From "Queen of the Tea Party," Matt Continetti's cover story on Michele Bachmann, in the current issue of the Weekly Standard:

matt

“I think Bachmann’s chances of landing on Jupiter are higher than her chances of being nominated,” Republican strategist Mike Murphy told me in an April interview for Washingtonpost.com.

murphy

Well, get ready for an interplanetary expedition. Bachmann is a far more serious candidate for the Republican nomination than her reputation would suggest. She’s a talented fundraiser who raised $13.5 million for her 2010 reelection campaign. She’s a television star who appropriately tailors her message to her audience. Her combativeness will delight conservatives eager to fight Barack Obama. Her movement credentials—she founded the House Tea Party Caucus—put her at the cutting edge of right-wing politics. And in a primary campaign where authenticity counts, no other candidate has Bachmann’s unique history: an Iowa native who put herself through law school, raised her five children and took in 23 foster children, and has never lost an election for state or federal office.

Michele

I think twice before disagreeing with Mike Murphy--and then disagree anyway.  Bachmann's no flake or right-wing extremist.  As Matt's long and beautifully written story makes clear, she's a principled conservative, enormously impressive as a wife, as a mother, as a working woman--and as an immensely skillful politician.

Maybe things will change--maybe, for instance, Tim Pawlenty will at least discover, somewhere deep within himself, some willingness to display some fight, or maybe Rick Perry will announce, reshuffling the entire race.  But as matters stand now?

I'm for Michele.

Comments:


Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Peter Robinson

Conor Friedersdorf

h.

But keep at us, Conor.  You're our very own Diogenes. · Jun 30 at 11:37am

Oh, Peter. Please.

Conor Friedersdorf

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

I'm sympathetic to the charge she's not experienced enough, but never sponsoring a piece of legislation that became law is not a mark against her. I've noticed that those who champion their legislation-passage skills are those who think additional legislation is a good thing.

Boots on the Table

1)  It's time congress started eliminating laws rather than creating more.

Fair enough. She's never eliminated a law either.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Matthew Continetti:

We'll see how well Bachmann does on the trail. But if I were a Democrat or a moderate Republican, I would not underestimate her. · Jun 30 at 12:05pm

OK, Matthew- as a TWS subscriber, I challenge you to a little wager on that one.  No mush words like "I would not underestimate her", I will state outright that she will not win the nomination.  She may win the Iowa caucuses, she will crash after that if not sooner.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill
Conor Friedersdorf: Michele Bachmann has never sponsored a piece of legislation that became law. She has never chaired a committee...

Bachmann was elected in 2006 and as such took her seat as a freshman in the minority party of the 110th Congress. These facts would preclude Mrs. Bachmann from doing any of things that Mr. Friedersdorf sees as detriments.

Of the House Chairmen in the 112th Congress, all have served longer than Mrs. Bachmann, and in an institution that revers it's seniority it is not likely to change for her ambitions or Mr. Friedersdorf's criticisms.

Mr. Murphy is big on the belief that in politics the perception is the reality. He believes the perception of Mrs. Bachmann painted by the mainstream media whose table he happily dines at.

But remember, Jimmy Carter was elated with Ronald Reagan's ascension to the GOP nomination. As late as March 1980 Gerald Ford decreed Reagan as "unelectable."  A Reagan campaign aide told New Yorker magazine that the only thing that made his candidate electable was Jimmy Carter. All solid advice from the professional political class. And opinions all as worthwhile as Mr. Murphy's (or even mine.) We'll see.

Conor Friedersdorf
Matthew Continetti:I said what I wanted to say about Bachmann in my long article. I'd add, though, that experience has rarely been a deciding factor in presidential contests—just look at the current occupant of the Oval Office!

As is frequently the case, Matthew, you're talking politics – what voters are going to think about Bachmann's experience – and I am pressing you to address what they should care about.

Yes, just look at the current occupant of the Oval Office. He is evidence in favor of my point, not yours! Barack Obama shows that voters don't make foreign policy experience a deciding factor... and that maybe they should, given our present experience.

You write as if the elevation of a Democrat who was unprepared to run U.S. foreign policy is somehow an argument in favor of electing a Republican with the same glaring flaw. I wish, in your lengthy, informative, and well-written profile, you'd addressed whether voters should elevate Bachmann – it's much harder to offer a persuasive case for that proposition, and it's the one we ought to be focused on.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

Conor Friedersdorf

Matthew Continetti:

You write as if the elevation of a Democrat who was unprepared to run U.S. foreign policy is somehow an argument in favor of electing a Republican with the same glaring flaw. I wish, in your lengthy, informative, and well-written profile, you'd addressed whether voters should elevate Bachmann – it's much harder to offer a persuasive case for that proposition, and it's the one we ought to be focused on. · Jun 30 at 12:52pm

I for one am glad he didn't. It is really annoying to be lectured, as an American citizen, who I should or shouldn't vote for. And it's clear that a person who likes government control would think people are generally stupid and need to be told what to look for when voting. I'm sure the Weekly Standard readers need to hear these things. They, the very few people who subscribe to a (fairly) conservative magazine, need direction. Oh, will you statists never cease to hector us!

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Mike Murphy: Ask any GOP staff pro on the HIll -- including lots of 100% ACU conservatives -- and they privately say she is pretty much a joke. · Jun 30 at 12:38pm

This is true. Which says at least as much about them as her. I believed what I'd heard. And so my first encounter with her -- the last debate -- blew me away.

She was clearly not a joke.

In fact, she's clearly quite intelligent and informed and interesting and all that.

Which makes all of the criticism of her seem like misogyny or inside-the-beltway elitism or something else.

Whatever it is, it's very histrionic and emotional.

And, again, that serves her well since many primary voters are sick and tired of professional politicos and Hill staffers and campaign managers who have done a less than stellar job with advancing limited government ideals.

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

 Mike Murphy: Ask any GOP staff pro on the HIll -- including lots of 100% ACU conservatives -- and they privately say she is pretty much a joke. · Jun 30 at 12:38pm 

This is true. Which says at least as much about them as her.

Indeed - I am sorry to say that Mike Murphy and the GOP staff pros are what is wrong with the Republican party.

It's why I like both Mrs Palin and Mrs Bachmann - tough choice, between em!

 Hmm, maybe a joint ticket would, um, upset both aforementioned Republicans and Liberals (and the UK Independent newspaper) so much that we must just might save the Republic from its descent into Socialist Utopia.

Edited on June 30, 2011 at 10:22pm
Conor Friedersdorf

EJHill

Bachmann was elected in 2006 and as such took her seat as a freshman in the minority party of the 110th Congress. These facts would preclude Mrs. Bachmann from doing any of things that Mr. Friedersdorf sees as detriments.

Of the House Chairmen in the 112th Congress, all have served longer than Mrs. Bachmann, and in an institution that revers it's seniority it is not likely to change for her ambitions or Mr. Friedersdorf's criticisms.

Yes, due partly to circumstances beyond her control, Michele Bachmann lacks the necessary experience to be present. It is hardly relevant why she lacks leadership experience or legislative accomplishments. It isn't a dig against someone to say that the aren't ready for the Oval Office. You write as if a dearth of relevant experience should be forgiven if it isn't the candidate's fault that they lack it. To each according to their need!

Cutlass
Joined
Apr '11
Cutlass

Good lord, has everyone here gone bonkers??  

Look, I like Rep. Bachmann.  She seems like a lovely woman, a principled conservative and a fine member of congress, but she has shown me nothing to indicate that she could defeat Obama.  

The appeal of Paul Ryan is that, despite his youth and lack of executive experience, is that he meets the most important requirement for a Republican in this election cycle: he can skillfully defend himself and our values from attack by Obama, the Dems and the media.

The problem is not that she gaffes, its that her explanations look foolish and uninformed.  That confused "John Quincy Adams was a founder" argument was absolutely ridiculous.  Especially when she could have easily mentioned Jefferson's early draft of the Declaration or Franklin's abolition society.

Can anyone explain to me why, beyond wishful thinking, I should feel confident at the prospect of a Bachmann Obama debate?  

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill
Conor Friedersdorf  It is hardly relevant why she lacks leadership experience or legislative accomplishments. 

The why always matters.

Johnny Damon has as many career hits as Ted Williams. That doesn't put him in Williams' league. The details of the why can be important.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Cutlass: Good lord, has everyone here gone bonkers??  

......................

Can anyone explain to me why, beyond wishful thinking, I should feel confident at the prospect of a Bachmann Obama debate?   · Jun 30 at 1:58pm

Exactly.  Slogans are not cogent arguments

Go back and read her media transcripts at the time of TARP.  When very smart economists on the Right were evenly divided, and were talking about macroecon, mark-to-market, reserves, credit market collapses, and actual policy alternatives, she was yelling "Don't bail out Wall Street!" to every camera she could intercept. 

The policy she espoused ("Don't bail out Wall Street") was correct, but the concept of TARP at the time was not necessarily a bail-out, the argument was shallow, and there was zero effort to address the bail-out issue in the legislation- where it might have actually done some good.

Southern Pessimist
Joined
May '11
Southern Pessimist

 I find Bachmann to be appealing in many ways but the one aspect of her campaign so far that I find annoying is that she, like Santorum and Pawlenty talk more about why they should be president than making a persuasive argument for what they would do differently. I don't remember Reagan talking about himself other than to poke fun at himself. I am tired of hearing about her family and that she is a tax lawyer and on and on like a broken record.

Keith Preston
Joined
May '10
Keith Preston

All these great comments are why I am looking forward to the primaries.  All this gets sorted out by the voters...and they have plenty of time to work their way through it.

Personally, I like her, but like Sarah, agree that she's pretty much our McGovern.  It's probably going to be Mitt...and he shows signs of starting to get the picture.  He will run with it if he starts to get caught up with the voters...as Pawlenty seems to be doing...

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

From Conor:

Yes, due partly to circumstances beyond her control, Michele Bachmann lacks the necessary experience to be present. It is hardly relevant why she lacks leadership experience or legislative accomplishments. It isn't a dig against someone to say that the aren't ready for the Oval Office. You write as if a dearth of relevant experience should be forgiven if it isn't the candidate's fault that they lack it. To each according to their need!

Given what the Congress did "accomplish" since 2006 what Bachmann has done is far more laudatory than anything she might have accomplished in that cesspool on the Hill. Congress "deemed" Obamacare into law, she raised money for herself and dozens of opposition candidates. Boehner rebuffed her leadership bid, along with the Tea Party as a whole, and she raised more money and set her course for the oval office. She has been as successful politically as any figure in the republic since 2006.

The notion that she is inexperienced because Pelosi and Boehner took turns sitting on her head in Washington while she rallied the troops across the nation is a classic dodge of the Washington elite faced with a populist for responsible government.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Any litmus test that requires a candidate to be aligned with the socialists or their appeasers when the point of the exercise is a sharp change of direction is a bad litmus test.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Keith Preston: All these great comments are why I am looking forward to the primaries.  All this gets sorted out by the voters...and they have plenty of time to work their way through it.

Personally, I like her, but like Sarah, agree that she's pretty much our McGovern.  It's probably going to be Mitt...and he shows signs of starting to get the picture.  He will run with it if he starts to get caught up with the voters...as Pawlenty seems to be doing... · Jun 30 at 3:00pm

Romney will do exactly what the Economist wants him to do if he becomes President, make a couple of tweaks to Obamacare and declare it good. And everything he says between now and then is just to make sure that happens. That is a death sentence for Americans whose conditions are outside the 95th percentile of cases, where those government play books lose all value. He is a worse option than four more years of deadlock.

Dan Hanson
Joined
Aug '10
Dan Hanson

Supporters of a candidate focus on the candidate's best traits.

Opponents of a candidate focus on the candidate's worst traits.

Reagan was that once-in-a-lifetime candidate who had the kind of traits his supporters loved, while being nearly bulletproof to his enemies.

The dangerous candidates are the ones who can inspire loyalty in their followers, while leaving huge gaping holes in their resume or person that their enemies can exploit.

Michelle Bachmann is a dangerous candidate.  She has many marvelous traits.  She's smart, she's tough, and she's conservative.  She's willing to stand on principle and put her money where her mouth is, both in real life and in politics.  But her political armor is riddled with holes, and you can expect her opponents to exploit them as much as possible. 

Since the left has the media at its back and a majority of the mouthpieces of popular culture on its side, the Republican candidate had better be as close to bulletproof as possible - not just against real weaknesses, but against any artificial weaknesses the other side can plausibly invent and make stick.  Ask Sarah Palin.


Joined
Sep '10
Standfast

Mike Murphy  said

"Ask any GOP staff pro on the HIll -- including lots of 100% ACU conservatives -- and they privately say she is pretty much a joke."

I happen to know a long time staffer who works for a politically conservative icon of the senate.  In my observations, as I have listened to his brand of politics for more than a decade, I find that his insincerity is only exceeded by his lack of integrity.  Living and working in the mother of all echo chambers makes his view of reality even more absurd that the career Senator or Representative.  Perhaps he is not a fair representative of the average "staff pro," but I doubt it.

That staffers believe she is a joke is a positive from my perspective.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

As I have said elsewhere, Bachmann is our Howard Dean, for the same reasons, and with the same characteristics.  As far as actually acting as a chief executive, Palin would perform the job far better.  Both have severe legacy media problems.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In