By Rawlein G. Soberano, Ph.D.
Germantown, MD (Aug. 1, 2011) — Ed Rollins, who ran Mike Huckabee’s in 2008, announced in May that he would lead Minnesota’s U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachman’s bid for president. Her advantages in the Iowa Primary include being Iowa-born, being the first GOP woman to represent the neighboring state of Minnesota and a tremendous opportunity to go into the religious right which is a strong constituency.
She has been a practicing attorney, who has worked in promoting family values. Rollins’ claim to fame was that he was Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager in his 1984 reelection landslide over former Vice Pres. Walter Mondale. His hiring gave a strong signal that she is a serious contender.
She understands the correlation between money and running for office. She has proven to be a good fund-raiser, amassing a record $13.2 million in the 2010 cycle. But her biggest weakness is that she gets her facts wrong 90 percent of the time. This is terrifying if you have some brains. Is she credible when she claims that she is just looking out for America when she said Barack Obama and Democratic members in Congress should be investigated for being “anti-American” and calling Obama the creator of a “gangster government.”
While she has a history of saying things that are dotty and unimportant, don’t ever underestimate her for she is shrewd and crafty. She has learned to work the game of politics like a pro. Her claim of having 23 foster-children is exaggerated and misleading because some of those kids stayed for just a week, while others stayed for six months, and still others stayed for three years. But she makes it sound like she had them all at birth and raised them to adulthood. It was through her foster children that she got involved in local politics, running for school board, which became her springboard into the statehouse, and the rest is history.
Rep. Michele Marie Bachman has a proclivity for making far-fetched unsupported claims, like her statement in the New Hampshire debate that the “Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800k jobs;” that’s an exaggeration of what CBO said. There would be the equivalent of 800k fewer workers, thanks to the healthcare law, not because employers won’t hire them. The workers wouldn’t have to work because the new law expands healthcare coverage.
People working most for health insurance would either reduce their hours or leave the job market altogether. There would also be more economic activity because of the healthcare law. Bachman’s statement leaves out so many qualifiers that it becomes misleading. Keep track of this woman’s statements because she habitually lies to excite her base. The CBO has never confirmed the number she threw out there. As a matter of fact, the CBO report noted that the new healthcare law “could actually help economic productivity.”
There is no doubt that she is reckless and will say anything to garner attention, like her statement at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans that “Obama secretly wanted Medicare to go bankrupt so retirees would be forced to enroll in the new healthcare law.” Her principal problem is she combines the worst of two important traits. She’s strikingly ignorant about public policy and she’s paranoid to the point of delusion. Is there any evidence to support this latest statement? Of course not, but that’s not important right now. She looked for the culprit in this conversion by looking at the White House. The culprits are staring at her in the face — House Republicans and those responsible for the GOP budget plan that Bachmann endorsed. Where does she get these conspiracy theories, e.g. the Census may lead to “internment camps,” or confusing “one world currency” with a global reserve currency, or the “Lion King” was secretly gay propaganda, or the “bipartisan national service bill” would lead to re-education camps.
Dwight David Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave over how his beloved nation had been stolen by the same kind of group he and so many Americans fought against during WW II. The current incarnation of the GOP is actually neo-fascist imperialists who believe the state should serve the interests of the wealthy and corporations which is what Benito Mussolini believed. It is only due to our corporately-owned media that, lusting after tax cuts and deregulation that the GOP offers, that more people don’t realize this. We cannot tolerate this inequality to continue where 400 families own more than the bottom 60 percent of the American people, or the top one percent has more assets than 90 percent of our people.
Sarah Palin who is a dimwit with very thin skin is no match to Michelle Bachman who is disciplined and assertive, and has distinguished herself from the Alaska governor. They are world apart on the debate stage. She doesn’t toss word salad like Sarah Palin. When she starts a sentence, she usually knows where she is going. She often seemed like the best briefed candidate on the stage. She stole the limelight in the New Hampshire debate. Her replies were clear, easily understandable and she avoided sounding loony.
Bachman calls for huge corporate tax cuts alongside tax increases for the working poor. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal she decided to one up Romney and Pawlenty calling for a reduction in corporate tax rate to nine percent, pairing a huge tax cut for the rich and a tax increase on the working poor. The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10-point reduction in corporate tax rate would cost about $195 billion. This tax cut would cost the country more than $2 trillion over 10 years.
Secondly, zeroing out capital gains and estate tax would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy as 68 percent of capital gains taxes are paid by the richest one percent of the country and fewer than the richest one-quarter of one percent pay the estate tax. Finally, she implies she would raise taxes on Americans who earn too little to have any income tax liability. It’s not true that they pay nothing, since those who have no income tax liability still pay payroll taxes as well as state and local taxes.
Marcus Bachman is her husband whom she met at Winona State University at an evangelical Intervarsity Christian Fellowship when the evangelical movement was not particularly political. It was JEC, a born-again Christian, who brought them into the political arena. They even attended one of his presidential inaugural balls because they had campaigned for him in 1976. But they were merciless when they turned against him.
How long will he be an asset to her campaign after rumors surfaced recently that he is closeted gay? She honed her view of the world when she went to law school at Oral Roberts University. She studied under John Edsmoe and became one of his research assistants on the book, Christianity and the Constitution which argued that the US was founded on a theocracy, and should return to it. He is a popular speaker with white supremacist groups.
It is hard to imagine what intelligent person would vote for her. She doesn’t believe in evolution. She believes in theological writings from thousands of years ago over scientific evidence of the 21st century. The religious right is already too strong in this country, bullying those who disagree with them. We are already the laughingstock among western nations for allowing religious doctrine to leak into our political life. She also fails to acknowledge that many of the founding fathers were deists and rejected superstition and formal religion in favor of reason and science. She is suffering from a big disconnect.
Bachman’s platform is too lame and predictable to merit discussion, and her record is a history of working and living off a government she prefers to despise. Those who dress like clowns will likely draw laughter. It’s her choice to act the fool. Disgusting woman! All she talks about is her brand of religion, or more so, her brand of hate. She has been in Congress for a few years and hasn’t done one thing for the country. She managed, though, to collect a lot of government assistance money for her husband’s clinic and her family farm over the years. Now she is trying to cut it so that no one else can receive it.
Her propensity to make things up (to lie), constructing a reality at a moment’s notice things to suit her agenda makes her no different from Sarah Palin. Her vitriolic anti-gay rant and her tendency to make things up to rouse her base may make her a big winner with the Tea Partiers but a big loser with the general public. As a matter of fact, the Obama people are hoping that she will be the GOP nominee so that they can convincingly trounce her in next November’s elections.
The Chinese put it succinctly that she certainly is “fei wu dian xin” (a loser). It’s sad that all the funds she has raised and will raise, the hard work and misguided vision are going to waste. The good news is that she is not one of the top three most hated Republicans today — Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Rep. Paul Ryan, the Attila of Medicare, in that order.