Michelle Bachmann R-Wingnuttia :"Don't Let Them Palinize Me!"

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

We voted for Obama because our alternative was Sarah f**king Palin

[b]That would make sense, if Palin had been running for president.
Do you seriously think that the people who voted against Obama did so because of Joe Biden?

In most elections the choice of VP wouldn't be that big of an issue but this one was different.

Sarah Palin was going to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of a 72 year old man who had previously suffered from at least 4 or 5 of the deadliest kind of skin cancers. It wouldn't be that uncommon for a man of his age and medical history to die while in office.

OTOH,Obama's choice of Biden was very,very,smart. Chose an older well respected guy with lots of experience to balance out the claims of inexperience. McCain's choice was ass backwards.

happy jack wrote:

When I say that he was elected because he is black has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he got the vast majority of the black vote. As you said, that is a given for any Democrat.
The media had Obama in the White House before he was even nominated for the presidency, much less elected.

That's just nonsense. Hillary was expected to win the nomination, not Barack. If you had followed the early debates and the primary process, you would know that.

happy jack wrote:

As far as they were concerned, there wouldn’t have been a more ideal candidate even if they could have built one in a laboratory; he was liberal, photogenic and, most important for the trifecta, black! They would anoint him, get him elected, and assuage their white guilt for at least a few years.

It's really obvious that you weren't paying attention to the Democratic primaries. It was an epic struggle for the nomination. His battle with Hillary was much tougher because he was black. In order to win the Democratic nomination, it is necessary to appeal to many constituencies that have very different agendas. Some of these constituencies traditionally did not vote for black candidates in the past.

happy jack wrote:

Again, I ask: please identify even one white potential candidate from either party who, with only two years of experience in national politics, as a junior senator, would be elevated by the media to the deific status granted to Obama in the run-up to the election, and then actually elected.
Just one.

That would be any candidate who was able to beat Hillary for the nomination. Barack beat her fair and square, in spite of the fact that he was black. The fact that nobody else was able to do so is entirely irrelevant.

Do you actually believe that McCain could have beaten Hillary? No. I don't think so. When the fight for the Democratic nomination was over, so was the general election.

Scorpion wrote:

It's really obvious that you weren't paying attention to the Democratic primaries. It was an epic struggle for the nomination. His battle with Hillary was much tougher because he was black. In order to win the Democratic nomination, it is necessary to appeal to many constituencies that have very different agendas. Some of these constituencies traditionally did not vote for black candidates in the past.

As you know I was a strong Hillary supporter and didn't back Obama until very late in the primaries. The one thing that scared me the most was that people would vote against him because he was black.
I was also wary of the polls because I thought that there might be people that would claim in a poll they would vote for him and then vote against him come election day. There was even a term for that,but I can't recall what it was.

Quote :

Do you actually believe that McCain could have beaten Hillary? No. I don't think so.

I think Hillary would have won by an even larger margin than Obama simply because of the lack of the race issue and silly issues like his middle name.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

As you know I was a strong Hillary supporter and didn't back Obama until very late in the primaries.

[b]You're probably still exhausted from running to catch that winning bandwagon, aren't you?[/b

At least I was always open and honest with who I backed throughout the primary race. You,OTOH,were too cowardly to admit who you were backing. I pressed you over and over for an answer as to who you were backing but you never even had the stones to reply.

Who are you backing this time around. If the election were held today which Repub would you vote for?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Again, I ask: please identify even one white potential candidate from either party who, with only two years of experience in national politics, as a junior senator, would be elevated by the media to the deific status granted to Obama in the run-up to the election, and then actually elected.
Just one.

That would be any candidate who was able to beat Hillary for the nomination.

Highly doubtful.
With a strong member of a traditional victim group (female) running, they needed another member of a traditional victim group (black) to put up against her. Name one single solitary white junior senator with a scant two years of national experience whom the media could have deified to credibly oppose Hillary.
Just one.

This paragraph is a perfect illustration of why the Republicans lost the election. Your simplistic view of the world looks a lot like McCain's. It's practically an admission that Palin was picked as his running mate simply because she was a "member of a traditional victim group," as you so clumsily put it.

Wow. This is stereotyping at its finest, Jack. Are you sure that you don't want to retract your comment?

There was absolutely no conspiracy by the media to "deify" Barack. He just flat out beat Hillary in a fair fight.

You didn't even watch any of his speeches, did you? No. I didn't think so. His speeches were a large part of what made Obama such a formidable candidate.

I think that it's absurd to make statements about a subject that you quite obviously know nothing about. The nomination of Obama over Hillary had nothing at all to do with "victimhood." If that's really what you think, then I can't help you. The ignorance of some of the statements that you've made in this thread is simply breathtaking.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Who are you backing this time around. If the election were held today which Repub would you vote for?

[b]Too early to make a decision - the field is not complete.

You're going to dodge the question again? What part of "If the election were held today" don't you understand? Am I going to have to wait until August 2012 to get an answer like the last time?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

This paragraph is a perfect illustration of why the Republicans lost the election. Your simplistic view of the world looks a lot like McCain's. It's practically an admission that Palin was picked as his running mate simply because she was a "member of a traditional victim group," as you so clumsily put it.

[b]What you call 'simplistic' I call an honest assessment.
Palin may very well have been chosen for that reason - I can't pretend to know what was in the mind of McCain and his advisers.

Yet you claim to know that the media somehow conspired to get Obama elected Here's a clue.....Palin was chosen for one reason....to try and attract disgruntled female Hillary voters.

She was interesting to us until she opened her mouth.

KarenT wrote:

She was interesting to us until she opened her mouth.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You're going to dodge the question again? What part of "If the election were held today" don't you understand? Am I going to have to wait until August 2012 to get an answer like the last time?

Mitch Daniels.

I'm sure you're aware that Mitch Daniels has ruled out a presidential run. You simply can't give a straight answer,can you?
Let me dumb it down for you....Which one of the Republican's who have announced they are running for President are you backing?

happy jack wrote:

That would make sense, if Palin had been running for president.

Wait... what? VP picks don't have an impact on presidential elections? Seriously?

happy jack wrote:

Do you seriously think that the people who voted against Obama did so because of Joe Biden?

No, most likely not. But Biden isn't a retarded creationist hack. Palin proudly is. That, by itself, would have been enough for me. McCain had already demonstrated his inability to identify, let alone deal with, the problems our country faced. Picking her sealed the deal.

Quote :

The shorthand way of describing to you what quantitative easing is is a license to print money without any value behind it…In the last two years of the Obama administration, if you pull a dollar out of your pocket, you have lost 14 percent of the value of that dollar. That means the federal government has stolen that money from you… They’ve been printing essentially valueless money and flooding it into the money supply. I don’t stand for that. A dollar in 2011 should be the same as a dollar in 1911. A dollar should be worth a dollar.

Thank you, Tea Party. Thank you.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/bachmann-signs-off-on-claim-anal-sex-fails-to-improve-marriage-or-public-health
This is a two for one special from the Queen of Crazy. First, Bachmann makes the claim that black children were better off when they were slaves and then starts examining which sexual practices aren't conducive to improving marriage or public health. I think we are seeing more proof that the Tea Party is becoming the American Taliban.

sparks wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/bachmann-signs-off-on-claim-anal-sex-fails-to-improve-marriage-or-public-health
This is a two for one special from the Queen of Crazy. First, Bachmann makes the claim that black children were better off when they were slaves and then starts examining which sexual practices aren't conducive to improving marriage or public health. I think we are seeing more proof that the Tea Party is becoming the American Taliban.

Yeah,I was going to post about this. You gotta love the right-wing quacks like her. Always whining about getting government out of lives while at the same time trying to restrict what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. She also wants to ban porn What would be next? Books,free speech,art? Last but not least,looking out for black children by claiming they were better off being born into slavery

She's making the (correct) assumption that a two-parent family is better than a one-parent family. However, that stat changed well before Obama's election - I would like to see exactly when single parent African-American (I detest that term) families became the majority.

So sometime between 1960 and now, the scale tipped in the black community.

When blacks like Bill Cosby talk about keeping families together, they are criticized by the likes of Jesse Jackson.