On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:42 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 1:18 pm, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A story on the Huff Po ( > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/michele-bachmann-john-quincy...) > > reports that MB did accept Wallace's apology last night in an appearance > on > > Fox News (she had not accepted it while on ABC News, but apparently Fox > sent > > out a memo for every> I don't need Poltifact to tell me that JQA was 8 > years old when the > > Declaration of Inone to play nice). > > > > The story also reports that this morning, on Good Morning America, MB > > repeated a ridiculous claim I think I have heard her make before, which > is > > that John Quincy Adams was one of the Founding Fathers, which justifies > who > > even more bat-shit crazy claim that the Founding Fathers worked > tirelessly > > to end slavery. Apparently young George actually called her on it, but > she > > refused to back down, saying that "John Quincy Adams most certainly was > a > > part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively > > involved." > > > > Even more substantially wrong than this however is her often repeated > claim > > that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavrey, and that this > > shows :under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that > > something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. > We > > changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our > > Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom > > unparalleled in the rest of the world." > > > > Of course that is not what happened. > > But acknowledging that would go against everything the Tea Partiers/ > Fox News Republicans believe. Beyond the challenge to American > exceptionalism you mentioned to talk about this issue truthfully you > would have to be comfortable with nuance, since there was a whole > spectrum of beliefs among the Founders and differences between public > and private behavior. You would also have to admit that many of them > changed their minds after reflection and observation, which is > anathema to modern conservatism. You would have to discuss how the > Founding Fathers violently disagreed among themselves on this issue, > and from there you are close to admitting that the Constitution is > not a unanimous and explicit set of instructions from a group of great > men, but a product of debate and compromise from people who disagreed > about the same issues we disagree on today (executive power, > centralized vs. state power, etc.) And finally and perhaps most > painfully you would have to admit that the Founding Fathers > compromised on a issue of "core values" for the good of the country > and put patriotism ahead of ideological consistency. And all of that > is about as likely to happen as Keith Olbermann replacing Roger Ailes. > The more interesting question here is not what pieces of history Michele Bachmann will get wrong, but why she gets them wrong. The problem is not too many reporters will get into that. They'll likely act like Cenk Ugyur did two days ago. He had on his MSNBC show Michelle Cottle (I believe) who actually wrote a good piece examining the genesis of Bachmann's Christianist understanding of history, but Ugyur spent the entire segment going "Ha ha ha, Bachmann sure is dum!" even while Cottle tried to explain that she (and a lot of people in the Midwest, and South) believe this is true and that she will win if the media gang up on her going "Ha ha ha, Bachmann sure is a dum flake!" There is a sort of Christian fanfiction version of American history that is being taught by the likes of David Barton and John Eidsmoe where the Founding Fathers are elevated to the level of prophets and that the United States really was founded as a Christian theocratic nation. Thus they wipe away the grime such as slavery, and argue that the important legally binding foundation document is the Declaration of Independence. (Note how so many confuse *that* for the US Constitution. They argue that the DoC outranks the USC or somesuch.. Argue that God is not referred to in the Constitution? Well, "Creator" is mention in the DoC, so that counts!) Still, the issue isn't that Bachmann believes this, but that lots of other Americans -- the born again evangelical Christians -- do. Ah, found it. Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html -- Wesley McGee http://www.ambivi.com http://drawing-a-blank.tumblr.com -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
