Michele Bachmann; Thoughts?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1


I just wanted to “bump” this, because as of today…Bachmann is seriously considering running.

Let’s discuss furthur.

  1. She is the “voice/leader” of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.

  2. She will have Evangelical support now that Huckabee has withdrawn from the race.

Can she win the GOP Primary?

Can she win the General election?

Let’s Discuss

Mufasa

She is already hoping to get a “major” Committee Chairmanship.

There is even calls for her to run for President in 2012.

I think that both would be a bad move for the GOP.

She is MUCH too polarizing…I view her as the “Nancy Pelosi of the Right”.

Now, because of her seniority; the GOP may not have a “choice”?

You love her or you hate her.

Thoughts?

Mufasa

2

She was rather moronic in her interview with Anderson Cooper.

Unfortunately the right sways towards polarizing characters to counteract the idiots on the left, leaving compromise behind their wake of idiocy. While the notion of many of these types, such as her and Palin are laudable such as lower taxes, they still seem to kowtow to the Neo-con positions of enticing elderly voters with no cuts in entitlement programs, and blatantly misusing the Monroe doctorine to intervene in foreign conflicts. The shadow imperialism that we are engaging in is fueled by the military industrial complex, who obviously has a vested interest in this, and provides monetary backing to those which support it. Thus we are embroiled in a sea of chaos that will eventually boil over.

I think she’s a bad candidate for 2012 for the repubs, and i will still vote for Ron Paul.

3

I think what you mean by “polarizing” is too conservative. If so I disagree. The GOP barely has anybody left that’s conservative at all to say nothing of TOO conservative.

4

That WAS a strange interview with Cooper…

5

Tiribulus:

I’m missing your point.

Are you saying that Bachmann is not “conservative enough”?

Mufasa

6

Not necessarily. The point I’m making is the last thing the Republicans (or the country) need is to put forward a bunch of compromising moderates like I’m pretty sure you’re suggesting that they do because anybody who is actually conservative would be too far right and polarizing. I disagree as you probably would have guessed.

7

(In my best "Yule Brynner in the “10 Commandments” Voice…)

Tiribulus, Tiribulus, Tiribulus… :)-!

  1. I wasn’t suggesting anything…I wanted peoples opinions on Bachmann and her getting either a major Chairmanship or running for President.

  2. ANY figure…whether far LEFT or far RIGHT will be polarizing TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE; NOT TO THEIR BASE.

Isn’t that what many feel the Obama/Pelosi/Reid “Trifecta” did?

Any person on the far right can do the same.

Mufasa

8

I thought this was an interesting article from a year ago. Here’s a teaser quote:

When your captain s crazy, it s time to find a new ship …the lawmaker said.

9

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
She is already hoping to get a “major” Committee Chairmanship.

There is even calls for her to run for President in 2012.

I think that both would be a bad move for the GOP.

She is MUCH too polarizing…I view her as the “Nancy Pelosi of the Right”.

Now, because of her seniority; the GOP may not have a “choice”?

You love her or you hate her.

Thoughts?

Mufasa[/quote]

We either need to follow her ideas, or collapse into a National Socialist state. Anyone can see that we are headed for full totalitarianism – the Nanny is turning into a Dominatrix.

10

I think conservatism should avoid her being a torch-bearer for the movement. To the extent it is a (resurgent?) movement, conservatism and specially the GOP needs someone to make the case to change the minds (or solidify existing opinions that are iffy) of largely non-ideological voters who lean “conservative”.

Bachmann is not and never will be the person to make that case to this set of voters.

11

If I’m not mistaken (and hopefully Tiribulus and others will chime in)…the “Non-Ideological Conservatives” are most likely the hated “moderates” or the ones that are not “conservative enough”.

It seems like these people are viewed almost with as much disdain as liberals (in the eyes of the “true” conservatives).

Am I off here?

Mufasa

12

No Michelle, no Palin thank you. They will be great behind the scenes…but i think Jim DeMint should be who we watch.

13

Huck beats Obama. Palin and Bachman will turn out whatever vote they can turnout for the nominee. Neither will be a real contender.

14

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
If I’m not mistaken (and hopefully Tiribulus and others will chime in)…the “Non-Ideological Conservatives” are most likely the hated “moderates” or the ones that are not “conservative enough”.

It seems like these people are viewed almost with as much disdain as liberals (in the eyes of the “true” conservatives).[/quote]

If the GOP views it this way, they will have learned nothing from the cautionary tale of Obama and Pelosi. Demanding ideological purity and alienating non-ideological conservatives/independents would be plainly idiotic.

Reagan - the architect of the new conservatism at the electoral level in the modern age - understood this and never campaigned or governed with litmus tests in mind. Recall that Reagan’s genius was inviting and welcoming “Reagan Democrats” into the fold - hardly ideological mirrors to the Right’s platform of principles, but who values and most fundamental principles found a home in a coalition in the GOP.

FDR did the same thing a few generations before.

The Democratic Party has become - particularly since 2008 - a very narrow group of interests: (1) unions (especially public sector ones) in an era where unions are not popular and very few people belong to one, (2) special interest ethnic voters (as opposed to ethnicities as a whole, but still high percentages of ethnic minorities), (3) gentry liberal/urban hipsters, and (4) hard-left single-issue warriors (pro-choice, gay rights, etc.). This is not a governing coalition - not in American politics.

The GOP has the same opportunity now to build that coalition. More voters identify as “conservative” in recent polls than they have in a long time. The GOP needs a Reaganesque leader to forge that coalition - he or she doesn’t have to be Reagan, he or she only need to have Reagain’s inclusive approach and ability to define the Democrats in increasingly narrow terms.

And litmus-testers - who instead do the opposite and demand an increasingly narrow party for themselves - will derail that entire endeavor.

15

Come January, speculation will have to end, and people will have to at least “show their hand” for 2012 (putting together election committees; state-wide organizations; etc.)…if not all-out declare their intention to run.

DeMint…maybe Cantor?

Huckabee?

Should be interesting. I don’t think that Bachmann has shown an interest in the Presidency; but she HAS indicated wanting some type of committee Chairmanship. And those Chairmanships can be some VERY important positions.

Mufasa

16

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Come January, speculation will have to end, and people will have to at least “show their hand” for 2012 (putting together election committees; state-wide organizations; etc.)…if not all-out declare their intention to run.

DeMint…maybe Cantor?

Huckabee?

Should be interesting. I don’t think that Bachmann has shown an interest in the Presidency; but she HAS indicated wanting some type of committee Chairmanship. And those Chairmanships can be some VERY important positions.[/quote]

Romney and Huckabee, I think, for sure. DeMint maybe. The governor of Indiana, I’d bet. The field is not terribly inspiring, I don’t think, but recent polls point to some advantages over Obama.

Inexperienced Tea Party-types will not make the cut in 2012 - it will have to be someone with a good deal of experience, because the GOP does not want to forfeit the all-important narrative that an unwise naif has been a really bad experiment for this country (and they’d be right).

17

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that Bachmann has shown an interest in the Presidency;
[/quote]

Yes, and I hope it stays this way for the same reasons why we do not like a president with no governing experience. No Palin, no Bachman… No truly polarizing figures. The only polarizing thing we should get from R’s this year is that they are white, old and racist. That should he combat-able enough and 2012 will still have a good Baby Boomer R turnout.

Any women who run for R’s will be hated by the women of the left immediately, more so than even GW. Funny, ironic, yet true.

18

It’s hard to hate Huckabee…he has that boyish, non evil twinkle in his eye and can engage anyone in a good conversation and connect, much like a Reagan personality. Image is everything, as we saw in 08.

Romney would be seen as rich, pompus and religious. 3 great R painted traits… that will work against him and used against him. Both can work. Huckabee would be better, but he would need to fight the FOX News image that will be portrayed against him.

As long as they are not the McCain!

19

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
If I’m not mistaken (and hopefully Tiribulus and others will chime in)…the “Non-Ideological Conservatives” are most likely the hated “moderates” or the ones that are not “conservative enough”.

It seems like these people are viewed almost with as much disdain as liberals (in the eyes of the “true” conservatives).[/quote]

If the GOP views it this way, they will have learned nothing from the cautionary tale of Obama and Pelosi. Demanding ideological purity and alienating non-ideological conservatives/independents would be plainly idiotic.

Reagan - the architect of the new conservatism at the electoral level in the modern age - understood this and never campaigned or governed with litmus tests in mind. Recall that Reagan’s genius was inviting and welcoming “Reagan Democrats” into the fold - hardly ideological mirrors to the Right’s platform of principles, but who values and most fundamental principles found a home in a coalition in the GOP.

FDR did the same thing a few generations before.

The Democratic Party has become - particularly since 2008 - a very narrow group of interests: (1) unions (especially public sector ones) in an era where unions are not popular and very few people belong to one, (2) special interest ethnic voters (as opposed to ethnicities as a whole, but still high percentages of ethnic minorities), (3) gentry liberal/urban hipsters, and (4) hard-left single-issue warriors (pro-choice, gay rights, etc.). This is not a governing coalition - not in American politics.

The GOP has the same opportunity now to build that coalition. More voters identify as “conservative” in recent polls than they have in a long time. The GOP needs a Reaganesque leader to forge that coalition - he or she doesn’t have to be Reagan, he or she only need to have Reagain’s inclusive approach and ability to define the Democrats in increasingly narrow terms.

And litmus-testers - who instead do the opposite and demand an increasingly narrow party for themselves - will derail that entire endeavor.

[/quote]

Outstanding.

Thanks, Bolt.

To find a “Reagan-Like” Neo-Con (another “curse” word among “true”, or ideological, conservatives); seems like a tall order for the GOP. That would essentially eliminate Bachmann, Palin and Huckabee. “Bible-Belt” Religious conservatives will never allow the election of a Mormon President (either in Romney or Huntsmann).

Who does that leave? Perhaps one of the “rising stars” that we heard about election night? Someone else? (DeMint? Cantor?).

Is there someone that the Coalition of Tea Parties is “eyeing”?

Again…this should be interesting.

Mufasa

20

LOL!

I think we’re all reading and responding on this thread at the same time!

Thanks for you input, guys!

This is really going to be an important topic over the next two years!

Mufasa