Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

From a recent speech given by Michele Bachmann -

"How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world. It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status.... Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable? It's absolutely remarkable."

It certainly is.....if you don't mention slavery. I'm pretty sure the slaves brought over to this country didn't feel "the same." While it is true that The Constitution didn't actually use the words "slave" or "slavery," slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.

I also doubt that the Irish, who often faced signs in business windows stating, "No Irish," and the Japanese who spent years in Internment Camps during the WWII hardly felt "the same," as everyone else in America.

Moving on to the topic of our Founding Fathers and slavery, Michele went on to say that slavery was a "scourge" on American history, but added that "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

"And," she continued, "I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

PostPartisan - Michele Bachmann's 'absolutely amazing' view of history

Nice try, again, Michele, but John Quincy Adams was the 6th president - born 1767 (which would have made him a 9 year old "Founding Father," had he actually been considered one by anyone but Michele.) He died in 1848, 15 years before the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 - so he rested all right - in his grave for a decade and a half.

And this woman is giving a State of the Union rebuttal tonight? And she wants to be president?

She's got part of her speil right - Only in America.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

She probably just forgot.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

Nobody's perfect, look what we have for a President today and then look at the clown he picked for his vice President and if something happened to them take a good look at the skanky grinning shrew that would then be president Nancy Blinky Teeth Pelosi.

Your Right, Only In America.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

I read it on Wikipedia so it must be true:

"Before 1820, Adams was best known as an exponent of American nationalism. Late in life, especially after his election to the House, he was noted especially as most prominent national leader opposing slavery."

"They became bitter enemies. Adams vilified slavery as a terrible evil and preached total abolition"

John Quincy Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See? We all say dumb things sometimes Mrs!

I agree that she totally missed the mark with the first part you quoted. I think what she was going for was the idea of the US as the land of opportunity. Its good to have a positive message, but you're right, there should be a little dose of reality in there too.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

Um, no, Harry.....should anything happen to both Obama and Biden it would be that cranky, whining cry-baby, John Boehner who would be president.

Apparently you're not as well informed as you pretend to be.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

I never said he was not an abolitionist - what I said was, in reality, he did not see the end of slavery in his lifetime, so her message of "he did not rest until...." was stretching the truth.

Truth would have been, "John Quincy Adams fought tirelessly for the abolishment of slavery, but even he did not see it end in his lifetime."

Plus, there's that little misstatement calling Johnnie Q a "founding father," further making it sound as though slavery were abolished by the founders of the constitution.

Opps. Time warp.

I agree....let's see how everyone feels about that when the president makes his (positive) State of the Union address tonight.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

My Bad, I can't get those false teeth and that grin out of my head.......:p

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

He spent his latest years fighting for abolition, it wasn't his fault he died before it came about!!! He served as a Rep until his death and opposed slavery, I would qualify that as fighting tirelessly. Don't be upset just because Michelle Bachmann knows more history than you. ;)

As to the state of the union, yes, people will find reason to complain no matter what Obama says, just as they did with Bush before him. Personally I agree with the role of the President as a "cheerleader in chief." It is his job to bring a positive message to the people. Imagine what wall street would do if he came out and said "oh man, we're in some deep doo-doo with the Chinese and this debt! Anyone have any ideas?" I made the same argument during the end of Bush's term when he stayed positive despite bad economic news.

One other thing, I thought Paul Ryan was giving the Republican rebuttal to the state of the union, is Bachmann doing her own thing for the Tea Party? Paul Ryan is a sharp dude, maybe she should sit this one out and let him take care of business!

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

When politicians invoke the founding fathers, you can be confident they're going to be wrong.

Re: Michele Bachmann Rewrites History
 

And don't spin it like she was being entirely truthful, either. Lots of people
fight tirelessly" for things they believe it....however, if it does not happen in their lifetime we do not say they "fought until it occured," as if they, personally, took part in the glory and the celebration.

I also don't understand why she didn't just jump to Lincoln - who actually DID take part in the glory. He belongs to "her" party, and he did every bit as much, if not more, than John Q. did.

Her intent was to confuse the two John Adams - and tie the abolition of slavery into the constitution - and she failed.

He is....so is she. She is giving the "Tea Party Rebuttal," which leads me to believe that, regardless of how people insist that the Tea Party is a "movement" within the Republican party rather than a political entity in it's own right, that there are many Tea Partiers who disagree with them - and they're making their move.

Also, just as an aside, remember what good friends Michele and Sarah were? I wonder how Sarah feels about Michele making noises about being a presidental candidate from the same branch of conservatives that Sarah would have been counting on?

Seems to me like Michele is seeing an opportunity in Sarah's recent flub and is racing, full speed ahead, to capitalize on it.

Instead of coming out and supporting her "friend," her "sister," her fellow "Mama Grizzly," she is donning the colored leather, flipping her hair back and pushing Sarah right out of the limelight.

Ah, well, their politics, their clothes, their lack of knowledge and their rewrites of history are interchangable, maybe they are, too.