Town Square

Post a New Topic

Bachmann Running for President

Original post made by Cindy Cross on Jul 1, 2011

Bachmann Running for President by Cindy Cross
Since officially announcing her candidacy for the president of the United States on Monday, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's popularity has soared. According to a recent poll, Backmann now maintains 11% support in the state of New Hampshire.
Bachmann is in second place behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. After a strong performance from both Bachmann and Romney at the Republican Presidential debate at St. Anselm College, they both could potentially become running mates next year.
Left on the side of the road is Sarah Palin. It seems that the Tea party has put Palin on ice—replaced with their new darling Bachmann. Bachmann is a huge Tea Party advocate. Will Palin take being sidelined gracefully? Bachmann has the looks, political experience and smarts that eclipse Palin. Palin has been busy with damage control over the Paul Revere snafu and her daughter ruffling the McCain family feathers.
Palin couldn't hold a candle to Bachmann. Bachmann is a highly educated tax attorney who served two terms as a Minnesota senator, and is currently a member of the House of Representatives. Clearly, her political experience is vastly superior to Palin's.
It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romney chooses Bachmann as his running mate. Romney-Bachmann would be a formidable duo against Obama and Biden. The republicans need to pick candidates who appeal to the entire republican spectrum, otherwise Obama will not be the "One term president," as Bachmann promises in all her speeches.

Comments (38)

Posted by Has My Vote, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 1, 2011 at 6:42 am

Michele Bachmann is one of the few candidates who has the courage to consistently udder racist and homophobic statements. We need more like her. Shes'll also ban gay marriage and do away with minimum wage so that everybode can work, accept the perverted gay's. She stopped the democraticly produced swine flu dead in it's track's.

Posted by Go Bachmann!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2011 at 8:14 am

I voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain picked Palin: a highly uneducated, not smart backwards thinking person.

Bachmann is different, and I can see myself voting for her, or for a ticket with her on it.

Hopefully the extreme right wing will not insist on supporting Palin, or having a Bachmann-Palin ticket.

Bachmann has a good chance with independents, the very independents who, like me, decided to support Obama in order to keep Palin away from Washington!

I am pro choice and understand that Bachmann is, in social issues, quite extreme and stuff, but I am willing to overlook that because I think she can do good things in the fiscal area, and would do much better than Obama, who needs to be a ONE term president. Get smart, GOP: drop any support for Palin and stop following her and talking about her; get behind candidates who, like Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, actually have a chance with independents.

Posted by comment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2011 at 10:44 am

2 words. "Hoot Smalley" She gets her history completely wrong. Smoot, Hawley, and Hoover were all Republicans and she blames the tariff on Democrats and FDR. She is ignorant. This is from testimony before the US House of Representatives.

Web Link

Posted by Pietra, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 1, 2011 at 11:13 am

I will vote for her! I voted for Obama in the last election and have been greatly disappointed, wrong word, should have said completely shocked over his incompetence. I believe Michele Bachman has capability and experience, afterall she is a constitutional attorney and has a history of working and developing herself. Regardless of my feelings for her I have strong feelings about the job he is not doing and the lack of effort he has put into governing and would probably vote for just about anyone else at this point. Can anyone say Hilliary Clinton in 2016? I think Obama is one and done and should be for the lack of effort and performance.

Posted by zipster, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jul 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm

I voted for Obama because I thought he was a pro-life, anti-woman, pro-war, anti-gay, fiscal conservative like he always claimed he was. Also, I wanted prove that even a former KKKer like myself could vote for the better halve of a bi-racial man. But Obama turned into a Marxist terrierist who wants to set up death panels that will deem me intellectually unfit to converse with other living beings. That's why Michele Bachmann must be elected. She'll get rid of all the death panels. They've already started executing people. Mark me down as a intelliganet independant who has wizened up to Obama's communist plois.

Posted by Texan Proud, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Dear Mr. Zipster,
Reading all these here posts an such, I''m made very proud. Once a KKKer, always a KKKer, an I got lots of friends here. its' time to put a good person inta the once-White House.

Posted by Leland, a resident of Happy Valley
on Jul 2, 2011 at 7:08 am

I don't care whether my president is a racist and homophobic or not. Militarize the border, crack a few heads, close down the abortion clinics ... these are all probably good things for America. And how long has it been since we've had a racist in the White House? It probably wouldn't hurt to get one back in there. But my main point is that I vote for who will save me money. I admit it. I'm rich. My Daddy did well by me. My job in life is to make sure I don't lose my family's wealth to the unions and entitlement groups. It's decent people like me who made this country what it is today. I think Bachmann and the other Republican candidates understand this. Fiscal responsibility must continue to be valued over entitlement-based concepts like rights, fairness, well-being of the hoi polloi and the other penniless suckers living from paycheck to paycheck.

Posted by WhatThe?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2011 at 10:50 am

As much as I started liking Michelle Bachman her hypocrisy is getting in the way. "Cut Entitlements" - except mine for my ranch and clinic. "those are different". AND: I've raised 23 (plus or minus) kids. No you got paid to be a foster parent, by the (drum roll please) the government. One last point: Obama felt that one person can make change in Washington. Wrong. Michelle Bachmann is touting the same thing "I (note the "I") will make change. No she won't. We haven't learned anything. Pointing the finger at the guy in office doesn't make you a good candidate. (Notice how posters are saying "I voted for Obama now I'm against him). Did anyone notice I didn't even mention that she doesn't know American history. No, more emphatically, she doesn't know American history and isn't apologetic about her ignorance. I say keep looking for a better candidate, not one that can preach like Obama.

Posted by unclehomerr.., a resident of Downtown
on Jul 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Laughing out loud and snorting on my screen and falling out of my chair onto the floor and rolling around in convulsions of laughter!
[ is there an abreviation for that?? ]

I can't believe how afraid of Palin some of you [probably the same one under different names.. ] are!



Posted by Convert, a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 3, 2011 at 1:24 pm

I voted for McCain, but the more I see Obama that more I like. He's smart, moderate, reasonable, and strong as he needs to be without strongarming anyone. I will vote for him this next time around.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm

I would vote for anyone except Obama. He is completely lacking and incompetent. We/I were all fooled by him. He is nothing.

Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 3, 2011 at 7:46 pm

"I voted for McCain, but the more I see Obama that more I like. He's smart, moderate, reasonable, and strong as he needs to be without strongarming anyone."

I like the fact that Obama is smart but cool and strong under fire. Don't agree 100% with everything that he's done but overall I think he's been doing a pretty good job.

As for the sniping by the conservative Republicans here moaning about "incompetence" or the "lacking" of abilities, what is it about conservatives that make them think that they are better at governing? Let's see, before heading off to the golf courses to enjoy his retirement our last conservative Republican President left us with two unfinished wars, an economy in recession, and Osama bin Laden on the loose. So the solution to all of our current problems is another conservative Republican in the White House? Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 3, 2011 at 9:16 pm


And now we have 3 wars if you do not count Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, We are in a depression not a recession. Our debt is now over 14 trillion not 6 trillion. Unemployment is now 9.1 percent not 6 percent and if you count the people who have fallen off the ranks of those looking for jobs it is over 13 percent. This is not about republican or democrat it is about survival and this guy is not doing the job so we need a change. Personally I would like to see the dems dump Obama and run Hillary because I think she could do a pretty good job but the deck is stacked against a woman. Look what they did to Hillary last time. No we must have change.

Posted by comment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2011 at 10:19 pm


Yes, I'm afraid of Palin and Bachman because I would actually see the Republicans nominate someone who would have a chance of winning. Independents aren't going to vote for them. Nominate them and Obama gets a second term.

Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Gary said:"And now we have 3 wars if you do not count Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, We are in a depression not a recession...."

Oh? I wasn't aware that we had ground troops fighting in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. And what three other wars are we fighting in? I must have missed one. Finally, we are not in an economic depression. Name one respected economist who says that the US is currently in an economic depression. Playing fast and loose with the facts really doesn't help your case.

Posted by Army, a resident of Del Prado
on Jul 4, 2011 at 6:57 am


We have been bombing in Libya for months and have spotters on the ground sighting targets from the ground. My nephew has been fighting in the western provinces of Pakistan for the past 3 years and I am extremely proud of him and the other soldiers there. We have also had incursions inside of Yemen for quite some time. A war is a war whether our president wants to admit it or not but it is a fact.

Posted by Navy, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Jul 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

A Palin/Bachmann ticket would be a genuine peace ticket. They'd get us out of war while spreading peace throughout the world. I've been exxxtreeeeeemely impressed so far with the plans Palin and Bachmann have recommended for making the world a more peaceful place. We know, too, that the Republican Party is the genuine peace party. Just look at how many of them opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Oh, and yes, the economy and employment picture was so much stronger when Bush left office than when he entered it. Playing fast and easy with the facts doesn't begin to describe the right-wing delusion they call 'thought'.

Posted by kyle, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2011 at 11:57 am

1. Theocracy as the foundation of governmental rule
2. 4th Century Europe also called the Dark Ages where the Church as everything and ruled everything according to the words of their gods/rules
3. Trusting in God and having an interpreter of God run the country are two different things.
4. Understanding basic history / facts / abstract modern concepts should be a must

Need I say more. Although I do see where some posters truly believe in the magic of evangelical rage as the basic platform of government. Salem MA in the 1600's.

My teenager loves retro. I'd bet he'd have a kick with the retro thinking in our lovely land.

Posted by 13% UNemployed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm

A short while ago, the world's 7th largest economy was CA.....but today while the entire country seems to be in a tizzy over the 9.1% UNemployment....oh, if only we were so lucky....CA now sits at 13.1% UNemployment ! ! ! ! That's what happened while Obama focused on bringing our health care access to his underclass, that was getting health care from other government programs like medi-cal. But, his campaign promises came ahead.....not to worry, CA jobs and economy would pull thru.. NOT ! Of course he repeatedly 'stimulated" auto unions, and public unions, who more important, and eventually CA solve it's own UNemployment. Well, those critically important 2 years shot right by and here sits CA small-manufacturers, and Main street with their doors shuttered and cash registers silent. But........first things first. My family member lost his job last year...just too little, TOO LATE ! ! Can't save homes without jobs either,,,so forget the pathetic little gimmicks about houses. JOBS would solve assorted housing issues ! ! That does not mean run and make another $1/2 billion money dump on the 'select' solar companies that will eventually get off the ground with our $$....WHILE terminations from regular EXISTING small manufaturing fall off the charts !

Posted by Tricia, a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 4, 2011 at 7:08 pm

We need to get Obama out of there he is terrible and completely clueless either that or he hates this country. We also need to load up on representatives in the senate and house who are fiscally concervative.

Posted by 13% UNemployed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2011 at 10:24 pm

Tricia, it all depends on who is nominated to be the candidates. Let's hope winners are picked to go forth.,,,otherwise the Dems win..
it's up to us. Considering recent history, I dont' have lots of faith.

Posted by kyle, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2011 at 10:48 pm

The economic woes you guys speak of are not a function one person having a radical political agenda and in turn having the power to create a bad economy with a few initiatives. This economic crisis is decades old, based in the myth that real estate will appreciate infinitely, and that the Goldman Sachs of the world deserve the billions of dollars creating trash bin markets that enrich only themselves. I have a friend who is a young Goldman Sachs guy who bragged about having $8,000 bottles of Champagne and putting on the business tab. That was last week. Until we look at the foxes guarding the hen house, and not place the blame on useless politicians, then things will begin to change.

Posted by Timothy, a resident of Dublin
on Jul 5, 2011 at 6:35 am

Fiscal conservatism? As in tax breaks for the wealthy? That any Republican could in good conscience talk about the Dems causing job loss only speaks to how Republicans have no conscience, have no sense of decency, have no sense of shame. Take a look at the jobs picture before Bush's tax cuts for the rich; take a look at the jobs picture after Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Yet Repubs talk as if they actually care about jobs for middle-class Americans. What a crock. The only thing they care about is using any lie or deception they can to get more tax-cutters for the rich into office.

Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 5, 2011 at 8:02 am


It appears you do not know what you are talking about. Under Bush everyone got a 5% tax reduction, even the middle class. The Democrats want to take that away from only the people making over 200K per year and these are the people who pay over 80% of all taxes anyway. If you want to take away the tax reductions then demand that all tax breaks be taken away and even you if you make less than 200K will get a 5% tax increase. No President is responsible for what happens completely during their term. Bush and Clinton were the beneficiaries of the Reagan years and Bush was the beneficiary of the Clinton and Bush one years including the impact of Clinton doing nothing to stop Al Qaida. Do some research.

Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Mary said:"Under Bush everyone got a 5% tax reduction, even the middle class..."

Mary, that would have been commendable IF Bush had also managed to balance the budget as well. IF Bush had balanced the budget and given a tax break to everyone, I would be applauding him as well. But he didn't do that, did he? No, by giving a tax break under those circumstances he was just kicking the can down the road. All that the tax reduction did was increase the national debt.

Thanks for nothing.

Posted by 13% Unemployment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:42 pm

We should go to a flat tax or a consumption tax only. That way everyone would pay their fair share and everyone would pay something. It is not right that 40% in California do not pay a dime and expect the rest of us to pay for them. Sam you need to read up and realize that everyone got a tax break under Bush and it is only those millionaires and billionaires making over $200,000 that should have that break taken away. When will you realize that government is just wasting your money and that you are more responsible with YOUR money than they are unless you are one of those not paying?

Posted by 13% Unemployment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm


Both of you write amazingly the same way! :O)

Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm

"Sam/Timothy, Both of you write amazingly the same way! :O)"

You mean thoughtfully and intelligently? Thanks! Yeah, it's pretty amazing that there at least two people here that can write like that.

Posted by 13% UNemployed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm

I alone am '13% UNemployed; 13% Unemployment, is a cross-dresser trying to trick your eyes and not notice the slight difference. We are very different people...I can't imagine what their intent could have been. However, I am not opposed to a value tax ..ONLY IF it is INSTEAD of our current tax, NOT IN ADDITION TO. And, I could be for a different kind of flat tax, IF and only if it was equal RATE for all..,..9% of 3 million is $270,000. taxes, 9% of $100,000, is $9,000. tx, and 9% of $50,000. is $4,500. tx. Only the rates are the same, the amounts are very different...that is a flat tax,

Posted by 13% UNemployed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm

And TO Unemployment faker, "those millionaires and billionaire making over $200,000. " is about the most twisted contradiction possible. People earning over $200,000. are not millionaires and billionaires ( well maybe public employees who have their 200K quaranteed). But ANY tax that has a $200,000. break point is very disportionate and UNFAIR. A worker in San Fran earning 200k is just a wage earner, with car loans/leases, and not rich or wealthy. But, a worker in Tulsa, Toledo, or Topeka earning 200k most definitely IS RICH, wealthy, paid off home and Pres of the local golf club. Bay Area DEMS always amaze me that they vote for the sock-it-to-the-rich, when Bay Areans down payments are equal to the price of a home in Tulsa, Toledo, & Topeka, and the overall costs are so different. So any national table discriminates against high-cost area workers. So, the $200,000. break point should NOT be 'universal' so to speak. We need more regional zip cope tax the old sales tax deduction,which we not longer get....but any arbitraty point discriminate against high-cost areas like ours ! ! 13% Uemployment has his head stuck somewhere, wanting to us BayAreans.
As for myself, 13% UNemployed, is signing off.

Posted by Leland, a resident of Happy Valley
on Jul 6, 2011 at 6:41 am

Dear 13%,
Thanks for defending me and those like me. Us wealthy have feelings too. I personally like the idea of a flat tax.

Make the family of 4 with a 50K income pay ten per cent. That still leaves them with 45K. What's not to like? I'll sorta pay ten percent on my give-or-take 35 million annual income. I'll lose a little bit paying my lawyers and accountants to cut that down, but then I'm left with only 31-32 million. That's a bit onerous for me and my family, but I guess I'd be willing to sacrifice for the good of the nation.

Posted by Blossom, a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on Jul 6, 2011 at 7:02 am

Your exactly right Leland. Read what the Senate lamebrain Dems want to do with the following resolution:

"It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort."

The measure describes how well the wealthy have done lately, citing statistics that say the median income of S&P 500 companies chief financial officers jumped $2.9 million last year alone, even though the "median family income has declined by more than $2,500" in the last 10 years.

The resolution also notes that 20 percent all income goes to the top 1 percent, and 80 percent of the nation's income growth over the last quarter century has also gone to the top 1 percent."

I mean, where do those dummies come up with such pathetic statistics. I've never seen anything like those numbers in the Washington Examiner. I challenge any of you. Ever seen this kind of rotten display of hatred of the rich on FOX News? I rest my case!!!

Posted by 13% UNemployed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:12 am

Such a smart a**. Leland, you just have to exagerate (lie) with million $$ comments. I was making an intellectual comparison that thAT a higher ARBITRARY $200,O0O. tax is unfair to San Franciscans, who have different COST of LIVING and INCOME norms than Tulsa, Toledo, and Topeka. I know you being an intense political flammer, blinder with partisanship, it's hard for you to comprehend or discuss the INEQUALITY when all parts of all 50 states use the same tax charts. Wouldn't you love a $90,000. house in Tulsa, along with the %50,000. income....very different that our Bay Area.
The class baiting you are trying to do has no bearing on the current rhetoric about the arbitrary $200,000. class dividing nationwide, when there is NO uniform comparable figure for all regions....It should be done by zip code. Pelosi never defends Bay Areans, when we are lumped with other areas.

Posted by Leland, a resident of Happy Valley
on Jul 6, 2011 at 3:19 pm

You're right 13%. I'm moving to Mississipp as soon as possible. I will leave instructions for my firms to not hire anyone who identifies themselves as 13%. Yet I'm all but certain from the quality of your comments that you're perfectly capable of torpedoing your job chances without my assistance. In all seriousness, with my income and ability to take advantage of tax loopholes it doesn't matter one iota whether I live in Happy Valley or just outside the gates of Parchman's Farm. I'm set for life because of my Daddy's earnings, and you're slated for prolonged unemployment on account of not having learned how to construct a meaningful sentence using basic rules of syntax. Too bad for you. And goody for me.

Posted by AlamedaCountyNative, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Bachmann is just Sarah Palin in a nicer dress. No smarter. Not remotely capable of running a country. Inexperienced.

Posted by Leland, a resident of Happy Valley
on Jul 12, 2011 at 6:07 am

I inherited a great deal of money from my Daddy. If Bachmann can protect my assets from all the entitlement groups, she's got my vote.

Posted by Streetwise, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 12, 2011 at 8:09 am

Leland. What is your problem with Bachmann? Like Palin are you afriad of her too? Smug commie commenters like you are unable to wrap your head around an illuminess candidate like Michele. Stop groaning about your minimum wage. Once Michele gets into office you'll realize how nice you had it spunging off your employer.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27 pm

don't call it sponging...when you're hired, consider giving your employer at least a 50% return on their investment...that's what i did...i only did what was necessary...i think that 50% on an investment is pretty high...

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,227 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 30 comments | 1,445 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 966 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 796 views