GOP Nominee

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Howard Kurtz seems to think she stole the show on last night's debate (I didn't watch it).

I want to like Bachmann, but some of her views are a little out there for me. I think she's pretty sound on economic policy, she was right on Libya, pro-life is good.... but intelligent design? Really?

That's a great answer in my opinion. If she's willing to apply that same logic to some things like her views on ID, I'd be pleased.

Professing a belief in Intelligent Design is, functionally, little more than an assertion that you still believe in God despite God being outside the rubric of Science.

[Lemur]

Professing a belief in Intelligent Design is, functionally, little more than an assertion that you still believe in God despite God being outside the rubric of Science.

Not quite true, as I understand it. ID posits that life is too complex to have evolved by natural means, and therefore supernatural intervention is not only possible, but necessary. Also, ID proponents usually want their religious views taught in public schools. ID can be legitimately described as a new iteration of creationism. Many biologists are theists without being ID adherents, so I find your definition kinda incomplete.

Did anybody actually watch last night's debate? I was traveling. Morning reports are that T-Paw did himself no favors.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not quite true, as I understand it. ID posits that life is too complex to have evolved by natural means, and therefore supernatural intervention is not only possible, but necessary. Also, ID proponents usually want their religious views taught in public schools. ID can be legitimately described as a new iteration of creationism. Many biologists are theists without being ID adherents, so I find your definition kinda incomplete.

A fair point, and I was simplifying things. ID's assertion about the "too complex" aspect of things is outside science in that science labels such things as unknowns and does not provide any explanation -- it is simply a direction for research to focus upon. The ID folks, of course, view this as the aegis of a creator. Teaching ID in schools would prove interesting, however. Taught in a science class (and therefore within the framework of science) it would be discussable as a weak theory at best. Teaching it in philosophy would involve questioning science itself as an equal and competing philosophy (while an interesting argument, this is well past basic education).

[PanzerJaeger]

Cannot stand Bachmann. Of all the promising TEA Party types to emerge in the last two years, she's the one that runs?

Did anybody actually watch last night's debate? I was traveling. Morning reports are that T-Paw did himself no favors.

I watched about 20 minutes and that was all I could stand. John King made it just about unbearable.

I'm still favoring T-Paw at this point. I don't think CNN appreciated the discipline all of the candidates showed in keeping the focus on the president and his record, and was looking to stir up some drama. Good for T-Paw in not taking the bait, despite the best attempts of that dolt of a moderator.

[Subotan]

DAWN OF THE FIRST DAY

- 144 HOURS REMAIN -

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Daily Show:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:c...ral.com:389599

CR

[Ronin]

[a completely inoffensive name]

I remember Newt as an opportunist and a partisan hack, more than an ideologue. Nonetheless, I can't think of a Republican more deserving of a campaign implosion.

He is an opportunist for his ideology. I need to find the original source where I got this but I recall reading a moment when his second or third wife (how many has he had?) asked him how he could continue to cheat and yet hold family values up as something sacrilege. He replied something along the lines of how the idea is bigger than him and it doesn't matter if he breaks it as long as he manages to get America to follow it.

[Subotan]

The Daily Show:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:c...ral.com:389599

CR

That was brilliant :D

[Lemur]

Teaching ID in schools would prove interesting, however. Taught in a science class (and therefore within the framework of science) it would be discussable as a weak theory at best. Teaching it in philosophy would involve questioning science itself as an equal and competing philosophy (while an interesting argument, this is well past basic education).

As if she had been reading this thread, Michelle Bachmann declares that public schools should teach Intelligent Design. While this may play well with the GOP base, I can't see this sort of position going down well in the general election. So perhaps a good tactical move, but a fatal strategy. Thoughts?

[Ronin]

As if she had been reading this thread, Michelle Bachmann declares that public schools should teach Intelligent Design. While this may play well with the GOP base, I can't see this sort of position going down well in the general election. So perhaps a good tactical move, but a fatal strategy. Thoughts?

usual problem for the GOP nominee in the last few elections
they have to buddy up to the lunatic fringe of the republicans to get the nomination...and then spend the entire campaign for the presidency trying to politely backtrack.

[Centurion1]

intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.

[Lemur]

every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.

Not even slightly true, even by your own formulation. Some religious people believe in creationism, which you just declared to be completely separate and distinct from ID. Furthermore, I know many religious people who don't subscribe to the tenets of ID. Furthermore, ID is generally accepted to be the next iteration of creationism, coming into being after creationism was defeated in the courts re: schools. So, to be honest, you packed a world of falsehoods and misleading ideas into two short sentences. I'm kinda impressed.

[Centurion1]

wait isn't intelligent design just the belief that God created the earth. And that like evolution and other scientific truths are very much true but that God was sort of the big spark behind it all and had a grand plan?

If that is what it is I find it hard for any person with religious convictions in the belief of a supreme being to not subscribe to it?

[Strike For The South]

intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.

wait isn't intelligent design just the belief that God created the earth. And that like evolution and other scientific truths are very much true but that God was sort of the big spark behind it all and had a grand plan?

If that is what it is I find it hard for any person with religious convictions in the belief of a supreme being to not subscribe to it?

So you didn't know what it was but decided to make a blanket statment about it

Way to shoot from the hip

[Lemur]

Okay, one quick answer and then I'm not going to talk about ID anymore, except as it relates to the thread topic. ID claims that certain organs and life forms are "irreducibly complex," meaning evolution as a mechanism could not have accounted for them. The eye is often used as an example. How did animals go from flat photosensors to liquid-filled orbs with focusing membranes and all of that? If couldn't possibly have evolved naturally. So it must have been ... wait for it ... designed.

There is no science to back this up, just faith. So as physicist Wolfgang Pauli once observed, it's not even wrong.

ID is generally seen as a continuation of creationism because it is rooted in faith, not observation or hypotheses or method or any of that socialist flim-flam.

Advocating the teaching of ID in public schools, therefore, is a pretty radical position to take, and one which I predict will not play well with the general public.

[Banquo's Ghost]

intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.

I can assure you that this doesn't apply even within Christianity, let alone other religions.

[Centurion1]

Yeah I misunderstood. now I know better my apologies.

[PanzerJaeger]

An interesting piece on Huntsman.

If there's a short version of Mr. Huntsman's core message, it is that America needs to start competing again, and aggressively, in the global marketplace. "We need to get back in the game," he says, citing the lapse of free-trade momentum as a primary failing of the Obama years. "If we don't do it, China will move ahead with free-trade agreements as they are in Latin America, built around procurement practices that benefit Chinese companies."

In step with the other candidates, Mr. Huntsman wants to downgrade our military commitment in Afghanistan, but here, too, the argument is linked to regaining the U.S.'s competitive edge:

"Now we have one out of every six defense department dollars going to Afghanistan. We've achieved much of what we set out to do. We've been able to rout the Taliban from power. We've been able to disrupt to a large extent al Qaeda. We've had free elections going back to 2004. And we still have 100,000 troops on the ground. The future well-being of the United States is likely not going to be fought on the prairies of Afghanistan. It's likely to be the result of our ability or inability to compete competitively across the Pacific against the rising giants."

He adds he is "not suggesting pulling out completely" but would "leave behind a very capable fighting force that is appropriately positioned given the asymmetric threat that we face—the intelligence-gathering capability, the special forces capability, the training of Afghan forces capability, and the ability to work with friends in the region who believe as we do that those who are coming after us, we should go after very aggressively."

He is preoccupied with Asia: "I've seen the rise of Asia as a business guy, I've seen it as a diplomat. I think every day how we're going to better position ourselves to compete in the next century with the likes of China and India."

I don't agree with every position he took as governor of Utah, but - like Pawlenty - this guy seems like an intelligent, reasonable, and competent leader with some interesting new ideas based on conservative principles, but with a forward-thinking outlook. He just officially announced a week or so ago, although you'd be forgiven for missing it in all the excitement over Bachmann.

The more I've read about her, the more I dislike. She seems like the personification of the angry, reactionary, bible-thumping, anti-intellectual arch-Conservative straw man the Left holds up to tear down. And yet, she's creating the most buzz among the grassroots, surging to within two points of Romney in the latest Iowa poll.

Could it be that I've unknowingly strayed from the Conservative base over these last few years? Every candidate that seems to have the makings of a strong challenger to Obama and a quality president seems to be trapped in the single digits or not even registering in polls (Johnson). Meanwhile, the focus seems to be shifting from one poor quality candidate to another, Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann. The question is: is this a case of the JournoList types trying to pick the best candidate for Obama to face while most conservatives aren't paying attention or is this a genuine reflection of the movement today? We'll see, I guess.

[Xiahou]

Huntsman seems alot like McCain 2.0 to me. Other than his "let's all hug" announcement speech, what does he offer that others haven't been doing better already?

Also "Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann"? Gingrich's run never had any enthusiasm in polling.

[Subotan]

Holey moley, Panzer has done it! Written a post I entirely agree with!* You must be straying from the base!

The more I've read about her, the more I dislike. She seems like the personification of the angry, reactionary, bible-thumping, anti-intellectual arch-Conservative straw man the Left holds up to tear down. And yet, she's creating the most buzz among the grassroots, surging to within two points of Romney in the latest Iowa poll.

Surely this is a contradiction in terms? If she's getting the most buzz, she can't be a strawman.

Regarding Huntsman, it's important to remember that the GOP leadership take it in turns. Huntsman is busy getting the recognition for 2016.

*And yes, I know you've written posts I agree with before, but I like to savour the moment.

[Lemur]

For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS. Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.

[Ronin]

For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS. Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.

wow....that is one scathing piece....and if in fact the Bachmann camp ain´t taking him to court that speaks volumes

[Subotan]

For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS. Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.

Mhm, I read that the other day. Cracking article.

[Xiahou]

For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS. Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.

I made it thru about 5 paragraphs full of unsubstantiated insults and smears then gave up. Remember, public officials have much higher standards when it comes to libel. I don't think we want to set the precedent that not responding to every scurrilous attack is an admission of its validity.

I'm not saying there's not merit in any of the shotgun blast of attacks the article levels, but I just can't take it seriously enough to look for them. Wanna give us a cliff notes version? I can't read that much venom without having at least some substance to it....

She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo. You will want to laugh, but don't, because the secret of Bachmann's success is that every time you laugh at her, she gets stronger.

Seriously?

[drone]

Wanna give us a cliff notes version? I can't read that much venom without having at least some substance to it...

She graduated from what eventually became Regent School of Law. She excels at using attacks against the crazy stuff she says to garner sympathy votes from the fundamentalists. She hasn't actually done anything politically, aside from getting elected. That's about it.

[Ironside]

She graduated from what eventually became Regent School of Law. She excels at using attacks against the crazy stuff she says to garner sympathy votes from the fundamentalists. She hasn't actually done anything politically, aside from getting elected. That's about it.

How is the "chosen path by God through visions" rethoric treated in the US? It's loony house warning here.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I made it thru about 5 paragraphs full of unsubstantiated insults and smears then gave up.

Not quite the same article I read. It is scathing, but it does substantiate its actual criticisms of Bachmann the main one is that she appears to be a compulsory liar. What I found particularly striking, though is this piece. It's not so much a commentary on Bachmann per se, but rather about why she gets people to vote for her:

Emboldened by the lack of consequences for her early freakouts, Bachmann's self-mythologizing became more and more overt. In October 2006, she stepped before a packed house at the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, and told her life story. All of history's great madmen have had that one gorgeous moment where the cackling hairy hunchback that has been gestating within for years finally comes out and shows itself, strutting up and down the catwalk for the world to see. This was Michele's catwalk moment, a lengthy autobiographical speech in which she claimed "callings" from God had pushed her to every major decision in her life — from studying tax law to running for Congress. She even told the congregation that she and hubby Marcus — who by then had opened a Christian counseling center — had been united not by love but by a unique series of divine visions experienced by three people simultaneously.

Bachmann claimed that back in her college days, she was up one night praying with a female friend of hers when "the Lord gave each one of us the same, exact vision... It was a picture of me, marrying this man, in the valley where his parents have a farm in western Wisconsin." Meanwhile, miles away, Marcus "was repairing a fence on the farm where he worked, and the Lord showed him in a vision that he was supposed to marry me." According to Bachmann, Marcus initially complained to God that he wanted to see the world first, and only later relented.

Snickering readers in New York or Los Angeles might be tempted by all of this to conclude that Bachmann is uniquely crazy. But in fact, such tales by Bachmann work precisely because there are a great many people in America just like Bachmann, people who believe that God tells them what condiments to put on their hamburgers, who can't tell the difference between Soviet Communism and a Stafford loan, but can certainly tell the difference between being mocked and being taken seriously. When you laugh at Michele Bachmann for going on MSNBC and blurting out that the moon is made of red communist cheese, these people don't learn that she is wrong. What they learn is that you're a , that they hate you more than ever, and that they're even more determined now to support anyone who promises not to laugh at their own visions and fantasies.

(...)
All of those people out there aren't voting for Michele Bachmann. They're voting against us. And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.

And that might actually have some truth to it.

[Strike For The South]

For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS. Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.

Damn, that was rough

But I would still hit it

[PanzerJaeger]

Huntsman seems alot like McCain 2.0 to me. Other than his "let's all hug" announcement speech, what does he offer that others haven't been doing better already?

Which others?

As governors run primarily on their states, I would argue that Utah's model is far better than Romney's Massachusetts and even Pawlenty's Minnesota or Johnson's New Mexico. Based in part on specific policies Huntsman enacted, Utah weathered the recession far better than those other states and the nation at large, and he would be able to effectively contrast his record in Utah with Obama's handling of the national economy.

Huntsman also brings foreign policy credentials to the table that none of the other candidates can match. He has literally been focused on China for most of his life, the nation that just happens to be our greatest competitor. I mean, the man can speak mandarin. Such a resume would prove invaluable in the coming years as we try and untangle the unsustainable trade relationship we have with that country.

All that being said, just like with Pawlenty, I haven't thrown my support behind Huntsman or any of the candidates yet. My frustration comes from the base's seeming obsession with crappy, second-tier candidates when there are so many quality governors out there who didn't mandate universal healthcare.

I mean, what do Palin, Cain, or Bachmann have to offer compared to these other guys? Ideological purity, or the illusion of it? (Bachmann isn't even all that much of a small government conservative if you examine her record). That's great in congress, but a president has to have broader appeal. That doesn't mean we (the Right) have to lay aside our core principles to get someone elected, but we also shouldn't write off quality candidates because they have adopted some moderate positions that have little to do with their ability to competently manage a government according to conservative principles.

By doing that, we are going to end up with a choice between a truly principle-less candidate and a bat shit crazy one.

Also "Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann"? Gingrich's run never had any enthusiasm in polling.

I thought he enjoyed high numbers before his comments on Ryan's Medicare plan. Wasn't he the 'ideas guy' of the Republican party?