Michele Bachmann could win the nomination...

[trish]

Before any of you porn-forum frequenters votes for Michele Bachmann, know that the nutter has just signed the FAMiLY LEADER pledge to ban all forms of pornography.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._to_invade.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58591.html

[flabbybody]

Palin and Bachmann are both nasty nutjobs. Why is it that the US right throws up bovinely stupid people as potential candidates. Much as I dislike david Cameron and his crew in the UK, you can't really accuse them of being simple minded.

Bachmann is nasty but she's not stupid.
That's what makes her scary.

[Stavros]

Surely with all politicians who make controversial comments on social issues, the key is whether or not, once they find themselves in the Oval Office, they deliver: and in fact, how would a President Bachmann deal with pornography, homosexuality, and the family, to take three topic she regularly comments on: in practical terms that is. I am not defending her, but its not different from people on the left making bold claims about the changes they are going to make to education, health, prisons and so on: its not so easy to make fundamental changes to something as obscure as, for example, the family. She can give a good speech, but as Obama has discovered, speeches don't translate easily into law...

[Ben]

Bachmann is nasty but she's not stupid.
That's what makes her scary.

She is smart. I think, um, it's a Romney-Bachmann ticket. As Mitt needs, well, religious support, as it were. He's weak on the religious front. She's strong. It'll be a powerful combo.
And watch Obama dump Biden for, well, Clinton. That is Hill. Not Bill -- ha! ha!

[Stavros]

Sorry Ben I can't agree: Obama will retain Biden unless Biden for some reason wants out -for continuity of purpose. My feeling is that Hillary Clinton is more likely to bow out of political life than seek to extend it. She will be 65 at the next election, I think she knows her chance for the Oval Office has been and gone, and that she will decide she has other things to do as she gets older. I also think its too soon to predict the Republican contenders, but I understand your enthusiasm for the game...

[Ben]

Sorry Ben I can't agree: Obama will retain Biden unless Biden for some reason wants out -for continuity of purpose. My feeling is that Hillary Clinton is more likely to bow out of political life than seek to extend it. She will be 65 at the next election, I think she knows her chance for the Oval Office has been and gone, and that she will decide she has other things to do as she gets older. I also think its too soon to predict the Republican contenders, but I understand your enthusiasm for the game...

I just think it'll be Romney. He, well, looks presidential. He's got the height, the hair, the jaw --
It's a fairly weak field of candidates. (I like Ron Paul. Because he's very principled. Plus he's good on some issues. But, sadly, bad on others. But you know where he stands.
The profound problem with politicians is, well, they don't have any core beliefs. As money talks. And they don't really care about issues. As they serve, to quote Adam Smith, the Masters of Mankind or the elite corporate class.
Whereas Ron Paul does care about issues. Ron Paul actually believes in free markets. Now pure capitalism or free markets mean no state intervention.
Which means no child labor laws -- and nothing public. Meaning we'd have to privatize the police, the fire department, the roads. Again, that's pure capitalism or free markets.
Public schools, transportation and parks would disappear. I mean, again, pure/authentic/flawless free markets mean there's absolutely no state intervention.
I find it frightening to conceive of free markets. Again, who builds the roads, the sidewalks, highways, bridges? A private police force scares me. I mean, they'd simply serve certain areas. I mean, that's capitalism. Oh, and capitalism means: no bailing out the banks and the auto companies. Well, that sounds pretty good... And we'd have to have the free circulation of labor. Which I do support.)

[Stavros]

Ron Paul might sound sensible but that doesn't make him electable -unfortunately these days -possibly since JFKs campaign, looks and soundbites do matter: but even the soundbites must refer to something that can be analysed: if Ron Paul were President then, even if he is a 'pure' liberal in the mould of Adam Smith the state must still pay for its defence, and those 'publick works' which the private sector is not willing or able to finance: moreover, if you were to calculate the percentage of contracts entered into by the Federal government with businesses up and down America, and then suggest they be cancelled, a) how many people would lose their jobs, and b) can you guarantee that the private sector will step in to fill that gap? The Fed is directly or indirectly a major employer in the USA -as I said with Bachmann and her waffle about Gays and Marriage -once in office, they are shown the accounts, and retreat to the Oval Office, ashen faced, trembling with fear and emotion, and forget whatever it was they said on Prime Time Tv....but then too many people expect too much of central government and politics anyway-sometimes the solutions are right 'here': where you are and in what you do...not in Washington DC...

[Ben]

Ron Paul might sound sensible but that doesn't make him electable -unfortunately these days -possibly since JFKs campaign, looks and soundbites do matter: but even the soundbites must refer to something that can be analysed: if Ron Paul were President then, even if he is a 'pure' liberal in the mould of Adam Smith the state must still pay for its defence, and those 'publick works' which the private sector is not willing or able to finance: moreover, if you were to calculate the percentage of contracts entered into by the Federal government with businesses up and down America, and then suggest they be cancelled, a) how many people would lose their jobs, and b) can you guarantee that the private sector will step in to fill that gap? The Fed is directly or indirectly a major employer in the USA -as I said with Bachmann and her waffle about Gays and Marriage -once in office, they are shown the accounts, and retreat to the Oval Office, ashen faced, trembling with fear and emotion, and forget whatever it was they said on Prime Time Tv....but then too many people expect too much of central government and politics anyway-sometimes the solutions are right 'here': where you are and in what you do...not in Washington DC...

You're right. I, too, don't think Ron Paul is electable, as it were. I just think he's a very principled politician. Which is a rarity. Again, you can agree or disagree with him. But you know where he stands.
I agree. If Ron Paul were elected (a big if) then he would have to compromise on his, well, anti-state mindset. Because the state does play a big role. From roads to police to the military to the highway system. Yes. The overall state does employ a lot of people. Directly and indirectly.
I think Bachmann is typical of most politicians. Ya know, they've no core beliefs and they do not care about issues. They serve themselves and corporate power. I mean, how many politicians actually get into public office to serve people. Just people. Not corporate power. But people. Well, maybe at the local level. But not at the federal level. I mean, Dick Cheney didn't get into public service to serve people. (I think the likes of, say, Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. And, again, Ron Paul is genuine. But who else???????)
I just want principled politicians who are genuine. But, well, politics is all entertainment, ain't it -- ha! ha! ha!

[Stavros]

I just want principled politicians who are genuine. But, well, politics is all entertainment, ain't it -- ha! ha! ha!

There are principled politicians out there, but it doesn't mean a thing if it aint got that swing -ie where policy matters. Also to describe it as entertainment is to let them off the hook -its much more important than that. As I said, on a range of issues people expect too much of government -the quality of our environment would be so much better if we, as individuals were more careful with our rubbish, to take just one issue. Its about balance, in the end. But if you descend into cynicism, you end up with nothing to say, which suits politicians who too often prefer to listen to the sound of their own voices.

[Prospero]

I don't consider it entertainment at all when the President has the key to the nuclear arsenal. Nor when he or (maybe one day she) has the executive power to wage war as the CinC. Nor as showbiz when he (or she) is the most powerful political figure in the world. etc.... but yes the showbiz dimension is so clearly there in how we choose these people.

Thank god for Tina Fey last time around. Is there as good a Michele Bachmann baiter in the wings for the next election?