REPORTER: Congresswoman Bachmann put out a statement and she essentially said that the [DOMA] decision today cannot undo God’s word. How do you guys react to that?
NANCY PELOSI: Who cares?
Tag: bachmann
If you try to imagine the Republican consensus after a potential losing election, it will look like this. It will recognize that its harsh partisan rhetoric turned off voters, and will urgently want to woo Latinos, while holding on to as much as possible of the party’s domestic policy agenda. And oh, by the way, the party will be casting about for somebody to lead it.
Jonathan Chait, getting almost everything completely wrong. In the wake of a 2012 Presidential defeat, the GOP will immediately declare that the loss was really due to voter fraud, white voter intimidation, “massive” negative spending by The Democrat and Unions, and a generalized malaise caused by Romney not having been “conservative enough.” The only answer: go more conservative. This is quite consistently how they react to all electoral setbacks; a pattern they’ve been following for these past two decades or more. Narrow electoral victories for the GOP are massive mandates; losses are the result stolen elections or otherwise non-binding outcomes that were exacerbated by a lack of true-believer conservatives in whatever positions were at stake. Why suddenly stop now? What has changed? What possible political or strategic upside do they see in “playing along”? Why would they even know how to legislate from compromise and whatever passes for centrism? Seriously, I’m asking; they who hold these offices and will (largely) hold them post-2012 have likely never worked in this way in their careers. But somewhere around lunchtime on January 20, 2013 they are suddenly getting their opposing number on the horn to talk real business? Seriously, we are meant to believe this, Jonathan (and, for that matter, Obama)?
A loss at the top of the ticket in 2012 will not be a moment for reflection, or a “centrist move” that’s been likened to the fever breaking. It will, instead, be an occasion to take it even further right. Impeachments will become a daily affair. Nothing will move. Default will be used as the default hostage for everything. And etc… Basically just like it is now, but about 100x worse. Based on recent and not-so-recent history, nothing could possibly be more clear to everyone outside the DC commentariat: if Obama wins, we will be counting our lucky stars that gridlock happens to result in long-term positive policy outcomes over the next 9 months or so. Because nothing else will be happening other than weekly or even daily Constitutional Crises.
But, as I said, Chait does get one thing right: they’ll be looking for a leader. And but also it won’t be Jeb Bush. Think more along the lines of Bachmann but even more crazy. That’s who will emerge. Basically whatever lunatic gets the most play out of the most popular impeachment movement. Maybe that’s Santorum, but I suspect he will seem rather retrograde and far too Liberal to play in 2016. We may look back at him wistfully by then as the far-right GOP candidate who was pretty palatable by comparison. Because one of them is going to win sooner or later.
Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don’t pay taxes?
Anderson Cooper, buying into the entirely wrong, entirely Tea Klan promulgated notion that about half of Americans pay no taxes.
Anderson, and everyone else, everyone, every single adult citizen pays federal taxes in this country or they are breaking the law. Even this 47% to which you refer still pays payroll taxes related to Social Security, Medicare, and etc… if they are employed. However, they may well earn too little money to exceed the standard individual/married filing jointly deduction. Thus, they effectively pay no federal income tax. They do, however, still pay all the rest of it. Period. They do, however, still pay state and local taxes. Period. In any meaningful case: This adds up to a lot more than one dollar (which was Bachmann’s suggested “solution” to the “issue”). But that’s all too boring or too partisan to mention, apparently.
In a functioning society, the media individual selected to mediate this event might just see fit to mention this. Worth noting that, in our society, that sort of thing never, ever happens, and this tax thing is but one of literally hundreds of such opportunities for meaningful intervention in last night’s debate. The level of foreign aid, the current funding totals for defense (with regard to the suggested cut), the real impact of immigration on the economy of this country, foreclosures, and on and on and on.
And so the Republic crumbles.
Anderson, and everyone else, everyone, every single adult citizen pays federal taxes in this country or they are breaking the law. Even this 47% to which you refer still pays payroll taxes related to Social Security, Medicare, and etc… if they are employed. However, they may well earn too little money to exceed the standard individual/married filing jointly deduction. Thus, they effectively pay no federal income tax. They do, however, still pay all the rest of it. Period. They do, however, still pay state and local taxes. Period. In any meaningful case: This adds up to a lot more than one dollar (which was Bachmann’s suggested “solution” to the “issue”). But that’s all too boring or too partisan to mention, apparently.
In a functioning society, the media individual selected to mediate this event might just see fit to mention this. Worth noting that, in our society, that sort of thing never, ever happens, and this tax thing is but one of literally hundreds of such opportunities for meaningful intervention in last night’s debate. The level of foreign aid, the current funding totals for defense (with regard to the suggested cut), the real impact of immigration on the economy of this country, foreclosures, and on and on and on.
And so the Republic crumbles.
Herman Cain: If it’s good enough for Sim City, it’s good enough for America.
Aside from being an egomaniac, Cain is a plagiarist.
~g
Long before Cain was running for president and getting attention for his 999 plan, the residents of SimCity 4 — which was released in 2003 — were living under a system where the default tax rate was 9 percent for commercial taxes, 9 percent for industrial taxes and 9 percent for residential taxes. (That is, of course, if you didn’t use the cheat codes to get unlimited money and avoid taxes altogether.)
Cut to: Bachmann press conference in which she breathlessly announces that she’s gained access to the secret government cheat codes which, when entered into a secret keypad in the Bible on the day of her inauguration, will allow for unlimited revenue on no taxes whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new national GOP polls leader.
Herman Cain: If it’s good enough for Sim City, it’s good enough for America.
It’s Congress that does the spending. The president is prohibited to do that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a dictator. There would be no reason for Congress to even come to Washington, D.C. He would be making the spending decisions … Clearly that’s unconstitutional.
Michele Bachmann, speaking to CNN’s American Morning.
Every now and then something true slips out of the GOP’s fetid maw. But, by all means, let’s pretend Obama and his “blank check” are what caused the current entirely invented “crisis.”
CNN’s headline for this small story? Why, of course it’s Bachmann Warns of ‘Dictator’ Obama. What other choice did they have?
Every now and then something true slips out of the GOP’s fetid maw. But, by all means, let’s pretend Obama and his “blank check” are what caused the current entirely invented “crisis.”
CNN’s headline for this small story? Why, of course it’s Bachmann Warns of ‘Dictator’ Obama. What other choice did they have?
On Complexity
Anyone else bored with these campaign launch weeks that focus on tiny gaffes? […] You get more heat for flubbing a founder’s name than for saying tax cuts always up revenue.
Jay Rosen replies:
Of course you do. Why? The sweet spot is a mistake that allows the press to prosecute the error without sounding too political.
I think it’s a bit more than that. While I agree that the political calculation enters into it, there’s also a strong bias towards the simplest construction possible. John Wayne != John Wayne Gacy. Haw ha.
This is much easier to write than an explanation of exactly why it is that a certain package of cuts is more likely to impact poor and elderly than another, or to explain, with facts, figures, and charts just why it is extraordinarily likely that revenues will not increase subsequent to a tax cut in these United States using any current/future circumstance you wish to model. You’re just not going to fit that into a tweet, or even a 90 second NPR focus piece. The several sentences that emerge from the four paragraphs you wrote will, inevitably, come off as political shorthand. And the angry letters will pour in. Better just to do he-said, she-said and be done with it. Conservative message discipline in commercial media: achieved.
This is the fundamental GOP advantage. Death tax, death panel, tax and spend, short form birth certificate, taxed enough already! It’s hard to think of any conservative sloganeering in the past 20 years that a) is longer than 140 characters –and– b) actually holds up to intellectual scrutiny. Yet neither of these facts matters. In fact, it’s this emphasis on message simplicity that has ultimately captured the willingly compliant, stenographic impulses of the modern media. Who wants to do a bunch of research, after all? Stephanopoulos knew he was going to be asking about John Quincy Adams. Why not be ready to follow up? He receives a salary that is likely in the millions of dollars per year and has a staff, but (apparently) can’t be bothered to call up Wikipedia? Bob Schieffer, likewise quite well paid, also can’t be bothered to pick one issue on which Bachmann has notably lied and really hold her feet to the fire about it, not allowing a “well, we should really be talking about Obama…” dodge? Instead, we’ll just note the pattern of systematic lying on the website somewheres. Journalism!
This is precisely how George W. Bush ended up with the Oval Office. How’d that work out for everyone? Then why are we as a nation so desperate to repeat the experience?
Bachmann on GMA
Stephanopoulos: In your announcement you said ‘my voice is part of a movement to take back our country.’ From whom?
Bachmann: Well, from the people all across the nation. […]
Stephanopoulos: […] the Pulitzer Prize winning website, Politifact, has found that you have the worst record of making false statements of any of the leading contenders. And I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements. For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true. Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.
Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.
Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…
Bachmann: That’s what people want…they realize our government is taking away our freedom.
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….
Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?
Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.
Stephanopoulos: Well let me move on […]
Lemkin: You cannot “move on.” Media Pro Tip: when faced with statements like these, just consider the rest of your planned interview over. Relentlessly dig on this point. JQA was nine years old at the outbreak of the American Revolution. Actively involved? Founding Father? You’ve got to hammer these points, George. Same goes for Bob Schieffer; if she’s actively not answering your questions, don’t just note it in passing at the end of the show, stop asking new questions until the one on the table is addressed. You have all the time in the world for video online. Start using it.
Well what I want them to know is just like, John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.
Michelle Bachmann, speaking to FOXnews about her “official” campaign launch. One problem: the John Wayne who is from Waterloo is, in fact, notorious “Killer Clown” John Wayne Gacy. Slight difference.
Lemkin 