Quick Links:

Michele Bachmann and revolution

by: Bill Prendergast

Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 18:12:55 PM CDT


By now you may have seen the "Countdown" footage in which Olbermann and Eric Alter of Newsweek discuss Michele Bachmann's public calls for conservative audiences to "rise up" against the elected government of the United States. Bachmann's defenders argue that she has been speaking "metaphorically," and is not calling for citizens to use extra-legal, extra-constitutional means to stop the current White House and Congress.

I've been covering Bachmann here in Minnesota for about eight years. A "metaphorical" interpretation of Bachmann's remarks would be a slam dunk if practically any other elected official had mouthed them. But given Bachmann's actions throughout her career--you can't assume anything like that.

If you only watch one Countdown segment on Bachmann, I recommend that it be this one. A link to the video segment appears at the bottom of this post. The post is commentary on the video and a previous attempt by Bachmann to intimidate elected officials by using a mob to impose her agenda on them.

Olbermann's guest Jonathan Alter is an MSNBC analyst and Newsweek editor. He notes that Bachmann has "got a little problem with reality," which is an understatement. But the real reason the discussion here is worth watching is because of what it points out about Bachmann's latest rhetoric: it's not about elections any more, it's not about proceeding to change the government via constitutional or traditional political procedures--

It's about revolution.  

Bill Prendergast :: Michele Bachmann and revolution
Here is a US Congressional representative referring to extra-legal, non-constitutional methods to change the government and remove "Marxist" elected officials from power. (Note that conservative commenter Sean Hannity didn't challenge that approach to changing government. I'll bet he didn't challenge Bachmann's claim that Obama and congressional Democrats are "Marxists," either.)

That's a very un-American way for an elected official to present a call for change. Elected officials are supposed to support the system of elections that brought them to power--not to call on Americans to ignore those results and "rise up."

As the speakers point out in the clip: if you're unhappy with the government, your option as a citizen is to work within the law and under the Constitution to change the government via the electoral process. Bachmann isn't talking about doing that, she's encouraging conservatives to doing something revolutionary now, without the consent of the governed.

I think Alter is wrong when he says that Bachmann doesn't represent the GOP--for the simple reason that they haven't chosen to rein her in or distance themselves from this apocalyptic rhetoric. I think the current GOP strategy is to let her go out on this limb and see if it works to rally their old base. If the calls for revolution play well and re-vitalize the old base, they won't distance themselves from her. If her calls for revolution lead to violence or assassination attempts, they will.

My criticism of Olbermann and Alter's remarks is that they both insist that Bachmann nearly lost her last election (in the wake of calling for an investigation of anti-Americans in government.) She did nearly lose; so what? How is that near-loss "progress" (as Alter claims) when an extremist is returned to office despite the efforts of people in all fifty states to remove that extremist from office?

Olbermann probably doesn't know that this "extra-legal" stuff is not new to Bachmann. Back when she was in the Minnesota State Senate, she led rallies attended by thousands to oppose gay marriage. At that time she was on local radio urging the demonstrators to invade the offices of her elected colleagues and physically confront them. At one of the rallies she also urged the huge audience to enter the capitol to challenge their elected officials. We expect that kind of urging from radicals outside the government who don't believe in American democracy and representative government--but this was a case where an elected member of the government was urging a mob to intimidate elected officials into compliance with her will.

That's not something you do if you believe in elected government, democracy or American freedom. That was an attempt to use a mob to coerce her elected colleagues in government. It demonstrated that Bachmann has no respect for constitutions or elections or the will of lawfully elected legislators--when things aren't going her way.

Encouraging audiences to think that American elected officials are secret "Marxists" is not something new for Bachmann, either. Bachmann has in the past made similar charges against fellow Republicans. Including Minnesota Governor and potential presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, when she charged that his pet plan for the state's economy was being formulated in accordance with the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

And incredible as it may seem, when Bachmann entered the Minnesota State Senate as a Republican she charged that President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress were overseeing federal education laws designed to prepare America's children for future servitude in a one-world, Soviet-style economy.

This stuff goes deep into Bachmann's psyche. People who think that Bachmann is "just speaking metaphorically" with this extreme rhetoric are not familiar with her history or her long-term political strategy and thinking. She's fishing for extremist action here--again. If things go bad (e.g., an assassination inspired by Bachmann's call for "immediate action" and charges of un-Americanism and Marxism in government), she'll back off and say she meant it all "metaphorically."

But if conservatives and extremists rally to her without killing or hurting people, she'll accept their support and keep talking about "armed and dangerous" "rising up" so they'll stay motivated, enraged, and frightened of their own elected government.

She's demonstrating again that her support for American representative democracy is limited to when elections go the way she wants them to. She doesn't want to wait for elections; she's asking for "immediate" action. A very undesirable person to have in any government of free people.

But thank God that national media have actually started to pay attention to the wild-eyed calls for action and obscene charges that she's been leveling on talk radio ever since she entered politics.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!
The Goverment works for us not the other way around (0.00 / 0)
Michele Bachmann is one of the few standing up for the conservatives of Minnesota.  We have writen letter after letter after letter to our representatives and all we get back is a basic form letter basicly telling us they are in power and dont care what we have to say.  It is time to stand up and be heard.  TIME FOR A TEA PARTY. APRIL 15 AT THE ST PAUL CAPITAL AND ROCHESTER SILVER LAKE.  SEE MN TAX DAY TEA PARTY.  GO MICHELLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll go only if you promise (0.00 / 0)
that it will be just as fun as Glen Beck's "We surround them" event.

[ Parent ]
What would you like to see happen? (0.00 / 0)

Hi Bill,

What would you like to see happen as a result of Michele's call for dangerous?  And her mention of revolution?

I've been thinking she's a tool of the party, and her antics are reflective of the repuilbican party and its goals.

Is the goal to remove her from office?  Is it because she's crazy?


Bachmann de-election (0.00 / 0)
As far as beating M.B. in 2010, I don't think either Wetterling or Tinklenberg made nearly enough of an issue of her anti-Catholicism, in a, by current standards, heavily Catholic district (30-35%, I've read).  I guess I can kind of understand some trepidation in this matter, but when the reward is potentially getting this loony out of Congress, I don't see that any issue should somehow be regarded as sacrosanct.
I suspect the big 'Tea Party' will make about as much of a mark as the recent Glenn Beck/Chuck Norris 'we'll surround them' humiliating fiasco!

Dan-- I've been writing about (0.00 / 0)
Bachmann for a number of years now, and I don't recall any specifically "anti-Catholic" rhetoric or action on her part. If you mean the plank in her church's platform that identifies "the Papacy as the Anti-Christ"--that's been raised before and political mavens seem to have concluded that that's not worth pursuing. She's specifically denied that she believes that the Pope is the anti-Christ, on local television.

But if you can cite any other "anti-Catholic" statements or actions by Bachmann, I would love to see them. Please write in to this thread or a comment thread on the Dump Michele Bachmann blog and let us know what you've got.


[ Parent ]
response (0.00 / 0)
I was referring to the anti-Catholic plank.  I wasn't aware that what seemed like it could be an issue of significance before the 2006 election was determined by 'political mavens' to be 'not worth pursuing'.  Perhaps the possibility of a backlash is much greater than I realize.  Given her history, I wouldn't place a lot of stock in her 'denial', but that's unfortunately true of a lot of people, not just Republicans...maybe even me, every now and then.  Sorry for wasting your time.

[ Parent ]
response to your response (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to give you the impression that I know that "political mavens" decided that the anti-Catholic plank stuff was not worth pursuing. I just assumed that, because the matter was raised prior to Bachmann's first election to Congress, and that anti-Catholic plank issue hasn't been raised by her electoral opponents since.

The matter was raised publicly when TV newsman Pat Kessler asked her a direct question about it during a televised debate between MB and her electoral opponents Wetterling and Binkowski. At the time she denied there was any truth to the matter (which is not true, there is a "papacy is the Anti-Christ" plank in her synod's theology statement.)

The only media follow-up that I'm aware of was a discussion of the issue on the local conservative talk radio show, "Garage Logic" with Joe Soucheray (on station KSTP.) I know about that one, because I was listening to the show that day and called in to explain that the "plank" did exist and did identify the papacy as the anti-Christ.

But I never heard anyone in opposition parties or local media try to make an issue of it since. So I can only assume that "local political mavens" decided that it wasn't a viable issue to split off Catholic voters in the district.


[ Parent ]
response to, etc. (0.00 / 0)
Based on your info., I frankly don't get why the issue isn't being pursued.  Concern for peoples' hurt feelings?  After HER rhetoric?  Tinklenberg had a lot going for him by election day, and still didn't win.  It wasn't even all THAT close, compared to a lot of races.  What's to lose by throwing everything at her that we can get our righteous hands on?

It seems pretty straightforward, which voters tend to like.  Either she specifically rejects one of the fundamental tenets of her church's ideology, or she can be legitimately described as regarding the head of the Roman Catholic faith precisely as described.

Full disclosure:  I was raised Catholic;  I'm not religious now.  But I'm not into the religion-bashing that's become fashionable in some quarters.  I regard that as pointless and potentially counterproductive.


[ Parent ]
My guess--it's only a guess-- (0.00 / 0)
--is that risk of "backlash" that you spoke of in your first post.

You were raised Catholic, I was raised Catholic. So you know a little about how it goes: what the local priest says or doesn't say about issue conditions the voter response, to certain degree.

If a priest or bishop speaks out and says "Hey, this candidate's got an anti-Catholic plank in her church's doctrinal statement, how about a full and frank explanation of your position on that, Rep. Bachmann?"--then you have an issue that will concern and draw opinions from the rank and file voters.

If the local church officials don't see a problem with the plank and won't question her about it: Catholic voters would probably perceive any attempt to raise the issue by non-Church Bachmann opponents as "manipulative." And then you get backlash.

This is all my guess. I suspect that the Church itself and its more conservative members are solid on Bachmann to this day because she has been relentlessly pro-life--even before her political career began. As you well know, the abortion issue is a political issue that the RC has been advocating from the pulpit for more than 30 years--I think they're unlikely to confuse voters by encouraging them to think about voting for a pro-choice candidate.

So my opinion is: the Church and conservative church-goers wouldn't abandon Bachmann just because of the anti-Catholic plank in the WELS doctrinal statement. She denounce minorities as the cause of the housing crisis and President Obama as a Marxist, but I've never heard her say a word against Catholics in public. (I've never heard her say a word for them either--as you know, some of the evangelicals who vote for Bachmann are indeed anti-Catholic, they don't want to see Bachmann kissing up to the Church and she knows that, too.)

Maybe I'm wrong in this analysis of "why no?", but no Bachmann political opponent has ever taken that particular ball and run with it.

By the way, you said something about "sorry for wasting your time." You can't waste my time; no one can except sales people. Thanks for writing in with your observations--as you know, the people outside "the Bachmann movement" are desperate to get rid of her and there is no end in sight. So any constructive ideas are always appreciated.


[ Parent ]
What I would like to see happen as a result of Bachmann's rhetoric (0.00 / 0)
Holly,

I guess I'd like to see her colleagues in government call for her censure.

There was a discussion on the Kos about whether her remarks crossed the line into "illegal," and I (for one) concluded that under the current case law regarding free speech--she didn't. An attorney wrote in citing case law to point out that:

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to/ inciting or producing imminent lawless action/ AND /is likely to incite or produce such action."

I don't think Bachmann's recent calls for an "uprising", "armed and dangerous" voters, etc. meet this test--which they would have to meet, in order for law enforcement to go after Bachmann. (Some other commenters in the discussion disagreed with that conclusion.) It's a very hard test to meet--you'd have to show that Bachmann intended to incite a lawless action AND you'd have to show that that her statement was likely to produce that lawless action.

I guess if her comments had directed a specific person or group of people to commit a lawless action, and that that person or group of people had demonstrated that they were likely to act on her instruction--she could then be prosecuted under some state law forbidding that sort of thing.

But her actual remarks are almost certainly too general for prosecutor to act on them and make a case. Having said that, I point out that that doesn't make them any less hateful or dangerous.

Here we have an elected official telling the public that other elected officials are dangerous to the United States, and urging people to rise up--now. Post-Oklahoma City, that's an awful thing to do--because we know there are nuts out there who would like to "act out" on that charge and are willing to take human life.

As a Congressman, Bachmann presumably took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Here she seems to be urging citizens to ignore election results under the Constitution and take action to rise up against a lawfully elected government.

In my book, that merits censure by her colleagues. But I don't think that's likely to happen until someone accepts Bachmann's invitation to revolt and "acts out"--by killing or bombing or whatever.


Ask the Republicans to address it? (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the reply, Bill.  I hope things are going well for you over at Dump Bachmann.  

I appreciate how you guys keep us up on the latest.  (I wish we'd move away from calling her "crazy" unless that would/could be used to remove her from office...)

Bill Prendergast said I guess I'd like to see her colleagues in government call for her censure.

I'd like to see action, too, but I believe the most effective way to deal with the problem is to have the issue addressed on a grand scale.  Perhaps some high ranking official can call the republican party onto the carpet-- it's a republican idea, not just a Michele idea.  Or they'd already be asking her to modify her message.  Either the party agrees it's an okay message, or they fix the situation.

Ultimately, we're doing all we can to avoid another Great Depression.  Our officials should remember checks and balances-- there should be talk about them and and incorporation of them as we go along.  

If the republican party is considering dangerous or revolution we should know, so we can deal with it.


[ Parent ]
yeah, they could do that-- (0.00 / 0)
"ask Republicans to address it." But it might be just as valid a strategy not to call Republicans out on it, and ask the senior Republicans later (after a "tragedy"): "How could you let this congresswoman go on the air and call for people to rise up, and do nothing to prevent violence from happening?"

I never pretend to know what Dems are thinking. Maybe they thinking like I just said, maybe they're thinking this will just go away, maybe they're thinking "everyone will see what an irresponsible nut she is, and her career will collapse" (thinking that last, has proven to be a big mistake in the past.)

And Holly, we have to agree to disagree about calling her "a nut." I am proud to say that I am one of the first people to go publicly on the record with the claim that she is a "nut." I have never identified any living American statesman as a nut (in print) before. But I have never regretted making that charge against her--she is the real deal, when it comes to nuttiness; it's not just name calling, Holly, in her particular case it's demonstrable.
(The two way conversations with Jesus Christ she testified to, the time she made up a non-existent terrorist state within Iraq and announced that to a newspaper, the charge that Barack Obama and the Dems are "Marxists..." It goes on and on.

I don't like name-calling in politics. One of the reasons I started writing about Bachmann is because I realized early on that she is indeed one of the very few politicians in the United States who really does merit the epithets "nut," "liar," and "bigot." I'm sorry, but that's the demonstrable truth--and as people who write about politics we are required to identify nuts as nuts, so we can keep them out of government.


[ Parent ]
Good discussion (0.00 / 0)

I said: ask Republicans to address this call for dangerous, and revolution.  (Michele Bachmann's call)

Bill said:
" But it might be just as valid a strategy not to call Republicans out on it, and ask the senior Republicans later (after a "tragedy"): "How could you let this congresswoman go on the air and call for people to rise up, and do nothing to prevent violence from happening?"

I don't know about that.  I'm against violence, and if we can stop it before it happens, I'll be happier.

Bill said:And Holly, we have to agree to disagree about calling her "a nut."....  But I have never regretted making that charge against her--she is the real deal, when it comes to nuttiness; it's not just name calling, Holly, in her particular case it's demonstrable.
(The two way conversations with Jesus Christ she testified to, the time she made up a non-existent terrorist state within Iraq and announced that to a newspaper, the charge that Barack Obama and the Dems are "Marxists..." It goes on and on.

In response to Michele's recent behavior, around here we recently googled short term psychotic episodes to see if that fit the description.   (BTW, I'm a psych and history/ education major, master's in education).  End result?  I don't know, Bill.  There are extremists and even moderates who think that a two-way with God is possible.  We'd have to ask ourselves how labeling her would help.  She's infurating to some, and most hurtful to some, so I see how we'd be interested in a label... I guess.

"Keep them out of government."  Now we're talking!  No more Michele.


[ Parent ]
I know what you're saying Holly. (0.00 / 0)
There are people who believe that two ways with God are possible. But you should try to find the footage of her descriptions of "two ways with God." If you do find it (the footage where she testifies for Jesus at Pastor Mac Hammond's Living Word Center)--you will see that she claims to have had numerous personal conversations with God throughout her life. In that single speech, she recounts how God came to her and told her to go to law school, came to her again to give her a vision of her future husband on a dairy farm in Wisconsin, came to her again to tell her to study tax law...on a subsequent occasion, God reappeared to her and told her to run for the Minnesota State Senate, and on yet another occasion God told her to run for a seat in Congress.

These are claims of divine authority for the successes in her political career. The difference between sanity and kookiness depends on whether you or I personally believe that God did appear to her and advise and converse with her. If a person does believe that, they conclude that Bachmann is both sane and chosen by God. If you don't believe that God made all these distinct visits to instruct her over the years--you will conclude that she's nuts.

Or lying. The Living Word Center testimony is also interesting to watch, because it's a documented, recorded of Bachmann lying to fellow Christians (while she is testifying in the name of Jesus Christ.) On the video tape, she is seen telling voters that she had no interest, absolutely none, in engaging in politics until God came to her and told her to run for a seat in the Minnesota Senate.

That is simply and demonstrably untrue. Bachmann ran a Republican candidate for the local school board here in Stillwater before her Senate run, and lost the race. So far it's the only time she lost an election, perhaps that's why she left the incident out of her accounts of her career and her instructions from God. Her candidacy for the failed school board run is of record; it received the usual media coverage in the local papers and she promoted her candidacy on the local evangelical radio station. It is also on the record that she sought the advice of the local Republican party prior to her first run, and prior to her supposed conversation with God (and his instruction to her to enter politics.)

So she claims to have had an entire series of conversations with God, to be acting on his instructions, and at the same time lies about those conversations while testifying for Christ. To me, that spells mental instability: a person who cannot draw the line between truth and fantasy.

But as you probably know, the "God talks to me and I talk back" stuff is not the only reason to doubt Bachmann's grip of reality. The false statements about reality are regular; she makes them even when there's no careerist reason to do so and when doing so would hurt her politically. Here I'm thinking of Bachmannistan, where she told a reporter that there was in existence a secret agreement to partition Iraq with Iran and create a new terrorist state there. The false claim made headlines in newspapers all around the United States. When was called out on this, she refused to give her sources for that claim. That indicates to me that she was relying on sources that no person of sound judgment would respect--which again, goes to the issue of sanity. What does it say about her judgment (her rationality) that she would make an entirely unfounded statement like that during war time, and then refuse to give her source?

There are other instances where she's given people good reason to doubt her sanity. Labeling Barack Obama as a Marxist or socialist is common these days on the right, but there's no truth to it and it's delusional--when an elected official in the federal government makes the charge without giving any evidence to back it up, that evidence that she's at least a little bit "mad." (I remind you that as a state legislator she also suggested that Tim Pawlenty (!) was making policy on the basis of Marxist principles. That's been recorded live, too.)

There are other incidents that would also lead a reasonable person to conclude that she lives in a twilight, unreal world where the supernatural visions are mixed up with the crackpot conspiracy theories from the extreme right, a research preference for extremist propaganda as a substitute for respected sources of information about the world, science, history, reality in general... So no, I can't agree with you that we should "move past" calling her a nut or kook. In my opinion and in the opinion of millions of other people who are now familiar with her: her 'on the record' sentiments and behavior have earned her that status--over and over again.

This is why she's so interesting to write about--here we have a case of a person who rejects what the rest of us accept as reality: in the US Congress. She's the real deal, Holly.    


[ Parent ]
Pattern of behavior (0.00 / 0)

Hmm, I hear you.  It's the pattern of behavior, and we're lucky you and others have taken time to alert us to the behavior.

It gets messy when you bring in God, doesn't it.

She is interesting, but also irresponsible.  Did I hear that someone was upset about paying taxes and talked about doing a drive by?  NPR, this AM, I'm still wondering what was said since I was moving laundry at the time.


[ Parent ]
The scoop on the arrest (0.00 / 0)

Oh, okay, it was a threat, not an actual drive by.  I wonder what Kelly thinks about this.  Is it a freedom of speech issue?

http://www.twincities.com/ci_1...


[ Parent ]
Holly, I'm going to write a Dump Bachmann (0.00 / 0)
piece on whether or not it's "fair" to call her a "nut." I'm inspired to do that by your initial objections--because I am not "in the habit of" calling people "nuts." Bachmann's a special case that merits the title, in my opinion.

This "calling her a nut" stuff is kind of important to me--I didn't start out doing that, at first I considered that she was merely "manipulating" a local extremist base to get them to volunteer and door-knock and work the phones for her. But over the years I watched her keep announcing these beliefs when there was no political need to do so: after she was already safely in office. So I concluded--she does, at least in part, believe some of the no-grounds-in-reality statements and charges that she makes.

I think people will be interested in the discussion. If you were arguing that falling into the habit of calling one's political opponents "nuts" or "kooks" is bad--I agree with you, there's way too much of that on the blogs, especially.

But here we have an exception (I think), where the person so identified really does merit the title. So I'm going to write about that, and mention (in passing) our discussion here.


[ Parent ]
Great! (0.00 / 0)

CU there, looking forward to reading your post :-)

[ Parent ]
Nice Summary (0.00 / 0)
Describing the difference between free speech and speech meant to be action.  

[ Parent ]
Imagine (0.00 / 0)
All this angst being channeled into something positive like helping Betty! and Mr. Ellison do a better job instead of spending hundreds of hours tearing down one person from the ineffective minority party...

Imagine... (0.00 / 0)
...that some nut somewhere takes up Bachmann's challenge to rise up--and kills someone.

Imagine that getting a nut out of elective office is always something positive. Imagine that it was possible to get a nut out of public office by exposing them, nationally and locally, as a nut.

Imagine...that this nut we're talking about is a terrible representative for the people her district, was doing nothing while voter homes in her district were foreclosed (even though she asked for a seat on the finance committee and has been their for four years.) Imagine that the same nut has throughout her career backed the deregulatory ideology and party line that led to the current economic disaster.

Imagine...that you are talking to people here who have volunteered years of time to get a nut like that out of office. Imagine that you didn't assume that their political activism was limited to the subject of Michele Bachmann. Imagine... that you had given the advice in your last post to someone who phone-banked for Obama, night after night last year. Imagine that you are addressing someone whose wife gives thousands of dollars to support Dem candidates--not just in Bachmann's district, but around the state and nationally.

Now, imagine... that this nut was still in office, representing you and your family, instead of representing me and my family. Imagine I'm in Ellison's district, instead; and imagine you're living in Bachmann's district--and she's representing you and your family, and your district's economy and views on the various wars.

Imagine that, and then how you would react--sitting in her district, with her representing you and your family in Washington--if someone wrote in to tell you they think that the issue of removing her from office is not that important, because she's pretty ineffectual and in a minority party?

Imagine... what you would like to say to such a person under those circumstances--a person implying that your concerns about Bachmann are trivial. I am use to getting arrogance and apathy from people on the right; but I don't know that I'll ever get used to arrogance and apathy coming from liberals. Especially liberals affecting to speak on behalf of Keith and Betty.

I just don't understand how an intelligent person could enter a conversation about Michele Bachmann and indicate that the subject was hardly worth discussing and that the participants would be better off spending their time doing something for Dem candidates. I can't imagine an intelligent person coming into the conversation and saying that--without knowing whether or not the participants are already doing something for Dem candidates.

I guess this is more evidence of my lack of imagination. But you try to "imagine" all the things I asked you to imagine in this post, Tom--you've obviously got powers of imagination, and it won't be hard for you to imagine that stuff, because it's "real"... and then you write back to me and tell me if you could do that prior to the next time you're writing in on whether or not this subject is worthy of discussion.


[ Parent ]

Event Calendar
September 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 * *
<< (add event) >>


Liberal Blog Network
Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
Cliff Schecter
Confined Space
Corrente
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Kos
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making Politics Fun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns & Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MN Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Saterical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks





Premium Blog Ads

Hate ads? Make them go away -- Subscribe to MPP!

Change.org|Start Petition





MN-PLAN Ads

Blog Ads




Powered by: SoapBlox