EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Religious Right Propels Michele Bachmann, the 'American Margaret Thatcher,' Over the Top in Iowa
AMES, Iowa—Michele Bachmann has just won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, edging out Ron Paul by less than 200 votes. In all, 16,892 voters cast their ballot, with 4,823 going to Bachmann, 4,671 to Paul, and 2,293 to third-place finisher Tim Pawlenty. Rick Perry, who announced his candidacy today in South Carolina and was a write-in candidate here, received 718 votes, finishing sixth; Rick Santorum, who appeared to largely draw voters attracted by his hostility to gay marriage, finished fourth, just ahead of Herman Cain.
“Bachmann’s faith-based organization was over the top,” said a campaign staffer who said he was not authorized to speak for the campaign and so could not give his name (he donned a shirt embroidered with the phrase, “Jesus is Lord Over America”). He said that “members [of churches], pastors, an extraordinary turnout. At the end of the day, the story is going to be the faith-based turnout.” The staffer, who said he’d worked on other presidential campaigns in Iowa, added, “I’ve never seen anything like it.” He attributed her success to a “very effective grassroots operation,” and that religious voters saw her as “genuine. She wasn’t ashamed. She boldly shared everything.”
Bachmann supporters I spoke with were attracted to her religious rhetoric but also saw her as a champion for their hardcore economic concerns, and many told me they admired her stance (due to a “titanium spine,” her campaign parlance repeated by supporters) against raising the debt ceiling. Dan Kahlstorf, at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, with his wife, Ren, on Friday, called Bachmann the “American Margaret Thatcher.”
Paul’s strong second-place finish is a result of his enthusiastic base, which was out in large and characteristically noisy force. Doug Wead, the long-time Bush adviser and confidant who devised the faith outreach strategy for both Bushes, is now advising the Paul campaign. At Paul’s tent here in Ames, he declared, “This is the best campaign I’ve ever been a part of,” adding that Paul isn’t “phony.”
Looming over the straw poll was Perry’s announcement. While many voters I talked to shrugged it off, David Fisher, co-chair of Paul’s state campaign, said, “Iowa Republicans believe he deliberately tried to steal the limelight.”
Perry’s announcement speech was shown on televisions in the tent organized by 501(c)(4) group Strong America Now, which hosted it for the 527 group, Americans for Rick Perry. Strong America Now executive director Peter O’Rourke, who said there was no formal affiliation between his group and Americans for Rick Perry, said Perry introduced legislation in Texas based on the organization’s “Six Lean Sigma” cost-reduction program, which passed in the last legislative session. (The other major GOP candidates signed the group’s debt reduction pledge in advance of the straw poll).
Newt Gingrich called the SAN program the “biggest idea of how to run government in 130 years, since the creation of the civil service.” Gingrich claimed the program, if implemented on the national level, would save $5 trillion in federal spending over ten years. It “transcends presidential politics,” he said, and will “shrink power in Washington, and grow citizens to fill the vacuum.” Or at least it will give Gingrich, who finished eighth with just 385 votes in the straw poll, something to do.
But for Iowa voters, it appears that Bachmann’s Christian rhetoric was the primary motivator. In her speech inside the coliseum this afternoon, she said, “God has mightily put his hand, a blessing upon this nation. We can never think we did this ourselves. It was an Almighty God that gave it to us.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
89 Comments so far
Show AllSecond that. I'm going to memorize it and give credit to hummingbird when I spout it. Maybe I'll even arrange it for jazz bass, flute and percussion.
Bachmann will deal America what it deserves.
The conotation of your remark implies punishment, suffering and pain for the American People and the world, for that matter. I understand that Bachmann opposed the 13-14 trillion dollar bankers bailout. Not a bad position to take at all, in my humble opinion. Consider the governance of our current President whom we elected, who was "by all appearances" sane and wanted to save us, when we voted for him. Sh*t happens, but so do pleasant surprises, sometimes.
What was the blessing the Almighty gave us? HIV/AIDS? 9/11? The Gulf Coast Oil Spill? Hurricane Katrina? The real estate bubble and crash? A Great Recession?
Aren't these signs that the Almighty is pissed off at Amerika? Maybe He's pissed off at the idea of Michelle Bachmann for President. What if the Black Man wins again? Will that finally be a sign to the Xtians? What if a Mormon wins? They're not Really Xtians are they? Will that be a sign? And will Sarah Palin crawl out from under her rock to be the VP candidate again?
Those of us who bought Apple portables with titanium covers discovered quickly how bendable and dentable that metal is. Michelle would be worse than O'Compromise.
America does not need or want the Christian Coalition taking over everything. They will coerce your conformity and solicit your submission. Now if they were actually followers of the gospels of Jesus, it might be different. But they're believers in an unreconstructed old testament patriarchal God--to whom Michelle must submit.
Gingrich sez SAN program will “shrink power in Washington, and grow citizens to fill the vacuum.”
***
Herr Gingrich apparently views "citizens" as flora. Because his proposal to "grow" them involves nothing more than shoveling repeated doses of horseshit upon them.
The better comparison is not to Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was a statesmen and a blue blood ruling class elite. Bachmann is not. The better comparison is to France's Marie Le Pen.
jase1917 ~~ Thatcher was not a "blue-blood" - she was the daughter of a Lincolnshire grocer.
True in the sense that she was not "to the manor born," although Thatcher does hold a life peerage that was bestowed upon her and is in fact a Baroness.
I'll add that Thatcher was not a statesman, either. She subscribed to the attitude that "all Wogs start at Dover"--meaning that she had contempt for even Continental Europeans--and she emphasized "TINA": There Is No Alternative to capitalism. This underscored her attempts to dismantle trade unions and privatize British business and industry. Thatcher was essentially a prototype for Reagan; both subscribed to free-marketers such as Milton Friedman. Speaking of Reagan, although she might have opposed Reagan's invasion of Grenada, as one poster has pointed out, she had no problem sending British troops in 1982 to secure some hardscrabble rocks in the South Atlantic called the Falkland Islands, or the Ilas Malvinas, if you supported the Argentinians who also claimed the islands as their territory. Furthermore, Thatcher supported the Reaganite policy of deploying short- and medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, thus heightening Cold War tensions (although she did later prove receptive to Mikhail Gorbachev, as did Reagan), and she permitted the US F-111 fighter-bombers that attacked Libya in 1986 to depart from bases in Britain. All not very statesmanlike.
If we supported the fascist regime in Argentina's dirty war, of course, we would be against the British defending people who wanted to opt out of any fascist police state. But for those who opposed thst option, it was more difficult if not then Michael Foot the then party leader for Labor in opposition and to the left of George McGovern supported the Thatcher policy. Only Tony Benn and a few others opposed on the Labor left. They were well intentioned but I fear wrong in saying let events just take their course, but then wish for the best for those in Falkland Islands regarding a hostile fascist take over. They wanted to stay British. That was and is their right. When Royal Marines and the Royal Ghurka Rifles m arrived the islanders welcomed them.
Point well taken, AD. Thatcher had a stronger premise in the Falklands than did Reagan did in Grenada and his flimsy excuse of "protecting US medical students" in the wake of the overthrow of the Maurice Bishop government (which the CIA probably helped to engineer, anyway). And Argentina did in fact invade to assert its sovereignty over these islands whose ownership has been contested since Britain took control of them in 1833.
But then as now, Britain's actions always struck me as the roar of the aging, wounded lion. Not to sound like a heartless utilitarian, but sending a military expedition 8000 miles to rescue 3000 people in a place that not that many Britons had heard of? Sounds like the legacy of empire to me.
As far as "supporting" the Galtieri regime in Argentina goes, that gets to be a little tricky. In the 1970s and 1980s, the US was at least tacitly supporting any number of repressive, authoritarian regimes in the Southern Cone as part of its Cold War anti-communist strategy, and famously in the case of Chile the support was more than tacit. By the way, I don't oppose calling these regimes fascist: Not only was there admiration for Nazi ideology and tactics among many Latin American military figures, but a number of bona fide Nazis made their way to South America after WWII and infiltrated several governments, including Klaus Barbie in Bolivia and "Hitler's Commando" Otto Skorzeny in Argentina, where he was friends with the famous Eva Peron.
And, of course, many of these Latin American military figures received their training at the infamous School of the Americas (now called, I believe, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Cooperation) at Fort Benning, Georgia. There is also the case of Dan Mitrione, the CIA operative who was training Uruguayan intelligence in "interrogation" techniques when he was captured and assassinated by Tupamaros guerillas; Mitrione had previously taught "interrogation" techniques to Brazilian police following the 1964 overthrow of the Goulart goverment. (Mitrione's story served as the inspiration for the Costa-Gavras film State of Siege.) So, I'd say the support for "fascist" regimes was sotto voce but still present.
If we supported the fascist regime in Argentina's dirty war, of course, we would be against the British defending people who wanted to opt out of any fascist police state. But for those who opposed thst option, it was more difficult if not then Michael Foot the then party leader for Labor in opposition and to the left of George McGovern supported the Thatcher policy. Only Tony Benn and a few others opposed on the Labor left. They were well intentioned but I fear wrong in saying let events just take their course, but then wish for the best for those in Falkland Islands regarding a hostile fascist take over. They wanted to stay British. That was and is their right. When Royal Marines and the Royal Ghurka Rifles m arrived the islanders welcomed them.
Bachmann can't win the primary. The money isn't there, it's going to Romney (as another article at CD shows quite clearly).
The only interesting question left is how much corporate money Perry can get, but after the temper tantrum thrown over raising the debt ceiling, K Street and the financiers aren't looking to reward them, so the smart money is on an Obama/Romney contest, which is one Obama can win, which should surprise everyone.
Krycek,
Of course Michelle Bachman can't win in 2012. That's not the point. The larger point is that these people spend years laying the groundwork to advance their religion into civic life. Bachman's simply one more step towards the day when it is not only possible, but probable that she or someone like her will occupy the presidency.
See Siouxrose's post above and the replies to it (including mine) and you'll see what I mean.
What God giveth, God can take away. God is not the fool that a lot of people think He is.
http://www.gpln.com/trouble.htm
which god?
Although I was raised in Minnesota my grandparents farm was in Fairbanks Iowa, about thiry miles North of Waterloo. The small town had a pretty heavy Catholic vib, But some protestants too. My grandfather was a friend to the many Amish farmers so I got to know some of them. During Vietnam the Amish were conscientious objectors and the catholic and protestant teens would beat the Amish bloody just for fun because they would not fight back. These people grew up to be today's teavangelicals, strict my ass, ignorant, yes! Fox news lies, where are the jobs you republicans promised? McDonalds? Minimum wage like most of Perrys?
20 to 30 years of trickle-down and tax cuts hasn't provided jobs and growth, yet they still harp on this concept, as if it is the god-given truth. It does not work. Raise taxes to pay for the wars and to reduce the national debt. NOT DEFICIT. DEBT. If we reduce the debt we will by definition reduce the deficit. Reducing the deficit still results in greater debt and larger interest payments. The deficit needs to be cut to ZERO in order to cut the debt, and we can do that by stopping all of our military involvement all over the world.
As time goes on and the economic and environmental collaspes intensifies, I am afraid that many people, who do not read....much and do not like to reseach and think critically for themselves, will fall prey to this type of candidate......It's the perfect set of circumstances for the idea of a "savior" and his "right hand" to come along to "save" the day...... People do not want to come to terms with the fact that they may have to RE-FORM the premises that they grew up with.... for example that our source of energy is bad for us.... they will come up with any other reasoning so they can continue withe the delusion they already have.... Of course, sometimes, if a real practical solution comes along, to help them, some may be won over, but, where's the pracitcal solution...... ?
Here is my primary question -- Do the major corporations and other Powers That Reign need and want the Christian Right in order to further seize and maintain power? I think our main choices right now may be between a secular fascist state and a theocratic fascist state. The corporations do not love God -- they love money. They will manipulate God if they have to in order to maintain power and money but I'm not certain yet if they want or need the additional fuss.
So -- seriously -- is Michelle Bachman and her like needed by the Powers or is this another sideshow to distract the little people?
-- Zagone
What was that story Chris Hedges tells? Of an old professor who told him (paraphrasing), "by the time you're my age you'll all be fighting the Christian right".
What fun that'll be, eh? Battling hordes of whacked-out corporate bible-thumpers as the biosphere collapses.
Fake French: Your post, awful as its indications are, made me think of a bad Mel Brooks film. I mean, who can imagine this... yet it's like a beast forming before our disbelieving eyes. __________________________________________________________________
As to the prior poster asking whether we opt for an all-out fascist nation, or a Christian Theocratic one... the key thing about religious followers is their obedience to authority. If these millions can be convinced that others who live among them displease God in how they act, how difficult will it be for them to "follow orders" and eliminate these "Undesirables." ________________________________________
When one learns that churches support these wars of aggression, that religious insignia are placed on weaponry, that religious zealots lead mercenary armies... how far away from these developments is defining a domestic demographic as the enemy, and having those same armed multitudes adjust the aim of their weapons, accordingly?
Siouxrose -- Good points on the uses and power of having "God" on your side... They may well be choosing this. You make a good case.
I have tended to think in the past (not quite sure why though) that the titans of industry and the mega-church pastors (or prophets in NAR terminology) were not the same people. A horde with religious fervor can be harder to control if they get out-of-line than disorganized, dispirited people broken and afraid at the point of a gun. You constantly need to explain your actions in terms of morality rather than just state that they are your royal wishes.
There would seem to have been a (temporary?) loss of power of the religious right and a rise of pure corporate fascism in the past several years on the national stage if one does not take into account the NAR working out-of-sight.
-- Zagone
What are their "hard core economic concerns" ?
I would like enterprising reporters to press these Michele Bachman supporters harder on articulating what frightens them.
Are they unemployed? Do they have access to health care? What about their immediate family members? How are their retirement funds doing? Where are the funds invested? Are they dependent on social security? What kind of work do they do? Who are their employers, if they work for larger companies? Are any of them union members? How much money do they make? What are their benefits? If they own companies, how many employees do they have? Do they pay independent contractors? Has anyone in their immediate family had a major medical issue in the past two years? If so, how was it paid for? Does anyone in their immediate family have credit card or student debt? Are they homeowners? Are their mortgages paid off?
What are the hardcore economic concerns that Michele Bachman addresses so well for them? What are they worried about, in their lives, personally?
This is a question that haunted me during coverage of the Tea Party events. I never saw any individual participants pressed more closely on how their personal lives and economics are really being affected. The most penetrating coverage, for me, came from Bill Moyers, when he discussed the role of Dick Army and funding from the health insurance industry.
I don't believe it's just about church. It's about money and greed. So let's go beyond the Jesus sign and flags these folks are waving. Like Robert Redford digging a little deeper into the person - Mary Tyler Moore - "Ordinary People" - will someone please get to the real venom that we all know is coursing through Michele Bachman and followers' veins?
And, since she is so into obeying and following the instructions of her lord and master husband - in the name of jesus amen - who the hell is he? Obviously not one of her supporters would be behind her without that information as well ..
Their so-called church is an organizing base for their economic positions and interests. Someone get inside and get more of the real scoop. Under those glassy eyes and vacant expressions.
HI SIOUXROSE
For automatic paragraphs.... At the end of your paragraphs, type a < then without spacing a p don't space, then a > again no space then another < another p and another > and it will automatically paragraph.... Do not space between any of the < >s and ps.
I cannot type it here in order to show how it looks as when posting if the < >s and ps are aligned with no spacing they erase.
After typing that you can double space as you normally would with paragraphs, or just continue to type... Your paragraphs will auto paragraph as I have done here but the >
WayneWR, thank you for the coding tip. Auto formatting in these threads seems to be hit-or-miss sometimes. Now I know what to do!
weren't you warned about touching the red button?
test 1 2 3
Bachmann is not a Christian any more than Hitler was a Christian! She attended Oral Roberts college, which is now part of the Pat Robertsons network. Bachmann is a cult, fascist using the Bible and claiming to be a Christian, to pander to her most ignorant acolytes. The blind leading the blind.
Hitler was indeed a Christian, that's the faith he professed, and really in the case of skydaddy worshiping who can prove that he was not one. The things he did were all things that were done in the bible.
So too is Pat Robertson and Bachman, and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas. They're all Christians too. I do agree with you that they are all blind.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian but that is a misnomer. Kind of like the people in the insane asylums that believe they are some infamous or famous person like Napoleon. They should be labeled Fascist,cultians, Bible thumpers or maybe churchinsanity ones because they are an insult to the true meaning of that name. I much prefer Atheists and Agnostics to these hypocrites!
Don't insult thatcher. She may have been evil but this creature is brain dead. It appears we have two Ken Dolls and one Barbie Doll running for the Republican nomination. God help us!
Richard Nixon is starting to look good to me!
I hate to say it, but Michele Bachmann could not only win the GOP nomination, she could win the general election. To get the glib line out of the way now, American voters voted for George W. Bush because he was the kind of presidential candidate you could have a beer with--and that was proved in 2000 and 2004.
That's simplifying a bit, and certainly Florida in 2000 and possibly Ohio in 2004 were key factors. Nevertheless, by 2008 eight years of Bush-Cheney wearied voters. I think that in 2008 Republican strategists regarded McCain-Palin as the "poison pill" ticket: Public opinion was by now firmly resistant to the Republicans: They knew they weren't going to win in 2008, so why not let McCain take his shot, and throw Palin--whom no one had heard of before--as a sop to the far right. They weren't going to win, so save the real bullets for when they could count--in 2012.
Meanwhile, Obama hasn't helped his own cause: He should have taken the James Carville approach--"it's the economy, stupid"--and, instead of trying to do too much at once during his first term such as healthcare reform, concentrated on delivering a healthy economy to ensure his 2012 re-election--and *then*, as a lame duck, implement all the reforms he had in mind.
Enter Bachmann, who entered Minnesota politics in 2000 and national politics in 2006, and who, like a good soldier, gave lip service to McCain-Palin in 2008. In other words, she won't have to undergo the Eliza Doolittle routine like Palin did--Bachmann has already made public many of her ideas and opinions, and they seem to be taking root. She gave the "Tea Party rebuttal"--not the official Republican response--to Obama's State of the Union speech this year. By many accounts, she came off as the strongest in the June New Hampshire debates, and she just won the Iowa straw poll.
Now, a lot can happen between now and November 2012, but as long as the Tea Party (including their corporate backers such as the Koch Brothers) hold sway among the Republicans, and if Obama and/or the economy cannot rebound by the end of the year, it could get very interesting as the presidential campaign ramps up in 2012.
And if Bachmann winks at the camera during a televised debate, and if the _National Review_'s Rich Lowry sits up and takes notice (as he sappily did during the Palin debate with Biden), she might turn into the gal Americans would like to have a beer with (or, who knows, maybe bowl a couple of games with, which of course aces Obama out).
Again, I hate to say this, but the first woman president will probably be a Republican because she can embody all the safe ideas that won't threaten the power elite (yes, a quaint term from C. Wright Mills) while outwardly appearing to be a bold departure from the norm. (Hey, it worked for Obama, but let's not get off track.) White or minority, man or woman--what matters is that someone has internalized the values and beliefs of the dominant order; those are the ones who will succeed in national politics as long as the current model endures. When Obama first started bombing Libya, even wizened Edward Luttwak pointed out that the three most prominent voices endorsing the bombing campaign were Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power--three women who have internalized the power structure. So, Michele Bachmann might indeed a possibility in 2012.
comment redacted
What's with the lines thru some of the comments?
Migraines are not the problem. I do believe that Michele Bachmann is in the first stages of Alzheimer’s.