Posted on 06/16/2011 5:26:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Michele Bachmann should have me ringing doorbells and doing conservative flips to get her elected but she isn’t and I don’t know why.
She looks great on paper. She expresses conservatism clearly. She understands the dire situation we’re in and the remedies. She’s energetic and pleasant. She goes after the agent of our destruction. She can debate. She is attractive. She has a compelling life story.
So what’s wrong?
When Michele Bachmann is on TV or radio, or I read her words in print, she has my attention and I agree with her but as soon as she’s off the air or I move to another story, she’s lost to my mind.
I can’t be the only one who has this Michele Bachmann “condition.” This bothers me because TURNOUT will be what decides this election. TURNOUT will bring us a bullet proof Senate. TURNOUT will keep Democrat voter fraud from giving Obama 4 more years. TURNOUT will bring more states under GOP control. We need a standard bearer candidate that Americans will rally behind in earnest -- TURN OUT!
The roster of GOP candidates is varied and I will vote for the one who wins the primary. I don’t think Romney has “it.” I know Newt won’t make the grade, again – can’t. Huntsman – phewt. Ron Paul – keeps our feet to the fire but won’t beat Obama. Santorum – he had me once but now he just seems to be saying his lines. Pawlenty – I keep working on remembering that he’s in the race. Cain – another conservative voice of sanity but won’t beat Obama.
Two candidates not yet on the list – Sarah Palin and Rick Perry – they make me want to campaign for their election! They fire me up! I see them as carrying the flag and rallying the great silent majority of voters. They have “it” in spades. I want to win back the White House! Obama must go!
So what is it? I’ve tried to figure this out logically but I keep hitting an emotional wall.
Does Michele Bachmann’s energy belong in the legislature and not the executive? (Something I see as Newt’s problem (among others) – he played a big part in orchestrating the 1994 takeover, then let it wilt away – he’s not executive material, but rather a good back-bench workhorse).
I’d like your thoughts.
Makes sense to me. On first exposure to her via Hannity and Levin radio shows she said all the right things to ring the conservative bell. But slowly her calls to those shows began to make me wonder. I was a strong supporter for her House race, but the closer it came to election day her calls opened with almost fawning greetings followed by brief updates and then the plea for more money, more money, more money. And she raised a very tidy sum indeed. Her subsequent performance left me with more questions.
And before Sarah Palin's bus tour, it came to me, she's a female Mike Huckabee. Same unctuous demeanor, not quite as polished as Huck's, the same repetition of familiar keywords and phrases and smooth delivery.
Unctuous is the word you were looking for perhaps?
You have nailed it:
“...she’s a female Mike Huckabee. Same unctuous demeanor, not quite as polished as Huck’s, the same repetition of familiar keywords and phrases and smooth delivery.”
Plus ‘using’ Christianity to gain polical benefit.
With Sarah it is deeds not just words.
Also, she doesn’t hound people for money. People are anxious to contribute to her cause whether it is for a Presidential run or to her PAC because they have confidence that she will spend it wisely for the good of the country [via helping the most solid patriotic conservatives get elected]. People search out ways to help her cause at their own expense.
Thanks.
Your comments about Sarah Palin are worth repeating.
“With Sarah it is deeds not just words.
Also, she doesn’t hound people for money. People are anxious to contribute to her cause whether it is for a Presidential run or to her PAC because they have confidence that she will spend it wisely for the good of the country [via helping the most solid patriotic conservatives get elected]. People search out ways to help her cause at their own expense.”
______________________________________
And evident in the small things she did as Gov.,driving herself, getting rid of the Governor’s cook and body guard, selling the state jet. She has exhibited no desire for the trappings of power to which so many succumb. Not only no desire, but rejection of such, exhibiting the true servant’s heart through her deeds.
If I had to for for Mr. Ed the horse to get bama out of office in 2012 - i would do it.
Exactly. It is that “servant’s heart” thing.
Rare indeed.
That is why Sarah is so confident in saying: Don’t attack someone personally, question their record.
Do the commentators even know what political issues they want the candidates to promote as planks in their campaign platforms? How do each of the candidates perform on each of these planks? Is the candidate credible in pursuing the plank?
I was kind of feeling the same way, but at this time in the primary, we do better by celebrating the strong points of each candidate, rather than tearing them down. Together the candidates present a picture of the Republican Party that will last through the election, no matter who wins.
After the debate, Bachman is now in second place. The other polls were taken before the debate.
I am just hoping that a strong winner will emerge, other than Romney, who I don’t trust.
There lies the answer to your dilemma. Bachmann is good a gold in our fight to take back our country BUT she is legislator. She needs to remain in the house or senate. I can't see her in an administrative role either. The presidency is no place to find out if she has the skill for that job. I'll stick with Sarah Palin.
I think she’s doing very well where she is. If Sarah doesn’t run, I will certainly consider Bachmann. She’s just not my first or second choice.
While I agree that most American's don't deserve a "serious" candidate, most of those people don't even vote. When they do vote they vote for the democrat without thinking, because it is easy to be a liberal and being a conservative takes brains.
That being said, you have to number me among those who didn't watch the debate. Instead I watched some old re-runs of King of Queens (which I suspect was more enlightening than the debate itself). I refuse to watch a debate 6 months before the first primary. I think it is insane that these people start their campaigns more than a year before the convention and more than a year and a half from the general election. The smart candidates sat this one out (Palin and Perry). These early debates do nothing but give the enemy a bunch of soundbites and talking points to destroy you early on in the game.
As in horseracing it is never a good idea to take the lead early. You sit back and keep your horses relaxed until you spot the finish line, then you make your move. Palin and Perry are sitting back. Neither of them need the debates as they can book an interview on any station any time just by making a phone call. Other than Romney, the MSM is not taking any of the other candidates seriously, and the fact that they are not being taken seriously can damage your campaign more than sitting out a debate or two can ever do.
You generate interest by keeping your cards close to the vest.
That being said, the whole silly question scenario started when Clinton actually gave an answer to the question "Boxers or Briefs"? He should have simply moved on and asked if anyone else had any questions. He did more to denigrate the office of president by answering that question than he did by having an affair with his intern.
There are questions that are designed to humiliate or bring a candidate down to the level of someone who ought not to be taken seriously. "Regular or Thick Crust" is one of those questions. It should not have even been acknowledge. But then, the whole debate should never have happened in the first place.
She reminds me of an opening act NOT a main attraction.
I don't dislike her. I just do not get a major energy hit from her.
sigh.
A bunch of panties getting all bunched up with still sixteen and a half months yet to go.
I agree with your earlier comment (another thread?) that a question and answer session before journalists is a stupid way to decide on the leader of the free world.
Sound bites and ability to evoke a laugh is a great way to pick a Vegas stand-up comedian.
As far as sound bites and ability to evoke a laugh is concerned, it worked well for JFK; the difference being that he—like Reagan—had a ready and good natured natural wit instead of brain dead, meaningless and demeaning set up questions.
Even as late as 1960 the questions asked in the debate were about issues. I’m saying those times are past unless we can turn them around despite the well accomplished and deliberate dumbing down. We are heading into Idiocracy at electronic speed.
I did feel that way, but since the debate it’s no longer true.
She has more charisma than Palin and is more reliably conservative than Romney, T-Paw, etc...
I don’t agree with your assessment, not that it makes it wrong.
i never said i wouldn’t vote for her the QUESTION was “Why I can’t connect with Michele Bachmann.
GEE I was stupid I thought someone was asking a question or I wouldn’t have put myself out there for such a beating.
At least on this site...I am never writing to an enemy.
My apologies again!
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.