Daily Archives: January 26, 2011

In defense of Bachman or Prove to me you’re not sexist

So I was going to spend time today going over the Republican candidates I can’t stand and wouldn’t vote for if you lobotomized me (Romney, Palin, Huckabee, DeMint, and Santorum). However, after my last blog I got a bit of an unexpected (although disturbingly familiar response).

I will support (in order from those I support most to least) Giuliani, Christie, Gingrich, Bachman, and Pawlenty… do you want to guess who I got the most flack over? Michelle Bachman.
This strikes me as odd. Granted she’s not a great public speaker. And that rebuttal clearly needed a better production team (who know where to put the teleprompter). But we’re Republicans; we don’t necessarily trust good speakers. Good public speakers are demagogues and 9 times out of 10 out for themselves or for an ideology that can’t be won with reason and need charisma to make it popular (Hitler, Lenin, Mao are of course all famous examples). Further most of the problems from last night’s rebuttal that were her fault seem to come from nervousness (probably because it is her first true national speech).

However, nothing she said was out of line with conservative beliefs…Nothing! The words, the ideas, the images could have just as easily come from Goldwater or Reagan. Yet I got from conservatives that “she’s crazy”, “I’m a moron” and the like. Now as far as I know Michelle Bachman has said nothing and done nothing to put her out of line with traditional Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Certainly she’s out of step with the wimpy middle ground of the GOP that would like to make deals with the Dems and sell out our conservative beliefs for good PR, best exemplified by McCain and anyone named Bush. ….And I would like to make this very clear, if you can show me where she is out of line with this line of traditionally rational, fact based, and patriotic thought, I will withdraw my support of her and agree with you that she needs to be booted out. However I am aware of no such position, statement, or action.

And this is where the arguments I had (several abusive email included) drive me insane. They were vitriolic and hateful. Yes I often insult the intelligence, the patriotism, the character, and quality of lots of people. Often I will use purely derogatory insults. But when I do, it is an aspect of emotional pathos to punctuate an overly long and dull argument. I need to keep the emotional argument as well as the intellectual one. And I don’t think I’ve ever given an insult I can’t back up with facts…
…Facts that were oddly lacking in the arguments against Bachman.

And these arguments seemed familiar. I remember them against Palin in the days before she showed herself to be utterly without standard or character and nothing more than an opportunist demagogue. I remember these arguments made by liberals against Hillary when she was running against Obama. No reason, no facts, just vitriol. Hmmm… what do Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and Hillary Clinton all have in common? I wonder. It sure as hell ain’t politics. It’s not quality of character. The only thing I can see is gender. It seems to be from both sides. Both liberals and conservatives seem to despise her in equal degree yet I know of no policy reason for this. Same toward Hillary. Liberals and conservatives both seemed to be more opposed to a moderate like Clinton than toward a radical like Obama. It makes no rational sense to me.

This sadly reinforces a deep belief of mine that America still has some very big problems with sexism and misogynism. I’m not saying that that everyone who attacks these politicians is sexist, but I argue that society as a whole still has this problem and it’s bigger than most think…
Or prove me wrong. Prove to me that Bachman isn’t in line with Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Prove to me that she has no skill in an executive position (difficult given her skill in raising money).

Bachman is not my first choice; Giuliani is and always will be. However, I have seen nothing to say that she does not believe and support the ideas and policies I think are important. But I am a reasonable person, open to facts and reason. I have often gone back and changed these blogs when people have proved to me that my ideas won’t work. I ask you, the people who seem to know more about Bachman than I do, prove to me her ideas and/or actions are something a conservative as myself should not support.

Otherwise concede that you don’t have facts but that you may want to search your soul for some traces of bias against women.

Leave a comment

Filed under Problems with the GOP, Tea Party

Presidential Candidates: The Good. The Bad. And the Ugly. Part I: The Good


So this last weekend there was a straw poll in New Hampshire for Republican Candidates.Now this is in no way scientific (we can only hope) but it does show who the elites (read “morons who got us in the position we’re in”) are wanting to back for the GOP nomination.

Here are the highlights

Mitt Romney 39%

Ron Paul 11%

Tim Pawlenty 8%

Sarah Palin 7%

Michele Bachman 5%

Jim DeMint 5%

Herman Cain 4%

Chris Christie 3%

Rick Santorum 3%

Mitch Daniels 3%

Newt Gingrich 3%

Mike Huckabee 3%

Mike Pence 3%

Rudy Giuliani 2%

Now clearly the Republican Party has lost its mind if it thinks a bleeding heart Massachusetts liberal like Mitt Romney should be their candidate.However there are some other terrible choices in there.

Cain, Daniels, and Pence I don’t know enough about to have an informed opinion on.

Romney, Paul, Palin, DeMint, Santorum, or Huckabee would be the worst thing the GOP could do to the country since Gerry Ford (although to be fair, Ford was probably better than those six losers or McCain)

But the bad will have to wait until tomorrow.Today is about the good.

Giuliani, Bachman, Christie, Gingrich, and Pawlenty.

Each of these names I can live with.

Now I don’t agree with Gingrich on everything, and I’m not sure I’ve seen enough of Pawlenty to be sure of him—and of course Christie says he will not run.But these five have a clear vision of the priorities of America.Cutting the size of government, cutting spending, cutting federal power, building a capitalistic economy, and of course blowing up terrorists in the most cost efficient way possible.Each of these five want cut, cut, cut not with a pen knife but more with a knife like a thick butcher’s cleaver (probably a machete is really called for, but I’m willing to take baby steps on this one so long as I get actual movement toward eliminating the debt).And I have never heard anything from any of these five that would make me think they believe that appeasement of evil is ever a practical solution to the problem of tyranny.

With the exception of Bachman these five have experience in executive positions that is not a disgrace (like say running Massachusetts into massive debt…I wonder who helped do that?) For Giuliani keep in mind that being mayor of New York City probably takes more executive skill than being Governor for some states.And Gingrich engineered one of the largest party takeovers in history and kept his people in line quite well for a couple of years.Bachman also is beginning to demonstrate that kind of executive quality that Gingrich had in her role as the head of the Tea Party in the House.Further, what shows Bachman has the strength to be in this kind of executive position is that while she is not backing down (her own rebuttal to the joke that was the President’s State of the Union) she was not willing to drag her party down to satisfy her own ego (when she stepped aside and did not run for one of the House leadership position).

And most important, all five of these people have been rather detested in the press and their own part and stood their ground.Unlike the weak will of most Republicans they seem to not care about what pollsters and the press corps say, but rather base their judgments on minor things like facts, reason, and ethics.

I could go over these candidates more, but right now I’ll let them duke it out and praise the one who comes out on top.However, tomorrow let’s move onto the bad.The ones who unlike these five show no signs of intelligence or character or sanity (or all three).

3 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Problems with the GOP