Posted on 07/23/2014 12:28:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.
The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.
Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.
“The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it’s going to be various men that are running,” she replied. “They haven’t speculated, for instance, that I’m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there’s a chance I could run.”
Bachmann entered the last presidential race in June 2011 as a long-shot contender but was able to use her sway with elements of the Tea Party and an effective media campaign to rise temporarily toward the front of the Republican pack in a deeply fluid race.
The high point of her candidacy came in August 2011 when she won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
But Bachmann’s campaign soon withered amid a string of gaffes and controversial claims, staff defections, and a rise in the fortunes of other candidates in the race.
She ended up finishing in sixth place in the Iowa caucuses less than five months after her Ames triumph, earning just 5 percent of the vote and dropping out the next day.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
She is more just over her head than hypocritical, although her hiring Ed Rollins, her groveling at Romney’s feet, and her becoming silent on Todd Akins after she was the one endorsing him, do all indicate some hypocrisy, I think of it more as shallowness and weakness.
If she was an option in November 2012, I would have agreed with you. But she wasn't, and her gaffes were a large part of why.
I’d vote for Michelle in a heartbeat. She is as conservative as they come, which is more than I can say about most of the posers, er, posters, on this thread.
RE: It is a waste of time, like this thread, Bachmann is not, never was, and never will be a serious candidate for president of the United States.
you can repeat that ad nauseum, but IF she were to run against the list I mentioned, she would be the candidate FOR ME.
And between her and any Democrat, there is NO COMPARISON. She’s better than ALL OF THEM.
RE: You don’t need to post something that you know is a lie, “”You would rather have the RINO’s as candidates again?””
Errr.. why is that a lie. I placed a conditional in my statement above — IF. If it were Bachmann vs Romney, Christie, Bush or even Rand Paul, heck, Bachmann all the way.
Of course you ignored my other statement about Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. So where’s the lie? there is none.
It is simply a selection in hypothetical scenarios.
RE:If she was an option in November 2012, I would have agreed with you. But she wasn’t, and her gaffes were a large part of why.
If she were an option in 2016, it will depend on who her opponents in the primaries are.
Bachmann ve the RINO’s? Bachmann all the way.
I’d only vote for anyone of these over her if they were the candidates -— Cruz, Palin or maybe Perry.
It's about principles. Michelles got em.
Your desperation to try to make a giant out of a small timer is bizarre.
RE: Your desperation to try to make a giant out of a small timer is bizarre.
And your desperation to belittle someone who is clearly a principled conservative compared to the others is also bizzare.
Because you are lying again.
I like her politics just fine and have posted so repeatedly, but that doesn’t change the facts of her lack of leadership.
She is not presidential material, her congress seat that she is leaving was her political peak.
Your desperation is to keep pretending she is a viable candidate for president, and you also pretend that I don’t agree because I oppose her politics, you are lying when you do that but it shows the cloudy thinking that keeps you playing the “Bachmann for 2016” game.
RE: Because you are lying again.
Where did I lie? I never accused you of anything. You’re the one getting personal.
RE: like her politics just fine and have posted so repeatedly, but that doesn’t change the facts of her lack of leadership.
I disagree about her lack of leadership. If the GOP refuses to take her seriously because she ( like Sarah Palin ) is PRINCIPLED a refuses to compromise on it, why should it be held against her?
RE: Your desperation is to keep pretending she is a viable candidate for president,
And your desperation is to ignore what I said IN COMPARISON to the list I gave. I also did mention my preference for Ted Cruz over her but you seem to ignore that too.
How did I lie again by the way?
RE: I don’t agree because I oppose her politics, you are lying when you do that
But I never said you opposed her politics, what I disagree with use is this :
A) You say she isn’t leadership material. I disagree. It is the GOP that refuses to take her seriously.
B) You say she isn’t viable. I ask COMPARED TO WHO?
Then I gave a few names being touted out there. When I look at the list, none of them are better (or more viable ) than she is when it comes to CONSISTENTLY fighting for conservative principles.
But no, I never lied about you at all.
LOL, She has been in elective politics for 15 years, has never displayed leadership, and you think we are all keeping her down and somehow blocking her ability to lead us because her leadership is lying dormant until we skip the part where she has to EARN her political victories, and she gets what? Assigned to the presidency, or to a place of responsibility in the congress, or to a governorship or something?
It is HER job to lead, not for you to explain to us that no one will let her lead them.
I really don’t even know what your obsession is, why are you so determined to create this image of her as a presidential candidate of major stature, or some sort of political leader, instead of her being the wallflower who got her 15 minutes of fame?
NO!
RE: LOL, She has been in elective politics for 15 years, has never displayed leadership, you think we are all keeping her down and somehow blocking her ability to lead us because her leadership is lying dormant until we skip the part where she has to EARN her political victories, and she gets what?
YES, it’s because the GOP has not given her the chance to be in a leadership position. But when it comes to fighting for conservative principles, she has been one of the leaders of the party.
RE: Assigned to the presidency, or to a place of responsibility in the congress, or to a governorship or something?
I never used the word “assigned” you did. If she runs, and the candidates she runs against ( the so called “leaders”) are going to be the same ones like Romney ( being touted again ), or Jeb Bush ( yet another Bush ) then, of course, Bachmann it is.
RE: It is HER job to lead, not for you to explain to us that no one will let her lead them.
And in this SHE HAS LED. She’s one of the few voices actually speaking out FOR conservative principles.
The fact that the GOP refuses to use her is not her fault.
RE: I really don’t even know what your obsession is,
And I don’t even know what your obessssion with my so-called obsession is. My voting principles are very straigthtf orward and I believe, good for the country if the majority had the same principles — VOTE FOR THE MOST CONSISTENTLY CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE ON THE LIST.
Rank them according to this hierarchy — Principle, Consistency and Experience.
She won’t be on top of the list of there are conservatives like Ted Cruz who would run, but hey, if he doesn’t and we’re left with the list being touted, I’d take her over the others.
RE: why are you so determined to create this image of her as a presidential candidate of major stature.
I think I can ask you the same question regarding determination... Why are you so determined to create this image of her as a non-presidential candidate of minor stature?
Stature is in the eye of the beholder. For me, she has the qualities that make for a good president compared to the rest of the sorry lot being touted out there ( with a few exceptions ).
RE: NO!
Compared to who ?
The only winning ticket for the GOP is a Gov/Gov ticket. We need a solid experienced governor from a dynamic, growing state. Right now that looks like a Perry/Walker ticket. Walker could give us a total of 16 years of GOP control over the Presidency. We need that after Obama.
She won a district that was re-drawn to include more Democrats. That wasn't her fault. She's one of the most conservative members of Congress and the chair of the House Tea Party Caucus. Primaried? Hell, I'd be proud to call her my representative (I live in MN8).
We have all already seen her in action for years and already dealt with her ill fated vanity run for the presidency, we have the measure of the woman, and now that she is leaving the only place where she had any value, we are weary of her possible negative influence, like with Ed Rollins and Todd Akin.
Your fantasy and illusions, and obsession are not shared by the voters.
My hope is that the old gal doesn’t hurt us conservatives by letting her vanity keep controlling her.
I’d go with Walker.
But first, he has to win 2014.
It looks like a dead hit in Wisconsin:
SEE HERE:
RE: We have all already seen her in action for years and already dealt with her ill fated vanity run for the presidency
Yep, and overall I LIKE WHAT I SEE.
RE: we are weary of her possible negative influence, like with Ed Rollins and Todd Akin.
I’m not worried about that. I look at her MANY YEARS of CONSISTENT, PRINCIPLED STANCE in Congress. I’m not going to let one or two minor incidents determine how I vote COMPARED TO THE OVERALL RECORD OF THE OTHERS BEING TOUTED.
RE: Your fantasy and illusions, and obsession are not shared by the voters
I am not asking you to share my voting desires. You vote your way, I vote mine.
Again, if it came down to Bachmann and Romney, Bush, Rand Paul or Chris Christie, the choice is quite clear — Bachmann.
You can choose any of the others on that list of you wish.
RE: My hope is that the old gal doesn’t hurt us conservatives by letting her vanity keep controlling her.
COMPARED TO THE OTHERS ON THAT LIST, SHE WON’T. I’ve seen her in action. The others on that list on the other hand, WILL HURT conservatism because of their INCONSISTENCY.
How strange about how you use that little made up list as though it has meaning.
Too bad conservatives don’t feel about Bachmann play running for President like you do.
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.