:snort: No kidding.
As of today, Jim Graves is going to indefinitely suspend his campaign for Congress from the 6th District.
Translation: He is not running. He is dropping out of politics to concentrate on his family and his business.
This is, of course, Michele Bachmann’s district; and absent Ms. Bachmann from the campaign environment the chances of Jim Graves of getting significant outside support for his doomed candidacy would have been somewhere between zip and nil. Heck, Graves even admits to it in the article. Brutal truth of it is, a R+8 district is not within reach of the average Democrat this cycle.
Contemplate that, folks.
Michele Bachmann‘s either about to be under investigation or running for Senate; either way, good luck trying to pick up a R+8 district in this election cycle, Democrats. The woman’s not on my Christmas card list, for various and sundry reasons, but I will forgive her a bit for providing me with some indirect amusement next year. You see, the Left is telling itself that they were going to win this district next year anyway, and now they’re going to be sure that the Democrat candidate that couldn’t win last cycle is going to win this cycle. Despite the fact that his candidacy will be doomed the moment somebody demands, point blank, that he explicitly reject House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi*…
*Now there’s a person that the Democrats should be conniving to force into retirement. But they won’t, bless their hearts.
Short version: Twitchy caught the typically unhinged Online Leftist reaction to the Onion’s… smear? No, they’ll claim that it’s a parody. Parody smear, I guess… article where they (falsely) had Michele Bachmann say that she was thankful that no “Americans” were killed in Sunday’s Oak Creek shooting. Now, I know, I know: comedy is edgy, it’s not the Onion’s fault that the Left side of its readership consists of room-temperature IQ mouth-breathers, it’s all somehow Bachmann’s fault that the aforementioned room-temperature IQ mouth-breathers got duped, yadda yadda. I get it, truly: there’s a dark side to the First Amendment sometimes, and the Onion is currently right in the middle of it.
But here’s the thing… the six people murdered Sunday were, in fact, Americans. I mention this because perhaps the Onion does not really in fact understand this; they have instead seemed to have taken the position that there are useful ways to mine the attack in a fashion that just happens to be in line with a favorite Democratic party narrative. In other words: while I recognize that the attack is being politicized in precisely the fashion being described here… Continue reading @TheOnion: using dead Sikhs as political props.
Look, let’s start off by me noting I didn’t care for the way that Congresswoman Bachmann went after Governor Perry over Gardasil last night, frankly: I recognize that there’s a core issue there about choices for your kids, but the central issue is more complicated than either side wants to admit, and it’s heavily partisan-tinged at this point. But put that aside. This isn’t beanbag. Forget it, Moe: it’s politics. And, as Erick Erickson originally pointed out, it’s effective politics, too.
This (via @bdomenech*), on the other hand, is not politics, effective or otherwise. If the Congresswoman really believes this, it’s crazy-time. Continue reading Michele Bachmann: Embracing Teh Lefty Anti-Vaccy Crazy?
And that’s specifically Rep. Bachmann.
[X] says he has made attempts to let the Bachmann campaign know about its alleged Iowa transgressions, but he hasn’t heard from anyone with the campaign since the Straw Poll.
‘X’ in this case is Ryan Rhodes, “director of the Iowa Tea Party;” the “alleged Iowa transgressions” are referenced in the article, and mostly refer to questions about whether Rep. Bachmann is making herself sufficiently accessible to supporters on the campaign trail (particularly in Iowa). I used ‘X’ instead of the name because… well, while I do feel that Iowa voters are just the tiniest bit needy and cranky about what constitutes ‘sufficiently accessible,’ the truth of the matter is that few people in this business really think that her campaign is all that accessible, either. It’s not the impervious stasis field that is the Sarah Palin whatever-it-is, but it’s not exactly transparent, either.
That may be a bit of a problem, because the other campaigns are being a bit more accessible. I’d suggest that she look into this…
Via Instapundit, Jeffrey Lord is having fun lecturing George Stephanopoulos by mentioning Founding Fathers who opposed slavery, contra Stephanopoulos’ rather ignorant statement here to Rep. Michele Bachmann:
For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true.
We can go ’round and ’round about whether John Quincy Adams counts – I personally would have him count as one, or at least not quibble overmuch over it – but let’s talk about some non-Virginians, shall we?
- Benjamin Franklin. If Ben Franklin isn’t a Founding Father, then the term is meaningless anyway. Long sympathetic to abolitionist views, he spent the last years of his life (and the first years of the public) as an open advocate for abolition and integration.
- John Adams. Also on every list of Founding Fathers that there are. Balance his reluctance to push for too-public a dispute over slavery with his writing the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts portion of the Massachusetts Constitution.
- John Jay. Likewise on the lists (also, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). Despite being a slaveowner himself, Jay pushed for abolition and manumission in New York for over twenty years; he finally succeeded in passing manumission legislation as Governor.
Continue reading George Stephanopoulos thinks Ben Franklin isn’t a Founding Father?
Note that I’m not using the term ‘Glitter Harpies’ because this one just looks like a garden-variety… not very self-actualized and independent-thinking person. She’s just somebody who thought that throwing glitter at a Presidential candidate (in this case, Michele Bachmann) is a great way to promote the message ‘Same-sex marriage advocates aren’t fringe!’ Given the amount of private ribbing that I’ve gotten about this as a same-sex marriage advocate over this, I’d like people to stop doing this, OK? Also, I’m not embedding the YouTube video of Ed Frank interviewing her because I could feel at least a hundred of my brain cells develop sympathetic anoxia from listening to her. Feel free to watch it for yourself, but: You Have Been Warned.
Anyway, I can’t wait to see what happens when somebody tries this against a candidate with actual Secret Service protection*. Also: obviously none of the Glitter Harpies/Patrol will ever, ever dare do this against Barack Obama, even though when it comes to same-sex marriage he’s easily the worst hypocrite of the bunch…
*Sarcasm, there. Please do not do this against a candidate with actual Secret Service protection. Please, please, please, please do not do this against a candidate with actual Secret Service protection.
[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers.
Yes, that Tim Robbins.
Yes, that Michele Bachmann.
Via AoSHQ Headlines.
Crossposted to RedState.