Michele Bachmann Gains in Strength: Can She Get the Republican Nomination?
On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace turned to his guest Michele Bachmann and asked her, “Are you a flake?” Later he apologized, explaining that he only meant to seek her answer to what others in the media and elsewhere were saying about her. But what Bachmann did in response helped establish the command she has in the Iowa caucus, and the growing respect of so many for her, including those who are her political enemies.
Instead of complaining about the question, aside from saying that it was an insult because she is a “serious person,” she used the opportunity to make it crystal clear why the very charge is more than insulting. Said Bachmann:
Well, I would say is that I am 55 years old. I’ve been married 33 years. I’m not only a lawyer, I have a post doctorate degree in federal tax law from William and Mary. I work in serious scholarship and work in the United States federal tax court.
My husband and I raised five kids. We’ve raised 23 foster children. We’ve applied ourselves to education reform. We started a charter school for at-risk kids.
I’ve also been a state senator and a member of United States Congress for five years. I’ve been very active in our business.
As a job creator, I understand job creation. But also I’ve been leading actively the movement in Washington, D.C., with those who are affiliated with fiscal reform.
Many of her detractors undoubtedly learned of her accomplishments at that moment, and must have been stunned to hear especially about her master’s degree in tax law from William and Mary. Readers of The Weekly Standard are not among those, however, who were surprised. The cover story this week by Matthew Continetti lays out in detail how Bachmann, whom he dubs the “Queen of the Tea Party,” got to where she is today. Despite the opposition of the Republican Party leadership, Bachmann is likely to beat Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, as well as gain the mainstream credibility she has lacked up to now.
One can disagree with her politics and her approach to some issues, and still acknowledge that Bachmann is both serious and principled. As Continetti reveals, she is a talented fund-raiser, a woman who takes principled stands on issues she believes in and who knows what she is talking about on fiscal issues. I was surprised to learn that when she finished high school, Bachmann went to Israel to work on a kibbutz, driving on a flatbed truck at 4 am to cotton fields to pull out weeds, surrounded by IDF soldiers protecting the members.
Her support for Israel stems from that experience, and is not a politically motivated recent concern. Continetti writes:
“If you consider what it was like in 1948,” she said, “and literally watch flowers bloom in a desert over time — I don’t know if any nation has paralleled the rise of Israel since 1948.” A member of Christians United for Israel, she’s one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress. One Jewish Minnesota Republican has told me of speeches at local Republican Jewish Coalition events where Bachmann has brought cheering audiences to their feet.
She is a determined, strong woman who worked three jobs to put herself through college. Later she and the man who would be her husband endorsed and worked for Jimmy Carter in 1976, whom they saw as a fellow evangelical Christian, even driving to Washington to attend his inauguration. Quickly disillusioned by Carter’s policies, Bachmann proclaimed herself a Republican. She never looked back.
Once she got to Congress, Continetti writes that she eschewed what most freshman members of Congress do, which is to keep a low profile and build coalitions. Instead, she chose to use her position as a platform to expound the ideas she believed in. Often compared to Sarah Palin, Continetti explains the major difference between the two Republican women:
Whereas Palin makes emotional and cultural appeals to her supporters, Bachmann formulates an argument. She talks like a litigating attorney, and her speeches, op-eds, and interviews are littered with references to books and articles. Not all of her references are conservative. During our recent interview, Bachmann cited Lawrence Wright’s history of al Qaeda, The Looming Tower (“I love that book!”), to illustrate a point about the rise of radical Islam.
What does unite them, of course, is that the left and the liberals have nothing but utter contempt for both of them. Hence we will continue to hear that Bachmann is simply Palin redux. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only question is whether or not Bachmann can expand her Republican base constituency and evangelical supporters to attract the votes of both independents and more centrist Republicans. At Commentary’s Contentions, Jonathan S. Tobin writes that “in just a few weeks Bachmann has elevated herself from a second tier curiosity to a serious contender for the GOP nomination.” She has been considered a flame-thrower and an extremist, someone whose flame will die out after the Iowa caucuses, leaving her in the position Mike Huckabee held in the last presidential race. As it is turning out, however, the mainstream Jon Huntsman is hardly gathering any support, while more and more Republicans are finding Bachmann more and more credible as a possible candidate.
As Tobin aptly writes,
Bachmann has shown herself in recent weeks to be a polished and articulate candidate who has carefully modulated her statements and demonstrated she is ready for prime time. As analyst Nate Silver wrote in today’s New York Times, her polling numbers are simply terrific. She isn’t merely competing with the frontrunners who are supposed to be out of her class; she has the best favorability ratings of any candidate.
And Silver adds that she might very well even win the Republican nomination.
If that indeed is the final outcome — we are of course a long way from the convention — be assured that the Obama team will do all it can to paint her as an out-of-touch, far-right extremist; a woman who would destroy the nation and throw it into a final downward spiral. Tobin writes that what Bachmann must do, if she is to be the nominee, is “to stay on message, avoid foolish mistakes and also develop a coherent approach to foreign policy that will make her sound like someone who could actually be president.”
Michele Bachmann has shown that she has the skills to do just that. But to win the presidency, she has to gain the support of many more people than her own base in the Republican Party, and far more than the Christian evangelical community. And she has to gain the support primarily of those critical white working-class voters who now are facing hard times, and who had moved back to the ranks of the Democratic Party, only to show in the most recent polls that they are fed up with the Obama administration. She has to develop an economic policy that will let these voters feel that her policies will give them something to vote for as well.
At any rate, Michele Bachmann cannot be underestimated. She is now a major contender and is gathering more support and enthusiasm than her competitors.
Recently, E.J. Dionne wrote favorably about Jon Huntsman, saying that “he’s the only Republican waging something other than a standard-issue conservative campaign and the only one directing most of his energies toward voters who don’t take their cues from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.” That kind of endorsement will only serve to hurt Huntsman and harm his ability to get the votes of Republicans. Liberal pundits endorsing a Republican as a viable candidate is not something that will endear that person to conservative voters, who want a candidate who articulates a solid alternative to mainstream liberal shibboleths.
It is a sure thing that if Bachmann only grows in strength, Dionne will write a column blasting her as this year’s Palin — a far-right Neanderthal who must be defeated at all costs. Undoubtedly, Michele Bachmann knows what is coming down the pike and is going to be prepared for the forthcoming assault.
Let us hope that whomever Republicans choose to nominate, it will be someone who can beat Obama solidly come the next presidential election day.
Addendum:
In her speech announcing her candidacy on Monday, Bachmann made what her opponents quickly condemned as a typical gaffe. Speaking in Waterloo, Iowa, she promised to match the spirit of Waterloo’s own John Wayne. The only problem is that it was not John Wayne who heralded from the town, but the famous serial killer John Wayne Gacy. Wayne, the movie actor, lived in Winterset, a three-hour drive from Waterloo. Wayne Gacy, the murderer, lived in Waterloo.
Making a big deal about this, to my mind, is much ado about nothing. Anyone could make such an error. But as it turns out, the actor Wayne had a very real tie to Waterloo, Iowa. His parents met and got married there, but soon after, moved to Winterset. Bachmann may very well have read this in a popular biography of Wayne, and remembered incorrectly his reference to Waterloo.
Anyway, her point was clear. As the Washington Times article notes, Bachmann, rejecting the idea that America has to go into decline, said: “I grew up with John Wayne’s America. I was proud that you grew up in John Wayne’s America: Proud to be an American, thrilled to be a patriot.” Whether it was Waterloo or Winterset, she has made her argument as strong as she could.
Michelle Bachmann is still only a member in the House of Representatives. Most Americans also feel uncomfortable electing a woman to the top spot. Bachmann will probably be Rick Perry’s running mate. And this ticket will easily beat Obama in 2012—if he does not resign long before then.
I find that people are more than ready to elect a woman president and that those who knock her experience and then make that claim are usually projecting. It would be a “historic first,” no less than obama, who had no trouble getting votes, fool that he was. She is just beginning to be forged by the fire in a way that no male or female liberal would be; let’s see how she does beore passing judgement (or just dismissing her). (Oh, and speaking of female liberals, there is evidence that Hillary Clinton did quite well in those states that held primaries and not just caucuses, which are easily marked by fraud. She could easily be in obama’s seat right now, which disproves the idea that politics is still an Old Boys Club.)
Conservatves are known for their wisdom in judging people by ideology and action rather than race or gender, as some do.
That’s my sense, too. Perry/Bachmann 2012, election over by midnight EST.
Gays, if recent events are any indicator, have made great progress, but do you really think America is ready for its first gay president? I know, I know, you’re going to say that’s just some liberal smear rumor, but that’s what you guys said about Larry Craig too. Hopefully, Perry had better taste than Craig. I’m waiting for the gay bomb story of the 7 year relationship he had with a male intern. You can bet it’s coming!
Do you think Perry was a top or bottom?
Now THERE’S a fart in the room. ???
Well, the gay accusation has already come up in Perry’s last campaign and did not seem to have much credibility or traction.
You have to admit that was a pretty good response from Michele, and Wallace shouldn’t have apologized for asking the question since he got such a good response.
I haven’t ruled out voting for her.
Obama will be handily re-elected. Get used to it. Florida will go for Obama again easily. But I understand how comfortable it is in your own echo chamber. The country is certainly not going to go with the party that wants to gut Social Security and Medicare and turn them into risky privatized voucher schemes. 2012 will be more like 2008, not 2010. The country has has enough fascism from the teabagging GOP.
Is there something you do not understand about being broke?
“Broke” has nothing to do with gutting programs that people have paid into all their life and have a reasonable expectation that they will be there when the retire. Even though they are government administered insurance policies for retirement and health care, the government has a obligation to make good on the contract.
How would you like it if you paid into a private annuity (SS is a public annuity) and then all of a sudden they just said, oops, sorry, we’re broke? I’m guessing you’d be pretty upset. I would be.
The two situations are really no different. The only difference is in who is administering the insurance policy.
I heartily agree. This would be my dream team. There is no question as to Bachman’s credentials but she is striving for identification and lacking in demonstrated leadership capability, both of which Perry has ,plus a charisma. After serving as VP or even in a lesser cabinet role, she will be more viable. I believe, also, that this is the pair that Palin will be most willing to put her important weight behind. Palin will never offer herself as a candidate. Her adoring fans and her bitter critics do not understand that she would HATE taking any office in the Administration. Her brief experience with McCain purged her of any iota of desire for involvement in Washington. She has no personal political ambitions, sees her role as cheerleader for candidates with the same vision as herself: The job is easier, she loves the reception she gets, and the pay is better.
The November elections demonstrated very, very clearly that Palin is a kingmaker. I daresay whomever she backs will win.
Perry/Bachmann is a potential landslide ticket.
Ron – Watch the fierce attack by the LSM on Michelle Bachmann. They will try to do to her what they did to Sarah Palin. I can only hope that the electorate has learned its lesson after the last election (which is, don’t even trust the page numbers on the pages of the LSM). I would make one correction to your column. It is where you say: [whether Bachmann] can bypass her Republican base. I don’t think you mean that. I think you mean something like ‘expand her Republican base.’
“Whereas Palin makes emotional and cultural appeals to her supporters, Bachmann formulates an argument.”
So….
Bachman -Palin
Brains and brawn!
Can you feel the force……:-)
interesting duo. maybe then we can get a vice president that actually works.
While I have nothing but admiration for Representative Bachmann, she’s no more qualified to be POTUS than the unicorn rider was 3 years ago.
Tnx to Tea Party aclaim last summer, Representative Bachmann let her ego go “National”.
The Representative should have run for MN Governor, thereby saving her state from Dayton, and earned the executive experience any competent POTUS needs.
Regardless of her beliefs, she’s let her ego drive her to this unwinnable run. No wonder they call us the “stupid party”!
I think that’s what makes me nervous about her, too.
On the other hand, maybe she’s just really, really determined. We know that she’s smart as a whip and willing to fight for what’s right. Maybe she has a plan, and figures the time is right to go with it. Hey, anyone who’s raised 28 kids has got to be ONE TOUGH COOKIE!
I think the Left is greatly underestimating Bachmann. Even the Daily Kos is wanting her to get the nomination.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/06/the-daily-kos-hopes-michele-bachman-is-the-gop-nominee-that-gives-obama-a-second-term.html
I think she would not be afraid to take it to Obama in a debate and that is what we need.
The Daily Kos is known for “hoping” that strong conservatives are the nominee and oten state their supposed fear of candidates like Romney. Hmmm.
The thought of a head-to-head debate between Obama and Bachmann makes me salivate! Also — oh, if only! — a debate between Obama and Paul Ryan. (WHOOEEE!) Or a debate between Obama and Allen West (Bring it on!)
I can dream….
Bachman and Palin are “taking the arrows”. One will be on the ticket.
When Bachman, or anyone else, makes a mistake of fact, I nod and smile, whereas if they make a mistake of process I “nod and smile.”
To err is human. To be stupid and not get is is something else. Mistakes of fact in conversation don’t make much difference to most– unless they’re looking for a fight or some excuse to harm another. To be a creep and a thug, which is not to say I refer to Obama, is something fundamentally bad, even if he got his facts right most of the time.
You know, I’m getting pretty tired of this “Well I’m good enough to support a woman, but since others aren’t so enlightened as I and won’t vote for a woman, I can’t either,” nonsense!
I thinkd conservatives are ready, willing, and able to support and vote for someone they feel confident will not stab them in the back. Anyone!
White Man, Black Man, White Woman or Black Woman. Period!
To understand the mind-set of hard line conservatives, (I voted for the Republican in every election beginning with Nixon) keep in mind they are as chauvinistic as the founding fathers. It is no accident that government gave women the right to vote a full fifty years after they gave black males that right. What does that tell you about white hard core conservative males?
uh, wait, let me guess….
bupkis?
please define “hard line conservatives” (as you see them) based on the politics of say, 1790 thru 1900…party by party. Many (if not most) observers, at the time of the emergence of the Republican Party, considered them to be “Radicals” – yep fault them for blowing off women’s sufferage in their efforts to achieve votes for negros, but please…The origans of the “Republican Party” are about as “Radical” as you can be and still get in to power.
please deliniate the efforts of the major political parties, prior to F.D.R. say, party by party, to achieve universal sufferage.
please explain why, during the 1850′s, the Democratic Party could be considered anything but “hard line conservatives”…aka pro slavery, pro Dred Scott, founders of the KKK, etc.
Not actually thinking you will answer in any intelligent fashion…
how bloody stupid do you think I am?
I’m beginning to think that Michele Bachmann could be the one. She is a very good conservative and has a much better and way more impressive background than Obama did when he ran for president. She has accomplished much and seems dedicated to the cause of pulling America away from this social-welfare madness that Obama has plunged us into. She also seems as honest and as dedicated as they come. And if she gets the nomination and picks Jim DeMint as a running mate, you KNOW that the conservatives are heading back to town in Washington. So I wish her well and I really, honestly, do think she can win.
Women can save the world, as they have in the past. The Bible is full of the heroism of women in political roles. Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Shifra, Puah, Miriam, Deborah, and Esther come to mind. They serve as eternal role models that allow women of the present to point at them and gain encouragement and allow men to support them, because in the past women were successful at life-preserving and nation-preserving actions when the moment required their strength. Michelle Bachmann (I will not fall into the trap of calling her only Michelle) can take her lead from these women and others through history who came to the scene and saved the world for the next generation.
The upcoming presidential campaign will be about issues, not personalities. America is waiting for someone who can best outline those issues and will follow through on them, reversing the scourge of progressivism that got us into the mess we’re in today.
Bachmann could be the one. If she stays on message and plainly states what she will do once in office, she’ll get my vote. If she were to add Cain as her VP, all the better.
If Obama wins again, we’ve had it as a country. She is quite correct when she says we can’t afford four more years of him. I would even go so far as to say that conservative Republicans will keep the House and gain seats, and take the Senate too. It’s my belief that Obama will be defeated in a landslide not unlike Reagan’s.
We got fooled once, that was enough. Most of my friends who admit to voting for Obama are saying never again.
Alas, Bachman will not get the Republican nomination as she has too much substance, character, and experience. The Repub. search goes on to find an ineffectual, McCain type loser who will get their ass kicked by the biggest phony of them all B.H. Obama who had only the experience of carrying a clip board and a black chip on his sholder. Shallow wins the day with establishment Republicans and their passive supporters. Too bad for us all.
KRC, perhaps you’d feel less glum about our prospects if you were involved in actively working to make sure conservatives WIN.
Please quit being an Eeyore here, and get over to the Precinct Project and/or to Procinct and for heaven’s sake, GET BUSY!
As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win the world is for good men to do nothing.”
It’s amusing to consider all the newsprint and airtime devoted by the Democrats to trashing Sarah Palin and making her unelectable, only for them to find themselves facing yet another Momma Grizzly. Cynics, prognosticators, assorted know-it-alls and self-appointed sages who are certain that Michele Bachmann is unelectable are just blowing smoke and sounding wise.
We’re looking for a vigorous young Margaret Thatcher and Michele Bachmann could fill the bill. My only regret is that a Bachmann-Palin or Palin-Bachmann ticket is probably a bridge too far.
You go girl!!!! America’s Margaret Thatcher.
Interestingly enough, the problem with Bachmann’s sex isn’t with men – men will, for the most part, follow a strong leader. It’s with other women. Historically, it’s the women voters that tear apart any perceived weakness in other women and are skeptical of a women who is “too perfect”.
On another note, If Bachmann is going to be taken seriously, she has got to start watching out for gaffe’s. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/
gaffe’s? Like Obamas 57 States? Dead or alive medal of honor recipients? Like Bidens who knows how many gaffe’s?
While I don’t agree with some of Michele’s politics, I respect and even admire her. She’s got a real spine and real guts. Unlike Sarah Palin, who quit her job as governor and continues to be coy about her future political ambitions, Michele Bachmann leaves no doubt that she wants to rise in politics, maybe all the way to the White House.
Let’s also remember how the liberal attacks on Sarah Palin got started in the first place. Back in 2008, when word got out that McCain was going to choose Palin as his running mate, initially the reaction from the liberal media was a combination of puzzlement and interest.
Then Sarah Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was going to have a baby out of wedlock, and the roof fell in. The liberals now had exactly the narrative they wanted–a conservative Christian whose own family commits sins–and off they went.
That doesn’t seem to be a problem for Michele Bachmann. Her family history, with all those foster children and all, is different and much harder to attack.
Instead, that hit piece in The Rolling Stone was all about Bachmann’s religious beliefs. But attacking someone for being a devout Christian is not going to sell anywhere but San Francisco and New York City. What’s Obama going to say, “I’m not as devout a Christian as Michele Bachmann is”?? Janeane Garofalo will love that, but no one else will.
Sinz, what you are seeing is the liberal media holding their fire on Bachman while she serves as a stalking horse for Romney vs their twin nightmares, Perry & Palin. Palin, & to a lesser extent Perry, are already immunized against the slime machine. The public has heard & digested it all and in an actual campaign will dismiss the preferred narrative when presented by a candidate with chops in an interview or debate. Palin has both. So does Bachman, but any “dirt” dug up on her if she’s got the nomination or the veep slot for that matter will seem fresh & newsworthy. And with respect to the stalking horse theory, are you not a little perturbed by the comments of her campaign manager & her refusal to disavow them or fire Rollins? Might that explain why the usual RINO/establishment dismissers of the likes of Bachman are greasing her skids?
I just saw the following headline on Yahoo.de news after I signed out from my eMail:
US Republican Bachmann names serial murder as idol
You can say she got John Wayne’s hometown wrong, but did she mention a serial murderer? This is all spin to discredit any Republican. None of Obama’s idiocies make it across the pond, and if he does something the Euros don’t like it will be America as a whole that takes the blame.
correct me if I am wrong, but all these women had the hand of God on their side.
I dont know if I know enough about MB to figure out if I like her. Having said that, it is INCREDIBLE how poorly the media treats female candidates. If Joe Biden says something stupid, it is “just ‘ol Joe”. If MB says something dumb, she is a flake.
There have been some comments to the effect that it is women who will not vote for another woman. My carefully considered opinion is that if Donald Duck were running against President Obama, he would win.
“Anyone could make such an error.”
Why make excuses? Respnd the Bachmann way: She never said it. It’s an urban legend.
Oh, please. Wayne’s parents were from her hometown. You think folks from there have not latched onto ownership of him? She probably heard all her life that John Wayne hailed from her town… “Well, not exactly, but practically so.”
I swear, folks hear all this political stuff in a vacuum. They never think about how folks simply behave, and so, do not relate the talk to the realities of people. Folks are just inexact. Her getting it slightly wrong is just how people are.
It is not like she is getting some important foreign policy position wrong. Remember Biden in the last VP debate? He mixed up which Palestinian group was in charge of Gaza, and which the West Bank. He asserted we had kicked Hizbollah out of Lebanon. He insisted that Pakistani nuclear missiles could hit Israel, when they cannot even come close. It’s even okay not to know these things, but to get it totally wrong in your strong assertion? And to be the foreign policy expert on the ticket?
Bachmann’s statement is not even a blip on my radar. You have to know what is important. That requires being an adult and focusing on adult things and having an adult conversation. The criticism of her on this is just childish “nyah, nyah” stuff.
CNN is already doing to Bachmann what they did to Palin. Every single day they re-play Bachmann’s gaffes, SNL skits, etc. They are portraying her as an another idiot. (Unlike their “genius” Obama, which CNN is already campaigning for).
Nothing wrong with people like Bachmann serving in the House of Reps but she has no business being anywhere near the Oval Office. She is a flake although a loveable one a la B-1 Bob Dornan and Ron Paul. I guess we will once again see Iowa elevate a candidate to 15 minutes of Presidential fame: see Huckabee, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes. Of course Iowa has heaped upon us the likes of Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Obama, Bush I and Bob Dole.
Sorry Ronnie: Anyone who says that George Washington worked dilligently to eliminate slavery, and anyone who wanted to set up an investigation (by the press or by congress) to examine the loyalty of members of congress, in my mind qualifies as a flake.
Bachmann is a perfect example of grade inflation if their ever was one. I mean she doesn’t even know basic history. Next thing we’ll be hearing from her is Betsy Ross should be commended for not sitting at the back of the bus.
Actually, George Washington did make serious efforts to end slavery. He freed some of his slaves during his lifetime, and only the complexities of his slaves and Martha’s slaves having intermarried made it impractical to free all of his slaves. (Martha’s slaves were dower property, and therefore beyond his authority to free.) His will provided that upon his death and Martha’s death, all were to be freed. The lawyers for their heirs managed to stop that from happening.
Michelle Bachmann is the nearest thing to Margaret Thatcher that the conservative movement posesses.
Perhaps one can take your comment as satire. If not, see VP Candidate Lloyd Bentsen comment about Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK.
Milk Snatcher Thatcher couldn’t hold a candle to any American with Ms Bachmann’s grasp of the American Declaration of Independence, united States Constitution, bill of rights and The Federal Papers.
And Vice President Quayle; never a mobbed-up presidential-election-stealing second-generation war-profiteering satyr gangster — nor a drug addict — stood head and shoulders and moral integrity taller than any bloody Kennedy yet born!
Sorry, but anyone who thinks that “creationism” should be taught as a science(!) definitely qualifies as a flake, and shouldn’t be holding any public office – not even congresswoman.
(Just a brief note from the reality based community – now back to your regular programming…..)
Are you “John Q” Adams rolling over in your grave, hee hee?
And how is your faith in Darwinism these days? Now, that’s science!
I will grant that the MSM is out to get her, but my God, you’ve got to have your act together better than to try to drag in JQA as your first response. The fair statement is that the Founders struggled mightily with the slavery question. Some wanted to get rid of it, some didn’t, and most realized that they just could not stand the risk of non-ratification of DOI and the Constitution. JQA in the second generation, did take a strong (and therefore fairly unrepresentative) stand.
Obama, merely by the fact that he is half-black, undoubtedly knows the story a little better, or maybe he just knows it skewed the other way, but the worst that I know that he has said was that the Constitution was a series of negative liberties, which is certainly not the only way to look at it, but holds up a lot better than ‘the Founders worked tirelessly to end…. But someone here, is it Marc? says that it is better to be wrong on the facts: Bachman, than wrong on the emphasis “negative liberty; Obama.” She is wrong on the facts, whereas he states an approach to government which many here despise.
But yet again, those who supposedly revere the Founders, blather on with some really half-baked ideas about them. Doesn’t she know anything beyond the Golden book view of the Founders, or would American exceptionalism be unable to survive a more balanced view? The problem seems to be that in the need to say something about how great we are, she says something odd, and then rather than simply going to an easy and accurate fall-back position that SOME of them worked hard, she jumps to JQA. But then, maybe the term Founders is inclusive and includes Lincoln and Roosevelt, too. If that is the case then Obama may yet be one of the Founders (and Bachman too).
Yeah, it bugged me, too, the way she doubled down on JQA. I know she’s super-smart in some ways — but it keeps feeling like there’s something about her that’s just a tad off.
Neither Rick Santorum nor Thad McCotter would have goofed that question. They know history and they’re very articulate, especially McCotter. I wish people would quit writing off Santorum — he’s the only one of the bunch who’s in the same league as Gingrich when it comes to foreign affairs, particularly the global struggle against radical Islam. As for McCotter, he says he doesn’t know if he’ll run, but he did snag a prime spot of land at the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll… worth watching.
…. Obama, merely by the fact that he is half-black, undoubtedly knows the story a little better ….
“Half black” is now a measure of one’s ability to know stuff?
If that’s so, why don’t we have a “whole black” pretender, in place of the half-witted half-arsed half-black presently be-squatting and be-manuring our apparently only half White House?
“The fair statement is that the Founders struggled mightily with the slavery question. Some wanted to get rid of it, some didn’t, and most realized that they just could not stand the risk of non-ratification of DOI and the Constitution.”
Even many of the slaveholders knew that it was wrong, but could not find a way to get rid of it. See Jefferson’s comparison of slavery to holding a wolf by the ears. See Pinckney’s explanation to the South Carolinians for why there was no bill of rights in the Constitution adopted at Philadelphia–a clear statement that slavery was wrong, and they should stop being hypocrites about it. Much of the enthusiasm for slavery develops later, after the cotton gin makes slavery more economically important.
Ms Bachmann is a most impressive lawyer/administrator, is demonstrably-analy-retentive and after a time in an executive position, as a governor, perhaps, or as the payroll-responsible CEO of a profitable company, might prove a viable presidential candidate.
United States of America’s President and Armed Forces Commander-In-Chief-Elect Sarah Louise Ronald Wilson Reagan Heath Palin, on the other hand, needs no introduction and is already a New York City to a single brick lay down misère shoe-in for both the nomination and the office!
Better luck next time Governor-Elect Bachmann
Sadly, Bachmann would not have a prayer of winning a Minnesota governor’s race, even up against the certifiable looney who currently occupies the office.
Al Franken is a bigger looney. Transformed for you from AirAmerican goo to Minnesota legislature zoo.
I win. Hand over your wallet.
Sule, have you ever been near Minnesota? Do you recall the Allen Quist-Julie Quist gubernatorial debacle? The Arne Carlson-Jon Grunseth nonsense? Do you know anything about the legacy media goo-goo hold on the public narrative that still controls the debate here, in ways it does not any other place around?
The goo-goo tax increasers still have a 1970′s vision of “Minnesota nice, the state that works” idea, and you cannot defeat them with camera time soundbites. Bachmann’s problem is that she plays the game with cliche and hit-and-run. That works in her district because it is amenable, and because it is small enough that she can personally glad-hand everyone there to prove that she is not the wicked flaky witch of Distr. 6. Any office that requires media buys will not work for her, and the newspapers will all reinforce the hit pieces of Education Minnesota and the StarTrib. We’ve seen it over and over, which is why John Hinderaker of Powerline has the same opinion as I do.
I am sure Bauchmann is a nice lady but if you listen closely she says the same things over and over. Reminds me of a doll where you pull the string and it repeats 3 or 4 statements. That doesn’t mean she is dumb despite her really bad staff and no personal experience reading a history book, it does mean she thinks we are dumb. And she may be right as many journalists and pundits seem to be quite taken with her. Gee whiz, maybe our choice in the primaries will be between “Church Lady Bauchmann” and “Cheerleader Palin” who share egos much larger than their talents. They are smart, pretty, have much to offer just not as President of the U.S. I hear, they would be better than Obama – we got to do better, folks. A little substance would be nice. Don’t much like Pawlenty but the man has substance, solutions, experience while these two lovely ladies – well they just aren’t Maggie Thacther so it has nothing to do with their sex as I am also a girl.
Pretty close, Janeway. I will confess to one bias here. I am big fan of Pawlenty, after watching him closely for more than a decade (from before he was governor). He is precisely the kind of grown-up, steel hand in an angora glove that we need right now. I’ve only seen him make two mistakes as governor, and institute very forward-looking systemic changes for future survival. If I could wave a wand and pick my president, I would put him as #1 on my own list. Perry would be #2.
Pawlenty’s current lack of support among the more enthusiastic TEA Party crowd tells me more about them than about him.
I always thought that Bachmann was a stalking horse for Pawlenty so that he could split the female conservative vote between her and Palin. I think the major flaw for Pawlenty is a deep seated jealousy and hatred for Palin gettting the VP nomination in 2008 ahead of him. Again, I imagine his ears perked as he overheard “hockey playing”, “northern state” and “Christian” in a McCain campaign meeting only to look bad preemptively standing up to take the nomination.
I live about 10 minutes from her district. I admire and like her as a person, and agree with her on most issues. I even have a sort of personal connection, because Bachmann’s first state senate campaign saw her defeating a very old friend of mine who is a fine lady and for whom I would never vote except as organizer of the high school reunion. If Bachmann were the general election candidate, I would vote for her- if it was a primary, no way.
Why? Because she still goes first for the cameras- faster than Chuck Schumer (if that’s possible) when given a choice between doing homework and hip-shooting in the media. If you are going to be a viable national candidate rather than a TEA Party primary darling, such as Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell, you need to appeal to the 20% middle, and that is perfectly possible to do while holding solid conservative views (except for the gold standard looniness and social issues cliches).
Tone is important, and so is avoiding the kinds of gaffes that a left-wing media will ignore from its own while trumpeting from our side. One slip (Concord Mass v. NH) you can overcome. But we have a pattern here, and the left will pound it into the ground. Bachmann as a nominated candidate is Goldwater v. Johnson redux.
But she is still a fine and admirable lady.
FYI: Bachmann Addresses Security Provisions in the Patriot Act. You must watch this.
Then you must decide if she is for real, or establishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mos0blynBiI&feature=digest
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
I am not a Bachman supporter but the errors she makes seem very strange. If she is weak in her knowlege of history, she should avoid the topic. Some of the errors make me wonder about her common sense….She didn’t have to mention John Wayne at all so why do it…… she got herself into that mess. I don’t believe her excuse for erring about the beginning of the Revolutionary war. I think it is pointless for her supporters to try to cover for errors such as that; She’s supposed to be well educated so why does she make those goofs. She seems to try too hard to do what swhe thinks (or someone thinks) will please the crowd. I think many of obama’s errors are due to poor education and lack of a real “American” background and Biden’s are due to speaking before thinking about how it sounds.