Michele Bachmann, Tar Babies, and the Ni-CLANG! Event Horizon

***JC scolded me for not cross-posting here (“You don’t write! You don’t call!”), so if you have complaints about being directed to The Raw Story, you should probably email him. Although I have it on good authority that his response will be “I don’t give a fuck.” Cheers! -ABLxx]

We’re one step closer to the Ni-CLANG! Event Horizon, people:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted President Obama following his proposed “crackdown” on firms found to be manipulating the oil market, saying he is “waving a tar baby in the air” as a distraction from high gas prices.

“This is just about waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem,” Bachmann said in an interview Wednesday with The Shark Tank, a conservative news organization that covers Florida politics. “I have never seen a more irresponsible president who is infantile in the way that he continually blames everyone else for his failure to first diagnose the problem and second to address the problem. It’s always everyone else’s fault.”

She said her message for the president is, “Get over it,” and stop blaming everyone else.

The term “tar baby” is a racially loaded phrase coined in the “Brer Rabbit” tales. The term generally means a “sticky situation,” but has also been used as a derogatory term for a black person.

Oh yes she did!  And she’s not the first!

Last year, when Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said that associating with President Obama was “like touching a tar baby,” I wrote this:

Doug Lamborn (R-CO) is opposed to Obama and everything he does. Lamborn wants to stay as far away from Obama as possible. Lamborn doesn’t even want to touch Obama because Obama is like a tar baby, and if Lamborn touches Obama, Lamborn will get stuck or get cooties or some horrifying combination of the two.


Is Lamborn “a racist.”

Who cares.

Should he jump up his own ass and reside there?


Same goes for Michele Bachmann. I’m long past the point of listening to the excuses of those who believe that being called “capital R” Racist is the Worst Thing Evah, and who refuse to take responsibility for the racist shit that they say. Just STOP SAYING AND DOING RACIST SHIT.

Also? I’m going to need Michele Bachmann to stop saying and doing stupid shit.  Seriously. What does “waving a tar baby in the air” even mean? As Ta Nehisi-Coates pointed out in 2006, “tar baby” refers to a trap:

[read the rest at TRS-ABLC]

Man on Dog and Dog on Car are staying in, but Sunglasses on Dog is going home…

Michele Bachmann yesterday:

As Iowans begin the process of caucusing tonight, I am confident that our message of consistent conservatism will resound across all of Iowa’s 99 counties. Iowans, this is our chance to take our country back. Let’s get started.

Michele Bachmann today suspending her campaign:

Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside. I have no regrets. None whatsoever. We never compromised our principles. … While a congresswoman by title, a politician I never have been, or will I ever hope to be.

There may be a hint of regret there, seeing as she also noted that:

I didn’t tell you what the polls said you wanted to hear.

Never mind, Michele – at least your little dog got some darling accessories out of the trip. Don’t let the door hit you on the crazy on your way out.

H/t to commenter JGabriel for the “Dog” meme, which will (I suspect) be entertaining us all (and Josh Marshall) for weeks, and to suzanne, who got there first with “Sunglasses on Dog”, damn her.

More GOP Nightmare Fuel: Romney/Bachmann

Jonathan Chait at NYMag‘s Daily Intel raised a horror I had not previously imagined:

… Michele Bachmann is a member of the [Romney] team as well. After her presidential bubble faded, Bachmann now seems to be hoping for a spot as Romney’s vice-presidential candidate. Accordingly, she joined Paul in assailing Gingrich and largely leaving Romney untouched. Byron York reports that Romney is sending signals of encouragement to her to keep up the good proxy work:

And afterward, Romney aides were happy to put in a good word for the congresswoman from Minnesota. “Michele Bachmann is good,” Stevens volunteered. “She is good. She’s cogent, she’s smart, unflappable — she must have been a heck of a lawyer. Very, very good. Very strong.” The message to Bachmann: Keep at it.

Obviously, you’d have to be delusional to think that Romney would put a massive liability like Bachmann on his ticket. Luckily for him, Bachmann is delusional.

Well, yes, Mr. Chait, but then, Romney is… not very clueful about the range of emotional behavior we humans call “normal”, is he? Assuming that Romney is merely stringing Bachmann along implies that he (or someone among his handlers) doesn’t believe that Bachmann can bring along the Evangelical voters, and yet she does seem to be popular with her fellow Dominionists. With any other candidate, it could be argued that playing McCain 2012 to Bachmann’s Palin-Mk-II would be a level of pandering too undignified for anyone certain to garner a minimum 40% of the national vote just by virtue of being the Not-Democrat. But Willard’s done his best to make it clear to the meanest intelligence that “dignity” is a concept he’ll willingly shed in return for even a handful of votes.

What bugs me most about this possibility, however distant, is that I feel it would be a nasty setback for all female politicians. The odds of President Obama crushing Romney — which are, IMO, quite good anyway — increase sharply if Romney sets himself up as “the less attractive version of that guy Obama beat last time”. And while Romney’s loss will immediately damage only Willard and perhaps the most visible of the handlers helping him waste his kids’ inheritance, such a “bipartisan” failure by a female politician will be spun, by politics-as-sporting-events analysts and the low information voters they cater to, as the third item on a trend line: If neither Palin nor Bachmann nor That-Woman-Who-Lost-to-Obama-in-the-2008-Primary can defeat The-Black-Guy-with-the-Middle-Name-Hussein, then maybe women just aren’t ready to compete at the top level, eh?

Yes, it’s a surpassingly stupid construction, but you have to admit it’s just the sort of stupid that Fox News will happily mainstream for its geezer demographic, with the avid assistance of every David Brooks and Ross Doubthat…

Open Thread – I think she wants something from me but I’m not sure what it is

From this morning’s email:

If I donate, Michele, would you spend the money on a decent copy-editor?

I can’t wait to not read the book.

A great idea

They just came right out and said it, and the world didn’t stop turning:

The Academy released this statement late Tuesday, joining the list of people rebutting Bachmann’s comments, and the theory that vaccines cause brain damage:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend that girls receive HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity. In the U.S., about 6 million people, including teens, become infected with HPV each year, and 4,000 women die from cervical cancer. This is a life-saving vaccine that can protect girls from cervical cancer.”

False statements. Made in the Republican presidential campaign. So blunt. So true. Like music to my ears. We’re not going to be forced to have a stupid, endless “some say” debate.

Wouldn’t it be great if all professions and professional/expert groups started doing this?

Maybe it has to be something urgent with immediate negative repercussions that Republicans are lying about, like public health.

Late Night Open Thread: Barbarians!

Via Dave Weigel, at Slate, the Glitterati Go Large.
He found the perfect tongue-in-check counterpoint, too, but you’re gonna have to click over to appreciate it.

In space ships, they won’t understand

You probably saw today that Mitt Romney started walking back his librul beliefs about climate change. By January, he’ll likely be raving about teh “ClimateGate” and showing us pictures of icicles in Buffalo.

People used to murder each other because they disagreed about the science of transubstantiation, so it should be seen as progress that now they only lie about global temperatures to win primaries, but still I wonder: is science-bashing going to be a permanent feature of American politics? I’d like to think that a hundred years from now, people will wonder why politicians had to spew such nonsense to placate Republican voters (what Romney is doing is about placating Republican voters, not getting money from Exxon).