‘Barack Obama is anti-American’
Well, I mean, you’d have to be, wouldn’t you, running for President of the United States?
This is what Jeff on Curb Your Enthusiasm would call a big bowl of wrong:
Note: I love the fact that the American English equivalent of ‘leftie’ or ‘left-wing’ is ‘leftist’, as that leads to nutters people like Michele Bachmann saying ‘most leftist’. Wonderful.
Oh, and if you think Congresswoman Bachmann sounds like a right wing loony, you’d be right.
Tags: barack obama, chris matthews, hardball, mccarthyism, michele bachmann, msnbc, nutter woman
October 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I was going to go into a massive rant about this woman, if you could her that. I’m seriously wondering if she is in fact human ,and not some GOP robot installed with about 10 phrases, all including the line ‘Liberal Anti-Americans’, she only seems to have one facial expression!!
If anyone from the state of Minnesota gets to see this, please I implore you VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!! Send this thug back to the private sector where she’ll hopefully cause less damage.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I have become increasingly concerned of late that this is becoming a mainstream thought-process for conservatives. Often times, oft-repeated commentary becomes self-fulfilling in terms of internal beliefs. It may well have reached the stage where mainstream US Conservatives view liberal political views as truly being tantamount to being anti-american. In fact, this intellectually bereft charge has become so common of late, one can only reasonably reach one of two conclusions. Scarnario one is that the mainstream politicos on the right (as opposed to a handful of over-charged and misguided supporters) truly believe this and are making an emotional and personal stand on behalf of thier country. Scenario two is this is a purposeful attempt to consistently and patently use a base attack of this sort for political gain a central part of campaign appeal.
With Representative Michelle Bachmann’s recent rant on the Hardball Programme, we have just one more example of this strategy deployed. So which is it – Scenario 1 or 2. Let’s examine the implications of the two.
If Scenario 1 holds true, then the right has transformed their operating opinion of their political counterparts to conflate and equate centre-left politics in the US as anti-american. Presumably this is centred mainly on opposition to components of the war on terror being central to this reached conclusion. If one follows the rightist theory here, toughness, safety, and security should typically trump due-process, protection of speech and rights, and waging aggressive action against enemies is inherently “American”. If this were true, then perhaps Joe McCarthy should honestly be considered a quintessential American Hero. This scenario, whilst laughable to those on the US Left (along with the rest of the industrialised world perhaps save Russia) is actually concerning at a more fundamental policy and governing level. If this is the pervasive thought process amongs governing republicans – then what we likely would see as advocated policy is a continued regression of bedrock principles of freedom as an exchange to support poorly designed aggression against enemies. The problem with this thought process is not only does it directly undermine the very freedom’s it purports to protect, but it follows the horridly narrow thought process that is aligned to resolving conflict with aggression as standard MO. It certainly is a self-fulfilling prophecy that drawing lines in the sand as a usual approach will usually bring conflict. It even causes me to pause and wonder why centuries of diplomatic best-practice by all advanced nations is supposedly now false. Apparently the universally accepted adage that you always talk with your enemies to maintain dialogue and maximise the chances for successful outcomes has suddenly been discovered by the US Right to be false. I probably shouldn’t bother to start quoting the results from the previous nations who’ve dared to foray into this approach. But to a conservative, maintaining dialogue with Iran is a horridly mis-placed idea and even suggesting such is a profound display of weakness. Not only has the Right utilised Senator Obama’s Assertions that we need to engage our enemies diplomatically (particularly Iran) as policy fodder for their attacks, but it also serves as emotional red-meat for the supporters. I won’t go on an on – but in my view, if the republicans really embrace Scenario 1, then I think we can reasonably reach the conclusion that American Foreign Policy conduct in the future could potentially remain as destructively narcissistic as it has been under President Bush. Even Bush, usually stubborn to the end, has been quietly retreating from the majority of these policies over the last year in a quiet and humble admission of their inadaquacy.
Scenario 2 is no more or less likely, but certainly more cynical. Politics and emotion can often get the better of us all to frequently – but it really is unfathomable that the mainstream of the right would continue to open endedly embrace this approach. Stoking fears for base political gain is as old as democracy itself, but making ludicrously indefencible arguments to do so at the mainstream is quite rare. I hate to refer again to our good friend, the late Senator McCarthy, but I must. This is really quite comparable. The two places the comparison weakens though are as follows: 1. Sen McCarthy really believed in his cause and was personally more closely aligned to Scenario 1 even though his supporters mapped to Scenario 2. 2. Despite political benefits from this cynical and pathetic political period, the republicans did not sustain alignment to it. Fast forward to today and I begin to grow quite concerned.
So here’s to triumphant optimism. Let us hope that we as a world (and particularly the US as a nation) rises above this horrid and humiliating political farce. Perhaps, just perhaps, a sweeping victory by Senator Obama will not only go a long way towards doing so – but that in the wake of said potential event – quite a few Rep. Bachmann’s get swept away as well.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
hear, hear! I think an Obama victory won’t just be the usual sort of victory – I do truly think it will mark a sea change. and that means it will, hopefully, take in exactly what you describe, Hans.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
PS this might make you both feel better:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eades/2008/10/dump-michele-bachmann-outrage.php
October 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
You could do a whole blog on this woman.
This particular ditty from Wiki amused me:
Repealing the future ban on incandescent lightbulbs
Bachmann introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, to repeal the nationwide phase-out of conventional light bulbs. She argues that the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy:[58] “By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more,” Bachmann said. “Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content. We are working on a light bulb bill. If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb, don’t trust them with the country.”
She also said, “I was just outraged that Congress would want to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the American people. It struck me as a massive Big Brother intrusion into our homes and our lives
October 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
haha! it sounds like a parody.
what I also love about these anti-big-government Conservatives is that they will do things like that, yet also be perfectly happy to legislate over a) what you do with your body and b) what you get up to in your bedroom.