Posted on 06/28/2011 1:52:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
There is a reason why the left is suddenly in love with her. Not too hard to figure out. Then again, for a lot of people,maybe it is.
If she said this , and I have no reason to doubt you, then she really really needs to do her homework because IIRC Palin got into politics because of her children.
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to pass the Minnesota bar exam, but I suggest you take a look at it. It’s kinda tough.
1. She has no experience in anything other than being a congresscritter. Obama and his billion dollar campaign will destroy her, and take away a lot of congressional seats the democrats would otherwise lose.
2. The country will see conservatives to be shallow, and mindless nominating someone with no substance. It will set back conservatism for years as it will be seen as a totally impractical ideology.
3. She will always be on the defensive as a result of her lack of accomplishments. That will depress even the base voters.
4. The media will have an absolute field day with her if she pulls this off, and we really don't know how she will react to that kind of pressure. She's already backpedaled enormously with Bob Shieffer (sp?) in the one interview, it was embarrassing. It could be worse than McGovern was for the libs.
5. She gaffes a lot. A ton. It's been one week, and her gaffes have already been legion, had she been the nominee, she'd be the laughing stock of America. Once again, very bad for conservatism.
6. She's a congresscritter, and steeped with strange local votes (such as ethanol and farm subsidies) that will not play nationally and can be used by Obama to grind her right back no matter how much she points out about him. With the media against her, it could be a tidal flood of epic proportions.
Nuff said.
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/did-bachmann-just-trash-sarah-palin-for-having-kids-and-thinking-about-running-for-potus/
Michele Bachmann says Sarah Palin should wait till her children are grown up before she runs for the presidency – and implies that the former Alaska governor should have held off on any kind of White House campaign while she still had children in the house.
In a video from last week’s Faith and Freedom Conference, Bachmann tells conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed, “”We’ve raised a lot of children, five biological children, 23 foster kids,” Bachmann says. “This fall our youngest two will go off to college, so we’re coming to the conclusion now of 29 years of parenting, and I think that’s one life lesson that you learn. That sometimes you have patience and wait to do certain things in your life.“
Reed then says, “There’s a time and a season for everything.“
Bachmann responds, “There’s a time and a season for everything, that’s right.”
Palin is famous for making her family a large part of her 2008 vice-presidential campaign, even though her daughter Bristol was pregnant while the campaign was going on, and went on to become a single teenage mom. She also had a baby son, Trig, in 2008. Trig was diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome before he was born.
This sort of thing is right out of the Ed Rollins playbook. He likes to make attacks personal, as the sort of candidate he usually hooks up with can’t compete on ideas or record of achievement.
We’ve heard so-called “evangelicals” using this line of attack before, that Sarah Palin’s place is at home with the kids, back when Mike Huckabee was still thought to be a contender. It came from his supporters. [though never Governor Huckabee himself] It’s not for nothing that Ed Rollins was Huckabee’s man before working for Bachmann.
Here’s what gets me with this. Michele Bachmann has raised five children and twenty-three foster children, twenty-eight kids in all. That’s commendable, to say the least, but as Bachmann points out, she’s just now seeing the last ones graduate. Bachmann has been in Congress for quite some time. If she followed the same advice she’s giving Sarah Palin, shouldn’t she have waited until this year to get into politics?
Can you say hypocrite?
And I'm not saying passing it is easy.
That would be the company her and her husband run.
last I checked, she did try to run for leadership and was shut out by the old boys. Same reason she has not been able to chair a committee.
The bachmann’s business is a psych clinic.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/57982/michele-bachmann-profits-from-socialized-medicine
Bachmann’s clinic takes in thousands from “socialized medicine”
Bachmann and Associates, Inc., a Christian mental health clinic founded and run by Rep. Michele Bachmann’s husband, has been taking money from Minnesota’s coffers since it was founded in 2003. It’s the latest example of a disjuncture in Bachmann’s rhetoric: the Sixth District Republican has seen her star rise in Tea Party circles for fiery rhetoric opposing government “handouts” and “socialized medicine,” while, again, she’s found to be directly benefiting from government funds. Since 2007, the clinic, run by Marcus Bachmann, has taken in nearly $30,000.
In recent months, Rep. Bachmann has sharply criticized efforts by Democrats to offer a “public option” or a public health insurance plan, calling such ideas “socialized medicine.”
In November 2009, as she was gearing up for her House Call tea party to oppose health care reform, she said, “This is the most effective way we have to kill socialized medicine and to do it this week.”
She added, “Nothing is more effective at reaching a congressman than having a citizen come to Washington, D.C. – not asking for a handout, not asking for tax money, not asking to take some liberty away from somebody else, but just asking for freedom.”
But Minnesota has it’s own version of “socialized medicine” for low-income families, called Medical Assistance, and Bachmann’s family business actively sought to gain access to these taxpayer funds.
It’s bachmaNN, not bachmaN.
But some do wear blinkers............just saying.
All your points sound like “situation normal” to me. They have been made and will be made against any and every GOP candidate/nominee until the cows come home.
Come to think of it, each and every point you made has been and will be levied against every Rat candidate/nominee as well.
IMHO, this is just politics, not a “disaster.”
That said, politics can be mighty ugly and the result for our country can be better or worse.
But none of the points you make are a foregone conclusion, nor are they insurmountable. It just is what it is and, while I completely understand the tenor of your remark and your reasoned, thoughtful reply (thank you), I also think it’s helpful to try to keep perspective as we go through this process.
P.S. Also important: based on the terms of your comment, you and I are having this discussion in the context that says Bachmann *gets the nomination.*
That’s a pretty high hurdle, in my book. Doesn’t guarantee a great candidate, by any means. But it does mean that, for whatever reason, good, bad, indifferent, smart or dumb, a whole bunch of our fellow conservatives gave her their vote. If she gets that far, I think that says a lot about the probability of your worst case disaster scenario. (It lowers the probability.)
There have been many the candidate that, in my view, fitted your worse-case scenario to the “t,” except I knew that lots of other people thought so too. And, therefore, that that candidate really didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
But if someone does actually win the nomination, what can I say? However flawed the process is (and don’t get me wrong, it has flaws), the process delivered a candidate and that means that a fair number of people satisfied themselves that (1) either the risks you raise aren’t likely or (2)the risks you raise are worth risking.
I certainly respect your opinion that Bachmann is not ready to be president.
I’m keeping an open mind on the subject, and I’m not limiting my own concept of “ready” necessarily to certain kinds of experience. I’m also looking for certain leadership qualities, for example.
I don’t listen to Hugh, so can’t comment there. But I will say there seem to be a fair number of somewhat surprising “win-overs” by Mrs. Bachmann. Nothing is being handed to her, that’s for sure. But she seems to be persuading people to her cause. And if she does, sufficiently to win the nomination, that will say something right there.
If you want to vote against her on that basis, suit yourself.
I didn’t hear the exchange and don’t know if there were any qualifiers (such as national politics) or if the account your basing your comments on is accurate.
Mrs. Bachmann may at times be hypercritical, wouldn’t surprise me. But I don’t get the impression she makes a habit of it.
P.S.:
Which Republican candidate/nominee is the media NOT going to be against?
Which Republican candidate/nominee that the media is NOT against (if such a thing were to occur) would not be considered a complete RINO by the Republican base, and, therefore, have no chance anyway?
There's no reason to make our evaluations of candidates based on what the media is going to do or not do. I don't care! The old game is up! The old rules are over!
We The People are now in possession of the greatest fact-check, push-back machine in the world. This will be the first fully new-media, social-media election and it's not going to be like what went down in the past.
ACORN is only sort of gone, the Unions are strong, and the New Black panthers are still out there. Fraud of all kind is a staple of the Chicago Machine and Obama is their guy.
Obama has been in deep doo doo for years; that's besides the point. When push comes to shove, far too many of his previous supporters are still going to show up/be dragged to the polls and vote; right along side of the dead and the illegal.
Did you watch the news tonight? I saw Obama in Iowa. People lined up to be hugged by him, handed over their babies and small kids, and you better believe that they will vote for him, even though he's ruined their quality of life. Frankly, I don't understand it, but it is a fact of life that must NOT be ignored!
Next up, the media...................
Even the N.Y.Times trashed JFK, ONE THE FRONT PAGE, when he was president, THOUGH HE WAS THEIR "DARLING". Now? Are you kidding? LOL
Last time around, Obama and the team skillfully used the net, as well as bedazzled the moronic media. He got to the kids. None of that is going to be all that big a deal, this time around; but the fraud, dirty tricks, and mud slinging will be worse.
As I said earlier, it won't be "easy", but oh yes, Obama is beatable; though not by just anyone,a dog, and/or a dishrag.
My point was that she is not ready to RUN for President.
This is just a combo of ego, and hope for a Romney veep slot.
The more I look at her, the more I see her leaning towards grandiosity, the ego. Her accomplishments in the Congress which are zero, don’t seem to match up with her tone when she is speaking about her self.
I took Lakeshark to mean that the media will devour Bachmann, once they decide to make a buffoon of her, something that they have been unable to do with Palin, yet she has already gone through her media gauntlet, Bachmann has not yet started, and is getting something of a honeymoon at present.
You're right. I've never seen anything like it on FR. Until Sarah decides to run or not, the rest of us have to go on evaluating the candidates who have pronounced. I think Bachmann is well worth considering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.