Michele Bachmann is a "poor man's Sarah Palin"???

@jerzgirl (7718)
Gloucester City, New Jersey
January 27, 2011 1:27am CST
At least, that's what Meghan McCain has said. I'm not sure how to take that, but it doesn't sound good for either woman, I don't think. First of all, if Bachmann is a "poor man's" Sarah Palin, what does that make Palin? Unaffordable? Secondly, she points out that neither Fox News nor MSNBC televised Bachmann's lone wolf rebuttal to the SOTU address, so obviously she's not considered newsworthy by even her own. Lastly, McCain says that "Michele Bachmann is not a leader. She is not a leader of the Republican party." What's that going to do to her presidential aspirations? Or will she be so oblivious to the criticism that she still believes she is a viable candidate? This is in addition to her recent claims in a speech to the Iowans for Tax Relief that the founding fathers were the ones who eradicated slavery and that there were no differences based on culture, religion or economic status when this country began. Yet, she considers herself a Constitutionalist even though the Constitution acknowledges slavery to the point of allowing slave states to count them as 3/5 of a person each for representative purposes and limiting (initially) voting privileges to male land owners rather than women, tenant farmers or indentured servants. Since she does hold a Bachelor's Degree, I can only assume that she deliberately presented a false history to people that she thought wouldn't know the difference. If I were them, I'd be outraged. Wouldn't you? So, how do you feel about all of this? Are you a diehard Bachmann backer? If so, does any of this give you reason for concern? Or do you have another opinion altogether? I really have to wonder if Bachmann has bitten off more than she can chew here. But, I'm still curious about the comparison to Sarah Palin. What do you think it means?
3 people like this
6 responses
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
27 Jan 11
I not all that convinced that Rep. Bachmann is all that "stupid" ... I believe she plays to her audience ... I believe that there is a "small" audience who appreciate her kind of ridiculous speaks. I'm not sure she'll be able to troll for votes outside a very limited base of folks though and come out ahead of any potential presidential candidate on either side. I'm baffled by "poor man's Sarah Palin" ... what ... that Rep.Bachmann has not dumped, reneged her oath to serve her constituents and gone after riches ... what?? I do think that in the "real" serious world, I would NOT want either teaching my children American history ... nor anything else for that matter.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16674)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Jan 11
Bachmann was correct in her assertions, which would make her an excellent history teacher.
@anniepa (26459)
• United States
4 Feb 11
I promise you if I had a school-aged child and his or her teacher was Michele Bachmann, I'd start home-schooling! Annie
@anniepa (26459)
• United States
4 Feb 11
I was watching that show live when she made that remark and I have to admit I sort of winced. I like Meghan but she could have chosen her words a bit more carefully in this case. She was absolutely correct about Bachmann not being a leader but she should have left it at that, especially since for so many on the right speaking ill of Palin in the biggest of "no-no's". I think their NEW 11th Commandment is "Thou Shalt Never Criticize Sarah Palin in any manner!" I can't believe there are people we both know definitely know better who are defending Bachmann's ignorance! I'm not sure if she really is that ignorant of our history or if she has some hidden motive for saying this to her base. From some of the things she's said in the past, I have to agree with Chris Matthews when he says she's a "balloon head"...lol! Annie
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (7718)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
4 Feb 11
I don't know about that 11th commandment. I've been noticing a bit more public discord than there used to be over Sarah of Seward's Folly fame. I think she's burnt a bridge or two too many in her climb to the top of her Ivory Tower. But, still.... a "poor man's Sarah Palin"? I'm still left wondering if that means Bachmann charges far less than Palin for speaking engagements.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (26459)
• United States
4 Feb 11
You're right, I guess I was just thinking about her fervent fans here and on some of the right-wing shows like Beck and Hannity. You may also be right about what Meghan meant, although for some reason I can't figure out Bachmann is a very successful fund-raiser. I guess she has supporters with more money than brains...lol! She hasn't trademarked her name yet, either, has she? Annie
@Rollo1 (16674)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Jan 11
I think Dana Loesch said it best when she opined that Meghan McCain has figured out that she can make more money with Palin's last name than she can with her own. I suppose the number of people becoming famous for nothing more than excoriating Palin will soon have to move over to make room for people becoming famous for denigrating Bachmann. Chris Matthews is safe, he talks about both of them constantly. I don't think MSNBC considers Bachmann "one of their own". By your estimation, Fox News isn't even a news organization so why does that matter? CNN showed the Bachmann speech in its entirety. I certainly hope that a candidate's viability is not going to be determined by Meghan McCain. Whoa, and we thought the country was in trouble before...
@jerzgirl (7718)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
27 Jan 11
I realize that including MSNBC with Fox while calling them "her own" is problematic, but I can live with that. I did, however, forget the links referring back to the sites from which I pulled most of my information. You will find them in my response to the first commenter. I also don't recall critiquing Fox News as a news organization in this discussion, so your declaration of my estimation seems out of place. However, no one yet has answered my question of what McCain meant by "poor man's Sarah Palin". I am honestly confused by that, however funny it might sound to me, because I don't know to what she was referring. Was it speaking fees? Or was she referring to something else entirely? But, thank you for responding. I appreciate it.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16674)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Jan 11
I think the real answer is that Meghan McCain doesn't know what she means, she's just trying to be famous. She does this by using her last name to get on TV and then staying on TV by saying outrageous things that don't fall in line with the typical Republican stance. This makes her very popular on shows hosted by those who lean left, which is mostly where you will see her. I think she meant to denigrate Bachmann, make her "less important than". But, as you point out, the statement doesn't really make sense. You did not make any qualifying remarks about Fox in this discussion, but I am pretty sure I have seen responses from you on other discussions in which you express a less than favorable impression of Fox News. If that is untrue, and you hold them in high esteem, I apologize.
@Rollo1 (16674)
• Boston, Massachusetts
3 Feb 11
I am not sure you said anything different from what I said Annie. Except Meghan McCain wasn't talking about Palin, she was talking about Bachmann. The gratuitous swipe at Bristol Palin was just a bonus I guess. Again, McCain said something and it wasn't very sensible, not a good comparison and was something she must have thought sounded clever. She's trying to make money, something we both agree young people are interested in. Hey, even some old people are interested in it. As long as no one named Palin tries it, that would be heinous. But everyone else can try it. Maybe you don't see a lot of Meghan McCain, although I seem to remember you mentioning her in discussions before, perhaps a long time ago. But you yourself point out some of her views that make her welcome on shows with left-leaning hosts so I don't know why you disagree that she says things that make her famous. If her father weren't a famous Republican, no one would care if her views differed from his on anything. Therefore, when she disagrees or says something unexpected, it keeps those chat show invites coming. The biggest difference is that I answered a discussion about McCain which is why I am talking about her. I don't think she is particularly clever nor do I consider her political opinions to be astute. But whatever she does, however ridiculous it seems to me, I will never care enough about her to toss remarks about her into discussions that have nothing to do with her just so I can sneer at her.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
27 Jan 11
Perhaps you should review or re learn your history. The 3/5 compromise came about because the south wanted count slaves toward determining the number of votes in congress and in the electoral college. The north knew that this would give the south too much power. http://www.suite101.com/content/the-threefifths-compromise-a13821 The framers of the country had to decide between allowing slavery and forming a viable country or outlaw slavery and having a weakened country ripe for an invasion by a foreign power. many of the founders realized that slavery could not and would not be economically viable in the future. The framers of the Constitution also put in a provision to change as the country changed and the 13th amendment made the 3/5 clause a mute point because all people were freed. As to the voting privileges the founders felt that those who paid the bill should have a say in how it is spent. They felt that if you allowed people who did not pay for things to vote then they would vote to give themselves more. Look at Detroit with their high taxes to provide a very liberal welfare system. People are walking away from nice home because they can not afford the taxes. Look at California and all the free stuff people wanted but fewer and fewer people are paying taxes. A few years ago CA legislators voted to give people in the state retirement system (including themselves) yearly raises of 8% because that is what the state was making on their investments. Now try and repeal the law that is forcing the state to sell off the principal to pay for the increases. There have been reports that some retirees are making more in retirement than they did on the job. In many large cities there is a constant fight over where city employees should live. Given the choice many city employees choose to live outside the City because of the taxes. They are willing to take the money but do not want to pay taxes. Illinois had a large demonstration by Public Employee Unions several months ago demanding that the state raise the taxes on the rich to pay for increases in their salary and benefits. Why should they get a raise when everyone else is taking a pay cut or having their hours reduced? The idea of giving voting rights only to those who owned land was because they were the ones who would be paying the bill. By the way Rep Bachmann holds a Law Degree from William and Mary Law School. She also knows that the correct citation in the Declaration of Independence is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and not We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed .... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as our President seems to forget.
@jerzgirl (7718)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
27 Jan 11
First of all, if I didn't know my history, I wouldn't have known about the 3/5 rule. It doesn't matter that it was made moot by the Emancipation Proclamation. It DOES matter that the Constitution initially provided for slaves to be counted towards representation in Congress as evidence that slavery was NOT abolished by the founding fathers as claimed by Ms. Bachmann. As for her holding a law degree, that only heightens the problem of her erroneous claims about the founding fathers, slavery's abolishment and equal treatment for all upon the birth of this nation. Either she is supremely forgetful or supremely deceitful. So, while I appreciate the history lesson, I fail to see how that applies to the discussion. I did, however, forget to provide the links that should have been part of this discussion. They are: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/26/meghan_mccain_michele_bachmann_a_poor_mans_sarah_palin.html AND http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/bachmann-america-was-founded-on-diversity-video.php . Thank you for being first to respond.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16674)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Jan 11
bobmnu and Bachmann are correct. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a clause to abolish slavery, but a southern contingent led by South Carolina's Edward Rutledge bound together to block passage of the Declaration until it was removed. With no other recourse, the northern contingent led by John Adams of Massachusetts, realizing their dream of independence would end if they didn't acquiesce, eventually acceded and the clause was removed. As Bachmann noted in her four sentences about this issue Saturday, Adams' son John Quincy Adams did indeed work tirelessly to end slavery. Therefore, her statement about the founding fathers working to abolish slavery was correct.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
27 Jan 11
That would be a question for Meghan McCain. I really do not know why what she says matters much. Regarding Bachmann, she seems to be doing pretty good with out your support. I do find it telling that so many liberals clamped on to that one statement in her speech. Perhaps she was speaking of the base the forefathers laid down. Clearly the signers of our Constitution did not abolish slavery. Most thinking individuals know this. But they did start the ball.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
28 Jan 11
Yes, it seems to me she is trying to make her way. I dont agree with her ideas but hey, whatever
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
27 Jan 11
I don't know how the "poor man" term is taken universally, but we use it here as an insult-slash-joke - a 1/2 dozens move. Like, for example, I could call you the "poor man's AnniePA" for making an anti-Bachmann/Palin post, and it would mean like the generic version of the original, at least how we use it around here. But there are many ways it can be used. I guess McCain was trying to be insulting while still leaning on the "it's funny" side - like Jon Stewart, only Stewart has talent and doesn't get airtime because his father's a somebody.