Election 2012

Bye Bye, Bachmann


Bachmania comes to an end: Representative Michele Bachmann, the original GOP presidential primary flavor of the week candidate, is ending her campaign for the Republican nomination for president, according to multiple reports. Perhaps now she can get to work building a "double fence" along America's border with Mexico. 

Read Shikha Dalmia on Bachmann's unholy crusade against illegal immigrants here. Check out Reason's Bachmann's candidate profile page here. Still Bachmann-curious? Browse Reason's complete archive of Bachmann coverage here

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Matt Welch at CNN.com on the Iowa Caucus and the Romney Paradox

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can you take Perry with you?

    1. I think he'll probably drop before the weekend.

      1. He actually tweeted "here we come south carolina" so I don't think so.

        1. That was a spoofer.

          1. Know, that was me.

            1. herp der

    2. (P)rick Santorum too!

  2. Strange. One party is openly campaigning on tearing down everything we've all worked together to accomplish to date and the other is barely holding off their literal War on America. And yet it's the latter who are demonized for trying to bring our quality of life up to even half of that in Europe.

    One party wants to send the nation into an economic death spiral where only the rich can afford education, health care and retirement, is openly advocating for child slavery in factories and not having the rich pay for their crimes. While the other is tarred and feathered for daring to suggest that not only should we improve the economy but that everyone should get quality health care, an advanced eduation, good nutritional food to fill their bellies while people who commit crimes should be punished.

    It's really quite shocking how fast America declined after Reagan, Bush and the Republican anarchist agenda shattered our institutions while Europe recovered from the rubble to usher in societies where nobody goes without.

    Yet all anyone here and in the media wants to talk about is the Republicans rather than getting out in the streets and helping our President fight to take back our country from the elites that are stealing everything from us.

    1. F. That comment had a Burning Man level of straw men in it not to mention logical fallacies from one end to the other.

      "Europe recovered from the rubble to usher in societies where nobody goes without."

      It is to laugh.

      1. I know you and probably most everyone else on this board has not been to Europe but I have traveled there many times and compared to our borderline third world degrading nation they are literally the future.

        I imagine when Europeans are forced to travel here and experience our collapsing society they feel like the crew of Voyager when they went back in time to team up with Sarah Silverman and defeat a CEO who was willing to destroy the planet just for profit. (Sounds a lot like the ones we actually have doesn't it?)

        1. Horrible trolling. No subtlety and bad Star Trek references.

        2. Actually, when I see a comment like yours, it reveals to me that the writer has either never been to Europe or has never left the nicely sanitized tourist areas.

          There's a reason why there are more migrants travelling west across the North Atlantic than there are travelling east.

          1. That is just a Fox News talking point, actual analysis of the data shows it's the other way around, more people are leaving the United States for Europe and Canada.

            And for good reason, unlike us they don't promote people dying from lack of health insurance or keeping people out of quality education, they don't have have half their populations in low income or poverty and best of all they have societies that do not tolerate violence as a way to solve problems like we do here in America with our insane gun fetishism and Tea Party led threats against elected officials.

            1. this is like Tony on steroids.

              1. Sad that this troll actually makes Tony look more intellectual.

                1. What I really meant to say is that Communism is awesome! Woohoo!

            2. more people are leaving the United States for Europe and Canada.

              Hey, as long as they're lefties and frogs, then great - let them leave. There are too many of them here already anyhow.

              1. this has got to be a spoof right?

                1. That's all I can think of. See the absurdist comment on the traffic congestion thread.

        3. Ah, you've actually traveled to Europe! And we ignorant provincials should therefore assign you great credence? So then the fact that I've been in every country in Europe multiple times over the last thirty years and know that that place is as much about the future as is Bolivia should authoritatively put your callow notions on the subject to rest. Right? Consider it done.

        4. What you have to understand folks is that finally lives in a world where Henry Starling began the microcomputer revolution by exploiting the 29th-century technology of the timeship Aeon crashed in the High Sierras in the mid-1960s by its master, Captain Braxton.

          The upside of Europe is of course that as an American it's fantastically easy to get laid there. Easier even than in the Asian Tiger countries.

        5. I know you and probably most everyone else on this board has not been to Europe

          Really? You know that?

          Perhaps if you stopped making shit up and debated the actual issues, as opposed to the cartoon libertarians in your head, you might be taken seriously. Might. Because you've already lost all credibility.

          1. I think most of the people on this board have been to Europe. Some of us have lived there. I was just there last month. Try again.

            1. Reading comprehension fail, John. I was rebutting "finally's" 11:49 AM post where HE asserted that he KNEW that nobody here (except him) had been to Europe.

    2. Oh, I get it. It's satire.

      1. KOCHsuckerfellow.

          1. with my libertarian limp wrist creating spontaneous order in my panties which are in a bunch right now

    3. after Reagan, Bush and the Republican anarchist agenda shattered our institutions

      I too remember the glorious years of Carter. When children played in the streets, getting hit by the few cars that had gasoline.

      1. That made me LOL. Well done.

        1. shit man

      2. Absolutely. The 1970s were a paradise on earth. We all slept on beds of gossamer stuffed with the finest goose down, and tiled our floors with gold coins.

    4. This is satire, right? B+ and I don't mean in a grade inflation kind of way. I'm old skool, so that's actually pretty good.

      1. That's how I'm reading it. B+ sounds fair to me.

      2. "Blighter" does it much better. But don't we all wish some would be literally "tarred and feathered?"

        1. Remember, it goes (1) tarred, then (2) feathered, then (3) drawn and quartered, and only then (4) purified by fire.

    5. finally needs to unbunch its little knickers.

      1. market failure

    6. First year of college or SEIU?

      1. typical libertard

    7. In the unlikely event that you're serious, when do you plan to emigrate to Greece?

    8. You are an amazing level of willfully ignorant. Team Blue is lucky to have a cheerleader like you.

    9. while Europe recovered from the rubble to usher in societies where nobody goes without.

      Which endures only because they have the American taxpayers going into hock to bail out their governments, central banks, and economies through the Federal Reserve.

      1. And yet you libertarians support a wacko nutjob who demands to destroy the entire worlds economy just to get rid of one of his paranoid delusions rather than the level headed scientist we have in office now.

        1. Why can't we third-rate commentators get a better class of trolls?

        2. I can tell English isn't your first language.

          1. Our President has a degree in political science and is well known as one of the foremost academic experts on the Constitution and most any aspect of politics.

            1. So there.

              1. dotchaknow

            2. Really? you meant this one as sarcasm right?

            3. well known as one of the foremost academic experts on the Constitution

              By whom?

              What has he ever published on the Constitution? What has he ever published, other than "A Book About Me"?

              He is anything but a "foremost academic expert on the Constitution." Shit, I know just as much about it as he does.

            4. Yeah, definitely spoof/performance art.

        3. "...the level headed [sic] scientist we have in office now."
          Are you the improvident lack-wit who was trying to claim (a few months ago in an H&R thread) that Hopey McChange was a 'quant', then when the definition of quant was provided, tried to redefine it to suit your needs? If so, you are still an ignorant cunt. If not, you are an ignorant cunt.

          1. Impressive. I mean, really. Where do I send donations?

            1. I love that you thin-skinned Yanks get all uppity about a word that we get say on telly.

        4. Obama has a science degree? Silly me I thought he was a harvard law grad.

          1. "Obama has a science degree?"
            He most certainly does not. He has a Bachelor of Arts in international relations (Columbia 1983) and a Juris Doctor (Harvard 1991).

    10. So naive. It's kind of adorable.

    11. It's unfair that I work all the time and sacrifice time with my family in order to bring home a paycheck. To make things more fair, I think we need to make everyone work hard in order to earn a paycheck. Isn't that fair?

      anarchy (n.) - Absence of government.

      Could you please point to some specifics where Republicans emulated anarchists?

  3. still hot. still so very hot.

    1. Yeah, why no link to the corn dog photo, Reason?

    2. If that's your idea of so very hot, maybe you should be hanging out on a cougar site and not here.

      1. I can do both!

        1. That's what I heard.

    3. Don't let the door hit you in your supple, mom-shaped ass on your way out Michelle.

      1. Nothing like NeoCon Butch-Talk.

      2. hey, no John baiting, aka Chubby Chasers Anonymous founding member 😉

    4. If you are into the over 50 mom class I guess. She does punch above her weight class. But that doesn't say much when you consider the class.

      1. Not that you wouldn't hit it.

      2. She needs to lose some weight.

  4. That leaves Ron Paul as the only constitutionalist socon left standing.

    1. I think he was pretty much the only constitutionalist ever in the race.

    2. Constitutionalists look upon law as the word-magic of lawyer-necromancers who draw their wizardly powers from grimoires, from books of magic spells they have selfishly withheld from the people. Constitutionalists have extracted from these books -- from judicial opinions, from the Constitution, from legal dictionaries, from the Bible, from what-have-you -- white magic with which to confound the dark powers of legislation, equity, and common sense. Never mind what words like "Sovereign Citizen" or "Lawful Money" mean -- what does "abacadabra" mean? -- it's what they do that counts. Unfortunately, Constitutionalist words don't do anything but lose court cases and invite sanctions. Constitutionalism is the white man's version of the Ghost Dance. But believing you are invulnerable to bullets puts you in more, not less, danger of being shot.

      by Robert C. Black

    3. Constitutionalist? Is that what the racists are calling themselves these days?

      1. Dammit! They're onto us. We're going to need new decoder rings.

      2. Duh, all REAL Constitutionalists support the 3/5ths Compromise.

  5. Yet all anyone here and in the media wants to talk about is the Republicans rather than getting out in the streets and helping our President fight to take back our country from the elites that are stealing everything from us.

    The President IS one of the elites stealing from us, particularly from our kids and grand kids. He simply refuses to reduce spending to the 19% of GDP level (which is historically the most revenue the gov't can bring in regardless of tax rates). The fact that he doesn't see this makes him either a crank (e.g. equivalent to someone trying to invent the perpetual motion machine), or it makes him a criminal for purposely trying to circumvent this fact of life.

    1. There is no logical reason the government could not bring in more revenues if everyone in this nation was willing to pitch in and give their fair share rather than forcing the worst off among us to shoulder the entire burden of the nation alone.

      The only limits on us are those we don't work to overcome together.

      And calling our President a criminal is simply offensive.

      1. D- trolling. Obviously a regular.

      2. shouldn't you be on MSNBC?

      3. I'm swear I'm going to deck the neck person that says the phrase "their fair share". Its like you all drank the kool aid and hit the repeat button you brainless zombies

        1. Since logic is free, statists should start using their fair share. (ducks and covers)

        2. Fairness = the quality of being free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness.

          1. Fairness = give me my pony and keep me from having to make choices like an adult.

            1. But I want that goddamn pony!

            2. but liberards do twist words to their suiting

              1. No. It is social justice!!

        3. You do notice that none of these people even define what "fair share" even is and why.

      4. Who is this?

        And calling our President a criminal is simply offensive.

        You must be new. Else, why the fuck would you imagine that any of us care if you're offended?

      5. Barack Obama is a criminal.

        1. Let me know how that works out.

          1. Like you guys were always going to arrest Bush?

            1. like you asswipes can police your own

              1. You are clearly not. Did Obama give you guys a kiss as he butt fucked you about the war, GUITMO and pretty much everything else you claimed to be a "fierce moral imperative" for eight years?

                We know. Obama only slaps you around because he loves you and is under a lot of stress right now. Just get in the car before he hits you again.

      6. And calling our President a criminal is simply offensive.

        And offending our President is simply criminal.

        1. +12.45647832

      7. Was it equally offensive when you left-tards called GWB a war criminal (which he might have been)? Somehow I doubt your offended then.

        You do realize that the bottom 50% of income earners pay 0 taxes in this country right? And that the top 5% of income earners collect 20% of the income and pay 40% of the tax burden, right? Seems like their "fair share" would 20% of the tax burden. So what would you consider fair? Should we just take every penny that someone makes above a certain threshold? Would that be more "fair"? Libtard fuck

        1. What be wrong with taking what someone unnecessarily makes? They don't need it while there are tens of millions of Americans who do.

          1. OK, this has to be a spoof troll. Seriously.

          2. When you have someone with the human capital (i.e. skills, talent, creativity, intelligence, etc.) to create wealth (e.g. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs), it's best not to demotivate that person. In a capitalist system, in order for someone to get wealthy, they have to be making life better for the masses in some way (otherwise the masses wouldn't be voluntarily handing over their money to them). Overtaxing is a form of demotivation.

            What liberals/progressives should really be fighting is not capitalism, but crony capitalism and corporatism. That is what libertarians have been fighting for decades. The crony capitalist gets wealthy by using government to subsidize his business (via direct subsidies, mandated transactions, no-bid contracts, or by hobbling his competition with regulations, taxes, etc.) In that case, the wealth created for the crony capitalist is NOT because he/she is enriching other people's lives.

            Both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are guilty as sin when it comes to crony capitalism. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better this country will be.

  6. So many things I could say about that picture. So many. [sigh]

    1. Don't let us stop you now.

    2. Don't forget to refresh.

      1. Meh. I don't feel the vile this morning. I've been working on a [NAME DELETED] piece, but it got kind of long and needs editing.

        1. Come back...two years!

    3. Alttext,

      "Imagine this is one of Mitt Romney's tiny balls".

      1. I laughed

  7. alt alt text - 'Watch as I demonstrate how to teabag'

  8. Palin states the obvious and tells GOP that they had better pay attention to Paul and not marginalize his supporters.


    But remember she is the dumb one. It is people like Frum and Brooks and Noonan who are the geniuses.

    1. And the page has been deleted.

      But remember people, there is no conspiracy against Ron Paul in the GOP.

      1. It is still there. Remember the smart respectible opinion within the GOP is that we should call Ron Paul a racist and anti-Semite and a nut figuring that will keep his supporters in the fold. And Palin is the dumb one.

        1. Now it's back. Weird. Squirrels everywhere! It's a squirrel conspiracy!

      2. The page works for me.

    2. Acknowledged:

      Palin > Frum
      Palin > Brooks

      Aren't they a bad country band? Brooks and Frum?

  9. The GOP field just got a lot uglier.

  10. Good riddens (sic?). Look for Huntsman to follow. I think Perry, Santorum and Newt will stick around for a bit longer.

    As I see it the GOP nomination will come to Paul and Romney.

    1. I think Huntsamn isn't quite dead yet. Gingrich is done. Santorum is just Huckabee without the charm. Paul has peaked. And people are still desparate to find someone besides Romney. It might be Huntsman.

      1. ....is a winner.

    2. I think huntsman is still hanging in there until somebody notices that he's the other mormon

      1. it's Mormons all the way down.

    3. It says something about the deleterious influence of the Beltway political and media establishments the way they treated the two candidates who were governors of Rocky Mountain states.

      One was "respectable" and "serious", while the other was considered a whack job and generally kept out of the debates and not given the light of day. And yet the "serious" candidate got the same 1% of the vote the so-called whack-job would have gotten if he had been given as much attention.

    4. Huntsman was never expecting to do well in IA. If he crashes in NH he's out.

  11. Nice alt-text!

  12. Besides trying to square the circle with huge military budgets, she seemed ... decently acceptable to good on fiscal issues. But her overall worldview seemed to be big government in the anti-obama direction, as opposed to plain limited constitutional government. Subjective but important to me.

    1. She would have at least tried to keep us from going bankrupt. She might have grown into the job and done the right thing out of their being no other choice.

      1. I agree with this.

      2. I disagree with this.

        First off we (I assume you mean the government which is not the same as society, but that's an irrelevant tangent) are already bankrupt.

        As far as "the right thing" goes, she would do whatever "the right thing" is politically.

        That means paying lip service to cutting government while cutting nothing, because that means someone loses their job or check, and she loses their vote.

        1. The government is not bankrupt. If it were, no one would be buying TBills. Just because you have debt, even a lot of it doesn't mean you are bankrupt.

          Second, "the right thing" means cutting spending. And I think there is a good possibility she would have done that out of necessity rather than just pretending the problem doesn't exist.

          1. What spending do you cut?
            Can't cut military. That would hurt the troops and make the country look weak.
            Can't cut entitlements. Remember "get your government hands off my Medicare"?
            Can't cut departments. Those departments consist of voters who would lose their jobs.
            There is nothing at all that can be cut that is not political suicide.

            Which is why Ron Paul is the only one I believe would actually cut government. He doesn't give a fuck about his political future and would be willing to commit political suicide.

            1. First, Paul would be President not king. So he wouldn't be able to cut anything without getting Congress to agree. Second, necessity forces you to reconsider those things.

              And last no one ever said "get the government off my medicare". What they were saying is "don't cut medicare to fund Obamacare".

              1. And last no one ever said "get the government off my medicare".

                The stupid is strong in this one.

                1. It is not true sarcasmic. You are stupid. That is not what they were protesting. They were protesting cutting medicare to fund Obamacare.

                  1. John - what can be cut from government without a shitstorm of protest?

                    The military is sacred, can't cut that.
                    Same with entitlements.
                    Shit, what's left?

                    You're living in a fantasy world if you think any of the mainstream candidates (that means anyone other than the libertarian guy running as a Republican) will cut anything from government.

                    You are stupid.

                    1. It is real simple Sarcasmic, when you can't borrow another buck from the Chinese, you have to start cutting government. It is going to get cut, it is just a question of when.

                    2. i>when you can't borrow another buck from the Chinese, you have to start cutting government

                      Wrong again. If the Chinese stop buying treasuries, then the Fed will.
                      The borrowing will not stop.
                      We'll become Zimbabwe before they cut anything from government.
                      Let the hyperinflation begin!

                    3. No we won't. Hyper inflation would make some very rich people poor. And that won't happen.

                    4. Hyper inflation would make some very rich people poor.

                      I see you do not understand the difference between wealth and money.

                    5. I understand the difference fine. Hyper inflation would totally fuck the banks. All these banks that have fixed rate loans would sink like stones. Bankers hate inflation.

                      You clearly don't understand how interest works and its relationship to inflation. It is called the time value of money.

                    6. Hyper inflation would totally fuck the banks.

                      Hyperinflation benefits debtors.
                      Who is the biggest debtor? The government.

                      Rich people have the ability to juggle their assets in a way that poor people (without assets to juggle) cannot. They, if they choose to do so, can minimize the effect of hyperinflation on their wealth.

                    7. maybe you missed this, but banks are lenders. If you had hyper inflation the interest rates would go through the roof. When that happened the government would no longer be able to service the existing variable rate treasury bills. And the entire banking industry would go belly up.

                      When you say "hyper inflation", you are just saying "bankruptcy". You just don't realize it.

                    8. Seriously John, what gets cut?

                      What can be cut without a shitstorm of protest?

                      Give me one single example.

                    9. Of course there will be "protest". But at some point people will realize this can't go on forever. And further people understand that inflation is the same as cutting. So when the inflation rate goes up, the pressure to do something about that will kill the pressure to keep spending and printing money.

                      Yeah, it is going to suck. But it will end. Otherwise, you can count on your social security being there. Do you plan on doing that?

                  2. They were protesting cutting medicare to fund Obamacare.

                    I'm calling bullshit, John. You imply that they just didn't want the money to be taken from medicare to fund Obamacare. They wouldn't have gladly accepted cuts to medicare even if the money saved would have been used to pay down the debt.

                    1. I think if it were part of a plan that actually cut the debt they would. The problem is that no one has ever tried that. People assume, rightly, that any cut to their program will just be wasted somewhere else. If they thought it would actually do something about the deficit and debt and were part of an overall program where everyone had to give up something, they would be more willing.

                      And what you guys are saying doesn't make sense. On the one hand you are saying cuts are impossible. But on the other you are claiming electing Paul will fix everything. Really? How?

                    2. I think if it were part of a plan that actually cut the debt they would.


                    3. maybe so sarcasmic. But if you honestly believe that, then either start supporting Ron Paul for God Emperor of America or stop kidding yourself electing him President will make a dime's worth of difference.

                    4. Here's what Paul could do as president.
                      He could, as commander in chief, bring home troops as long as doing so did not violate any treaties.
                      He could veto bills and propose a budget to Congress.
                      He could appoint judges.

                      Other than that he'd have his hands tied without help from Congress.

                    5. "He could, as commander in chief, bring home troops as long as doing so did not violate any treaties."

                      No he couldn't. Congress could just pass a rider on the defense appropriation bill saying he can't. Sure he would veto. But then Congress would make an agreement and override it.

                      A Paul presidency would be a giant symbolic gesture. It would just make the party leaders in Congress get along and run the country by fiat. Good luck with Boehner and Harry Reid running a co-Presidency.

                    6. Congress could just pass a rider on the defense appropriation bill saying he can't.

                      All Congress does is fund the troops. The president tells them where to go.
                      God you're an idiot.

                    7. "All Congress does is fund the troops. The president tells them where to go.
                      God you're an idiot."

                      Oh yes they can. If there is a public law that says "one brigade shall be in Bamberg FDR" then one brigade will be there regardless of what the President wants.

                      And the President is not moving anything without the funding to do so. So if Congress puts a rider that says "no funds shall be expended to move troops from Europe", that is it, it doesn't happen.

                      I am not an idiot. I just know how government fiscal law works.

                    8. John, just because you have some areas of competency doesn't mean you're not an idiot overall. Just sayin'

                    9. Tonio just because someone tells you you are not getting a pony doesn't mean it is true. Just saying. You guys may still get your pony. But I doubt it.

                    10. John, are you perhaps confusing me with Tony? I know the names are similar (sorta), but do try to keep up. You make the rest of us look bad.

                      It also occurs to me that you might have some cognitive impairment issues. Which is why I've stopped harshing on you.

                      Have you been checked for early onset senile dementia? Srsly.

                    11. But on the other you are claiming electing Paul will fix everything.

                      Straw man. Nobody said he will fix everything.

                      He's the only one who would actually act on his small government rhetoric. However there is only so much a president can do. Paul supporters understand that more than most people.

                    12. Unless he stages a coup, he couldn't act on shit. The Congress controls the power of the purse. I would think you Mr the Constitution has only one obvious meaning would know that.

                    13. You know what John, I'm sick of you putting words in my mouth (you believe, you think, etc) and expecting me to defend your straw man assumptions. This conversation is over. Go fuck yourself.

                    14. Part of being President is getting Congress to go along with what you want.

                    15. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/c.....-anything/

                      He can act on _some_ shit.

                    16. He can do some things. But not nearly what his supporters think he can.

                    17. Depends on who you talk to. I don't expect him to fix everything in a term or two.

                    18. Like when Congress said "No, Barry; you can't buy GM." and he stole their credit card and bought GM anyway? Sorry, Congress does not have the collective balls to stand up to anything.

        2. on occasiob while I am at the gym, I do a little mind excersize and put the GOP candidates in order, best to worst. My current order is (including Bachmann as a candidate for sake of argument):

          1. Paul
          2. Huntsmann

          3. Romney
          4. Perry

          5. Bachmann
          6. Santorum
          7. Gingrich

          Bachamnn's in my bottom tier, but was always slightly better than Santorum & Gingrich for the reason John mentioned.

          1. Curious, what makes Romney better than Perry, Santorum or Bachmann? I'm not keen on the latter three but at least they didn't support the idea the government can make me buy whatever they want me to.

            1. bear in mind, everything below #1 is not good, and everything below #2 is downright awful, but those bottom 3 scare the daylights out of me with their belligerent foreign policy.

              And I am counting on the SCOTUS to invalidate Obamacare.

              1. I have repeatedly flip-flopped Romney and Perry, btw.

                how different would your list be?

                1. 1. Paul
                  2. Huntsman
                  3. The rest except Gingrich and Romney; equally hawkish and crony capitalist and obnoxious on social issues. Differences largely cosmetic.
                  4. Romney like the above but even less trustworthy and thinks the government can make me buy whatever it tells me to.
                  5. Gingrich is bloody terrible. As big government as Romney or Obama (individual mandate especially), can't trust a thing he says. Thinks government can solve nearly any problem. A complete progressive but more dangerous than Mitt because people buy he's more conservative than Romney. All that and an ego-maniacal fat head.

                  1. Given that a candidate's promised policies are horrible, isn't it better if he or she is untrustworthy?

                  2. well, I absolutely agree with you on #1, #2, and the last guy.

                    and the other ones are definitely interchangable, just interesting to rank them for sh*ts and giggles.

                    1. "Given that a candidate's promised policies are horrible, isn't it better if he or she is untrustworthy?"

                      I'll bite. Revision:
                      "I don't trust them to do anything that is not self-serving."

          2. I try not to think of Romney on the leg curl. There have been accidents.

            1. Like I would ever go to a gym.

              1. The official wish list:

                1. Paul
                2. X
                3. X
                4. X
                5. X
                6. X
                7. X

      3. I see where you're coming from. She cast some good votes. However the unashamed populist pandering with what appeared to be a constantly forced fake smile rather doused any confidence she won from me. A vote for her would have been strictly on fiscal policy, and fiscal policy is not everything. Her record was mixed. At the end of the day she chose to stake her public image on culture warring instead of personal freedom, so she'll have to live with the consequences.

        1. That is about right. In a world of bad options, she was far from the worst. Why she decided to die on the hill of vaccinations is a mystery

          1. Because she thought she could take back her energy from Perry, and it failed.

            1. She panicked. Perry was going to die on his own. All she had to do was sit back and keep talking about fiscal sanity and eventually have been the "not Romney" candidate by default. She is a hell of a lot better than Santorum.

    2. We need to cut government spending.
      Just not that government spending.

  13. For big Tony D


    1. oh, mommy. mommy, do you want me, too?

  14. They should make Bachmann speaker of the house if for no other reason than to force Nancy Pelosi's name to be forever linked with her as the only two women speakers in history.

  15. Ahh, who else am I going to roll my eyes at during the debates, oh wait, Santorum wants to bomb Iran on day 1. Let the eye rolling commence. I can't believe I used to be a Republican.

    1. The Hermanator was the only one who said anything intelligent about foreign policy in the debates. When asked what he would do about Afghanistan, he said he didn't know because he didn't have the information.

      None of these clowns have the knowledge of what is going on that the President has. Hell, we may be bombing Iran covertly right now. The Iranians may not even be close to having a bomb. Who knows. Anyone who says "I am going to do X" about Iran or Afghanistan without knowing what the President knows is just pissing in the wind.

      1. The consensus of our military and the CIA is that Iran will get the bomb and there is nothing we can do about it. Our efforts are entirely focused on slowing them down rather than halting their program. Stuxnet, sticky bombs and other assassinations don't change the fact that they have hardened locations - not vulnerable to bunker busters - scattered throughout the country.

        What this means is that Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only outlook that acknowledges the reality of the situation. Instead of threatening Iran, which will seem more stupid than tough and manly once they actually get the bomb, we need to engage them. No, we don't need an apology tour, but neither can we continue treating them as though we intend to storm their beaches.

        1. "The consensus of our military and the CIA is that Iran will get the bomb and there is nothing we can do about it."

          Unless you have a very high security clearance and are currently willing to break federal law to talk on a blog, you are talking out of your ass. You have no fucking clue what the consensus is or even if there is one. All you know is what you read in the media, which is either misinformation fed by the intelligence community or wishful thinking by one political side or the other.

          And there are lots of ways to stop them. There is nothing to say their government will stay in power long enough to build it. Again, neither you nor Ron Paul know shit.

          1. My sources have very high security clearances and, no, I am not talking out of my ass.

            1. I have one of those too. And I say you are.

              1. Oh, I see. So the guys at CentCom who are entirely focused on slowing rather than halting Iran's progress are misguided. Thanks for clearing that up.

                1. yeah because the military is always in the loop, always have the right information, always tell their friends that information, and never plan for the worst. Sure they working to slow and planning for Iran to have them. That is called be cautious.

                  Maybe it is inevitable. I don't know. And neither do you. That is my point. You just believe that it is because that is what you want to believe. You want to believe the Iranians are wonderful peaceful people just building nukes for ego purposes. I hope you are right. But wishing it to be true is not a policy.

                  1. I don't think the Iranians (or the government at least) are wonderful peaceful people. Where did you get that from? I think they have a paranoid, oppressive government which abuses its own people and blames every bad thing that happens on the CIA and/or the Mossad.

                  2. Also, now that I think of it, you're just plain full of crap. When I talk to officers who have been deployed to the Middle East, they don't say, "here's a secret. Iran's going to get the bomb." Apparently, this is fairly well known, and I've heard it from several sources that ought to know -- i.e. multiple decades of military experience. I understand you may be an attorney, but, really, your entire line of reasoning here is illogical. If Michael Scheuer of the CIA is excoriating the other candidates for lying to the American people about Iran, maybe you should have a better retort than, "well, he's just talking out of his ass."

          2. John, Ron Paul is on the House Committee for Foreign Affairs. I believe those congresscritters do have access to classified material. So, it's quite possible that Paul knows things the rest of us don't. He can't discuss those, of course, but he could formulate policy based on that.

            How nice that you have a security clearance. Lots of us do, or have in the past. That doesn't mean you get access to any info you want. It means you get access to the info you need to do your job.

            You're a US Atty, right? I'll grant that it's possible that you worked on a case where Iran's nuke program and our plans for that came up. Possible.

            1. I am not saying I know anything. That is my point. No one outside of the really people do. We are all talking out of our asses on this. If I hear one more person talk with such assurance about Iran I am going to puke. And that goes for the hawks too. On this one, we really do have to trust the President a bit.

  16. If she really is/was a tax attorney, that just proves it takes a "special" kind of mind to deal with the tax code.

    1. As a former tax attorney, I can vouch for that.

    2. I've got no problem with her being a tax attorney. I have a problem with her being a tax attorney for the bad guys.

  17. I read some where that Santorum is "just a flash in the pan."

    And now I can't stop thinking about pan-fried Santorum.

    1. Remember that the calves are white meat, and everything else is dark.

    2. It's what's for dinner.

    3. Santorum is a splash in the man.

  18. Bachmann's out? Wonder when the Mothership is scheduled for its pickup. Would be an interesting craft to see.

  19. Was I not supposed to notice that in the immigration hit piece, the columnist states that being against illegal immigration "will put [Bachmann] in bed with groups such as ...," and then puts words in Bachmann's mouth: "They [the aforementioned groups] have peddled myths about unauthorized workers that have stymied rational immigration reform. Here are the five big ones that Bachmann will inevitably hawk."

    Nowhere in the article does she provide any sort of evidence that the Congresswoman is associated with these groups, or that she has any problem at all with legal immigration. The columnist simply draws an unproven equivalence, and goes on to list and rebut the myths "those people" spout -- never mentioning the Congresswoman again.

    1. You miss the rules. Only people you don't like are guilty by association. For this Reason Paul is in no way guilty to libertarians for his association with Rothbard and other such lowlifes. But Bachmann is totally guilty and can be judged completely by her associations.

      1. Dalmia < Michael Young < Weigal < STEVE SMITH

        1. What kills me is that Dalmia presumably has a green card. And she is still bitter.

    2. It's Shikha Dalmia who wrote that. Dishonesty is to be expected.

  20. Paul is just beginning.

    He has the best organization among the GOP contenders and smartest people by far. Once everyone else is gone but Paul and Romney it will get very interesting.

    Paul has major organizations in place and active across the nation. If anything Iowa was a state he should not have done as well as he did given the demographics of the state.

    I have already given CA to Paul over Romney and probably over Obama. Paul is the only GOP candidate that appeals to the masses of Independents and the Left.

    Romney has raised 90% of his money from big corporations and only 10% from the people. He has no appeal to the young where Paul is strongest by far.

    Paul ain't going away before the GOP convention and maybe not even then.

    1. What poll has Paul out polling Obama in California? Not that I that wouldn't be a good thing. But I find that hard to believe.

      1. Its possible. Paul has picked up some serious Hollywood support. Don't kid yourself Hollywood has suffered under Obama. Also, Paul's social policies are lot more in tune with Hollywood than Obama's.

        Despite the material influx into CA of Indians from Mexico, Hollywood and Silicon Valley are where the power lies in CA.

        I think the key in CA for Paul will be how strong he can be in CA Mexican Indian expatriate communities.

      2. What poll has Paul out polling Obama in California?

        The poll inside his head.

    2. I support him too, but come on - the
      "smartest people?" Have you observed all the other campaign teams? But, let's say they are the smartest - then let's see them come up with some kickass answers when RP starts getting hammered about Iran in the next debate.

  21. The local nattering nabobs of nowledge are saying that Bachmann will not run for re-election (as her district will be re-shaped so a good chunk of it will include a popular Dem's district) and she will offer her expertise and ?lan to Fox News.

    1. she will offer her expertise and ?lan to Fox News.

      Not sure what use 90s-era graphics hardware will be to Fox, but hey, more power to them.

  22. I just want to give her hug (and grab her ass a little bit maybe).

    1. Mind the Spanx?.

  23. Even Marcus Bachmann isn't Bachmann-curious.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.