Last week, The Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg authored what one might have reasonably expected would be the most vicious takedown of GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann we would likely see before the primaries began. From the mainstream press, at least. Opening with the increasingly infamous tale of Bachmann screaming in a bathroom that she was being held against her will by lesbians—and weaving into that story the time Bachmann hid in the bushes at a gay rights rally—Goldberg declared, “Lots of politicians talk about a sinister homosexual agenda. Bachmann, who has made opposition to gay rights a cornerstone of her career, seems genuinely to believe in one.” It got worse for Bachmann from there. Bachmann, as Goldberg’s headline told it, was possessed with an “unrivaled extremism.”
But Goldberg’s piece reads like a bit of Vogue puffery next to a new piece by Matt Taibbi, whose own “Bachmann’s a lunatic” look at the Minnesota Congresswoman’s life and policies for Rolling Stone was published online yesterday morning. (Titled “Michele Bachmann’s Holy War,” it will appear in the July 7 print edition of the magazine.) Drawing from popular culture, Taibbi describes Bachmann’s decision to run for president as seeming like the opening conceit to the TV series Far Out Space Nuts—“in which a pair of dimwitted NASA repairmen, one of whom is played by Bob (Gilligan) Denver, accidentally send themselves into space by pressing ‘launch’ instead of ‘lunch’”—and describes Bachmann herself as a Terminator figure. “She’s trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo,” he writes. Later, he describes her greatest asset among the GOP field as “the gigantic set of burnished titanium Terminator-testicles swinging under her skirt.”
It is great, over-the-top writing, a little too into itself to rush to the point in the first few paragraphs, but bold, colorful, and brutal enough that you’ll happily take the slower ride.
What is Taibbi’s point? Something similar to Goldberg’s. That this Aladdin-banning, fundamentalist, deluded Joan of Arc figure, is “crazy”—“Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy ”—and that there may be enough crazies like her out there for her to have an impact on the presidential race.
There is some interesting reporting on Bachmann’s formative years that leads to that conclusion, relayed to us with trademark Taibbi acid. Here he is on her time in the inaugural 1979 class of O.W. Coburn School of Law.
Originally a division of Oral Roberts University, this august academy, dedicated to the teaching of “the law from a biblical worldview,” has gone through no fewer than three names—including the Christian Broadcasting Network School of Law. Those familiar with the darker chapters in George W. Bush’s presidency might recognize the school’s current name, the Regent University School of Law. Yes, this was the tiny educational outhouse that, despite being the 136th-ranked law school in the country, where 60 percent of graduates flunked the bar, produced a flood of entrants into the Bush Justice Department.
Regent was unabashed in its desire that its graduates enter government and become “change agents” who would help bring the law more in line with “eternal principles of justice,” i.e., biblical morality. To that end, Bachmann was mentored by a crackpot Christian extremist professor named John Eidsmoe, a frequent contributor to John Birch Society publications who once opined that he could imagine Jesus carrying an M16 and who spent considerable space in one of his books musing about the feasibility of criminalizing blasphemy.
This background is significant considering Bachmann’s leadership role in the Tea Party, a movement ostensibly founded on ideas of limited government.

Time for the tally of CJR’s hit pieces on the 2012 GOP field:
Sarah Palin – yes
Herman Cain – yes
Mitt Romney – yes
Tim Pawlenty – yes
Michelle Bauchman – yes
Rick Santorum – yes
So when’s the hack job on Rick Perry scheduled?
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 02:34 PM
One man's "hit piece" is another man's analysis of exactly how clownish is the 2012 GOP field. Don't worry, when Governor GoodHair Secessionist Rick Perry tosses his hat in the ring, Mr. Meares will do his duty as the CJR house political journo and inform us all, like it or not, that yet another extremist freak has entered the race.
I for one look forward to that. (heh heh)
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 05:39 PM
If it takes hack jobs to prevent another GW Bush from taking the office, bring on the hacks. in 1998,1999 the press were more interested in Monica Lewinsky's laundry and Gore's "Love Canal" type smear jobs to accurately report on the ex-drunk, Rove empowered, sociopath working his way up the primaries towards the presidency.
And it didn't seem to matter that he was stupid and crazy and surrounded by a cast of corrupt, stupid, crazy people. What mattered was that Gore tended to "blah blah blah" a lot and George didn't have to work hard to win a debate, just talk about his faith and repeat the term "funny math" infinitum.
The world cannot afford another president benefiting from "the soft bigotry of low expectations". If the press does not apply some standards of basic competency to the candidates in the field, something which the fundie insane / corporate sell out party doesn't seem willing to do, then they are not serving the public nor the republic.
Craven idiots like Bachmann and Perry do not deserve a stone's throw shot at the presidency. If the party refuses to enable respectable candidates, they should not be accorded respectable reportage.
They are clowns. They deserve clown show coverage - not that it will matter to the clown show base who enabled them in the first place.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 07:07 PM
It's only too ironic to have Thimbles, who believes that journalists should be held to different standards based on the color of their skin, lecturing about "bigotry"..
LOL
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 08:27 PM
You're such a liar padi. Keep your talk on that subject here, where everybody can see it.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/politico_explores_talk_radios.php
If anyone believes your contentions, after reading the material on which they're based, marry them. Male or female, you will not find a more compatible lobotomy victim.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 10:04 PM
Thimbles wrote: there's a big difference between a black columnist using the term "negro" and a couple of white guys
padikiller acknowledges Thimble's racist Reality: And there it is, Thimbles... In your own words.
Different standards for different journalists, based on skin color.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 10:29 PM
Selective quote all you want padi, that's not going to affect me or your supposed "tea party" clown's viability as a candidate.
Michelle Bachmann's leadership role in the tea party proves is that they aren't small government libertarians nor a new movement, which are the excuses used to claim the party's relevance.
They are a rebranding of old Republicanism as new Republicanism. And, in spite of the mess the republicans left behind in 2007, there always seems to be a group of people willing to give GOP a chance.
http://media.buzzsprout.com/20717.mp3
14:45 in.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 10:55 PM
LOL...
Yeah, Thimbles...
I somehow "selected" YOUR quote!
These are YOUR words, Dude... Not mine!
I would never suggest that the freedom to express opinion is dependent upon skin color.
But YOU did. PERIOD.
You can dodge and weave all you want, but the REALITY isn't going anywhere, pal. Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever. Your words say what they say.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 11:03 PM
And just for the record, to set Thimbles straight once again...
I do not support Ms. Bachman's candidacy... She is hyper-religious and I just can't can't get behind any hyper-religious candidate - be it Romney (with his special underwear), Obama (with his 20 year history following Rev. Hate America/Whitey), etc.
Religion to me is akin to Warmingism or Liberalism. Twain said it best... "Faith is believing what you know isn't true".. This blind stupidity is why I'm not a Republican.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 11:28 PM
"Dude, I know you want to excuse it, but there's a big difference between a black columnist using the term "negro" and a couple of white guys on hate radio doing it."
You also missed the part:
"If you don't get the difference between a white dad saying "Hey boy." to his son and a white police officer saying "Hey boy." to a black pedestrian, then you aren't going to understand. Words mean different things depending on who's speaking them and the context they're spoken in. "
In other words, it's not the race that determines the acceptability of their use, it's the discernible intent of the speaker when using them.
Louis CK puts it best in an NSFW, highly adult, routine he does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLrBLxbLxw
Get your mother's permission, come back and watch the video, and then we can talk about where I'm coming from and where republicans who talk about states rights
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
and people, like Michelle Bachmann, who minimize the role of slavery in the history of the republic are coming from.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 01:07 AM
Thimbles:
I'm sure you can come up with a million reasons why you believe black columnists should be held to different standards than white ones.
Just like Hitler and Bin Laden had a million reasons for killing Jews and just like the Democrats had a million reasons for holding onto slavery during the Civil War.
And to be fair... I have to concede that you propose not only racial discrimination, but also ideological discrimination as well.
There! Feel better now?
The problem you have (aside from your mere racism and ideological bigotry) is a practical one.
How do we determine if a particular columnist in a particular medium makes your race-based grade?
HUH?
Rush Limbaugh on WABC is a "white" guy on "hate" radio. But what if Rush is interviewed on NPR? What about Herman Cain? Can a "black" man on WABC ("hate" radio) make the grade? If Herman Cain goes on NPR and labels Obama a "magic negro", then all is good right?
So what about Michelle Malkin? Your "guy" standard doesn't explicitly encompass women (though we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do not suggest a sexist standard in addition to your proposed racial and ideological standards), Is she OK? Is she dark enough?
How do you get to be "black" enough to make your grade, Thimbles? And what is "hate" radio? Is there a (neutral, I'm sure) panel of "professional journalists" who will grade skin pigmentation and approve radio stations?
The devil is always in the details. Tell us how anyone could implement your standards.
#11 Posted by mvalois@vbclegal.com, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 07:38 AM
The world cannot afford another president benefiting from "the soft bigotry of low expectations". If the press does not apply some standards of basic competency to the candidates in the field, something which the fundie insane / corporate sell out party doesn't seem willing to do, then they are not serving the public nor the republic.
Excuse me, but isnt this exactly what we got from Obama?
#12 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 09:32 AM
padi, you got your email and name fields mixed up. Don't worry, it happens to the best of us when you get agitated. Maybe give yourself a break and get some fresh air. Us socialists and communists will be here when you get back.
Promise.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 09:36 AM
Hahahahaha! Margaret! Is that you? Howz the bankruptcy business these days out your way? Pretty brisk business, I'd guess.
#14 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 10:26 AM
Yeah...
I got the email mixed up... And no, I'm not Margaret, and yes, her bankruptcy practice is doing very well under the Obama administration - filings have doubled and so have foreclosures..
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 11:02 AM
I think it is very curious that a family-friendly firm like that -- or who purports to be -- who deals so extensively with people's extreme misfortunes seems so utterly and completely one-dimensional, without compassion or sympathy in an online persona.
What am I missing? Padikiller is a misanthrope who deals in bankruptcy and foreclosure. What's that all about?
#16 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 11:26 AM
Margaret is in fact a colleague of mine here in Lynchbburg... Her email address was entered in error - a "Droid" autocomplete artifact...
However, the "misanthropes" are the people who perpetuate slums and filthy schools through liberal policies. Misanthropes created a stagnant welfare underclass. Misanthropes print money and compel subprime lending that results in foreclosures and collapsed markets.
Misanthropes hold people to different standards based on skin color (as Thimbles does).
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 02:24 PM
"Excuse me, but isn't this exactly what we got from Obama?"
To a certain extent, yes. However, the difference between the administrative and academic achievements of Obama and Bush are stark. Bush was a completely predictable disaster -
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/
much in the mold of his brother Neil -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35297-2003Dec27 (scroll past the half screen advertising)
before W got through the primaries. His background was worthless for consideration of the top post within the sole superpower.
Barack lacked experience and has become a sucker for ex-bush officials like Tim Geinther and Ben Bernanke, but nobody can claim he was just handed the reins of every venture he was a part of.
That argument was plain to the eye with Bush. Not only was every venture given to him as a way to incur good grace with his politically connected father, but those ventures still managed to collapse under his crappy stewardship. There was no excuse for the press to just ignore the path Bush took to political power when it was so heavily lined with graft, failure, and religious pandering.
But it appears that republicans can offer no other types of candidates. How is the press supposed to acknowledge the facts about unserious candidates without looking like it's attempting to vilify a serious political party?
The answer is, who fricken cares. In regards to Bachmann and Perry - do the damn job you'd do in a heartbeat if the candidate was Dennis Kuchinch. When Howard Dean was making a serious run, the press defused him and his movement in spite of the fact that he was better qualified than Obama or Bush. They did the same to Gore.
Do it to these dumb, fundie, small government for the citizen, big government for the wars and doing my corporate sponsor's bidding, republicans. If the party can neither propose serious candidates nor ideas, don't treat the party seriously. When you do so, in spite of the facts, you do a disservice to the nation - not to mention that you'll have to bend your personal truth-o-meter to resemble politifact's. Yesssh.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 02:24 PM
Hey Margaret,
"Misanthropes created a stagnant welfare underclass. Misanthropes print money and compel subprime lending that results in foreclosures and collapsed markets."
Who was in charge during the subprime rise and crash and who was in charge while the rust belt was converted from a source of middle class work to a source of under class ghettos.
The corporations which you defend, Margaret, and the politicians they funded were in charge.
Not the liberals. Your guys. Take some damn personal responsibility and admit your failures. Your guys had decades of control and what did it lead to? Is that utopia out the window? No. It's the decay of a once great society.
That's the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, Margaret. You're a fool following the foolish ideas of other fools. You can't blame the hippies for the faults in your society, We Weren't In Control. You Rove-ish, "lying is the mechanism by which I breathe" types were. How completely cowardly that you are trying to pass the blame for your mistakes on people who hadn't assumed office when those mistakes were made.
Pathetic Margie. Really Pathetic.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 02:47 PM
Poor Margaret/padikiller.
Your poor, unfortunate clients pay you good money to get the same kind of toxic rightwing hatred that is pumped out for free on Glen Beck's show. That stuff about "filthy schools" and "stagnant welfare class" is some real ugly stuff, Margaret, especially coming from a member of the legal profession. And worse, it's not true. Not true at all.
#20 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 04:11 PM
Yeah... The American schools are great, James...
Hey, at least our students (for the time being) do better than Mexican or Brazilian students!
"We’ve put together this infographic that compares the United States’ education spend and performance versus eleven countries. The U.S. is the clear leader in total annual spending, but ranks 9th in Science performance and 10th in Math."
http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
And while I don't care what you guys say in your little juvenile games... I have informed Margaret of my error in posting her email address here.. And you guys are pushing the defamation envelope... If you want to dig your own holes, go for it... Fair warning...
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 06:21 PM
But Margaret,
YOU typed that email. You typed that email as if it was your own. If anyone fabricated anyone or defamed anyone, it was YOU. That's the REALITY. And, according to the information which YOU provided, in YOUR words which are in black and white (which I think was a little segregational of you to type like that, racist) YOU are Margaret. Any explanations to the contrary are discardable since your apartheid letters tell THE TRUTH right there. We didn't ask for your email. We didn't type it.
But YOU did. PERIOD.
You can dodge and weave all you want, but the REALITY isn't going anywhere, pal. Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever. Your words say what they say.
Neyah Nyeah Neyah Margie.
Can't take the heat? Don't type in the kitchen. Bigot.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 08:11 PM
PS. I should attribute my segregationist observations to somegreybloke, who formulated something similar to what I said to Margaret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Emwh3KcGM
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 08:34 PM
Thimbles...
You had better understand that I am a male attorney from Lynchburg and that I inadvertently copied an email address of a colleague into the field on my mobile phone when I posted this morning as I was simultaneously composing an email message. That was my mistake.
However, I am not Margaret. I don't even play her on TV.
If you want to keep up your silly juvenile rant and defame her in this public forum, don't say I didn't warn you if the crap hits the fan.
#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 08:44 PM
Good luck, lawfag.
My real name isn't Thimbles and, for various reasons, you aren't going to be able to touch me with your litigations fingers.
Must be pretty embarrassing for you to have to reveal to your colleagues the tremendous cjr archive of you getting pwned by regular people on the internet forum you spend all day on. fine legal mind you got there. Do you offer your services at the local Dollar Store?
And how have I defamed anyone? You mentioned the email, someone else mentioned her name and occupation, no one has mentioned her last name and place of work.
Unless you care to bring it up Margie.
So all you have is the name Margaret and my satire of your "yur a racist" idiocy. Build your case on that cry-boy. Or girl. Whatever. 'Your words say what they say.'
Clown.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 09:19 PM
Hey padikiller and Thimbles: Get a room!
#26 Posted by JR, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 09:40 PM
"Hey padikiller and Thimbles: Get a room!"
I'm sorry you all had to see that, but my colleague padgret tends to lay a bit heavy on the sauce and drag our dirty linens out from thread to thread on those occasions. I wished he'd stop but he considers himself a lawyer (more like lol-yer, amirite?) and feels he has the right to say whatever he likes, wherever he likes.
I'll attempt to be more respectful of people's space and privacy from this point on, but I cannot speak for sister madkiller.
Would anyone like to discuss Michelle Bachmann or Matt Taibbi's culinary skills?
http://exiledonline.com/feature-new-york-times-hack-eats-horse-sperm-pie/
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 02:22 AM
"Barack lacked experience and has become a sucker for ex-bush officials like Tim Geinther and Ben Bernanke..."
Wrong. Obama was in bed with the MIC, Goldman, et al., from the beginning.
#28 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 09:53 PM
Yes but he was suckered into thinking that he and the democrats would be rewarded after using extraordinary government powers to save these corrupt institutions and allowing them to suffer minimal consequences for their actions. He was also suckered into thinking that these extreme measures to save the banks would salvage the economy despite the better advice that was offered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob_ZChBKR0Q
I don't think he anticipated that the banks would use their inherent disloyalty to anyone that doesn't make them the maximum buck - and the supreme court's Citizen's United decision - to fund republicans and the chamber of commerce to ravage democrats. I don't think he anticipated that the economy would still have 9% unemployment this close to election 2012.
Other people anticipated, but Obama does not listen to them. He's stuck on Geithner and Bernanke and he's afraid of Wall Street. The poor guy is no doubt sad that he and Jamie Dimon are no longer BFF's anymore.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 01:27 PM