Posted on 01/08/2011 7:09:29 AM PST by ejdrapes
Written by Bruce Walker
Is Michelle Bachmann running for president? Considering…. yes, her office confirmed on January 5th, she was considering a run. If so, then the Congresswoman brings something different from most other potential Republican candidates whose names have been floated: She has been elected from a very “progressive” state, but Michelle Bachmann has remained as true to the principles of limited, constitutional government as any member of Congress. That ought to mean a lot to those of us interested in truly draining the swamps of the Potomac. Consider other potential candidates. Mitt Romney won election from a very Leftist state, but he hardly governed like a solid constitutionalist. There are many things to admire about the man. He loves his family; he is true to his faith; he made money the old-fashioned way, with brains and risk-taking and sweat. Romney is honest, savvy, and bright. But for an American Republic in need radical treatment, Mitt is more a gentle Marcus Welby. Sarah Palin is the real deal, in terms of what she believes. But Sarah won office in a state with a very strong libertarian streak and also a state which had been run by the Republican Party. There is nothing wrong with her running for president, but there is also little to suggest that on her own she could win outside Alaska. Also, and it is a bit tricky to put it this bluntly, but Sarah, like so many other good candidates, has never really had to run against the political stream. Most Alaskans, generally, approve of her philosophy of government. The same is true of Haley Barbour, who was the popular Governor of one of the most conservative states in the nation. The stands that he has taken have not cost him anything with the voters he represents. Mississippians like his patriotic, pro-family, limited government ideas. In fact, Senator Wicker could easily lose his Senate seat because, as a moderate “conservative” he does not really represent the citizens of his state. Newt Gingrich, if anyone is seriously considering him, suffers the same problem. It took no guts with the voters in his Georgia congressional district to take the stands that he took. Moreover, although undeniably bright, Gingrich has some personal moral issues (i.e. the marriage vow) and a wonkishness which seems to suggest a man who would like government to be “smarter, not bigger.” How about just making the federal government constitutional? Mitch Daniel has done an excellent job as Governor of Indiana, but like Newt, this former Budget Director for George W. Bush seems, sometimes, to view government as a tool to make life better. There is no doubt that this honest, smart, hard-working, and thrifty man would be a better president than many, but we may need much more than just that. Also, like Sarah, Haley, and Newt, Mitch comes from a pretty conservative state. Does he have what it takes to run against the stream? We don’t truly know. Mike Huckabee is a good man in many ways. Faith, obviously, is important to him. His family is very near the center of his life too. But as Governor of Arkansas, he did not push the state toward constitutional governance. He viewed government welfare as some sort of Christian charity, though it certainly is not that. Huckabee also hailed from a state which has always been very conservative (just ask Blanche Lincoln), and at best Governor Huckabee followed the sentiments of Arkansans rather than led them. Phyllis Schafly, in particular, has had scathing comments about Huckabee. Even dark horse candidates who have been very principled and serious — John Thune, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, among others — come from states in which these elected officials quite strongly and clearly represent the values of their constituents, which coincide with just what America needs: limited government based upon a serious reading of our foundational documents. These potential candidates show the greatest appeal of Michelle Bachmann. As a congressional candidate in Minnesota who has remained absolutely true to her principles, Bachmann has had to struggle just to win re-election. In 2010, a strong Republican year, as an incumbent member of Congress, Bachmann received only about 53% of the vote. In 2008, Michelle Bachmann won with a little over 43 percent of the vote. Two years earlier, she won with a little over half the vote. Bachmann has been in the cross-hairs of secular progressives since she entered politics. She is not afraid of them and she does not try to please them. She also is an accomplished woman, a good mother, a person of serious faith in God. More than, perhaps, any name which has been bandied about so far, there is no doubt that President Bachmann would govern just as she campaigned. There are other strong suits in a Bachmann candidacy: She is intelligent and sounds intelligent on camera; she is an attractive middle-aged mother; she might be able to put her home state, Minnesota, into play. Is Michelle Bachmann the "Real Deal"?
Friday, 07 January 2011 12:39
First, she needs to learn to spell her own name. It’s two l’s baby.
Like Ogden Nash’s lama, it lacks a little sumpin’
Same questions as about Palin. What experience does she have that qualifies her better than others?
Yeah, baby! And she's easy on the eyes...
What I want from the next president is someone with a DEMONSTRATED track record of cutting spending and standing up to the media.
The only two that fill that bill are Sarah and Michelle. I'm comfortable with either one at the helm. Michelle is more articulate, but Sarah has more charisma and executive experience. I've heard Michelle speak several times, and she has a slight tendency to bog down in specifics; Sarah is better at sticking to broad themes. I give a slight edge to Sarah.
the author should atleast write her name right
Yep, just another heartless Republican. The Democrats thoroughly disgust me. They're very generous with other people's money, but God help the clerk who accidentally short-changes them in the grocery checkout.
She spells her first name with one ‘l’.
It has been widely reported that Bachmann receives Federal subsidies for the family farm. It’s a wee bit hypocritical to come out against wasteful gubmint spending, while at the same time being a willful recipient of that same wasteful spending. This is something the Dims are certain to beat her over the head with if she decides to make a run for POTUS. Don’t get me wrong, I like Bachmann, but if you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. You’re either against wasteful gubmint spending or you’re not......
She needs a Veep named Turner so she can run as ...
wait for it...
Bachman/Turner 2012.
I think she’d make a damn good president.
the Congresswoman brings something different from most other potential Republican candidates whose names have been floated: She has been elected from a very “progressive” state...
...but from a conservative district.
(1) She runs in a liberal state (they elected Al Fankin senator, for pity’s sake) and yet still wins as a conservative Republican.
(2) She was one of the targets to of the Democratic party in 2010. The poured money and manpower into her district in an effort to defeat her (and they still failed).
(3) She is, by any measure, a better politician than Mitt Romney (the presumptive front runner). Romney won election as governor with only 49% of the vote, and that only after pouring tons of his personal money into the campaign at the last minute. Romney didn’t even attempt to run for reelection, because his approval ratings were at 30%. 39% of the people who had voted for him the first time around were saying they would not vote for him again (OUCH!).
“And she’s easy on the eyes...”
And ears.
A vast majority of the farmers get subsidies. The whole farm subsidy program needs to be abolished. And I spent a good part of my life on the farm. You are correct it may be a point to be used against her for the demoRats, but a very minor one. So minor in fact, that even bringing it up will result in gains to her favor.
I dont think bachman would make a good executive. I met mish at a meet and greet in 2008 with mitt romney. She came off as a sheltered, naive person who has never left central minnesota in her life. Romney on the other hand, was cordial. I personally liked him, but he seemed too wishy washy. Sarah is our best bet by far. Personally, I think this bachman talk is a setup by the dems to detract from sarah palin.
Experience does not matter. Look what it got us in King Obama. Then look at Regan who with little experience was one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. It is the common sense and a real Constitutional understanding of what the Federal Government is supposed to do. This experience is getting under my skin. Wake up America!
She does have one huge red flag in her past that deserves consideration: she attended Oral Roberts University.
Oral Roberts was an extremely controversial TV preacher. Even conservative Evangelical Christians (among who I would count myself) had serious questions about him.
The closest current well known preacher to Oral Roberts would be Benny Hinn (in both style and religious beliefs).
I think a significant number of Catholics would not vote for Bachmann on this basis alone. I also think a significant percentage of Evangelicals would have a hard time voting for her because of this also, perhaps just as many as would have a hard time voting for Romney due to his Mormonism.
Yea, I know there isn’t supposed to be a religious test, but let’s get real. When your religious beliefs are on the edge (and Oral Roberts’ version of Pentacostalism was on the far edge of even Pentalcostalism—this is a guy that claimed to have raised someone from the dead) people will take it into account.
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.