Why there is no way in hell Michele Bachmann can become America’s first woman president

Pic via

I turn to my wise friend and Feministing alumna Ann Friedman, who said in response to John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his VP in the 2008 election: “A woman candidate is not the same thing as a woman’s candidate.”

Sure, we could say it’s unlikely Michele Bachmann will get a presidential nomination — after all, just 5 percent of Republicans in a recent poll they would consider her their candidate. But considering the high marks she got across the board after Monday’s GOP debate, you just never know where the direction of this electoral circus will go. So let’s remind ourselves of exactly how extreme and warped of a human being Michele Bachmann is — and how having her as the first woman president of the U.S. would not only just be the worst thing ever, but would also probably mean the demise of this country. Let’s see…

And that is just the tip of the iceberg, my friends. Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation said it for me yesterday:

While her followers portray Bachmann as a “modern woman,” never forget that what she really represents is a retro throwback to a kind of American that is intolerant, bigoted and out of step with the best instincts and possibilities of this country.

Join the Conversation

  • http://feministing.com/members/samll/ Sam Lindsay-Levine

    Don’t we agree that not all cultures are equal and not all values are equal? You bolded it as though expecting it to be shocking. The patriarchal culture is not equal to an egalitarian culture. The value of feminism is not equal to the value of misogyny.

    We just disagree vociferously with Ms. Bachmann about which values and which cultures are better.

    • http://feministing.com/members/samll/ Sam Lindsay-Levine

      I mean, sure, in Ms. Bachmann’s full context it’s clearly a thin cover for racism, but as a standalone statement (which the bolding emphasizes) it is something I would agree with.

    • honeybee

      I’m not so sure it’s as simple as this.

      Is it really fair to say that some cultures are superior to others??? That makes me very uncomfortable.

      Even with values, if a group of people hold a specific set of values, AND THEY ARE NOT FORCING THESE ON OTHERS, I’m not sure it’s fair to say they are any worse / better then anyone else. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t invalid their own opinions, feelings, etc. There are many values for which I don’t think can say which is right. What is a better value – believing in waiting for marriage for s$x or not believing in that? Can you really say one value is superior to another?

      Even if we are talking of more controversal values like the place of women in society I’m not sure it is right to judge others values, as long as they are freely held and not forced on others. Everyone has their own agency and right to believe what they want – so long as they don’t adversely impact others in a direct way.

  • http://cabaretic.blogspot.com nazza

    These sorts of attitudes may play well in her district, but she’d be crucified on a national scale. It would take a tragedy or a fluke for her to ever win the nomination.

  • unequivocal

    Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal.

    This seems a weird thing to criticize her for. Don’t we generally acknowledge the flaws of cultural relativism when we speak out against things like FGM?

  • http://feministing.com/members/vint13/ Vince

    While I appreciate that “Not all cultures are equal.” implies racist sentiment, in what way do feminists not believe that “Not all values are equal.”?

    • http://feministing.com/members/konkonsn/ konkonsn

      …I don’t understand how we have three posters confused on this. In the context of Bachmann, the things she does, the things she supports, the things she says, it’s very clear that she means culture in a racist manner and values in a anti-any religion other than Christianity (and only her form) manner. I mean, there’s a whole list right up there preceding that quote that pretty much sums it up.

  • http://feministing.com/members/kaelin/ Matt

    Even more than any assumptions about the consequences of Bachmann’s improbable presidency is the simple matter that people generally dislike what she stands for. Bachmann may resonate with a large chunk of the Republican base, but most voters will reject her platform and would rather re-up with not-necessarily-appealing-but-mentality-stable Obama (just like they did with three of the previous four Presidents). Homophobia and Islamaphobia are downward-trending attitudes, Medicare and Social Security are immensely popular, and fracturing media (thanks to the Internet and more TV/movie viewing options) is diversifying ways people experience and see the world (i.e. more culture/values), so it’s not as if circumstances should turn more favorable for Bachmann. Obama’s approval numbers just can’t go low enough in this current landscape (with Democrats and Republicans sharing culpability) to lose against her.

  • http://feministing.com/members/veroniqueb/ Véronique

    That’s quite a list! I hope there are several things on that list that would prevent Bachmann from ever having any mainstream appeal, or at least enough to be elected president. Please.

    BTW, unless Ann is more than one male person, she is a Feministing alumna. :)

  • http://feministing.com/members/toongrrl/ Jessica “Jess” Victoria Carillo

    I’m scared of who’d be running for the GOP in 2012. A few are Newt Gingrich (sounds like Grinch), Michelle Bachmann (reminds me if Vicky the Babysitter, Mr. Crocker, Prof. Doofenschirmtz, and Candace Flynn rolled into a hideous conglomeration), and Sarah Palin (AAAAAAAAHH!). God knows who else. Hoping for a progressive

    • http://feministing.com/members/angelh/ Angel H.

      Crocker + Vicky = …Bachman?!

      Gah! Now, I’ll have nightmares!

      • http://feministing.com/members/toongrrl/ Jessica “Jess” Victoria Carillo

        Sorry….hey you watch Nickelodeon as a kid? You’re awesome!!!!

  • http://feministing.com/members/defenestrate/ Kris Long

    So, don’t get me wrong, I’m disgusted by the tactics of the right and the hypocrisy of a woman supporting an all out ban on abortion, both because it is clearly not in the best interests of women and because it also is in contention with the idea that government should be as small as operationally possible. Kinda creeps me out.

    That said, I am going to offer a critique that I hope you don’t just flame me for, as I know how passionate people are about politics (and if you feel uncontrollably compelled to flame, flame on. I have thick skin).

    1. She would ban abortion in all cases — that includes women who were victims of rape and incest

    Okay, so somebody found a poll of an obviously far-right group whose very purpose is to rail against abortion on all fronts, and used that information to describe the opinions of sitting cogresscritters. Fine. I have my doubts as to the validity of that information, just at face value, but I have no trouble believing that Bachmann is an all-in zealous “Jeebus save the children!”, so I will leave that be.

    2. She’s said that black people and “other minorities” are to blame for the financial crisis.

    Well, according to that very article, she read an EXCERPT from an article that argued that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in trying to make home ownership available to more minorities who ordinarily would not have passed bank standards for loans, were treading a slippery slope. Is there video with Bachmann actually *saying* that minorities were directly responsible? Or even that policies meant to help make life easier for minorities could have been poorly thought out? Or did someone just take a different part of a commentary that someone else (Terry Jones) wrote, and see the word “minority” and automagically equate the article with Just Another White Man Keeping The Black Man (and other minorities, and women if we get around to it) down piece and assume that anyone citing it was also an oppressor of colored folk? I hate to say it, but screaming racism every time someone tries to critique a policy or stance that *might* help minorities more than it helps WASPs really doesn’t always come off as insightful journalism. Sometimes it just looks like name-calling.

    3. According to her, not only are the gays coming for your kids, but that LGBT folks have “sexual disfunction” and “identity disorders”

    Okay, quoting that article:
    [quote]She once said that the LGBT community was after “our children… are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.”

    She also has said she has “compassion” for people dealing with “sexual dysfunction and sexual identity disorders.”[unquote]

    Source? Is there actually something documented where she says this? Again, I find it entirely believable, but as far as journalistic standards go, just pulling a few words out of context without reference to when and where it was said is piss-poor journalism.

    That’s just the first three bullet points. Could they be right? Absolutely. Is there any evidence linked to that directly supports these assertions? If so, they are not mentioned here, or in the quoted articles which in and of themselves are written by people with an agenda.

    Is polarization really the same as galvanizing? Or did The One True Way in politspeak get in the way of facts and journalistic integrity? :/