Last night, Michele Bachmann (MN-06) delivered the Tea Party response to President Obama's SOTU address. For the most part, it was fairly predictable. But that's not the speech that has everyone scratching their heads this week. Last week, Ms.Bachmann delivered a speech in Iowa (see: dipping toe in water for possible presidential run now that Palin is tanking) which left many to wonder why someone so incompetent is leading anyone.
Here is the speech in its entirety. C-Span ran the whole thing so we have it all. I didn't want to be accused of taking anything out of context. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, pay close attention to minutes 24 to 26.
Anyone care to explain WTF she is talking about?
Immigrants to this country were always treated like crap and there certainly was no equality. Our entire history is filled with people from different cultures and races being treated like shit. Sorry, but that's human beings, folks. And John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father. His father was but he was not. He was in short pants when this country was born. In addition, small point but I think that her use of the word 'forebearer' is also incorrect. I think she meant "Forefather' because forebearer is the noun form of the verb forebear which means to restrain from, avoid or cease; to endure or tolerate; to keep oneself in check or control oneself under provocation.
How ironic...
The real head scratcher, though, was her statement about how the people that wrote the Constitution worked tirelessly to end slavery. Um....Michele? THEY OWNED SLAVES!!!!
It would be OK to excuse this if she was just another fringe person spouting lunacy but this woman is the head of a very large and powerful caucus in the United States House of Representatives. She has won her district three elections in a row with record contributions from around the country. She is a leader of the conservative movement with many supporters and has been dubbed the head of the Tea Party.
Are you kidding me?!!?
Delusions are not opinions, folks. Our history is filled with a lot of good, a lot of bad, and a whole lot of ugly. To put this kind of spin on it goes beyond batshit. It's irresponsible. People look up to our leaders and trust that they will be competent enough to use our history as a learning tool. Her view of US History is destructive. Pure and simple.
I truly hope this means people will stop listening to her.
8 comments:
You need people to listen to her. You pick apart a speech of hers that nobody heard and you give a Good Work thumbs up to Obamas speech that was playing short and fast with the truth. Let me guess - you think investment is different than spending.
Sorry, sw, but I can't listen to someone whose foundation of knowledge is this poor. I also can't listen to anyone who had no problem with all of Bush's spending but suddenly seems to have a problem with Obama's.
The right's obsession with spending is bordering on ridiculous now. Our country has spent money over our entire history and its only recently (due to delusion) that there is an alternate narrative out there that says most spending is evil. President Obama mentioned several key areas in his speech where government spending led to innovation. The advances from science that came out of the space program are unparalleled and cannot be replaced. The same is true for our highway system and our railways. All of this was a result of government programs. They aren't all Hitler, you know:)
The same is true for our highway system and our railways. All of this was a result of government programs.
Uhh, can you explain exactly what government program gave us our railroads? And don't say the transcontinental railroad.
Hmmm, cell phones. They came from NASA technology. The internet that "Al Gore" created? Came from a military use of computers talking to each other (which Gore DID champion funding for development of leading to the "information super highway", wasn't he the first to coin that term that is now the reality we live in???).
Oh, and the talk about Gov't is bad, Corps are good, Hmmm, aren't they both controlled by people? The larger the group, the longer things take, and the harder agreement is reached. More simple truths that Mark's readers have so much trouble with.
Eyes roll...
Huh? What/who are you talking about/to?
Yeah, that Bachman sure is stupid. Thank goodness our Dear Leader is much smarter and wouldn't misuse a word like "forbearer", especially not in an important speech. Oh wait, he did, in his inauguration speech, no less:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/president-obama-inauguration-speech-transcript/story?id=6689022
Sheesh.
Um, Mark, as a so-called educator, you surely must know that the Founders were deeply split over the issue of slavery, but the anti-slavery Founders were only able to insert a provision for the banning of the import of slaves beginning in 1808 (which law was promptly passed as soon as it was constitutional to do so), and they were able to dilute the electoral power of the slave states by counting non-free persons as 3/5 for the purposes of apportionment. They wanted slaves to count not at all, while the slave owners, of course, wanted them counted at 100%.
Yes, Bachmann is sloppy and presenting a feel-good whitewash of history, but that doesn't excuse you to be equally sloppy and tar great men like Franklin, Adams and others.
I understand why Bachmann, Palin and Beck cause M so much grief - they are his equal intellectually and yet they are more famous and somehow, somewhat respected.
If I was prone to envy I suppose that would chap my hide too.
Post a Comment