Great flub by Michele Bachmann!

Oops!................

She just joined the race, and major flubbed on the same day? That's not a good omen.

Gosh, I watched her on 60 Minutes the other night and she evaded almost every question she was asked. When the interviewer asked her about 22 statements she made and only one was wholly true and how she could explain that, she started talking about how Obama has made false statements.

Several times the interviewer mentioned that she was not answering the questions asked. She's another Sarah Palin IMO.

It's truly a shame that she and Palin are the standard for women running in politics.

Actually, IMO, she's far worse. She constantly makes things up as she goes along and is often wrong about her statements. Would people really like someone that doesn't have a good grasp on reality? Or maybe she just thinks that people are stupid.

A minor alliterative mixup for two towns in the same state is hardly a cause for concern.

I wish they would focus on what her stance is on major issues like the economy and foreign policy, and how she hopes to change the current disaster we're in, since the present administration's answer has just been more troops and more spending as the answer to everything with a list of broken promises a mile long despite ineffectual Republican interference.

It sounds as though it's her "John Waynes' that she got mixed up, and that's just creepy.

Lol, I'm not sure I'd think that was much better!

She probably grew up hearing (ot saw the sign saying) that her hometown was the hometown of John Wayne Gacy, didn't know who that was, so assumed they meant John Wayne. Oops! Embarrassing.

When someone is caught in many lies it is very hard to believe anything they say whether it's about their stance on any major issues or how they hope to change any current policies.

Does she have a stance on major issues? It sounds as though her entire campaign is simply going to be "notobama".

That was certainly the way it worked on 60 minutes. She's a joke! I suppose she thinks looks will get her the Presidency because that's the only thing I can see she has going for her.

Some certainly proved that even if you're a nobody with very little political experience, you can successfully run on a platform of "Change".

Did you bother to watch the televised debates? I'm still for my man the Doctor though! Woot!

Did you say that when Bill Clinton was President?

While I'm no fan of Bachman (who may possibly be related, distantly, to my wife), I DO think the media give an undue amount of coverage to minor gaffs by politicians on the right and ignore those on the left.

Just as an example, Joe Biden has continually lied about the death of his first wife, blaming a drunk truck driver. If you've heard about it, I'll bet it was just a minor flash years ago.

The President makes a lot of speeches, and it's not hard to find plenty that he's wrong about, sometimes knowingly, sometimes just mispeaking. That's the nature of our age, politicians' words will come to haunt them sooner or later. The difference is, you may have to wait to see a Republican candidate's TV ad before you see a Democrat's flub; a Republican's flub will make it to CNN before the speech is over.

That's how it's supposed to work. Didn't they tell you in school that "anyone born in this country can grow up to be President"? There is absolutely no requirement to "be somebody" first, or to have any experience. It's rather un-American to demand otherwise, not to mention unconstitutional.

As for the debates, no, why should I? The republican's internal shenanigans are of no concern to me. I'll watch the debate between candidates when they finally pick one. Honestly, I hope they choose her...she is everything the Tea Party is, and stands for.

Could have fooled me. The media is still bringing up "57 States", in fact, just couple days ago. That means the Democrats have free reign to laugh and taunt over this one till at least March of 2013.

Yes, Obama has definitely made his share of flubs too. They all do. So what.
The flub ups in speech are very minor compared to the flub ups they make running the country.

The so what is, they're funny. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time we've had someone running for President that has the "same kind of spirit" as a serial killer.

Really? You heard the "57 states" quote on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, or NPR? From an employee of those media, and not from some guest? Can you tell me where? When? Who?

It was on Fox, which is also media; regardless of how much they desperately desire to be something else. Apples = apples; the very same one's who had it on their ticker less that 20 minutes after it was spoken.

As Fox is, yes, media, and they report every, single Democrat flub, AND claim to be watched more than any combination of other networks combined, that means that Democrat flubs are more widely distributed, making your assertion exactly; backward. It's simple mathematics; most viewers = mainstream.

I wasn't basing my opinion (and of course that's all it is here) on her "flubs". I was basing it on the interview I watched with her on 60 Minutes. I don't believe even her flubs could be as bad as she portrayed herself on that program. She ended up with little to no credibility.

I don't watch or listen to all of these, but I did hear about the 57 states on both MSNBC and NPR. It was a long time ago. Without googling it (which I don't have the time to do), I can't tell you when and who anymore than you can tell me when and who takes jabs at republican flubs.....

Flubs are always fair game.

I like to think I have a decent sense of humor, and such things can be good for a chuckle. But if you actually place importance on such minor flubs here and there, then that would explain the sad state of our political system with one-issue and strictly partisan voters and people who an cite off exacting details about Sarah Palin's daughters pregnancy, but couldn't list even five major stances of her as a politician.

Mike is not alone for example in questioning whether a candidate has any positions, and yet can't be bothered to actually listen to what those positions are in the debates. Sad but true, we have only ourselves to blame.

Hopefully someday we'll get past such childishness and actually debate politicians based on their stances and their political history of actually fulfilling promises. That is one thing I admire about Ron Paul, like his policies or not, at least he is consistent and true to his beliefs shown by ACTION over years and years and years. That is where a career not only ensures experience, but shows the American people that this person actually votes the same way they preach and if they have had fore site in the past to make accurate predictions. Obama had none of this, and it explains why so many feel betrayed by the long list of broken promises, shifting positions, and double-talk and why his job approval rating is so dreadfully low.

And who is doing exactly what you condoning here?

Can you list his long list of broken promises, shifting positions and double-talk? Or are you just bashing him in a similar fashion that others are bashing Bachman?

Had you read his books, you would realize that his approach in life is through compromise. Had you watched him closely, you would realize that the reason why some people feel betrayed was because they had a false expectation that he would do nothing other than stick to party line. He's been trying very hard to compromise with a group of people that do nothing other than criticize him. What is publicized is the criticism against him. What is publicized about Bachmann is her flubs.

Do you understand Obama's positions?

There will be plenty of time to learn of the Republican Presidential candidate's position will be on the issues, just as soon as we find out who it is going to be. In the meantime, all that is going on is a party who's primaries I don't vote in is trying to figure out who to put into the race. And once that person gets into the race, they will change their stance on issues to try to appeal to a broader range of voters than they needed to get the nomination. (also known as "pandering"). So what point is there for me to worry with it now? Knowing the stance of contenders who have no hope of getting the nomination will merely cause confusion later.

"Experience" is a Constitutionally moot point.

He said he'd close Guantanamo Bay, bring our troops home within 16 months (instead btw total deployment dwarfs the Bush-era "surge" and we've become involved elsewhere), let Bush tax cuts expire, refuse to consider earmarks on House legislation, ensure transparency in government and publish the text of bills at minimum three days before a House vote and allow public comment before signing bills (the bailouts, pork-barrel stimulus, and healthcare bills were a BLATANT violation of this promise), eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, provide tax credits to businesses for hiring new employees, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401k and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, sign the Freedom of Choice Act, eliminate oil and gas tax loophoes, enact immigration reform, secure the borders, and more. And if you want to see a funny flip flop, check out his stance on gay marriage from full hearted promise of support to legalize same sex marriage to his softer religious friendly answer, after an obvious shift in polls. Just like with the reverend, he's shifting and dropping friends whenever he finds their support is more of a liability than a boost to his career.
Obama and Pelosi had shown with their closed session strong-arm tactics, and veto of minority party request for review (first in the history of congress) to get the stimulus, bailouts, and healthcare passed that there is absolutely no room for compromise in their Administration, and with control of both branches and the executive, they didn't need to. So I think you are going to have a hard time convincing people that the Obama administration has broken so many campaign promises based on Republican interference or compromise. That scapegoat doesn't work this time, and that is why the approval rating is so low as one would expect when you make a plethora of promises and grossly fail to deliver, and that which was rammed down the American people's throats were unpopular.

At the very least though, this is the kind of political debate that I think is healthy. Argue the real issues that affect this country, and not any of this silly stuff. Listen to what Bachmann has brought to the table in the debates, evaluate her ideology, and then put her to the flames for the stance on those issues.

Look at how horribly Obama has floundered whenever he didn't have a teleprompter present.

And at least these Republican candidates are willing to go onto the liberal news outlets for hostile interviews. There are conservative media outlets as well, such as Fox News for example that has tremendous ratings, and yet how often do you see Democrats going in for interviews? Can you recall Obama ever subjecting himself to one? Nope, he just got the positive supportive outlets to hand him easy open questions with sprinkles and whipcream on top.

In fact, it wasn't that long ago that the Obama Administration tried to ban Fox News reporters from access to government, and it was only lifted when ALL of media including all the liberal outlets said no way as that is blatant violation of freedom of the press!

It amuses me to no end that one of the Republicans favorite political diversions suddenly becomes "silly stuff" when the shoe is on the other foot.

Who stood up for Weiner, despite being a horrific liberal blowhard, saying the sex-scandal isn't related to job performance? Oh yeah... oops! These Ikea instructions direct you to insert foot to mouth if I'm reading them correctly.

What, at all, does that have to do with someone saying something funny? And who, just moments ago, brought "teleprompters" up yet again?