Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There I was, doing some browsing of my favorite webpage, the Worldnutdaily, when I came across something that brought a little ray of sunshine to my black heart. This headline:
Michele Bachmann? Running for president? Oh baby, say it IS so. But there's a catch. Here's what it's going to take:
Finally, WND asked Bachmann if she could see a day when the candidate who began her political career in jeans and a holey sweatshirt would one day run for the presidency."If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it," she answered. "When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I've said yes to it. But I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it. That's really my standard.
"If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve," she concluded, "but if I am not called, I wouldn't do it."
Please bow your heads with me in prayer:
Lord (may I call you Yahweh?)-
Look, I know we don't talk very often, what with me not believing in you and all. If you'll check your records, I'm sure they will show that I don't ask for your help when my loved ones are sick or when my favorite team needs a victory the way so many selfish human beings do. I save my pleas for help for the really important things, and I assure you that this is one of them.
I don't care if you never do anything for me ever again, but I implore you...if you truly love me as it says in scripture, please, please, please call Michele Bachmann to run for president. I can't imagine anything that would cause as much joy and amusement in my life than watching that batshit insane gorgon humiliate herself on a national stage on a daily basis for months on end.
And all it takes is one call from you. I'll pay the long distance charges if you're short of cash. Whatever it takes. You already "called" Pat Robertson to do the same thing and look at the joy that gave me? If you really love me, you can make this happen.
In Gordon Klingenschmitt's name,
Amen.
P.S. If you don't feel like answering my prayers -- and given my status as a heathen, I can't really blame you -- would it make a difference if you knew that 71% of the good, pious, God-fearing people who read the Worldnetdaily want the same thing? So even if you don't want to make me happy, could you make them happy? I don't mind second-hand joy. In fact, the irony of that might make it even better.
Politics
Comments
I had to stifle cracking up right there. I'm glad I have an office.
Posted by: Ranson | August 18, 2009 9:23 AM
I think you should be very careful what you wish for.
Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 9:25 AM
Amen brother, testify. The only thing better would be a Bachmann/Palin ticket. I might go all the way to church to give thanks and cash for that one.
Posted by: Strummer | August 18, 2009 9:27 AM
Palin - Bachman 2012 / or Dazed and Crazed 2012. The main problem they would have to overcome is the red-necked peckers belief that men are not to be led by women. It's in Teh Bible.
Posted by: J-Dog | August 18, 2009 9:28 AM
You may call me allah.
Posted by: god | August 18, 2009 9:31 AM
When I read this on WND the other day I almost choked on my coffee. Bachmann for Pres was just such a hoot of an idea.
Qualifications: none
Endorsements: WorldNutDaily
Goals: Return America to its christian, theocratic roots
Policy Initiatives: Christian prayer in every classroom, Expulsion of non-christians from the US, Forced childbearing for all women, Re-education camps for LGBT citizens, Mandatory tithing.
I'm in agreement that it would provide hours of entertainment for the whole family but I don't think it would last for months, days maybe, but not months.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 18, 2009 9:37 AM
Can we get her to run for mayor of Kiev? She'd fit right in.
(Link in my name)
Posted by: Louis B. | August 18, 2009 9:41 AM
While I agree it is quite amusing, I have to ask the horrifying question in the back of everyone else's mind (but we're too afraid to address), what if she were to win? Before you say "it can't happen," look back, say 199&, would you have believed that Dubya would be the next president just four short years later?
Never underestimate the American electorate's ability to fuck up.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 18, 2009 9:47 AM
She barely got re-elected from her own extremely conservative district. Plus, she's spouted tons of laughable material. This is just more delusion on her part.
Posted by: Taz | August 18, 2009 9:59 AM
That would be the election year in which all Late Night comedy scripts begin the same way every week: "You've heard that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are running for President (pause for laughter)..."
But in case Bachmann can't clinch the Republican nomination, I'd think she'd also make a fine running mate for Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey on the Vampyres, Witches, and Pagans Party ticket.
Posted by: Phillip IV | August 18, 2009 10:03 AM
My theory is the GOP is pulling a very elaborate Poe here. Imagine a debate line up of Bachmann, Palin, Keyes, and Tancredo. Against that backdrop, Mitt and Huckaby come across as pretty normal folks. I'll go out on a limb and predict it now: Mitt-Huck will be your 2012 ticket.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 18, 2009 10:12 AM
I hope I don't ruin the chances of the (non-existent) big guy answering your prayers, but...
A-fucking-men! Bring on the crazy!
Posted by: FastLane | August 18, 2009 10:33 AM
dogmeatib stated:
I don't think the comparisons are valid for three reasons:
1) Bush did an excellent job starting in his dad's campaigns to create a voter constituency for himself. While that constituency still exists, others fill it better (Huckabee, possibly Romney the next time). This base is arguably in favor of your point, however two more exist:
2) The first time I read that Gov. Bush was running for Prez in 2000 was in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years prior. The story noted he was a lock given both the money he'd already raised, which was astonishing*, and his list of financial constitutents supporting him. Bachmann has nothing like this going for her.
3) Bush was the gov. of a large state and perceived as successful by moderates and independents, only Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower were good at effectively exposing him and they were a mere niche in the mainstream media machine. Bush was also extremely disciplined in his campaign rhetoric, something I believe Bachman, Palin, and for that matter, McCain could never, ever be.
*I forgot the total.
kehrsam's team is interesting, but it would require Huckabee get over his visible hatred of Romney, for which there are precedents. I think, not sure, it would also require Romney win some primary debates, something he was astonishingly horrible at last year.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2009 11:23 AM
I can the the RNC setting up just that kind of scenario, Mitt-Huck as the "moderate but strong republican" ticket, and the wingnuts getting Palin/Bachman to win the primary.
Posted by: Mu | August 18, 2009 11:24 AM
This is a true test of the theory that God has a sense of humor.
Posted by: tacitus | August 18, 2009 11:28 AM
AMEN! Also, god/allah/fsm, if you could see that she picks Joe the Plumber to be her spokesman that would be just super.
Posted by: peaches | August 18, 2009 11:36 AM
Anbody notice the resemblance between whackjob Bachmann and nutcase Kathrine Harris?
Posted by: SLC | August 18, 2009 11:57 AM
She's just continuing her established pattern. As the first 'graf quoted from WND states, Bachmann began her career in holeyness.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 11:58 AM
First contribution to the cause:
http://www.ancientpond.com/images/bp_2012.png
Posted by: FeatheredFrog | August 18, 2009 12:30 PM
@11
The only problem with your theory is that the Republican base is going to want the Palin or Bachmann of the pool. Tancredo may have a chance in your hypothetical, but Keyes would never have any success, he's a little too nuts.
Posted by: ESC | August 18, 2009 12:33 PM
The Lord helps those who help themselves (something to do with union rules, I think).
Can't we sneak a microphone or two into her bedroom and hire James Earl Jones (or somebody -- we wouldn't want her to think she is being called by Darth Vader) to do a couple of voice overs?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 18, 2009 12:41 PM
Bachmann/Palin in 2012
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Orly Taitz
Secretary of Transportation: Laura Bush
Secretary of State: Ann Coulter
Press Secretary: Michelle Malkin
Posted by: barry21 | August 18, 2009 12:55 PM
John - could we include some camera to record her facial expression? And forget Darth Vader, make the voice of god Yoda. Her expression would be priceless. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 18, 2009 12:59 PM
Barry21, I think Malkin would be head of the Department of Homeland Security, making us safe from all of the illegal Latino immigrants and the Muslims.
Posted by: Tommykey | August 18, 2009 1:20 PM
Throw in Sarah Palin and you have to wonder if there are more brain cells in the average male wingnut's penis than anywhere else in their body.
Posted by: tacitus | August 18, 2009 1:43 PM
I think Palin/Bachman for 2012; save Bachman/whoever for 2016.
Posted by: abb3w | August 18, 2009 2:05 PM
barry21 @ 22 - I doubt most people would get your Laura Bush joke. That's a good one.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2009 2:25 PM
Perhaps someone could implant the same type of device that was used on "Kent" in Real Genius. "Michele...and from now on stop playing with yourself. Now be a dear and run for higher office." "It is God!"
Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | August 18, 2009 2:49 PM
barry21 @ 22 - I doubt most people would get your Laura Bush joke. That's a good one.
DON'T FORGET LIMBAUGH FOR DRUG CZAR!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | August 18, 2009 3:45 PM
Ed, thanks for this. I read it this morning and I have been thinking about it and laughing off and on throughout the day since that time. This is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 18, 2009 5:13 PM
I am not a Michelle Bachmann fan, Mr. Brayton, but you could have done without the "gorgon" reference. I don't like misogynistic references, whether they come from the left or the right.
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 18, 2009 8:58 PM
I'm not necessarily an Ed Brayton fan, Mr. Rotter (yeah, I usually agree with him, but those fucking noogies as a child were a fucking bitch I've never really gotten over), but you could have done without the "misogyny" reference. I don't like moronic references that use big words one doesn't actually seem to know the meaning of, whether they come from the left or the right...
Posted by: DuWayne | August 19, 2009 9:02 AM
The first thing that popped into my mind on reading this was, "Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease..."
Posted by: Kaessa | August 19, 2009 1:04 PM
Throw in Rick Perry as Sec. of Education.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | August 19, 2009 3:18 PM
So you think the word "gorgon" is gender-neutral, DuWayne? It isn't.
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 19, 2009 5:19 PM
MikeMa @6...
Oh, I don't know...a 10% flat-rate tax might not be so bad. ;)
Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 19, 2009 6:25 PM
I think if you're attacking the use of the word gorgon as misogynistic then it's probaly time to get a life. Seriously.
Posted by: Ramel | August 19, 2009 6:34 PM
I don't think that Asshole or Dickhead are particularly gender neutral either, doesn't make me a misandrist when I use them. Insults needn't be gender neutral.
Now if Ed had said something more generalized about women, you would have a point - but he didn't, so get the fuck over it dickhead.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 19, 2009 7:00 PM
I think if you're attacking the use of the word gorgon as misogynistic then it's probaly time to get a life.
Actually, in Greek mythology, the Gorgon was female, so I suppose you could make a case...
But, yeah, I agree - better just to get a life.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 20, 2009 10:22 AM
But what exactly is the case you could make Jeff? Because while there is a very real argument to be made, that by calling Daniel a dickhead I am showing myself to be an asshole (which in fact, I am), I don't think it stands to reason that I am also being misandrist. By most accounts Bachman is a women. She is also a pretty vile example of a human being, one that would be far more comical, were it not for her being an elected official (much to the shame of my MN'n friends who would much prefer such loons at the very least be elected in TX, if they have to be elected at all).
Expanding a bit on my earlier comment, I could even consider Ed's comment as misogynist, if he had a habit of referring to women in similar terms, regardless of whether those terms fit or not - but he doesn't. He has referred to Coulter as a harpy, but in all honesty, that is an insult to mythical carrion bird-women - not to women in general.
It could also be argued that when one is arguing about calling people misogynists, it is also probably time to get a life. And I can agree - I could be lying next to the most beautiful and brilliant women ever right now, instead of typing this - but I am pretty sure I would wake her up if I did so that's ok. I could also be writing something far more enlightening/interesting elsewhere (like my own blog), but I am going to have time for that anyways.
Most importantly, I am a firm believer that language largely defines reality and the reality is that accusations of misogyny and other forms of bigotry lose all sense of strength, when they are bandied about loosely and without provocation.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 21, 2009 8:06 AM
My dictionary defines misogyny as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women". Note the plural. I don't think an insult directed at one particular woman can be considered misogyny per se, no matter what words are used. It may arise from misogyny - it may be indicative of it - but taken by itself it's just an insult.
Posted by: Taz | August 21, 2009 8:20 AM
"I don't think an insult directed at one particular woman can be considered misogyny per se,..."
Depends on the insult.
"Note the plural."
Why should we "note" the plural? Are you actually saying that a comment directed towards only one woman cannot be misogynistic? Interesting logic. I guess then you believe that calling an African-America "the n word" cannot be racist; after all, the insult was only directed towards one African-American.
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 23, 2009 1:55 AM
"Why should we "note" the plural? Are you actually saying that a comment directed towards only one woman cannot be misogynistic? Interesting logic. I guess then you believe that calling an African-America "the n word" cannot be racist; after all, the insult was only directed towards one African-American."
Way to twist his statement way out of proportion. He's not saying that it cannot, by definition, be considered misogynistic, no one is claiming this. The claim is that you have no grounds to assume, by default, that the comment is misogynistic unless there is more background than you've given here. As they noted, Ed does not have a history of making comments that are deemed misogynistic or taking shots at women in general. It does not mean he is not being misogynistic, just that you need to put a little more work into backing up your claim if you want us to believe it.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 23, 2009 5:05 PM
Daniel -
I guess then you believe that calling an African-America "the n word" cannot be racist; after all, the insult was only directed towards one African-American.
Nobody said cannot, context matters - unless of course, you are talking about pedantic little dickheads who just want to find something to criticize. In the case of nigger (please, we're all fucking adults here, I think we can dispense with euphemisms), context matters still. While generally it can be assumed that someone using "nigger" as a derogative is being racist, that is not always the case. But that is because nigger is a culturally loaded term, unlike gorgon or harpy. It has a vast history as a generalized term of racism, where neither gorgon or harpy do.
Yet even with that history, there are times when it is still used in much the way that gorgon was used here and isn't inherently racist - though because of that history it is often perceived as such. There is a certain subculture that has taken to using nigger to refer to themselves and other people (generally of color, but not always), who usually live a lifestyle that other people of color find reprehensible. Such others will quite reasonably use the term nigger as a derogative, often without even a hint of racism. Personally, I tend to think that there should be a lot more dialogue between those groups, a lot more acceptance and working forward, but I also can understand the frustration of those who have busted ass to be something, when people in that subculture actively denounce and discourage education.
But that is a total digression.
The bottom line is that you are living in the PC fundamentalist world of black and white. Your attitude is exactly the same as the most obnoxious religionists, who get off on being offended and deciding that anything that isn't a particular way, is just plain evile.
The problem with this, is that you overuse words that should have a great deal more power than they actually do. You bandy about with words like misogyny with such disregard for whether it is an accurate description, that you take it's power to shame - to make people actually think about what they are saying and more important, what their attitude is, that it renders the word meaningless. In so doing, you make yourself look like a fucking moron and you associate people who use (in this case) the language of gender with your foolishness. It causes generally reasonable people to not take people who use any of that language seriously - because when they here it, they are also hearing Daniel, the pedantic little asshole, ranting about how someone who is absolutely not a misogynist, is being a misogynist.
But please, by all means be the PC policeman, riding to rescue the women from those vicious windmills. Fuck all of us who are interested in fostering actual change and fighting actual misogyny and other vile social attitudes, because you have to find some way of feeling like a man.
Though you might consider that while there are a lot of female feminists who read Ed's blog - most of whom are really quite capable of calling and eviscerating actual misogyny - you, presumably one who has no uterus, is the only one who is calling this misogyny. Do you really think that women can't manage this themselves? Do you think they're too weak, or weak willed? What exactly is your motivation here?
There are a great many things that men can do to fight misogyny - things that really only men can do. Men are an inherent part of the misogyny paradigm and it behooves us to figure out how to change what it means to be a man, so that it is less imposing on what it might mean to be a women - and there are a lot of potential benefits for men as well, our archetypal social construct is quite definitely unhealthy. But that is not nearly as much language, as it is attitudes, conditioning and socialization.
So you can either just continue to be part of the problem - and make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing, or you can get off your self-righteous high horse, quite pretending that women need you to be a fucking pecker and actually help accomplish something.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 23, 2009 6:08 PM
Now that was fantastic. Although he may accuse you of misandry for calling him a dickhead.
Posted by: Ramel | August 23, 2009 6:50 PM
I second that. Brilliant response, DuWayne.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 23, 2009 10:57 PM