Michelle Bachmann (1 Viewer)

[Statorama]

Said all the right things on Face The Nation this weekend.

I might back her if Rick Perry decides not to run.

 

[saintfool]

Nate Silver does some good analysis of Ms. Bachmann, among others here.

 

[joffer]

Said all the right things on Face The Nation this weekend.I might back her if Rick Perry decides not to run.

oof

 

[NCCommish]

Nate Silver does some good analysis of Ms. Bachmann, among others here.

Nate does good work.

 

[squistion]

In surprising his readers, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos had this to say about Bachman's candidacy (although he did note that it may be wishful thinking on his part):

Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:10 AM PDT.

Why Michele Bachmann will be the GOP nominee

by kos

Michele Bachmann will be the GOP nominee.

Yeah, yeah—this could be wishful thinking. Bachmann would gift Obama a second term and would lead to another Democratic wave election in the House. And yeah, this assumes that Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin don't get into the race. But this is the age of Christine O'Donnell and Ken Buck. Republican primary voters don't give a damn about electability, but about casting a vote for the purest candidate.

Currently, there are three real candidates in the race—Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich is history, Rick Santorum is yesterday's news, Ron Paul is a niche product, John Hunstman has six supporters, and Herman Cain exists only to allow Republicans to say, "Some of my best friends are black!"

Of the three credible candidates, Bachmann easily wins the purity test. Romney has been on the other side of pretty much every issue of current importance to Republicans, while Pawlenty supported the individual mandate. They're toast.

But it's not just policy substance. The early GOP nomination calendar clearly favors Bachmann

.He then discusses the early primary contests, then closes with:

Will Bachmann have the juice to compete in this wide a field? Watch her early fundraising numbers. She's likely to raise more than the rest of the field. I bet she laps it.

So with Bachmann we have perhaps the best-funded candidate, with an early map that favors her brand of culture-war conservatism, and genuine street credibility with the teabagger types that will enable her to quickly build a national grassroots network.

So yeah, this runs counter to conventional wisdom, and I recognize that I'm out on one hell of limb, but I'm not seeing a path to the nomination for any of the other declared Republicans.

Daily Kos

 

[timschochet]

Kos' prediction is simplistic and in the end I just can't see it happening. I think we're going to see a GOP repeat of the 2004 Democratic nomination process, with Bachmann playing the role of Howard Dean, and Romney playing the role of John Kerry.

 

[Statorama]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

 

[the moops]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Yes, that's why, to find a U.S. President who wasn't a church-goer, you have to go back to like Thomas Jefferson or someone.

 

[Statorama]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

 

[Statorama]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Yes, that's why, to find a U.S. President who wasn't a church-goer, you have to go back to like Thomas Jefferson or someone.

Some moderates are turned off by overtly religious people*. I was just wondering if her religious views would ultimately sink her, or if you guys thought that would be a non-issue during the election cycle.edit: *I think the moderates on this board call them "religious nuts"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Chris Wallace apologized for his "Are you a flake?" question. Must have gotten a lot of pressure from up above at FOX.

It was a fantastic question. I've written this before, but she is either: a) 100% sincere about everything she says, in which case she is a moron or b) mostly insincere and pandering to a conservative base, in which case most of what she says is intellectually dishonest.Either way, I have no idea why anyone with a brain would support her.

Before her Face the Nation interview, I hadn't seen her speak. I'd seen only quotes of silly things she'd said. She comes across as being much smarter in an actual interview than she does in cherry-picked quotes.That said, it was obvious to me by her constant dodging and deflection of questions that she is no more sincere than any other politician. She is a panderer.

 

[roadkill1292]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

See MT's post immediately preceeding. I don't know if a non-church going candidate could get elected yet but, at the same time, the electorate is indeed slowly gravitating to a more skeptical stance towards the deeply devout.

 

[Statorama]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

See MT's post immediately preceeding. I don't know if a non-church going candidate could get elected yet but, at the same time, the electorate is indeed slowly gravitating to a more skeptical stance towards the deeply devout.

And ultimately that was my question. Would her religious views sink her in a general election? MT seems to infer that her religious views are no different than any candidate going back to the days of Jefferson. I took that to mean that he feels it wouldn't be detrimental to her chances at winning, but I can't be sure.

 

[roadkill1292]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

See MT's post immediately preceeding. I don't know if a non-church going candidate could get elected yet but, at the same time, the electorate is indeed slowly gravitating to a more skeptical stance towards the deeply devout.

And ultimately that was my question. Would her religious views sink her in a general election? MT seems to infer that her religious views are no different than any candidate going back to the days of Jefferson. I took that to mean that he feels it wouldn't be detrimental to her chances at winning, but I can't be sure.

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

 

[Statorama]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious (attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.

Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious (attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

Did he actually go to church often? Or did he just give it a lot of lip service during the campaigns? As an electorate, we seem to be in a weird habit these days: we don't really care (generally) if our presidential candidates actually hold strong religious convictions as long as they reassure us that they do every now and then. Heck, we wouldn't even care if the Washington Post reported that the president only went to church at Easter and Christmas, at least as long as he kept saying the "right" things. But we would turn on him in a minute if he ever came right out and said that he wasn't very interested in the whole subject.ETA: It's sorta like the national anthem before a ballgame thingy -- nobody can explain why this is important to do but woe be to those who don't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

People tend to trust those who share their religion. That makes it especially hard for atheists and Muslims to get elected. Kennedy's Catholicism was seen as a hindrance, I think. Romney's Mormanism might also be a hindrance. And Judaism is very likely still a hindrance.

I would also say that extreme Christian fundamentalism is probably a hindrance overall. (Less so in the Republican primaries than in the general.)

Mainstream Protestantism is the sweet spot.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious (attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

Bush's opposition to stem cell research stands out as one thing that was religion-driven during his time in office.

 

[FavreCo]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.

Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious (attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

Did he actually go to church often? Or did he just give it a lot of lip service during the campaigns? As an electorate, we seem to be in a weird habit these days: we don't really care (generally) if our presidential candidates actually hold strong religious convictions as long as they reassure us that they do every now and then. Heck, we wouldn't even care if the Washington Post reported that the president only went to church at Easter and Christmas, at least as long as he kept saying the "right" things. But we would turn on him in a minute if he ever came right out and said that he wasn't very interested in the whole subject.ETA: It's sorta like the national anthem before a ballgame thingy -- nobody can explain why this is important to do but woe be to those who don't.

Lip service orchestrated by Karl Rove. Pure genius. No easier victim than a religious person. It's like taking candy froma baby.

 

[squistion]

People tend to trust those who share their religion. That makes it especially hard for atheists and Muslims to get elected. Kennedy's Catholicism was seen as a hindrance, I think. Romney's Mormanism might also be a hindrance. And Judaism is very likely still a hindrance.

I would also say that extreme Christian fundamentalism is probably a hindrance overall. (Less so in the Republican primaries than in the general.)

Mainstream Protestantism is the sweet spot.

People tend to trust anyone who has some religion over someone who doesn't. In a poll before the 2008 election (can't recall the link) being an atheist was seen as the biggest dealbreaker for a potential Presidential candidate (Mormon and Jewish candidates faired better and even a gay candidate was seen as less objectionable). I can't remember if being a Muslim was one of the choices, but I suspect that would edge out being an atheist in today's political climate.

 

[Statorama]

People tend to trust those who share their religion. That makes it especially hard for atheists and Muslims to get elected. Kennedy's Catholicism was seen as a hindrance, I think. Romney's Mormanism might also be a hindrance. And Judaism is very likely still a hindrance.

I would also say that extreme Christian fundamentalism is probably a hindrance overall. (Less so in the Republican primaries than in the general.)

Mainstream Protestantism is the sweet spot.

People tend to trust anyone who has some religion over someone who doesn't. In a poll before the 2008 election (can't recall the link) being an atheist was seen as the biggest dealbreaker for a potential Presidential candidate (Mormon and Jewish candidates faired better and even a gay candidate was seen as less objectionable). I can't remember if being a Muslim was one of the choices, but I suspect that would edge out being an atheist in today's political climate.

Wow, I guess I was just over-thinking it on this one. I thought her religious views would be anchors for her election hopes.

 

[joffer]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.

Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious (attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

Did he actually go to church often? Or did he just give it a lot of lip service during the campaigns? As an electorate, we seem to be in a weird habit these days: we don't really care (generally) if our presidential candidates actually hold strong religious convictions as long as they reassure us that they do every now and then. Heck, we wouldn't even care if the Washington Post reported that the president only went to church at Easter and Christmas, at least as long as he kept saying the "right" things. But we would turn on him in a minute if he ever came right out and said that he wasn't very interested in the whole subject.ETA: It's sorta like the national anthem before a ballgame thingy -- nobody can explain why this is important to do but woe be to those who don't.

Lip service orchestrated by Karl Rove. Pure genius. No easier victim than a religious person. It's like taking candy froma baby.

"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please go to church.

-Arnold Vinnick

 

[TobiasFunke]

Ouch. Not off to a great start.

 

[joffer]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

 

[Statorama]

Ouch. Not off to a great start.

oof

 

[the moops]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

When people make obvious mistakes like this (republican, democrat, whomever) is it mostly because they hire people who dont know how to fact check, or is it because the candidate has too much control and says whatever they want without people proofreading things?

 

[joffer]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

When people make obvious mistakes like this (republican, democrat, whomever) is it mostly because they hire people who dont know how to fact check, or is it because the candidate has too much control and says whatever they want without people proofreading things?

pretty bad if it's the latter, considering she's from there

 

[timschochet]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

How does a POTUS attempt to overturn Roe? There's only one way: to appoint conservative SC Justices who might do the trick. Bush appointed two of them, and if/when abortion comes up as in issue again, these two will have an impact. So it must be said that Bush did as much as he could regarding this subject.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

That's awesome.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Ouch. Not off to a great start.

"I may have misspoken about John Wayne before. But I believe Napoleon also ran into trouble, right here, in Waterloo, Iowa. Yet he prevailed."

 

[Statorama]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

How does a POTUS attempt to overturn Roe?

How does a POTUS attempt to promote legislation? He cajoles, he makes deals. Bush could have promoted initiatives that de-balled Roe. He could have had his DOJ push anti-Roe cases on behalf of the Federal Government. There's a number of things President Bush could have done to try and derail Roe.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.

Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

How does a POTUS attempt to overturn Roe?

How does a POTUS attempt to promote legislation?

Roe can't be overturned by legislation.He could have hopelessly pushed for a constitutional amendment, I suppose.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

Really? You need to get exposed to a broader range of ideas then - a strong majority of objections I've heard about Bachmann mainly relate to her competency, her blatantly dumb statements, or just basic questions around her intelligence. The John Wayne example that Tobias pointed out is just one of many....

 

[Statorama]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

Really? You need to get exposed to a broader range of ideas then - a strong majority of objections I've heard about Bachmann mainly relate to her competency, her blatantly dumb statements, or just basic questions around her intelligence. The John Wayne example that Tobias pointed out is just one of many....

If that's all there is, she doesn't have a problem (Obama: 57 states)

 

[the moops]

If that's all there is, she doesn't have a problem (Obama: 57 states)

You people are still pushing this comparison?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

Really? You need to get exposed to a broader range of ideas then - a strong majority of objections I've heard about Bachmann mainly relate to her competency, her blatantly dumb statements, or just basic questions around her intelligence. The John Wayne example that Tobias pointed out is just one of many....

For the record, I think the John Wayne thing is a puzzling and kind of sloppy mistake, but not the kind of thing that should really be an issue. Stuff like that happens, and these days with every word every place the candidate goes documented, it happens far more often. There are plenty of things she's said that are far worse than this. There's a good amount anti-homosexuality ranting and fear-mongering in her past. That stuff is far more troubling than her accidentally comparing herself to a serial killer.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Will the Jesus thing sink her? I know some "moderates" are uncomfortable with anyone that goes to church attaining a high office.

Back to your fishing ways I see.

Actually kind of serious on this one. The majority of objections I've heard anyone raise about her are religion based. She'll need votes from the middle to become President. Will the middle accept someone that unapoligetically says they've given their heart to Jesus Christ? Or will those religious ties frighten them for some reason?

Really? You need to get exposed to a broader range of ideas then - a strong majority of objections I've heard about Bachmann mainly relate to her competency, her blatantly dumb statements, or just basic questions around her intelligence. The John Wayne example that Tobias pointed out is just one of many....

For the record, I think the John Wayne thing is a puzzling and kind of sloppy mistake, but not the kind of thing that should really be an issue. Stuff like that happens, and these days with every word every place the candidate goes documented, it happens far more often. There are plenty of things she's said that are far worse than this. There's a good amount anti-homosexuality ranting and fear-mongering in her past. That stuff is far more troubling than her accidentally comparing herself to a serial killer.

Fully agree. At this point, it's really more a matter of documenting her stupid statements vs her dangerous statements.

 

[FavreCo]

Good thing independents will decide who should be the next president...and keep dreaming if you think we will be voting for this bag. We will once again vote for the lesser of two idiots. That is not her.

 

[NCCommish]

While funny her base won't care about the John Wayne thing. They have already heard all the other crazy, voted for her anyway and sent millions in cash.

 

[Statorama]

If that's all there is, she doesn't have a problem (Obama: 57 states)

You people are still pushing this comparison?

I was actually giving your president some credit. These are simple gaffes that in the end don't amount to much.

 

[the moops]

I was actually giving your president some credit.

He's your president too, you dolt.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

So, we're likely looking at two years of Statorama blathering about Bachmann this time?

 

[squistion]

Michele Bachmann refuses to accept Chris Wallace's apology

June 27, 2011 | 11:28 am

Michele Bachmann still feels insulted that Chris Wallace asked her if she was a flake.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who is the latest official candidate in the GOP presidential race, was asked by Wallace on Sunday if, in the wake of a series of gaffes, she considered herself a flake.

On "Fox News Sunday" she told Wallace she was insulted by the question. The veteran reporter produced a follow-up video Monday in which he apologized for asking the question.

When asked about the exchange Monday by Jon Karl of ABC News, Bachmann was still unhappy with Wallace.

"I think that it's insulting to insinuate that a candidate for president is less than serious," she said.

When Karl asked a second time if Bachmann accepted Wallace's apology she said, "Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones."

LATimes.comNot that I am one to advise her, but wouldn't it be best that she accept the apology and move on so it won't become a distraction? This is almost like she is taking lessons from Sarah Palin on how to hold a grudge.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't know if (the professing of) deeply held religious convictions is enough yet to "sink" a candidate with moderate voters but I think it's fairly self-evident that the tide is slowly turning in that direction.

Add: You may not see that as a good thing like I do.

It's not a big issue with me. George Bush was the churchgoingist churchmeiser the oval office has ever seen, and he didn't do anything crazy religious attempt to overturn Roe, etc) during his two terms.

How does a POTUS attempt to overturn Roe?

How does a POTUS attempt to promote legislation? He cajoles, he makes deals. Bush could have promoted initiatives that de-balled Roe. He could have had his DOJ push anti-Roe cases on behalf of the Federal Government. There's a number of things President Bush could have done to try and derail Roe.

I'm not sure why things got on the topic of Bush, but does Bush signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and then having his administration defend that act in front of the Supreme Court, not count for that? I realize it did not overturn Roe, but the case did put some limits on the right of privacy and was widely interpreted as a "test case" post-O'Connor.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When Karl asked a second time if Bachmann accepted Wallace's apology she said, "Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones."

I didn't see this exchange, but it appears to be a good example of her inability to answer a question in any kind of straightforward manner. If Karl had asked her a third time if she accepted Wallace's apology, maybe she would have said something about limousines. Anything but a direct answer.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Michele Bachmann refuses to accept Chris Wallace's apology

June 27, 2011 | 11:28 am

Michele Bachmann still feels insulted that Chris Wallace asked her if she was a flake.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who is the latest official candidate in the GOP presidential race, was asked by Wallace on Sunday if, in the wake of a series of gaffes, she considered herself a flake.

On "Fox News Sunday" she told Wallace she was insulted by the question. The veteran reporter produced a follow-up video Monday in which he apologized for asking the question.

When asked about the exchange Monday by Jon Karl of ABC News, Bachmann was still unhappy with Wallace.

"I think that it's insulting to insinuate that a candidate for president is less than serious," she said.

When Karl asked a second time if Bachmann accepted Wallace's apology she said, "Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones."

LATimes.comNot that I am one to advise her, but wouldn't it be best that she accept the apology and move on so it won't become a distraction? This is almost like she is taking lessons from Sarah Palin on how to hold a grudge.

This is exactly what her base loves. Moronic answers that come across (to the dumb) as "principled."

 

[timschochet]

Michele Bachmann refuses to accept Chris Wallace's apology

June 27, 2011 | 11:28 am

Michele Bachmann still feels insulted that Chris Wallace asked her if she was a flake.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who is the latest official candidate in the GOP presidential race, was asked by Wallace on Sunday if, in the wake of a series of gaffes, she considered herself a flake.

On "Fox News Sunday" she told Wallace she was insulted by the question. The veteran reporter produced a follow-up video Monday in which he apologized for asking the question.

When asked about the exchange Monday by Jon Karl of ABC News, Bachmann was still unhappy with Wallace.

"I think that it's insulting to insinuate that a candidate for president is less than serious," she said.

When Karl asked a second time if Bachmann accepted Wallace's apology she said, "Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones."

LATimes.comNot that I am one to advise her, but wouldn't it be best that she accept the apology and move on so it won't become a distraction? This is almost like she is taking lessons from Sarah Palin on how to hold a grudge.

This is exactly what her base loves. Moronic answers that come across (to the dumb) as "principled."

There may be something deeper going on here. Fox News doesn't want her to win, and I think she may recognize that. Fox likes the Tea Party; they promote it, they like the energy, but they want that energy harnessed to one of THEIR candidates, someone like Romney who actually has a shot at the general. They don't want the Tea Party to put up their own candidate; that would be a disaster.

I'm telling you guys, the Tea Party is like a Pandora's Box for the Republicans: they opened it and now they have to deal with it.

 

[NCCommish]

Michele Bachmann refuses to accept Chris Wallace's apology

June 27, 2011 | 11:28 am

Michele Bachmann still feels insulted that Chris Wallace asked her if she was a flake.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who is the latest official candidate in the GOP presidential race, was asked by Wallace on Sunday if, in the wake of a series of gaffes, she considered herself a flake.

On "Fox News Sunday" she told Wallace she was insulted by the question. The veteran reporter produced a follow-up video Monday in which he apologized for asking the question.

When asked about the exchange Monday by Jon Karl of ABC News, Bachmann was still unhappy with Wallace.

"I think that it's insulting to insinuate that a candidate for president is less than serious," she said.

When Karl asked a second time if Bachmann accepted Wallace's apology she said, "Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones."

LATimes.comNot that I am one to advise her, but wouldn't it be best that she accept the apology and move on so it won't become a distraction? This is almost like she is taking lessons from Sarah Palin on how to hold a grudge.

This is exactly what her base loves. Moronic answers that come across (to the dumb) as "principled."

There may be something deeper going on here. Fox News doesn't want her to win, and I think she may recognize that. Fox likes the Tea Party; they promote it, they like the energy, but they want that energy harnessed to one of THEIR candidates, someone like Romney who actually has a shot at the general. They don't want the Tea Party to put up their own candidate; that would be a disaster.

I'm telling you guys, the Tea Party is like a Pandora's Box for the Republicans: they opened it and now they have to deal with it.

She is the head of the Tea Party caucus. Fox better start the love. But seriously the Tea Party is over. They are getting overridden on the debt limit because it's time for the adults to take over. They are then going to run someone who can't win the general while costing serious candidates million and millions. The GOP, much like more and more of America, will be done with them at that point. And then Christian Evangelicals who make up nearly 50 percent of the Tea Party will have to go back to Pat Robertson or whoever will embarrass moderate Christians next.

Ah yes and right on cue Pat Robertson is telling everyone God is going to destroy America if gays can marry.

 

[Soonerman]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

This is a big deal? She claimed John Wayne was from the place that his parents met and lived for a time, but it wasn't where he was born.Wow, nice nitpicking.