I’ve been trying to figure out why Michele Bachmann looks familiar to me

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

I’d see pictures of her and there was just something about her that I could swear I’ve seen before. And it’s finally come to me.

I’ve seen a number of productions of “Man of La Mancha” (not counting the ones I’ve actually been in). And one year I saw it at Goodspeed Opera House in Connecticut. And there’s a line in the show where Cervantes describes his knight as a man with “eyes that burn with the fire of inner vision.” Then when the actor “became” Quixote and began to sing, “I, Don Quixote,” for the first and only time in all the times I’ve seen the show, he did exactly that. He did SOMEthing with his eyes and suddenly there was just this burning intensity in his eyes, the flame of the zealot, the fire of inner vision. And it was incredibly scary (I even heard someone near me mutter, “Whoa”) because in a way that was never done in previous productions, it was driven home to you that this guy was nuts. Just stark-staring bonkers.

That’s why Bachmann looks familiar to me. Hers are eyes that burn with the fire of inner vision, just like that day at Goodspeed when the audience and I were in the presence of a madman, a fanatic, a zealot believing that God has sent him on a quest.

The only difference is, he was acting.

PAD

103 comments on “I’ve been trying to figure out why Michele Bachmann looks familiar to me”

  1. If indeed the eyes are the windows of the soul, this woman scares the absolute crap out of me. Not in a Sarah Palin, ‘I’ll act folksy so people don’t realize I’m a functional moron’ way. It’s the ‘God is on my side, thus allowing me to do anything I want’ way, which is much scarier. With Bachmann, there is a also a certain quality of Disney animated villainess about her her too, where on the one hand she may appear innocent and slightly goofy, but deep down, there is a tiny core of evil there. And like you pointed out Peter, it all comes out in the eyes.

  2. Hey look. Another senseless thread that insults Republicans. At least this one is a little break from the monotony of the ENDLESS attacks on Sarah Palin.
    .
    Yawn.
    .
    Do liberals have any IDEAS anymore? Or has the party of the people become the party of 2nd grade people?

    1. I didn’t see “attacking Republicans.” I saw “being creeped the hëll out by Michelle Bachmann.”

      Which, how can you seriously defend that woman? I know Republicans who think she’s insane.

    2. Hey look. Another senseless thread that insults Republicans.
      .
      Nah, this is just insulting MIchelle Bachman.
      .
      If he wanted to insult Republicans, he’d say something about “You really need some Quality Control here.”
      .
      This is a pretty sloppy argument. I expect better.

    3. I say that one Republican creeps me out and that’s an insult to Republicans? What are you guys, the Borg?
      .
      As for ideas, well, I recently mentioned what I think is the best idea in a while: Obama invoking the 14th Amendment in order to bypass the Tea Party. I like that one.
      .
      PAD

      1. WE ARE THE GOP, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. WE WILL ADD YOUR IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN.

      2. I don’t understand the 14th amendment argument. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.” As Ann Althouse has pointed out. No one is talking about questioning the validity of the debt! When you fail to pay debts, you’re not claiming they aren’t valid…Why would that inapt clause take precedence over the specific and clear clause in Article I, listing among Congress’s powers the power “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States”?

      3. What are you guys, the Borg?
        .
        Looks like Tim is simply taking Boehner’s “get your áššëš in line” advice to heart.

      4. Bill, the basic argument appears to be that the Legislative (Congress) has given the Executive directives to do certain things, as laid out in the budget, but is now denying them the resources to do those things via the default. The idea would appear to be that the President, as head of the Executive, would announce that he has been given two incompatible directives, and he is therefore going to obey the earlier one (the budget) and ignore the later one (the debt ceiling).
        .
        Personally, I think the argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Congress from giving the Executive authority to declare war back in ’02…

      5. Bill: the argument is based on the fact that not raising the debt ceiling would force default on bonds and other debts already in place.
        .
        From Wikipedia:

        Validity of public debt
        .
        Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, several English and French banks had lent money to the South during the war.[48] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”[49] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the president unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[50] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a “dire financial emergency” could the President raise the debt ceiling as “there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]”. [51] The issue of the 14th Amendment and the debt ceiling has been categorized as an unsettled question in the legal community.[52]

        Personally, i’d love to see the White House invoke it, and then see who would be willing to stand up in front of the Supreme Court, as a matter of public record, and argue against it.
        .
        (I think i remembered to close the HTML tags this time…)

      6. Imagine the howls if Bush, in the face of those Democratic Senators like Obama who were against raising the debt ceiling when he was president, had adopted such a questionable tactic.
        .
        It’s one reason why so much of this seems like a kabuki drama rather than a real debate. Of the last 10 votes on the debt ceiling reid, the majority leader, voted yes when a democrat was president and no when a republican was president. I’m sure there are republicans who have a similar record of debt ceiling partisanship. But these clowns can talk about the dire consequences if their way does not win and do it with a straight face. Amazing.

    4. Uhhh . . . rriiiiiight.
      .
      Well, I’ve got plenty of ideas for bettering this country. But I’m sure you won’t like any of them. They involve trying and hanging war criminals, traitors, and threats to our national security.
      .
      Care to guess who’s on that list?

      1. Just to be clear in case you have trouble reading timestamp my joke came after Jay’s, “Uhhhh right.”

      3. Nice…..Calling for the deaths of former presidents. You two peace loving libs are the epitome of hypocrisy. Just imagine if one was to make that statement about the current POTUS man the šhìŧ would fly…
        .
        Stay classey

      4. Technically it’s only one president, and furthermore Mike was simply suggesting that Bush, Cheney et al be treated like war criminals for various crimes including falsifying evidence that drove this country to unnecessary war and cost the lives of thousands of people. If you want to argue that they’re above the law, well, my understanding is that their own lawyers and Cheney would likely agree.
        .
        PAD

      5. Presto chango redirect the issue.
        .
        Its funny how you can take:
        .
        “They involve trying and hanging war criminals, traitors, and threats to our national security.”
        .
        and come up with:
        .
        “Technically it’s only one president, and furthermore Mike was simply suggesting that Bush, Cheney et al be treated like war criminals for various crimes including falsifying evidence that drove this country to unnecessary war and cost the lives of thousands of people. If you want to argue that they’re above the law, well, my understanding is that their own lawyers and Cheney would likely agree.”
        .
        Like I said, stay classey

      6. Well, I think “hanging” is too much, but I’d love to see Bush and his bunch having to explain on trial exactly how and why they destroyed a lot of lives and wasted a lot of money on a fabricated, unnecessary war.
        .
        A war that was even dumber and less necessary than Vietnam. At least in Vietnam you could make a case for fighting communist influence instead of moving against the guy that served as counterbalance to Fundamentalist Iran, just on account of daddy issues and oil.

      7. I would also like to see that happen but for completely different reasons. It would show that the intell was flawed, not fabricated or made-up and, in my opinion, just how stupid the “for the oil” cry really is but it will never ever happen. I know that is completely counter to pretty much all opinions here and it in itself is a different argument.

    5. Gee PAD suddenly represents EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT? Way to grab power Peter!

      As far as the 2nd grade mentallity, it still beats the Repudlicker’s Kindergarten “It’s my way or the highway” garbage…

      1. Well, that makes sense. I mean, Bachman’s representing EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN here, clearly.

    6. Tim, unless you’re suggesting that Bachmann is typical of your average baseline Republican, you’re protesting too much.

      1. Glad to see character assassination and smears aren’t limited to one high-profile Republican woman.
        .
        Really, it seems ANYONE who simply says they use their faith to “help guide them” is instantly branded a zealot and “insane” and about to turn the country into a theocracy.
        .
        It’s not as if they said they would NOT consult experts, other members of their Administration, military commanders, etc.
        .
        But the very thought that some candidates dare say their faith plays an important part of their lives has the Bill Mahers of the world bashing them.
        .
        Meanwhile, the same people seek to understand and find moral equivalence in true Islamic zealots who, if they are able, will kill infidels in the name of their god. To be fair, Maher is one of the few people, period, who point out this contradictory lunacy.

      2. There is faith, and then there is zealotry. The problem is that a good amount of political faithful aren’t merely content with having their beliefs “help guide them”, they insist on forcibly guiding everyone else according to those beliefs (usually because their faith isn’t being used as a guide, but rather as blinders offering easy surety).

      3. When was the last time I tried to understand and find moral equivalence in Islamic zealots? I hate them and consider their anti-modern ideals abhorent. I argued over it many times with El Hombre Malo, who constantly tries to see their side of things in this site.
        .
        I hate it when a portion of the Left wants to turn a blind eye on the way Islam treats women, out of political correctiness. I never had any patience with this šhìŧ. And I have the same lack of patience with anti-gay Christian zealots.
        .
        I think I am pretty darn consistent. I don’t like religious zealots of any stripe: Islamist, Christian, Jew. I am a self-confessed Secular Humanist. I’d love to see a more muscular Secular Humanism played against both Radical Islam and Radical Christianity.

      4. I figured Jerome and Jay would defend this nutter since she’s a member of their team, no matter how insane she is.

      5. Really, it seems ANYONE who simply says they use their faith to “help guide them” is instantly branded a zealot and “insane” and about to turn the country into a theocracy.
        .
        “Anyone.” Really. Because a considerable number of GOP candidates have invoked God and their faith. I’ve only labeled two as zealots: George W. after he described himself as embarking on a crusade because God told him to, and Bachman.
        .
        Get that chip off your shoulder, Jerome, and face the truth: It’s possible to criticize one person without it being a blanket condemnation of everyone.
        .
        PAD

      6. Glad to see character assassination and smears aren’t limited to one high-profile Republican woman.
        .
        You mean like during the run up to the last presidential election and calling one candidate a terrorist, saying he wasn’t born in the US, and claiming he’ll bring Islamic rule to America? Not to mention, turning ‘community organizer’ into another evil buzzword/phrase… because helping out in the community is obviously wrong!
        .
        And what does it say of the GOP field so far when the Mormon looks like the most rational one?

      7. Neil C.,
        Believe it or not, I defend Bachmann because I find it absurd to call someone insane simply because you disagree with them.
        .
        And PAD, I was not targeting you with my comment earlier, but a large number of people I have talked to and heard from on the Left in general and see posting here.

      8. Jerome, I disagree with lots of people, but even you have to admit she has the crazy eyes, kind of like the Runaway Bride from a few years ago. Her beliefs only add to the who package. I disagree with Mitt Romney, but wouldn’t call him crazy.

      9. Believe it or not, I defend Bachmann because I find it absurd to call someone insane simply because you disagree with them.
        .
        Try and see things without the filter of your biases, Jerome.
        .
        People aren’t opining that she’s insane because they disagree with her. No one’s saying that about Mitt Romney. They’re not even saying it about Sarah Palin.
        .
        But Bachmann…she’s got helter-skelter eyes. She has the eyes of a zealot, and zealots are generally not someone you want to put into highest office in the land. You’re trying to transform this over into a territory that you’re more comfortable with, such as attributing it to GOP smears or making it about that she’s a woman. All the Fox talking points that are much more in your comfort zone. Unfortunately for you, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with that when I look at her eyes, I see that same demented fervor as conveyed by an actor playing the most famous lunatic in literature. And the thought of her tilting with windmills while having the nuclear launch codes at her disposal is a truly chilling one.
        .
        PAD

  3. You know, if I start reading a thread in which I’m not interested, I find that little red ‘close’ button in the top right hand corner of my computer is actually quite useful. That being said, if I pop back here tomorrow, I fully expect to find a number of posts from the two people that have already complained about this thread’s uselessness.

  4. If found out that all this type it was Michelle Bachman in the Burger King suit– I’d think she was only doing it to appear less creepy.

  5. Funny, she reminds me of Charlie Manson. When she talks, all I ever hear is “helter skelter!”

  6. Hi, completely OT I know but I thought others would be interested to know… I see that Mac Calhoun (alternate reality version) will feature Star Trek: Rise Like Lions by David Mack.

    does this raise the possibility that you may not be the last person to write Calhoun in star trek books?

    How did you feel about them using the character for the book?

    1. I’m okay with it. Dave cleared the use with me and consulted with me every step of the way, which he didn’t really have to do.
      .
      PAD

      1. Still no word from Pocket on continuing New Frontier, I take it? I imagine you would have mentioned if there had been, but you know us crazy fans, can’t just wait, gotta keep pestering . . . .

  7. Bachmann doesn’t scare me as much as the large numbers of Republicans who support her.

    New ideas? How are always lower taxes, stop regulation and end social programs new ideas?

    1. edhopper, anything can be considered a new idea, it’s all in the delivery.

  8. What I found far more disturbing was how many people were not only willing, but eager to overlook Obama’s tissue-thin resume’ and history of seriously questionable associations and vote for him because, as Joe Biden put it, he was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
    .
    Compared to that, someone has “crazy eyes?” I think I can live with that.
    .
    Plus, Bachmann (One “L,” two “N’s” — I kept messing it up, and forced myself to remember it that way) has one credential going for her that I like: she drives all the proper people nuts.
    .
    J.

    1. Questionable associations? Such as Bachmann and her church that thinks the Pope is the Antichrist, or her loony doctor that cures gay people?

      1. Rene, I’ll take those over convicted felon Tony Rezko, race-baiting hate-monger Jeremiah Wright, and domestic terrorist William Ayers.
        .
        And thanks to the separation of church and state, I don’t recall the last time a president had a great deal to do with a religious cause.
        .
        Wait, I forgot about Janet Reno’s little barbecue down in Waco.
        .
        J.

      2. Craig, I once heard a Navy guy say something seriously profound:
        .
        Any ship can be a minesweeper… once.
        .
        If Bachmann’s sole purpose is to draw out the rabid attack dogs on the left, bringing them into the public eye and revealing their tactics and the depths they’ll go to in smearing and lying about those they oppose, then she’ll have served an incredibly valuable purpose… and she not ever receive a single vote for president.
        .
        Right now, she’s making a hëll of a minesweeper. And I appreciate that.
        .
        J.

      3. Rene, I’ll take those over convicted felon Tony Rezko, race-baiting hate-monger Jeremiah Wright, and domestic terrorist William Ayers.

        These are all bullcrap associations.

        In particular, calling Jeremiah Wright a racist hate monger is ignorant and ill-informed.

    2. she drives all the proper people nuts.
      .
      So you’ll support and vote for somebody who’s insane because the rest of us recognize that she’s insane?
      .
      I guess that says about all we need to know about Jay Tea.

      1. No, Craig, I didn’t say I’d vote for her. I didn’t even say I’d support her. I just said it’s a factor in her favor.
        .
        Hëll, Obama had a few factors in his favor with me back in 2008. At one point, he was in my second tier of likely candidates — and as a New Hampshire voter, my vote tends to have a lot more options than others, as we have the first primary. I ended up not voting for him either in the primary or the general, but I did put him down as a “maybe” at one point.
        .
        J.

      2. Well, in the end, I don’t think there’s any point in even considering that a ‘quality’. At this point, any candidate drives the other side nuts.
        .
        On the other hand, having a husband who thinks he can ‘cure’ gays, claiming that God speaks to you, and outright ignoring any mistake you make*… those are all qualities I’m not wanting in a candidate of any party.
        .
        *Where as another well known individual simply shifts blame to the media… another unwanted quality.

      3. Yeah, Roger, those are bullcrap associations. Why the hëll did Obama associate with them so strongly for so long?
        .
        J.

      4. Jay, I expect better from you than such ill researched, uninformed arguments.
        .
        You’re just throwing up things to piss people off. Well you are, but it’s because you’re being lazy. And that insults me, personally. I and other people deserve a better argument.

    3. It’s tempting to have that be a major reason to vote–watching Chris Matthews’ head explode and all those folks who threatened to move to Canada now come up with reasons they are not, in fact, moving to Canada would be several weeks of entertainment–but since there is still at least a chance to put off Impending Doom we still should elect people based on their ability to get things done. Sadly, I don’t really see too many that fill me with hope on that front. One or two more duds in the oval office and it will be time to spin the wheel, embrace the horror, and let the chips fall where they may. But not yet.
      .
      But yeah, Bachmann, like Palin before her, serves a purpose–makes some on the other side ditch many of their ideals in the effort to stop her By Any Means Necessary. hey kids! Bullied because you do not fit some arbitrary standard of masculinity? It gets better! Well, that is, unless you marry some politician we don’t like, then you’d better not be a lisping nancy boy because then you’re fair game, you big sissy.

      1. So, Roger, Tony Rezko didn’t help Obama finance his campaigns and buy his house? Ayers didn’t work for years alongside Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, didn’t host (along with his fellow terrorist wife) Obama’s political “coming out” party at their home? That together, Obama and Wright didn’t spend millions of dollars to achieve exactly nothing in improving Chicago’s schools? That Obama didn’t spend 20 years in Wright’s church, get married by the guy, have his daughters baptized by the guy, use a quote by him for a book title, but never noted the guy was a raving loon?
        .
        It’s not that I didn’t do my homework, I just didn’t show it at first. But it’s there. “All part of the service.”
        .
        If you’re willing to look.
        .
        Compared to that, Bachmann’s church? As I said, there are plenty of safeguards to make certain we won’t end up with a theocracy. The left really, really needs to find a new boogeyman threat to toss at conservatives who actually take their religious faith seriously.
        .
        J.

      2. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a “sissy.” Now, being a dangerous charlatan is another matter.

      3. Only because Bachmann can’t make the US a theocracy doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of damage she can inflict. I look at Western culture in the 2000s, and I see religious zealots more in the mainstream than at any other period in my lifetime. And I don’t like it one bit.
        .
        Americans are more prudish and anti-science now than they were 10 years ago. Creationism, the Rapture nonsense, abstinence-only education, the whole demonization of “promiscuity” and pre-marital sex. A lot of it because the Bush people empowered and emboldened the Christian zealots for rather cynical reasons.
        .
        And I see Christian hysteria spreading to Europe and Latin America, and I worry even more. 4 years of Bachmann would be worse than 8 years of Bush. Bachmann seems more of a true believer.
        .
        I think the Libertarian portion of the GOP politicians and supporters is making a big mistake in tolerating these people and trusting in other institutions to keep them in check.

      4. Bullied because you do not fit some arbitrary standard of masculinity? It gets better! Well, that is, unless you marry some politician we don’t like, then you’d better not be a lisping nancy boy because then you’re fair game, you big sissy.

        Um, the “It gets better” campaign is about outreaching to LGB kids and letting them no it’ll be OK. The reason Mr. Bachmann is getting flak isn’t because he’s effete, it’s because he and his wife have defined themselves as virulently anti-gay. It may not be fair, but Bachmann knows that: After all, she herself attacked Michele Obama for trifles as well.

      5. Compared to that, Bachmann’s church? As I said, there are plenty of safeguards to make certain we won’t end up with a theocracy. The left really, really needs to find a new boogeyman threat to toss at conservatives who actually take their religious faith seriously.

        Safeguards only work if people make sure that they’re not ignored or overturned. (For instance, we once had plenty of safeguards to ensure that the financial crash of ’08 didn’t happen.)

        There’s a difference between taking your faith seriously and being compelled to dramatically and forcefully impose your faith on others.

      6. The reason Mr. Bachmann is getting flak isn’t because he’s effete, it’s because he and his wife have defined themselves as virulently anti-gay. It may not be fair, but Bachmann knows that: After all, she herself attacked Michele Obama for trifles as well
        .
        When people are supposed to know better attack their enemies using the “they must be gay!” attack they are perpetuating the idea that there is something wrong with being gay. For all I know Mr. Bachmann is so far in the closet he can see Narnia. That will and should have 0.0% importance. yeah, there is some satisfaction in seeing someone dragged kicking and screang out in the open when A-you don’t like them and B-it over something they are really hung up about but given the harm that comes from once again seeing somebody’s homosexuality used to humiliate and shame them I think it’s a bad move.

      7. For all I know Mr. Bachmann is so far in the closet he can see Narnia.
        .
        The award for “Least Shocking Scandal” will be the day that Bachmann is found in a stall at Grand Central Station bouncing a cabana boy on his knee.
        .
        PAD

      8. You’ve got a point there, Bill.
        .
        The implication that being gay is wrong, or at least funny, is clear in some criticism of this kind of stuff.
        .
        So I won’t make fun of him. But if he is in fact having gáÿ šëx and preaching against it, then he deserves to be scorned for his hypocrisy.
        .
        But if he is gay but abstaining from sex with men, then he has my pity. Most people are unfortunately too unimaginative with their empathy. If you are exclusively straight, then just imagine how painful it would be for you to be forced into a romantic and sexual relationship with a person of your own gender, on account of social and religious pressures.
        .
        (And I would not care the least about his sexual orientation if he had not joined the anti-gay crusade)

      9. Being gay isn’t wrong.
        .
        Being in the closet while running on the anti-gay campaign? That would make Marcus Bachmann almost typical of his ilk.
        .
        But what he does with his ‘clinic’, regardless of his own sexuality? That is outright dangerous.

    4. What I found far more disturbing was how many people were not only willing, but eager to overlook Obama’s tissue-thin resume’ and history of seriously questionable associations and vote for him because, as Joe Biden put it, he was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

      Obama had a decent resume, but what sold me on him was that he seemed to possess better judgement than anyone we’ve had in awhile. (Case in point: Cheney had decades of experience, but I wouldn’t trust him with a game of Risk.) His associations were generally not nearly as tight as has been made out and were about par with your average national politician. Although the fact he was black probably didn’t hurt, I suspect most people voted for him because, besides being a good choice, he was infinitely preferable to the alternative.

  9. I find Bachmann strangely attractive in a mature lady supervillain kind of way. And now I feel like someone who finds sheep and goats attractive.
    .
    But the prospect of her becoming POTUS scares the šhìŧ out of me. Sometimes I think it would be almost worth it, to have a crazy teabagger in the White House just to show everybody how bad it would be (and hey, a hardline tricke-down GOP candidate could make the economy so disastrous that it could foment the rise of REAL disgruntled socialists in the US, wouldn’t that be funny).
    .
    But… it wouldn’t work. I’ve fond that most people have their ideas so entrenched, that they will ALWAYS find a way to blame the other guys. If Bachmann destroys the economy, Conservatives would say it’s because she wasn’t free-market enough, or something (and I don’t think the radical Left is that much better, with their equally fanatical devotion to big gov).
    .
    I just hope that the lady with the titanium spine and the direct connetion to God never becomes POTUS.

  10. What I find interesting is the contrast between Romney and Bachmann. By all accounts, Romney is the more level-headed, experienced, centrist, mainstream Republican candidate who right now seems like the Republican nominee. He’s also flip-flopped on just about every position he’s held in order to gain popularity with the Republican base. Bachmann is very willing to say what she believes, even if it’s unpopular — but what she believes often seems unsupported by facts (such as being fine with the U.S. going into default) and ignores what most Americans believe or support.

    So, which is better (and worse): The dishonest man who’s centrist and reasonable, or the honest woman who’s extreme and unreasonable? As Tom Petty once sang, I can’t decide which is worse.

    (BTW, I’m not so sure Bachmann is quite the true believer she says she is. Several of the government programs she’s for cutting or eliminating are programs she benefitted from before. And she’s the anti-government politician who has always been part of the government, working for the I.R.S. before going into politics. The big government she rails against has been signing her paychecks for a long time now.)

  11. The real take-home message here:
    .
    When on a mission from God, Jake & Elwood had it right – wear dark glasses at all times.

  12. Wow, you’re right. That lady creeps me out; I recognized the unsettled-for-an-uncertain-reason feeling you experienced when looking at her, because I feel it too. And I’m normally pretty conservative.

  13. Meme I’ve been propagating; Michelle Bachmann (R-Arkham Asylum).

    ‘Cause I strongly suspect that should she somehow manage to get elected President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff would make an informal agreement that she never get access to the real codes to activate the nuclear football.

  14. Without reading the rest of the thread as yet … very nice, sir. Me likey.
    .
    I’ve been thinking for a while that she’s got Joel Grey eyes — the sort of eyes where, no matter how calm she appears to be on the outside, you can see that somewhere inside the eyes is something flashing “bûgfûçk!” in semaphore code. But I think yours is better.

  15. I could not agree more. I had a conversation a few weeks ago with a quite liberal friend. He told me “All politics aside, I think both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are quite beautiful women”. I replied, “I agree with you about Sarah Palin, she’s a very attractive woman, but Michele Bachmann looks batshit crazy. Look at her eyes.”

      3. Because, of course, the Democrat Party has never produced a sane, rational and healthy candidate.

  17. I will say one good thing about Michele Bachmann. I bet she has more balls than Obama.

  18. The thing that gets me about atheists and other “separation of church and state” fanatics is their profound level of intolerance. These folks seem to want to be able to walk down any street in America and not see a church or any evidence that someone might be of faith. I see a lot of these kind of folks here.

    1. We’re busted now! You saw through our sinister plan to burn down every church in America and replace them with movie theathers playing gay pørņ 24 hours a day.

      2. It will be 50% mosques and 50% gay theathers. And maybe a few Communist Party Headquarters. At least one per ciy.

    2. Do you ever pull your head out of your ášš?

      We want no religion in the government or laws. we want churches to pay taxes.

      We don’t care if there is a church on a particular street or not.

      I’ve never heard anyone at an atheist meeting want to get rid of all churches from all places.

      Typical Darin dumb-ášš posting…

      1. .
        Well, yeah… Darin is the troll who admitted on this very site that he posts the idiotic garbage just to see people react to it. You react to it. Why is he going to stop putting the hook in the water if the fish aren’t smart enough to stop biting?

      2. Because, you don’t refute these idiots and they start to gain legitimacy in the eyes of those foolish enough to day “Well, no one is saying he’s wrong, so he must be right.”

      3. .
        Or, as he’s done when everyone stopped playing with him the last few times, he goes away and waits until he thinks he’s been forgotten or that someone who wasn’t here the last time will be here and that they’ll bite on his hook.
        .
        But, hey, my history with idiots like him isn’t spotless, so if you want to continue being the fish he happily reels in… Feel free.

  20. I am from Minnesota and am stunned that there are people here who voted her into her position. Here we have heard and seen, more than the rest of the nation, all aspects of her crazy talk. We have her and Pawlenty from our state and she makes Pawlenty look like Presidential material, which is not a good thing. If the GOP wants to lose the election, please make her the Presidential canidate.

    1. Peter’s assessment can’t be validated by anything, just as assuredly as the Huffington Post can’t be utilized to validate anything having to do with reality. The fact that they put the word “rage” on the cover is a legitimate gripe. Evidently, Newsweek once again feels that this was no time for journalistic integrity.

    2. I can’t say I’d use rage to describe her in that photo. More like OMGWTFBBQ.
      .
      And now it sounds like Perry is going to run. Great. Just what this country needs, the worst of W and Bachmann in one.

      1. I don’t think the word “rage” is intended to describe her. The subheading makes it clear: those who are filled WITH rage (as apt a description of the Tea Party as I’ve ever seen) consider her their queen. At least that’s how I read it. She certainly doesn’t have an angry expression. She has instead the exact look in her eyes as I described: the fire of inner vision. The zealot. The windows to a soul, and that’s a window view that I personally don’t want because that looks to be a scary place.
        .
        And now it sounds like Perry is going to run
        .
        Perry the Platypus is running for president? Who’s in opposition? Doctor Doofenshmirtz? (Although personally if they came out with t-shirts that said, “Vote Perry” and it had Perry the Platypus on it, I’d buy that. I can even see the slogan: “He’s a platypus. He doesn’t do much. Neither does Congress. He’s perfect.”
        .
        PAD

      2. Ok, the tagline angle I get now.
        .
        I’ve seen the look of zealotry in other photos, but I guess I’m just not getting it in this one – a photo which imo Newsweek had to look high and low to find, because to me it’s just such a bizarre expression.
        .
        With this one, I get more of a deer in headlights vibe, although that’s not really accurate either. It’s *worse* than that, but I just can’t think of the right words/phrase that will really express it accurately. It’s more like she’s a zombie or brain-dead or something.

    3. Oh yeah, the Left ain’t gonna like Perry on general principle. I don’t think he’s going to even bother trying to get their approval. Which would be refreshing.

  24. Apologies in advance to Berke Breathed and Opus)

    Let’s all learn a new word, okay?
    .
    It’s “Dominionism“.
    .
    Can you say that?
    .
    (Yeah – i can say that – “Batshit Crazy”)
    .
    Sure – I knew you could…
    .

    For believers in Dominionism, rule by non-Christians is a sort of sacrilege—which explains, in part, the theological fury that has accompanied the election of our last two Democratic presidents. “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness,” wrote George Grant, the former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, which has since changed its name to Truth in Action Ministries. “But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice … It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time … World conquest.”

    1. If Muslims want to conquer the world, it’s bad for everybody. But if Christians want to do it…
      .
      I’d never heard of this term before now. But then, I didn’t really need to: I knew these two, with their in-depth mixing of prayer and politics, were nuts.

Comments are closed.