Michele Bachmann Announces She Will Not Run Again In 2014

Michele Bachmann has announced that she will not be running for re-election in 2014.

The usual jackasses will bray and cavort, since they've hated her for years. AFter all, it's what they do, and it certainly doesn't concern me and I doubt it concerns Rep. Bachmann.

But if you listen carefully to what she's saying and how she phrases things, I don't think we've heard the last of her at all. And that is a very good thing, seeing how we need honest and courageous public servants.

She could be planning a run for the Senate, and not necessarily as a Republican. Given the ongoing war by the RINO establishment against conservative Republicans and the mancrush between Chris Christie and President Obama, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 2016 match up featured Chris Christie as 'a new type of Democrat' after a party switch versus Jeb Bush for the Republicans.

If that happens, rest assured you'll see a credible third party emerge as the GOP fades away like the Whigs.
.

Passover Greetings From Michele Bachmann

This was sent to me, and I take pleasure in reprinting it.

A Happy Passover Greeting To All My Many Friends In The Pro-Israel Community;

As millions around the world begin to celebrate the feast of Passover at sundown on Friday, April 6, it is important to remember why this celebration exemplifies God’s mercy on His people. When the children of Israel cried out to the Lord because of their great suffering at the hands of the Egyptians, we know "God looked upon the children of Israel, and God acknowledged them (Exodus 2:25)."God responded with 10 plagues sent to do unimaginable damage on Egypt in order to deliver His people.

When the first nine plagues did not soften the heart of Pharaoh, the Lord sent his tenth and final plague: the slaughter of the first-born males in each family. By believing and obeying specific instructions from the Lord, the Israelites were spared this horrific plague and ultimately the destruction led to their freedom from Egyptian tyranny. God foretold the liberation of the children of Israel when he told Moses "I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage (Exodus 6:6)."

These promises to the ancient Israelites were near to my heart as I grew up, which is why I took the first opportunity to go to Israel when I was a young woman. The day after I graduated from high school in 1974, I took a flight to Israel. I went to work for the summer on Kibbutz Be’eri near Beer Sheva. Aside from the beauty of the country and deep cultural and spiritual appreciation of the Jewish people, the experience gave me a clear realization: Israel is under a constant external threat. During my time, we worked on the kibbutz from four in the morning until noon, and at all times we were accompanied by soldiers carrying machine guns. While we were working, they were making sure there were no land mines in the fields. As a recent high school graduate, I knew very little of the complex geopolitical threat that Israel faced from all sides of its borders. Today, Israel still faces those threats and more. For this reason, the United States must declare, in no uncertain terms, that it is our policy to utilize all military strength to support and defend our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

On March 4 of this year, President Obama made the case that diplomatic sanctions are working in Iran. His words, "Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built,"point to the need to let diplomacy take its course. These are powerful words and I certainly commend both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration for the increasing economic sanctions on Iran. However, has any evidence surfaced that these sanctions are hindering the development of a nuclear weapon? If Iran had years instead of months, sanctions would certainly be advisable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, report after report seems to lend credence to the fact that Iran is growing dangerously close to having nuclear capability.

Furthermore, there are those that wrongly believe that Iran can be contained or that Iran is strictly Israel’s problem. Make no mistake; a nuclear Iran threatens the safety and security of a region that directly affects the interests of the United States. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, many surrounding Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, will most likely do everything in their power to obtain one that begins a deadly nuclear arms race. Additionally, Iran has made clear through their intrusion into our own hemisphere that they will not only provide support to rogue nations south of our border, they could also provide secrets of nuclear capability. Just imagine the devastation of a nuclear Cuba or Venezuela.

To Israel, the threat is real and very close. Just over 950 miles away from Jerusalem (roughly the distance by air from Washington D.C. to Miami) is Tehran and their fanatical leadership. The chilling escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran leaves the United States with but two choices: stand with our long time democratic ally or marginalize their position leaving them even more vulnerable to attack. I write this not to express the obvious, but to urge the American public to stand up and demand that our elected officials clearly explain their policies on stopping a nuclear Iran.

The President mentioned "too much loose talk of war" in his March 4 speech. I recognize some may wrongly see this as a call for military action against Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth. Military action should only be utilized when all diplomatic means have been exhausted. However, even with rapid implementation of sanctions on every aspect of the Iranian economy, I am concerned that Iran has more than enough capabilities to not only complete a nuclear weapon, but to use it, if necessary.

In the 38 years since I worked in Israel, I have been privileged to visit the country many times. I always return with a stronger reality and greater concern for Israel's safety and security. However, having returned just two weeks ago from an House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence trip to the country, and having met privately with numerous Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Netanyahu, the dangers our great friend Israel faces today are more acute and more serious than ever.

Friends, feel assured and confident this Passover Holiday, I pledge to do everything in my power to protect and secure one of our most precious allies, the great State of Israel.

A Happy Healthy Pesach,

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

It always helps to know whom your friends are. And Michele Bachmann has always been a principled friend of Israel and the Jewish people.

Michele Bachmann made a number of tactical mistakes in running for president this time that can largely be checked off to rookie's errors and a first time bout with the national dinosaur media. She's undoubtedly learned, she'll be much more prepared next time around, and I expect great things from her in the future.

Iowa Comes Down ToThe Wire

The latest polls show Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul, followed by Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann is bringing up the rear, having fallen to single digits.

Romney campaigned in Des Moines today, stumping with New Jersey governor Chris Christie on a cold wet day with temperatures in the twenties. Considering the weather, Romeny drew a decent crowd as he mocked President Obama and his $4 million Hawaiian vacation.

"We’re out in the cold and the rain and the wind because we care about America. He just finished his 90th round of golf.”

Governor Christie: “You people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don’t do what you’re supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney I will be back, Jersey-style, people. I will be back,” he joked.

Rick Santorum is moving up in the polls as Newt Gingrich has been falling. A lot of evangelicals are reportedly giving him a second look. He's invested a great deal of time here in Iowa and he needs a strong finish here to keep his campaign viable.

Michele Bachmann has perhaps the saddest story of all. After winning the Ames straw poll, she suffered perhaps a terminal blow when her Iowa campaign chair defected to Ron Paul without giving her any warning whatsoever.

As much as I like Michele Bachmann, I think what we're seeing here is an indication that her campaign was hurried and perhaps premature. She's only been in Congress four years,and hopefully she can make another try for top job when she's had a little more seasoning and time to process what went wrong this time.

The State Of The GOP Race

In this most interesting of election years, the Republican race remains oddly unsettled.

With real unemployment (as opposed to the far less realistic 'official' U-3 unemployment rate) hovering at between 13& and 15% and the president's approval ratings in the low forties, 2012 was largely seen as the GOP's to lose.

Instead, we're seeing something far different as a large number of Republican voters - some estimates are as high as one third - remain dissatisfied with the GOP field as they view the debates and approach the Iowa caucus.

A major part of the sour flavor of the current race comes from the fact that many people who identify themselves as conservatives and Tea Party adherents don't feel like they have a real dog in the fight, especially since Sarah Palin decided not to run.

The race has come down various attempts to try to find a 'not-Romney' just as I predicted; each not-Romney has had their moment in the sun and been revealed as disappointingly less than perfect. Let's look at them in turn:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came into the race with solid Tea Party credentials. Given her intelligence, high principles and charisma, for awhile it appeared that she might be able to pick up a lot of Sarah Palin's support. Unfortunately, the fact that she's only been in public life for four years was underlined by a number of unfortunate gaffes and her own admission that she 'should have Googled Ed Rollins' before making the unforced error of hiring him as her campaign manager. Between that early false start and her remarks about an unidentified child getting cancer from a common vaccine, she may simply not be ready for prime time yet. Her results in Iowa are going to say a great deal about her future prospects.

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum brought conservative principles and character into to race and a decent knowledge of foreign policy and national security issues, but he's been handcuffed by two things; his 18 point loss for re-election in Pennsylvania has convinced a lot of people he would be unable to win against President Obama, and his insistence on talking about conservative social issues is not exactly what people want to hear just now.In addition, his persona and speaking style seem to lend itself to being overshadowed by the more high profile candidates. Unlike some of the others, he's never had his moment in the sun yet. His showing in Iowa is also going to say a great deal about his future prospects.

Former Governor and Ambassador John Huntsman - yes, he's in the race too - is actually perhaps a better candidate than some people realize. Not exactly a man with the 'conservative' label associated with him, he nevertheless has some common sense stands on economic matters and on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to China, where he served as our ambassador. However that service, performed at the behest of President Obama has hurt his candidacy, and it's been difficult for him to get traction.

Texas Governor Rick Perry originally seemed like the 'anyone but Romney' dream candidate. To some, I'm sure he still is. Not only did he seem to have a solid reputation as a conservative, but he was the longest serving governor in the US - and the one with by far the best record on job creation. He surged in the polls as soon as he got in the race.

And then, the debates happened.

Not only did they reveal a position on illegal aliens that was sharply at variance with most of the GOP base, but they revealed that he simply was lousy in a debate format period. Perry's failure to name three government departments he would shut down after thumping his chest and announcing it has to rank as one of the most embarrassing gaffes in political history.

While his last couple of outings have been somewhat better, the image of him as a gaffe-prone, fumbling, pro-illegal immigration candidate who might be severely challenged to beat Barack Obama is going to be difficult to erase.

Congressman Ron Paul remains the bête noire of the Republican Party, a paleo-conservative who appeals to what could best be characterized as the diminishing Pat Buchanan, isolationist America Firster wing of the Republican Party.

He holds the distinction of being the one Republican candidate certain to cause a massive Republican crossover vote in favor of President Obama. In fact, as I mentioned before, President Obama and his handlers realize it too, which I think accounts for the sudden respect Paul in getting from the Obama Administration's media allies as well as Paul's higher profile and financial clout.

Paul may actually win the Iowa caucus, which is not an actual primary but amounts to getting one's foot soldiers out into the January snow in sufficient numbers to dominate the caucus voting. He has a very slim chance of actually getting the GOP nomination, but I think there's an excellent chance he may surface as a third party candidate in an attempt to siphon off a few Republican votes.

I group Speaker Newt Gingrich and Governor Mitt Romney together because in many ways they belong together, aside from being the two presumptive front runners. Both are, essentially, big government types, albeit leaning towards the conservative side. Both are known for changing their views frequently on issues like global warming, cap and trade, various social conservative issues and mandated government run healthcare among others. Both have performed well enough in the debates to appear 'presidential'. Both would likely operate as Theodore Roosevelt-style Republicans rather than as conservatives.

Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Governor Romney has the executive experience of running a state Newt Gingrich lacks, Unfortunately, his signature achievement while governor of Massachusetts was state mandated healthcare, the direct ancestor of ObamaCare. The Massachusetts plan has been an abysmal failure, and Romney has continued to be associated with it because he's refused to plainly label it as such.

Governor Romney also has the executive experience of being a successful businessman who created jobs and wealth in the private sector. Even his missionary experience as a Mormon comes into play, where he performed with grit and determination amid difficult circumstances and rose to become the head of Mormon missionary activities in France.

Governor Romney also has the distinction, to my mind at least, of giving serious thought to international affairs and national security issues. And he's attracted a top notch group of A-list advisers in these matters because of it.

His main drawbacks? Aside from his association with the Massachusetts health plan, he has the problem of being known as the governor of a very left leaning Northeast blue state at a time when the GOP's strength is concentrated in the South, West and Midwest. His 'likeability ' factor remains in question, with Governor Romney still polling in the 20's among his own party in spite of months of campaigning. And because of his personal wealth, he's an ideal target for the sort of class warfare campaign President Obama will unleash. Nevertheless, as respectable conservative pundits like Ann Coulter have said, he might be the best thing going so far.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has the advantage of being demonstrably bright and quick on his feet mentally. Many of his supporters associate him with his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration, the last time Big Government was actually shrunken a bit. Even before that , Gingrich and a few outspoken supporters challenged the status quo in Congress, and eventually delivered a GOP House majority in 1996 that forced changes in how things were done in Washington.

On the minus side,there are also people who remember the arrogant, impulsive, loose cannon side of Gingrich's persona as Speaker, including a number of people who worked with him in Congress. It's an open question as to whether that side of his mercurial personality has changed to the point he would be an effective president.

There's also Gingrich's rather colorful and complicated personal life and his long history as a Washington insider that are going to give a great many people pause when it comes to voting for him as president.

Frankly, there isn't anyone in the above list who has so far excited the Republican base. It remains to be seen if any of the above can overcome their drawbacks and rise above the field.

Not surprisingly, there have been more than a few noises abou tother candidates getting into the race. Because of the way this year's GOP primary schedule is set up, it's actually quite possible that a new candidate could jump in, as Sarah Palin pointed out.

For that matter, from a very different part of the political spectrum , no less than former Florida governor Jeb Bush sounded off with an article on conservatism that could very much be seen as a testing of the waters.

Politics, like nature in general abhors a vacuum. It remains to be seen if that vacuum gets filled from someone who's already in the ring or from someone new from out side it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - The War Zone

Yes, I watch these things so you don't have to.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, the potential GOP nominees were a lot more contentious and in attack mode than at any of the debates thus far.

As you might expect,most of the fire was directed at perceived front runner Newt Gingrich, which Mitt Romney also taking a few hits as some of the candidates a little lower in the polls saw this as a chance to damage the front runners and gain traction.

Michele Bachmann was particularly outspoken, since she's devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to Iowa. A poor showing here would damage her quite a bit, since her support and presence in New Hampshire is fairly low key.

Speaking of attacks, I frankly have had it with Rick Perry. Previously, he refused to repute a bigoted, anti-Mormon supporter of his until pressed, and even then I felt it was halfhearted. Last night, he attacked Newt Gingrich in a particularly nasty and personal way, saying you can’t trust people who violate their marriage vows -- vows made, as he said, not only with one’s spouse but also with G-d. "That’s even stronger than a handshake in Texas".

Gingrich does have some issues here, everyone knows it and he's been fairly candid about it. But to attack him in that fashion on nationwide TV was cowardly and beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

It drew some criticism in certain quarters, but I personally thought it was just wonderful when Mitt Romney, attacked by Perry about a supposed revision in Romney's book stuck out his hand to Perry and bet him a cool $10,000 that Perry was dead wrong. The look on Perry's face when he turned away and said "I'm not in the betting business' was priceless. It was almost as good as his brain freeze the other night when he was challenged to name the three government departments he had been thumping his chest about closing down and then couldn't even name them.

Hopefully Perry will be riding off into the sunset after Iowa.

Mitt Romney also tried to attack Newt Gingrich, and didn't do so well at it.

Trying to explain his differences with Gingrich, he ticked off a whole series of issues, but the big difference he tried to capitalize on was the idea of Gingrich as a career politician and Washington insider.

“We don’t need folks who are lifetime Washington people to get this country out of the mess it’s in,” Romney said. “We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street.”

Gingrich's response? “Let’s be candid,” he said. “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. . . . You’d have been a 17-year career politician if you’d won.”

The candidate who actually made took the best shots at the two front runners was Michele Bachmann. She focused on the likenesses between both of them and got in some very good shots.

Rick Santorum also had a fairly good night of it, with a message that seemed focused on Iowa caucus voters. People who used to support Herman Cain or have soured on Newt Gingrich need a place to go, and Santorum seemed to concentrate on reassuring them that he was a safe place to land.

Bottom line? Newt Gingrich seemed to shrug off most of what was thrown at him, although it's going to be hard to tell. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may have advanced their chances a notch, although whether it will be enough to keep going after Iowa remains to be seen.

One important caveat about Iowa...it's a caucus not a primary. Rather than actual votes, it's a contest to see which candidate is better at mobilizing his or her troops on the ground, getting them to the caucus meetings and then having them take over the meetings once they're there.Which is why no one should be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Ron Paul do well there.

By the way, I'll have some interesting news on Ron Paul a bit later that sheds a lot of light on things.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Current Republican Lineup...The Sale Isn't Over Yet

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and the recent furor over the Republican contest proves that, if not much else. No one's close to making the sale yet.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the front runner stumbled badly in last week's debate and if he has another couple of bad outings, he could very well fade away. Not only were a number of his answers weak, but he failed to take the battle to the other candidates, leaving people wondering how he'd actually do against President Obama.

He continues to double down on the Gardisil question, and his vulnerability on the illegal alien issue has become evident and was exploited handily by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum last week.

Not only that, but when the foreign policy finally reared its ugly head at long last, he flailed around badly:

BAIER: Which brings us to this, Governor Perry, if you were president, and you got a call at 3 am telling you that Pakistan had lost control of is nuclear weapons, at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?

PERRY: Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.

For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16′s, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.

Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Is Governor Perry saying that we're going to ask India or Taiwan what to do? Fine, the alliance with India definitely needs work, but we're talking about an emergency situation - our enemies just overthrew a government that wasn't at all friendly to us anyway and got themselves a nuclear arsenal.

This is not the sound of a president-in-waiting.

Former Senator Rick Santorum's answer was almost as bad:

To answer the question on Pakistan, which I’m not too sure was answered. The bottom line is, that we should be establishing relationships in Pakistan with allies of ours, folks like relationships with President Musharraf who we had in the past with others in that country so if in fact something like that would occur we could work in concert to make sure that that coup could be overturned and make sure those nuclear weapon do not fall in those hands.

But working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused.

Talking about not answering the question! So in Senator Santorum's world, he's just been informed that the Taliban, the Haqqani Group or Lashkar-e-Taiba just took over Pakistan's nuclear facilities in Waziristan and he's going to depend on deposed President Musharraf to help us out? "Quick, get Pervez on the phone.Maybe he can put together a counter-coup."

The fact is that when you have a 3 AM call like that, 'defusing' the problem is already too late and so is talking to 'allies'. It means there's been a civil war,and our enemies just won. My answer, had I been on that stage would have been to say that a faction who are not our friends taking over Pakistan's nukes is quite probable, and as president I would have had a contingency plan ready and waiting with our military for destroying them completely on the ground the minute they fell into questionable hands. The fact that two presidential candidates would go into an Obama-like dithering on something this basic is scary, frankly.

Herman Cain, however likeable has yet to prove that he has the chops needed for the Big Job. The FOX moderators did him a great kindness by not asking him any deep foreign policy or national security questions, since he's already shown that isn't his strong point. And his 9-9-9 plan on taxes which has some merits also has a number of those awful devils in the details. That 9% national sales tax, for instance. Anyone whose seen how politicians around the world have handled a Value Added Tax ( which is essentially what Mr. Cain is proposing) ought to be damned wary of implementing it. Here's a hint; just like sales taxes in your state, they tend to go up, up, up. And it might also be noted that Cain's plan would eliminate the tax break on mortgages, thus putting the boot into an already depressed industry. My prediction is that his straw poll win in Florida will have about as much effect as Muchele Bachmann's in Iowa.

Mitt Romney is an old hand at campaigning by now, and it shows. His answers to questions are clear and obviously well thought out. Unfortunately, he has a habit of only answering half a question and glossing over the rest, and that's going to become more noticeable as time goes on, especially if he overtakes Perry as frontrunner and assumes Perry's role as punching bag for the rest.

His support for the Obama administration's Race to the Top education program is going to come back to haunt him, as will his insistence that RomneyCare's individual mandate only applies to 8% of the population. Actually, that law applies to everyone in Massachusetts. And he's also going to have to figure out how to defend himself on Bain Capital's record on outsourcing jobs.

Speaking of Michele Bachmann, as likeable as she is, she's also proven that she's not quite ready for the Top Job yet. Her positions continue to devolve into talking points, she's shown an unfortunate tendency to be gaffe-prone and continues to be willing to die on questionable hills like the one about how the Gardisil caused retardation in a child.

I'm not even going to discuss the other marginal players. None of them are going to be the GOP nominee,let alone get into the White House.

But I have a feeling that applies to the others as well, at least at the present time. None of them, in my opinion, has really made the sale yet. None of them appears to be an obvious choice for President yet, although Mitt Romney has done a fair job thus far of at least coming close. Plus, it's still very early days and the support of each candidate is still pretty soft.

The 2012 election is the GOP's to lose, but I still think we haven't seen all the candidates. With the first major test being the Iowa Caucus in February, there's plenty of time for someone else to get in.

Actually the deadline is pretty clear. To get your name on the ballot in Florida,you need to pay filing fees by October 31st. And to participate in the South Carolina primary, the last date in November 1st.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a major trick or treat in the Republican race before Halloween.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Some Off The Cuff Reactions To Last Night's Debate And The GOP Field

Bearing in mind it's very early days yet and anything can happen, here are a few of my impressions of last night's debate and the way the current race for the nomination is shaking out.

I fully expected Rick Perry to be a target yesterday. He's the current front runner, he's come up fairly rapidly and Michele Bachmann in particular needed to try to slap him around in order to keep from fading into the ozone.

Perry for the most part handled it reasonably well, although both Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann got in some good shots at his expense.I particularly liked his response to Michele Bachmann's exaggerated attempt to underline the $5,000 campaign contribution Perry got from the maker of the Gardisil vaccine, Merck: ""I raised 30 million dollars [in campaign funds]. Merck donated $5,000. If you're saying I can be bought for $5,000, then I'm offended."

The problem with the Gardisil issue for Perry as far as I'm concerned is not the money, it's the fact that his ex-chief of staff who worked for Merck was obviously was able to influence the governor to do something at odds with his previous record, which is strongly parental choice and anti big government. I'm surprised Perry hasn't sidelined the issue by simply saying he was wrong, it was poorly handled and emphasizing that it was a departure from his previous record. Like Mitt Romney on the Massachusetts health care debacle, he says something like that but then tries to justify it.

One thing that did surprise me is that the issue of illegal immigration and border control didn't come up before last night. Perry signed off on what amounts to a modified version of the DREAM Act in Texas, granting in-state tuition rates to certain illegal immigrants working toward citizenship.

"That is the American way," Perry said, although he was quick to add that he doesn't support the DREAM Act President Obama is currently enforcing by executive order. "That's amnesty. What we did in Texas was a state's right issue. Regardless of what the sound of their last name is, [we are saying] that we believe in you. We're going to allow you to be contributing members and not be a drag on our state."

Bachmann replied: "The American way is not to give taxpayer-subsidized benefits to people who have broken our laws."

Romney piled on as well. "Of course we don't give in-state tuition credits to people who've come here illegally."

One thing I badly want to hear that hasn't surfaced much yet is foreign policy. Americans are rightly concerned about the state of the economy after three years of gross and incompetent mismanagement, but I'm convinced that we're going to be facing some major foreign policy challenges in the near future. And it would be nice to hear more from the candidates on these matters.

So, where do the Republicans stand, now that the official campaign season has begun?

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney remain the front runners, with Romney supported by a chunk of the GOP establishment and Perry by the more conservative wing of the party. Michele Bachmann lost a lot of her following once Perry got in the race, if anything she's continued to slide and unfortunately for her she's made enough questionable statements at this point where she's essentially out of the running. It's an open question whether she or the other marginal candidates will be able to keep going until the Iowa primary in February.

Governor Sarah Palin still remains a factor, and it's by no means too late for her to get in if she decides to. Perry's conservative and Tea Party support is fluid, simply because the alternative is Mitt Romney.If Governor Palin decides to run, she will pick up virtually all of the supporters of Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum as well as a chunk of Rick Perry's. It may be that staying out and letting the other candidates spend money, beat each other up and flame out could end up being the wisest strategy out there, and I speculated that she might do exactly that a while ago.



I'm going to go on record to say that barring something crazy happening like a national disaster that rallies people behind a sitting president or a major scandal involving the GOP nominee, Romney, Perry or Palin could each defeat Barack Obama handily.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, or even a perfect president. What's important is for the electorate to make a hiring decision based on whom could best do the job and gets the closest to upholding some very basic principles.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

How Should Much Should Conservatives Slime GOP Primary Candidates ?

My good friend Bookworm has a post today that explores a vital question...how far should conservatives go when it comes to attacking GOP primary candidates?

As she points out:

As the primary season heats up, here’s a good question to ask: If we want to end the primary season with a viable political candidate to face off against Barack Obama, are there limits limits to the nature of the attacks that bloggers launch against the Republican candidates during this primary season?

My take is that it is very important for us to learn as many facts as possible about the candidates, whether we’re learning good things or bad. However, I’m not yet ready to leap up and castigate any candidate as the devil incarnate. (Even Ron Paul, whom I would not like to see win, can be challenged through facts, not hyperbolic insults.)

As we learned in 2008, there are no perfect Republican candidates. Unfortunately, the other lesson we’ve learned in the last 2.5 years is that Obama is a perfectly scary Democrat president/candidate. This means that, when the Republican primary ends, we need the last Republican candidate still standing to have the strength to face off against Obama. If we inflict too many wounds against our own people, the primary winner may be so weakened, s/he cannot win the final, presidential battle. Further, if s/he’s bleeding badly from the ideological wounds we inflict, Independents will shy away, as they will almost certainly be incapable of discerning between the wounds inflicted during internecine conflict from the type of fatal flaws that spell death at the presidential polls.

As of today, I can easily say yucky things about every one of the Republicans now seeking office (especially Ron Paul):

(1) Michele Bachmann has no more executive experience than Obama did at this stage in the game, and we all rightly predicted that he was grossly unprepared for high executive office;

(2) Paul Ryan, should he weigh in, will also lack that experience, plus he’s got a geeky quality that might not play well in the media;

(3) Mitt Romney has the RomneyCare albatross and all the charm (and good looks) of a Ken doll;

(4) Ron Paul takes libertarianism to an inhuman extreme that includes jettisoning the nation of Israel and supporting Iran’s quest for nuclear arms;

(5) Rick Perry tried to strong-arm Gardasil, whether because of fear of cancer, ties with Merck, power lust, or something else, plus he’s kind of smarmy;

(6) Chris Christie, should he weigh in, has sharia ties, offends people with his outspokeness, and will have to fight the fat-taboo that governs in America.

While I certainly concur, my own take on this is somewhat different.

Today in Memeorandum, the first 13 stories are anti-Perry pieces and the next 3 are anti Bachmann pieces, put out by outlets like the NYT, CNN and what I'll call the Soros media ( Think progress, Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly, Right Wing Watch, etc.). This stuff is being co-ordinated from the White House and it's going to be like that for the next 14 months.

As far as I'm concerned, the three major candidates, Perry , Bachmann and Romney all have their flaws ( none of the others have a shot at getting the nomination) but the next election isn't going to be about them. It's going to be about the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. That's why anyone who gets the nomination or looks like they might is going to be demonized. As I've said in print before, if the GOP ran Daffy Duck as the nominee, I'd probably vote for him over Obama.

2008 isn't really a good example, since we ended up with a candidate whose relationship with most of his own party was largely one of mutual and intense dislike and whom ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern memory, awash with self-inflicted wounds. The only reason John McCain even managed to get within six points of a qualifications challenged candidate like Barack Obama was his gritting his teeth and picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Yes, we ought to vet the candidates, but our chief task, as I see it, is getting this sorry excuse for a president and a man out of the White House, retaining the House and taking the Senate with a conservative majority.

In terms of executive experience, all three major candidates could be slimed a bit - Romney accomplished little except RomneyCare, Rick Perry was governor of the weakest executive branch in the 50 states and had comparatively little decision making power, and Michelle Bachmann has never run a government entity. In fact, Governor Palin or Rudy Giuliani would be the strongest choices if we're looking for a record of executive experience and accomplishment, and neither is in the race yet.

But each of the three have at least accomplished things in life outside of government and run something. To me the central issue is the quality of their instincts and their moral character, because the rest you can hire out. That's what we ought to be focused on, in my opinion.

Character is what kicks in when you're called on to make the tough decisions. And that's a major part of the equation of leadership, something this country has been literally starved of for a long time.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll; Pawlenty Ends Presidential Bid, And Palin Strategizes

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday, a test vote five months before the Iowa caucuses. Rep. Ron Paul came in second and Governor Tim Pawlenty finished a distant third.

The results were enough for Tim Pawlenty to call it quits.

"I wish it would have been different, but obviously the pathway forward for me doesn't really exist, so we're going to end the campaign," Pawlenty told ABC's Jake Tapper.

"I'm doing this because I love this country and I want to defeat Barack Obama because I think he's got it on the wrong course," Pawlenty said of his withdrawal, "but I don't get my identity or my sense of worth or my values or my faith from politics. I get it from my personal faith in God, and I believe in this country, I love this country, I thought I would have been a great president."

T-Paw ruled out a vice presidential nomination. "That's not something I'm even going to consider," he said. Well, at least not until someone asks him.

Pawlenty's big problem was fundraising, and with Texas governor Rick Perry getting into the race, he simply couldn't afford to keep going.

The same is probably true of the other marginal GOP candidates, John Huntsman, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum,and I expect them to drop out in the next few months.Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have no chance whatsoever to get the nomination, but they'll stay in as long as possible just to generate attention.

While the Straw Poll has some importance,it's worth keeping in mind that we're talking about a total turnout of about 15,000 votes, so like the Iowa cauci, it's an indication more of the organization and zeal of a candidate's followers rather than their actual support.

At present, the GOP field has narrowed to Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. You can also include Sarah Palin if she gets in. Which , by way of an interesting sidebar, is what she was speculating about to a swarm of reporters in Iowa, when asked what kind of a campaign she'd run when and if:



“Each campaign that I’ve ever run in these 20 years of elected office have been kind of unconventional -- right, Todd? We’ve always been outspent two to one, 10 to one, five to one; never won any polls heading into election night but usually won the election. So it would be unconventional and very grass-roots. Very grass-roots. And I wouldn’t be out there looking for hires out of that political bubble that seem to result in the same old ideas, the same old talking points, the things that Americans get so sick and tired of hearing and kind of suffering through.

“You know, we want new. We want new energy. We want conviction and passion and candidness -- even if through that candidness you make mistakes and you say things like ‘the executive power in Texas is different than the executive power in Alaska.’ . . . I’m just saying that candidness, not fearing so much what the interpretation is going to be when it comes to the comments and positions you’re articulating but just speaking from the heart and saying, ‘Here’s where I think America needs to head, and here’s how I think we can turn the economy around, and here’s what I’ve done in the past to show you truly a foundation of where my beliefs come from of what works in a small town, in a state, in a big industry like oil and gas -- what is it that can be done to turn things around.’ I’ll express that and not fearing what the ramifications of the expressions would be.”

She was obviously doing a little thinking out loud about how she would run a campaign against the current field.I'd say she hasn't opted out yet at all.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The New Media Narrative: Michele Bachmann, Pill Head?

As Sarah Palin once observed, when there's nothing there, the Media will simply Make Stuff Up to fit their agenda.

The latest buzz is a Daily Caller article by Jonathan Strong with the cute title:"Stress-related condition ‘incapacitates’ Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged."

Yes, to hear Jonathan Strong tell it, Michele Bachmann is just an inch away from Lindsay Lohan. Check this out:

The Minnesota Republican frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can “incapacitate” her for days at time. On at least three occasions, Bachmann has landed in the hospital as a result.

“She has terrible migraine headaches. And they put her out of commission for a day or more at a time. They come out of nowhere, and they’re unpredictable,” says an adviser to Bachmann who was involved in her 2010 congressional campaign. “They level her. They put her down. It’s actually sad. It’s very painful.”

Bachmann’s medical condition wouldn’t merit public attention, but for the fact she is running for president. Some close to Bachmann fear she won’t be equal to the stress of the campaign, much less the presidency itself.

“When she gets ‘em, frankly, she can’t function at all. It’s not like a little thing with a couple Advils. It’s bad,” the adviser says. “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”

Lessee..has she ever missed a vote because of a medical episode? Ever missed a major appearance? Ummm, no.Has she ever had to drop out of campaigning or legislating for any extended period because of a medical condition? No again.

And I love the 'sources'..a former aide says this, 3 people who worked closely with her say that, an adviser to Bachmann who was involved in her 2010 congressional campaign says all sorts of things. And all of it anonymous, especially the tidbit about whose rival presidential campaign they're working on now.

And what if she does take medication for a migraine now and then? FDR had polio, John F. Kennedy was a walking pharmacopeia with back problems and Addison's Disease to deal with among other things, and there were hours at a time when they couldn't even find Bill Clinton or had any idea where he was if you believe the man in charge of his Secret Service detail. They all managed to function as president.

The idea behind this attempted hatchet job is to plant a seed, to start the ball rolling. They did exactly the same thing with Governor Palin. Remember 'Troopergate' or the nonsense about her supposed $150,000 wardrobe? The idea is to plant a hit piece that is then linked and sourced as credible to build the Narrative.

The Daily Caller ought to be ashamed for participating in this garbage.

UPDATE: Michele Bachmann replies, via her website:

“Like nearly 30 million other Americans, I experience migraines that are easily controlled with medication. I am a wife, a mother, a lawyer who worked her way through law school, a former state senator who achieved the repeal of a harmful piece of education policy in Minnesota, and a congresswoman who has worked tirelessly fighting against the expansion of government and wasteful spending.

“Since entering the campaign, I have maintained a full schedule between my duties as a congresswoman and as a presidential candidate traveling across the nation to meet with voters in the key, early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I have prescription medication that I take whenever symptoms arise and they keep the migraines under control. Let me be abundantly clear – my ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as Commander in Chief.

“The many questions I have received on this subject have allowed me to discuss this important condition that impacts individuals in nearly one in four households. However, as a presidential candidate and office holder, I am focused on performing my job, which has never been more important given the state of our economy and the millions of Americans that are out of work. While I appreciate the concern for me and my health, the greater concern should be the debate that is occurring in Washington over whether or not we will increase our debt, spending and taxes.”

(HT,Gateway Pundit)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

They'll say Absolutely Anything To Try And Save Obama

The latest media frenzy surrounding Michelle Bachmann involves a pledge she signed with a prominent family values group in Iowa regarding items like marriage, the family and other social conservative issues. While I might personally have some differences with some elements of the pledge, what caused the ruckus was this item, in the preamble:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

Immediately, the usual suspects morphed this into headlines like these:

It's Like They're Proud of Being Ignorant ( The Atlantic)

Michelle Bachmann Signs Pledge that Says Black Children Better Off During Slavery - (Jack n' Jill Politics)

Michele Bachmann signs anti-gay pact that says times were better for black kids during slavery - L.A. Times

So, Michelle Bachmann supports slavery? Really?

This is a classic example of sloppy thinking. Jack n' Jill Politics and the others using this to slime Rep. Bachmann and the pledges authors made two assertions - that breaking up families during slavery was 'common' and that rape was 'common' .

While it undoubtedly happened at times, there are no stats in that case to show what 'common' means. Was it 70%, the statistic on out of wedlock black births today? I doubt it, and if it can't be proven, it's not an argument.

What the pledge actually said was that it was sadly more common for a black child in slavery to be born out of wedlock today than it was under slavery. We don't have to go back to the days of slavery to see that its correct.

As economist Walter Williams tells us, in 1940, the black illegitimacy rate was only 19%, and in 1960, it was only 22%. Now, it's 70%, and instead of acknowledging the problem and the need to do something about it - which is all that part of the pledge was talking about - even mentioning it is construed as 'supporting slavery'!?

Those figures, by the way, also tend to re-inforce the idea that rape and the breaking up of families was less 'common' during slavery than the dinosaur media would have us believe. What we know for certainty is that black out of wedlock births are a lot more common since the Democrat -led 'War on Poverty' and the 'Great Society' in the 1960's...along with a lot of other disturbing statistics.

The family values group has since removed that paragraph from its preamble. I think that was a mistake, as any capitulation to stupidity is. But I certainly understand why they did so.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Michele Bachmann On The Founding Fathers Working To End Slavery – 100% Correct

Ex-Clintonista George Stephanopoulos did his very best to torpedo Michele Bachmann yesterday on his 'news' show. In the course of his extremely smarmy interview, he asked her about a quote of hers to the effect that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery, citing that Washington and Jefferson, among others, were slave owners.

While Bachmann countered by mentioning John Quincy Adams, who was his father's secretary, the fact is that the Founding Fathers, or at least the majority of them did indeed work tirelessly to end slavery, and while they failed in the immediate sense, they succeeded in that they laid the groundwork for slavery's demise 70 years later.

An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a brilliant compromise, involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn't want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder's compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery's eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.

So it's Rep. Michele Bachmann who's correct and knows her history - not George Stephanopuolos.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The New Democrat Target...Now It's Michele Bachmann's Turn To Be Demonized

To those of you who thought Sarah Palin was too damaged by the Obama media hit teams to be a viable candidate, my response has always been that they were going to turn their guns on anyone and try to destroy them just as they did Governor Palin if they felt they were threatening President Obama's re-election. It's how the Angry Left operates.

Proof of the point surfaces today as Rep. Bachmann surges in the polls, with a barely literate, hate crazed rant in Rolling Stone that focuses on Michele Bachmann's religion her family, and her 'batsh*t crazy views" by one Matt Taibbi. The illustration below should save you the trouble of actually reading this trash.



Odd isn't it, how the Left is so anxious to accuse anyone they disagree with of racism and bigotry yet is so eager to practice it themselves.

To give you an idea of Taibbi's mentality, here's a quote from an appearance he put in promoting the Bachmann hit piece on Wednesday’s “Imus in the Morning” program:

“Actually, yeah, I’m actually kind of rooting for her to win the nomination, because I can’t wait to see the porn movies that they make,” Taibbi said. “Bachmann-inspired films are going to be great.I mean, who didn’t see ‘Nailin’ Palin’ – that was classic cinema.”

Taibbi appears to have unfortunately been raised without any morals or common decency whatsoever, and probably doesn't understand what's wrong about portraying someone's devoted wife and mother in that fashion. I'm sure Todd or Track Palin or Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus or her sons Lucas and Harrison would be charmed to explain it to Mr. Taibbi in a quiet area somewhere up close and in person exactly what they find offensive about that viewpoint.

Heck, Piper Palin could probably have him screaming for mercy.

Notice that they're not attacking Mitt Romney much? It's because they don't consider him a threat, and are holding their bile until they see if he actually gets the nomination. Michele Bachmann? Now, she's a threat and has to be taken out early.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!