GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Newsweek's latest issue features a Michele Bachmann cover that's sure to stir up controversy.

The cover shows Bachmann standing against a stark blue background, looking directly into the camera with a wide-eyed expression. The headline advertising the magazine's story reads, "THE QUEEN OF RAGE."

"Rage" is a word that doesn't appear in Newsweek's actual profile of Bachmann, though author Lois Romano does criticize what she calls the "radical" nature of the Tea Party that Bachmann champions.

Conservative websites are already crying foul over the cover, with some saying it makes Bachmann look "crazy" and one blogger asking, "Can anyone really say with a straight face that the mainstream media is not totally biased against conservatives?"

 

[kramwest1]

I am just so sad that there is any talk about her looks at all.
What comes out of her mouth should scare the shit out of any voter with half a brain and disqualify her from elected office. I just hope more audio of her circulates.

But, I suppose this is what we are coming to in the U.S., beauty pageants for elected office, especially for female candidates.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the question is-did they intentionally choose a photo that makes her look a certain way? More so that than about her general/overall looks. I don't like the focus on female candidates looks-it's fine in equal measure to discussion of the male candidates looks. Other than that, irrelevant and it starts to make me wonder. Looks are irrelevant to the job in both cases, obviously.

Queen of rage? That's just, um..interesting choice of words.

 

[BVS]

Does the media have bias against conservatives? That's a broad stroke and one that's fairly incorrect.

Does the media have bias against nutjobs? Yes, as well as they should!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The Romney one caused a controversy because of the Mormon issue-they weren't trying to make him look crazy. Maybe silly, depending upon the viewer I suppose. Of course Newsweek does have a female editor, Tina Brown. It's all to get media attention, but it is interesting.

Then of course there was

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Girls Gone Mad: the Wild-Eyed Lunacy of Bachmann, Palin, Pelosi, Clinton . . . Etc. — BagNews

"The reason that the image of a crazed female politician is so powerful, and powerfully dangerous, is because it stems from a much older story about women. Whether burning them as witches or dismissing them as bitches, Western culture has always disciplined women who transgress established societal and political boundaries. One way in which this discipline has historically been meted out has been to classify women who resist traditional roles and boundaries as insane (or possessed) and burn them at the stake (18th century), consign them to sanitoriums (19th century), or encourage them to self-medicate with alcohol and anti-depressants (20th century). During the 18th and early 19th centuries, women were widely regarded as incapable of the rational thought required for democratic deliberation and, thus, denied the right to vote. Nearly 100 years after women won the right to vote in the U.S., female politicians are still trying to prove that they’re sane enough to be trusted in high office. "

 

[Irvine511]

For now I still doubt Perry's draw with establishment GOP and independents, though. He just seems kinda small-time somehow. But we'll see.

he does strike me as very ... regional. i think Bush got by because wealthy non-Christian-fascist GOP people were able to tell themselves that, yes, he is a blue-blood Yale-educated son-of-a-president Bush, and *wink* we know the Texas drawl is part of the show to get the commoners on board so they'll vote to lower our taxes.

Perry, however, has a Texas dust on him that will scare the hell out of everyone north of the Mason-Dixon line, kind of in a way that i think Chris Christie will have problems going national because he's so Jersey (though i think he'll be a much, much easier sell to the middle than Perry). what's scary is that for all his demonstrative acting, he's really not acting all that much.

i can't wait for the Perry gay rumors to resurface.

 

[BonosSaint]

Not so much different from the photos they chose of Nancy Pelosi. Or Hillary. Or any other woman (and some men) they want to marginalize--stupid or angry--or, if they're fortunate, both.

I didn't see Mrs. S's Girls Gone Mad post when I posted this, but yeah.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Hillary as a witch-where have I seen that before?

I'd just as easily accept that they do it to men too, if I could see plenty of pictures of boys gone mad. Maybe they'll do it to Rick Perry.

 

[Irvine511]

they used to darken OJ's skin back during the trial.

it's something magazines do all the time to grab attention in a crowded marketplace.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes I was thinking of OJ too, but he wasn't running for leader of the free world. I get what magazines have to do to get press and to stand out, but this all does play into certain ideas and stereotypes that I'm not comfortable with.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think you get it occasionally with men (an insane Howard Dean/John McCain), but it's de regueur with women. They don't even bother to customize their insults. Such bullshit. It's certainly changed how I view politics and how I participate. I don't forgive it as easily, that marginalization.

 

[deep]

This is a tempest in a tea pot.


Did anyone ever consider that is just the way she looks.

Any picture they chose would have caused a 'bias' claim.

She has 'crazy eyes' just like Ramona on New York Housewives.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think you get it occasionally with men (an insane Howard Dean/John McCain), but it's de regueur with women. They don't even bother to customize their insults. Such bullshit. It's certainly changed how I view politics and how I participate. I don't forgive it as easily, that marginalization.

Yes, Howard Dean and his scream. I think the scream started the whole thing. Maybe with McCain it has more to do with age than gender.

I think it goes beyond magazines and is more pervasive than that. Maybe the magazines just tap into it. I am no fan of Michelle Bachmann and I think many/most of her ideas are way out there and therefore "crazy" to me, but I will defend to the end her right to fair and equal treatment as a candidate as compared with the men she is running against. I would judge it on the merits, not on any portrayal of her as some queen of rage (is that roid rage, PMS hormonal rage, or just generalized Tea Party rage?) I didn't like some of the things that were done to Hillary either and how she was portrayed, but you can't have a double standard.

 

[Irvine511]

I think you get it occasionally with men (an insane Howard Dean/John McCain), but it's de regueur with women. They don't even bother to customize their insults. Such bullshit. It's certainly changed how I view politics and how I participate. I don't forgive it as easily, that marginalization.

well, the editor of Newsweek right now is Tina Brown ... but certainly women do this to other women.

but i think Deep has a point -- Bachman's whole thing is that she's batshit crazy and has been noted for her crazy eyes, has been called "hypnotized," has been a fringe figure until recent months, was looking into the wrong camera during her response-to-the-response of the SOTU, has been parodied as such by Kristin Wiig, and there are countless interviews where one can truly see her crazy eyes.

i do find it a little cheap, yes, but it's not like it's out of step with the political narrative around her, or is solely tethered to her gender.

it feels about the same as puttin' smokin' hot Sarah Palin in her running shots and slim figure on the cover.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Any picture they chose would have caused a 'bias' claim.
She has 'crazy eyes' just like Ramona on New York Housewives.

Any picture? Even Ramona doesn't have crazy eyes 100 % of the time.

 

[Irvine511]

also, it's important to note that Michelle Bachman frequently lies gets her facts wrong. about everything. most especially history. like how the (blessed) "founding fathers" fought tirelessly to end slavery.

just utter lies.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

also, it's important to note that Michelle Bachman frequently lies gets her facts wrong. about everything. most especially history. like how the (blessed) "founding fathers" fought tirelessly to end slavery.

just utter lies.

That's fine and that's what she should be noted for. Not her crazy eyes. Ramona can't help her crazy eyes either, leave Ramona alone That was a generalized leave Ramona alone, you didn't post her crazy eyes.

I get it, that's the tea party narrative that surrounds her. But where are the crazy eyed rage filled migraine suffering portrayals of tea party men? When you look at it in an overall context like that blog I posted discusses, I think it might go beyond the tea party or any party at all.

Yes I know Tina Brown is the editor, I said that And women certainly do it to other women, often.

 

[BonosSaint]

well, the editor of Newsweek right now is Tina Brown ... but certainly women do this to other women.


i do find it a little cheap, yes, but it's not like it's out of step with the political narrative around her, or is solely tethered to her gender.

It's not the individual stuff that bothers me--I think some of it is funny. It's the pattern. And yeah, women do this to women. I'm not really looking at who is doing it. I'm looking at how easily it is accepted--like the marginalizing of any minority even when you make up half the population. See the limited range of adverse presentation. Watch the history of how a quality is presented when held (or perceived to be held) by a man and the difference n how it is presented for women. Watch how pervasive it is across the spectrum.

I'm not indiscriminate supporter of women. I see how other groups are marginaized. I don't react to every insult. I'm aware though of the ugliness of some things, the undercurrent that we live with in the same way you deal with the ugliness and undercurrent in things that affect you that I may gloss over. It always hits a little closer when it's your undercurrent.

My heart isn't breaking over Bachman. It is a little despairing over the larger picture.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It's not the individual stuff that bothers me--I think some of it is funny. It's the pattern. And yeah, women do this to women. I'm not really looking at who is doing it. I'm looking at how easily it is accepted--like the marginalizing of any minority even when you make up half the population. See the limited range of adverse presentation. Watch the history of how a quality is presented when held (or perceived to be held) by a man and the difference n how it is presented for women. Watch how pervasive it is across the spectrum.

I'm not indiscriminate supporter of women. I see how other groups are marginalized. I don't react to every insult. I'm aware though of the ugliness of some things, the undercurrent that we live with in the same way you deal with the ugliness and undercurrent in things that affect you that I may gloss over. It always hits a little closer when it's your undercurrent.

My heart isn't breaking over Bachman. It is a little despairing over the larger picture.

That is so well said, so smart.

 

[Irvine511]

It always hits a little closer when it's your undercurrent.

oh, absolutely. believe me, i certainly understand this.

my point is that it's not just about gender. it's that she's crazy (so says the general narrative), her gender is incidental to her craziness. certainly, we can view it in a historical context about crazy, shrill, irrational women (as opposed to bitches like Hillary), and i think that's an interesting way of looking at it, and is certainly how it can be understood.

my only point is that it's not Michell Bachman Is Crazy Because She's A Passionate Woman, it's that Michelle Bachman (a woman) Is Crazy. because there's ample evidence beyond her gender, though her gender is always going to be a part of it because, hey, it's her gender.

but do we not call anyone crazy *because* of their gender and are thusly playing into stereotypes and generalizations? serious question.

 

[BonosSaint]

Oh, I think she might be batshit. It's just that gallery of photos we see whenever a woman might be a challenge, a threat--particularly to a guy. Would be interesting to see what the picture looks like if it were woman against woman. Would we get a little more nuance? We do have some nuance.

I think there is an unconscious bias of both men and women favoring the guy. I see it in myself, so I know what we are up against.

 

[cm]

I live in Michele Bachmann's district and have observed her for some time. I think she is either an egotistical liar or insane. The picture is her and if that infuriates some people it is because they simply don't know her.
Curt

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

but do we not call anyone crazy *because* of their gender and are thusly playing into stereotypes and generalizations? serious question.

No-gender is not a free pass and she's not a "delicate flower". But in the historical context it's just less than fair, some of the treatment she is receiving. Just like it was for Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, and going back much longer before them. And way beyond politics.

Watch the history of how a quality is presented when held (or perceived to be held) by a man and the difference in how it is presented for women.

I think that is the key and it should just be kept in mind. That's all.

 

[deep]

I guess a lot of sites are taking cheap shots at her
I found a site with a link to these unflattering pictures

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Are those from your I Michelle site?

 

[deep]

Are they good or less than flattering pictures?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think she looks very nice and they are flattering. Is that a trick question?

Are they in Newsweek?

 

[deep]

I think her eyes look a bit off.

 

[deep]

I think these are in Newsweek.

I found a link to a slideshow of them last night, can't find it now.

Again, I think most of them have her with the 'eyes'.