Michele Bachmann has missed since launching her presidential bid, which is "significantly higher than the two other House members running for president."
For the record, that is the sort of issue worth raising about a candidate. As opposed to how much she's spent on hair and make-up.
Showing posts with label Michele Bachmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michele Bachmann. Show all posts
OFFS
Michele Bachmann's $4,700 Hair and Makeup Bill: "Considering Rep. Michele Bachmann's crusade against government spending and her demand that America live within its means, you wouldn't figure her for a conspicuous spender. But after launching her bid for the White House, Bachmann has broken with her usual frugality and shelled out some serious cash on a stylist in what could be seen as her own John-Edwards'-$400-haircut moment. According to Bachmann's latest campaign finance filings, her campaign spent nearly $4,700 on hair and makeup in the weeks after she entered the presidential race on June 13."
Seriously, Mother Jones?
Do we really have to do this EVERY FUCKING ELECTION? Or just the elections in which women are candidates?
Ahem.
$5,000 is an eminently reasonable amount of money for a woman running for national office to spend on a professional makeover. That's the same amount of money spent on just the clothes on an episode of What Not to Wear.
Do I think it's bullshit that Michele Bachmann, or any female candidate, should have to spend five grand in order to be considered presentable by the unfathomably rigid standards of our youth-, fashion-, and appearance-obsessed culture? Yes. Is that a commentary on Michele Bachmann? No.
That's a commentary on what a profoundly misogynist and body-policing garbage culture it is in which we live.
Holding an individual woman responsible for her conformance to standards created by a systemic oppression is bullshit. And that is not how feminism works.
STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICHELE BACHMANN.
Seriously, Mother Jones?
Do we really have to do this EVERY FUCKING ELECTION? Or just the elections in which women are candidates?
Ahem.
$5,000 is an eminently reasonable amount of money for a woman running for national office to spend on a professional makeover. That's the same amount of money spent on just the clothes on an episode of What Not to Wear.
Do I think it's bullshit that Michele Bachmann, or any female candidate, should have to spend five grand in order to be considered presentable by the unfathomably rigid standards of our youth-, fashion-, and appearance-obsessed culture? Yes. Is that a commentary on Michele Bachmann? No.
That's a commentary on what a profoundly misogynist and body-policing garbage culture it is in which we live.
Holding an individual woman responsible for her conformance to standards created by a systemic oppression is bullshit. And that is not how feminism works.
STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICHELE BACHMANN.
Shocking
Judd: "Addressing reports that Bachmann suffers from migraine headaches, Tim Pawlenty told reporters, 'All of the candidates I think are going to have to be able to demonstrate they can do all of the job all of the time. There's no real time off in that job.' There is speculation that the Pawlenty campaign is responsible for pushing the original story about Bachmann's migraines to the Daily Caller."
Mm-hmm.
Let us all take note that Pim Tawlenty doesn't even think he can beat Michele Bachmann on the merits.
Mm-hmm.
Let us all take note that Pim Tawlenty doesn't even think he can beat Michele Bachmann on the merits.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for disablism, misogyny.]
The Daily Caller: Stress-related condition 'incapacitates' Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged.
The headline alone is absurd. The article is about how Rep. Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines and takes an assortment of medications to prevent and/or negotiate them. Which is not unusual for people who regularly experience migraines.
The rest of the piece is no better. It's all speculation and second-hand reports and political gamespersonship disguised as concern:
This will be a story if and when Bachmann's "performance" as a politician and/or candidate shows signs of compromise. (Other than the usual being a garbage politician and garbage candidate for the usual reasons of having a garbage ideology and garbage ethics.) At this point, it's just a hit piece that plays on institutional disablism and misogynist narratives about women crumbling under stress and their bodies (and thus their health) being public property.
I am literally incapable of wanting Michele Bachmann as my president any less than I do at this moment—and yet I still believe that judging whether whether Michele Bachmann is physically up to the job of running for and potentially serving as president is exclusively the purview of Michele Bachmann.
I'm not going to audit her choices or claim to know better what's best for Michele Bachmann than she does, despite the fact that she would not return the favor.
That's not how feminism works, and I am a feminist.
[See also: Dana Goldstein.]
The Daily Caller: Stress-related condition 'incapacitates' Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged.
The headline alone is absurd. The article is about how Rep. Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines and takes an assortment of medications to prevent and/or negotiate them. Which is not unusual for people who regularly experience migraines.
The rest of the piece is no better. It's all speculation and second-hand reports and political gamespersonship disguised as concern:
Sources who spoke to The Daily Caller said they did so because they are terrified about the impact the condition could have on Bachmann's performance if she actually became president. They also worry that the issue could blow up in the general election campaign, giving President Obama an easy path to re-election."I'm very concerned, but you didn't hear it from me!"—An anonymous source who is for sure code-named Pim Tawlenty.
This will be a story if and when Bachmann's "performance" as a politician and/or candidate shows signs of compromise. (Other than the usual being a garbage politician and garbage candidate for the usual reasons of having a garbage ideology and garbage ethics.) At this point, it's just a hit piece that plays on institutional disablism and misogynist narratives about women crumbling under stress and their bodies (and thus their health) being public property.
I am literally incapable of wanting Michele Bachmann as my president any less than I do at this moment—and yet I still believe that judging whether whether Michele Bachmann is physically up to the job of running for and potentially serving as president is exclusively the purview of Michele Bachmann.
I'm not going to audit her choices or claim to know better what's best for Michele Bachmann than she does, despite the fact that she would not return the favor.
That's not how feminism works, and I am a feminist.
[See also: Dana Goldstein.]
Number of the Day
Zero: The number of shits I give about what church any presidential candidate attends or does not attend.
Obviously, I am interested in their religious views, if and when those religious views intersect with their policy positions, but, beyond that, who cares.
It really doesn't tell us anything that Michele Bachmann is/was a Lutheran, even a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran.
I was raised a Lutheran, a Missouri Synod Lutheran, which is only slightly less conservative than the Wisconsin Synod, and, even though the god-belief didn't really stick, I still believe a lot of the stuff I learned there, like "Treat people the way you want to be treated," a message that doesn't seem to mean much to Rep. Bachmann.
I'm not even the only contributor here who was raised Lutheran and is still very culturally Lutheran in a lot of ways. See also: Eastsidekate and PortlyDyke.
So. Yeah.
What matters isn't what Lutheran church Bachmann does or doesn't attend, in determining her beliefs. People believe what they want to believe, irrespective of what their church doctrine is. Bachmann's behavior and policy positions inform us what her beliefs are.
Garbage.
Obviously, I am interested in their religious views, if and when those religious views intersect with their policy positions, but, beyond that, who cares.
It really doesn't tell us anything that Michele Bachmann is/was a Lutheran, even a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran.
I was raised a Lutheran, a Missouri Synod Lutheran, which is only slightly less conservative than the Wisconsin Synod, and, even though the god-belief didn't really stick, I still believe a lot of the stuff I learned there, like "Treat people the way you want to be treated," a message that doesn't seem to mean much to Rep. Bachmann.
I'm not even the only contributor here who was raised Lutheran and is still very culturally Lutheran in a lot of ways. See also: Eastsidekate and PortlyDyke.
So. Yeah.
What matters isn't what Lutheran church Bachmann does or doesn't attend, in determining her beliefs. People believe what they want to believe, irrespective of what their church doctrine is. Bachmann's behavior and policy positions inform us what her beliefs are.
Garbage.
Marcus Bachmann Defends His Clinics
[Trigger warning for homophobia, classism.]
This Star-Tribune article in which Rep. Michele Bachmann's husband defends the clinics they co-own, at which patients can receive "reparative therapy" to degayify them, is getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, because Marcus Bachmann's explanation—"Is it a remedy form that I typically would use? ... It is at the client's discretion. ... We don't have an agenda or a philosophy of trying to change someone."—is manifest horseshit.
It's hardly worth comment that someone who would even consider "reparative therapy," whether as a standard procedure or only at the client's request, is a bigoted dipfuck without any decency. The noest of all the doys.
So I'm going to highlight this other piece of the article, in which Marcus Bachmann also defends the clinics having accepted federal funds:
But that, naturally, requires cutting into profits.
Now, it's fair enough if the Bachmanns don't want to give away their services for free, or for lower cost. The clinics aren't being run as a charity. But it's mendacious in the extreme to pretend that option doesn't even exist so that you can imply it would be "evil" to not accept government funds because you'd have to turn patients away without it.
And once again, the conservative theory of governance is undermined by conservatives.
The conservative philosophy of limited government (i.e. no social safety net) asserts that charity, philanthropy, faith-based orgs, and business should take care of people in need rather than the government. There are a lot of problems with this idea (starting with the fact that conservatives frequently determine that certain people aren't deserving of charity), but the biggest problem is that the very people who espouse this idea in theory tend to be unwilling to support it in practice.
The Bachmanns' religious ideology prescribes compassion over profits, and their political ideology prescribes bootstraps or charity over accepting government subsidies, but, when it came right down to brass books, the Bachmanns were downright secular socialists in order to protect their profits.
This Star-Tribune article in which Rep. Michele Bachmann's husband defends the clinics they co-own, at which patients can receive "reparative therapy" to degayify them, is getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, because Marcus Bachmann's explanation—"Is it a remedy form that I typically would use? ... It is at the client's discretion. ... We don't have an agenda or a philosophy of trying to change someone."—is manifest horseshit.
It's hardly worth comment that someone who would even consider "reparative therapy," whether as a standard procedure or only at the client's request, is a bigoted dipfuck without any decency. The noest of all the doys.
So I'm going to highlight this other piece of the article, in which Marcus Bachmann also defends the clinics having accepted federal funds:
In Michele Bachmann's campaign appearances, the Sixth District congresswoman has touted the family's counseling business in references to job creation and entrepreneurship.Setting aside the pathetic awfulness of that rejoinder which suggests David Brent has found a new gig as Marcus Bachmann's PR adviser, I'd like to note the dichotomy Bachmann sets up here: Their clinics can either take federal money, or turn low-income patients away. There is, of course, a third option, which is to treat low-income patients on a sliding scale of what they can afford, without any government subsidies.
Critics say her harsh words about government spending are hypocritical given the state and federal payments that go to Bachmann & Associates.
The Associated Press has reported that the clinics have accepted at least $30,000 in state payments and $137,000 in federal payments. Much of the money was for services to people in Medicaid-backed programs.
Bachmann said federal and state subsidies flow to his business because it doesn't discriminate against patients in subsidized health-care programs.
"It's low income. It's people who are on limited income," Bachmann said. "It is a lower-paying insurance. It's not a money maker. ... So, gee, we get criticized because we take it. And somehow they tie it all in, into my wife because she's the big proponent of less taxes and less programs and so forth.
"So, over and over the bell rings about how we take this federal money," he continued. "Oooh, how evil that is. And I say to you: 'No. It would be evil not to.'"
But that, naturally, requires cutting into profits.
Now, it's fair enough if the Bachmanns don't want to give away their services for free, or for lower cost. The clinics aren't being run as a charity. But it's mendacious in the extreme to pretend that option doesn't even exist so that you can imply it would be "evil" to not accept government funds because you'd have to turn patients away without it.
And once again, the conservative theory of governance is undermined by conservatives.
The conservative philosophy of limited government (i.e. no social safety net) asserts that charity, philanthropy, faith-based orgs, and business should take care of people in need rather than the government. There are a lot of problems with this idea (starting with the fact that conservatives frequently determine that certain people aren't deserving of charity), but the biggest problem is that the very people who espouse this idea in theory tend to be unwilling to support it in practice.
The Bachmanns' religious ideology prescribes compassion over profits, and their political ideology prescribes bootstraps or charity over accepting government subsidies, but, when it came right down to brass books, the Bachmanns were downright secular socialists in order to protect their profits.
Quote of the Day
"I'm running for the presidency of the United States, and I'm here today to talk about job creation, and also the fact that we do have a business that deals with job creation. We're very proud of the business that we created."—Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Idiculous), responding to being asked if reparative therapy is conducted in the therapy center that she co-owns with and is run by her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.
Pressed again, Bachmann replied, "Well, I'm here to talk about my run for the presidency of the United States. As I said, again, we're very proud of our business and we're proud of all job creators in the United States. That's what people really care about."
Whooooooooops! No, I'm pretty sure people actually care about whether you are making money off of "therapies" sought by people who are ashamed (or whose families are ashamed) of who they are because of institutional hatred of homosexuality and LGB people, a hatred culturally and legally promoted by you as an avowed anti-gay legislator who supports federal anti-gay legislation.
Apart from being evidence of your well-documented lack of decency, Rep. Bachmann, one might suggest that's also what the kids call a "conflict of interest."
Also: LULZ at your pride for "all job creators in the United States." Cool. I hope you'll donate to national job-creator Planned Parenthood, then, so they can HIRE MORE PEOPLE!
Pressed again, Bachmann replied, "Well, I'm here to talk about my run for the presidency of the United States. As I said, again, we're very proud of our business and we're proud of all job creators in the United States. That's what people really care about."
Whooooooooops! No, I'm pretty sure people actually care about whether you are making money off of "therapies" sought by people who are ashamed (or whose families are ashamed) of who they are because of institutional hatred of homosexuality and LGB people, a hatred culturally and legally promoted by you as an avowed anti-gay legislator who supports federal anti-gay legislation.
Apart from being evidence of your well-documented lack of decency, Rep. Bachmann, one might suggest that's also what the kids call a "conflict of interest."
Also: LULZ at your pride for "all job creators in the United States." Cool. I hope you'll donate to national job-creator Planned Parenthood, then, so they can HIRE MORE PEOPLE!
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
This WaPo profile [trigger warning for virulent gay hatred and misogyny] of GOP presidential wannabe Michele Bachmann (R-Etchinducing) and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, Professional Gay-Hater, is one of the most depressing things I've ever read.
They are terrible people with miserable lives who make other people's lives a misery because of their intensely stupid and exhaustively compassionless belief system.
If they weren't such influential assholes, I'd feel sorry for them.
They are terrible people with miserable lives who make other people's lives a misery because of their intensely stupid and exhaustively compassionless belief system.
If they weren't such influential assholes, I'd feel sorry for them.
On "constitutional conservatism"
Michele Bachmann
On "constitutional conservatism"
by W.W. | WATERLOO
MICHELE BACHMANN officially declared her candidacy yesterday morning in Waterloo, Iowa, a small city in the northeast part of the state where she lived from birth until the age of twelve, when her family moved to Minnesota. During her announcement speech and at a less formal event on Sunday night at the National Cattle Congress, Ms Bachmann sang the glories of Waterloo in particular and Iowa in general, intent on exploiting her roots to the fullest. But the soaring encomia to Iowa are for us Iowans. Take away the sweet talk and most of what remains concerns "constitutional conservatism".
If Ms Bachmann is a brand, and all politicians are, "constitutional conservative" is her tagline. The phrase is prominently featured in her online advertisements, like this one:
And variations of the formulation apear again and again in her talks. I counted at least three instances in her announcement speech:
We have to recapture the founders' vision of a constitutionally conservative government, if we are to secure the promise for the future.
[...]
As a constitutional conservative, I believe in the founding fathers' vision of a limited government that trusts in and perceives the unlimited potential of you, the American people. I don't believe that the solutions of our problems are Washington-centric. I believe they are with every-American-centric.
[...]
[M]y voice is one that is part of a much larger movement to take back our country. And I want to take that voice to the White House. It's the voice of constitutional conservatives who want government to do its job, and not our job. Who want our government to live within its means, not our means, and certainly not our children's means.
These quotations make it fairly clear what she is plumping for: a system of limited government along the lines envisioned by the authors of the constitution and select amendments. As a bit of marketing, it seems to be working. I was fairly astonished as I canvassed those at Ms Bachmann's events in Waterloo to hear "constitutional conservative" and "constitutional conservatism" arise again and again in response to questions about Ms Bachmann's particular appeal. Although almost everyone I chatted with conceded that other Republican nominees are no less conservative, and no less committed to the constitution, Ms Bachmann was widely perceived to be the exemplary embodiment of this very attractive thing called constitutional conservativism. Which goes to show how far a little Madison Avenue magic can get you. Or maybe Waterloo conservatives are suckers for the hometown gal.
Anyway, if one bothers to really think about it, constitutional conservativism, as construed by Ms Bachmann and her boosters, might be better labeled "constitutional restorationism", which I think more clearly conveys the idea of a return to the system of government laid out in the constitution, intepreted as the authors intended. But this idea, if taken really seriously, is staggeringly radical. I find it hard to believe that any of the mild-mannered, stability-loving conservative Iowans who told me they want to put a constitutional conservative in the White House really favour junking hundreds of years of prior constitutional interpretation and reinterpretation along with the massive, interlocking system of institutions that has evolved along with them. Most conservatives really are conservative. They don't favour uprooting the vast infrastructure of existing institutions that reaches into every corner of American life (even if some of those institutions are only dubiously "constitutional"). What they seem to want, even if this is not what they understand themselves to want, is to start from the status quo and add a new layer of constitutional reinterpretation inspired by certain widespread contemporary ideas about the sort of things the founders had in mind. The truly conservative parts of constitutional conservatism are its implicitly within-the-system incrementalism and the impulse to lend legitimacy to fashionable ideological inclinations by citing the precedent of time-honoured forebears.
Michele Bachmann presses Iowa's buttons
Michele Bachmann presses Iowa's buttons
The country is in peril, she told supporters Elvis Presley's Promised Land belted out as Michele Bachman made her way to the podium in the little town of Waterloo in Iowa.
Appropriate, for her declaration was a vision of the lost country of a special people, that could be regained through faith and hard work. Inappropriate too, though. There were no hard promises to indicate how she'd get the milk and honey flowing again.
It is inevitable, if not really fair to either of them, that there will be comparisons to Sarah Palin. Like Palin, a strong woman, a darling of the Tea Party, who talks proudly of her marriage and motherhood, who portrays herself as an outsider who speaks truth to Washington. But unlike Palin, she hasn't given up elective office to become a TV star. Unlike Palin, before she went into politics, she was a tax lawyer and businesswoman. Unlike Palin, she shows the occasional tendency to button her lip and calm down the rhetoric. Most importantly, unlike Palin, she is now a declared candidate.
At the moment the Republicans feel they can win. But many don't think they have the right candidate to do so. So anyone who glitters will attract their attention, and ours in the media.
But there are hurdles to overcome. "Are you flaky?" asked the TV interviewer. And this was on Fox, not the "lamestream" media so loathed by the American right. Michele Bachmann's frosty answer was: "I think that would be insulting to say something like that, because I'm a serious person."
But from getting her American history wrong to calling President Obama "un-American" she has made a string of statements that have needed a little finessing.
In her Iowa declaration, she pressed all the right buttons for this very conservative state. She said that the country was in peril and that growing up in Iowa told her that God, family and neighbours were the solution, not the government. She didn't explain how the Almighty or relatives would solve America's economic problems. Or indeed why she was seeking high office if government could do nothing worthwhile.
Bachmann's campaign is gaining speed But it may well work in Iowa. Her declaration that she believes in the three legged stool of American conservatism was central. The three legs? Peace through strength (she said the USA was "the indispensable country" twice), economic conservatism, social conservatism.
The bigger question is whether what works in Iowa works elsewhere. The primary season creates a familiar problem for the Republicans, exacerbated by the dominance of the grassroots conservative Tea Party movement. The person who throws the most conservative red meat at the right-wingers may well win Iowa and other primaries. But they may be the worst candidate to beat Obama in the presidential election, especially among independents and those tempted to switch their votes.
This is a big argument within the Tea Party itself. The leadership, if there is such a thing, insists that an armchair of fiscal conservatism is better than a wobbly stool. Others think social issues and faith are equally important.
Michele Bachmann walked around after her speech hugging the crowd to the tune of "Walking on sunshine". It must be a nice feeling, if you can pull it off, but some worry it is not a substantial platform.