Posted on 09/14/2011 6:05:05 AM PDT by freespirited
Up to now I’ve thought Michele Bachman was the most impressive performer in the GOP field, going toe-to-toe with the “big boys” in the field, out-arguing them on several occasions, and introducing serious constitutional arguments that the rest of the field (even Perry) are too timid to attempt. She’s right to go after Rick Perry on the issue of mandating the use of the Gardisil vaccine, along with the issue of “crony capitalism,” both of which get at the issue of a potential president’s sense of the reach and limits of state power. Perry is a mixed bag on this (as is Romney obviously) and he should be pressed hard to explain himself and refine his views.
But her embrace of the wacko idea that the vaccine is dangerous or causes autism, mental retardation, or other risks is simply irresponsible. Is Bachman, Glenn Reynolds quipped, trying to go after the Jenny McCarthy vote? (Glenn also links to Jonathan Adler’s quick take on this, which is the same as mine.)
Bachman passed along with complete credulity the claim of someone who she says came up to her after the debate attributing her child’s mental issues to the vaccine. I’ve heard a few people speculate darkly about whether such a person actually exists, or whether Bachman made it up or is trimming a bit from something she was told another time. You’d think our inquisitive news media would find this person and investigate, or that the person would now step forward (or that other people with similar claims would now step forward). Above all, this is a political mistake as well as a scientific one, as it has shifted the focus from Perry’s use of power to Bachmann’s scientific credibility—a lose-lose for everyone.
Which raises the last point. NBC Nightly News last night went to some trouble to attack Bachman’s views on the Gardisil vaccine. Fine; but why doesn’t NBC or the other major media perform the same service when anti-vaccine quackery comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Jenny McCarthy? No mystery here.
I wasn’t going to go there, but since you did, you are 100% right. As I think about it more, it made her sound out of touch as well as over the top and shrill and nakedly (sorry) political.
The “vaccine” issue is a government control issue.
Her point was hardly over the top.
Any parent could opt out. There was no "forcing innocent little girls" to get vaccinated.
I wouldn't have gotten the shot for my daughter, but it's up to other parents if they want theirs vaccinated. I don't see the big deal here - OTHER than it's none of the governments business.
I liked Bachman when she was on the trail, but after the debates - I don't care for her personally. She turns my stomach. She's become that neighbor you wish would get a job in another city and move away.
Romney will say anything to get elected. He's the kind of guy who'll praise you up and down to no end while he's shaking your hand, then move on to the next person hand trash talk you for an hour. I find the man repulsive.
So far, Perry is far from the perfect candidate, but he's the best as far as I can see. I'll take him over Oboma any day.
ABO - ANYBODY but Oboma!
Voters knew about Ayers, Rev. Wright, his communist relatives, and Obama’s lack of experience. You can’t just blame the media. The truth was out there for those who cared. Obama was elected because of his skin color.
Some admission of a mistake there. That said, I agree with the above poster that those who live in ethanol houses shouldn't throw stones.
The same media that made Obama is destroying Bachmann.
There was once a time when I actually believed that conservatives were smarter than liberals. These days I’m not so sure.
This stuff isn't about Bachmann. The media has its eye on Romney and Perry and if anyone else in the herd seems both threatening and vulnerable, the media will jump in and try to bring them down.
Bachmann has a base of support, she won the Iowa straw poll, she has mostly done well in the debates -- so she could be seen as a threatening candidate to the Establishment.
On the other hand, she has crazy eyes, she's very conservative, she is perceived as mis-stepping on the Gardasil issue -- so she could be seen as vulnerable.
As with Palin, the media desires to take down the conservative woman, and they are making the most of it.
I really didn't find his Obama-like demagoguery against those who were voting to override him, calling them “shameful” spreaders of “misinformation” who were putting “women’s lives” at risk. to be particularly refreshing myself. Interesting that you did though.
She is too slow and has a nutty side. We need a strong man...Trump!
She is too slow and has a nutty side. We need a strong man...Trump!
Michele Bachmann probably won’t win for a number of reasons. The deck was stacked for her to lose. Some people promoting Rick Perry. The race is a bit messy. No matter what she did she was getting attacked. So I don’t know how thing will shake out, but ofr one reason or another she floundered. The media is dead set against her so that was a obstacle. yet, there is still a chance. But, I am more curious, how everything shakes out. Since I am not sold on most of the field then I can’t say this is going great. Herman Cain is doing the opposite of Bachmann. Still going nowhere. So the media is making us think and the polling. So it is what it is. Meaning, If Cain gets out and Bachmann is out and Palin is not in. I really don’t have a horse in the race to pull for.
Unfortunately, it was the conservative woman taking down the conservative woman. Michele owns her own missteps here.
“...Yep. And unfortunately for her, it played right into the overly emotional stereotype that the media has portrayed her as - when the candidates start to play to their stereotypes that’s not a good thing on a national stage IMO....”
Again, you are right. A day before the debate I heard the hateful Bill Maher say that Bachmann appeals to those “for whom Sarah Palin is simply too intellectual.” I thought how ridiculous - both women are far more intellectually sound than he is.
Then with Bachmann’s obsession, and it looked and sounded like an obsession, with the vaccine I was thinking she is giving Maher’s credence on that point. She sounded like a single issue zealot, and she’s not that.
What's "rino" about pointing out unscientific emotionalism and speculating that it will do her candidacy in? I agree with it and I'm about as "r" as you can be.
I still don’t see it a big deal.. It’s a vaccine that can save lives. Most woman at some point during their life will be exposed to HPV, some will get cancer. Parents could always opt-out.
Ah yes, I noticed that too. She came out on stage and then gave Romney a big hug. Barely acknowledged the other on the stage. It was quite telling.
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.