Michelle Bachmann Says She’s In For 2012. Maybe

This should drive the Wonky Media and all the Lefties, not too mention wishy washy Republicans, bat guano inane

Tea Party Darling Says She Wants In on Conversation, would announce by Summer or earlier.

Isn’t calling her “darling” rathe sexist?

Just over ten months before next February’s Iowa caucuses Sarah Palin is returning from a recent trip to Israel. But Tea Party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann is already hitting the Hawkeye state capital.

Unlike Palin, all signs point to Bachmann running for the Republican presidential nomination later this year. In an Iowa version of ABC News’ “Subway Series” shot on the Des Moines city trolley, the Minnesota Republican told ABC’s Jonathan Karl, “I’m in.”

This is going to get interesting. Maybe

“I’m in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation in making sure that President Obama only serves one term, not two, because I want to make sure that we get someone who’s going to be making the country work again. That’s what I’m in for,” Bachmann said.

“But I haven’t made a decision yet to announce, obviously, if I’m a candidate or not, but I’m in for the conversation.”

Cain/Bachmann 2012, anybody?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Michelle Bachmann Says She’s In For 2012. Maybe”

  1. david7134 says:

    I could go for Bachmann. But why did you bring up Cain? We have had enough of RINO’s.

  2. Phineas says:

    I don’t know much about Cain but, “RINO?” Seriously? I’ve never seen anything to suggest that.

  3. david7134 says:

    We are talking about McCain aren’t we? As such, this guy is anything but a conservative.

  4. […] very positive aspect of her running would be that she would certainly draw fire from lefties who would otherwise be aiming at Sarah Palin. That of course is in the event that Mrs. […]

  5. captainfish says:

    herman cain, former successful business owner.

    She just lost a few points with me by using the words, “being part of the conversation..”

    PC talk. She is already sounding wishy-washy.

    Hate that.

    Give me Col Allen West for Prez!!! Let’s see the left and minorities attack that!

  6. mojo says:

    Is that a pun, or did you just mis-spell “insane”?

  7. Doomed says:

    Herman Cain and his running mate Allen West.

    Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

    Are the two if you want to drive the left stark raving mad.

    If you want to drive the right stark raving mad…..

    Mitt Romney and his running Mate…John McCain.

    Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty.

    and if you want to make the world insane.

    Ron Paul and his running mate…Rand Paul

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Let’s see the left and minorities attack that!

    Why wait for them when the attacks have already begun on the Right?

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/24/allen-west-tea-party-statist/

    ::sigh::

  9. captainfish says:

    Hey GC, I don’t know anything about that site, but reading that article, the author is far left.

    He claims the war on terror is just a wasteful shedding of blood and money. Calls Col West a “Tea Party Statist” for voting affirmative for the Patriot Act which the author calls “nefarious legislation”.

    The author belittles Col West for being pro-military. Imagine that. He also attacked West for voting NO to immediately pull our troops out of Afghanistan. (never heard of this vote – H.J. Con. Res. 28, “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.”)

    So, don’t think this one counts as coming from the right or even center.

  10. Doomed says:

    Yeah the 10 amendment site gives itself away when you look at their model legislation that includes HEMP.

    Once again the libertarians cannot contain themselves and their desire for near anarchy by legalizing drugs, booze, prostitution and nearly every other vice that is outlawed in most western nations.

    The libertarian movement is really a dangerous movement and put together with the progressive movement us poor liberals and conservatives are pretty much in deep doo doo.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    The TAC site is right wing. They simply come at the Constitution from a very strict originalist and constructionalist point of view. They are against hemp laws at the national level because the Federal government has no business regulating something that does not cross state lines.

    They hold many of the same values of the Tea Party in that they want smaller government and more adherence to the Constitution. They are against the idea that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and hold that it means what it says.

    That is pretty much a Right Wing stance.

  12. david7134 says:

    Doomed,
    Exactly what is wrong with not having the government in your life? Have you ever considered why we have harsh drug laws? Do you know that they don’t work and that for the most part they prevent legitimate patients from receiveing legitimate care, particularly in the field of pain relief. My wife was recently in severe pain following a medical procedure, she was given 10 percocet. The reson was the doctor was scared he would be investigated by the state for giving an adequate amount of drug. As a physician, I was able to use nnon-narcotic means to relieve her situation. These were means that are not available to the general public due to the necessity of the physician being present for the admininstration. Anyone else would have been in extreme pain for several days or have to go to the ER and get hit with a $2500 charge. The fact is that we don’t need supervision of our drug use and that it is harming in many ways. As to prostitution, do you know that the laws are detremintal to those that feel they desire to follow that occupation and thus harmful to the men who desire it? Why? What business is it of the government as to what you do with your body?

  13. captainfish says:

    Sorry David, can’t join you on that rant. This country was founded on moral laws. On laws that are based more on religion than of what men feel are right.

    It was determined long ago, before this country started, that prostitution and illicit drug use was morally bad and thus we created laws to enforce that belief.

    As for the case with your wife, I find that odd since I have been given scrips with a months supply of percs before with several refills.

    Many of the issues you raise about limiting prescription drug use are because people inherently can not be trusted to take drugs properly. Overdose, addiction, and having them fall in to children’s hands. Allowing a doctor oversight and regulation helps limit the problems and have the patient monitored.

    Granted, I would love to be able to go to my local Wal-Mart and buy some percocet OTC when I am feeling in particular pain. Maybe sell them in a 5 count bottle or something. But till then, the FDA is in charge.

    Hopefully, we can get some sane people in congress to reign in our government so that diverse opinions like yours can be considered.

  14. david7134 says:

    CF,
    I am afraid you are wrong on this issue. The fact is that prostitution was tolerated up until about 1914. At that time, the army began to shut down the industry due to its incapcitating effect on troops. In fact, have you every heard of an organization called the FBI? It was founded in the late 1800’s in order to watch New York brothels for the presence of white slaves. Of course, then as now, that did not exist. Yet the FBI never went away.

    As to the drug issue, you could buy anything you desired in the US until 1913. At that time, on pressure from some prominent, know nothing preachers, the Feds decided to step in and regulate the practice. The AMA (an new organization) was against the regulation. Most doctors that I know are truly against drug regulation now. Those countries that have liberalized their drug laws have had no problems whatsoever. In fact, the present of misuse in the US is the same now as it was before 1913. Now think of how much money is going to terrorist, gangs, bad people as a result of our laws. I would point you to an organization called LEAP that is cops who think the whole thing is stupid. Also, think about how much money we spend on enforcement. The DEA, one half of jails, etc. For instance 800,000 people are put in jail for pot every year. Yet pot does little compared to tobacco and alcohol. In fact, how can we be a “moral” society when we condone alcohol and tobacco?? Narcotics are far less troublesome.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    In fact, have you every heard of an organization called the FBI? It was founded in the late 1800′s in order to watch New York brothels for the presence of white slaves.

    As usual, you are playing fast and loose with the facts. The FBI grew out of Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case which found that as the Federal government is responsible for interstate commerce, the states were not responsible or allowed to investigate commerce across state lines. As the Federal government did not have an investigative branch, the earliest form of the FBI was created. In 1908, the BOI (as it was known then) was asked to investigate the very real issue of prostitution in areas where women could not support themselves by other means due to large amounts of male immigrants. The women were, for all intents and purposes, slaves as they never made enough money to escape from prostitution and were often pulled off the streets as young teenagers.

    Those countries that have liberalized their drug laws have had no problems whatsoever.

    Wrong on the facts again. There is not a civilized country that has not outlawed some form of drugs and all have outlawed marijuana.

    The AMA (an new organization)…

    Wrong on the facts again. The AMA was founded in 1847 – not in the early 20th century as you state.

    Yet pot does little compared to tobacco and alcohol.

    Pot is far worse than tobacco in all physical aspects. It has also shown to increase mental disease in users. How is that “little compared to tobacco?”

    Also, it should be remembered that while people rail against prohibition of the 1930’s, the fact of the matter is that crime and domestic crime went DOWN during Prohibition. Once Prohibition was lifted, crime syndicates moved onto other ventures. In addition domestic crimes increased. The rate of crime after Prohibition actually rose.

    You say that most doctors you know are truly against drug regulation now. That is contrary to my experience working with doctors in rehab clinics and at centers for abused children.

    I suspect that your “doctors” are like your “facts.”

  16. david7134 says:

    I am sorry guitar, but you are as well wrong. The source that I referenced was content with my explanation of the FBI. As to the pot issue, I am sure you can give me an article or study to support your position.

    But as I have asked you in the past, what is your point? Are you happy to live in a country that micro manages your life? Try not to nit pick and look at the fact that we have too much government.

  17. captainfish says:

    However, I think that is one thing that we can all agree on. There is waaaaaay too much federal and state governmental intrusion in to our lives.

    We can debate whether that level should be none or minimal later on once we get that level down to half-way.

    However, I don’t think there is any way that Col West can be considered a Statist in any way shape or form. And to call him a Tea Party Statist is like calling an Elephant a Mouse. Or calling Obama a neo-con socialist.

    There is no way to be a member of the Tea Party and to hold Statist views and actions. Obama and the socialists in Congress now are Statists.

    Let’s get these big government liberals (repub and dem) out of this Congress first. We can then debate and “have a conversation” about how much more we should eliminate the control of government in our lives.

    How’s that?

  18. gitarcarver says:

    The source that I referenced was content with my explanation of the FBI.

    You offered no source other than yourself. If you’d like, you can look at the FBI’s home page to give you the history of the FBI. You can look at Wikipedia if you’d like. I can quote sources all day long to that are more than you just saying what you think.

    As to the pot issue, I am sure you can give me an article or study to support your position.

    Sure. Take a look at the CESAR site for information and studies. In 2007 the British AMA released a study citing that marijuana increases mental health issues.

    But once again, where is your evidence that it is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol?

    But as I have asked you in the past, what is your point?

    As I stated david, the point is that you like to play fast an loose with your so called “facts.”

    Are you happy to live in a country that micro manages your life?

    Whether I am “happy” or not has nothing to do with reality that you like to spout opinions framed as facts.

    Try not to nit pick and look at the fact that we have too much government.

    It is never “nit picking” to defend the truth. The idea that you think it is shows a great deal.

  19. gitarcarver says:

    Cap’n,

    I won’t defend the TAC’s article on West. I never said I agreed with it.

    The TAC is right leaning, state’s rights group. They believe in both the current definition of “state’s rights” and the definition of “state’s rights” that was prevalent up to the Civil War.

    My only point in showing the article was that some on the Right are attacking West.

    I won’t defend the article because I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

  20. david7134 says:

    Guitar,
    I am afraid that you and the truth are at odds. In addition, you seem to be led by the internet, try reading. If you did, you would find a book called, The History of Prostitution. They document that an organization was formed to watch prostitutes in the late 1800’s, this organization morfed into the FBI. Now the FBI site is not about to give that history.

    As to the effect of pot, you did not give any reference at all. I am aware of the English study, then also studies that counter it. As for CESAR, come on, can’t you see a propaganda site? You must believe in global warming as well. If you don’t think that tobacco and alcohol have major health issues, then you have your head in the sand. But that is not what my point is.

    My point is that people should be free to make foolish choices on their own without Washington doing it for them. I don’t smoke pot or desire to, but I would fight for the right of someone who desired the drug. That is because out great government uses its power to withold legitimate drugs from people simply because a handful of the population can’t be mature enough to deal with them. I really did not understand this that much till I started reading the illogical comments on the internet and was able to see first hand how idiotic people are in desiring freedom, but then turning around and asking the government to take it away in the same breath.

  21. gitarcarver says:

    In addition, you seem to be led by the internet, try reading.

    David, I know that I have read far more than you can imagine. Furthermore, I actually understand what I read, which you cannot say.

    Now the FBI site is not about to give that history.

    So you believe one book and an uncredited reference that you do not give as proof as opposed to the citations I gave you?

    Take your own advice.

    As to the effect of pot, you did not give any reference at all.

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    If there are no references, why in your pathetic way do you try and discredit them?

    Not only do you fail to discredit them, by trying, you prove that they are references. Furthermore, as always, you don’t give anything to back up your own claims.

    If you don’t think that tobacco and alcohol have major health issues,

    Once again, you are grasping at straws. My point was that pot is worse as far as health issues than tobacco. That fact remains despite your inability to understand it.

    I don’t smoke pot or desire to

    All evidence to the contrary.

    withold legitimate drugs from people

    Define “legitimate drugs.” By any logical definition, a legitimate drug is one that is legal. So go ahead and take it from there.

    started reading the illogical comments on the internet

    Started reading your own comments, did you?

    how idiotic people are in desiring freedom, but then turning around and asking the government to take it away in the same breath.

    Well David, as the old saying goes, your freedoms end at my nose. If you and your pot smoking, drug sniffing, tobacco smoking, alcoholic friends want to take drugs, smoke, snort, or whatever, that is fine with me. The moment it starts to affect me and you demand my money and property as a result of your recklessness, the “freedom train” stops.

    That is truly what freedom is. It is a freedom that you cannot and do not respect. It is a freedom that says “I am free and will be accountable for my actions.” You just want the “I am free” part.

    You don’t want freedom. You want a type of anarchy where you are allowed to harm others without recourse or accountability.

    In your postings you have always demanded that other people prove something while we are expected to agree to it simply because you say so.

    I suspect the hypocrisy you show in your comments extend into your personnel life and life choices.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5899 access attempts in the last 7 days.