Presented Without Comment

[deskslave]

So, if we assume that the quote about being submissive to one's husband is accurate, and nothing I've seen suggest that it's not, what does that mean if she becomes president?

 

[YankeeFan]

You don't even need to read the story to see where it goes. Just a look at the accompanying picture should give you a good sense of it.

I'm sure this is not the image RS expected at all when they commissioned it from the artist.

It's not like he has any kind of history of biased images like this.

 

[Big Circus]

Come on, YF. Palin was the one that busted out the "pit bull with lipstick" comparison.

 

[Double Down]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

 

[deskslave]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

The truth does not require balancing.

 

[dreunc1542]

More lies from Bachmann: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/michele_bachmann_lies_about_he.php.

 

[Boom_70]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

 

[YankeeFan]

Taibbi basically has Starman's dream job.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

Maybe for the next issue, Andrew Breitbart can profile Anthony Weiner.

 

[Double Down]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

So the part about her hiding in the bushes, never introducing a single significant piece of legislation, obsessing over redundant bills of hers she couldn't get passed to ward off teh gay, lying about how much Obama's trip to India would cost, lying about Pelsoi spending $100,000 on booze, lying about having to buy food for her 23 foster children, all of that is just part of Taibbi's shtick, eh?

 

[Boom_70]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

Maybe for the next issue, Andrew Breitbart can profile Anthony Weiner.

"Breitbart is an idiot with zero credibility.

 

[TigerVols]

Yeah, the damned liberal media has gone to great lengths to put these words in Congresswoman Bachmann's mouth:

''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

''Not all cultures are equal.''

''[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she has even said she is trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that 2,000 years ago.''

''A woman (Terri Schiavo) was healthy. There was brain damage, there was no question. But from a health point of view, she was not terminally ill.''

''This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.''

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

''There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.''

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.''

“If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps.''

“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. Its all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

“Carbon dioxide is natural, it is not harmful, it is a part of Earth's lifecycle. And yet we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance, reduce the American standard of living, to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in Earth.”

"During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26."

 

[JonnyD]

As for how the press treats these missteps, there is clear bias.

Clinton, Clinton, Obama, etc. are presented to us as geniuses. So, when they screw up, it's a genius making a small mistake. No big deal. It doesn't change the media's opinion of them, and it shouldn't change our opinion of them.

But, Reagan, Bush, Quayle, Bush, Palin, Bachmann, etc. are presented to us as idiots.

So, when they screw up, it reinforces the image of them as idiots. The press blows it up as evidence of their idiocy. And, if you defend them, you're an idiot to.

But, if you highlight the Dems missteps, you're also an idiot becasue you're trting to prove the unprovable. How could you possibly believe their mistakes are anything other than a simple mistake by a terribly smart candidate?

That's the price you pay for being the party that champions ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

Right. We're all stupid. Got it.

If that's what you read out of the sentence you were replying to, you aren't helping the case that you aren't.

 

[Boom_70]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

So the part about her hiding in the bushes, never introducing a single significant piece of legislation, obsessing over redundant bills of hers she couldn't get passed to ward off teh gay, lying about how much Obama's trip to India would cost, lying about Pelsoi spending $100,000 on booze, lying about having to buy food for her 23 foster children, all of that is just part of Taibbi's shtick, eh?

It it what it is. Bachman won't be President. The work of Taibbi is catnip for the liberal sect.

Palin and Bachman are good distractions for The Republican party at this point. With media focused on them, it allows the other candidates to stay a bit under the radar.

 

[holy bull]

YF, I would argue that Quayle, Palin and to a large degree Bush II present themselves as idiots. When it's a daily pattern and not just a misquote chalked up to simple human error every once in awhile, you really don't need any extra help from the media to further that image.

 

[YankeeFan]

So the part about her hiding in the bushes, never introducing a single significant piece of legislation, obsessing over redundant bills of hers she couldn't get passed to ward off teh gay, lying about how much Obama's trip to India would cost, lying about Pelsoi spending $100,000 on booze, lying about having to buy food for her 23 foster children, all of that is just part of Taibbi's shtick, eh?

What was Obama's signature piece of legislation when he was in the Senate? I know he authored a lot of major pieces of legislation, but what was the big one?

What about the Illinois State Senate? He served there longer. I'll bet he authored some really innovative legislation. He is a Constitutional expert, after all, so he's uniquely qualified.

At the very least, he never "hid in the bushes" and avoided taking a stand while serving in office. Some people choose to vote "Present" in the Illinois State Senate. Thankfully, our courageous President was not worried about his future political viability and always took a stand.

Just like he was so out front in championing the Gay Marriage bill in NYS. I was really proud of how he threw political caution to the wind and stood up for equal rights.

He's an excellent example and that kind of political courage should be rewarded.

I hope our next President has a similarly courageous history.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm not telling people they should vote for Bachmann. Hell, as a republican, there's virtually zero chance she'd get my vote.

My problem is that Rolling Stone has allowed someone who has spent the last several years spewing incredibly well-written hyperbole about the republican party to write a profile about a republican presidential candidate.

In the next issue of RS, Michelle Malkin profiles Michelle Obama...

 

[CarltonBanks]

Seriously, if you want someone to go back and post a bunch of ignorant quotes from Obama that would not be very difficult. The fact of the matter is that Taibbi is a lefty and I doubt anyone reading the profile on Bachmann expected anything other than exactly what they read. I doubt that piece changed anyone's mind...it just made those on the left chuckle because, of course, they know she is a "lightweight dingbat" and those on the left shrug because, well, that's Taibbi being himself. It isn't like this profile will make one bit of difference either way. I think even the independents realize Taibbi is what he is...a gifted, brilliant writer who chooses to use his gifts to take a giant crap on people more often than not.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Taibbi profiled Bauchmann in RS last week, and it's very much worth your time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

I can't access it at work, so I haven't read it, but is there any chance in hell that Matt Taibbi wrote a fair and balanced article on Bachmann? This is the same writer and magazine that compared W. to Hitler and wrote that John McCain would be worse than W.

Taibbi is a brilliant writer. Clearly one of, if not the, best out there. But I can't imagine it being a fair profile. I can't wait to read it. But I think it will be a brilliantly-written hatched job.

If someone wants to cut and paste the article here and prove me wrong, go right ahead.

She does not come off well, but that doesn't mean it's a hatchet job. It depends on if you're open to seeing Bachmann for the lightweight that she is. Being fair means presenting the truth. The article has been out for a week, and no one is disputing the facts in it.

No hatchet job here:

"Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions."

I don't think anybody is disputing it because because most understand that is Taibbi's shtick. No surprises.

So the part about her hiding in the bushes, never introducing a single significant piece of legislation, obsessing over redundant bills of hers she couldn't get passed to ward off teh gay, lying about how much Obama's trip to India would cost, lying about Pelsoi spending $100,000 on booze, lying about having to buy food for her 23 foster children, all of that is just part of Taibbi's shtick, eh?

It it what it is. Bachman won't be President. The work of Taibbi is catnip for the liberal sect.

Palin and Bachman are good distractions for The Republican party at this point. With media focused on them, it allows the other candidates to stay a bit under the radar.

I really agree with this. Bachmann can get the attention now, and Romney and Perry can get the attention a year from now.

 

[Boom_70]

YF, I would argue that Quayle, Palin and to a large degree Bush II present themselves as idiots. When it's a daily pattern and not just a misquote chalked up to simple human error every once in awhile, you really don't need any extra help from the media to further that image.

For Bush being such an idiot, Obama has continued a lot of his initiatives.