Dead meat

This picture is a strangely apt metaphor


Michele Bachmann’s campaign is sputtering in Iowa

Michele Bachmann’s appearance on a talk radio show here should have been a breeze. Ronald Reagan was a sportscaster at the station in his early days, and his memorabilia is sprinkled around the office. The host was a friendly conservative.

But Bachmann repeatedly was asked the central question for her campaign: Does she have to win Iowa’s caucuses to keep her presidential campaign alive? She danced around an answer, saying she planned to win, until finally relenting when asked a third time whether failure would doom her effort.

“No, no, no, no,” Bachmann said, her voice growing uncertain. “Not necessarily; we might go on.”

It was a rare moment of audible frustration for the Minnesota congresswoman, and the break in her perennially cheery demeanor demonstrated just how much her bid does rest on Iowa.

After she formally announced her candidacy at her birthplace of Waterloo, about 100 miles northeast of here, Bachmann surged, capping the summer with a win at the straw poll in Ames. Since then, her candidacy has sputtered.


I had heard a lot of bad things about Michele Bachmann over the past few years, but since most of the things I heard were from biased sources I was willing to keep an open mind and give her a chance.

Unfortunately for her most of what I heard was true.

She’s one of those people who seems normal and rational (even of you don’t agree with her) but then without warning she makes a sudden veer over into batshit.

She was flavor of the week once, now she’s the day before yesterday’s news.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Dead meat

  1. votermom says:

    now she’s the day before yesterday’s news.
    Yesterday’s news – Perry.
    Today’s news – Cain.
    Tomorrow’s news – Christie.

  2. WMCB says:

    I agree. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she has gone off the rails too many times now.

    And BTW, when even the extremely conservative blogs are saying that she is fine for her House seat, but the crazy comes out too frequently for them to want her in the WH, you know she’s toast. It’s being seen not that she’s generally crazy overall (like Ron Paul is seen), but that she will be in the middle of being perfectly reasonable then go off on some emotion-not-fact-based tangent, like the Gardisil retarded whore-shot thing.

    I see a lot of R’s on those blogs saying “I actually agree with her on 95% of stuff, but she gets inexplicably flaky for no apparent reason. Not comfortable with that.” I’m all for not branding all women candidates as “flaky” just because you disagree. But I’m not for giving them a pass on repeated and evident flakiness just because they are women, either.

    If someone wants to vote for her based on their commitment to the 30% solution thing, great. That’s a legitimate strategy, and I won’t denigrate it. It’s a valid approach. But in her case, be upfront that you are voting for her deliberately because she’s a woman, not because what’s being said about her is not true.

    I had at least one black friend who told me they knew Obama was utterly unqualified, but they were voting to break that barrier, period. I disagreed, but I can respect a) their decision, and b) their honesty about just what it was they were doing.

    • Jeffhas says:

      “I had at least one black friend who told me they knew Obama was utterly unqualified, but they were voting to break that barrier, period. I disagreed, but I can respect a) their decision, and b) their honesty about just what it was they were doing.”

      I frankly would have been far less incensed had some/all/most supporters expressed this sentiment.

      • WMCB says:

        Me too, Jeff. I appreciated his honesty at the time, and he was disgusted at the Hillary bashing. Haven’t spoken to him in ages, since he moved jobs, so not sure how he feels about it now.

  3. votermom says:

    OT. For crying out loud. Looks like the GOP is intent on self-destructing for the sake of an acceptable RINO candidate
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/south-carolina-to-hold-primary-on-january-21/?hpt=hp_t2

    South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary will be held on Jan. 21 of next year, two GOP sources tell CNN.
    South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Chad Connelly will formally announce the date later this morning.

    The move is designed to put space between South Carolina and Florida, which bucked national Republican Party rules last week and decided to hold their primary on Jan. 31.
    The updated calendar is likely to push the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary even earlier into January as they seek to protect their role as the two leadoff contests in the presidential nominating process.
    “Last Friday, a nine-person committee brought chaos to the 2012 calendar,” said South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad Connelly. “Today, South Carolina is making things right. South Carolina Republicans have a thirty year track record of picking the eventual Republican Presidential nominee. We will continue that historic tradition on January 21, 2012.”

    • WMCB says:

      The GOP is doing exactly what the Dems did in 2008.

      Because, honestly, they’d rather retain control of a losing party than lose control of a winning party. Not losing control to the smelly rabble is job one, for both parties. They have entrenched fiefdoms to protect, the political class does. And they both treat the voters like children:

      “You can have an apple or some grapes, those are your two choices. No, you cannot go peruse the shelves yourself, and decide what you want on your own. Apple or grape, Johnny: Now PICK.”

      • ralphb says:

        I wonder if the Tea Party will let them get away with it? If they know what’s going on behind the scenes, there may be fight coming.

      • Monster from the Id says:

        The Dems did that in 1972, too. I just barely remember “Democrats for Nixon” ads. (I was born in 1963).

  4. yttik says:

    I’m going to disagree that Bachman is batshit. I think if she was batshit she’d be doing a lot better in her campaign run. Ironically, I think it’s Bachman’s moments of sanity and humaness that are doing her in.

    I also think it’s still sexist to label her crazy. I mean, compared to whom? Rick Santorum is scary crazy. Newt Gingrich is amusing, but geesh, the banality of all that evil he carries with him! Ron Paul has some great ideas, but everybody knows he’s our crazy old uncle, good for inspiring discussion, but you make sure he has nothing more dangerous then a spoon at the dinner table. On the Dem side, insanity is the norm, too. John Edwards was supporting his mistress with campaign funds while his wife was trying to survive cancer, and he didn’t believe that was a liability in a presidential election. That’s batshit crazy!

    So, no, I think our female candidates have a long, long way to go before they will have earned the right to be labeled batshit. Maybe when they start emailing photos of their private parts to constituents, we can start questioning their sanity.

    • votermom says:

      I think she’s being “handled’ badly, but even if she were not, I don’t think she’s presidential timber at all. I think she’s too narrow-minded to be President.

      But good point on her not being as crazy as some of the others out there. Obama for one.

      • catarina says:

        I can’t get excited about Bachmann as Prez either, but wasn’t it great that she had the tits to put herself out there, knowing what was in store from the media and the boyz?

        She’s a woman and she held her own.
        She refused to be intimidated and didn’t take any crap.

        Thank you, MB. You can take your life stuff and your Jesus talk and shove it, but thank you for having the courage.

    • catarina says:

      what yttik said.

    • Dario says:

      Honk! Men and women Republicans are a case study. But, I will vote for the abby-normal to get rid of the empty suit.

    • Three Wickets says:

      From what I see in the progressive blogosphere, it’s her christian homophobia that is her principle qualification for being batshit crazy. Everything else, vaccines, pro-life, environment, and all the small government conservative economic stuff rank a distant second. She’s the female Santorum, mainly hated by progressives for her homophobia. Sometimes I think the activist progressive blogosphere could be called the GLBT liberation front. Could be a more accurate upfront description of movement progressive priorities for many of the loudest activists, and I’d certainly be strong in my support of that agenda.

    • I don’t like labelling female candidates as crazy, ditzy, etc, even when I disagree or disapprove of their policies. They’re going to get labelled that way anyway, true or not, so my default is that they’re being falsely accused. They’d have to show me some really really crazy.

      How would she get this high in the Rep establishment if she were really more crazy than the men?

      I’d vote for her in protest, except that she’s on record wanting to shut down the EPA (though most of the other GOP candidates agreed with that too).

  5. ralphb says:

    without warning she makes a sudden veer over into batshit.

    A victim of Ron Paul syndrome.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    I just never got jiggy for a candidate from the House, so really haven’t paid that much attention to her. What I have heard just hasn’t drawn me to her.

    I guess in these early primary stages I’m more drawn to personalities, like Palin and Cain who are real crowd pleasers. Common sense smart, personable and up from the bootstraps histories. Overachievers.

    Obama never passed that sniff test with me 🙂 Underachiever. How’s that “blank slate” candidate working for us ?

  7. ralphb says:

    Live coverage from NBC in Dallas…

    Chemical plant explosions rock Waxahachie

Comments are closed.