• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michele Bachmann: John Quincy Adams Was 'One Of Our Founding Fathers'

[/B]
Well its simple - the order of succession would be followed. I mean we are talking about politicians - just how far down the line of succession do you think we'd have to go before we find someone left behind? My bet - not far at all :)

Depends on who she appoints, and who do you think that will be?
 
Depends on who she appoints, and who do you think that will be?

Except for number 3 - Speaker of the House, and 4 President ProTem of the Senate, that are not Presidential Appointments. I doubt we'd get beyond those two.
 
HAH! too late! by the new rules you've already made a gaffe, making you an utter moron and completely invalidating anything else you say afterwards!!! :mrgreen:

But I admitted my error. :2razz:

I think you are putting too high a bar on "tirelessly", then; many of the founders did indeed work to end slavery until the end of their public (or actual) lives. Franklin for example.

Most of the founders backed away from addressing slavery, either publicly or privately. The did so for political reasons... they needed the south to commit to supporting the Revolution and the Constitution.

Certainly Bachmann was correct in that she corrected the narrative that the founders were either ambivalent towards or in favor of slavery.

No. Everything that Bachman said was referencing JQ Adams. I've read a bit about JQ and what she said was about him, NOT about the founders. She just go it wrong around him not being a founder.

i think it is relevant in discussing those who attack Bachmann on this sort of issue.

I don't.

generally, no, i don't think this stuff is relevant. I've said it about people from both sides - you don't generally climb this high in a competitive field unless you are above average smarts. some later deteriorate (joe biden, i think, has done so), but you don't get up there unless you're on the ball. People who get Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey are the fools, not she.

I agree... I don't think that getting some of these historical details correct, off the cuff, is really that important in assessing a candidate.
 
A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????
 
God. You saying that is SOOOOOO child-like. Pathetic.

not really. had Bachman done this (or had she congradulated the Mexican Ambassador on celebrating "Cinco de Quatro") as the President did, the echo-chambers here would be hopping all over her, having heard it in Breaking News on MSNBC.
 
But I admitted my error. :2razz:

too late. one misspeak makes everything else you might say idiotic by association.

Most of the founders backed away from addressing slavery, either publicly or privately. The did so for political reasons... they needed the south to commit to supporting the Revolution and the Constitution.

publicly they came to the uneasy truce on the issue. Jefferson's original language in the Declaration was actually partially scrubbed for precisely this reason. However, you are incorrect to characterize them so - they openly addressed the issue when they banned slavery on federal lands, and they privately did so when they joined (for example, as Benjamin Franklin did) manumission and/or abolition societies.

No. Everything that Bachman said was referencing JQ Adams. I've read a bit about JQ and what she said was about him, NOT about the founders. She just go it wrong around him not being a founder.

Bachmann threw out JQ as an example of a larger group that she was discussing. She was right about the group, and off about JQ. I can see why she lumped him in in that group, though I agree a stronger case could be made against doing so than in favor of it.


then you need to jive that with:

I agree... I don't think that getting some of these historical details correct, off the cuff, is really that important in assessing a candidate.

this.
 
A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????

and explained himself. when do you see Obama admitting that the Stimulus was a flop, or that Obamacare is going to raise the deficit and the cost of healthcare?
 
A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????

Yup! It's like they're not even in the same conversation, they're just there to yodel their 'truth'.

BTW: Weigh in here, please.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-dig-gop-trying-sabotage-economy-purpose.html
 
Just the facts, Jack!

In fact, John Quincy Adams was just 8 when the Declaration of Independence was signed and just 20 when the Constitution was being cobbled together at a convention that agreed to a “compromise” that identified a slave as three-fifths of a human being. He did not sign either document. Nor did he participate in any significant manner in the debates regarding those documents—or the compromises contained in them—until the last years of his life.

John Quincy Adams was not considered a prominent ally of American abolitionists in his teens or his 20s, or his 30s, or his 40s, or his 50s. Only as he approached the age of 70, after finishing his one term as president, did Adams emerge as an outspoken critic of human bondage. When he did so, his was a radical act of departure from the corrupt political consensus that allowed slavery to be maintained. Adams’s courageous stance in opposition to states rights and in favor of a strong federal government with a commitment to liberty and justice for all is surely worthy of note.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16179...her-teapot-patriots-do-not-know-about-america
 
Last edited:
I suppose if the populace needs a political blogger to discuss American history, that's their prerogative. "Just the facts, Jack", yeah, sure, but this is kind of.....sigh..

Folks, pick up some books not written by popular historians or journalists, please.
 
Last edited:
And Bachman, a Presidential candidate, doesn't know that J.Q Adams was not only NOT a founding father, but was born LONG after the founding fathers founding this country. So, what do each of these things prove? Just that partisan hacks on each side will make big deals out of them because they are... partisan hacks.

So, under the Bachman standard, you are now disqualified from commenting on this further in this thread.

For the record, he was born well before the Revolutionary War (1767) and was in service to the country as early as 1794 when he was appointed as Ambassador to the Netherlands...
 
From my limited understanding of US history, I don't think she was wrong at all in her views of John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams may very well have been involved in the many protests and shows of support against imperial rule as a young boy. I mean there's no proof of it to my knowledge but it's not unlikely. As for her comments on slavery, I'm surprised anybody would claim that the Founding Fathers worked to end it when many had their fortunes had been built on slavery. However, that seems to be the new fad in Conservative history. Rewrite history and make sure we look like a nation who really took the worlds "All men are created equal" seriously.
 
From my limited understanding of US history, I don't think she was wrong at all in her views of John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams may very well have been involved in the many protests and shows of support against imperial rule as a young boy. I mean there's no proof of it to my knowledge but it's not unlikely. As for her comments on slavery, I'm surprised anybody would claim that the Founding Fathers worked to end it when many had their fortunes had been built on slavery. However, that seems to be the new fad in Conservative history. Rewrite history and make sure we look like a nation who really took the worlds "All men are created equal" seriously.


There really is not any Rewrite of History (Conservative or otherwise). History as a field of study always changes as we learn more, uncover new documents etc, and continue to wade through piles of writings that have not before been studied.

Specifically in the area of the founders and their views on slavery, as well as their actions, unless you are an expert in this field of hitorical research, I doubt you have ever heard much on the topic. It is unfortunate, but true that our education system by design just skims the surface of our history (any one's for that matter), and what is presented is often influenced by current culture and politics. One easy example - the terms Carpetbagger and Skalawags are used in the common sense as derogatory terms as a result of post reconstruction framing of US History. If you think about the people they are applied to, you would see they should be terms of honor. A Carpetbagger - for the most part, was primarily teachers, doctors etc - who moved from the North to the South to work to advance the inclusion and education of freed slaves in the democratic process. A Scalawag aimed at the same goal, except they were native Southernors.
 
Maybe JQA was the guy shooting his gun off while Paul Revere was ringing the bells and riding his horse.
 
She gave a dumb answer. It's about as dumb as "57 states." Both are incorrect and dumb statements, but if one doesn't disqualify a candidate from being President, then the other one doesn't either. I think you liberals should give up the chase. Your candidate leads the parade. And let's not forget the current VEEP too. Woof!

Maybe this is just evidence that American History should be better taught in schools and those schools should be public, private, and parochial.

There is a huge difference between mis-speaking and not understanding. Obama mis spoke, Bachman (and you) do not understand.
 
Obama can't even pronounce the word "Corpsman" right. He pronounces it "Corpseman".

People have different accents, seriously.... That's like people making a big deal out of Bush saying nuclear. He is from the south. Obama is from the North, and people in the North pronounce s's harsher than in the south. People in the south tend to mumble more too.
 
At age 12...??

She must be trying to out-idiot Palin.
 
Maybe JQA was the guy shooting his gun off while Paul Revere was ringing the bells and riding his horse.

When he went to "warn the British"? :lol:

Methinks Bachmann and Palin are copying each other's homework.
 
I suppose if the populace needs a political blogger to discuss American history, that's their prerogative. "Just the facts, Jack", yeah, sure, but this is kind of.....sigh..

Folks, pick up some books not written by popular historians or journalists, please.

Is there anybody you can recommend that isn't a total snooze-fest?
 
Bachman thinks you can pray away the 'gay'.

But can you pray away the 'stupid'??
 
Back
Top Bottom