Michele Bachmann has been proven to be a liar. She sited a debunk study to prove vaccines lead to mental retardation. A former staffer of hers admits, she not all there. He said she has an impulsive nature.
So. Do voters care about the truth? Does the fact that Bachmann has slipped in the polls recently have anything to do with these type of statements? To answer these questions, Cooper brought on Bachmann’s former Chief of Staff, Ron Carey, who offered a fairly fascinating theory for why Bachmann has a tendency to share and perpetuate erroneous statements:
Well, Michele is very impulsive from a personality standpoint and, to her credit, she reads an awful lot of information, but sometimes I’m afraid that she reads maybe 80 or 90 percent and leaves out or forgets the ten or 20 percent that can change the outcome, so her impulsive nature coupled with the fact that she sometimes doesn’t digest information as carefully as she should leads to these kinds of impulsive statements that sometimes are just off the mark enough that it makes her into more of a provocative, controversial figure.
He continued:
One of the challenges I’ve found with working with Michele, and it’s consistent with other people who have worked with her, is the fact that she doesn’t use her staff well. She’s pretty much independent and does her own research. She’ll be out there on the stump, preparing her remarks and speaking off the cuff with no staff intervention or involvement whatsoever, so it’s really difficult to prep her and help her kind of back-check before she goes out speaking because she will be out there speaking and you’ll say, “Where did this come from?” and it’s something that she maybe heard on TV.
She’s crazy and not fit to be President. This explains her nasty and vile nature.
Tags: liars, Michele Bachmann
So you think she’s unfit to serve in the House of Representatives and needs to be removed?
Bachmann may not be fully qualified to be President, but she is not batshit crazy like Luap Nor.
Macker wrote:
The classic “RonPaulstiltskin” returns.
Macker wrote:
You have to go to King Ludwig of Bavaria to find anyone as nuts as Luap Nor.
Macker wrote:
She’s not even close.
She showed extremely poor judgment and went way overboard with it.
She may be a bit off the wall, but she’s an excellent Rep. with a record of producing conservative legislation.
From the post it sounds like she shouldn’t be in Congress and should be primaried as soon as possible.
I’m just wondering where we’re going to find another Tea Party voiced Rep. with the clout and appointments that she has in her district in Minnesota.
Nasty and vile. Just as bad as Debbie Wasserman-Schulz! A real menace this one!!
//
She’s a wacko (Dick Morris and Bill O’Reilly seem to love her) and frankly is an embarrassment. Not everyone who spouts conservative rhetoric is saintly.
Bumr50 wrote:
Hopefully with have higher standards then Debbie Waffen-S.S. Schultz.
Rodan you should put a link to this article.
@ Speranza:
So she should be removed from office as soon as possible?
Bumr50 wrote:
Where did I say that? That is for her constituents to decide. I do think there is something not right about her but that is just my opinion. She defintely is not even remotely qualified to be POTUS.
Personally, I find this whole thread “nasty and vile,” but that’s just me.
lobo91 wrote:
Personally, I agree. The assertion that Michele Bachmann is a wacko is an assertion I find absurd.
@ Speranza:
I don’t understand why a second-tier candidate gets a daily headline saying something derogatory about her.
She misrepresented a study in her own defense and should be ashamed of it. What other “lies” has she told to be branded a liar? Nasty and vile?
Oh, and we get for proof of “mental instability” the word of a FORMER staffer. Because those are always so reliable.
Judging by the frequency and substance of the posts, it’s clear that the general consensus is that this woman is unfit to serve as a member of congress and, as that would be up to her constituents, should at the very least remove herself from the Tea Party Caucus (as she apparently is ill qualified to represent their values) and the Select Committee on Intelligence, as this is a matter of national security.
Speranza wrote:
I agree. Since when do we have a policy of not linking to LEFTIST, progressive, hate sites like Mediate that can’t and won’t tell the truth about any Conservative. Everything leftists do is a chance to smear the good and do agit-prop for the “Dear Leader”. We really need to vet and fact-check everything the leftists say. A dedication to finding out the truth starts with providing proper linkage.
So here we have a former staffer goes on national TV and complains his former boss didn’t use her staff well. Gee, ya think he might have a grudge against Bachmann? His observations about Bachmann’s impulsiveness may or may not be correct. But he definitely raises the specter of his own bias with that comment.
Bumr50 wrote:
as long as she doesn’t do anything illegal and her constituents vote for her, i have no problem with her in congress.
This sounds like sour apples from this Carey guy for some reason we’re not yet aware of. Something caused him to turn on her like this.
As far as that vaccine causing mental retardation, I head Bachmann say some woman came up to her crying right after the debate and said she was from TX and her daughter was given the vaccine and has since never been the same and “shown signs” of being retarded.
I never hear her mention any study, debunked or not, to prove her “allegation”, if you want to call it that.
I know Bachmann has 5 kids of her own and has raised 23 foster-kids, so I’ll let what she said slide due to the fact that she repeated what a grieving mother had told her, but also say that she most likely used what she was told to score political points at Gov. Perry’s expense, in the heat of the moment.
A lot of us hear have posted stuff we wished we hadn’t in the heat of the moment, right???
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
PIMF
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
I’ve got a link here, but everyone will just say it’s kooks.
Browse if you like.
I don’t know much about this subject, but there is clearly a backlash against this vaccine.
@ Bumr50:
wow…you hit the A #1 kook site for the anti-vax crowd.
people should absolutely have the right to refuse any and all vaccines.
and, i should have the right to no have them or their family in my health insurance pool.
make a pool for the anti-vax crowd.
@ coldwarrior:
LOL!
That’s why I kind of hesitated to post it.
I just happened to be digging around about Gardasil, because I wanted to know more about the whole brouhaha. I don’t have teenage daughters.
I DO however still have a great amount of respect for the voice that Michele Bachmann has given and still gives to the Tea Party and conservatism in general in the House and think that this post is way over the top. “Nasty and vile nature?” Really? He got all that from the disgruntled former staffer?
I stand by my #13.
coldwarrior wrote:
I don’t want the anti-vax people in my physical presence, either.
Why?
Because no vaccine works 100 percent of the time.
Say I accept a vaccine that gives 99 percent protection. I have a notably weak immune system, evidently due to some sort of genetic condition. So my chances of getting the disease IF exposed to it will be somewhat higher than the average 1% for vaccinated individuals.
If everybody around me has received the vaccine, too, then I am unlikely to actually be exposed to the microbe at all. This is called “herd immunity.” If lots of people are immunized, the disease won’t spread.
But if some idiot refuses the vaccine and has the disease and gives it to me, then I may very well get sick, despite having been immunized.
1389AD wrote:
I completely agree and am not an anti-vaxer or whatever they call themselves.
I don’t think that Michele Bachmann is either. The Gardasil case involves a disease that could never be transmitted from another person other than by sexual contact. I actually agree that Perry should have never ordered this, but the point is moot as he admitted his mistake.
She made a huge misjudgment by pressing the issue.
It doesn’t make her “nasty” or “vile.” I’m glad that she holds her office.