What would a Michele Bachmann presidency look like?

If Michele Bachmann becomes the Republican presidential candidate, I have a few questions for you:

1.  Who should be her running mate?  (Think about John Bolton, perhaps, because of his foreign policy chops.)

2.  What do you see her presidency looking like, taking into consideration her pro-life stance, her national security awareness, and her Tea Party fiscal outlook?

3.  Again taking into consideration her pro-life stance, national security awareness, and Tea Party outlook, what would Progressives/Democrats fear her presidency would be?  That question involves reasonable fears (no funding for overseas abortion, cutting union perks, reining in federal spending, etc.) and unreasonable fears (a Christian theocracy a la the The Handmaid’s Tale, one of the most anti-Christian books ever written, and one that is required reading at many schools).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Speaking of The Handmaid’s Tale, I have always found Atwood to be a powerful, gifted writer. That said, the book repulsed me because it shows that literary brilliance that is untethered to plausibility (in the realm of speculative fiction) can produce some real grotesqueries. This was one.

    Aside from her incredible ignorance about Christianity, and her pro-forma radical feminist paranoia, she exhibited the sort of primal fear a lot of supposedly educated Canadians have about the United States. I guess the Canadians have their NPR types, too, people who live in soundproof rooms where only PC pieties are allowed to filter through. Yes, a theocracy would be a terrible thing to befall the United States, but is about as likely to happen as John Kerry taking a vow of poverty, or Nancy Pelosi reading a book, or Anthony Weiner foreswearing social media.

    Atwood had plenty of places to look for theocracies—but all of them were Muslim. That simply would not have served political correctness or the need to throw some red tofu at her enlightened female fans.

  • Danny Lemieux

    There can’t be a theocracy in America, even if it was taken over by Christian purists or proclaimed itself a Christian-rule nation (in violation of the Constitution…which is ironic, because, in general, the Christians are among the constitutions biggest supporters). 

    The main reason is that there are so many denominations of Christianity that they could never agree with one another as to what such a nation should be.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I think that a Michele Bachmann Presidency would be great! She’s clear-headed and tough as nails. She’s a leader (a very foreign concept to the Democrat Left, I understand).

    She could easily be another Maggie Thatcher.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Whoever it takes that has the spine to cut the throats of the Left’s power base.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    That’s not what they really fear. What the Left really fears is that a President comes into power and uses the Executive powers to cripple the Left’s power base in DC and in the various community organizations in this nation.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    I’ve read that Handmaid’s Tale was partly inspired by Atwood’s visit to Afghanistan in 1978. It would have been nice if she’d added an Afterword to describe what she saw there.

  • jj

    I thought The Handmaid’s Tale was kind of puerile.  One of those books you feel you ought to read while the whole time the little editorial voice in your head is saying, “why?” – and reminding you that you should be taking out the garbage; or mowing the lawn; or washing the cat or something.  Bleagh.
    I don’t actually see Bachmann as presidential material at this point, and I’m somewhat surprised she sees herself that way.  I thought she was more pragmatic.  She should know better.  In this country we like people who have experience in running something, and we overwhelmingly favor governors, vice presidents, and generals.  Not congressmen, and not senators.  The biggest thing those people have to run – after their mouths – is a staff of about a dozen.  It isn’t adequate training, as the current occupant of the white house proves every day.  Presidents don’t get to “lead from behind.”
    To have her atop the ticket and Bolton second to her would be to have two people without high-level political executive experience in place.  The last time that happened we got the Vietnam War.  The time before that we got the Civil War.  It’s probably a bad idea.  I could see her as a viable VP now, but it’s too early to see her in the top job.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Although I totally agree with you in regard to Senators, who were born to compromise, I disagree with you in the greater picture, JJ. Harry Truman had no successful experience as an administrator but turned out to be a very good president. I would say ditto for Nixon…you may not like him, but he was very effective. I am pretty sure that Margaret Thatcher never had any executive experience (although she was appointed a government secretary).

    It may be that you and I look for different traits, but I am looking for the following:

    1) Strength of Character
    2) Vision
    3) Ability to surround oneself with very bright people and delegate
    4) The ability to formulate solutions
    5) The decisiveness to act

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    We don’t need people experience in running things. We need people with a backbone that will protect our interests. Not ARISTOCRATIC ELITES BORN TO RULE.

    There’s a difference, JJ. ANd you know it.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The last time that happened we got the Vietnam War.

    You had the Vietnam war because you had a bunch of P**ssies without any spine to fight a war to begin with and no courage to leave either.

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com Don Quixote

    JJ says, “In this country we like people who have experience in running something, and we overwhelmingly favor governors, vice presidents, and generals.”  How do you account for Obama, then?

  • http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/ Indigo Red

    James Madison wouldn’t be the shortest President anymore.

  • jj

    Danny, as I said, history teaches that we like governors, vice-presidents, and military leaders – in that order.  (Truman and Nixon were both commanding generals, right?)
    Don, I don’t think I have ever at any time expressed the view that what we currently saddled ourselves with is anything other than an anomaly.  It is, as I said in another context, practically impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American voter: they will buy a flashy ad campaign practically every time.  But we’ve had these anomalies before: JFK and his flashy ad campaign (successfully disguising that he was an empty suit) springs immediately to mind.
    I don’t have to account for Obama.  I pretty instantaneously saw through him as though his head were made of glass, and I didn’t vote for him.  Accounting for the little twerp is therefore not my responsibility.

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com Don Quixote

    Well, okay, jj, but if the American voter can fall for Obama, it can certainly vote for a meritorious candidate with little or no executive experience.

  • jj

    Indeed.  Entirely possible.  But less likely on the republican side, I might say: fewer such people get nominated from that direction in the first place.  The last two were Dole and McCain, and neither could convince the entire republican universe to pull the lever for them, let alone the broader national electorate.  Republicans do not tend to vote monolithically for whoever has an “r” after his name, whereas democrats, with far lower standards, would vote for Jack the Ripper if had the magic “d” behind his name.