Michelle Bachman speaks to the BBC

[domtoni]

This is what makes the US different from the rest of the world, and why our views on some of our favorite topics are worlds apart:

Michele Bachmann Is On the Money | RedState

This article (granted it comes from a conservative source) makes the BBC sound like they are reading straight from the New York Times, highly not unbiased.

 

[Jeff Young]

No, Michelle Bachman is a divisive, right wing religious nut. You may disagree with the President, but calling him (or George Bush, or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan) "anti-American" is wrong.

The myth that President Obama is anything but a center left Democrat like Truman, Johnson, Kennedy and Clinton is just that -- a myth. All of them believe in free enterprise and market economies with some regulation. All of them believe in a larger federal government and more social programs than you (and Ms. Bachman) would prefer.

That does not make them anti-American. It makes them Americans who have different beliefs than you.

People who believe in this kind of tripe, and feed on it, are the real "sheeple" in my view.

 

[Graham]

Domtoni,

As far as the interview went, I think it was no more critical than any other would be. would you rather the interviewer just rolled over like a lapdog?

I watch these kinds of interviews all the time, including ones where the interviewee is someone whom I agree with. It's a good thing to put them under pressure to answer for the things that they have said. IF she said that Obama is unamerican, then she is a fool....

Graham.

 

[Graham]

Also Domtoni,

I would be interested where the interviewers bias was in the interview?

Grtaham.

 

[TimB]

Domtoni,

IF she said that Obama is unamerican, then she is a fool....

Graham.

It sure was difficult to find the answer without too much effort

From the article here is her response to the quetion do you believe he is un american

I’ve been very concerned about the policies that have come out of the White House and I share that agreement with people who voted at the ballot box on the first Tuesday in November . . . . The policies that are anti-free enterprise are ones that are not familiar to the people of the United States. And that’s why we saw such a strong reaction to the ballot box. In fact, the government takeover of health care is a great example, that’s not what was done here historically in the United States, and the people don’t want to see the federal government to control and dictate our health care

 

[Jeff Young]

Bachmann went well off the reservation when it comes to leveling political charges against the Democratic nominee.

"If we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had in his life," she said, "it calls into question what Barack Obama's true beliefs and values and thoughts are. His attitudes, values, and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States...is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We have seen one friend after another call into question his judgment -- but also, what it is that Barack Obama really believes?"

Goaded by a Chris Matthews to explain exactly what she was talking about (at one point Bachmann seemed to imply that liberalism was anti-Americanism), the congresswoman waded deeper into the mud.

"Remember it was Michele Obama who said she is only recently proud of her country and so these are very anti-American views," she said. "That's not the way that most Americans feel about our country. Most Americans are wild about America and they are very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values."

 

[Damian]

Tim I agree. If we wanted a NANNY STATE than we would have never broken away from the mother land.

 

[Jeff Young]

And it's of course "un-American" to hold any different viewpoint (whatever wanting a "nanny state" means).

 

[Damian]

Oh and mark my words OBAMA will go down as one of the worst president in U.S. history and has done more to set racial relations back wards and to drive a wedge between both political parties (got to love the results of the election. How's that feel OBAMA SUPPORTERS :thumbsup: ) than any other president that I can remember. It's sad (even though I laughed so hard I started to cry when I heard this) when the man admits that he will probably be a ONE TERM PRESIDENT and that he is O.K. with it (as if he had a choice). He has already admitted defeat and is governing like a scorn lover. I for one will be throwing a good riddance party once this clown is out of office and all are invited (especially his supporters).

 

[Jeff Young]

Thank you for your input.

 

[Damian]

If I have to explain what is meant by the term NANNY STATE that you sir should not be posting in political threads since the BASIC terminology escapes you Oh and anytime.

 

[Jeff Young]

One last post and then time to move on.

Nanny state. Does that mean no social security? No unemployment? No Medicare for the elderly? No police? No fire? No roads? No military?

I was questioning YOUR definition of "nanny state" because I suspect it is diametrically opposed to that of the vast majority of Americans who believe in Social Security, limited welfare to help folks through tough patches, assistance with health care, temporary unemployment insurance, etc.

But most of us acknowledge that the appropriate level of social programs in the US is debateable question. We agree that sometimes, we may do too much, and sometimes too little, and sometimes we can't afford to do all we would like.

However, one thing is clear. Those who are able to have a rational, intelligent debate about things like what social programs we should have, whether we can afford them, and what we need to dispense with, don't go around using loaded either/or words like nanny state.

That is all!

 

[domtoni]

Just another point. I saw a BBC World Service interview of a U of Maryland or Virginia professor who said that BHO wanted / wants to make the US Democratic party into the British Labour party. That's a big shift to the left, not just a centerist left perspective.

I agree that BHO will not be one of our most loved and successful presidents.

 

[Jeff Young]

Except...that's not what he's done.

Let's do some comparison.

Truman: tried to get national healthcare. New Dealer who believed in stimulus/Keynesian economics. Kennedy. New Frontier. Expanded social security, welfare, etc. Keynesian. Forced civil rights on the states. Johnston. The Great Society. Medicare. Welfare. Probably the greatest expansion of government programs to combat poverty, etc. in US history, even more so than the New Deal. Nixon: PRICE CONTROLS. Proposed a revamp of the health care system that required insurance purchases pretty much like we have now. Clinton: attempted to pass a single payer universal health care system.

Obama is a typical center-left Democrat. Don't believe the myth, or some politcially motivated professor's rant, to the contrary. The far left is as hacked off at him as the far right, for the failure to push single payer, gay/lesbian issues/corporate welfare (TARP, etc.).

But back to your original point. Please do not -- ever -- describe normal political discourse and disagreemetn in the US as anti-American. It's assinine to do so. I may disagree with my friends on the right, but I do not consider them anti-American. Show the same respect.

Thanks.

 

[domtoni]

I am not Michelle Bachmann and what she said was back in 2008. To those on the right, she is right on. To those on the left, she is off base.

Just shows how divided we are.

 

[Jeff Young]

You are posting a "defense" of her use of the description of President Obama as un-American by suggesting that if you are, in her view, anti-free enterprise or in favor of health care reform, you somehow do not beleive in American values.

I don't think we are nearly as divided as the media (right and left, Olberman and Beck) would have you believe. I think, in a lot of ways, a lot of folks have been duped into believing that Bush was Hitler and that Obama is an "anti-American" socialist.

Which is why people like Michelle Bachman are dangerous, divisive and most decidedly not right on.

Domtoni, let's have a simple, short test.

-I believe in free markets, with regulation to ensure against monopolies, to ensure that corporations and individuals bear the true cost of participating in markets, and to ensure that market based decisions aren't used to justify hurting the public.

-I believe in a limited social welfare net to help the elderly, the poor, and to provide temporary help to the unemployed.

-I believe a two tiered health care system, with single payer providing basic care to those that need it and those that can afford it purchasing their own insurance if they choose.

-I believe in the right to own guns responsbility, and don't consider regulation such as waiting periods or registration requirements to be an unreasonable burden on that right.

--I believe in a progressive tax system so that those who can afford it (like me) pay a higher share of our tax burden (to a point obviously) than those that can't.

Does that make me un-American to you? Simple question, yes or no answer.

To Ms. Bachman it would and for that she gets a resounding "screw you" from me. She should from you as well, as she is a divisive nutjob.

And I would not consider you un-American if you held viewpoints opposed to any of the above.

 

[Dave Wood]

I DON'T believe in SS. IT has been drained by the spendthrifts in congress and has been used for everything else and already is on the verge of collapse. So go ahead and believe in SS as you hand your money over to those fools.
I do believe that SS will go belly up before the Tooth Fairy. While it can be argued that the Tooth Fairy gets rotten teeth for the investment, at least there is some tangible exchange. The SS administration is just another over paid job opportunity. Since my wife passed away a few months back I have grown to dislike SS even more than I did before....and that wasn't much. My wife was 56 when she passed away and made 6 digit incomes that she paid into SS. Now, that she has passed on, she can no longer have access to it, but they will find someone to give it to. If SS is a Federal program why are their benefots subject to State law???? My wife's cremation cost about $3000, SS pays a one time death benefit of about $350 to cover it. My wife, whom I cared for the 18 months she battled her cancer before she passed on, and I were not "married" and the State of Illinois doesn't recognize common law marriages so they rejected the $350 payment, even though I paid out of pocket for the cremation. As stupid as that sounds, they inquired as to why she hadn't filed for disablity and said I would be elligible for the back disability that she didn't file for. WHAT?? I can't get a $350 one time death benefit, but they will let me have thousands of dollars in disability.That is pure BS, and a good example of why SS is going down the tubes.
I will file for my SS at 62 so I can get something before it's all gone. I can pay all my expenses on the lesser amount and feel it's better to get something than nothing, which is highly probable if I wait until 65. I'm american and despise the "nanny state". By the way roads and fire protection aren't part of a nanny state, although the feds are sticking their noses in. They are local positions and funded locally, up until the last few decades anyway.
Fortunately for all those that want the state to take care of their every whim, the Prince is getting married next year and you can watch all the pompous grandeur at the british taxpayers expense......it will be like returning to the mothership.
Please, please don't mention the "SS lock box". That's like having a safe with the combination written on the front. Nice term, but hollow.

 

[domtoni]

You are posting a "defense" of her use of the description of President Obama as un-American by suggesting that if you are, in her view, anti-free enterprise or in favor of health care reform, you somehow do not beleive in American values.

I don't think we are nearly as divided as the media (right and left, Olberman and Beck) would have you believe. I think, in a lot of ways, a lot of folks have been duped into believing that Bush was Hitler and that Obama is an "anti-American" socialist.

Which is why people like Michelle Bachman are dangerous, divisive and most decidedly not right on.

Domtoni, let's have a simple, short test.

-I believe in free markets, with regulation to ensure against monopolies, to ensure that corporations and individuals bear the true cost of participating in markets, and to ensure that market based decisions aren't used to justify hurting the public.
= Most small business people would say there is far too much red tape to compete in the global market. So, when does the government listen and back off?

-I believe in a limited social welfare net to help the elderly, the poor, and to provide temporary help to the unemployed.
= most people would but again what is enough? Look at the entitlement culture that has developed because of the Johnson Great Society program of the 1960s. 99 weeks unemployment benefits? Wouldn't the government have been better to do something to create jobs?

-I believe a two tiered health care system, with single payer providing basic care to those that need it and those that can afford it purchasing their own insurance if they choose.
= the poor are at least covered. As I have said countless times before, I prefer the German health care model to the UK NHS. Health care is far better in private hands.

-I believe in the right to own guns responsbility, and don't consider regulation such as waiting periods or registration requirements to be an unreasonable burden on that right.
= most people would agree with this.

--I believe in a progressive tax system so that those who can afford it (like me) pay a higher share of our tax burden (to a point obviously) than those that can't.
= I think everyone should pay some tax, and guys like you that are high earners should not have the fruits of your labour taken away by the taxing authorities. Sure, guys like Gates, Buffett etc can pay more, but then again, what is enough?

Does that make me un-American to you? Simple question, yes or no answer.
= no

To Ms. Bachman it would and for that she gets a resounding "screw you" from me. She should from you as well, as she is a divisive nutjob.
= I have listened to Michelle Bachman over time and don't find her anywhere near as your describe.

And I would not consider you un-American if you held viewpoints opposed to any of the above.

= But if you look at the president's actions, he does not give the signals that would make him a proud American.

As you are all aware of the viciousness of the left wing attacks on Sarah Palin (she is too hated but could make a good candidate if the right can further its lead in the polls), the right wing response will be one of equally strong words. And that is what its about.

 

[Jeff Young]

You didn't answer my question directly, although you came pretty close in that first sentence. I support President Obama. You are saying that he is not a "proud American." You are therefore essentially question my loyalty, and my commitment to my country.

For that I say: screw you. And yes, I would (and would love to) say that to your face.

We can agree to disagree on policy, and politics. When we start saying the other side is not a "proud American" or "un-American," we have a BIG problem. Which is what I have with you.

 

[domtoni]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't care. I hoped your man would have been the saviour that so many of his followers believed in. He has not demonstrated to me that he is representative of his office.

And no, I won't return the complement.