Michele Bachmann replaces Sarah Palin

The MSM has to be afraid of Michele Bachmann. If not why torpedo her? The details in the enclosed brief articles tell about CBS giving Michele a short count. Clearly, she has become the media’s number one target now that Sarah Palin took herself out of the hunt. Media mouths have to be sick in their souls to see Bachmann still in the race when they thought Palin was the last conservative they had to eliminate.

NOTE: The MSM wants nothing more than to see Hillary Clinton as president; so shafting Michele Bachmann is not a female thing, it’s a conservative female thing.

The excuse CBS offered after it got caught doing dirty in an e-mail is classic:

CBS spokeswoman Sonya McNair defended the email, saying in a statement the email was a "candid exchange about the reality of the circumstances"—pointing to Bachmann's 4 percent standing in national polls.

Right from the start the media has been pushing its preferred candidates to the top of the polls, then it turns around and cites Bachmann’s low number as justification for shafting her all the more.

The why

The media, i.e., inside the Beltway thinking, wants big government. True conservatives oppose big government. You do not have to be a genius to know why the MSM will do whatever it takes to sabotage every conservative it sees as a serious threat.

There is no conspiracy running rampant throughout the government’s media. Shafting conservatives is the way they think; so engaging in the same dirty tricks comes naturally. It’s understandable. CBS is as liberal as a network can get, but it’s much more than one network. If CBS is doing it to Bachmann the others are doing it, too.

The justification

Media decision makers are “professionals” and they alone know what is best for the country. In reality, the only thing they know is what is best for their incomes. Those incomes are threatened whenever they lose control of the process; hence, it takes decades for their anger to subside whenever the public refuses to buy the candidate(s) they are selling as in Ronald Reagan’s case.

Arrogance born of unquestioned manipulation fuels the media’s divine Right to name the nominee in both parties. That Right is absolute because they believe the public is too stupid to know what’s best. To be fair they were correct in Hussein’s case. On the other hand the media is responsible for putting Hussein in office; so who is the dumber, voters or the press?

Never mind that every problem facing the country today can be laid on the media’s doorstep because they used their power to influence everything that brought the country to today’s mess. Unfortunately, Americans tend to blame the president, Congress, or the courts when something goes wrong, but the media is the true villain.

Finally, print press is disappearing for a variety of reasons. One reason is that the public simply stopped buying newspapers. Television is more insidious because it is already in the home —— other than the cost of the TV set and the electric bill no purchase is necessary. CBS may have the lowest rating, but all of the networks combined still reach a large number of Americans every minute of every day. The entire print press in its heyday never had that much access or influence. The lesson learned is this: The press’ increased influence is directly related to the county’s decline.

Leaked CBS memo backs Bachmann 'snub' charge
Campaign says network debate manipulated to shut her up
Posted: November 12, 2011
7:34 pm Eastern

WASHINGTON – Michele Bachmann's plenty steamed about her treatment in tonight's CBS News/National Journal debate between GOP presidential candidates.
Several times throughout the course of the 90-minute presentation, Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., attempted to follow-up questions and answers by other candidates – just as the moderators of the debate suggested they would be allowed to do at their discretion.

But despite often vociferous attempts to weigh in, the moderators chose other candidates.
Now the Bachmann campaign is going public with evidence CBS News planned all along to snub her.

Keith Nahigian, Bachmann’s campaign manager posted on her Facebook page an email exchange between CBS News political director John Dickerson and correspondent Caroline Horn in which Dickerson suggested before the debate "she's not going to get many questions."

Nahigian commented that the memo represents "concrete evidence of what every conservative knows – the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele’s questions."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=367437

XXXXX​

Michele Bachmann accuses CBS News of bias
By Holly Bailey | The Ticket – 57 mins ago

Michele Bachmann's campaign accused CBS News of bias after her spokeswoman was included on an email chain between network officials that suggested she would get limited questions during Saturday's debate.

In the email chain—which the Bachmann campaign posted to its Facebook page—a CBS employee notified CBS News political director John Dickerson that Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart had volunteered the candidate for an interview on Dickerson's post-debate webcast. The employee copied Stewart on the email and told Dickerson that she had been included on the message.

"Okay let's keep it loose though since she's not going to get many questions and she's nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else," Dickerson replied, apparently unaware that Stewart was copied on the email.

CBS spokeswoman Sonya McNair defended the email, saying in a statement the email was a "candid exchange about the reality of the circumstances"—pointing to Bachmann's 4 percent standing in national polls.

But the Bachmann campaign seized on the issue as a case of blatant bias. Per CNN's Peter Hamby, Keith Nahigian stormed into the spin room after Saturday's debate calling for Dickerson to be fired.

"He's a piece of sh*t. He is a fraud, and he should be fired," Nahigian said, per CNN.

Speaking to reporters, Bachmann slammed Dickerson and CBS.

"I think it's only respectful to allow the candidates to be able to speak and not intentionally ahead of time make a decision to limit candidates' opportunity to speak to the American people," Bachmann said. "Clearly this was an example of media bias."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-accuses-cbs-news-media-bias-050121770.html

 

Nothing will come of it. The MSM is not gonna report on itself. As I have said in other threads, I think we should get Newt/Michele ticket. We don't want a lib republican, Romney, or a former democrat, Perry at the top of the ticket. Michele was also a democrat at one time wasn't she?

 

Ok, so I didn't catch the entire debate, but from what I could tell, they tried their best to be fair to everyone, even gave dear Ron and Huntsman the time of day, who, btw, did both great.
Dagnabbit, they would be some team.
Bachman looked a bit lost, and so did Perry, while the other ones were a bit too full of themselves.
Well, that's my assessment fwiw.

 

No one is afraid of Bachmann... Everyone is embarrassed for her.

 

To PatriotNews: I read that she was a Democrat until 1973 although she worked on Carter’s campaign in 1976. That flirtation didn’t last long because of Carter’s liberalism; so in 1980 she worked on Ronald Reagan’s campaign. As far as I know she hasn’t looked back ever since Reagan.

To Shangrila: She doesn’t look lost to me:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388080n

To Margot: That’s right you’re wrong. Even Ish Kabibble knows more than you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e73xYaSMtyo

 

No one who was interested in the candidates wanted to hear what Bachmann had to say.. She has been OVER for a couple of months.

 

To Margot: The media picking the Republican candidate is bad enough, but message board liberals like you speaking for conservatives is beyond the pale.

Incidentally, Michele Bachmann comes with less baggage than any other candidate. In fact, no baggage at all. She committed no gaffes worth mentioning. When she talks about important issues she knows what she is talking about, and she is the only Republican in the field conservatives can trust. It’s no wonder professional liberals and establishment Republicans want her to go away.

 

If there is any truth in this:

Bachmann emerged from that June debate as an overnight superstar, and some conservatives suspected that the media were promoting her candidacy in order to discourage former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin from jumping into the 2012 race.

media manipulators grabbed a tiger by the tail. Now, they can’t let go so they are trying to starve the tiger to death. Happily, a hungry tiger might chow down on the media.

Debating the Deciders
By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.14.11 @ 6:09AM

Are media moderators playing favorites among Republicans?

SPARTANBURG, S.C. -- Rep. Michele Bachmann is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, as such, was amply prepared to discuss U.S. foreign policy during Saturday night's presidential debate at Wofford College here.

During the debate broadcast on CBS, the Minnesota Republican was first asked about Afghanistan, and signified her familiarity by name-checking Helmand Province and Kandahar, then mentioning the Haqqani Network as a major insurgent threat. Asked later about Pakistan, Bachmann discussed the importance of stabilizing the nuclear-armed nation against Islamic radicalism. Subsequently asked about the controversial use of waterboarding during interrogations of captured terrorists -- which she supports, but President Obama has prohibited -- Bachman cleverly quipped that the incumbent Democrat "is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA."

All in all, Bachmann acquitted herself credibly during the event, co-sponsored by National Journal and billed by CBS as the "Commander-in-Chief Debate." It is therefore difficult to imagine how shocking it must have been for Bachmann, her staff and her campaign's supporters to learn that one member of the CBS News team apparently viewed her as insignificant. In an e-mail exchange, a network staffer informed CBS political analyst John Dickerson that Bachmann was interested in appearing on Dickerson's post-debate webcast. The staffer CC'ed the message to Bachmann's communications director Alice Stewart and when Dickerson answered, he evidently clicked "reply to all" without realizing that what he wrote would go directly to the Republican aide. Dickerson wrote: "Okay let's keep it loose though since she's not going to get many questions and she's nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else."

What Dickerson appeared to be mean by his "keep it loose" remark was that he wanted to avoid a firm commitment to have Bachmann on the webcast, as he was hoping to "get someone else" as a guest. But the part of the 29-word Dickerson e-mail that infuriated Bachmann's team most was what looked very much like proof of a preordained decision by CBS that the candidate would not "get many questions" during the debate because she was "off the charts" -- out of contention for the GOP nomination, based on her declining poll numbers. Posting the e-mail to Bachmann's Facebook page, campaign director Keith Nahigan fumed that Dickerson's comments were "concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows -- the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele's questions."

Beyond the specifics of Nahigan's accusation as it relates to Bachmann, the "concrete evidence" certainly will be cited by supporters of several other Republican candidates who have complained that televised debates this year have been manipulated to favor certain candidates at the expense of others. These complaints cannot be dismissed as merely a case of campaigns trying to "work the refs" to obtain better coverage, because this year the debates have so clearly influenced the fortunes of GOP candidates.

Consider, for example, that Atlanta businessman Herman Cain's candidacy got an early boost from his strong performance in the first debate of the year, May 5 in Greenville, South Carolina. Only five candidates participated in that debate televised by Fox News, but by the time of the next debate -- June 13 in Manchester, New Hampshire -- the debate field had expanded to seven. CNN decided to exclude former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who had been in the May debate on Fox, while Bachmann, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were added. Cain was quite literally shoved aside, relegated to the far end of the stage, while Romney was at center stage, flanked by Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

CNN explained that Johnson's poll numbers didn't rate his inclusion, but if polls controlled the event, Cain clearly had cause for complaint. Prior to the debate, Cain was out-polling every candidate on the stage except Romney. CNN's own poll taken June 3-7 showed Cain tied with Gingrich for second, and yet the stage arrangements in Manchester seemed to suggest Cain was considered a marginal candidate.

Bachmann emerged from that June debate as an overnight superstar, and some conservatives suspected that the media were promoting her candidacy in order to discourage former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin from jumping into the 2012 race. Bachmann's rise -- on July 19 she peaked at 14 percent in the RealClearPolitics national poll average -- was the beginning of the "flavor of the month" trend in the campaign. For much of the next several weeks, Bachmann overshadowed the rest of the field with the exception of one candidate. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has been a media darling ever since his June 21 entry into the field. His poll numbers have never exceeded the statistical margin of error, but Huntsman has been included in every subsequent debate (sitting out Las Vegas last month was his choice), as though it would be unfair to question the legitimacy of the only GOP candidate to have served in the Obama administration. ("I know that Jon is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party," the president said in naming Huntsman ambassador to China.)

During the third debate -- Aug. 11 in Ames, Iowa, televised by Fox -- the moderators clearly were trying to incite clashes between Bachmann and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who both were going all-out to win that week's Iowa Republican Party straw poll. Pawlenty came out the loser in both the Thursday debate and the Saturday straw poll, and by Sunday quit the race. Meanwhile, the race had been transformed by the entrance of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who quickly rose to become the front-runner. Perry seemed an unstoppable juggernaut until his performance in three June debates derailed his bandwagon. While most of Perry's debate damage resulted from self-inflicted wounds, this is not to say that the manipulations of moderators were without effect. Howard Kurtz watched as the Fox News team planned for the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, Florida, aiming to "get some fireworks going," as Fox managing editor Bill Sammon put it.

Whether they're accused of trying to gin up rating-friendly "fireworks" or limiting questions to a candidate they deem to have dropped out of contention, suspicions toward debate moderators are part of an ongoing erosion of the media's credibility. Perfect fairness and complete objectivity are perhaps an impossible ideal, but when a candidate claims to have discovered "concrete evidence" of bias, it is a serious charge that merits serious consideration. Republican voters will ultimately decide their party's nominee, despite efforts by the media elite to decide for them. And Bachmann's poll numbers are still higher than Huntsman's.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/14/debating-the-deciders

 

Read Michele's Bachman's foreign policy platform..

She's a blooming idiot... It demonstrates ignorance and total lack of sophistication.

 

To Margot: You call Michele a blooming idiot then assume I support her without knowing her foreign policy positions. Such an assumption is the very essence of ignorance.

I guess you did not read the article I posted in #8 permalink. It included this:

During the debate broadcast on CBS, the Minnesota Republican was first asked about Afghanistan, and signified her familiarity by name-checking Helmand Province and Kandahar, then mentioning the Haqqani Network as a major insurgent threat. Asked later about Pakistan, Bachmann discussed the importance of stabilizing the nuclear-armed nation against Islamic radicalism. Subsequently asked about the controversial use of waterboarding during interrogations of captured terrorists -- which she supports, but President Obama has prohibited -- Bachman cleverly quipped that the incumbent Democrat "is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA."

All in all, Bachmann acquitted herself credibly during the event, co-sponsored by National Journal and billed by CBS as the "Commander-in-Chief Debate."

You continue to attack Michele personally without offering your alternatives to her stated positions. You obviously have not the faintest idea of how much her foreign policy expertise is respected across the board. Or is it her rapier-like wit that upsets you?:

Bachman cleverly quipped that the incumbent Democrat "is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA."

 

Here's her foreign policy position.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/foreign-policy-dossier-michele-bachmann-20111112

Her family farm gets HUGE corn subsidies and her husband gets a grant to change Gays to Straits.

 

To Margot: I’ll make it easy for you. What are your alternatives to Bachmann’s positions stated in the article you linked?

 

Flanders, you're right. Michele Bachmann is the best conservative candidate. That's why the progressives hate her and conservatives are fooled by the latest polls. They don't vote for her because they think she doesn't have a chance, according the polls. If conservatives don't vote for her in the primaries, I don't see how we're going to win with Romney or Gingrich.

 

Well, when the US leaves Iraq.. we will be keeping some US troops in Kuwait.. I wouldn't bait Iran..

and this..

A "CURSE' IF U.S. "REJECTS" ISRAEL. In almost every speech, Bachmann stresses that she will “stand with Israel,” making the Jewish State the centerpiece of her foreign-policy platform. The Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg says Bachmann’s "nuance-free defense of Israel" is in large part because the Bible states that God will curse those who betray it. “I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States,” she said at a recent Republican Jewish Coalition event. “We are inextricably entwined.... As a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”

 

To Jason: Thought you might enjoy this great two part article about Bachmann. This excerpt tickled me:

“This was Tim Pawlenty's suggestion that her susceptibility to headaches (an ailment she shares with Thomas Jefferson) renders her unfit to govern.”

That’s really reaching!

I also enjoyed this one:

“(This explains how Bill Clinton rose in popularity after everyone saw him lying through his teeth in his video testimony. Seeing him engage in sophistries about the meaning of “is”—sophistries whereby he tossed a young lover into the trash with a casualness that would be shocking in a psychopath—millions of ordinary, reasonable people thought, “Wow, I can’t believe he pulled that off—what a guy!”)”

Liberals went even lower than Clinton when they boasted “I can’t believe O. J. got away with it.”

Michele Bachmann Fights Like A Girl
Daren Jonescu Monday, December 12, 2011

It has been more than thirty years since Margaret Thatcher altered the Western political landscape, helping to save the world from Soviet expansionism while coming as near as anyone could to saving England itself from the cultural and economic quagmire that, since her departure, has continued to deepen. Nevertheless, over the past few months the most serious female presidential candidate in U.S. history—and the one most similar in principles to the early Thatcher—has been treated as an also-ran by both the mainstream and Republican-leaning media, as well as subjected to unfounded accusations of incompetence or instability—from conservatives.

This was Tim Pawlenty's suggestion that her susceptibility to headaches (an ailment she shares with Thomas Jefferson) renders her unfit to govern. Then there was George Will’s judgment, apparently pulled straight out of the ether, that she could not be trusted with her finger on the nuclear trigger. (They said the same of Reagan.) Perhaps the concern is that if she had a headache and went stumbling blindly in search of her painkillers, she might inadvertently hit The Big Red Button, thus starting World War III. Never having been in the White House, I had naively assumed there would be safeguards to prevent such a mishap, like secret codes and a military chain of command and stuff; but Will and Pawlenty, who have been in the White House, seem to think it’s a possibility, so who am I to object?

No, I do not believe that the Republican Establishment’s objection to Bachmann is that she’s a woman. The objection, rather, is that she is not a man—where by “man” I mean “an accredited member of the Washington Insider’s Club.” She doesn’t talk the way we expect modern politicians to talk. Her public persona, in debates and interviews, does not fall easily within the accepted norms of TV-age politicians. She tends to speak in bold colors. She talks about over-arching issues much more comfortably than about niggling details. She delineates issues with a view to their long-term ramifications, where long-term does not mean two years, but two decades, or two generations. Worst of all, she infuses all issues about which she speaks with a moral tinge—which is to say that she instinctively hones in on the moral implications of public policy, rather than merely on the pragmatic, outcome-oriented aspect of decision-making.

This last trait, the morality-colored glasses, is particularly troubling to today’s Establishment types, for whom politics is about winning, at least as much as it is about being right. Bachmann speaks to those who would lose the fight without losing their souls, rather than win a hollow victory. A Gingrich or Romney presidency would be hollow victory on a grand scale, sucking the wind out of America’s burgeoning constitutionalist revival while doing little—or, more likely, nothing—to change the fundamental premises of the Establishment’s workings. That is to say, the multi-generational project of rekindling the notion of a constitutional republic, not only in rhetoric but in practice, will require more than lip-service critiques of the current Establishment’s follies. It will require the slow, bottom-up creation of a new Establishment. Establishmentarianism, per se, is not the problem; George Washington was the Establishment in his time. The challenge is to transmogrify the Establishment into something noble, something with purposes and ideals higher than the next election cycle.

Joseph Conrad said that women hate irony. He meant it as a criticism; as they are more inclined towards naive belief in the good, the true and the beautiful, women are more likely to be angered than pleased at the cleverness that undercuts and casts doubt upon fundamental principles. Conrad, however, was writing in an age in which irony was an intellectual art, a means of broadening understanding by way of refusing to allow the mind to say “Stop here.” Today, we live in an age of universalized, and hence diminished, irony. Everyone is wised-up; everyone sees through everything; everyone thinks that matters of the most crushing importance are merely intellectual games, mass media games, power games. In such a morally decrepit climate, irony is not a means of enlightenment. It is just a fancy name for cynicism, which is the enemy of enlightenment.

In such a climate, civilization needs leaders who are not ironists, at least not in the modern, diminished sense. In Conrad’s terms, civilization needs women. To put it more simply, America manifestly does not need more “big ideas,” “big schemes,” and “big hopes,”—i.e. more big government. What she needs is a voice of conscience to speak to the present crisis as a moral crisis of historic proportions.

It is certain that among this year’s primary contenders, Bachmann has the most credibility as this kind of moral conservative. By “moral conservative,” I do not mean a Christian conservative, or a social conservative. (Rick Santorum is also strong in these latter areas, of course.) I mean someone who can articulate the economic crisis as a moral crisis, and who can propose financial solutions that are grounded in an understanding of the moral nature of the problem. For this is the only way to change paths in the permanent manner that is required. The goal cannot be merely to balance the budget, for example. The goal must be to demonstrate to the electorate that a balanced budget is a practical manifestation of a particular moral position on the relationship between government and citizen. This is what Bachmann’s manner of articulating the issues achieves most effectively—if people will listen.

Bachmann’s practical problem is that, in the age of TV ratings and Twitter politics, her strength, which is the strength most needed at this time, is obscured

Bachmann’s practical problem is that, in the age of TV ratings and Twitter politics, her strength, which is the strength most needed at this time, is obscured. The superabundance of repetitive, sound-bite-focused debates is most beneficial to the cute talkers, the Six Point Plan guys, the “ironists” in the modern sense. How would Lincoln, Jefferson, or Madison have fared in such a setting? It is impossible to know, and speculation is futile. What can be said, however, is that the ideas that have allowed those men to be regarded as giants today would not have played well in the modern debate format, in which one must make all of one’s arguments in the form of one minute speechettes: One broad point (but not too broad, lest it require some long-winded explanation of, say, two minutes); two details naming circumstances related to the broad point (rapid-fire delivery is effective, as it creates the impression that one is really up on the issue, while also making careful scrutiny of your information difficult); a name-drop (calculated to appeal to the particular audience in attendance); and a summation, preferably featuring a pre-fab zinger, citing oneself as the only person who has anything worthwhile to say on this issue (just keep going until the moderator says your minute is up).

This format does not suit Bachmann well, at least from the cynical point of view. That is to say, even when, as often happens, she makes a great point, and makes it well, it generally plays awkwardly with the audience—and presumably with TV viewers—because modern voters typically do not see themselves as they really are, namely, as people being asked to think about what is best for the future of their country, but rather as aloof “observers,” as pseudo-strategists. When such people hear an argument offered in obvious cynical calculation, they do not think, “Phoney!” Rather, they think, “That was smart; it’ll play well with Hispanics/Tea Partiers/Jews/Whomever.” In other words, they imagine themselves as the ones who can see through it, while assuming that no one else can. Furthermore, that cynical, pseudo-sophisticated point of view actually becomes their own means of judging candidates. That, it seems to me, is at least half of what people mean when they talk about “electability.” They are praising a politician—and supporting him—for being able to fool people, as though this were a virtue.

 

PART TWO:

(This explains how Bill Clinton rose in popularity after everyone saw him lying through his teeth in his video testimony. Seeing him engage in sophistries about the meaning of “is”—sophistries whereby he tossed a young lover into the trash with a casualness that would be shocking in a psychopath—millions of ordinary, reasonable people thought, “Wow, I can’t believe he pulled that off—what a guy!”)

When Bachmann talks about the impact of the debt on national security, by way of interest owed to China, the audience goes quiet. When she says 2012 will be America’s last chance to repeal socialized medicine, the audience goes quiet. When she says she is running for President because she sees that the nation is on the brink of collapse, some think she sounds silly. When she says the United States is living in a fantasy of being a wealthy nation, while in fact being broke, listeners stare at their hands. When she says every adult citizen should pay some taxes, some people may cringe a little, thinking, “Oh, she just alienated the 47% who don’t pay taxes.”

Many will regard her as a schoolmarm, a nagging wife, “Nanny Michele.” In the Christian era, the traditional role of women has indeed included the function of settling men down, civilizing them, reminding them of their responsibilities. “Eat your peas” is a mother’s dictum. Men don’t like to be reminded of their souls, which means of their future, but women remind them anyway—and men, along with society as a whole, are better off for it.

Sarah Palin was appealing to many Tea Partiers precisely because of her ability to fight with the boys. She could take as good as she got, and she wouldn’t back down. Michele Bachmann’s is a somewhat different appeal. Attack mode seems unnatural to her. In the stand-up debates, she looked small among all those men, and seemed uncomfortable trading shots. She is in her element when, as in the Thanksgiving Forum, she is pouring water for all the men, and then sitting down to remind them of what they need to be focused on. Like a good wife or mother, she plays the role of conscience very well. In other words, she is the moral advocate at the table, and in your head, who, if you are not already too far gone, keeps you on the righteous path. To state this another way, she embodies the best elements of the Tea Party.

At this moment, which, as Bachmann consistently reminds Americans, may truly be the penultimate moment for their nation, it is not enough to have some pretty good policy ideas, as a few of the candidates do, or to look and sound like a politician (not to say statesman) in a way that appeals to the cynics. One must also know why winning is necessary, and be able to explain it to the voters. What’s more, one must be able to instill in the citizens of a pop culture world a sense, not only of history, but of the faint death-cry of a too long-neglected future. The task is Herculean—perhaps, in fact, too much to hope for from any one man. So how about trying one woman?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43146

 

Oh, no. Quite the contrary, we would LOVE her to be the nominee!

 

To EdieHart: Sure they would!

Face it. Liberals fear Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin because either one could take the spot they have reserved for Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Hussein getting his Socialist butt kicked by a conservative woman.