The plot revealed

Michelle Bachmann figures out Barack Obama’s secret plot to wreck Medicare. She claims he wants to replace it with private purchase of insurance through exchanges.

That’s right: Michelle Bachmann has accused Barack Obama of supporting the Ryan plan.

It’s been clear for some time that Sarah Michelle Bachmann isn’t nearly as dumb or as ignorant as Sarah Palin. Nor is she as crooked or cynical.  To compensate, she’s much, much, much crazier: Bachmann at least semi-believes the nonsense that Palin just uses to fleece the rubes.

But now Bachmann’s true brilliance comes to light. She’s figured out the President’s secret plan to wreck Medicare. The idea is to force the plan into bankruptcy, then replace it with Obamacare: that is, with a system in which individuals – with some financial help from the government unless they’re rich – have to go into the market to buy medical insurance.

I hope the pure evil that lurks in the the Barack Obama’s mind, and the fierce intelligence with which Bachmann has figured it out, are both apparent. Why, that miserable bat-eared Kenyan Marxist Chicago Muslim is a secret supporter of the Ryan plan. Maybe he is anti-American, after all.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

17 thoughts on “The plot revealed”

  1. You mean Michele Bachmann. Granted they are hard to tell apart, espewcially in a fog, under poor lighting condtions, or when in moose-hunting camo. It may help to remember that the crazier one has the perfidiously French name. (Which fact’s recollection can be aided by the mnemonic “COTHPFN”.)

  2. It points up something that many of us have been wondering about. Is Obama really a secret Republican? When Sarah…I mean Michele Bachmann can run to the left of him you gotta give it some thought.
    You really think his ears look like bat wings?

  3. Obama is not a secret Republican. He is a flaming, raging, completely “out” Rockefeller Republican. Which is better than the alternative, I suppose.

  4. Jay Livingston’s question brought back memories and sent me googling, and I’ll save the rest of you the trouble:

    Sarah Jackman
    (Parody of “Frere Jacques”)

    Hello?
    Is this 418-9749?
    Speaking. Sarah?
    Yeah.
    Sarah Jackman, Sarah Jackman, How’s by you?
    How’s by you?
    How’s by you the family?
    How’s your sister Emily?
    She’s nice too.
    She’s nice too.

    Jerry Bachman, Jerry Bachman, So what’s new?
    So what’s new?

    Whatcha doing Sarah?
    Reading John O’Hara.

    He’s nice too.
    He’s nice too.

    Sarah Jackman, Sarah Jackman, How’s by you?
    How’s by you?

    How’s your brother Bernie?
    He’s a big attorney.

    How’s your sister Doris?
    Still with William Morris.

    How’s your cousin Shirley?
    She got married early.

    How’s her daughter Esther?
    Skipped a whole semester.

    How’s your brother Bentley?
    Feeling better ment’ly.

    How’s your cousin Ida?
    She’s a freedom rider.

    What’s with Uncle Sidney?
    They took out a kidney.

    How’s your sister Norma?
    She’s a non-conforma.

    How’s yours cousin Lena?
    Moved to Pasadena.

    How’s your Uncle Nathan?
    Him I got no faith in.

    I ain’t heard from Sonja.
    I’ll get her to phone ya.

    How’s her daughter Rita?
    A regular Lolita.

    How’s your cousin Manny?
    Signed up with Vic Tanny.

    How’s your nephew Seymour?
    Seymour joined the Peace Corps.

    He’s nice too.
    He’s nice too.
    Sarah Jackman, Sarah Jackman,
    How’s by you?
    Jerry Bachman,
    How’s by you?
    Jerry Bachman,
    Give regards to Hi now.

    So what’s new?
    Gotta say goodbye now.
    So what’s new?
    Toodle-oo.
    Give regards to Moe now.
    Toodle-oo.
    Well I gotta go now.

    Toodle-oo.
    Toodle-oo.
    Toodle-oo.

    Toodle-oo.
    Toodle-oo.
    Toodle-oo.

  5. The insanity of Palin or Bachmann is easy for those of us on the Left, from our worldviews, to see. That’s what makes us Left, I suppose. That we would see Bachmann as insane is predictable and makes us as easy to manipulate, in our way, as those, who, in their confusion and misery and anxiety, find Bachmann or Palin (or, I suppose, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly) models of appealing attitude and sources of insight. We, on the Left, notice the insanity; it is like a bright light in the night, which blinds us, rather than illuminating the surrounding darkness. We don’t notice the confusion, misery and anxiety; or, if we do, we still feel these are not our brethren. They are confused about who is the enemy, and . . . so are we.

    When Bush was the avatar of torture, pervasive business corruption and perpetual war, I was a Democrat and he was a Republican, and I had some hope in the apparent confusion of my own Party on these “issues”. Now, I’m a bit short on that hopey thing.

    The selfish insanity of the corrupt center is harder to see, because seeing it denies us hope. Hope for a lesser evil, is a hope for the “lesser” part, and using irony, and maybe a bit of satire or parody, to hide the evil. The corrupt center are the people of privilege and power, who are driving a policy agenda, which ignores the economic depression, which has wages and life expectancy declining among the mass of people, in order to concentrate on the urgent need to reduce Medicaid benefits and reform Social Security out of existence.

    There are only two “Parties” in America, now. There’s the plutocracy party, and there’s the rest of us. There’s the Party of Empire, and there’s the rest of us.

    Michelle Bachmann exists to distract. For Republicans, who are worried about the direction (nee decline) of the country and about, say, the threats to Medicare (which are very real — the plutocracy Party wants more profit whereever it can find it, more opportunities for the parasites to exploit the host is the order of the day, every day), Michelle Bachmann is one of many refuges conveniently provided, in place of leadership.

    In many respects, Obama serves the same function, but for a different target audience. If, for example, you thought extending the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy was a very bad idea, you were free to project a commonality of objective onto Obama. He was “trying”. Back in the day, you were free to project opposition to the Iraq War unto Obama. You were free to project respect for the rule of law and the Constitution onto the Constitutional scholar from Chicago. You were free to project caring about ordinary people in economic struggle onto the former community organizer.

    I, personally, find it difficult to see Obama for what he is, for what he does. Emotionally draining, even. I feel hopeless and powerless. My personal insignificance — which is usually a small comfort to me — is compounded by a sense that I belong to a whole, vast class of people — the whole citizenry — whose interests do not matter. It is a class of people, which encompasses a lot of folks, who find Michelle Bachmann appealing. I guess there’s no accounting for taste.

  6. (Kleiman): “Michelle Bachmann isn’t nearly as dumb or as ignorant as Sarah Palin. Nor is she as crooked or cynical. To compensate, she’s much, much, much crazier: Bachmann at least semi-believes the nonsense that Palin just uses to fleece the rubes.
    (Kleiman): “…the less public servants are respected and the worse they are treated, the harder it will be to recruit top-flight talent.”
    (Kleiman): “ If you tell them that their elected officials are tyrants and “domestic enemies,” you’re not allowed to then be shocked at actions appropriate to resistance to tyranny. If you suggest that the President and his party are, traitorously, deliberately helping terrorists, then it’s on you if someone acts as if that statement were true. If you pretend that liberal reforms such as guaranteed access to health insurance are “socialist,” and conflate socialism with Communism, and point out (correctly) that Communism under Stalin and Mao was a doctrine used to justify mass murder, then the logic of your position indicates that killing liberals is a perfectly reasonable thing to do…Words have meanings; speech is a form of action; and actions have consequences. If you play with fire long enough, someone is going to get burned.
    Sarah’s dumb? Compared to whom? I read in vain for evidence of Professor Kleiman’s scintillating intellect.

  7. The insanity of Palin or Bachmann is easy for those of us on the Left, from our worldviews, to see. That’s what makes us Left, I suppose.

    Bruce Wilder, yes, actually the Republicans could make some valid criticisms if they wanted, of Obamacare, his burgeoning National Security State, his economic policies tilted towards Wall Street not Main Street etc. But whenever you have doubts about Obama’s performance, the bizarre mindlessness of the Republican contenders -every one of the seven in the New Hamsphire debate were leaping up, to outdo one another, it their collective pining for “don’t ask don’t tell”-steers you back to affirming or at least pardoning Obama. “Your true condition is illustrated by its opposite”. In this case, conjuring up a Bachmann or a ‘blood libel’ Palin on the bully pulpit for four years, should be enough to carry the wavering.

  8. (Steve): “bizarre mindlessness of the Republican contenders -every one of the seven in the New Hamsphire debate were leaping up, to outdo one another, it their collective pining for “don’t ask don’t tell”-steers you back to affirming or at least pardoning Obama.
    Really? That single issue outweighs economic/regulatory policy and foreign/security policy?
    After the 2004 election, C-SPAN broadcase a panel discussion with campaign strategists and pollsters from both sides. One pollster said he’d written an article for a trade magazine in which he concluded, on the basis of survey data, that gay marriage would become the equivalent of the abortion issue in its power to create single-issue voters.
    Apparently he was right.

  9. Malcolm, I am not sugesting that ‘ don’t ask, don’t tell” is or was such an important issue as the others, except as red meat thrown out to the GOP salviating base. Which was was a more important task, getting rid of some of the Alan Turings of the world including the gay Arabic translators in the Pentagon… or f getting rid terrorists? The candidates decided the former.

    Gay marriage… I coud see some of the misgivings. and abortion is the most controversial. I am sympathtic to conservatives on that, but discriminating in the armed services. Well that thas been won!

    Another lunatic proposal by Bachmann, in her words, will be the “mother of all repeal bill. I would begin with.. the EPA, the job killing agency of America”. With nothing to replace it, let’s just throw forty years of environmental protection agency’s work out, an agency first began by Nixon in 1970, an agency, which if you are interested in polling, Americans want maintained, without any (new) restrictions.

  10. …it steers you back to affirming or at least pardoning Obama

    Yep. Obama won’t be running on hopey-changy…
    That brand is deader than aces-and-eights.
    As is the model that would extract 5 dollars from the wee folk and get them to shout “Yes we can.”
    Obama’s done well to switch his fundraising focus to hedgers and quants and banksters. Added bonus: His golf game should improve too…
    As Kleiman has suggested in an earlier post, his reelection campaign will probably urge us to “stay the course” and avoid the big crazy…
    We’ve come a long way as a nation…

    I’m just hoping the debate between the two candidates also stays the course.
    I don’t want to hear any flowering talk about “leading the world this” or “leading the world that.”
    The debates should be wholly and solely about cutting this and cutting that.
    Obama has bought into the republican Hoover model as a way out of this morass…
    I want to hear him sell that contract in hearts. And I want to hear Crazy sell it in spades.
    In other words: I want the candidates to inspire us by being true to themselves as politicians…

  11. Mark – looks like you should amend your reference to Bachmann’s first name again. It’s spelled “Michele” in her case. Just remember one L two N’s – opposite the “usual” way to spell those names.

    And now for a little mis-spelling of my own:
    Malcolmtent – You got a point in there somewhere, or are you just flinging your feces at Mark again?

  12. Freeman,
    My point was obvious, I thougt: it’s Kleiman (and now “Freeman”) who substitute personal attack for considered argument. Remember Marlow: “If a man should spit against the wind; the filth returns in his face.”

  13. Malcolm: it’s Kleiman (and now “Freeman”) who substitute personal attack for considered argument. Remember Marlow: “If a man should spit against the wind; the filth returns in his face.”

    OK, if we’re gonna play that game:

    Sarah’s dumb? Compared to whom? I read in vain for evidence of Professor Kleiman’s scintillating intellect.

    Pot, meet kettle… The appearance of hypocrisy is hard to avoid and easily implied sometimes, no?

    Your Kleiman quotes look more like considered argument than personal attacks to me. Of course, I have read the entire posts from which the quotes came, and have awareness of the context of those posts, so I’m not fooled by your poor attempt to conflate Kleiman’s considered opinion of Palin as dumb and corrupt and Bachmann as crazy, with political advertisements full of violent imagery demonising an opponent and all but calling for “second amendment solutions” or portraying the President as a Kenyan Commie.

    More spitting in the wind, “Kirkpatrick”-style:
    Of course, your opinion may vary. From certain perspectives no doubt Palin looks smart and pure, Bachmann appears sane, and Obama looks like a communist. It’s all a matter of perspective, and I think I can see where you’re coming from.

    -Stan “Freeman”.

Comments are closed.