Bachmann Sparkled and Romney Looked Presidential


The other day Michael Medved said the only reason Sarah Palin was so popular was because of her appearance.  On Tuesday, he also admitted that Michele Bachmann did so well on Monday night because of the Kennedy Effect.  She looked good.

Michele Bachmann proved she could chew gum and walk at the same time on Monday night.  Her gushing supporters and pundits in the right media say that she “sparkled”.

“….Eleven minutes into the debate, Michele Bachmann stole the show, and she didn’t return it in the subsequent hour and 49 minutes.

“I just want to make an announcement,” she said when asked her first question. “I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States. . . . So I wanted you to be the first to know.”

It was a transparent gimmick – Bachmann had previously left no doubt that she would be running – but it was one of several attention-grabbing moments that allowed the back-bench congresswoman from Minnesota to stand out from the pack….She served Tea Partyers all their favorites: “I want to announce tonight President Obama is a one-term president. . . . I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. . . . There is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America. . . . I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP.”

Actually, Bachmann didn’t have much of a role in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but nobody was keeping score. They were too busy counting kids. “I have five sons. . . 16 grandkids,” Romney reported….””


Tina Korbe wrote in Hot Air:

“…That’s the catch, though: The debate revealed Romney’s refinement and Bachmann’s sparkle. It reduced the rest of the candidates to a cluster of individuals for whom cliched descriptions of tonight’s performance are sufficient (so much so that I don’t even want to do the conventional rundown and reduce still-solid candidates who merely underperformed last night to words like “underwhelming,” “vague,” or “a little better/worse than last time’). But the splashy CNN debate format, insufficient answer time and shortchanging of substantive questions ensured viewers learned little else of worth to distinguish the candidates from one another than who performed best under pressure….”

Earth to the pundits:  Beauty Queens and candidates for Miss America “Sparkle”, Presidents are to be “Dignified”.  After 3 years of Hope n’ Change, I don’t know about you, but I don’t give a rip about cheer-leaders, sparkle, or an effervescent personality.


Are we seeing a bit of pro-Bachmann spin to put a dent on Romney?

National Journal

A “Slim Majority”?

“…Asked who was the “biggest winner” in the debate, a slim majority of Republican Insiders picked Romney. Roughly one-third of the Democratic Insiders concurred….”

A slim majority is one or two percent.  Romney got more pundit votes than everyone else, combined.  Okay, something’s up.  Romney has become He Who Must Be Destroyed – by the GOP?

There is a very serious bottom line here.  Once upon a time we had a Great Man in office who looked Presidential.  He acted Presidential. He had/has dignity.  He brought dignity back into the Oval Office.   Michele Bachmann may have sparkled.  She may have looked good.  She may have effervesced with charm.  There was nothing “Presidential” about her performance.

This country needs dignity.  We need to have someone who can look and act like a President. It may sound a bit superficial, but maybe it is time for a little dignity. It is also the reason why Ron Paul will never be POTUS.  He has no dignity.  He looked like a senile old fart.


4 thoughts on “Bachmann Sparkled and Romney Looked Presidential

  1. “A gum chewing girl and a cud chewing cow….” Well, they say she sparkled. Really?? So far I like Romney better than the other GOP contenders. Whether or not I would vote for him remains to be seen. Lindsey is not impressed by his foreign policy and has already spoken out against it. He is comparing his foreign policy to Jimmy Carter.

  2. How did Ronald Reagan win in 1980?

    Did the Libertarians back Reagan in 1980? NO!

    Did the radical hardcore uber-patriotic ultra-conservatistic superficially religious pharisees support Mr. Reagan in 1980? HELL NO!!

    Ronald Reagan won a major landslide because of the Reagan Democrats.

    Now he might have won without them (because Jimmy Carter was a very bad president) but so many Democrats voted for Reagan that a new demographic had to be created to explain the phenomenon. The Reagan Democrats.

Comments are closed.