Not a big surprise:
My sister Cate wins the recent blog caption contest: Michele Bachmann is running for president?!!!!!!
Now, one of the many odd things about Rep. Bachmann is she falls into the same category of politician as Sarah Palin–that is, butcher history, get the narrative all wrong, but then cling to it if there is any shred of truth that you can stretch. With Sarah, it was Paul Revere firing warning shots a generation before breech loading guns with multiple bullets made that concept popular (a single horse rider would never use a muzzle-loading gun of the Revolutionary War era to fire a warning shot, as Stephen Colbert hilariously demonstrated).
But Sarah insists she was right. OK, I know she’s “right,” but it’s not just the lamestream media playing “gotcha,” Sarah. Why not just admit your off-hand remark might not have been completely historically accurate, stand by whatever larger point you were trying to make, and move on?
Michele Bachmann’s error, which she refused to own up to on Good Morning America this morning, is more substantive. As a “TEA Party” dolly, it would be of some comfort if she seemed to have some knowledge of the Founding Father’s she is so fond of.
But just as the modern TEA party forgets that the Revolutionary War cry wasn’t “no new taxes,” it was “no taxation without representation,” and today’s awful tax code was enacted by our government that we elected, Bachmann insists that anti-slavery sentiment was popular among the Founding Fathers.
Even though our victorious Revolutionary War general and first president, and the author of our Declaration of Independence, not only came from a major slave-holding colony–Virginia, but where themselves slave owners.
Well, Michele, you got it wrong. Not totally wrong–Jefferson, at least, was uncomfortable with slavery, and there were among the Founding Fathers men who were against slavery–but still, John Quincy Adams is not a good example of a Founding Father and anti-slavery sentiment grew much stronger in the generations after the founders.
OK, water under the bridge, maybe. We don’t play Trivial Pursuit with our presidential candidates, and even if I personally think a history test would not be a bad idea–if there are any consequences for your obliviousness to the narrative that you’re part of, it’s up to the voters to inflict it.
But, your record on political facts, as well as historic ones, is a pattern of misstatements. You’re the darling of the TEA party, which is sort of the loony right of the GOP. Shame on Iowa Republicans if you do well in our caucus.
A state formerly known for its excellence in education should do better.