Posted on 06/17/2011 3:52:03 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Just happened, very strange! Wolf Blitzer Interview with Michele Bachmann. Blitzer asked Bachmann 5 times do you agree with Tim Pawlenty that Mitt romney is disqualified from being the Republican nominee for president because he supports mandated healthcare.?
She kept responding that she's against obamacare/mandates. Blitzer tried again to pin down some kind of answer. She evaded the question at every turn, didn't want to touch it and finally a frustrated Blitzer then says, "You obviously don't want to answer the question?"
I know people say that nominees shouldn't attack other nominees yet but if not now, when? because Romney is trying to create the "inevitability" card so that momentum carries him eventually to a plurality of the votes on the primaries.
**********************
I don't know, but then I'm not a mind-reader. Are you?
It’s her job to win the nomination......she can knock him off and perhaps watch someone else walk off with the nomination......I say it’s her job to win the nomination on her own...with her own ideas, platform and ability to knock off Obama. Not necessarily to knock off Mitt.....I am perfectly capable of seeing through him all on my own and telling him loud and clear.......NO WAY in HELL MITT!
Yes. Perhaps she does not believe that’s the way to do it. If you say Romney is disqualified, she loses switching any Romney voters to herself. She may try to attract them in a positive manner instead.
Thanks for your thoughts. This is only one interview but it does kind of sound that way to me too.
Lose the tagline.
She observes Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.
All of them are positioning for the VP nomination. They don’t want another sound byte like Bush had in 1980: “Voodoo economics.”
Why this rabid determination to keep ALL focus off the complete failure of the 0 regime?
She’s trying to cover both possibilities. Let’s face it. She’s a congresscritter. They don’t get nominated very often and they win even less often. She’s not stupid so she’s banking on VP. She also knows that if Palin runs, Palin will not pick a female VP.
I’m a “conditional” Bachmann fan — she hasn’t shown enough in the way of policy ideas to get as clear a reading as from Sarah Palin. This is one of the beautiful issues that Americans will need to sort out heading into 2012. Do they want a president who will be a bit cagy when someone is trying to trap him/her, or one who tweets her mind damn the torpedoes? Reagan was more on the cagy side, if I recall correctly. Just saying.
If this same situation happened with Palin you would be applauding her for not playing by the MSN’s rules.
The real hole in my supposition is can she carry Minnesota for Romney and will he need that state? If you can answer both those questions in the affirmative then I think I might be on to something.
Palin might not want a female Veep, but she’ll have a cabinet. Secretary of the treasury? There are many influential roles she can fill, just as Barack Obama and his czars have filled the Fedguv with foolishness today.
I would never have said that a week ago, I'm not entirely convinced this is so, but her non answer on a deep negative of a supposed opponent is telling and another sign that this theory is true.
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.