Monday, 20 June 2011

Well, They Walk the Walk

For ReThuglicans, it's a Most Babeez Competition.
Presidential elections are supposed to be about the future, but more than a few Republicans eyeing the White House this year are throwbacks to the past – the 1800s, to be exact, when the typical American family had five to seven children.

The math is striking: Six Republican candidates and prospects have 34 children among them. And that’s not even counting Michele Bachmann’s 23 foster children.

For comparison purposes, the standard-issue family has two children. That’s where we find former Minnesota governorTim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

And, it need not be said, but wotthehell, every man/woman -jack of them is a card-carrying fetus fetishist.

According to Conan O'Brien, Ron Paul, the fetus-fetishist libertarian (get your head around that), WINS!

One of our faves, Rick Santorum, places with the creepiest anti-abortion abortion tale.

But then there's nutzoid Michele Bachmann with five of her own and 23 foster children.

She says she 'raised' these foster children.

Asked how long they lived with her, she said "it varied."

I asked Bachmann to explain the parameters of how long the children lived with her - was it as short as one week? As long as three years?

"It varied, it really varied depending on the children," Bachmann responded. "And we've never gotten into specifics about the children because we've always wanted to observe their privacy and that of their families. As I'm sure you can appreciate."

That privacy thing . . .

But then there are those facty things.
Bachmann often says she has "raised" 23 foster children. That may be a bit of a stretch. According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Bachmann's license, which she had for 7 1/2 years, allowed her to care for up to three children at a time. According to Kris Harvieux, a former senior social worker in the foster care system in Bachmann's county, some placements were almost certainly short term. "Some of them you have for a week. Some of them you have for three years, some you have for six months," says Harvieux, who also served as a foster parent herself. "She makes it sound like she got them at birth and raised them to adulthood, but that's not true."

They were/are all teenagers. Some have questioned her motives.
One line of attack goes like this: She was only in it for the money.

The state of Minnesota pays foster parents $30 per day tax-free, which means that to take care of the children she fostered the Bachmanns raked in more than $1.2 million. (Of course, this argument fails to take into account how expensive it is to raise a teenager.)

Another well-worn attack is that she took in foster girls because she was looking for reliable built-in babysitters for her kids. For some reason, Bachmann has done little to shunt aside this criticism. When she has been asked if these foster girls babysat her biological children she says she can’t recall.

Finally, Bachmann’s past as a foster mother has been branded a cynical attempt to curry favor with her ideological pals on the right, particularly the anti-choice crowd that gives lip service, if not always actual support, for adoption and foster care.

Hm. The babysitting one . . . Just like a lot of anti-feminist rightwing nutjob women, Bachmann has a pretty busy career. And even if she had only three foster kids at a time plus five of her own, that's a lotta kids to feed and water when mom is on the road a lot.

Just sayin'.

h/t matttbastard.

Image source.


Beijing York said...

Hahahaha, love mattbastard: A quiverful of wingnuttery

I wonder if she took in mostly teen girls in order to indoctrinate them with purity pledges, etc.

Niles said...

In no little irony, given her freewheeling rants against feminism (well, truthfully, against everything on the non-capitalism list), she appears to be garnering negative comments about her ability to 'mother' so many juveniles while holding down a high pressure high travel job. If she was a he, I have to wonder who would be coming down on him for having the exact same job and number of foster kids and being away from the direct responsibility?

There is very little cold comfort that Ms B. suffers the same 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' criticism every other woman is impacted by. Like her or not, she has taken in foster kids and a great many people don't. And she can afford to do so, money paid per kid or not.

The fact that she's against most societal benefits that might help kids stay OUT of a foster system that is underfunded and over pressured by politicians like her is just a deeper layer of painful irony. The fact she's wrapping herself in the "I care so much" fuzzy blanket of the head-patting rich belies the point that the so-called richest country in the world has let its kids come to the point someone like her needs to take them in so they have SOMEWHERE to sleep that night.

fern hill said...

Niles: you're right about the sexism. And it's true, she did take the kids in for whatever her reason might be.

But 23 of them? And boasting about it. . . I thought Xians were supposed to 'not let the left hand know what the right is doing'.

Yet another -- as if we needed one -- example of how damned unXian these fundies are.

Post a Comment