Michele Bachmann: Marriage equality a "frivolous," "fringe" issue...- Page 2

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 2:03pm

The woman looks unflattering in *every* photo. It's just the way she looks.

If the Baggers are so upset about it, maybe they could have taken her to one of those shopping-mall places where they make you look "glamorous" for $149.50... plus, of course, tax (which of course no one will want to pay).

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 2:08pm

If they tried hard enough, they could have easily found a more flattering picture. Of course, they could have just as easily found countless pictures that make her look much crazier.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 2:13pm

Of course, it's entirely possible that it was the least crazy selection from the photo shoot.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 2:17pm

She makes me feel like I should be baking a pie and singing Somewhere That's Green.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 3:02pm

It makes her look older than usual too.

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 3:07pm

It's a shame that she's such a fantastic speaker because people who are oblivious to politics fall for her bullsh*t. She's like a modern day Hitler.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 7:34pm

Cue Stevie Nicks...
She's Got Michelle Bachman Eyes!!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 12:42am

That was Kim Carnes.

[jasonf]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 12:45am

When's Goth going to make his hit and run defense of crazy?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 1:21am

I don't see how anyone could even begin to defend this woman and her craziness. Her husband psychotic too.

Updated On: 8/9/11 at 01:21 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 8:56am

>> That was Kim Carnes

You say it's Kimmie.

I say it's Stevie.

Kimmie.

Stevie.

Stevie.

Kimmie.

Let's call the whole thing off.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 10:04am

Oh come on. They used a super crazy looking photo 100% on purpose. It feeds into that whole "liberal media" thing.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 10:09am

But anyone who's actually read Newsweek knows it's hardly liberal. It's become more and more conservative.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 10:51am

Girl needs some eye cream!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 2:16pm

She now cuts off interviews when gay marriage is brought up, according to Lizza, because she understands that "there's no percentage in talking about this issue in this race." (Republicans who share Bachmann's stance on gay rights are, for the most part, already in her corner.)

Lizza emphasized, however, that Bachmann's "transition" to focusing on mainstream issues is simply politically expedient. "I don't think we should confuse that with a change in philosophy, a change in who she is."

Also, Lizza's article can be found here. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all


Also, for what it's worth, that picture is truly horrible and perhaps it was sexist for being chosen, but it's just hard to care about this stuff when it's at this tea party monster. Maybe if she got pricey haircuts like Jon Edwards she wouldn't have looked so bad. What? She DOES get pricey haircuts? Why are we not talking about that endlessly?
Salon

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 2:37pm

Well, I suppose this now makes Bachmann a "gay icon".

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 5:00pm

^^ LOLOL!!!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:02am

[tazber]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:59am

Her social crusades aren't what people care about right now, and she doesn't seem to have any substantive ideas on how deal with the current fiscal situation. She's all soundbites and fluff.

Anyone can spout general theories about the economy, but realistically implementing them and understanding the complexity and impact of our place in the global market is quite simply beyond her level of understanding. I hope that this will become evident as the candidates begin their debates.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 8:06am

An entirely new congress was elected in 2010 based on sound bytes, hysteria, and fear-mongering.

You think anyone's gonna learn from that in time for 2012? Not a chance.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 8:37am

Maybe Sean, but I wasn't addressing the general climate of anti-incumbency.

I was referring specifically to Bachman's lack of understanding of financial markets. Granted, people may want Obama out, but I can't see Bachman being anyone's choice for a replacement.

She's only doing so well at this point because the first caucus was in Iowa, her home state. Also, she campaigned on social (read: anti-gay) issues. It was like catnip to the church crowds she visited.

Her lead will erode fairly quickly I suspect. And ultimately, she's too polarizing to gain mass traction.

I honestly don't see the "silent majority" embracing this abrasive and stubborn candidate.

And yes, it must be said, there is a bit of misogyny amongst voters. A strong, opinionated, uncompromising woman is very intimidating. It's a catch-22 that neither Hillary nor Palin could rise above.

People want a strong and decisive leader, but not if its a female.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 8:54am

"People want a strong and decisive leader, but not if its a female."

I'm going to have to completely disagree. She ran a poor campaign, and was outmaneuvered at virtually every point by the Obama campaign. Is there misogyny? Absolutely. Is there racism? Umm...I'll guess 'yes'. But somehow, we got an African American president, and one named Barack Obama. And Palin didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because she was put into a position for which she was woefully unprepared. She's only become a cult figure for the right because she's a woman.

[romantico]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 8:58am

I LOVE this clip from Conan.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conan-confesses-hes-become-obsessed-with-newsweeks-creepy-michele-bachmann-cover/

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:18am

>> Maybe Sean, but I wasn't addressing the general climate of anti-incumbency.

2010 had little, really, to do with anti-incumbancy. 2010 was the GOP trying (and wildly succeeding) at making 2010 a referendum on Obama, and it used every possibly trick in the book to do so. It worked brilliantly because people were so scared by everything that they were willing to jump to a group that was, even then, a walking joke. And I dont see much of that mentality changing in 2012, not unless by some miracle the economy turns around and we're looking at less than 7% unemployment. Even though it was, in the main, their actions that caused this mess, the GOP will play it like a violin, because they're very, very good at that.

Now, having said that, they're gonna need a candidate with more credibility than this woman. But I'll happily bet you that they'll try to put her in the VP slot — and unlike Palin, she'll work, because she knows how to talk to people and sound like she knows what she's talking about. Palin couldnt talk her way out of a paper bag with a prompter's script in hand, but Bachmann? Whole different story. No, she's not presidential material... but as Veep under Romney? With another fear-and-awe campaign? I'd say the Dems are right to be nervous.

And I only have to direct you to what happened in Wisconsin yesterday to underscore the point.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:20am

I totally see your point, brian.

But I have heard innumerable times (down her in VA, natch) people who said something to effect of "I'd rather have a black man than a woman in the White House".

So let me amend my statement to be less representative of the general electorate and more based on what I have heard from my own experiences.