Posted on 06/28/2011 1:52:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
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 dont know if any nation has paralleled the rise of Israel since 1948.” A member of Christians United for Israel, shes one of Israels 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 Carters 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 Wrights 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 Commentarys 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 todays New York Times, her polling numbers are simply terrific. She isnt 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 hes the only Republican waging something other than a standard-issue conservative campaign and the only one directing most of his energies toward voters who dont 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 years 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.
She’s been a State Senator and a Congress member for three terms. She’s started and run a business. She’s worked in bowels of government, seeing it in all its inglorious bureaucracy.
That’s not chopped liver if the person otherwise is capable, which Bachmann is.
7.5 years? tax-free income? ...trying to talk honest facts about her accomplishments?
next you’ll mention about her saying $50,000 is “not a penny”. or something about Lexington and Concord. or John Wayne is her star. or...
Give it up, its a hopeless argument against these people. They are a breed of Bachmannistas that believe ANY criticism of their candidates increasing gaffes from her own mouth, is a threat to Bachmanns inevitable candidacy and is unneccesarily standing in the way of her coronation.
BACHMANN IS AWESOME!!!
(seriously, it doesn’t matter. soon either Perry or Palin will enter, and blow the others away. todays polls show that. ...so there is NO point even trying to do honest vettng here now.)
A disaster?
A disaster for the right? Explain, please. With specific examples.
You know, this “executive experience” mantra got started when the LSM claimed Palin had no experience and, when that didn’t work, that Palin didn’t have the right kind of experience.
So supporters rightly pointed out that Palin not only was an experienced leader and politician, but that, unlike Obama, she had such experience in an executive position (Governor).
Now “no executive experience” seems to be the quick retort against a candidate not of one’s own liking. I guess only Governors and similar are acceptable now?
In short, I agree with you. There is no one path to the presidency. It is a question of whether the person is the right person for the job at that moment in history.
If what you say is true, the election is Obama’s no matter who the Republican candidate is.
So those piping up with what a “disaster” Bachmann (or whatever candidate who is not “their” candidate) need not be worried.
I wish Sarah would announce and put all these ridiculous unqualified candidates to rest for once and for all.
Michele Bachmann gives me the creeps, in the same way that Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart always did.
Bump.
More courage and intelligence, and more conservative, than any recent Republican nominee.
Go, Michele.
They must all have been very temporary placements. I doubt she even raised ONE foster child from birth to adulthood.
She’ll win. Otherwise you better hope Mittens is not a mess and he is. So it is Bachmann or broke. Unless Cain does something or Palin goes in.
The thing is, she never did anything there except vote. Her suddenly vaunted leadership and campaigning skills never served her, never showed, although we know that she tried to lead in those "bowels of government".
Yes and have you noticed how many of them swarm to any thread, any thread at all, where Palin’s name is mentioned, and attack her, even using Tina Fey’s words, as though Palin had said them, and worse? They call Palin Supporters “cultists” and all kinds of other crazy things, when it is they who suffer from that malady re their chosen candidate.
No, it isn’t “chopped liver”; it’s cardboard!
Think Iowans get it? ROFL
Yes, that’s been sticking in my craw for a while now. Something is weird there and her claiming that she “RAISED THEM” is bizarre.
One thing a tax lawyer does rather skillfully is learn how to play and beat the system. It’s their job. She seems to have learned well.
No, I didn’t say that Obama can’t be beat; I said that it would be a tough slog. There is a difference! And I was replying to those who claimed that even their dog or a dishrag could beat Obama, which simply is not true.
Well, if you don’t agree with her politics, don’t think her experience is sufficient, or just don’t like her, that’s all that needs to be said. But saying she has “no” experience, as some here are claiming, is just not accurate.
Having experience, not having experience . . . NEITHER is the be-all or end-all of the question of whether a particular person is right for the presidency at a particular moment in history.
It’s a factor, of course. But throwing out platitudes about “experience” (not directed at you, but in general) is, well, just lame.
But she told Ralph Reed that Sarah Palin should not have entered politics until her children were all grown up. Can you say hypocrite?
I agree and overlooked that distinction, she clearly has experience at something, (voting), but nothing which should lead to premature Presidential leadership aspirations.
As I type this I am listening to Romneybot Hugh Hewitt defending her with a passion that is very hard to explain for a long time listener like me, Hewitt isn’t very fond Of Palin.
Name them please.
An executive is someone who through business, government or some other endeavor has actually run something and done so successfully that proves they can be a leader of this country. She has done nothing. Nothing.
If she was a good legislator, she would have proposed and passed (or at least gotten a vote on) some legislation that would have furthered the goals of the conservative movement. She's done nothing. She hasn't even chaired a committee.
Life achievements....like Hermann Cain for example. Rick Perry for example. Sarah Palin for example.
Oh yeah, she can talk, but so can the jerk in the White House. I'm sorry, she's got nothing to show she should be president.
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.