Wingnut of the Week

[SirJosephPorter]

This is a new feature started by CNN, where they feature two wingnuts of the week, one from the left and one from the right. This week, the honour went to (drumroll !!!)

The Wingnuts of the Week for the inaugural edition are Michele Bachman and Cynthia McKinney.

Commentary: Wingnuts of the week – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

Michele Bachman:

Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachman first became nationally known in the late innings of campaign ’08, when she told Chris Matthews, “I am very concerned he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views.” Undeterred by common sense or common decency, she followed that with a call to investigate all members of Congress (presumably Democrats only) for anti-American views.

This past week, in an interview with PJTV.com she took another leap too far, saying, “I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.”

Cynthia McKinney.:

McKinney’s been uncharacteristically quiet since the election, but she resurfaced in an April 30th radio interview for an internet station known as “the information underground,” which had previously featured such friendly topics as “Jewish Domination and the World as We Know It”, “The Holocaust Scam”, and “Jews Israel and 9/11″ – to name just a very few.


When the host of the show confides that “DC is a Zionist occupied government,” there is not a hint of objection, nor when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is described as having “Jew nationality and Jew loyalties.” McKinney just continues on in even tones, thoughtfully finding time to compare herself to Malcom X, Martin Luther King and – my personal favorite – Rosa Parks.


“She couldn’t find employment from any of the black institutions in Montgomery who shunned her because of the heat that came-down on her because she took a stand… Well it’s no different what happened to them to what happens to me on a daily basis.”

It should be an interesting weekly feature.

Now, I don’t want any flaming in this thread. The thread is NOT about whether ‘wingnut’ is a term of insult (I don’t think it is, and if moderators disagree with me, they will deal with me).


If you want to contribute here, comment on the wingnuts themselves, or the idea of having such a feature.



Or do you have any nominations for the Wingnut of the Week (besides me, that is)?

 

[gopher]

Here in Minnesota, Bachmann is the most divisive wingnut in the state's history. The far right adores her. Everybody else disdains her. Luckily, she lives in a district populated by corporate welfare recipients who love their government handouts but who hate to pay taxes in order to finance that sort of thing. That's how she manages to stay in office.

 

[Cannuck]

Here in Minnesota, Bachmann is the most divisive wingnut in the state's history.

I thought that honor would have gone to you but I guess nobody in Minnesota takes you seriously either. Not being taken seriously in a state that nobody takes seriously...ouch, that's just gotta hurt.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here in Minnesota, Bachmann is the most divisive wingnut in the state's history. The far right adores her. Everybody else disdains her. Luckily, she lives in a district populated by corporate welfare recipients who love their government handouts but who hate to pay taxes in order to finance that sort of thing. That's how she manages to stay in office.

That is the problem in both USA and Canada. There are a few seats which are very safe for one party or the other, they can put up an absolute moron (and many times they do) and he will get elected.

We also have a few nut cases in our Parliament, from safe seats. So no matter what their sins, they manage to get elected again and again.

I think John Ensign (Senator who has admitted to committing adultery) has said that he intends to run again. I understand his seat is a safe Republican seat, so I assume he will easily win reelection.

I think he is a good candidate for the wingnut award.

 

[Machjo]

That is the problem in both USA and Canada. There are a few seats which are very safe for one party or the other, they can put up an absolute moron (and many times they do) and he will get elected.

We also have a few nut cases in our Parliament, from safe seats. So no matter what their sins, they manage to get elected again and again.

I think John Ensign (Senator who has admitted to committing adultery) has said that he intends to run again. I understand his seat is a safe Republican seat, so I assume he will easily win reelection.

I think he is a good candidate for the wingnut award.

What you described there is partisanship at its lowest, the 'my grandpapa voted for that party so so will I' mentality. Have them all run as independents, and there would be no safe seat anymore because politicians couldn't get elected on their brand anymore.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Machjo, in USA they are pretty much independent, the party affiliations are very loose in Senate and House; It is not at all unusual for Senators and Congressmen to vote against their party. And they can do that because President cannot be thrown out of the office by a no confidence motion, like PM can here in Canada.

But in spite of this, there are safe Democratic and Republican seats both for Senate and House (Senate perhaps fewer than House). Thus when Kennedy reties, it is a safe bet that another Democrat will be elected in Massachusetts. In Texas, it does not matter of the relative caliber of the candidates; a Republican will always defeat a Democrat.

I think it has to do with demographics, racial mix up, socio-economic background, religion etc. Many factors are involved, but the bottom line is, there are some very safe constituencies, even in USA.

 

[YukonJack]

Just out of curiousity, SirJosephPorter:

Would you have started this thread if the "Wingnuts of the week" were a program on FOXNews?

Also, do you notice that Michelle Bachmann is described - correctly - as a Republican, but there is no mention of Cynthia McKenny's party affiliation. Clue: she is a Democrat. But, of course CNN 'objectivity' can only go so far.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The program is non partisan, YJ. If it had been on FOX, they only would have given the Wingnut of the Week award to a Democrat. It would have been regarded strictly as a partisan exercise and would have been (rightly) ignored.

And we all know that McKinney is a Democrat, they said right in the beginning that the award will go to a Republican and a Democrat. What difference does it make if they don’t mention that McKinney is a democrat?

She is a well known Democrat, while Bachmann is a lot less well known. I don’t see anything wrong in identifying her as a Republican.

 

[ironsides]

I'll nominate Ted Kennedy for Grand Wingnut, he has done just about everything in his life, but keeps getting re-elected term after term.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Massachusetts is a solidly Democratic state ironsides, what do you expect? Same as Ensign, who has admitted to an extra martial affair, is very likely to get elected the next time around, it is a solid Republican seat.

That really emphasizes what I said in my post #6. Some seats are so safe for Democrats or Republicans that anybody can get elected there.

 

[Cannuck]

That really emphasizes what I said in my post #6. Some seats are so safe for Democrats or Republicans that anybody can get elected there.

That's because there are lots of wingnuts that judge somebody solely on the party they belong to or support.

 

[ironsides]

Of course, what ever Ensign did (extra martial affair) or everything Teddy did in his career don't mean to much their constituents. Teddy has just been around so long, makes one think about term limits. (not just Democrats or Republicans) And Your right, anyone could get elected in those respected states, as long as they were party members.

 

[Machjo]

As I'd mentioned above, if you just made them run as independents, taking away any party they could hide themselves behind, thus exposing them in the nude (metaphorically speaking, of course), wouldn't that then get people to vote for candidates based on their own personal merit rather than any brand name? Just have them all sit as indepndents.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But I did mention, Machjo, politicians in USA are pretty much independent, party loyalties count for a lot less there.

It is just that Massachusetts is a very liberal state, even Republicans nominate moderates there. Same way, Texas is a very conservative state, even democrats nominate conservatives there.

But since Republicans are identified with conservatism, Democrats with liberalism, people simply close their eyes and vote for one party or the other.

Even if there were no party affiliations, a candidate will get elected in Texas as long as he is very conservative (his other attributes honesty, integrity, expertise etc .do not matter). Same goes for Massachusetts (in reverse, of course).

The fault lies not with the system, but with the voters (same as they close their eyes in Alberta and vote conservative).

 

[Machjo]

But I did mention, Machjo, politicians in USA are pretty much independent, party loyalties count for a lot less there.

It is just that Massachusetts is a very liberal state, even Republicans nominate moderates there. Same way, Texas is a very conservative state, even democrats nominate conservatives there.

But since Republicans are identified with conservatism, Democrats with liberalism, people simply close their eyes and vote for one party or the other.

Even if there were no party affiliations, a candidate will get elected in Texas as long as he is very conservative (his other attributes honesty, integrity, expertise etc .do not matter). Same goes for Massachusetts (in reverse, of course).

The fault lies not with the system, but with the voters (same as they close their eyes in Alberta and vote conservative).

Now this is what I was getting at. You were saying that in Texas, for example, both are likely to be conservative, yet the Dermocrat still stands little chance just because of his 'brand'. So it would seem that scrapping the brand would get people thinking more. The people may be at fault to some degree, but encouraging needless partisanship makes the parties themselvers at fault too.

 

[Machjo]

By the way, the same would apply in Alberta too. If each candidate had to run as an independent, then the voters would actually have to get to know the candidate instead of just relying on brand appeal. It would raise the quality of our democracy, woudn't it?

 

[YukonJack]

"The program is non partisan, YJ. If it had been on FOX, they only would have given the Wingnut of the Week award to a Democrat. It would have been regarded strictly as a partisan exercise and would have been (rightly) ignored."

That is just your opinion and absurd as usual, coming from you, who admitted never having watched FOX, and routinely dismiss anything you disagree with.

Since Cynthia McKenney's party affiliation was omitted, it clearly shows that the CNN program is anything but non partisan.

As for the hosts, Chetry is a FOX reject, although among the CNN women she is like a rose among thorns. The guy is a total unknown and likely to remain so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That is just your opinion and absurd as usual, coming from you, who admitted never having watched FOX, and routinely dismiss anything you disagree with.

CNN tries to be non partisan YJ, Fox does not even make any pretense. It is a mouthpiece of Republican Party and that is that. I just don’t see FOX giving wingnut award to a Republican, the base will scream bloody murder. Fox’s viewership, which is mostly Republican base, will plummet.

 

[hermite]

:roll:
Cynthia McKinney has been a member of the Green Party since 2007. As a former member of the Democratic Party, she served six terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives. In 2008, the Green Party nominated McKinney for President of the United States. She is the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the House.

On June 30, 2009, McKinney was aboard the Greek-flagged Free Gaza Movement's ship Spirit of Humanity carrying 21 activists, including Irish peace activist Mairead McGuire, medical supplies, a symbolic bag of cement, olive trees and toys, when it was seized by the Israeli Navy 29 km off the Gaza coast. It is unclear whether they were in international waters or in Gazan waters, which is subject to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Both the Cypriot and Israeli authorities were officially informed that the destination was Gaza before the vessel's departure. According to the Cypriot government, the ship was given permission by the Authorities of the Republic of Cyprus to sail off the port of Larnaca in Cyprus on the basis of its declaration that its intended destination was the port of Port Said in Egypt.

McKinney was held at the Givon immigration detention center in Ramle, until she was released on July 5. The Israeli government would have released McKinney and her fellow activists immediately had they signed deportation papers; however, McKinney at least initially refused to sign, arguing that she could not be sure of what the papers, written in Hebrew, said, and that the papers would require them to admit that they were in violation of Israel's blockade, which they deny.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Cynthia McKinney has been a member of the Green Party since 2007. As a former member of the Democratic Party, she served six terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives. In 2008, the Green Party nominated McKinneyPresident of the United States. She is the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the House.


That is just the point, Hermite. McKinney has been in politics a long time, she is a controversial figure, she is well known. It was not necessary to identify her as a Democrat. And if she has joined the Green Party (I didn’t know that, and I suspect neither does YJ), it would have been wrong anyway.

No, if she is a Green Party member now, I would say that the CNN feature was scrupulously fair, in keeping with the high standards of journalism routinely displayed by CNN.