Posted on 08/18/2011 7:31:47 PM PDT by jeltz25
GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann said today that Americans "fear the rise of the Soviet Union" during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show.
The Soviet Union broke up into 15 separate republics 20 years ago. Boris Yeltsin was the first freely elected leader of Russia, the largest of those republics.
"What people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward," Bachmann said on Jay Sekulow's radio show.
Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, was trying to explain that Americans are concerned about issues beyond federal spending and the debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxphoenix.com ...
Oh? Kids born when the Soviet Union fell, are now full grown adults, ready to start careers and families. That's how long ago it happened.
Any person who is mentally that far out out of present time, is no where near capable enough to be president. Witness Barry signing "2008" in the Buckingham Palace visitor log some months back.
Need I say more?
Like you, I never thought Michelle had a chance anyway, and believed that she had already risen to the pinnacle of her life as a Tea Party favorite in Congress.
Gaffe within a gaffe. ...our loss militarily... doesn't make sense. Does she mean our decline, erosion, deterioration?
Loss doesn't fit, and then going forward is a buzz word redundancy.
The GOP Presidential Candidate must be better than Obama off the teleprompter. And Michelle is not clearly so.
Raider your post reminded me of something, it used to drive me crazy that almost everyone called the Soviet Union, “Russia”.
I haven’t noticed that in the last 20 years that people have started calling “Russia” the Soviet Union.
Sorry, but I've just never heard anyone make that error in the last twenty years. Not even by people who are woefully uninformed about current events. Dunno - I've just never heard it.
I agree with you, though, that she's committed far too many gaffes of significance. A small detail going astray here and there is to be expected of anyone who has to talk to the press on an almost daily basis, while they're under the pressure of a presidential campaign ("57 states" anyone?). But, hers haven't been all that small, and they seem to be coming on a regular basis.
I really feel (and said so the day she announced) that her bid for the nomination was ill-advised, and a terrible over-reach on her part. She was doing great as the voice of the Tea Party in Congress. People listened to her, and she had real respect across the country. I fear that she's ruined that positioning now.
It really is hers for the asking, although she does have to stick with her strategy of timing her announcement for just the right moment.
The toughest part is the waiting, and I know that she's sensitive to that. She has said so. Palin supporters may be chomping at the bit to get out of the gate, but it's still too early for her to make the call.
There's little to be gained by her jumping in before people have had a chance to chew on Perry's record for a while. If she got in this week, all of the attention would be drawn away from examining his record, and Sarah would start getting all of the hard looks (despite the fact that she's already the most vetted politician of the last 100 years).
No, she's got to hold off until the conditions are right. It's not so much about the calendar, but more about the layout of the playing field. That said, she can only give the playing field so much time to position itself to her maximum advantage. Filing dates are approaching.
Personally, I think she just ended her "One Nation" tour and went home to Alaska, to hunker down and spend her last precious weeks of freedom preparing for her entry into the race.
>>> but you see Ed Rollins, the great Ed Rollins is in control!
The best handler can do only so much. You can lead a Congresswoman to water, but you cannot make her think.
Blue Horseshoe LOVES Indianola, Iowa on September 3rd.
I don't. Considering that oil was $90 a barrel in October, 2007 and a gallon of regular was around $2.75 on the East Coast, I think what's over the top is that gas is now around $3.65 a gallon when oil is around $80-85 a barrel. Figure out why that is, and she's met over half of her goal.
However, I'm starting to sour on Bachmann. If she can't get these gaffes under control even when knowing she's under the MSM's microscope, then what will that say about her ability to lead?
>> The USSR never broke up. You only think it did.
Golitsyn koolaid drinker?
LMFAO!!
Her heart is in the right place, but someone needed to just come out and say that. Thanks.
The only way I can make sense of what she said is to look at the two sentences in context and then figure out what she means - here are both sentences:
“What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward,”
1. “What people (referring to her people, her supporters, the post-reformation builders of Western Civilization and the American idea) recognize is that there’s a fear (existing in minds of the progressives now in power that leads to the liberal ideology of retreat of the West) that the United States is in an unstoppable decline.
2. They (these same liberals) see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union (and thus the receding of Western influence, economic power, and respect by these three largest powers) and our loss militarily going forward,” ( future military defeat when the inevitable military clash with these non-western civilizations occurs in the future).
At least that is the only way I can interpret what she said. If that was her meaning, then to openly verbalize recognition of such a deep historical trend, one that may be true, would indeed be a gaffe by a candidate for president.
Am I wrong? What do you think?
I guess we can’t nominate anyone who misspeaks.
“This is Reagan country (applause). Yeah! And perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California’s Eureka College would become so woven within and inter-linked to the Golden State.” —Sarah Palin, blundering on Reagan’s education while speaking at a fundraiser at California State University-Stanislaus. Eureka College is in Illinois. (June 25, 2010)
The only way I can make sense of what she said is to look at the two sentences in context and then figure out what she means - here are both sentences:
“What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward,”
1. “What people (referring to her people, her supporters, the post-reformation builders of Western Civilization and the American idea) recognize is that there’s a fear (existing in minds of the progressives now in power that leads to the liberal ideology of retreat of the West) that the United States is in an unstoppable decline.
2. They (these same liberals) see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union (and thus the receding of Western influence, economic power, and respect by these three largest powers) and our loss militarily going forward,” ( future military defeat when the inevitable military clash with these non-western civilizations occurs in the future).
At least that is the only way I can interpret what she said. If that was her meaning, then to openly verbalize recognition of such a deep historical trend, one that may be true, would indeed be a gaffe by a candidate for president.
Am I wrong? What do you think?
Taken by itself it would be nothing but this follows the Elvis thing....one more is going to be a trend.
You’re wrong.
The subject seems to be worry about America’s decline as a super-power, and she uses countries currently on the rise (like India and China) as a contrast.
The Soviet Union rose to become a super-power during the same time period the USA rose to become a super-power—the first half of the last century.
Had she used the term Russia, her sentence would have made perfect sense. As Russia (after going through a down period after the breakup of the USSR) is again rising.
It was a gaffee, plain and simple.
Not helping herself, is she?
Although given the quality of “education” in this country, three quarters of the population probably thinks the Soviet Union still exists.
Who or what is Blue Horseshoe?
That is a normal mistake getting an extra California into the statement, a Presidential candidate confusing the USSR and Russia, means they never had a Cold War or it’s aftermath’s layout in their head, it is bizarre.
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.