Lefties Attack Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) with Comic Book

Mike it’s the same reason real Catholics threaten them (i.e. Rick Santorium), God and family. Socialism always ends in communism, and commuism can’t exist with God, consequently, “All things God must go.”

Sadly, the “useful idots” being used right now have no idea how soon they will be under the bus.

Feel free to imbed Obama’s “Catholic Plan” which pretty much sums up the answer to your question.

Conservatives have Palin and dozens like her. Liberals have Helen Thom ass and thousands who make her look good. Now that is one group of fugugly women.

The fact is that women like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are strong, Christian women. The left have to make loud, raucous noises to distract from the current Screw-Us-In-Chief who have no saving graces except: he reads well from a teleprompter, has cute, kids and a cute dog. Place Miz O next to either Bachman or Palin and see the marked contrast (and I’m NOT talking skin color – ugly is bone deep)!

Look, I love Sarah Palin

But, Michelle Bachmann is just a little bit nuts. She’s not off the deep end but she hangs around there from time to time in terms of being a bit histrionic.

This cartoon looks like something that Nazi Germany ala Hitler used to do prior to WWII. Scary stuff and so unfair to the human being. Our country is becoming a scary place to live with all of the anger, hate, and tainted money that flows into corrupt political ambitions.

jensad

@Mike

“No one that I know disagrees with natural selection — that you can take various breeds of dogs … breed them, you get different kinds of dogs,” she said. “It’s just a fact of life. … Where there’s controversy is (at the question) ‘Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being?’ There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That’s where it’s difficult to prove.” – Michele Bachmann quoted in the Stillwater Gazette, September 29, 2003.

Is this an example of brains? Is she dumb or is she really trying to purposefully completely misunderstand and misrepresent evolution?

Mike:

You call my Bias extreme? Have you checked your own lately?
you sir are off the charts to the right.. just a hint: that is not a compliment.

@Mike

So nothing can be authorised unless it’s in the constitution? lol….right.

@Mike

C’mon – she clearly asked whether the actions were in the constitution. Which is nonsensical – as I say – is that you can ask that bland question to a whole host of legit things. Concern about whether US is moving away from the constitution is legit overall – but I don’t see how these two things are explicitly linked. What Obama doing isn’t unconstitutional. However maybe there should be an amendment is some people are so concerned.

As for Palin and Bachmann – it doesn’t bother me that they are conservative women at all. What bothers me are those on the Christian right (men or women) who believe in Creationism and come across as politically lightweight and/or barmy. Compare them to the stature of Thatcher or intellectual precision of Daniel Hannan conservative views.

In counterpoint/rebuttal/whatever, I’ll offer the Liberality For All series, which ridicules all sorts of folks on the left and predates this piece of work by several years.

Just as ACC Studios wants to make a buck off conservatives who prefer ridicule to debate, these guys want to make a buck off liberals who prefer ridicule to debate. [*shrug*]

Having said that, I’m not surprised that someone is taking comic/satirical aim at Bachmann. I mean, come on. She spews conspiracy theories (re-education camps?), factual errors (FDR caused the Great Depression by signing the Democrats’ ‘Hoot-Smalley Act’?) and implied smears (the five ‘flying imams’ were going to Rep. Keith Ellison’s victory celebration?)…and it goes on and on and on. I have the distinct impression that she will say almost anything if she perceives a partisan advantage in so doing; consider her recent “the last time we had a swine flu epidemic, a Democrat was in power” comment or her assertion that Minnesota has large Somali and Hmong communities because of “government relocation.”

(For the record: Even Glenn Beck considers the re-education camps a conspiracy theory, unemployment was pushing 25% when FDR took office, the Smoot-Hawley Act was written by two Republicans and signed into law by President Hoover, the five imams were attending a conference of North American imams, the previous swine flu outbreak occurred during the Ford Administration, and Minnesota’s Somali/Hmong communities have come about through the efforts of refugee-aid religious groups, primarily Lutheran in MN’s case.)

Keep in mind that several of Bachmann’s worst examples come not from the off-the-cuff comment (Heck, VP Biden sets that bar pretty high by himself, yes?), but from written/scripted instances; for instance, her trifecta FDR/Great Depression/”Hoot-Smalley” fail came from a written speech delivered on the House floor.

Several folks have provided examples of Bachmann making coherent, even incisive, commentary – so noted. The problem comes when you try to reconcile those examples with the ones of the sort I provided. The only explanation that comes to mind is that one set is a scripted persona. What other explanation covers both the incisive and the absurd?

@An American Voter: I don’t mean the gender thing, because again, I love Sarah Palin.

WesMorgan1 makes my point

It’s her Glenn Beck-ish quality to go to far extremes in public for a reaction and you want to go “okay, tone it down a bit, I like you, but I really can’t defend this”

Palin she was eviscerated by the media because they WANTED her to look stupid, Bachmann says stupid things and gets eviscerated.

It’s like she’s the worst kind of caller to talk radio, taking the host’s points then taking them to loonyville before the host has to cut them off.