Reading Matt Taibbi’s seemingly slanderous Rolling Stone piece on Michele Bachmann, his sheer disdain for the Minnesotta politician is more than evident. The article dances between attacks on Bachmann’s image to disagreement over her past policies, but the most defining fixture is Taibbi’s overt disgust over Bachmann’s Christian views (the article is entitled “Michele Bachman’s Holy War“).
All-in-all, the piece is an attempt to discredit the congresswoman and GOP presidential candidate, while dismissing her as a laughable troll who has no place running for the American presidency (I’m not editorializing here. This truly seems to be its purpose).
Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions. She believes that the Chinese are plotting to replace the dollar bill, that light bulbs are killing our dogs and cats, and that God personally chose her to become both an IRS attorney who would spend years hounding taxpayers and a raging anti-tax Tea Party crusader against big government.
Taibbi even calls Bachmann “bats**t crazy,” while comparing her to Kim Jong Il; he wonders if she is a “…rare breed of political psychopath, equal parts crazed Divine Wind kamikaze-for-Jesus.” The attacks are relentless and, in Rolling Stone fashion, they go on for pages (readers actually have to click “next” at least three times to reach the end of Taibbi’s vicious editorial rant).
In further addressing the anti-Christian tone of the piece, Taibbi mocks the notion that God speaks to mankind. Aside from bringing up a vision from God that Bachmann claims she and her husband both saw prior to meeting one another, Taibbi uses the following example to degrade her spiritual views:
She would later profess to complete surprise at God’s choice for her field of study. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” she said. “Why should I go and do something like that?” Still, she sucked it up and did as she was told. “The Lord says: Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”
These mentions are only a small portion of what is contained in the author’s hit piece. While there are certainly valid criticisms worth exploring — criticisms that responsible journalists would be within their bounds to examine — Taibbi’s attacks on Bachmann are slightly offsetting. You can see for yourself by reading the entire piece here.
This morning, Taibbi discussed his article on Imus’ radio show. In the interview, he describes the piece as a “profile” on Bachmann and contends that she’s not stupid. He tells Imus:
“The basic thesis is that everybody laughs at her because…she’s hilariously funny…but uh…she’s got a shot. She’s got a real shot..of…of winning the nomination…um…”
So, is this piece a “profile” or an attempt to hamper her nomination chances? Decide for yourself. Watch the Imus interview, below, for more: