Anyway, she blatantly lies about the effects of the HPV vaccine, apparently figuring her 3 children won't ever be sexually active and need protection against cervical cancer. And why does the number of children she has vary with the situation? Just sayin. In the debates, she was a mother of 5 biological children and 23 foster children, all of whom needed jobs. Now it's 3 children (I assume she means daughters) who will never ever do that nasty, horrible thing that she had to do under Marcus Bachmann while thinking of the queen that might get them an STD, so they will never need protection against cervical cancer. Whatever.
Here's the ad.
Now people on both the left and the right are calling her out on the claim that the vaccine causes mental retardation. You know when Rush Limbaugh is calling you out, that you've really pissed off your base.
So should she apologize for completely lying to her constiuency (most of whom I would guess will take her completely at her word and believe it til the day they die)? A simple "Oops, didn't mean to convey that was proven, just that a woman was concerned, but no worries. I set her straight". Nope. She went the other route. "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV."
Bachmann said, "I didn't make any statements that would indicate I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist, or making any conclusions about the drug one way or the other." Nope, you didn't. You just implied a lie was medical fact to a bunch of people who likely take your word as law.
Oh, hey - look! She's leaving what looks like a house in the same clothes she made the ad in. Maybe she did tape it in her basement!
Anywho... back to the campaign ad:
She also once again invokes the new term "crony capitalism", one of the GOP's euphamisms designed to blame democrats for the stuff the GOP has been doing for... well, forever...
So poor Michele, she is a victim of crony capitalism just like all the rest of us poor Americans. She tells us in her oh so teachery way, "What that means is someone in a position of power who does special favors for people who've given political donations to that candidate."
Oh, I get it. Kind of like Clarence Thomas taking $15,000 in gifts from an organization with a brief pending before the court. Hmmm. Wonder if he recused himself. No? Then I wonder how he ruled on that one.
Oh, and kind of like taking 10s of thousands of dollars from the Koch PAC meant there were no expectations in return. Those Koch brothers. Giving all that money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. *sniff* I'm all verklempt.
Suuuuure.
Just like I never claimed to be an expert on Michele Bachmann or her "
No comments:
Post a Comment