Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bachmann, Schmachmann!
First, Happy 4th to my friend Peter who I greatly respect. But on this, we disagree. Come to think of it, happy 4th to everyone.
Second, a plug for my new “Murphy’s Law” column in TIME. Topic is Michele Bachmann’s impact n the GOP Race. Please don’t send me any angry letters or cardboard Uncle Sam hats. Send them to Rob Long.
My view is this: I think she will have an impact on the race, but I think her odds are being nominated are ziltch, as I told Matt a few months ago. I think her support will crumble with time in the spotlight, and deservedly so. I think her appeal is limited to one part of the primary; real estate Rick Perry may well challenge her for. Finally, I think she would lose a general election in a landslide. Conservatives need to remember that until the country changes what it thinks, nominating a candidate that pleases only conservatives (and only one part of the conservative electorate at that; remember her insane Kucinich vote on Libya?) is always going to be a losing plan. Why ape the Democrats circa 1972 and find a George McGovern?
Finally, if Rush – to his credit a Ricochet reader – wants to tee off again, I want the record to state that I don’t live in DC and care less about cocktail parties there. In fact, the last time I had dinner in a four-star restaurant in Georgetown, it was with Rush Limbaugh! (Some years ago; it was a fun dinner.)
Published in General
Why will her support crumble? …why does her support deserve to crumble?
It’s not clear to me that 2012 will be like 1972. It seems like it will be more like 1980, a year in which the incumbent Democrat President is so weak that the Republicans can in fact win with a decidedly conservative candidate.
Is that candidate Bachmann, Palin, Cain or Perry? I’m not sure — but I am sure that it’s premature to write any of them off (unless, in the case of Palin or Perry, they announce that they aren’t running).
Here is the other problem; demographics. Country is changing. In 2000 Bush v Gore essentially tied the national vote. Exits say GW Bush got 55% of the white vote. 8 years later, McCain loses to Obama by 7%. Quiz question (guess, don’t look it up): What % of the white vote did McCain get?
From the TIME/Warner Inc. article
“Her latest mix-up, confusing the birthplace of beloved American icon John Wayne with that of serial killer John Wayne Gacy, hints that Michele’s next moves on the national stage may receive more than a few boos and flying vegetables from the voting public”
This is manufactured BS Mike and you know it. But you have your audience…
(I hate the 200 word limit)
In addition to the points above, it’s hard to be elected as a Senator or Congressman because those candidates have a long paper trail of votes and a large collection of speeches and interviews that can be mined to paint whatever portrait their opponents wish to paint of them. Bachmann has been in the House for ten years, and there are probably hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings of her being interviewed, speaking at rallies, etc. Even if she becomes the most disciplined candidate in history from here on out, she’s left behind a large cache of ammunition for her opponents.
However, the current problem for the right is that the only candidates with ‘gravitas’ and discipline who are currently running are squishes who may very well result in a pyrrhic victory for conservatives and libertarians. Why bother winning an election if ‘your’ guy just behaves like everyone else once in office? It probably would have been better for the right if George Bush had lost to Al Gore – Bush governed like a liberal, but the blame for ensuing fiscal disaster was assigned to the right.
But you are not troubled by Lexington or Concord? Or the fact she has done nothing in Congress but turnover her staff a lot? Don’t confuse a few easy Tea Party applause lines with having the skill and experience to be President of the United States. ·Jun 30 at 12:54pm
again Mike, I don’t understand… Barack Obama certainly did not have the experience to be POTUS. didn’t matter, he won anyway. Did he have the skill? opinions may differ here, I think he’s been a terrible President, in that he seems to be the President of the Democratic Party, not the US, for one. What exactly had he done in Congress other than spend two of his four years running for President? So what I’m getting at is: why the different standards, when clearly the voters did not require that Obama meet those standards in 2008?
She will energize the base, but that will not make up for her inability to attract independents. And those gaffes matter. They matter as a candidate. They matter as president. They will hurt her campaign. They will make her look like a weak, uninformed and unintelligent President. Simply blaming the media for exaggerating her slips of tongue doesn’t change the fact that she did make them and her personl popularity will be hurt because of it. Gaffes like the John Wayne one prove she’s not ready for primetime; yes, she could’ve corrected the mistake by checking Wikipedia, but the fact is that she didn’t and she was caught in front of the nation making a dumb mistake. It’s not fair, but it’s the truth: Michele Bachmann cannot and should not win the Republican nomination. This discussion is proof enough that the split in the party over a Bachmann nomination would be enough to ensure an Obama victory.
I’m not saying you have no credibility. I’m asking for proof that you do. From someone, anyone, who can say “here’s evidence that Mike Murphy’s political analysis is worth reading and listening to.”
I haven’t uttered a word about Michele Bachmann. I’m just still waiting to learn why I should pay attention to yours. Again, it’s not personal. Just looking for evidence of credibility. Forty-plus comments into this thread and so far no one has provided any.
I think Biden got a lot of media ridicule. I think Obama got soft treatment.
·Jun 30 at 12:43pm
Edited on Jun 30 at 12:44 pm
Mike, there is a HUGE difference between being made fun of and basically saying that you are stupid and unfit for the job. I have never seen any MSM pundit breaking out into cold sweats over the thought of Biden being a heart-beat away from the presidency due to his gaffes. Conservative pols making similar gaffes are generally concluded to be unworthy to run a lemonade stand. Nice try though!
I don’t know, Mr. Murphy. McCain/That Woman came after eight years of Bush/Vader, and the campaign was outspent 8-1 (or more — remember all those out of country credit card numbers?) and they still only lost by six points. Those were relatively good times, and nobody knew Obama or in what direction he’d take us. I’m fairly convinced that we could run Dick Nixon’s corpse on a ticket with a stack of Watchtower pamphlets, and win.
Come on. One of the great things about Ricochet is no litmus tests. George Will writes for Newsweek, and happens to have pretty good conservative credentials. Bill Kristol wrote for the Gray Lady until it ended the relationship.
If you don’t agree with Mike’s arguments, then tell us why rather than going for the ad hominem attack.
I happen to agree that Bachmann would be a disaster in the general election, and I like her a lot. The question is whether she could be elected and I don’t think she could. I’ll stack up my conservative beliefs against anyone.
It offends me that some on this site, like kiwikit, feel they have the moral authority to define what and who should say things here.
Disagree with others, but quit trying to attack their characters.
I think Biden got a lot of media ridicule.
I have never seen any MSM pundit breaking out into cold sweats over the thought of Biden being a heart-beat away from the presidency due to his gaffes.
And not just his gaffes, but his three decades of incompetence as a senator. Despite that abject incompetence he (allegedly – I’m still looking for it) was merely made fun of, but Michele (allegedly) misspeaks and she’s a Neanderthal knucklehead.
Ding, ding, ding! Correct answer. I want this election to be a mandate on small-gov’t conservatism vs liberal statism. I believe we’re on an ocean liner headed straight for the iceburg and need to start turning now. A RINO technocrat like Romney who can pilot the huge ship and looks good on the bridge, won’t evade disaster. If the whole thing collapses and we have Greece on steroids here, I don’t want anyone to even remotely be able to lay blame at the feet of the GOP. It’s either stay the course with Obama or a hard about with Bachmann/Perry.
You are obviously a very smart guy and you have much experience in the political realm. Just understand that I’m reading your analysis and I’m going along, it all makes sense, and then this swipe – a wholly inaccurate one, and one your own intelligence should have caught logically, not on copy review – and I start to question your analysis because you just showed yourself to be clearly biased against her.
So now I wonder and I question. The fact you write for TIME and appear on Meet the Press, both very friendly venues for Democrats and Republican dissidents and turncoats, makes me wonder what is important to you and to them, good political analysis, or embedded swipes at certain candidates? Perhaps a little of both. They have a history of playing games like that. Pretending to have a diverse panel of experts and stacking the panel with folks who will play the game. You know that don’t you?
I don’t say give up. I say nominate a GOP candidate who can prosecute economy. Tpaw, Romney, and Huntsman all could win. But race is going to be very tough. Under-rating Obama is foolish. ·Jun 30 at 12:11pm
Is the Whitman trap problematic for her?
Meg tried to pivot from Yosemite Sam to Speedy Gonzalez on illegal immigration and got her head handed to her.
Your larger point is she cannot win the election- is not being able to pivot for the general a factor in your estimation of her?
Uh… I’m still wondering why Mr. Murphy thinks her support will crumble… even when she comes into the spotlight…
Doesn’t going into the spot light usually increase support?…
Why does her support deserve to decrease?
This doesn’t make much sense to me.
If you don’t agree with Mike’s arguments, then tell us why rather than going for the ad hominem attack.
TR, I’m still waiting to hear why we should listen to Mike’s arguments in the first place. From where does he derive credibility to offer political analysis? Is it because he’s a <gasp!> “political consultant”…or is there maybe some empirical evidence out there that redounds to his benefit as a political analyst?
If I recall correctly, Bob Shrum has been a Democrat political “analyst” and consultant for many years, despite being wrong 100% of the time when it came to advising presidential campaigns. Is Mike Murphy our Bob Shrum? If not, why not? Where’s the beef?
I haven’t uttered a word about Michele Bachmann. I’m just still waiting to learn why I should pay attention to yours. Again, it’s not personal. Just looking for evidence of credibility. Forty-plus comments into this thread and so far no one has provided any. ·Jun 30 at 1:04pm
dittohead,
You’re welcome and even encouraged to disagree with Mike. But I’d exhort you to do so in a collegiate and gracious way. Going after someone’s credibility and integrity is really no way to engage in persuasive debate.
Doesn’t going into the spot light usually increase support?…
Why does her support deserve to decrease?
This doesn’t make much sense to me. ·Jun 30 at 1:25pm
Good point. On September 3, 2008, during a segment on NBC, Mr. Murphy was recorded…giving critical analysis about Republican vice-presidential candidate She Who Must Not Be Named.
Less than two weeks later the McCain campaign broke into the lead over Obama for the first time.
With prescience like Mr. Murphy’s…
Edited on Jun 30 at 01:15 pm
Bingo, sir! I’ll cite a far-too-infrequently-cited datapoint from 08: an estimated 14 million voters who switched from Bush in 04 to Obama in 08. these are people who could’ve voted for Kerry, right? do we really think they were ideologically aligned with BO? hardly. I’ll wager that nearly all of these people return to the fold in 2012 as long as it’s someone they can feel reasonably good about supporting. I just don’t think that people understand how soft Obama’s support is beyond his base.
I’m not saying you have no credibility. I’m asking for proof that you do. From someone, anyone, who can say “here’s evidence that Mike Murphy’s political analysis is worth reading and listening to.”
I’m just still waiting to learn why I should pay attention to yours. Again, it’s not personal. Just looking for evidence of credibility. Forty-plus comments into this thread and so far no one has provided any.
dittohead,
You’re welcome and even encouraged to disagree with Mike. But I’d exhort you to do so in a collegiate and gracious way. Going after someone’s credibility and integrity is really no way to engage in persuasive debate. ·Jun 30 at 1:27pm
Diane, I’m not “going after” his credibility (and I’ve said nothing disparaging about his integrity). I’ve simply and repeatedly asked for evidence of credibility. I can’t disagree (or agree, for that matter) with him until and unless I know whether his words are credible. Are they? Why?
And I’m looking forward to seeing the correction in next weeks TIME magazine.
But Murphy’s sentence here does fall apart a bit doesn’t it?
“Sentence should be confused hometown of beloved American Icon John Wayne with actual Waterloo resident, serial killer John Wayne Gacy. etc.”
But it still isn’t accurate because of the word “confused”
How is she “confused” between the two, becauseyou say so?
Here is how the correction should read:
In an article about Michele Bachmann, Mike Murphy and our copy editors confused the idea of residency with the concept of birthplace
TIME magazine is unable to determine what Michele Bachmann was thinking when she made the error that John Wayne was born in Waterloo, Iowa, and merely because a serial killer with a similar name at one time resided in Waterloo does not constitute confusion on the part of Ms. Bachmann. Bachmann did not confuse these two men, she merely made a factual error about John Wayne’s birthplace. TIME regets the error.
Hmm, interesting thread – with friends like Mr Murphy, who needs enemies?
OK, so Mr Romney will be the Republican nominee, on Mr Murphy’s recommendation. Mr Romney may well defeat Mr Obama, in which case I will be happy.
Things could be worse – four more years of Mr Obama.
Regarding the “gaffes matter” subtopic of this thread, just because Obama and Biden get away with gaffes is not at all any sort of proof that a Republican would get away with them in this election. Look at your two veep candidates in 2008. Both made gaffes aplenty, but one was given pass after pass and now enjoys a warmly affectionate reputation as “Crazy Uncle Joe” who says the silliest things, and the other was well nigh crucified every time she said something that anyone could remotely contest as incorrect…which is still ongoing almost 3 years after the election.
Sure, it isn’t fair. But our side is held to a higher standard by the mainstream media. The fact that we need a candidate who is studiously disciplined to the point that they won’t create opportunities for the MSM in this regard is not something I’m happy about, but imagine if Bachmann had referred to the 57 states instead of our President. They get a pass, we don’t.
For the record, I think the John Wayne Gacy thing was a somewhat invented gaffe. I’m more sympathetic regarding this “gaffe” than the Palin/Revere brouhaha.
There’s no individual breakdown, but the most recent Pew study puts Sunday morning political chatshows with the following split:
Rep 24% Dem 37% Ind 32%
For Newsmagazines it was even greater and showed that Democrats were twice as likely to read them than Republicans.
As a whole, Franco’s assumptions are spot on and Mr. Murphy is demonstrably wrong. The complete breakdown is available here.
Diane, I’m not “going after” his credibility (and I’ve said nothing disparaging about his integrity). I’ve simply and repeatedly asked for evidence of credibility. I can’t disagree (or agree, for that matter) with him until and unless I know whether his words are credible. Are they? Why? ·Jun 30 at 1:38pm
Mr. Murphy has advised a number of successful campaigns (just check out his profile). You’ve made your point persistently and rudely. I’d kindly ask you to to desist.
I wish work didn’t keep me away while Mike was here. Would have loved to talk to him and I’m honored he was here to talk to us.
I’m sorry so much time was taken up by the John Wayne thing. Gacy was introduced into that story by media. John Wayne the actor’s parents lived in Waterloo, but moved before he was born. Where in that minor mistake do you find the name “John Gacy?” ‘Nuff said.
More importantly – on Bachmann’s consevatism.
In NJ for years we Republicans would nominate for Governor and Senate boring, liberal-lite Republicans designed to not offend what the media saw (and Republicans bought) as an enormous left-wing electorate that would shun a real conservative.
We ended up with candidates that couldn’t distinguish themselves from the liberals they were running against (RomneyCare?).
Then along came Chris Christie. He proved that a straight talking, smash mouth proud conservative could sway what was seen as a leftist state that would never turn right.
Mike Murphy – this is not your father’s oldsmobile. The old way of thinking is gone. Just look at the Tea Party and its nationwide success.
Sorry to keep harping on this thing but I had to go to Wikipedia to be sure I was right about Gacy’s birthplace. I then revisited his crimes. How horrific and pathetic.
Since this is wholly manufactured association, I find it despicable – absolutely despicable, that people are trying to make this flimsy association after the fact and they are apparently getting away with it. And I am appalled at Mike Murphy who gets to promote this meme in a nationwide magazine, and he’s supposedly a smart analyst and he’s intelligent enough to know EXACTLY what he is doing. This is especially true when he was caught with a factual error and he still wanted to hang onto the “confused” aspect which is wholly without merit. Busted Mike. You are busted.
You know we out here in the trenches have to talk to dimwits who read TIME magazine and they say, “Hey, your friend Bachmann really stepped in it didn’t she? She confused John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy the clown serial killer. What an idiot”
EJ, You miss the point of the data. Time for a stats refresher course. The Pew numbers show the Sunday show audience is very close to the national mean; it looks like America. Doesn’t tilt left or right. Check the chart. Argument that it more lib than USA average is flat wrong. Maddow is tilt Lib, Rush is tilt right. Both only talking to outliers who already agree with them.
dittoheadadt:
Diane, I’m not “going after” his credibility (and I’ve said nothing disparaging about his integrity). I’ve simply and repeatedly asked for evidence of credibility. I can’t disagree (or agree, for that matter) with him until and unless I know whether his words are credible. Are they? Why? ·Jun 30 at 1:38pm
Diane, I understand this is slightly off topic, so I’ll keep it brief: though I don’t agree with dittoheadadt, I don’t think he’s out of line.
His persistence can be explained by the fact that until your quoted post, nobody responded to any of his requests. Further, I don’t think he was being rude at all. But more importantly, we are all paying members, and some credentials on the Contributors who make this site so great and worth paying for is not too much to ask for.