Bachman continues to hurt the Tea Party's credibility

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






I can’t stand Michele Bachmann. Blunt, yes, but the woman is not what the United States needs in 2012 or, frankly, ever.
I do not like the Tea Party that much, but I respect their origins in trying to stave off the debt crisis. Even though the recent debt ceiling crisis occurred, it wasn’t like they ignored it. Scott Brown—someone the Tea Party endorsed intelligently—is a beacon of light in this current political climate.
Anyway, I bring up Scott Brown just because of how much better he is than Michele Bachmann. She is a joke.
For example, she has repeatedly criticized and lamented the stimulus package, about which Americans are of mixed emotions still. That is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to critique, but you cannot then say that your district needed funds and defend the stimulus.
This flip-flopping, combined with other factors, cost John Kerry the 2006 Presidential Election. Bachmann is just trying to appease every voter possible, which actually might work in an uneducated voting populace.
She won the Ames Straw Poll, which is a big deal, and it also scares me. Luckily, the only individual who has ever won the Presidency after winning the straw poll is George W. Bush.
Nevertheless, another reason I cannot stand Bachmann is that she is against mandatory public service and criticizes AmeriCorps and other government organizations that are service-based.
While I can agree that everyone might not be cut out for AmeriCorps or other groups, telling the Minnesota Independent that they could become “re-education camps” for young people is a joke and just a fear tactic. It’s frustrating.
Another reason I cannot stand her is that she is willing to sacrifice the well-being of the country she wants to be in charge of in order to stick to party lines. In the aforementioned debt ceiling crisis, she repeatedly said that no compromise should be made on what the Republicans want. She advocated default.
Her current political momentum has even been attributed as one of the reasons that Standard and Poor downgraded the US credit rating from the pristine AAA rating. The reasoning is that if the current political climate has potential leaders advocating default, then the future of those bonds is not good.
She countered with her ridiculous plan that had the majority of government funded programs being penniless. Her refusal to work across party lines over something that was of grave importance to the future of this country was just another sign that she is bad news.
To continue this train of thought, her interview on Sunday’s “This Week” just proved her flakiness and ineptitude. She said that Social Security needs to be reformed because you shouldn’t run a program the same way for 80 years.
Now, unless you are very knowledgeable about politics, I wouldn’t expect the everyday American to know that Ronald Reagan actually fixed that program somewhat in 1983… just 28 years ago. However, I do expect and pretty much mandate that the Presidential candidate I vote for HAS to.
Bachman is an uneducated moron who is running off the uber-religious right who want to see the nation return to a more morally-oriented country that is respectable.
As a matter of fact, I would like my leaders and elected officials to have morals and virtues as well, but I am not willing to sacrifice competent leadership for it. How she ever got enough support to win a Congressional seat in Minnesota is beyond me.
I know that you run on party lines to get primary votes, but there are certain things that can’t be erased. When asked how she was going to work with Democrats in the Senate to reassure markets of fiscal stability in this country, she simply said that she wanted to work on getting a filibuster-proof majority of Republicans there.
Yeah, that scares me, and it should scare anyone who actually cares about the U.S. surviving the next few years.
When you support Creation myths being taught as actual science, something is wrong. When you want to dangle nuclear strike capabilities in front of a somewhat hostile nation in Iran as a response, something is wrong. When you support nuclear power, you might actually have an intelligent thought. That is one thing I agree with her on.
However, she’s still a horrible choice and candidate for President. I hope that her campaign dies in the primaries much like her bills routinely die in committee.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email