TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622

The above link is to a story in Rolling Stone Magazine, and is authored by Matt Taibbi. He takes somewhat of
a scolding tone about her life story and political ambitions, but reading this piece would be helpful to understand
her in more detail than can be found in a sound bite on the news.

Although not covered in this article, she has been documented to play fast and loose with the facts, and will
not concede that she's wrong.

Her family emigrated to this country from <Sweden, Norway, somewhere around there> and most of their initial
American homes and formative experiences took place in Wisconsin and South Dakota. It's true that Bachman
lived in Iowa from about birth to age 12, but since she wants to impress Iowa voters, she has claimed that a lot
of her family's story actually occurred in Iowa.

Her website used to have a list of "must read" books. One of them was a biography of Robert E. Lee, author I can't
remember. This man's book stated that since slaveholders and slaves both shared Christianity, that they had a nice
family relationship going on. Then those Godless Yankees broke up their cozy family life.

Although she rails against those who rely on government largesse, she and her family have probably made a majority
of their income from state and federal sources. She worked for the IRS for 4 years. She's been a state legislator and
now is a US rep. Her husband's family has received large amounts of federal checks for their Wisconsin farm. Her husband
runs a counselling clinic which receives money from federal programs. By the way, he tries to "pray out" the gay from
gay patients.

She doesn't have much of a track record as far as getting any legislation passed.

She took money from the State of Minnesota to start a charter school. Since it was "state money", she was supposed to
keep the school secular. Instead her school started teaching creationism, and didn't allow the kids to see the movie
"Aladdin" since it had magic in it. The State of Minnesota confronted her about the religious school she was running
with state money.

She considers that the Bible is the true guiding document of the land, and that the Constitution may be ignored when
she considers it to be out of sync with the Bible.

Someone on another forum mentioned about Bachman being a "squirrel". I heartily agree. The more I hear about her,
the more fringe she appears.

I know she appeals to some folks out there since they see her as a Tea Party patriot, but when you look under the hood,
things aren't so appealing.

SIA

Well, for one thing, you shouldn't take your news from Rolling Stone. If the politician is not a pretty liberal democrat, Rolling Stone will assassinate their character. These are the same people who told a pack of lies about the "Haditha Marines." Rolling Stone has the integrity and journalistic objectivity of a gnat. They aren't going to report favorably on anybody who is remotely conservative.

I'm not a Michelle Bachman fan. I just watched the debate tonight, and I haven't made up my mind yet about any of the republican candidates, Rick Perry included. But I'm just not going to pay 2 seconds of attention to anything Rolling Stone says about any of them, because Rolling Stone is just another channel in the leftist 527 media.

TAM:

"527 media" - Define please.

I might have understood "420 media". :-)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... ntPage=all

The above link is a 10 page article (you can set it to "single page view" for easier reading) from The New Yorker.
It's by a different author, Ryan Lizza, than the Rolling Stone article.

Maybe you don't like either of the articles for which I have posted links, but both give a wealth of detail on
her background and thought processes. The New Yorker piece details her Christian heros, and some of the
controversial opinions they hold.

If she ever got the Republican nomination, I think she'd commit some major gaffe during the election process, IMHO.

Christian belief is a great force, but I believe that she would set up the US as more of a theocracy than a republic.

SIA

I didnt watch the debate, but I read the captions afterwards. Bachman seems like another Palin to me... Ugh. Im sorry y'all, I could never have supported Palin because she was as far right wing as Hillary is left. Romney... im not real sure about. Perry... also not real sure about. I need to research these folks this weekend so I know what Im getting in to.

Ron Paul racked me up as always. That guy is awesome, but I could never taake him serious as a politician. Wow. At least he is entertaining.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Well, for one thing, you shouldn't take your news from Rolling Stone.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

I'm not thrilled about Bachmann from an experience standpoint. Romney is a dyed in the wool lightweight liberal, especially when it comes to things like guns, healthcare and the reported recommendation he made to S&P about the need to raise taxes in regard to the credit rating. He is a non-starter in my book. Out of the current choices, Perry is probably my favorite though I know many here do not like him. I am afraid he will turn out to be a bit like President Bush 43 but I think he is the best choice right now.

But the bottomline is, Rolling Stone is garbage and The New Yorker isn't much better.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:TAM:

"527 media" - Define please.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization
A 527 corporation is a not-for-profit PAC which exists exclusively for the purpose of influencing elections in favor of one particular party or candidate. When reporting on politicians and/or candidates, Rolling Stone acts as a 527 organization because they promote the left and disparage the right at no charge. In other words, their "reporting" is really just unpaid political advertising.

BTW, they are not alone in this. Most of the legacy media is complicit. The NYT is another example.....not to mention The New Yorker.

Can you imagine either of those three publications giving equal time to Obama's commitment to Saul Alinsky's philosophy of subversion, or the "Reverend" Wright's racist rants? No, you can't, because in 2008 when these things should have been given attention equal to that which they now heap on Bachman.....not to mention his relative inexperience at the time....they completely ignored them.

Does that explain it adequately?

And here is what a prominent democrat had to say fairly recently about the election of Obama (which is also my latest signature line):

Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president.

—Drew Westen, prof. of psychology, specialist in political messaging (and a democrat), Emory University

Notice that in hindsight and 3 years into Obama's presidency, a prominent Obama supporter who specializes in political messaging can still only muster weak acknowledgement of Obama's lack of pre-presidential experience, but can't even bring himself to mention that Obama followed a political mentor who was dedicated to the overthrow of our government and economy, or that he worshipped for 20 years under the spiritual mentoring of an undeniable racist and America hater.

That is the political, moral, and spiritual center from which the 527 media springs.

For the sake of balance, here is another view:

http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/08/12/digest/

On the Campaign Trail: Newsweek's Bachmann Cover
Childish, mean-spirited ridicule from the Left is often a rite of passage for popular conservative figures in the country, and this week Michele Bachmann came of age. Newsweek published a cover photo of the Minnesota congresswoman and presidential candidate that unflatteringly portrays as her as a wild-eyed "Queen of Rage." It's just the latest in a series of attempted slams at the increasingly popular Bachmann, who has gained a strong following among conservatives. That's why reports have poured out of the media about migraines, slanderous speculation about her husband's sexuality, and of course her strong ties to the Tea Party, which leftists now deride as economic "terrorists."

Bachmann had no comment about the matter, but, surprisingly, even the National Organization for Women spoke out on her behalf. NOW has long been nothing more than a tool of the Left -- siding with Hillary Clinton during her media grilling, but not Sarah Palin; remaining silent about Bill Clinton's skirt-chasing antics in Arkansas and the White House, but pouncing on every irresponsible Republican they could find. This week, though, NOW President Terry O'Neill broke that double standard, stating that Bachmann "is a serious viable candidate for the United States presidency and there is no male viable candidate who has ever been treated this way." O'Neill's statement may have been anti-Newsweek, but it was not pro-Bachmann -- she noted more than once that she wants to defeat Bachmann.

Add Newsweek to the kind of crapulent reportage from the legacy media. Nice of NOW to raise a red flag, but Terry O'Neill's statement about male versus female candidates isn't true. Anybody remember the photos that Atlantic Monthly photographer Jill Greenberg published of John McCain during the 2008 election cycle? (EXAMPLE HERE)

If you're going to try and learn about conservative candidates, at least balance your sources so that you'll get a less biased picture of the person.

I'm just sayin'....

Bachman's negatives are not completely woven out of whole cloth by the evil leftist media.

Her own quotes, gaffes, ignorance about history, and stated philosophies are her problem.

Just as those who voted for Obama projected all their hopes upon him, certain citizens project upon Bachman their
hopes for what she would do.

Obama's style is to let the Congress fight it out, without providing much direction.

All other issues aside, Bachman would appear to be in Obama's mold - lots of charisma and applause points for her base,
but effective legislating/governing would not necessarily be part of the outcome.

SIA

The Annoyed Man wrote:For the sake of balance, here is another view:

Anybody remember the photos that Atlantic Monthly photographer Jill Greenberg published of John McCain during the 2008 election cycle? (EXAMPLE HERE)

That's some picture...
Caption for that picture: "They went up -- through the nose!"

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Bachman's negatives are not completely woven out of whole cloth by the evil leftist media.

Her own quotes, gaffes, ignorance about history, and stated philosophies are her problem.

Like I said, I'm not a Bachman fan. But you can't offer Rolling Stone and New Yorker articles as a balanced view of her. I'm just trying to be impartial here. I'm not sure that you are making that distinction.

All politicians make gaffs. It's part of the territory that comes with opening one's mouth (although I disavow all of my own). Even the ever elegantly speaking Obama claimed to have visited all 57 states. Name a president from the mid 20th century on who never made a gaff. Well, maybe Reagan didn't; but he wasn't called "the Great Communicator" for nothing.....

I have no problem with a candidate's religion, even those with whom I am in fairly strong theological disagreement—Mitt Romney or Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., for instance. It's a free country. Even presidential candidates have a 1st Amendment right to practice their religion. If you're going to disqualify a person in your mind because they have a religious belief, then you would have disqualified the vast majority of American presidents, including Ronald Reagan. There is no room for religious bigotry of any kind in presidential politics. Therefore, yes, the "evil leftist media" has ginned up a phony issue over Backman's particular religious expression. But that is not surprising. The "evil leftist media" hates conservative Christians with a passion, and does all it can to marginalize and discredit them at every opportunity. I am a conservative Christian myself, and I am quite attuned to their barbs. I just take a long term view, and I am not surprised because it is part of the persecution of the church which Jesus Himself prophesied.

If Bachman's faith is the basis for her pro-life stance or other issues, then fine, attack the issues if you disagree, but beating up on her because she has religious convictions is pretty much unAmerican, in my view. I have no place for entertaining religious bigotry in presidential politics.....or politics of any kind for that matter. Neither should anybody else, including the "evil leftist (527) media."

TAM:

You have miscontrued my comments regarding Ms. Bachman.

I don't condemn her for holding strong Christian beliefs. I was trying to shine some light on where
those strong Christian beliefs may take her should she attain the Presidency.

Her law school career stressed that the Bible should be guiding the United States, not necessarily the
US Constitution. Where the US Constitution is "wrong" vs. the Bible, those law students should strive
to change it.

When a President is sworn in, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If Ms. Bachman takes that
oath, will she only uphold the parts that agree with her view of the Bible?

If she feels that she should change those parts ot the Constitution with which she disagrees, based on her
Bible view, what would be the outlook for passing any legislation that is not related to changing the Constitution?

SIA

When Jimmy Carter was running for president he continually referred to his "deep christian faith". That got him a bunch of votes. Did the media harp on his faith? NO. Did they research his favorite books? I wish they had. Maybe some people might have seen through the facade.
As far as Mrs. Bachman setting up a theocracy, IMHO that is a stretch without a justifiable basis. We've had other presidents in the past that were "christian" that didn't cause this kind of angst. I remember when Kennedy was running, people were trying to say say he would be subserviant to the Pope because he was Catholic!
I find that most christians believe in the constitution as the law of the land and support it. Should there be some changes? Maybe. But I don't want it opened up into a constitutional convention that could put the whole document in jeporady.

I read always about how an American Christian will attempt to set up a Theocracy. When has this ever occurred? What Protestant Theocracy exists today or even ever? I guess one can use the example of the Pilgrims but was it in fact a nation? The leftists always complain how a Christian politician will deny them the benefit of being allowed to abort their children or deny the LGBT community the right to exist. Where has that occurred? Rick Perry has been Governor for quite some time and I don't see where Texas has been squelching the LGBT communities. No media outlet has taken Obama to task for his religious practices or his close association to leftist revolutionaries, i.e. Saul Alinsky. It seems, to me, that the media does not take those who are out of the mainstream to task, such as the LGBT community and their activities, the leftist revolutionaries, including their murders, the Che Guivera types and etc. Why is it wrong to be a Christian? But it is okay to tell 16 year old boys to hide their relationships with older men? Rant off. I, personally, am going to use as a litmus test one's Christian and 2nd Amendment beliefs during my voting process, tired of hiding just to satisfy some whisp that the progressive media uses to vet our leadership.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:TAM:

You have miscontrued my comments regarding Ms. Bachman.

I don't condemn her for holding strong Christian beliefs. I was trying to shine some light on where
those strong Christian beliefs may take her should she attain the Presidency.

Her law school career stressed that the Bible should be guiding the United States, not necessarily the
US Constitution. Where the US Constitution is "wrong" vs. the Bible, those law students should strive
to change it.

When a President is sworn in, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If Ms. Bachman takes that
oath, will she only uphold the parts that agree with her view of the Bible?

If she feels that she should change those parts ot the Constitution with which she disagrees, based on her
Bible view, what would be the outlook for passing any legislation that is not related to changing the Constitution?

SIA

SIA, which authority are you quoting that claims that this is what her law school taught her? Meaning....where did you hear that? I've never heard that before, not even from the lame stream media. That's so far out into left field as to defy veracity. I have friends who are students at Southwest Baptist Seminary—about as conservative a Christian institution as can be found anywhere, and nobody there would say such a thing.

Here is closer to the truth, and this is probably where the rumor about her law school began, and that is that Christians have a biblical obligation to be involved in our government, and to change, not the Constitution (which is established on some ancient judeo-christian principles), but rather to change the government and the laws by voting bad politicians out, and good politicians in, in order to effect a change in the nation's moral climate. But that is no more un-American than trying to change society to make it more friendly to pornography or slavery or trying to legalize marijuana. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution—as written—which Christians regard as "wrong."

Now, religious conservative activists may try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, for instance, but that is not actually written into the Constitution. It was a "right" found to exist among the Constitution's "emanations" and "penumbras"...........which simply means a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, rather than an actual enumerated right.

Now, I'm not making a pro-life argument here. I am merely establishing how a conservative Christian might view "changing the Constitution" just to satisfy their religious beliefs. I have never, in all the years I have been a believing Christian, heard of a conservative Christian advocating the removal of any of the core of the Constitution, nor any of its enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, nor any of the subsequent amendments. I gave Roe v. Wade as an example because it is not actually amended into the Constitution. It was merely the product of an interpretation by a liberal court.

But, freedom of speech, the RKBA, the right not to have to quarter soldiers in one's home, the right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, the right to not self-incriminate, the right to a speedy trial and to confront witnesses, the right to a trial by Jury in Civil Cases, protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, the guaranteed Construction of Constitution, and the preservation of the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, as being reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...........I have yet to meet a conservative Christian who wants to overturn any of those 10 amendments.....but I have met literally hundreds of liberal Christians who would like to see the 2nd overturned, parts of the 1st overturned, and probably the 10th and the 14th overturned.

But to Rolling Stone, Roe v. Wade—which is the law of the land for now—was written into the Constitution by the founders, and therefore someone who would take a moral position on it by trying to have it repealed in the courts is a person who wants to "change the Constitution."

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this where that ridiculous charge came from. There is a HUGE misunderstanding on the part of liberals as to what the Constitution actually says. I remember having a discussion with an old girlfriend of my son's who professed to be an atheist. She was prepared to swear on a stack of.....whatever atheists swear on.....a.....a stack of Darwin's "The Origins of Species" that the words "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution. I asked her if she had ever actually read the Bill of Rights. She admitted that she hadn't. I handed her a copy and asked her to show me where the words appear. I then showed her the first amendment, told her about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists, and explained the history behind it, and had her re-read the amendment in the light of this. She now had a completely different understanding, which is the correct one, which is that while I cannot impose my religion on her, neither can she prevent me from practicing mine, even in the public square.

So Rolling Stone would take what I've just written here and tell there readers that I want to cram Christianity down their throats, and I want to use the power of the state to do so........when that couldn't be possibly any further from the truth.

So when I hear from some left "news" source that Michelle Bachman learned in law school that the Constitution must be changed wherever it is wrong, I, as a conservative Christian, know that this is liberal hyperventilation for "Michelle Bachman would like to have Roe v. Wade overturned if she could. Guess what, she's running for president, not supreme court justice. Presidents can't overturn SCOTUS rulings. So that is just so much bleating and hyperventilation on their part, and that is a far cry from wanting to change the Constitution. It is more along the lines of wanting to change how the Constitution is interpreted.....a different thing entirely.

Liberals have, for the most part, controlled how the Constitution is interpreted for about the last 50 years or so. The rare exceptions have been the recent Heller and McDonald decisions. So, it isn't necessarily a bad thing for conservatives to become ascendent in how it is interpreted. Every dog has his day in the sun. It won't exactly an armageddon. In fact, in my opinion, that is what is going to be necessary to undo so much of the damage that leftist policies have done to this country.

I'd like to see Bachman's quotes—in context (which I'm sure Rolling Stone conveniently left out)—regarding her desire to "change the Constitution."

And I reiterate, I am not a Bachman supporter. I am merely a conservative who is tired of being slandered with impugnity by the cretins in the 527 media......may their heads all cave in.....


Lastly, the founders changed the Constitution by adding 10 amendments to it after it had already been written. "Changing the Constitution" is not only permitted by........wait for it..........the Constitution, there is a long and honorable history of changing it. So whomever told you that about Bachman is an ignorant fool.

I'm going to say and probably get in trouble but I don't know if a woman should be president of the US for the simple fact that we have to deal with so many foreign countries where women are looked down upon or are not allowed to be in leadership rolls. Our president has to demand and deserve respect from the leaders of other nations and a woman in this position will not garner the respect the American president deserves and needs to make deals and show the power and authority a leader of a nation needs to show.

Nothing against women and their ability to make good decisions but other countries simply wont respect a woman as our president I don't think.

Not to mention I'm not ready to go to war once a month. (Just kidding)