It doesn’t matter, the liberal media has decided she must be destroyed and they won’t stop until the job is done. That’s how they roll.

We need her for comic relief.

” Easy to criticize , more difficult to be correct “.

So, Bachman was doing the right thing by aiming her address at the people who invited her to speak. The Tea Party express.

I can’t stand her as an elected official but this seemed like awfully petty criticism to me. Those in the industry ought to know better.

The Tea Weasel said:
We need her for comic relief.

She can do a history satire special.

Michelle Bachman; The History we Prefer

or Michelle Bachman; History’s more fun when you get to choose your own version.

As somebody who does a lot of TV Bachman should have had an aide or someone on the set who knows that presentation is critical and made sure the right camera was looked into and she is a very good looking woman so what up with all that eye makeup? Oh well nobody takes this dingbat seriously.

An honest question: Has anyone seen the actual video from this Tea Party camera? The video currently up on teapartyexpress.org is STILL that of the 2nd, wrong camera.

pathway said:
An honest question: Has anyone seen the actual video from this Tea Party camera? The video currently up on teapartyexpress.org is STILL that of the 2nd, wrong camera.

That’s interesting. I wonder why.

Actually Dan, there was a great rebuttal to the criticism of Bachmann’s knowledge of history that you might enjoy. Evidentally, it didn’t fit Mediaites template, so they didn’t feel the need to post it.

Michele Bachman Gives Chris Matthews a History Lesson

Chris Matthews once again embarrasses himself with an unhinged and ill-informed attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann in this clip. The entire basis for his idiotic attacks, repeatedly calling her a “balloonhead,” stems from Bachmann claiming that the Founders, also mentioning John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams specifically by name, continued to work until the blight of slavery became a thing of the past in America.

Chris Matthews was nearly apoplectic in his questioning of Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo on the topic of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her controversial re-imagining of history where the founding fathers found a way to end slavery in their lifetime. Repeatedly calling Bachmann a “balloon head,” Matthews demanded to know why Russo and the Tea Party wanted Bachmann to give a response to the State of the Union address or, more generally, why they ever wanted her to open her mouth in the first place?

I don’t believe Bachmann said anything about “in their lifetime.” But it’s Chris Matthews that needs to bone up on his American History, not Rep. Bachmann. As a Founder and the second President, it’s true that John Adams put the Republic above what was then an impossible issue to resolve. It is inaccurate to suggest he was a proponent of slavery with no role in its ultimately being eliminated in the U.S. No, he did not sacrifice the forming of a Republic for it, which is precisely what a strong position against it would have meant. But he did make his sentiments known (for more), taking pride in never having employed a slave. He is said to have found it “repugnant” and he argued against the Southern position that blacks not be included in population figures during the Continental Congress. In short, he did what he could without sacrificing the greater cause at the time.

Here’s the rest: http://bigjournalism.com/driehl/2011/01/25/michele-bachman-gives-chris-matthews-a-history-lesson/

The liberal media is so intent on politically assassinating her that they will jump on anything and everything.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
It doesn’t matter, the liberal media has decided she must be destroyed and they won’t stop until the job is done. That’s how they roll.

Wait a minute, this woman consistently reveals herself to be an uninformed, revisionist fool and somehow that is the fault of liberals? It’s not our fault the woman is retarded.

John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father and a small historical event The Civil War kinda played a role in ending slavery.It was in all the papers.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Actually Dan, there was a great rebuttal to the criticism of Bachmann’s knowledge of history that you might enjoy. Evidentally, it didn’t fit Mediaites template, so they didn’t feel the need to post it.

Michele Bachman Gives Chris Matthews a History Lesson

Chris Matthews once again embarrasses himself with an unhinged and ill-informed attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann in this clip. The entire basis for his idiotic attacks, repeatedly calling her a “balloonhead,” stems from Bachmann claiming that the Founders, also mentioning John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams specifically by name, continued to work until the blight of slavery became a thing of the past in America.

Chris Matthews was nearly apoplectic in his questioning of Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo on the topic of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her controversial re-imagining of history where the founding fathers found a way to end slavery in their lifetime. Repeatedly calling Bachmann a “balloon head,” Matthews demanded to know why Russo and the Tea Party wanted Bachmann to give a response to the State of the Union address or, more generally, why they ever wanted her to open her mouth in the first place?

I don’t believe Bachmann said anything about “in their lifetime.” But it’s Chris Matthews that needs to bone up on his American History, not Rep. Bachmann. As a Founder and the second President, it’s true that John Adams put the Republic above what was then an impossible issue to resolve. It is inaccurate to suggest he was a proponent of slavery with no role in its ultimately being eliminated in the U.S. No, he did not sacrifice the forming of a Republic for it, which is precisely what a strong position against it would have meant. But he did make his sentiments known (for more), taking pride in never having employed a slave. He is said to have found it “repugnant” and he argued against the Southern position that blacks not be included in population figures during the Continental Congress. In short, he did what he could without sacrificing the greater cause at the time.

Here’s the rest: http://bigjournalism.com/driehl/2011/01/25/michele-bachman-gives-chris-matthews-a-history-lesson/

The liberal media is so intent on politically assassinating her that they will jump on anything and everything.

Counter to yours, big journalism & Bachmann’s revisionism, the Founding Fathers had no intention on ending slavery, it was intentionally left out of the Constitution save the 3/5ths compromise because you did have a few who were anti-slavery, but the majority weren’t. Both you and those dentists down in texas need to stop trying to change history.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
It doesn’t matter, the liberal media has decided she must be destroyed and they won’t stop until the job is done. That’s how they roll.

Victim-card alert.

When trying not to sound like an idiot.

Don’t quote anything from Andrew Breitbart.

All the RWNJ don’t have to worry about the Media trying to destroy Balloonhead Bachmann. Why would you attempt to destroy someone who is not a threat to anything? Especially the presidency.

The desperation of the liberal D-Baggers.

MIchael Adam, if you want to dispute the article please do so, but don’t just shoot the messenger.

The important thing is that Sarah Palin can breathe easy for a few minutes knowing that the hyenas have found another woman to diminish for the moment.

Michael Adam said:
When trying not to sound like an idiot.

Don’t quote anything from Andrew Breitbart.

All the RWNJ don’t have to worry about the Media trying to destroy Balloonhead Bachmann. Why would you attempt to destroy someone who is not a threat to anything? Especially the presidency.

When trying not to sound like an idiot, STFU. Really.

Er… no mention of how Mediaite milked this story too?

@ chucken and Reasonable

Are you sure you wouldn’t call JQA a “founding father.” What criteria does he miss? By my quick research and opinion, anyone who was appointed by Washington to do anything for the newly formed America, makes the cut pretty easily.

Oh, and I think you miss the point. Many (especially JQA) were openly against slavery, and spoke out against it. However, had they pushed the issue too hard, they would not have been able to unite the country. Dropping it was a strategic decision, made because joining the states was seen as more necessary. That’s compromise. And their actions campaigning against slavery before and after the Constitution should not be overlooked.

Pablo said:
The important thing is that Sarah Palin can breathe easy for a few minutes knowing that the hyenas have found another woman to diminish for the moment.

Democrats have gotten away with hypocrisy of the worst kind by annointing themselves as the “defenders” of rights for minorities.

First we saw how they punished Clarence Thomas for being black and NOT towing their anti-American Leftism dogma. Next, we saw NOW and other women’s rights groups on the left turn their backs on the women raped and abused by Bill Clinton putting party ahead of justice and righteousness. Throughout we’ve seen the “racially conscious” Left fervently attempt to attack personally and destroy any and all black political figures who dare not stay on the Democrat Plantation nodding “yowza, boss” when told to. Now, we have Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann championing pro-American Conservatism and drawing the damnation from the hypocrites on the Left as we see here.

Can there be any other more descriptive term than “DemoCrits?”

Pablo said:
When trying not to sound like an idiot, STFU. Really.

Truth hurts doesn’t it.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
MIchael Adam, if you want to dispute the article please do so, but don’t just shoot the messenger.

There’s nothing to dispute. It’s from BigFakeJournalism. Why waste time disputing something that just isn’t true. BTW liberals don’t shoot people.

Michael Adam said:
Truth hurts doesn’t it.

No. Idiocy makes me a little queasy though.

Who gives a shit? She’s batshit crazy and willfully ignorant. That’s all you need to know. Oh, and her charts were also bullshit!

@ Adam

So just because BigJourn said it, you’ll simply say it’s wrong, and never do any research for yourself? Wow! Talk about close minded. You don’t have to like or respect them, but to just ignore whatever they say, just because, is foolish.

Oh, as to your “Liberals don’t shoot people,” line… tell that to the folks who were taken hostage at the Discovery Channel. I’m sure they’d tell you what a Liberal gunman is like.

Pablo said:
No. Idiocy makes me a little queasy though.

Must be sick a lot then. Well if you subscribe to Ballonhead’s rhetoric.

roxsteady said:
Who gives a shit? She’s batshit crazy and willfully ignorant. That’s all you need to know. Oh, and her charts were also bullshit!

Exactly.

ImNotBlue said:
@ chucken and Reasonable

Are you sure you wouldn’t call JQA a “founding father.” What criteria does he miss? By my quick research and opinion, anyone who was appointed by Washington to do anything for the newly formed America, makes the cut pretty easily.

Oh, and I think you miss the point. Many (especially JQA) were openly against slavery, and spoke out against it. However, had they pushed the issue too hard, they would not have been able to unite the country. Dropping it was a strategic decision, made because joining the states was seen as more necessary. That’s compromise. And their actions campaigning against slavery before and after the Constitution should not be overlooked.

I didn’t say he was, but one man being openly against the institution does not qualify the entire key group or even the key 7. George Washington freeing his slaves AFTER he died does not qualify him as being against the institution.
So you subject a group of people to unspeakable degradation and dehumanization that lasts centuries simply to “united the country” I’m sorry but if these were truly the men of moral standard which you attempt to portray them as then that wouldn’t be the case. The fact of the matter is that even when they created the Constitution, the founding fathers had only themselves and the other elites in mind. You don’t have to believe me, but Charles Beard presents all the necessary empirical evidence in his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Adam

So just because BigJourn said it, you’ll simply say it’s wrong, and never do any research for yourself? Wow! Talk about close minded. You don’t have to like or respect them, but to just ignore whatever they say, just because, is foolish.

Liberals get the same response if we post something from mediamatters.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Adam

So just because BigJourn said it, you’ll simply say it’s wrong, and never do any research for yourself? Wow! Talk about close minded. You don’t have to like or respect them, but to just ignore whatever they say, just because, is foolish.

Oh, as to your “Liberals don’t shoot people,” line… tell that to the folks who were taken hostage at the Discovery Channel. I’m sure they’d tell you what a Liberal gunman is like.

Yes. When an organization willfully destroys an organization by lying and clever editing they are officially not believable about anything. As for my sarcastic comment about shooting something. We all know righty don’t have a sense of humor and can’t comprehend sarcasm. So do I expect you to understand it….well, no.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Actually Dan, there was a great rebuttal to the criticism of Bachmann’s knowledge of history that you might enjoy. Evidentally, it didn’t fit Mediaites template, so they didn’t feel the need to post it.

That rebuttal is so feeble and disingenuous it barely deserves the title of rebuttal. It’s more of a pretend rebuttal.

They focus on her mention of JQA and ignore her glaring mistakes as if getting one thing right negates the rest. It doesn’t. She distorted history and Matthews , although loud and obnoxious was right.
They ignore the fact that Matthews never mentioned JQA at all in criticizing her so their criticizing him on that count is only makes them look stupid. It’s a fine example of partisan apologetic bullshit.

So symbolic that one too many cameras foiled what was one too many rebuttals from the Right.

I guess one camera and one rebuttal would have been enough. lolol

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I don’t believe Bachmann said anything about “in their lifetime.”

Yeah, she did…..

“‘we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.’”

@ Reasonable

I really can’t say who else was for or against slavery, because I don’t know… but I’m sure the info is out there.

However, to discount the necessity in establishing the country, yes even in the face of slavery, is a mistake. Had they not been able to unite, the country would have either been lost back to England, taken over by another country, or torn appart by a North/South controversey which would have eventually led to the other two problems.

It’s easy to say “No way, never,” from this far in the future… but it would have been simply unrealistic in that time.

As for your comment about MM… maybe so. But unless you’re willing to accept tha validity of that arguement against MM, you can’t say that Adam’s response is valid.

@ Adam

And that means your not a close minded egotist who only hears what he wants to hear… how? Do you ever challenge your ideas, or is it all just an echo chamber.

Oh, and don’t pull the “it was sarcasm” card, when it clearly wasn’t. That sarcasm wouldn’t have made any sense in the context of your whole post. Who are you fooling?

I still think that Bachmann loaded up on Xanax and JB.

If Michelle Bachmann is actually running for president she better learn to talk to the camera the American people are watching, not the camera only the tea party is watching.

But that kinda sums up her whole “candidacy”

ImNotBlue said:
@ Reasonable

I really can’t say who else was for or against slavery, because I don’t know… but I’m sure the info is out there.

However, to discount the necessity in establishing the country, yes even in the face of slavery, is a mistake. Had they not been able to unite, the country would have either been lost back to England, taken over by another country, or torn appart by a North/South controversey which would have eventually led to the other two problems.

It’s easy to say “No way, never,” from this far in the future… but it would have been simply unrealistic in that time.

As for your comment about MM… maybe so. But unless you’re willing to accept tha validity of that arguement against MM, you can’t say that Adam’s response is valid.

@ Adam

And that means your not a close minded egotist who only hears what he wants to hear… how? Do you ever challenge your ideas, or is it all just an echo chamber.

Oh, and don’t pull the “it was sarcasm” card, when it clearly wasn’t. That sarcasm wouldn’t have made any sense in the context of your whole post. Who are you fooling?

Very well at least you’re honest about it.
And as an African-American I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that because a country that devalues the lives of its people is not much of a country at all. Lincoln was able to both unite the country and get rid of the institution. What makes the cases any different? Albeit there were different times, but if these men, who were the most powerful men in the country, truly did not like the institution it would have been no problem for them to unite and get rid of it. George Washington was the equivalent of Michael Jordan (for lack of a better analysis of somebody universally regarded as a great) in his realm at the time so it would have been no problem for him to galvanize the country even through such a thing.
I understand what you’re saying which is why I try to avoid ad hominems. I may criticize a source, but that’s not the same as saying a story is false due to its location. I would hope that people would become more open to opposition and facts rather than fallacies, but lets be honest fallacies are too easy and I’m not quixotic. I try to make it a point to disprove something if I think it is invalid.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I don’t believe Bachmann said anything about “in their lifetime.

Oh yeah, and this. It doesn’t matter if she meant” in their lifetime” or not because the people who signed those documents did not as a group work tirelessly to abolish slavery. This phrase is another lame partisan attempt to justify her obvious mistake. I can’t understand why that kind of mistake requires defending. Jeezuz can’t we just admit it when somebody makes an obvious mistake? Do we have to find some bullshit reason to defend them because they’re on “our team”?

Williams was obnoxious and unprofessional in his delivery of his criticism of her, but his point about her really getting history wrong is correct.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Reasonable

I really can’t say who else was for or against slavery, because I don’t know… but I’m sure the info is out there.

However, to discount the necessity in establishing the country, yes even in the face of slavery, is a mistake. Had they not been able to unite, the country would have either been lost back to England, taken over by another country, or torn appart by a North/South controversey which would have eventually led to the other two problems.

It’s easy to say “No way, never,” from this far in the future… but it would have been simply unrealistic in that time.

As for your comment about MM… maybe so. But unless you’re willing to accept tha validity of that arguement against MM, you can’t say that Adam’s response is valid.

@ Adam

And that means your not a close minded egotist who only hears what he wants to hear… how? Do you ever challenge your ideas, or is it all just an echo chamber.

Oh, and don’t pull the “it was sarcasm” card, when it clearly wasn’t. That sarcasm wouldn’t have made any sense in the context of your whole post. Who are you fooling?

Why would I challenge my Ideas? Mine are based in reality and facts. Yours are based on a racist little bug dying to get into the media mainstream by any means necessary. He (meaning Andy) lies, twists, and edits to craft his message to achieve goal. A goal that was almost accomplished, then ABC came to their collective senses. As for the “Shooting” reference, like I said I don’t expect you to get sarcasm or dark humor…..righty’s never do. I don’t expect you to understand a subtle joke aimed at both sides who tried to explain the successful efforts of a certifiable mental case. Of course most righty’s follow certifiable mental cases like Palin, Beck, and Balloonhead, so you are who you follow.

The facts are. The woman is a moron and anyone who follows her or subscribes to her rhetoric will be labeled as the same. Any wonder why Mr. Speaker will stay as far a humanly possible from her for as long as he can?

BFD said:
Yeah, she did….. “‘we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.’”

Man the founders lived a long time- what was their secret?

cocaine-powdered wigs!

BarneyFranken said:
Man the founders lived a long time- what was their secret?

cocaine-powdered wigs!

I heard the founders loved a fat doobie every now and then.

Seeing 20l2 From My Window said:
NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! TEABAGGERS DON’T MAKE MISTAKES!!!!! EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER!!!! Why do I always have to deal with FACTS!!??? It’s NOT FAIR!!!!

I object to the term Teabaggers ;-}

Unless you meant actual TEABAGGERS , in which case that IS their mistake, and a gross one at that.

This is from a mediaite article. She mentions John Q in another sentence using the ter “forebearers”. Tingles misrepresented what she said.

““Bachmann (R-MN) also noted how slavery was a ’scourge’ on American history, but added that ‘we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.’

‘And,’ she continued, ‘I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly — men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.’”

If I remember my English lessons from 60+ years ago correctly the clause following “forbearers” denotes who, John Q, she was talking about. The use of “forebearers” separates John Q from “Founding Fathers”/

As I said, she was guilty of phrasing that could be mistakenly parsed.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Counter to yours, big journalism & Bachmann’s revisionism, the Founding Fathers had no intention on ending slavery,

.
You might want to check this. The article is more extensive than this first part here:

“In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.”

THEY HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT EVEN THOSE THAT OWNED SLAVES.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

CosmosDan said:
I heard the founders loved a fat doobie every now and then.

you sir are…..correct. mr jefferson was not the only founding father who enjoyed the pleasure of his slave ladies either.

minnesota does like to elect characters to public office. no wonder garrison keillor likes to make fun of it. maybe bachmann lives by this keillor quote:

“sometimes you have to look reality in the eye……and deny it”

@Mark Joyella, if MSNBC can get the spelling of her name right, can’t you please? There’s one “L” in Michele.

Thanks!

Pablo said:
No. Idiocy makes me a little queasy though.

Must be hard trying to defend both Bachmann and Palin on daily basis. You got your work cut out for you.

Would the left have complained if a member of the Congressional Black Caucus had given a 2nd response, after the Democrat Party official response, in a former or future official Democrat party response?

Correction:

I said – …in a former or future official Democrat party response?

What I meant to say- after a SOTU speech by a Republican President?

This Bimbo makes Sarah “Sniper” Palin look and sound like a genius….

Your defense of this ridiculous woman shows how pitiful the tea partiers are. Seriously? How many people do you see on tv on ANY given day who don’t look at the camera? She is a moron, quite simply and a JOKE to the rest of the country. Don’t embarass the country that I love any more than George Bush did, PLEASE. You LOST, you have NOTHING and NO ONE to offer to this country so sit down and stfu for a while. You have Palin, a complete JOKE, this woman, a complete JOKE, Rush the Drug Addict, Glenn Beck the Completely Insane Clown Posse all on his own. How you can not listen to what this woman says on a near daily basis and still try to act like she is NORMAL.. is beyond the rest of us. And to think I thought MInnesota was an intelligent state.

I agree. People with such a demonstrated lack of knowledge should not be govern.

Like our President. Who thinks the Constitution is “20 centuries old”.

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2009/05/obama-on-history-constitution-is-20.html

And hey! Did you guys know the war in Afghanistan is over? Let’s celebrate!

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2011/01/breaking-war-in-afghanistan-is-over.html

Shall we mock him? I say yes.