Posted on 09/08/2011 7:33:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For a while there, Rep. Michele Bachmann seemed to be all anyone could talk about in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
Telegenic, controversial and aligned with fiscal and social conservatives, she soaked up media coverage and seemed to be emerging as the GOP base's preferred alternative to Mitt Romney - particularly since Mike Huckabee decided to forgo the race and Sarah Palin continued waffling about whether she would jump in.
Then came August 13. It was, in once sense, a triumphant day for Bachmann: She won the (albeit overhyped) Iowa straw poll, generating headlines about how she was a top-tier contender with a legitimate shot at the nomination. But August 13 was also the day that Texas governor Rick Perry decided to throw his ten-gallon hat into the race.
Ever since then, Bachmann has steadily faded. Perry shot to the front of the polls on the strength of his dual establishment/base appeal, while Bachmann sank back to third or fourth, alongside Ron Paul. Unable to capitalize on her straw poll momentum, she shook up her campaign staff, removing campaign manager Ed Rollins - who promptly declared the contest a two-man race between Perry and Bachmann.
Wednesday's debate was Bachmann's chance to show she had come up with some sort of plan to regain some semblance of momentum. And despite a strong performance in past debates, she let the opportunity pass her by. While Perry and Romney sparred, a sbdued Bachmann failed to get in any memorable lines and looked like a footnote who belonged with the also-rans, not the contenders.
In the spin room after the debate, Rollins - who is still with the Bachmann campaign - tried to frame Bachmann's unmemorable debate performance as no big deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Thank you.
Sarah has not "waffled". Waffling entails saying one thing then changing your mind and saying something else. In other words flip flopping. Sarah has never said she would run and then backed out or vice versa. She will either announce at the end of this month or she won't. If she does, great, if she doesn't that is her choice, and only her's, to make.
The GOP Vice Presidential nominee will be a current or former Governor.
After the Obama disaster, American voters do not want to see "zero executive experience" and "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" in the same sentence.
That, however, does not mean that Bachmann will drop out of the "race".
There are two types of Presidential races:
Type 1: A race to win elected office
Type 2: A race to be seen racing.
The Type 1 race requires large amounts of money for professional staff and campaign advertising. Such a race left Hillary $9 million in debt even after spending $11 million of her own money. Once the money dries up, the professional staff bolts (like Bachmann's top two people did this week) and actually winning is out of the question.
The Type 2 race requires no funding, no staff and no advertising. All it requires is for the candidate to show up in front of the media cameras since the goal is not to win an election but to enhance celebrity status or to gain celebrity status for the first time. The celebrity status then translates to personal income in the form of future book sales and speaking fees. Newt Gringrich is running such a "Type 2" campaign right now.
Now that Bachmann's campaign money is drying up her professional staff is leaving, her Type 1 campaign is coming to a close. However, Bachmann will, like Newt Gingrich is doing, probably remain in a "Type 2" campaign to build her future book sales and set herself up for good speaking fees in the future.
I said it then and I say it again. Picking Rollins was a mistake.
I believe part of the Palin strategy here is to let the initial field of candidates winnow itself down to a couple of serious contenders (in this case, Perry and Romney). Then enter the race as a fresh alternative to those two and collect the resources of those in the second tier or those who have dropped out.
There is obviously danger in a strategy like this as you risk a front-runner getting so far ahead in money and resources that they become difficult to catch with a late-entry. But I think Palin has people who know what they are doing and they are probably coaching her to stay on the sidelines as long as practically possible.
Palin is an a unique situation here where she already has near 100% name recognition among voters and a loyal base of near-fanatical supporters (consider me guilty as charged). Once she announces, it will have the effect of a thermonuclear bomb on this entire race.
Many of people I speak to are eager for Palin to run but are embarrassed about expressing their support for her publicly as they don't want to look stupid to their family and friends if she decides in the end not to run. But once she's in it, I think many of us will be surprised at the wave of grass-roots support she will receive.
Lastly, I want to make mention of Palin's two speeches over the weekend in Iowa and New Hampshire. She saw first hand the grass-roots support and the enthusiasm the people gave her when they chanted "Run, Sarah, Run." From all I know about Sarah Palin so far, I gather that she is not the kind of person who would take advantage of regular folks like this. If she was truly not running, I think she would have quietly gotten word out to these PAC groups not to waste their time.
We know, we’ve heard that many, many times.
Then why isn’t she in here? If she plans to run, she surely cannot expect a coronation where the rest of them are willing to work for it.
In case you didn't notice, Palin gave two major speeches over the past weekend in both Iowa and New Hampshire as well as attended some smaller functions and events. She's already running circles around the "official" candidates.
You keep right on thinking that.
I will keep thinking that. Meanwhile, were there any other candidates besides Sarah Palin that gave major speeches in both Iowa and New Hampshire over the past weekend? With respect to content of the speeches, are there any “announced” candidates that are not afraid to hit Obama, the media and the socialist Democrats where it hurts?
She’s inexperienced as an executive but her ideas are golden. Unlike the community organizer in the White House, she does not have the media, entertainment industry, education industry, limo liberal Wall Street and CEO’s covering up for her lack of experience and creating false images.
I never want her to shut up and I want her to have influence in the GOP no matter how this primary turns out. She’s been good to us and I respect her a lot.
Tell you what, let's just wait and see if Palin gets in and then we'll see what happens.
Well said, Michelle is my candidate
Palin's strategy is to stay out of the Arena and allow herself to be thought of as unelectable by some rather than enter the Arena and remove all doubt.
==========================
FOX News Poll: For Release 6PM ET Thursday, September 1, 2011
25. I’m going to read a list of potential candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination. Please tell me which one you would like to see as the Republican presidential nominee. (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY)
Rick Perry ...................... 26%
Mitt Romney ................... 18%
Sarah Palin ....................... 8%
Ron Paul .......................... 7%
Michele Bachmann ........... 4%
Rudy Giuliani .................... 4%
Herman Cain .................... 4%
27. Do you think Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012 or not? (ALL VOTERS)
Yes ...... 20%
No .......74
==========================
Palin is an a unique situation here where she already has near 100% name recognition among voters and a loyal base of near-fanatical supporters (consider me guilty as charged). Once she announces, it will have the effect of a thermonuclear bomb on this entire race.
Step back and analyze what you have just said.
Yes, Palin has sky-high name recognition (99% in the August FOX News Poll). So do Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Sheen, Casey Anthony and Attila the Hun.
(Sky high name recognition) + (High positives) = Fantastic
(Sky-high name regognotion) + (Sky-high negatives) = (The worst possible combination you can have)
A brand new and unknown candidate has the opportunity to shoot up in public esteem. A candidate that has had non-stop media exposure for 3 years and is known to everybody not living under a rock means that opinions are pretty much set in stone. That is why Newt Gingrich never had a chance in 2012. Opinions about Gingrich were set in stone long ago.
Nationally, Sarah Palin has higher Negatives than Nancy Pelosi.
Her 99% name recognition means that those Negatives, like Newt Gingrich'e Negatives and Nancy Pelosi's Negatives, are pretty much set in stone.
I hardly think debates, if you want to call them that, is working for it.
Oh, and thanks for the tagline idea.
The inference is that she hasn’t right? We’ve heard that again and again. I guess we have to stop believing our lying eyes and ears.
We are still in the pre-season with respect to the 2012 campaign. Bill Clinton didn't formally announce his 1992 campaign until October 1991 and Ronald Reagan didn't announce his 1980 campaign until November 1979. So there is precedence to this and as both the aforementioned clobbered their rivals to win the nominations for their respective parties (and went on to win the general), I'm not too worried about Palin's late entry.
I wasn’t aware Michele has a botoxed face.
She wasn’t given much time and was cut off while speaking.
She did an excellent job in the second half. She was right on Libya.
She didn’t get caught up with the neocon view from the get go.
Yep.
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.