why was this article printed? do a little research about your subject ( is this article a political one? is about sequels? is it about copyright infringement? )
you demonstrate you bias by insulting the easy targets and not knowing much about the subject where this article was published (music).tom petty and katrina and the waves do have legal standing; see jackson browne vs. john mccain in 2008. the mccain campaign ended up owing money to browne because of copyright infringement.
but the larger issue is how often people misinterpret the lyrics of songs - 'born in the usa' is about the loss of the american dream, not a jingoistic feel good song about being american. 'american girl' is about a party girl wanting to get laid, which i guess is a feel good song about being american.
a more appropriate song for bachmann would be grand funk railroad's 'American Woman'; but since they are a canadian band, she could use lenny kravitz cover. this would actually be closer to this articles premise that bachmann is a sequel - i think more like a cover version, same schtick different person.
Thanks, guest, for observing one obvious way in which Wade is wrong here. Wade, you're also wrong about McCain v Browne -- that suit was filed over unauthorized use of "Running on Empty" in a campaign ad, meaning it's unauthorized use in media. Playing a song over the loudspeaker at a campaign rally and putting it in a political commercial are two different things, and for the former, there is no real legal precedent. Look it up, dude.
And yeah, I get it about the lyric misinterpretation. That was pretty much exactly my point.