Michele Bachmann interview

[SoonerCoug]

Wow. The best part is about 3:20 to 4:30. Oral Roberts University should be proud of her.

Chris Matthews: "Well someday we'll have you on this show again and we'll get to the investigations, but congratulations. I know you will never be defeated on your philosophy, which is to investigate everyone for everything.''

Bachmann responds: "Which is free markets and brazen principles of our founders!"

WTF are you saying, Bachmann?

Chris Matthews cracks me up.

[YOUTUBE]A-5jksDb-lw[/YOUTUBE]

[Jacob]

Matthews looks like a complete douche in that video. Why would Bachman respond to such stupid questions on election night? Why would she go on MSNBC if she's going to be treated like that by the hosts?

In fact, that last response you quote makes perfect sense. Matthews alleged that her PHILOSOPHY is to investigate everyone for everything. An obvious false attack. Her response is that her PHILOSOPHY is "free markets and brazen principles of our founders."

Truly, I'm no big fan. But I don't see how you are supposed to respond to Matthews, or Maddow, or Olbermann bringing you on their show upon winning your election and trying to trap you into some stupid game of pinning you down to their own dreamed up version of who you really are.

That you actually think Matthews and his cohorts come off well is puzzling to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

Matthews looks like a complete douche in that video. Why would Bachman respond to such stupid questions on election night? Why would she go on MSNBC if she's going to be treated like that by the hosts?

In fact, that last response you quote makes perfect sense. Matthews alleged that her PHILOSOPHY is to investigate everyone for everything. An obvious false attack. Her response is that her PHILOSOPHY is "free markets and brazen principles of our founders."

Truly, I'm no big fan. But I don't see how you are supposed to respond to Matthews, or Maddow, or Olbermann bringing you on their show upon winning your election and trying to trap you into some stupid game of pinning you down to their own dreamed up version of who you really are.

That you actually think Matthews and his cohorts come off well is puzzling to me.

It would seem that the jackasses at MSNBC are far more partisan than those at Fox News. The coverage of the election last night on Fox at least included two folks who consider themselves liberals or Democrats.

And Matthews looks like a douche because he is a douche.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It would seem that the jackasses at MSNBC are far more partisan than those at Fox News. The coverage of the election last night on Fox at least included two folks who consider themselves liberals or Democrats.

And Matthews looks like a douche because he is a douche.

No, they are pretty much the same. The whole time I was watching the clip I was thinking "Wow, he's a lefty version of Bill O'Reilly."

[Coach McGuirk]

They all suck.

[SoonerCoug]

What's so hard about answering a simple question? He asked her if she still wants to investigate people for anti-Americanism. Listen to the questions and her answers. If she has an IQ above 80, she ought to be able to answer these questions.

This is some seriously scary shit. She's a total imbecile. That you'd defend total imbecile who wants a new McCarthyism is more than puzzling to me.

[YOUTUBE]DNZEcdXHvsU[/YOUTUBE]

[Jacob]

No, they are pretty much the same. The whole time I was watching the clip I was thinking "Wow, he's a lefty version of Bill O'Reilly."

I agree somewhat. The game that Matthews was playing in that interveiw is the game Hannity likes to play. And it is is as just as annoying to me when someone like Hannity or O'Reilley does it. Or when Maddow and Oby do it, which they always do. And it belies the intelligence that they seem to think they have. I know that Maddow attended Oxford and all that. But that doesn't make her sound any less of an idiot.

As for the election coverage, I'm sure Hannity's coverage would have been the similar to the MSNBC coverage from the opposite viewpoint. But I didn't see Hannity on Fox News last night. I saw people who were not full of contempt for everybody they tried to interview. Teh opposite of what I saw each time I flipped over to MSNBC. That's partly because not many Dems were being interviewed, but mostly because the Fox Pannel wasn't full of a lot of jackasses, Karl Rove notwithstanding.

[Commando]

It would seem that the jackasses at MSNBC are far more partisan than those at Fox News. The coverage of the election last night on Fox at least included two folks who consider themselves liberals or Democrats.

And Matthews looks like a douche because he is a douche.

True that.

Having said that, could she really not address the question?-- even if she only said, "look I don't remember the context of that statement very well, so I can't give you the answer you're looking for at a time like this, but I think the important question you should be asking is, blah blah blah..."

[SoonerCoug]

I agree somewhat. The game that Matthews was playing in that interveiw is the game Hannity likes to play. And it is is as just as annoying to me when someone like Hannity or O'Reilley does it. Or when Maddow and Oby do it, which they always do. And it belies the intelligence that they seem to think they have. I know that Maddow attended Oxford and all that. But that doesn't make her sound any less of an idiot.

As for the election coverage, I'm sure Hannity's coverage would have been the similar to the MSNBC coverage from the opposite viewpoint. But I didn't see Hannity on Fox News last night. I saw people who were not full of contempt for everybody they tried to interview. Teh opposite of what I saw each time I flipped over to MSNBC. That's partly because not many Dems were being interviewed, but mostly because the Fox Pannel wasn't full of a lot of jackasses, Karl Rove notwithstanding.

He was frustrated that she wouldn't answer the question. All she had to do was address that issue and move on to her spiel. She wouldn't address the issue because she really does want to investigate people for anti-Americanism.

[il Padrino Ute]

No, they are pretty much the same. The whole time I was watching the clip I was thinking "Wow, he's a lefty version of Bill O'Reilly."

I could agree that they're pretty much the same if MSNBC even had one person who is a conservative in it's studio.

[Jacob]

What's so hard about answering a simple question? He asked her if she still wants to investigate people for anti-Americanism. Listen to the questions and her answers. If she has an IQ above 80, she ought to be able to answer these questions.

This is some seriously scary shit. She's a total imbecile. That you'd defend total imbecile who wants a new McCarthyism is more than puzzling to me.

[YOUTUBE]DNZEcdXHvsU[/YOUTUBE]

That video shows more of Matthews asking stupid questions and trying to trap her into saying something that she is not saying. I would like to think that objective, honest people see through that type of demagoguery. I don't think you are being objective. Nowhere in that video did she say anything about the congress investigating anybody for anti-american activities.

I would think that anybody with an IQ over 80 would be able to easily see that.

And I don't feel the need to defend her. I don't know much about her. I don't think she's brilliant and I think she's a little loony. I'm only defending reason.

[Jacob]

He was frustrated that she wouldn't answer the question. All she had to do was address that issue and move on to her spiel. She wouldn't address the issue because she really does want to investigate people for anti-Americanism.

Sure. She should have said something like:
"Chris...you are a moron. I don't know where you are coming up with such irrelevant nonsense. Let me tell you what these election results mean..."

But what's the point in responding to such stupidity, really?

[SoonerCoug]

Sure. She should have said something like:
"Chris...you are a moron. I don't know where you are coming up with such irrelevant nonsense. Let me tell you what these election results mean..."

But what's the point in responding to such stupidity, really?

She didn't respond because she really does want to investigate people for anti-Americanism. I think that's the most reasonable interpretation based on what she didn't say. Either that or she didn't have the courage to say that she doesn't want a new McCarthyism.

[Jacob]

I could agree that they're pretty much the same if MSNBC even had one person who is a conservative in it's studio.

To be fair...what conservative would want to sit in a studio all night with Matthews, O'Donnell, Maddow, and Olberman.

My assessment is that Matthews is the least bad of the bunch. Though he may be the dumbest.

[il Padrino Ute]

She didn't respond because she really does want to investigate people for anti-Americanism. I think that's the most reasonable interpretation based on what she didn't say. Either that or she didn't have the courage to say that she doesn't want a new McCarthyism.

Is that her only agenda?

No, it's not, but it was what Matthews wanted to talk about, as he and the other idiots at MSNBC couldn't stomach the fact that their people lost control of the House.

Could she have answered his direct questions? Sure, but why? They would never accept her answers, so why even play their little game?