This one kinda slipped by us, five days ago. It's from a Fox interview of MB conducted by Greta van S.
Could be a biggie this fall in terms of conservative campaign rhetoric, if the mainstream media doesn't stamp it out:
BACHMANN: ...there are elements in our party for social conservatives that need "Obama care" repealed because it means for the first time in our country, taxpayer-subsidized abortion. That's anathema.
Suppose her side succeeds in turning the issue of "access to health care for working families" into "support for abortion." If that happens, a lot people turn out to vote and "activize" in the campaign. And a lot more of those people who turn out to vote are pro-life, as opposed to pro-choice.
So Dems should be watching for that one this fall ("Obamacare=taxpayer subsidized abortions") and have a fact check and a crushing response ready to go. This framing of Obamacare is a winner for the right (like "Obamacare is government takeover of health care," and "the death panels.")
The context of Bachmann's claim is her endorsement of Mitt Romney. And once again, Bachmann's demagogy shows us our future, this summer. Question: how do you get evangelicals on board to support liberal Republican Mormon Romney, original implementer of Obamacare? Answer: You get those conservative evangelicals on board by telling them that Obama's the "abortion president."
They have the capability to do that, their target voters are already inclined to believe it. It doesn't matter that it's ultimately in the service of comparative liberal Mitt Romney. The leaders of the evangelical right turned out their crowd for liberal Republican John McCain, turn 'em out for McCain on a dime--after years of telling them that McCain was unacceptable in the White House.
Why did they do that? Well, despite their threats: I figure that the worst thing that can happen to the leaders of the American Christian right is that their voters stay home at election time. They now control or significant influence a thrilling number of down-ticket politicians in state and local legislative positions around the country. So in the present circumstances: it doesn't matter that they hate the establishment GOP's presidential candidate. Because it would be insanity to discourage the conservative Christian turnout keeps their tea party and Christian right puppets in the legislatures.
Thus the leaders of the Christian Right want a high turnout from their "flocks" this fall. In my opinion, their ideal result would be "high turnout, Romney loses, their right wing nut candidates are re-elected, even more right wing nuts slip into the legislatures...and conservatives everywhere blame a Romney loss on the GOP establishment."
If Romney wins, the feelings at the top levels of the Christian right will be very mixed. (That's indicated by the lukewarm remarks about Romney you're hearing from them right now. "Anybody but Obama" is not a real endorsement of Mitt Romney, it's actually a kind of insult.) A Romney victory would prove that the secular "Establishment" wing of the GOP is still the most credible leadership for the party--and the leaders of the Christian Right would be uncomfortable with that result. In the end, the leaders of America's Christian right want it all. They want the Establishment Republicans coming to them for favors, not the other way around.
The result and significance of all the preceding is as follows. Even if the national evangelical leadership supplies only lukewarm puffing for Romney, the conservative evangelical voters will turn out for him in their millions. The leaders of the Christian Right are unelected, they are political propagandists and organizer, and they have trained their target voters to turn on a dime. It's proto-fascism; the rank-and-file do what the leaders of the movement say, when they say it--even if it contradicts everything the leaders just said.