marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

Werewolves

So this is what it comes down to. And this is why the Republicans are facing an historic repudiation. Let it sting. Hard.

20 Responses to “Werewolves”

  1. Randy Paul Says:

    Marc,

    It’s all they’ve got. They have nothing else to offer.

  2. Rob Grocholski Says:

    How does one do a “penetrating expose” on a subject as shallow as Michele Bachmann?

    $50 to Tinklenberg. Too easy.

    Fook the Republicans.
    Bring back the Whigs.

  3. Michael Turmon Says:

    I wonder if she understood that Matthews was leading her straight into making a blatant McCarthyite claim? In other words, malicious or just stupid? Both?

  4. Rob Grocholski Says:

    That’s a fair question Michael. Matthews had an incredulous look during the interview of ‘is she really going to go there? Is she really that undisciplined?’
    Apparently so.

  5. reg Says:

    This woman is a full-on wingnut. She’s also an advocate of teaching intelligent design in science classes. The good news is that this Matthews interview may sink her. Her opponent raised $70,000 tonite, apparently on the strength of Bachman’s appearance on Hardball.

    Here’s the “Dump Bachman” link…

    http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/

  6. Howie Says:

    Wow. Just wow. I shudder at the thought of the 40% of the country that would watch that and get neck aches and sore throats from nodding and cheering too hard.

  7. M.B. Says:

    Her nutbaggery put at least $23,000 in her Dem opponent’s coffers. Not too shabby for a day’s work on a House campaign.

  8. DanO Says:

    Despite getting elected to Congress Bachmann is widely regarded as a complete nut job. She represents a weird exurban district that is mildly Republican but which has flipped back and forth between DFL and IR reps for a long time, although I think the district was redone in 2002, so it’s too early to see if a Dem will win it back.

    She was a Focus on Family darling, and represents the hard-right just as she did in the state legislature.

    She was an early proponent of the CRA (blacks did it!) theory of the mortgage meltdown.

    Whatever to her. She has a long history of saying toweringly stupid things. At one point, as I recall, she claimed that Pelosi was “trying to save the planet” with her global warming focus, but that this was silly since Jesus already saved the planet 2,000 years ago.

    Gas prices? Michelle speaks: “This is their agenda,” Bachmann states bluntly. “I know it is hard to believe, it’s hard to fathom — but this is ‘mission accomplished’ for them,” she asserts. “They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That’s their vision for America.”

    Too mild? How about this one: “We’re in a state of crisis where our nation is literally ripping apart at the seams right now, and lawlessness is occurring from one ocean to the other. And we’re seeing the fulfillment of the Book of Judges here in our own time, where every man doing that which is right in his own eyes—in other words, anarchy.”

    Or this (the winner of the clueless award): I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.

    Anyway. When Palin first hit the stage she immediately reminded me of Bachmann. It should be obvious why. She is a nutty nut nut.

  9. Andrew Hunt Says:

    What a grim video — absolutely painful to watch. Just goes to show how far the GOP has fallen since the Reagan years.

  10. Bill Bradley Says:

    Now there is one vicious latter day McCarthyite.

  11. The Liberal Cheaters « The View from the Clocktower Says:

    [...] so good to you a favor and just admit it? Everyone already knows anyway. Why do you think you were passed over, yet again, for the Most Liberal Senator [...]

  12. Randy Paul Says:

    Here’s a little more on Bachman to back up what Dan said.

  13. Rob Grocholski Says:

    Slightly off topic, but here’s Cleese on Palin via TD.
    Funny.

    http://tinyurl.com/5ou3tq

    Bachmann & Pailin…
    Birds of the same feather?

  14. Dan Coyle Says:

    Welcome to David Horowitz’s America.

  15. jcummings Says:

    I hope Obama viciously uses state power to lock these people up in re-education camps.

    It is time to rediscover the virtues of police state tactics, used against running dogs of reaction.

  16. Michael Turmon Says:

    Thanks…on the principle that you have to know what you’re doing to be malicious, “stupid” would appear to be the winner.

  17. Bill Bradley Says:

    Yes, Michelle, let’s do a penetrating expose of anti-American congressmembers.

    We’ll start with you.

    On the one hand, she is a vicious idiot.

    On the other hand, she’s hotter than Sarah Palin.

  18. reg Says:

    I just saw something on This Week that convinced me the mind-rot among conservatives is deeper than even I would want to see. In the wake of the Colin Powell endorsement, George S asked George Will what it meant. George Will – arguably one of the smartest of GOP analysts – proceeded to address precisely nothing – not the implications of the nation’s most authoritative military figure of the past quarter century endorsing O, not the implications of a major Bush administration figure endorsing O, not the implications of a major representative of a (mythical) kinder, gentler, more competent GOP endorsing O – yes, Nothing…EXCEPT how Obama’s race helped him with voters who wanted to feel good about themselves. This is what Colin Powell finally gets reduced to in his own ranks – Just Another Black Guy (and they stick together, don’t they?) Truly obnoxious and, I thought, remarkably lacking in – if nothing else – even a tiny bit of self-awareness, even for George Will.

  19. The_DC_Sniper Says:

    It’s a beautiful world…

  20. white cornerback Says:

    jcummings — how serious is your comment here? I’m just wondering if you’re being facetious or serious, and I suspect the latter. Do you support free speech for both the far left and the “running dogs of reaction,” or only for the former?