It occurs to me that electing batshit insane paranoid freaks to higher office is probably a rather bad idea:
But when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) casually refers to elected Democratic officials as the "enemy," and nonchalantly refers to keeping her supporters "armed and dangerous," it's probably a good time to remind Republican lawmakers to turn down the temperature a bit. (via the University of Minnesota and the Dump Bachmann blog.)No, probably not. But this seems to fit in with a larger trend. We have one GOP lawmaker saying the party should emulate the insurgency tactics of the Taliban. We have another arguing the party should position itself as "freedom fighters" taking on the "slide toward socialism."
Bachmann appeared over the weekend on the First Team radio show with John Hinderaker and Brian Ward, speaking about the horrible stuff that the Democrats are doing: "I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington."
Bachmann also spoke out against the cap-and-trade proposals currently making their way through Washington, and how she'll be distributing information against it at an upcoming event in the district. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back," said Bachmann. "Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing. And the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
On the one hand, it seems clear that Bachmann was speaking figuratively. On the other hand, is it appropriate for a member of Congress to speak in any context about being armed for revolution?
Is it just me, or do these fuckwits sound mentally deranged?
Michelle Bachmann is also (surprise, surprise) confused about global warming:
During a Saturday interview with WWTC 1280 AM flagged by Smart Politics, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) slammed President Obama’s cap and trade plan, warning that it would have “the impact of forever changing our country.” She was particularly incensed that the bill was meant to address global warming, which she flatly denied was a human-caused problem:BACHMANN: And actually, we want this debate because the science is on our side on this one. And the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc.
What "science" are you referencing, Michelle? Cuz that's not what I'm hearing from scientists. Methinks possibly it's time to vote out dumbshits who can't tell the difference between genuine science and pseudo-science.
While we're on the subject of faulty premises, this is truly precious:
From Politico via Yahoo, we find that Gary Bauer is still out there acting as if anyone gives a rat's buttock what he thinks. Today's Gospel According to Gary: It's not seizing, jailing, and torturing innocent Muslims in the Levant that turns them into Western-hatin' terrorists, but letting them pray to Mecca.
Just in case you think I'm kidding, here's his closing spiel: "Whatever Obama decides to do, it is likely that some detainees will be released and, after years of radicalization at Gitmo, some may take up arms or suicide belts and join the jihad. If they do, it will be the accommodation, not suppression, of religious freedom at Guantanamo that’s to blame."
See, according to Gary, all we need to do is make sure these people can't pray to that icky Muslim god, and then everything'll be sunshine and roses. Despite the abuse they suffered at our hands. Because, of course, people of other religious faiths never do terrorist stuff.
Let's ask him to explain Timothy McVeigh, shall we? Should be fun.
While we're at it, let's have Politico explain why they've become patsies for right-wing hysteria:
For most of the interview, Obama is dead serious. Occasionally, he'd chuckle at some absurdity -- hardly an unusual reaction for, you know, humans -- but for the most part, the president was hardly jocular.
For a while, the lead story from Politico last night was the idea that President Obama chuckled a little too much during his interview with Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes." The headline on the piece read, "Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk?"
When Politico started promoting the piece at 7:04 p.m., I hadn't seen the interview. Reading the headline and these paragraphs, I started wondering if the president had somehow laughed inappropriately at economic suffering. I imagined extensive discussion of "Laugh-Gate" on "Morning Joe" today. Drudge, naturally, ran with this, and far-right blogs pounced.
But then I saw the interview and realized the Politico's piece didn't exactly capture the context.
About half-way through, Kroft brings up aid to the auto industry, and public opposition to additional government investment. The two share a laugh at the one-sided polling numbers, which led to Kroft's question about "laughing."
This is the kind of inane bullshit the right wing gets all excited about these days. On a scale of pathetic from 0 - infinity, they're way past the point where their rate of pathetic can be measured without scientific notation, and they're accelerating.
Are there funds in the stimulus for the psychotropics these fucktards so desperately need?