Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From CBN's David Brody, talking about Michelle Bachmann:
Congresswoman Bachmann has been absolutely torched by the liberal left and many in the so-called "mainstream media". Could it be because she has the whole package? You think they might see her as a tad bit dangerous?
This notion that criticizing someone means you're afraid of them is really quite silly. It's a defense mechanism, a way to avoid actually engaging the criticism by explaining it away with a presumption. Bachmann has been torched by rational people of all political persuasions. You should hear what some of the more sane Republican legislators say about her; they think she's pretty ridiculous too.
After all, she's smart, telegenic and articulate and by the looks of it she seems like she has an uncanny ability to inspire folks around the country. Just look at her role in the tea party protests and other Washington rallies.
Well yes, a crazy person inspires other crazy people. This is hardly a shock.
Also, she's a strong in your face woman who tells it like it is. I'm sure that drives the liberals nuts. (unless of course you're a strong liberal women!)
The notion that liberals don't like strong women is even more idiotic than the notion that criticizing someone means you fear them. She's an irritant because she's a dumb and crazy outspoken woman, not because she's an outspoken woman.
Hey folks, let's just be real here. Michele Bachmann is a threat. If she ran for President in 2012, she could be a serious contender. Bachmann is polished and speaks eloquently. Of course her critics will try and brand her to be another Born-Again Christian politician but she speaks to a wider audience. I'm not saying she's going to run. There are lots of factors that go into a decision like that. I'm just saying keep an eye on her. Don't write her off. She's a conservative media star who may end up giving Sarah Palin a run for her money.
This is delusional. There simply aren't enough crazy right wingers in the country for her to be a serious candidate. And anyone who isn't a crazy right winger wouldn't even consider voting for her.
Politics
Comments
I see a new rock band. Bachmann/Palin Overhyped.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 9:08 AM
She barely won re-election in her own far-right district. I wonder what the chances are of her being gerrymandered into oblivion after the census.
Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2009 9:16 AM
Bachmann can't really be gerrymandered because she is already in a conservative ghetto. Redistricting will just drive her deeper in, but also ensure the Democratic-leaning districts around her.
No way in Hell she gets outside of her cage, though.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 9, 2009 9:23 AM
Yep, she's got the whole package. A big bag of nuts.
Posted by: Chilidog | December 9, 2009 9:45 AM
In other words, they are both competing for a prime time slot on Fox.
Posted by: Chilidog | December 9, 2009 9:48 AM
Bachmann/Palin or Palin/Bachmann. I'd pay money to see the
catfightdebate that decided THAT! The right-wing fringe would be creaming.Posted by: MikeMa | December 9, 2009 9:54 AM
Bachmann is also "torched" by the non-mainstream media. The Minneapolis City Pages (a free entertainment weekly) did a full front page picture of Bachmann in Sarah Palin look-alike outfit and pose of the book cover, with the huge caption "Going Crazy". It was almost hard to tell which crazy it was.
Posted by: Ann Klein | December 9, 2009 9:55 AM
Bachmann deserves so-called 'torching' not because she is a conservative or Republican or has the whole package. She deserves such torching for one reason: she is DISHONEST!
Posted by: Rodney | December 9, 2009 10:00 AM
This notion that criticizing someone means you're afraid of them is really quite silly.
It's also totally irrelevant. Someone that conservatives usually respect highly (and even I have some respect for), C.S. Lewis, coined a name for that style of argument: "Bulverism".
"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong... Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is 'wishful thinking.' You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself... If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic..."
Even if Bachmann's critics were afraid of her, that would not mean their criticisms were invalid or unfounded.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | December 9, 2009 10:05 AM
I disagree with Ed and agree with Mr. Brody that there are people that are threatened by Ms. Bachmann's success and in fact fear her. I'm certainly one of them. I fear people like Bachamann, Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al. because their success has several implications even if they don't win higher elected office:
1) They are successfully promoting wingnut ideas to those voters that are not well-informed; this requires non-wingnuts on the right and even the Democratic party to make arguments in light of the wingnut reality. The Right looks to its wingnuts for economic and foreign policy talking points, not its economists or foreign policy experts who have become effectively shunned from public policy development in the GOP, but still considered by the Democratic party.
2) Their collective delusion has overwhelmingly distracted the adult debate we need to have about issues, stimulus, bail-outs, budgets, health insurance, and energy policy. Instead we're too busy fisking lies or pandering to the wingnuts. This goes on not merely in the public square of citizens, but also in Congress.
4) Their wingnuttery supplanting reasoned debate has increased public ignorance regarding the real factors that need to be considered when debating policy prescriptions. Reasoned debate has been drowned out.
5) The wingnuts have grossly mutated the Republican party to a party that is definitionally incapable of governing and dependent upon fatally defective policy platform planks for future electoral victories where they have demographic advanges or threaten small Democratic electoral advantages (the Congress's reaction to Palin's 'death panel' lie is a good example).
6) The above reality therefore causes the GOP to be totally incapable of adequately challenging Democratic weaknesses to their agenda, opening up opportunities for demogoguery, opportunism, or adherence to special interests in the Democratic party. We see this with how permits were established in cap and trade and the current health insurance reform debate.
7) It forces those on the Right that could support and create sane policies to instead support wing-nut positions they believe they need to support to win at least primaries. I think GOP Representatives and House leaders Pat Ryan and Eric Kantor are prime examples.
We also saw this in the 2008 electoral campaign with Mitt Romney and possibly Rudy Giuliani. For example, only Ron Paul based his isolationist arguments (which I don't support) on foreign policy on the well-framed reality of what motivates Muslim terrorists. All other Republican primary candidates were advocating a neocon position based on a false caricature of what both our State Dept. and CIA understand about the issue and concurred with by all our allies. While they lost, those positions are still promoted within Congress and in the media in spite of their not representing reality.
8) I started observing the wingnut element having a negative effect even on the Democratic party after the 2004 election and the media for years now. Rather than basing arguments, positions, and media articles on facts; we've now aggravated the he said / she said dialogue far more. And when it comes to these he said / she said debates, the wing nuts appear to be crushing the sane side. The Wingnuts asymetrical warfare tactics are winning battles in spite of their small numbers and minority disadvantage in the federal government.
A good example: Climate change. The common wisdom is that there is a scientific controversy over climate change and if there are dishonest, zealous, ideologues, they belong nearly exclusively within the liberal camp. Palin and Inhofe even go so far as to claim climate change is a liberal plot and 'junk science' as if the scientific community has not peer-accepted the theory of AGW. Their victory here is that Americans don't even consider mitigation of a warming planet as a national priority in spite of its relative low cost (about 1% of global GDP with corresponding and unique opportunity for a new paradigm in economic domestic growth). The wingnuts are kicking our sane asses and it is the primary impediment to having a serious adult debate in the Congress regarding climate change mitigation policies.
Personally I fear Ms. Bachmann, Palin, and all the other wingnuts more than I fear al Qaeda or Muslim terrorists in general. I'm fully aware of the fact some would claim this fear is hyperbole or even moves me into submission of Godwin's Law. But the fact is, I think these types of people have already caused far more harm to our country and continue to threaten it to a far greater degree** than any current terrorist group. I think it's empirically easy to make the case they have and will continue to cause far more damage, especially since its their reactions to terrorism that have helped caused our current economic situation.
*I completely reject Brody's false representation of Bachmann as smart, articulate, and honest. He creates a false strawman of who rejects Bachmann and why. This exact rhetorical fallacy is epidemic amongst conservatives attempting to defend their wingnuts. You could have inserted Palin's name for Bachmann and made minor modifications on the defense of Glenn Beck.
**Unless a terrorist group got a hold of WMDs, so I do not minimize our efforts to compromise the terrorist threat. I remain a staunch hawk, just one more in line with Obama while in complete rejection of neocons.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:11 AM
Excellent quote, Ray. And perfect for responding to a whole range of arguments, particularly vague accusations of bias.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 9, 2009 10:12 AM
No, no, please David Brody, don't nominate Michelle Bachmann for President. Also, while you're at it, please don't throw me in that there brier patch.
Posted by: Shygetz | December 9, 2009 10:15 AM
Michael, I'm curious, what happened to your third point?
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 9, 2009 10:32 AM
Ray @ 9 - Great find and application. I added your Lewis argument to both my list of archived favorite quotes and my list of critical thinking / rhetorical fallacies.
I usually don't collect more than one favorite of each in a month, today with Ed's contribution here I get two great contributions in one day.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:34 AM
Abby Normal asks:
I was shuffling the points around in the editing process in these little comment windows and merely lost track of my numbering scheme. I included all my arguments. I should probably use MS Word when drafting lengthy comments; or learn to be pithier.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:56 AM
Michael Heath,
So what's the solution? How do we bring the discussion up to adult level?
There are the wingnuts, those who feel the need/recognize the necessity of countering the wingnuts, and those who encourage the wingnuts to distract everyone else so they can pass legislation to transfer tax money to their buddies, or whatever their goal is.
How do we show people that the wingnuts are just to pull attention away from what matters?
Posted by: QuackaDoodle | December 9, 2009 11:07 AM
democommie: That was funny!!
Posted by: Donna B. | December 9, 2009 11:12 AM
democommie wrote:
Bachmann/Palin Overhyped.
LOL - Awesome first comment!
Posted by: threetorches | December 9, 2009 11:45 AM
Quackadoodle:
I think it's three-fold, none are assured, in fact none are probable:
1) Our whole approach to education is totally fucked. Being educated isn't a milestone, it's a process you either participate in or do not. In addition, we need to actually teach critical thinking and culturally reinforce in our schools that flawed thinking and intellectual dishonesty are attributes that should cause us to publically ostracize those who repeatedly use such techniques. There are a whole bunch of reasons we need to reform education to teach people to learn their entire lives and to employ easy to develop but uncommonly found critical thinking techniques; its application in this case is merely one of those reasons.
2) We need to start boycotting and protesting dishonest media outlets, including those that poorly frame issues between opponents rather than presenting a well-framed set of facts for each story reported. If Sen. Inhofe claims that climate advocates are merely Hollywood liberals, and the media outlet doesn't immediately follow such a statement showing that is a clear lie, then we should boycott and protest that media publication.
I've consolidated all my letters to editors to one singular topic, not my personal position on a particular policy, but instead their malfeasance in printing dishonest news, editorials, and even letters to editors that aren't immediately followed by the outlet with corrections to the lies told by their interview subjects, columnists, or letter writers.
3) I think individuals and groups are not able to effectively protect their rights by leveraging our civil courts when it comes to media publications or broadcasts that allow publications of dishonest assertions. I'd like to be able to sue the WaPo or my local paper when they establish a pattern of editorials or letters promoting falsehoods and have such heard by a jury of my peers who have the right to establish punitive damages without judges deciding such damages.
I'm a strong free speech advocate, however I also feel those that go beyond mere factual mistakes but utilize the media to repeatedly lie should be held accountable for the damages they inflict on other citizens, where standing to sue is very broad.
We need to change the culture by ostracizing those that are dishonest, they are the biggest enemy this country faces. These prescriptions are my way to confront the liars that largely create the boundaries for which public policy is debated.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 11:49 AM
Michael Heath:
I know exactly the problem you're referring to with keeping track of stuff like that. I'm always careful to put my stuff in order; something like 1.), b.), 4 always works for me.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 12:04 PM
One rationale for broader rights to sue in my comment @ 19:
I've always supported the argument that you don't censor speech, you respond to speech you reject with more speech. I participate in that process. For the most part sich an approach worked when the media was somewhat monolithic and we all read/watch/consider the same media outlets (the three networks, Time, Newsweek, our local newspaper fed mostly by a handful of wire services).
Those days are forever gone. The array of media outlets is broad and far more people get their news from people expressing an opinon or analyzing the news. In addition, nearly all media outlets do not possess the ability to both adequately fact check and assure articles are well-framed.
Now people can also protect themselves from ever being exposed to contrarian views to what they support, or else only expose themselves to strawmen versions of arguments they reject.
So while I'm all for more speech, I also think we need broader rights to also punish people or outlets who lie in a way that a jury of Americans can be convinced damage was caused.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 12:04 PM
Michael Heath: Show us your third point or shut up, you Kenyan!
Posted by: xebecs | December 9, 2009 12:24 PM
Clearly rational people are scared of Bachmann...as they should be. That much stupid and crazy is downright dangerous.
Posted by: Mobius | December 9, 2009 12:30 PM
CBN News is little more than Pat Robertson's personal pet poodle. Their reports merely serve to feed into some deranged editorializing from Robertson on how the world is all going to Hell without Jesus.
So sure it is delusional. It's CBN. It's what WorldNutDaily would be like if they are ever able to scam enough money from their followers to start a television news network, like Pat Robertson did.
Posted by: tacitus | December 9, 2009 12:46 PM
Sydney Hook actually said it better, but conservatives don't usually have as much respect for him: "Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments."
Posted by: Ray Ingles | December 9, 2009 12:47 PM
To those impressed by Demo's apparent wit: don't be*. He's been polishing his Bachmann/Palin Overbite gags for a while.
[Dingo stamps his little paw and jealously sulks off to a corner] -DJ
---------
* WILDE: I wish I had said that!
WHISTLER: Don't worry Oscar, you will, you will.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 12:48 PM
"After all, she's smart, telegenic...."
I guess she is attractive but I can't get past those eyes. It is the same look I see staring back at me in pictures of John Brown and Stonewall Jackson.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | December 9, 2009 1:19 PM
OT, but here's an example from a story in the New York Times' science section I just read during lunch of a paper doing its job by correcting an interview subject (Though too mildly in my opinion):
The reporter/editor immediately follows this claim by its interview subject with the following:
We can safely predict there is a good chance some denialists might focus on Mr. Parker's hyperbole and falsely claim that this comes from the scientific community as that community position rather than one financial analyst hyperventilating. The reporter(s)/editor(s) did what I believe we should all demand every editor do insures; follow a false claim with a correction to the record. The ability for a media outlet to do so successfully and consistently requires the ability of their staff to think critically, some basic knowledge on the topic, and time and committed resources to fact-check. It appears to me those traits and culture are being quickly eroded in the America media, rather than enhanced.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 1:56 PM
Note how this idiot can't even manage to play the "liberals are the real sexists!" card without saying something blatantly sexist. He can't resist the desire to demean women's rights activists and feminists, so he throws in that parenthetical statement, thereby completely undermining his claim that it's really the liberals who have a problem with strong women.
Posted by: Wes | December 9, 2009 1:57 PM
There's a significant risk that Minnesota will lose one of its seats in the House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Given the likely makeup of the Minnesota Legislature that will have the first crack at reapportioning Congressional Districts, I'm betting that Bachmann will lose that particular game of musical chairs. {8^)
Posted by: knutsondc | December 9, 2009 3:10 PM
Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:56 AM:
You actually write these long comments of yours in the tiny little comment window?
Rather like someone who drives with 3/4s of their windshield blacked out. Both impressive and terrifying.
(I write nearly everything in a separate editor (emacs), and paste it into the comment window.)
Don't know about MS Word (which I have not used since 2001), but in general using a real editor of some sort is much preferable to the tiny comment box, even for short comments.
Posted by: llewelly | December 9, 2009 3:51 PM
llewelly @ 31:
Very appropriate analogy for today. We're in the middle of a blizzard here in Northern Michigan and that was what my windshield looked like when I drove from my office to the deli for lunch earlier today (short drive and no traffic between those two points). I did scrape it, but couldn't get all of the ice stuck to it off.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 4:32 PM
Winter sucks. At the next Liberal Elite meeting, we should vote to start a committee to look in to possibly regulating it in some minor manner, as long as Winter doesn't object.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 9, 2009 6:03 PM
"she has the whole package"
Like Ann Coulter?
Posted by: Ian | December 9, 2009 6:15 PM
Posted by: bullfighter | December 10, 2009 2:01 PM
"She has the whole package."
Yeah, but she straps it to her leg when wearing slacks.
Seriously, my dream ticket is Palin/Bachmann 2012. The USA may have gone a little wonky, but I don't for one moment believe that they'd actually elect Dumber & Dumberer. It might get the Republican party to bugger off into the wilderness for a few decades to seek out its lost soul.
Posted by: Metro | December 10, 2009 6:53 PM
Metro:
"It might get the Republican party to bugger off into the wilderness for a few decades to seek out its lost soul."
They did not lose it, they sold it. At this point, Satan may be suffering from buyer's remorse.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2009 11:53 AM