benen on bonkers bachmann

Steve Benen: ….Republican campaign strategist Ed Rollins, who recently joined Rep. Michele Bachmann’s team, defended the likely GOP presidential candidate’s credentials:

“…I think the key thing here is she – if she does become a candidate, which I think she will, she will have a good team around her and will basically make sure that everything is fact checked and obviously she’s smart, she’s on the intelligence committee, you know, so she can talk about a lot of different things.”

Republicans realize that being on the Intelligence Committee does not make someone intelligent, right? They know “intelligence,” in this committee context, relates to reviewing materials and documents related to national security, don’t they?

…..I still can’t bring myself to see Bachmann as anything but a joke who would struggle badly to compete nationwide. Her principal problem is, to put it gently, she’s stark raving mad. 😆 Even in a radicalized party … she stands out as one of Congress’ most loony-tunes members.

I won’t deny that this is likely to help Bachmann with many equally-unhinged Republican voters, but I also believe the party desperately wants to win in 2012. Even the most wild-eyed Tea Party fanatic understands, at a certain level, that the American mainstream is far more likely to laugh at Michele Bachmann than vote for her.

Regardless, she’s clearly running, and we’ll see soon enough whether the Republican base is really that far gone.

More here

john king’s credibility? (if he ever had any). bye bye

At a time when even some Republicans are conceding that Michele Bachmann is bat-shit crazy, King says this:

Yep, “You have taken what I would describe as a reasonable position……”

It gets worse…..

Let’s have a look at that exchange again:

Bachmann: We need to have the fight on Obamacare … I think it is a crime against democracy because Speaker Pelosi and President Obama failed to even tell the members of the House and Senate, much less the American people, that if a member casts a vote for the Obamacare bill they would also be voting to spend $105 billion…..it is my opinion that that money should be given back because it was passed fraudulently, no one knew that money was there…..

King: As you know, a lot of Democrats dispute your numbers on the healthcare bill, but I want to save that one for another day….

****

No, no John, it’s not that Democrats dispute her numbers, it’s that every single independent observer has concluded that she was talking complete and utter shit about this “bombshell, hidden $105 billion”. eg:

Washington Post (Fact Checker) …. Bachmann’s main points have been that “this money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill” – something akin to a “slush fund” – and that it was done “secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress.”

This is bordering on ridiculous.

…The Obama administration insisted that the health care bill be “paid for” through various revenue raisers and cost cuts in order to not increase the deficit. In the end, CBO declared that the health care bill would reduce the deficit over the next decade.

… it is disingenuous of Bachmann to talk only about the costs without noting that, in theory, all of this spending is fully funded.

There is a further problem with Bachman’s charge of “hidden” spending … the administration has not tried to hide this money at all; instead, it has trumpeted each dollar spent in a press release.

As for the claim that “this money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill,” we think she means that there were different sections in the legislation, depending on the issue. This is common practice for virtually all major bills, and it is not unusual or nefarious at all….

The Pinocchio Test: There is no “bombshell” except Bachmann’s bombast.

She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was “hidden” does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law…..

Four Pinocchios:

****

With Beck’s imminent departure from Fox, you have to wonder if King is looking to fill the gap. He was already a joke, but after suggesting that the racist nutjob that is Bachmann had taken a “reasonable position” on anything … and failing to challenge her on her debunked lies about that ‘fraudulent’ $105 billion …. oh dear, oh dear.

‘has-beens, nobodies and deadbeats’

Richard Adams (The UK Guardian): …. Compared with the same stage in 2007, when the presidential primary season was running at full steam, 2011 is a flat tire. But it’s not just the lack of activity – the Republican candidates being touted are a collection of has-beens, nobodies and deadbeats, several of them barely household names in their own households. And those are the most electable ones.

Which is strange because the Republican party has just enjoyed an election triumph in the 2010 midterm elections that would suggest a party surging towards the 2012 contest. Instead, it’s more like the Simpsons parody of the football world cup finals: “This match will determine once and for all which nation is the greatest on earth – Mexico or Portugal!”

So far, the 2012 primaries will determine once and for all who is the greatest Republican presidential candidate: Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels?

Mitch who? Exactly. This Republican crop of candidates is a veritable “Who’s that?” of American politics.

Despite all that, talking to intelligent Republicans finds them brimming with enthusiasm for their party’s candidates. It’s a fantastic field, they insist – for 2016. Yes, they are very excited about the 2016 presidential elections, and reel off a list of top-notch candidates: Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, David Petraeus, Chris Christie, even Jeb Bush. Ask them about the 2012 candidates and they go quiet or start sighing….

…There’s the 2008 retreads, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. One has money, tons of baggage and zero charisma. The other has zero money, tons of baggage and folksy charm. There’s the retreaded retread, Newt Gingrich. There’s the no-hopers, Rick Santorum (defeated senator, swivel-eyed) and Michele Bachman (like Sarah Palin but without the gravitas). Ron Paul, anyone? And it’s not worth mentioning Donald Trump…..

Full article here

NY Daily News: Nineteen months is a millennium in politics, but today’s smart money says Barack Obama will be tough to beat in 2012 – if the economy continues to mend …it’s amazing how many Republican mandarins privately brood about their chances of unseating Obama only five months after voters decisively repudiated him in the November midterms. “We have a far better chance of taking back the Senate than taking back the White House,” a gloomy party strategist told the Daily News.

Last month, GOP bigwigs in town for the annual Gridiron Club media dinner reached a sobering consensus: The slate of Republican contenders for 2012 is unusually lame. The best of the least, ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is suspect with the Republican base. One prominent party thinker believes only ex-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has any chance of beating Obama – and rates Pawlenty’s prospects as weak. The pros know Tea Party darlings like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have Obama aides salivating.

…”Every lesson that needed to be learned from last November has been learned,” a top Obama counselor said.

Strategically, Democratic and GOP strategists alike calculate that African-American and Latino voters will stick with Obama regardless. Given the Hispanic population growth surge, that means millions more voters Obama didn’t have last time. A key Republican analyst also predicts the youth vote, which enthusiastically backed Obama in 2008 but stayed home last fall, will return in 2012. “He can’t win without kids, and he’ll bring them back out this time,” he said.

…”It’s advantage Obama,” said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. “Unless the economy gets worse and the Republicans put up a stronger person, he’s in pretty good shape.”

Article here

‘the dim-witted freak show’ (updated)

Joe Klein (Time): ….It is excruciating watching the Republican Party presidential candidates who, on a daily basis, pronounce some ignorant racist or irreligious twaddle…today’s example primo is Newt, who really needs to get back on his meds, worrying about his grandchildren:

“I have two grandchildren – Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

There is genius in this: no other human had located the secular humanist wing of radical Islam before. And then there is Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza who is pretending to run for President, proving that a black man can be as gutter-cheap bigoted as anyone. If elected, he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or the federal bench because: “There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.”

…This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party’s banner. They are the most compelling argument I’ve seen against American exceptionalism. … this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012…

Full article here

Here’s a reply from Steve Benen to Klein’s ‘plea’ for Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush to run (see the link above, Klein mentions them at the end of his article):

“….where I part ways with Klein is his expectation that Daniels and Jeb Bush could somehow put things right. For one thing, when it comes to the major issues of the day, the substantive differences between these two and the Seven Dwarves (Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour, Gingrich, Santorum, and I suppose Bachmann) are quite narrow.

For another, Klein doesn’t explain how a sensible, self-respecting, qualified Republican is going to win primaries without also becoming some ridiculous caricature. Indeed, note that Klein made no mention of Jon Huntsman — who presumably would qualify as a reasonable GOP candidate unwilling to “behave like a public clown” — probably because no one seriously believes the party base will tolerate him.”

if you’re gonna be two-faced, at least make one of them pretty…..