The difference between Palin and Bachman is in the area of their intelligence. I would vote for Bachman as more intelligent. And Palin always stuck me as secretly a fascist. For example, her husband wanted to secede from U.S., which supports the idea that Palin is all about something "totally different." Fascism.
Now we have a new one. A candidate, I mean. For you-know-what. President, I mean. Isn't that the top office in the land? As for the new one, USA Today calls the lady a "tax lawyer."
That would mean that Bachman understands the workings of the law but on the other hand maybe does not understand the reason we need laws.
Chris Matthews has for some time known Bachman. He considers her on the extremes. We could say she is on the extreme end of some spectrum, if there is a spectrum. In a well-known incident, Bachman once called Obama "anti-American."
That is pretty well-known but we also see it in the newspaper and my reference here for her statement about Obama's anti-Americanism is USA Today for Wed., June 15 (not un-coincidentally the date of this blogpost) p. 2A. Her questionable language use: "anti-American views." Now this is not quite right somehow. Now this was 10/08. She may have changed since. After all, a smart lady certainly cleans up her act. And I did call her smart, didn't I?
From about the period during or shortly after the French Revolution right up until now there has been a situation in which there are not one but two publicly-acceptable, culturally kosher mindsets. This is very liberal of us. At any rate, these are the factions called "liberal" and "conservative" or left and right.
Now, Michelle B. would appear to be on the Right.
I can tell. Yes I can ---- I do it by looking at a photo that comes up on that page. It's 2A of this newspaper. There are two femme faces there, Bachman and a female reporter, I think.
I do not want to get into a lot of verbal descriptions of faces because I am not Paul Eckman, one, and two, faces and words communicate in distinct ways: but Michelle has a kind of eager, jump-in-your-face kind of face. That's her expression going up against or I should say contrasting with what appears to be maybe a reporter. The reporter's face, or the other face in the photo, is more analytic --- could be skeptical. The former, Bachman, is a face that is not expressing a critical quality. This face has an acceptant quality; what this mean is that this face accepts. She not only accepts reality she wants to jump in. But not critical. Stay on "our" side.
But then again she too has a critical side, in some sense. The critical side here would be her attitude towards "other." That mean foreigners, outsiders, and so forth. The ones who sell us oil. Conservatives think this way, and of course, Obama is Muslim etc. and so on and so forth and etc.
So: my expect would b that as with Palin --- what we would see is a lot of "us against them" stuff. What I'm saying is pretty obvious, eight? That would seem to imply the USA, "us," against "them", the foreigners. Or the outsiders, or in the Palin case perhaps it would be against those who do not use Gucci handbags. Whatever the going demarcation is, I guess --- since, after all, conservatives of the Tea-Party stripe (perhaps all conservatives today?) are not so well-connected to reality.
(So, what would they be accepting? That's a good question. Themselves?) Also, on the same page/ (The famous page 2A of the June 15th USA) / another photo:
I guess it's my photo analysis day, so: this one is above the one we have just finished of Bachman and reporter. I don't know which is photo is "foreign," and I don't want to use words to describe a photo... This other one is of Jon Huntsman looking like a buffoon. He has a certain combination of features here, which comes across to me as: dumb ...conservative ...wealthy. I mean, that's lethal. I love these old traditional conservative guys just as much as you do but we don't want one as president (if we do why not Mitt R?). I'm sure Huntsman can kill terrorists just as good as anybody. He's running for president too, just like Bachman is, get it? That's why they were both on the same page. That newspaper is pure brilliance. Well, anyways, on to the photo. I mean, there is something else: In this photo are three other men, all they all coincidently turn out to be white. And they are, I sense, all of them, either chortling or snickering. That is what you might call the Gee/Golly kind of Republicanism. "Don't know how I got the heck I got here but ahm shore lakin' it, yuk, yuk, yuk."
So, I don't support any of the afore-mentioned conservative Republicans, Palin, Bachman, or Huntsman, on the evidence so far. If you want a Republican, I'd have to say Mitt R. Go Mitt!