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 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.
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.