Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Yes, this will certainly pour oil on the roiling waters:
On Saturday, in a note forwarded to reporters by the Bachmann campaign, the group, the Family Leader, apologized for the reference.
“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued,” said Julie Summa, a spokeswoman for the Family Leader. “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”
The fact that the Bachmann camp circulated the note is interesting; make of that what you will. Then there's this:
Earlier Saturday, Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart said that the Minnesota congresswoman had only endorsed the 14-point “candidate vow,” which did not include the slavery passage.
However, the entire document was only four pages, including two pages of footnotes, and the slavery section was the first bullet point within the preamble.
If the preamble was added after the pledge was presented to the candidates, that would be relevant information. Nothing I'm reading this morning says it was. Not that it matters; the impression swamps the facts. The narrative will now be: candidate signs racially insensitive pledge, draws flak, backtracks with lawyerly hair-splitting. "Gosh, can we trust her to read a treaty or bill someone puts on her desk?" That sort of thing. And if you get your news from Jon Stewart, that's all you'll need to know.
- Comment (78)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
It is always bad news when a conservative backs off from a claim that is, in fact, true. The hoopla caused by the howls from the left is free publicity, and it allows the conservative to slam the point home -- while ordinary people who can read an English sentence wonder what the howling was about.
Apr '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Thanks as always James for your insights. Is it the fallacy of being guided by committee to the point of not even having a devil's advocate, if you will, to at least consider the ramifications of what you say and do? I mean we have enough examples in just the last six months of people doing without thought.
Is Michelle Bachman so driven to be the first out of the gate with as much conservatism as she can latch onto that she is not taking the time to be thoughtful?
Mike Murphy spoke in the recent podcast about her proneness to gaffes, so I guess it's from Murphy's lips to her handler's ears just skipping God in the process so it seems.
Note: I know it's hard to get a word in edgeways during the podcast James, but I wish you could speak more. Not to worry now this is not a "man crush" but I appreciate your insight along with your sense of humor.
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
James, the original PDF appears to be a seamless document. The "preamble" is followed by the "vow", which begins, "Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do solemnly vow..."
The preamble and the vow were never two separate documents; and appealing to the idea that, "I signed the vow but I didn't read the preamble," is mere sophistry.
Edited on Jul 10, 2011 at 12:55pmJul '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
By the way, it's amusing to note that nobody seems to care that Rick Santorum signed the thing, too.
Shows you how relevant a candidate he isn't.
Apr '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Paul, I believe all would be well if the media was a tad more balanced. I confess I'm not an historian of politics but wasn't Barry Goldwater marginalized, even to the point of being declared insane by the psychiatric community for speaking the truth. Was his problem one of speaking it in a manner that was a bit unbalanced or just the attacks, like Bachman is and will be receiving, that were brought against the truth.
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
The question here isn't whether the claim about the state of the black family was true. Of course it is.
The question is whether Bachmann should have realized that the inclusion of the paragraph about slavery and the black family was egregious, unnecessary and politically inflammatory.
I maintain, once again, that she should have told this "organization" - whoever they are - that she would not sign the vow without the deletion of that first paragraph.
She was so eager to pander to Iowa evangelicals that she got sloppy. The fact that she is now obfuscating and backtracking demonstrates that even she knows it was sloppy.
Ah, but at least, to date, she hasn't thrown a staffer under the bus. Stay tuned....
Edited on Jul 10, 2011 at 11:10amMar '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Yeah, Santorum's support barely was mentioned.
As far as making of it what I will, I suspect that a sensible aid said "Wow, this is really distracting from the image we had in the media coming out of the last debate that Michele was a strong, capable candidate, and we need to put this story behind us so we can get on with the business of the day."
Which is to say: the vetting of the language that has been done as damage control should have been done upfront. Crisis averted?
Jan '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
"Perception is reality" ... so say the people who make a living off perception.
Per custom, I watched excerpts from the morning shows on Real Clear Politics; and the spin machine is in as high a gear as I've ever seen. This is equal to the last week of presidential campaign. It isn't so much outright lying as it is seeing the layers of polish stripped from the top, revealing the raw interests at the bottom.
It's a shark tank, and the frenzy is just starting.
Example: Pawlenty came out trying to draw blood, specifically on Bachmann, because he has nothing else to do. Count on the media to hype Pawlenty's attack, because they'll kill two birds with one stone. They'll egg her on. They'll ask her about it incessantly. They'll try to drag her into it.
For the record, perception is reality only for stupid people. They vote too, but happily, they're the Democratic base - we don't have to worry about them right now.
Sep '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Apparently, these sorts of things aren't crises until the MSM misrepresents them and our side piles on, with, "Yeah, huh huh, that was a dumb move on her part." It wouldn't be a dumb move if she, and we, didn't allow the MSM to frame the narrative. She could've defended her original action and called the MSM out for what it is--utterly ridiculous. "Dumb moves" are going to be manufactured by the MSM for almost anything any of our candidates say or do. This is what is meant by "fighting back."
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
I invoke Kenneth's Law.
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Stephen: there are different kinds of gaffes.
1. The off-the-cuff factual misstatement ("57 states") that will be excused if the candidate is regarded as Brilliant, or lampooned if he is a teabaggin' trog. It will also be used as a signifier for the general lack of intelligence on his side.
2. The "saying something everyone knows is true but has agreed not to mention" gaffe. This can be refreshing, but after a while it gets tiring, and the candidate seems to be speaking from outside the parameters of the national conversation.
3. The "I don't care how this looks, because it's right" gaffe. A variant of the second, more common with people who have confined themselves to the more enthusiastic sector of the base. When Howard Dean said that the difference between the Dems and the GOP was that the latter didn't care if kids went to bed hungry, the base nodded; the media yawned. Oh that Howard! But you know, the GOP does want to cut programs. If Bachmann said Obama didn't care about people working, it would be a grave slur, because of course he does.
The last two can be avoided.
Jun '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
What was it that Bill Buckley said: that he supported the "right-most" viable candidate? I guess we need to amend that to say we will support the "gaffe-proof-most," right-most viable candidate.
Who might that candidate be?
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Kenneth: I read it too, and I agree with your take on it; I meant to suggest that the absence of an assertion about the preamble added to the pledge meant that it was probably there in the first place. The statement just roils the murk.
Perversely, having not signed the pledge, Pawlenty and Romney are in a better position to bring up the issues.
Mar '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Fortunately, Sarah Palin is waiting in Alaska for all the other conservative candidates to shoot themselves in the foot.
Otherwise, we are left with the last man standing, Mitt Romney (as we were with Mr McCain), unless Mr Ryan puts country above family.
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Stephen S.
Paul, I believe all would be well if the media was a tad more balanced. I confess I'm not an historian of politics but wasn't Barry Goldwater marginalized, even to the point of being declared insane by the psychiatric community for speaking the truth. Was his problem one of speaking it in a manner that was a bit unbalanced or just the attacks, like Bachman is and will be receiving, that were brought against the truth. · Jul 10 at 10:59am
Goldwater was done in by the Rockefeller Republicans who fed the liberal media talking points. Goldwater also lacked the gift for turning supposed gaffes into gains. Reagan had a much keener sense of humor and gently mocked the media for their silliness. His avuncular manner allowed him to accomplish wonders.
Aug '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
KC Mulville: "Perception is reality" ... so say the people who make a living off perception.
Per custom, I watched excerpts from the morning shows on Real Clear Politics; and the spin machine is in as high a gear as I've ever seen. This is equal to the last week of presidential campaign. It isn't so much outright lying as it is seeing the layers of polish stripped from the top, revealing the raw interests at the bottom.
It's a shark tank, and the frenzy is just starting.
Example: Pawlenty came out trying to draw blood, specifically on Bachmann, because he has nothing else to do. Count on the media to hype Pawlenty's attack, because they'll kill two birds with one stone. They'll egg her on. They'll ask her about it incessantly. They'll try to drag her into it.
For the record, perception is reality only for stupid people. They vote too, but happily, they're the Democratic base - we don't have to worry about them right now. · Jul 10 at 11:15am
Running for President is not unlike swimming in a shark tank.
Chumming your own tank is ill advised.
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Paul A. Rahe
Stephen S.
Paul, I believe all would be well if the media was a tad more balanced. I confess I'm not an historian of politics but wasn't Barry Goldwater marginalized, even to the point of being declared insane by the psychiatric community for speaking the truth. Was his problem one of speaking it in a manner that was a bit unbalanced or just the attacks, like Bachman is and will be receiving, that were brought against the truth. · Jul 10 at 10:59am
Goldwater was done in by the Rockefeller Republicans who fed the liberal media talking points. Goldwater also lacked the gift for turning supposed gaffes into gains. Reagan had a much keener sense of humor and gently mocked the media for their silliness. His avuncular manner allowed him to accomplish wonders. · Jul 10 at 11:39am
Agreed about Reagan's avuncular gift. "There you go again," in his debate with Mondale might have come across as snarly from a lesser politician, but when he said it, it was with with an endearing smile and a twinkle in his eye.
Mar '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
And once again, black Americans have been protected by their betters from offense. This is, indeed, a great moment in the annals of racial healing. Why, I can almost feel the healing. My white guilt is melting away!
Mar '11
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Dr. Rahe: Would you not say that Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was much more harmful to him than anything a Rockefeller Republican said?
Coincidentally, that too many Republicans opposed this piece of legislation has done some lasting damage to our side with regard to race, and is one of the reasons that having an honest conversation about it in public has become so difficult.
James: liked your gaffe analytic and prevention.
Oct '10
Re: Bachmann Pledge Update: Slavery Reference Yanked
Kenneth
I invoke Kenneth's Law. · Jul 10 at 11:26am
I un-invoke it.
Kenneth, I take the point of KL, but Dan makes a valid point here, and if you don't agree it's valid, at least acknowledge it merits discussion. I assumed the law applied when one individual says another individual only believes X because the MSM says X. If you're going to use it this broadly to refute a point without offering a counterpoint, it won't get out of the gate.