Is Michele Bachmann finished in the GOP race?

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.

I've rebutted these points in other threads by stating that Palin's so called "negatives" are being driven by the media war against her and can be overcome. Once she is formally in the race and people get a more unfiltered look at her, many of those negative opinions can be reversed with the additional bonus of the mainstream media losing some more of their credibility.

At any rate, let's not give up on her before she is even in the race. If she is as unelectable as you make her out to be, she won't be in the race that long as she'll get blown out in the Iowa caucus and the NH and SC primaries early on and we will move on to discussing other things.

If on the other hand Palin is able to score some key victories in Iowa, NH and/or SC, then game on! She will have overcome her "negatives" and should then secure the nomination and then the general election and be our most conservative presidential candidate since Reagan.

So there is no long-term risk to Palin getting into this race. Let's see where it goes from here.

To be honest, I was somewhat impressed with Romney.

If Romney could be trusted, he might be a viable choice. Unfortunately he seems subservient and he's been on every side of the issues in the past 10 years.

I'm sick of hearing about the vaccine. In the debate, Perry brought up a point I hadn't heard, that there had been a bill passed aimed at cancers. Curious I went looking and found that was absolutely true.

In 2005, HB 2475 said, "This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015…" "The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006."

Was the plan delivered to Perry? Yes it was.

A 47 page report (Acrobat PDF) called "Texas Cervical Cancer Strategic Plan," December 2006, by Texas Department of State Health Services in collaboration with The Texas Cancer Council was delivered.

Page 8, "Executive summary" Armed with this new HPV vaccine, we can achieve the moment when we know our goal — eliminating cervical cancer death and suffering — is in reach.

Page 20, "Access to Care" - "Women must have access to cervical cancer screening to eliminate cervical cancer in Texas. The National Cancer Institute reports that groups of women with high cervical cancer mortality:...

Tend not to have a usual source of health care, such as a family physician;
Have low income and education levels;
Are less likely to participate in regular cancer screenings and receive other preventive

… "Widespread vaccination is a key to reducing cervical cancer incidence in Texas"

People who think this was something Perry cooked up in secret for crony capitalist pals at Merck in exchange for $6,000 of $12 million in campaign donations are demented.

He acted in the furtherance of the legislature's public health goals by ensuring the widest dissemination of and coverage for the vaccine.

The three shots included in Gardasil cost $360 which is not cheap for "low income" individuals most in need of it. Opt-out vaccines are covered by insurance, Medicaid and other programs. Opt-in vaccines not.

Santorum, Ingraham, Malkin and others can pander on philosophical grounds and to the anti-vax crowd but we live in the real world, not a debate club.

Santorum's debate argument we should only opt-in for vaccinations is societal suicidal. Most of work because of "herd immunity" so insisting people say "NO" instead of "YES" is the most reasoned position for public health.

Romney had it right in the debate, Perry had the right intentions and Perry would do it differently if he could do it over.

I draw a strong contrast for others with Perry's pragmatic pro parental protection approach and noting there's a bill right now on the CA governor's desk, AB499 (Atkins) that will give 12 year-old kids the power to consent to vaccines and other measures without parental involvement or notice.

Well, actually, she has said that she is still considering it. Some might say that she is still, therefore, making up her mind.

She has never said anything as definitive as you said: “either I will announce at the end of the month or I won’t.”

So, your version is very straight up. Saying, “I’m still thinking about it” is not as straight, some might say. In fact, some might even say if you haven’t actually made up your mind, that that could be called “waffling”.

It’s a subtle distinction, almost metaphysical. But bottom line, according to her own testimony, she hasn’t decided.

(Maybe she has, though, and this is all part of her grand strategy......)

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.