Is Michele Bachmann batshit crazy?

[GameTheory]

Despite being a Rolling Stone hack, Matt Taibbi is an entertaining writer. I don't know enough about Bachmann to agree or disagree on the specifics, but she *does* seem a little "touched" at times...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

[Tom]

When she has bacon for breakfast, the bacon is smarter.

[Shemp Howard]

I'm getting behind her, 100%.

[ArlJim78]

thats too funny, nothing riles up the elites more than an outspoken female Christian conservative of modest means from small town America.

[cj's dad]

If she thinks 2+2 = 5 she is still smarter the Barack Hussein Obama.

[Tom]

Her, the bacon, and the eggs.

[Rookies]

" She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo" :lol:

Maybe, Chris Wallace was onto something...

and here they are Womano a Womano... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/take-the-bachmann-palin-challenge-can-you-tell-them-apart-20110609

Two of Mack's cinches to take down the President... bwahahaha...:lol:

[ElKabong]

Her, the bacon, and the eggs.

The napkin is smarter than Obama. Given a choice, Bachmann is the better choice

[benzer]

I will cut her a lot of slack for now. After all she is not using a teleprompter. Off the cuff replies to questions are a lot tougher than reading from a script.

[redshift1]

I like her despite her eccentric comments plus she's so much more palatable than Palin.

[TJDave]

If she thinks 2+2 = 5 she is still smarter the Barack Hussein Obama.


Seriously.

Because of Bush we got Obama.

Now, batshit crazy looks better.

Ergo... :rolleyes:

[WPL]

Read the headline as 'Is Michelle Obama Batshit Crazy?' and thought to myself 'yes but so is her husband'.
Not sure about the rest of the thread!
;7p

[PaceAdvantage]

" She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo" :lol: Are you sure the author wasn't actually talking about Nancy Pelosi?

I challenge you to truthfully answer who looks more like a T2 skeleton:

http://i.ebayimg.com/06/!BwqbnhwEWk~$(KGrHqYOKk!EwTv10tdJBMKBQJ8K)Q~~_35.J PG

This woman --

http://www.bio27.com/imgg/6_michele_bachmann_1956.jpg

or this woman --

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/01/05/news/photos_stories/cropped/nancy_pelosi--300x300.jpg

I'll take door #2 Monty

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand. Obama can supposedly sit in a church for YEARS listening to a MAN OF GOD preach hate...but Michele Bachmann is "a bit touched" because she believes Jesus spoke to her through prayer?

Seriously...WTF is wrong with this country and the media?

Or are we supposed to believe Obama was just 'faking it' all those years attending church to score political points with the vast majority of those in this country who consider themselves religious (and among his staunchest of supporters, that percentage grows even HIGHER)?

You can't have it both ways. None of our Presidents have ever been known to be atheists, and yet here we have Bachmann, being pounded into the ground once again, this time because of her faith.

Matt got one thing right in that article though:

They're voting against us (libs and Dems). And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.

[HUSKER55]

did any of you read that link posted by rookie?

I still think sarah is a lot smarter than the whole lot.

[GameTheory]

I don't understand. Obama can supposedly sit in a church for YEARS listening to a MAN OF GOD preach hate...but Michele Bachmann is "a bit touched" because she believes Jesus spoke to her through prayer?Not what I was referring to specifically when I used that word. More her general wackiness, and the fact that she does seem to make things up all the time and acts like she believes the stuff she says, which also ties in with her past nonsensical crusades as pointed out in the article. (I thought the fictional example was apt of her demanding action to comdemn the works of Groucho Marx even after it was pointed out to her that she was confusing Groucho and Karl.) Now, if you just consider her a conniving politician like the rest, scoring points where she can, then you can immediately drop any talk of her craziness (because it works) but are left with a much more cynical view of her.

Or are we supposed to believe Obama was just 'faking it' all those years attending church to score political points with the vast majority of those in this country who consider themselves religious (and among his staunchest of supporters, that percentage grows even HIGHER)?Yes, I think that's exactly what we are supposed to believe. Isn't that what everyone (including his supporters) does actually believe? Like his opposition to gay marriage, he gets a pass because everyone assumes he doesn't mean it. And they are probably right.

You can't have it both ways. None of our Presidents have ever been known to be atheists, and yet here we have Bachmann, being pounded into the ground once again, this time because of her faith.Not just her faith (although yes, of course, she does get pounded for that), but her actual antics, which obviously have been working for her. So it is more a question of her true motivations and convictions and whether she knows she is lying or not. It seems like she does know because when called out on any bit of nonsense (see the last couple of weeks of interviews) she never defends (or acknowledges a mistake about) anything she has previously said that is flat-out wrong (and in some cases totally absurd), but ignores the question like any other politician and gives a speech about how what's really important is how Obama did this or that. Remember, this is the primary process, and even if the Dems don't grill their candidates (or the anointed one, anyway), that's what is supposed to happen so we don't end up with such a clown like Barack.

Matt got one thing right in that article though: "They're voting against us (libs and Dems). And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender." You added the "libs and Dems" part but that is actually unclear in the article (although a lefty, Tabbi has spent plenty of time bashing Dems too) -- it seems he was referring to "those of us that would laugh at her 'obviously absurd' candidacy", a similar group but not exclusively composed of libs and Dems. But, it was unclear in the article who "us" was, so I could be wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

All solid points GameTheory....I expected you would come back at me for seemingly going at you with that word "touched."

Isn't it funny though how Bachmann, up until recently, was almost totally dismissed by BOTH the left and right as a serious candididate...but once she starts polling near the top in the early going, the knives come out in force.

I don't recall that really happening to the Dems during 2008, do you? Was everything Obama ever said or wrote put on display? Yes, his associates were put on display (Rev Wright and Ayers)...but this was AFTER he secured the nomination I believe....perhaps my selective memory is kicking in.

[GameTheory]

I don't recall that really happening to the Dems during 2008, do you? Was everything Obama ever said or wrote put on display? Yes, his associates were put on display (Rev Wright and Ayers)...but this was AFTER he secured the nomination I believe....perhaps my selective memory is kicking in.Once it was down to Hillary and Barack, the knives were out (largely coming from the Clintons). The only one to ever really harp on the Wright and Ayers thing was Hannity, but no one was listening. Certainly no one from the MSM was going after Obama in any serious way, or even asking ANY normal questions about him. He's still a total mystery. I suppose when he leaves office maybe someone will decide to find out who the president was and write a book.

[ArlJim78]

I've tried to get through that Rolling Stone piece 4-5 times, but I just can't do it. It is a hit-piece that is so wildy over the top and filled with the heaping piles of disdain for Bachman having religious beliefs. I've listened to her for several years calling in to a local morning radio talk show on a regular basis, and the characterization by Taibbi bears no resemblance to what I have heard straight from her.

[BlueShoe]

Any conservative woman in the public spotlight is going to be savaged by Big Media. Before 2008 it was the commentators and authors; Coulter was the main target, although others such as Malkin and Ingraham got their share. In 08 it was Palins turn. Now the knives are out for Bachmann. If she should actually get the nomination it will get much, much worse. The liberal media will not stand for a prominent conservative woman. This is an absolute given.

[GameTheory]

I've tried to get through that Rolling Stone piece 4-5 times, but I just can't do it. It is a hit-piece that is so wildy over the top and filled with the heaping piles of disdain for Bachman having religious beliefs. I've listened to her for several years calling in to a local morning radio talk show on a regular basis, and the characterization by Taibbi bears no resemblance to what I have heard straight from her.Yeah, she often sounds brilliant and in-command of everything. I just wonder if that is real or is the Clinton-like (Bill) skill of being able to answer any question with an intelligent-sounding answer whether you know anything about the subject or not. It is a hit-piece, but also an admiration of her ability to always come out on top (again, Bill Clinton-like in that way).

If you want some more comedy, Al Gore also has a current Rolling Stone piece (available online) where he whines about how nobody is listening to him and doing what he says we should do.

[Robert Goren]

Any conservative woman in the public spotlight is going to be savaged by Big Media. Before 2008 it was the commentators and authors; Coulter was the main target, although others such as Malkin and Ingraham got their share. In 08 it was Palins turn. Now the knives are out for Bachmann. If she should actually get the nomination it will get much, much worse. The liberal media will not stand for a prominent conservative woman. This is an absolute given.Condoleezza Rice did ok with them, but then she did not go around saying dumb things all the time.

[Tom]

Condoleezza Rice did ok with them, but then she did not go around saying dumb things all the time.

Like Obama does now?

I have never heard a stupider moron in my life.

[cj's dad]

Condoleezza Rice did ok with them, but then she did not go around saying dumb things all the time.

I think she was hands off.

[newtothegame]

I think she was hands off.

EXACTLY.......I know the libs on here dont get it either as to why.
Robert, also ask yourself why Cain isnt being thrashed about as well......
Hmmmmmm
Libs will be VERY careful with these two ( Rice or Cain ).....
They do not want to come off as attacking their base!

[BlueShoe]

Condoleezza Rice did ok with them, but then she did not go around saying dumb things all the time.
Condy is, and was never, remotely a conservative. She was very, very Establishment, therefore was hands off.

[GameTheory]

Condoleezza Rice did ok with them, but then she did not go around saying dumb things all the time.She was never a candidate. If Bachmann were nominated, I can only imagine the vitriol. Actually, I don't have to -- it would be just like Palin. Good thing she doesn't have any young kids. I have no idea at this point how she would play in the general election. Could she be the U.S. version of Thatcher? (Boy was she hated by the UK left.)

[GameTheory]

EXACTLY.......I know the libs on here dont get it either as to why.
Robert, also ask yourself why Cain isnt being thrashed about as well......
Hmmmmmm
Libs will be VERY careful with these two ( Rice or Cain ).....
They do not want to come off as attacking their base!Don't kid yourself -- they hate black conservatives for the same reason they hate women conservatives -- they're aren't supposed to be any. (Look at Clarence Thomas.) If Cain was a serious candidate (i.e. with a glimmer of a chance) he'd be mercilessly thrashed.

[newtothegame]

Don't kid yourself -- they hate black conservatives for the same reason they hate women conservatives -- they're aren't supposed to be any. (Look at Clarence Thomas.) If Cain was a serious candidate (i.e. with a glimmer of a chance) he'd be mercilessly thrashed.

Dont get me wrong game...I am sure they (libs) hate black conservatives with probably more passion then any other race of conservative. But that is my point.....BLACKS ARENT SUPPOSED TO BE CONSERVATIVE. But, libs also know that in most cases (if not all) the black community votes well into the 90th percentile for democrats. Because of that HUGE voting block, this is why libs wont go after a black candidate with the same fevor as any other conservative. Libs do not want to upset the proverbial apple cart.
As to C Thomas, it's much different attacking a judge nomination versus a politician. Judges are appointed for life. No real political say, etc etc....
Politicians control the purse strings.
But again...Just my opinion.

[Robert Goren]

Herman Cain has not shown enough support for anybody to even look his way yet. The big question in looming in some people's minds about him is; Why somebody with his business background was only doing a talk radio show before he decided to run for president? Why wasn't he a CEO someplace?
As for Condi Race not be a conservative, what does she disagree with other conservatives about? As far I can tell the only difference between her and Sarah Palin is that she would not get flustered if she asked what she reads. I don't know of any policy differences.

[Robert Goren]

She was never a candidate. If Bachmann were nominated, I can only imagine the vitriol. Actually, I don't have to -- it would be just like Palin. Good thing she doesn't have any young kids. I have no idea at this point how she would play in the general election. Could she be the U.S. version of Thatcher? (Boy was she hated by the UK left.)One of my favorite political rhymes
"Thatcher, Thatcher
The Milk Snatcher"
That has go down with
"Tippecanoe
and Tyler too"

[Greyfox]

Could she be the U.S. version of Thatcher? (Boy was she hated by the UK left.)

The U.S. version of Thatcher??:lol:
Both Palin and Bachmann are seriously "Thatcher Lite."
The difference between real beer and low-alcohol beer, or fruit juice and colored water.
A Maggie Thatcher would turf both of these opponents pretty fast.

[GameTheory]

The U.S. version of Thatcher??:lol:
Both Palin and Bachmann are seriously "Thatcher Lite."
The difference between real beer and low-alcohol beer, or fruit juice and colored water.
A Maggie Thatcher would turf both of these opponents pretty fast.You have to remember that even Thatcher wasn't "Thatcher" (as we think of her now) until she was elected, and even then didn't hit her stride for a while. She went into office with most from both sides thinking she was lightweight. You never know what the pressures of the day will bring out in a person, and Bachmann does seem to have backbone (even if she does turn out to be nuts).

[Robert Goren]

You have to remember that even Thatcher wasn't "Thatcher" (as we think of her now) until she was elected, and even then didn't hit her stride for a while. She went into office with most from both sides thinking she was lightweight. You never know what the pressures of the day will bring out in a person, and Bachmann does seem to have backbone (even if she does turn out to be nuts).I will give this Bachmann has more backbone than Palin.

[HUSKER55]

palin has endured so much more than bachman. I think she will be gone by the end of the year.

[Robert Goren]

Bachmann has had the guts to on Mathew's show several times. Palin is scared to on any place but Fox.

[TJDave]

Michele Bachmann is "a bit touched" because she believes Jesus spoke to her through prayer?


Anyone claiming a conversational relationship with the Almighty is more than "a bit touched". I'd expect it from a TV evangelist but not from the presumptive "leader of the free world".

Batshit crazy here is appropriate.

[GameTheory]

Anyone claiming a conversational relationship with the Almighty is more than "a bit touched". I'd expect it from a TV evangelist but not from the presumptive "leader of the free world".

Batshit crazy here is appropriate.But has she ever claimed that? She has said repeatedly that she has been "called" to do this and that, but you don't even have to be religious to have feelings like that. I get the sense that a lot of non-religious people, when they hear people who are religious say, "I was called" or "God spoke to me", etc they think the people are talking about literal voices in their heads, which of course they are not...

[rastajenk]

They tried to say the same crap about Bush...when he said he asked God for guidance, they tried to make it sound like Bush thought he was an agent of His provoking war on His behalf. Or some crap like that. A relatively innocent comment spun into some kind of hearing-voices-lunacy. Weak tea, if you ask me.

[HUSKER55]

i listened to her tonight on tv and i think i will pass.

[maddog42]

But has she ever claimed that? She has said repeatedly that she has been "called" to do this and that, but you don't even have to be religious to have feelings like that. I get the sense that a lot of non-religious people, when they hear people who are religious say, "I was called" or "God spoke to me", etc they think the people are talking about literal voices in their heads, which of course they are not...

How do you know that ? Maybe they ARE hearing voices.

[chickenhead]

yeah -- in fairness to both sides (the religious and the crazy)...they *often* don't mean literally. But you can certainly find people who will tell you that they do mean literally. The overlap in the Venn diagram of crazy and religious exists, no one can argue that. People can only argue how big the overlap actually is...

But all of this ends up circling back around to that these are politicians, who are constitutionally full of shit. Their entire game plan is to be in most all the circles at one time or another.

[GameTheory]

yeah -- in fairness to both sides (the religious and the crazy)...they *often* don't mean literally. But you can certainly find people who will tell you that they do mean literally.Yes, sure, but people have been talking this way about a relationship with God for hundreds of years (longer, actually) and it is only the ignorance of our current culture where there are actually people that don't know what they mean. I've noticed this more and more -- many non-religious Americans of today have never even been exposed to religion in any real way -- don't even know what goes on in a typical church service -- and have all these outrageous ideas about what the average Christian thinks. Even if you are a total atheist, I consider this a big character flaw (as an American) as you can't understand America or its history without some clue about the religious context of the last 200 years here.

I know lots of Christians, I have friends that are ministers, I went to parochial schools of three different denominations (Lutheran, Catholic, & Baptist). Even the fundamentalist Baptists -- the people they take the Bible word-for-word literally and think the Earth is only thousands of years old -- even those people that have what I would consider "out there" beliefs; even they don't talk about actually hearing voices (and would be quick to call someone crazy who did just like the rest of you). But they did talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, etc etc. I'm not religious myself, but I know the feeling they are talking about and frankly pity anyone that can't relate to that sensation...

[redshift1]

The overlap in the Venn diagram of crazy and religious exists, no one can argue that. People can only argue how big the overlap actually is...




No overlap they are congruent and concentric.

.

[rastajenk]

So all those churches and their members that set up relief kitchens in the wake of Katrina and other disasters, because they were proud to being doing some good in the name of God, they're all crazy? Now that's a crazy notion.

[Robert Goren]

There are people of most faiths who claim to hear the word of God including some Muslims. I think you have to take it with a grain of salt. If you take even a passing look at Bachmann's personal life, you see it is obvious believes she has had some sort of "calling". I hate defending her, but.... That being said, even a cursory look at her political ramblings, you would have to say she is pretty far from the main stream even if you agree with her on most things. And I love watching what appears to be a number one cat fight developing between her Palin over who is going to the female voice of conservative/tea party wing of the republican party. That Palin movie thing on the day of Bachmann's announcement was classic.

[Tom]

The 800 gorilla in this thread the RS article, clearly a 5th grade level piece.
What a an example of writing! Now we know where all those who fail the third go to work.

I think she is wacky as hell, but certainly not for her beliefs and her intentions, both admirable. Just not enough knowledge to follow through on them.

But to mock her for her religious beliefs is frankly un-American and says a lot about the lack of character of the people who are doing it here.

[chickenhead]

Yes, sure, but people have been talking this way about a relationship with God for hundreds of years (longer, actually) and it is only the ignorance of our current culture where there are actually people that don't know what they mean. I've noticed this more and more -- many non-religious Americans of today have never even been exposed to religion in any real way -- don't even know what goes on in a typical church service -- and have all these outrageous ideas about what the average Christian thinks. Even if you are a total atheist, I consider this a big character flaw (as an American) as you can't understand America or its history without some clue about the religious context of the last 200 years here.

I know lots of Christians, I have friends that are ministers, I went to parochial schools of three different denominations (Lutheran, Catholic, & Baptist). Even the fundamentalist Baptists -- the people they take the Bible word-for-word literally and think the Earth is only thousands of years old -- even those people that have what I would consider "out there" beliefs; even they don't talk about actually hearing voices (and would be quick to call someone crazy who did just like the rest of you). But they did talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, etc etc. I'm not religious myself, but I know the feeling they are talking about and frankly pity anyone that can't relate to that sensation...

To be fair -- I think you are making the correct point for the vast majority of situations, for an abstract situation -- but I don't know (and I'm not sure you do) what Bachmann thinks of all this.

I haven't followed her and don't know anything about her -- but I went back and read the piece -- she has a quote about God putting a specific vision into her, her husband, and her friends head simultaneously during a period of prayer where she saw her husband and he saw her, a vision that she knew God put there so her and her husband would get married (even tho neither of them wanted to, God told them to).

I don't really have any opinion on what visions implanted by God mean, but it seems to run counter to your "she doesn't mean literally".

The reason those types of statements and things come off as slightly crazy/scary isn't so much for having visions or hearing voices...we all (I think) have strange things happen to us, get feelings, deja vu, thoughts from nowhere, epiphanies, serendipity etc.

It's what you do with them. Do you just think "hmm, that was interesting/strange/worrisome. I'll have to think about what that means, or why that made me feel that way, or think of that thing." Or do you immediately think "God did this, he knows best, I will do it."

Its not the visions or feelings closeness to some bigger thing, its the professed reaction to it. I don't in the cases of religiously sane people believe that is their actual reaction to every bird or rainbow they see that reminds them of some other thing -- but it is often their professed reaction.

Its a way of bragging about how strong their faith is.

[GameTheory]

To be fair -- I think you are making the correct point for the vast majority of situations, for an abstract situation -- but I don't know (and I'm not sure you do) what Bachmann thinks of all this.

I haven't followed her and don't know anything about her -- but I went back and read the piece -- she has a quote about God putting a specific vision into her, her husband, and her friends head simultaneously during a period of prayer where she saw her husband and he saw her, a vision that she knew God put there so her and her husband would get married (even tho neither of them wanted to, God told them to).

I don't really have any opinion on what visions implanted by God mean, but it seems to run counter to your "she doesn't mean literally".

The reason those types of statements and things come off as slightly crazy/scary isn't so much for having visions or hearing voices...we all (I think) have strange things happen to us, get feelings, deja vu, thoughts from nowhere, epiphanies, serendipity etc.

It's what you do with them. Do you just think "hmm, that was interesting/strange/worrisome. I'll have to think about what that means, or why that made me feel that way, or think of that thing." Or do you immediately think "God did this, he knows best, I will do it."

Its not the visions or feelings closeness to some bigger thing, its the professed reaction to it. I don't in the cases of religiously sane people believe that is their actual reaction to every bird or rainbow they see that reminds them of some other thing -- but it is often their professed reaction.

Its a way of bragging about how strong their faith is.
I'm speaking generally. Bachmann could well be nuts, although if multiple people actually did have the same dream at the same time...well maybe it is us that ought to start looking heavenward more often. More likely she just made it up, or there was a kernel of a real event in there that she's convinced herself was something more. Nevertheless, even the occasional vision or dream for big events in one's life is still a "normal" thing (historically anyway, if less so in our rationalist age) and is a far cry from a "conversational" relationship with a supernatural deity which implies they sit around chatting over coffee on a regular basis.

[chickenhead]

I agreed, its normal enough. What I'm taking issue with is the professed reaction to it. Religious people aren't less prone to exaggeration and braggadocio, I won't even say they are more so. Equally full of shit as the rest of us. Likewise,in any largely religious country, full of people, its no surprise for it to be widespread, historically and now, to find braggadocio and exaggeration of religious experiences to impress religious friends (or religious voters). And that is perfectly fine, so far as it goes. Not necessarily requiring humble respect from anyone, but perfectly fine on the sanity scale.

It just happens that the realm they are talking about isn't a fish they caught, or an epic feat of athleticism, or how attractive a mate was, it's a realm in which we know the subconscious plays a large role and they're bragging about following it unquestioningly. It's specifically NOT a good idea to take every suggestion your brain may bubble up as something ordained by an infallible perfect being.

It's a good thing if we find out someone wasn't lying about how big a fish they caught. It isn't necessarily such a good thing if we find out they weren't lying about their structural attitude towards believing their subconsciousness to be infallible.

If they don't mean that to be the takeaway -- rather than put all the onus on everyone else understanding them to *really* just be exaggerating and bragging, they could share some of the burden and to talk about it more plainly and accurately.

[NJ Stinks]

I agreed, its normal enough. What I'm taking issue with is the professed reaction to it. Religious people aren't less prone to exaggeration and braggadocio, I won't even say they are more so. Equally full of shit as the rest of us. Likewise,in any largely religious country, full of people, its no surprise for it to be widespread, historically and now, to find braggadocio and exaggeration of religious experiences to impress religious friends (or religious voters). And that is perfectly fine, so far as it goes. Not necessarily requiring humble respect from anyone, but perfectly fine on the sanity scale.

It just happens that the realm they are talking about isn't a fish they caught, or an epic feat of athleticism, or how attractive a mate was, it's a realm in which we know the subconscious plays a large role and they're bragging about following it unquestioningly. It's specifically NOT a good idea to take every suggestion your brain may bubble up as something ordained by an infallible perfect being.

It's a good thing if we find out someone wasn't lying about how big a fish they caught. It isn't necessarily such a good thing if we find out they weren't lying about their structural attitude towards believing their subconsciousness to be infallible.

If they don't mean that to be the takeaway -- rather than put all the onus on everyone else understanding them to *really* just be exaggerating and bragging, they could share some of the burden and to talk about it more plainly and accurately.

Eh....Thank you Dr. Chickenhead. I'll take that as a yes. :p

[benzer]

Bachmann is still the person to vote for if she gets nominated.

If it comes down to Bachmann or Obama I'll vote Bachmann. For now it is way to early to call.

As far as religion goes I will trust and follow my heart and experience. I can't expand upon that comment here or I'd be called a preacher and on these matters I'm just a member of the flock.