Currently viewing the tag: "Michele Bachmann"

Could happen:

There’s been scant polling in the district, but a June survey commissioned by her Democratic challenger, Jim Graves, found Bachmann with a dangerously narrow lead. “Bachmann’s unsuccessful bid for president had a clear and negative impact on her standing among voters in the new Minnesota 6 CD. She received low marks on both her job performance and personal favorability,” pollster Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner found. The survey found her leading Graves by just five points and under 50 percent, even though her name ID was almost 100 percent in the district and Graves is mostly obscure.

In an interview last month, Graves pointed out to Salon that Bachmann has benefited in the past two cycles from third-party challengers who have disproportionately syphoned votes from the Democratic candidate. Minnesota Public Radio political writer Bon Collins called Independence Party candidate Bob Anderson  – who took over 10 percent of the vote in 2008 — “Michele Bachmann’s best friend” because he paved the way for her reelection. Bachmann won by just three points that year. In 2010, her margin was bigger, but it was a wave election for Republicans and Bachmann had managed to avoid major controversy ahead of the election. That year, Anderson, who ran again, took about 6 percent of the vote.

This year, there is no major third party candidate, giving Bachmann her first head-to-head race since her election. Tom Horner, a former gubernatorial candidate from the Independence Party, which has mostly gotten on board with Graves’ campaign, told the St. Cloud Times that the lack of a third candidate is significant. “I think that’s going to make a huge difference. It’s the opportunity to compare and contrast two candidates, head to head,” he said.

Add this in with the real possibility that Paul Ryan gets unseated (grown larger by his selection as the GOP VP candidate, which will inevitably take his attention away from the district), and the serious challenge faced by top hatemonger Steve King in a new swing district, and it’s entirely possible that the big Tea Party figures of this Congress could mostly be gone next year. Wonder what that would look like.

As in, a cheap way of letting the people who want to believe the GOP isn’t nuts believe it, while only having to give up someone who overstayed their welcome? I wish I could be a bit less cynical, but Bachmann hasn’t said or done anything she hasn’t already over the past six years. Only now, she gets all this blowback? I’ll believe this is what they say it is when the more strident conspiracy nuts, like Steve King and Lou Gohmert, face a similar treatment.
{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under: , ,  
Unintentionally hilarious:  “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”
What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?
Lev filed this under: ,  
Michele Bachmann has said that people who want to marry someone of their own gender already have marriage equality–they can marry someone of the opposite gender, after all! Allowing anything else would be a “special privilege” and we simply can’t allow those. This is a line of argument I’ve heard many times before, often delivered by College Republican types. It comes up on a few issues–one I’ve personally heard was, “Hey, we’re pro-choice too! After all, you can choose whether or not to have sex! We support that choice.” Which might be reasonable in a universe where rape doesn’t exist and there are never pregnancy complications, but we don’t live there. What needs to be said about this argument is that it is not some quirky/irritating/dumb debating point. It’s a deliberate insult. People like Bachmann, say what you want about them, just aren’t that dumb. They understand issues like abortion and gay marriage very well indeed. They know what both sides believe, on these issues anyway. So what you have in both of these cases is granting the premise (i.e. there are gay people out there who legitimately want marriage equality) and sharing the conclusion (marriage equality needs to exist), but getting there in a downright farcical manner (we already have it). It’s a rhetorical move deliberately designed to irritate the other side by essentially mocking the substance of their arguments by replacing them with insane points, and employing it says a lot about the sayer. Nothing we didn’t know about Bachmann already I suppose.
Lev filed this under: , ,  

Steve B. asks the question of the election cycle:

I still have no idea why the GOP field is giving Romney a pass on health care. The former governor’s health care included an individual mandate forcing taxpayers to purchase insurance; it provided benefits to immigrants who entered the country illegally; and it covers abortion — and somehow, this hardly ever comes up in the middle of the GOP primary contest. A year ago, the right was saying Romney wouldn’t even be considered unless he renounced and apologized for his health care law, and now, it’s effectively become a non-issue.

Jonathan Bernstein recently argued that Romney’s GOP rivals are “blowing it.” I agree.

I don’t think this is a very hard question, but it’s not one with one simple answer. On the one hand, business plan candidates like Herman Cain have absolutely no reason to involve themselves in the cut-and-thrust of campaign politics, and probably a strong disincentive to slam the party’s likely candidate for 2012. If anything, such a thing complicates how they’re perceived and could make book deals and FOX gigs harder to come by. That alone is a fairly substantial chunk of the Republican contenders, one that includes Cain, Santorum, and probably Gingrich (though Gingrich now seems to think he’s for real). On the other hand, you have your fringe contingent that either prefers a different reality to the one we’ve got (i.e. Bachmann), or is far more interested in their own pet things than trying to play a role in mainstream debate (that’d be Ron Paul, and perhaps Gary Johnson too, though he’s pretty marginal). Ron Paul wants to bring back the gold standard and kill off the Federal Reserve. Gary Johnson wants to legalize pot. Bachmann wants to stop Barack Obama from surrendering to Uruguay. Their obsessions–which are admittedly of very different levels of merit–tend to crowd out issues that other people care about. And then there’s Perry (and Pawlenty, back when he was in), who have made some jabs at this but haven’t been willing to follow through with a vengeance. In fairness, Perry hasn’t yet made his move, and he might well slam Romney on health care closer to the Iowa Caucuses. So that’s the one proviso.

The one wild card here is the one I can’t figure out. Jon Huntsman has for some reason not made a fuss of this issue even though he’d probably do best with it. Political attacks’ effectiveness depends a lot upon the deliverer. Michele Bachmann saying that Obama is detached from reality counts for a lot less than, for example, were Romney to say it (though it still wouldn’t count for much, as it’s a banal attack). Given that, an attack on Romney’s health care system coming from a smart, mainstream, wonkish dude like Huntsman would go a lot further than from, say, Rick Santorum. Huntsman is the most like Romney in the field and stands to gain a lot by shaking loose Romney’s support. Admittedly, Huntsman used to support the mandate concept himself, but I seriously doubt Romney would be in a position to call Huntsman out for just one flip-flop. That would just open him up for Huntsman to strike back on the dozens of flip-flops on Romney’s record. It’s practically fool-proof. Why Huntsman hasn’t tried to turn this into his big issue baffles me, the political calculus for him to do so is strong, and striking this pose would elevate him among conservatives while not dooming him in a possible general election. I can only conclude that, even in a field of incompetence, Huntsman is a strikingly inept candidate, one of the least able to sense and exploit opportunities that is out there. Maybe he has some hidden reason for not doing so (perhaps he’s a closet Obamacare fan?), but from where I sit it looks like plain miscalculation, and he makes up a third contingent with Perry and the late for the campaign Pawlenty: the incompetents.

What this adds up to is a unique situation in which Romney’s biggest threat has been mostly ignored due to the unique structure of this year’s GOP field: you have a group of candidates that splits easily into three segments, the business plan types, the fringers, and the incompetents. These groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but Romneycare provides an interesting perspective on just how awful the Republican field is: the business planners lack the motive to attack, the fringers lack both the motive (and the opportunity, frequently), and the incompetents lack the smarts and determination to get it done. Why hasn’t Romney come under attack for inspiring the Affordable Care Act? Read the title of the post.

Some bad lip readers reveal what Michele Bachmann is really thinking about when she speaks:

Metavirus filed this under: ,  

…to hop across the Bay for this:

For those who’ve been looking for a chance to ask Republican Presidential Candidate and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann some questions about her enlightening views on HPV vaccinations and race without contributing their hard-earned pennies to the Tea Party campaign, here’s your chance. The Commonwealth Club has announced that Bachmann will be giving a lunch-time talk on October 20 entitled “The Revival of American Competitiveness.”

For a mere $10-25, you can bring a bag lunch (we suggest a nice onion-y tuna fish sandwich) and get a glimpse of just how bleak our future looks. Better yet, grab a front row seat for $30-$45.

Ironically, Bachmann’s campaign itself is in need of a renewal of competitiveness. So who better to give a speech like this? I’m probably not going to go, since I can’t morally justify supporting the Bachmann campaign even ironically. But my guess is that it turns out to be a mostly empty room, about half of which will turn out to be liberal agents provocateurs trying to make Bachmann look like an idiot by trying to get her to back up conspiracy theories about Ted Kennedy being an alien or the Moon landing being a fake by Ted Turner. And why not? She’s said crazier stuff than that.

Lev filed this under: