She'll never have a chance. Besides, she's the most uncritical candidate on the field who'd be led by the nose by every manipulative moneyed interest. Bachmann just needs one lobbyist to tweak to her pet ideological issues (gov't brainwashing children, new world order preceding Biblical End Times, anti-homosexuality) and she'll do whatever they say. Nothing is worse in politics than a passionate, principled, non-skeptical true believer.
How soon they forget. Didn't you ask me about my posts other than what I tend to do here in P&R recently?
He does do the same, and I like his politics, but he also will post some stuff that I never thought of. Most of the time I think you're a wack job, and I certainly disagree with your politics, but I don't put you on ignore. That's because sometimes you offer a thought provoking idea. Not often, mind you, but sometimes.
She has a record in congress that refutes your fears. If anything, she is disliked by the republican leadership because she won't play ball with them. She's viewed as not being a team player, which I see as a good thing. For example, she opposed and voted against all the bailouts, starting with TARP I, she has voted against every debt ceiling extension, she was agains the last debt ceiling deal, she has called for pulling out of afghanistan, etc. I can understand that her positions on social issues might be controversial to some, but the whole appeal of her is that she absolutely will not sell us out by agreeing to tax increases, etc the minute she is elected. I wish I could be as certain about the others, Romney for example. The candidate who does worry me for the reasons you mentioned is Herman Cain. I fear his background is a bit thin and as a result, he will be overly reliant on advisors and handlers. How many times in the debates has he suggested handling issues by defining the problem, then turning it over to some experts to decide.
Actually, you have a very good point. She embodies the ideals of the Tea Party movement better than Cain in some ways. The problem with her, as I see it, is that she seems very unsophisticated when it comes to the bigger issues of government. Her record in Minnesota and her intellectual history indicates that she came to power as a social crusader who is paranoid of government because it represents a spiritual world order conspiracy, not that it's inefficient, wasteful, and often produces unintended consequences. When it comes to economics, she talks like government should be run as a household. Plus, I have no idea who she'd select as her cabinet -- she doesn't seem to have anyone around her who understands those issues, and she probably wouldn't turn to academia. I expect she'd have no choice but to rely on the Republican establishment, which is in bed with those moneyed interests. Cain also seems unsophisticated, but I think your instincts are right in that he'd instantly hand off all decisions to whatever big business dictates. Mind you, I'm not a Tea Party fan and I was in favor of the bailouts, as reprehensible it is to me that these institutions ever could become "too big to fail". But I believe those economists who expected the credit crunch to rapidly spiral into a bigger disaster than what we experienced. I had friends in private equity who were dumbfounded by how shocking the liquidity crisis was. My personal issues with these candidates revolves more around foreign policy. I don't think any of them are clear headed and are actually pretty ignorant. But Bachmann, who is infected with evangelical Christian eschatology, could very well make some disastrous choices in sticking to her principles. Just my take.
I create threads rarely, only when I have something important to point out that isn't covered somewhere else. That's kinda how it should be. But I comment a lot and when I do, I try - try - to offer something to keep the discussion moving forward...the comments addressing you notwithstanding.