Michele Bachmann is a more attractive version of Ron Paul (in a skirt). The Pink Flamingo thinks that the word “attractive” should be cautionary. Evidently there are some rather pathetic males in the far right who will support any attractive woman in a skirt, no matter how pathetic she is. I suspect if Bachmann looked like the late Bella Adzug and were the second coming of Margaret Thatcher, they would throw her under the bus for a dimwit like Christine O’Donnell.
She is currently riding high on her “unexpected” performance during Monday night’s CNN debate. The reason she “did so well” is because no one expected her to be able to put more than a few sentences together without doing something cute and adorable.
She has a few problems. One of The Pink Flamingo’s sources, who wishes to remain anomyous (so we can be able to get more dirt along the way) had a friend who attended the Republican Leadership Convention.
“…Just heard from a good friend from TX who is in New Orleans for the SRLC — she said Perry’s speech WOW’d the people — room was full for his speech and after he spoke most of them left. She said he came across so much better than the others — more experience in dealing with Obama by a long shot, more experience running a huge state, and a lot more passion. She said Bachmann acted like a jerk and wanted to be the queen of the conference, but Marsha Blackburn’s speech was better received by a larger group as lot of Perry people showed up for her and boycotted Bachmann. She said she met some Bachmann types who are also DeMint supporters and they are obnoxious but they had their heads handed to them by the Perry speech that knocked it out of the park…”
The country doesn’t need cute and adorable, we need leaders who know how to fix our mess of an economy. If I thought MB could do it, I would not be so against her. Like all the other Glam Girls of the GOP, MB has her little faults. She can’t keep her staff and has the highest turn-over in Congress.
“…However, National Journal congressional correspondent Major Garrett isn’t completely buying into the hype. On the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” set to air this weekend, Garrett identified one glaring problem with a Bachmann candidacy – the high turnover rate of her congressional staff.
“As you know Chris, you win nomination battles state-by-state through a long national strategy,” Garrett said. “Michele Bachmann’s biggest problem – all the strengths you identified, I agree with, but she can’t keep anybody on her staff.”
According to Garrett, building a solid organization is essential, something that he is uncertain the Minnesota congresswoman would be able to do, despite her ability to raise money and attract media attention.
“People leave her,” Garrett said. “They work for her for a little bit of time and they quit. She’s had five or six chiefs of staff – at least four at her time in Congress. That’s a problem. Building an organization is not something you do overnight and you can create buzz for yourself, you can raise money with a solid debate performance. Look, she raised $14 million in the last cycle having never been on a presidential podium stage before.”…”
Then there is the fact that she has not exactly been honest about her role as a foster mom.
My biggest problem is the fact that she is Ron Paul in a Skirt.
Is Michele Bachmann running for POTUS to get seven figures for a book deal?
She has a reputation for being a tea party darling, but as we have seen in Missouri, she can be intimidated to the point where she will back down from taking a stand. This in itself is not good.
From Lew Rockwell’s losertarian site, regarding an article about Bachmann.
“…We should be delighted each time Republicans sound like libertarians and we should welcome these pivotal moments. We have to keep on pushing the enlightenment process forward. Understand that the election of an arrogant, power-hungry Marxist (who happens to be a Democrat, thereby pissing off the Republicans) is a significant opportunity for us to move in and educate angry conservatives, especially those who are seated closer to the margins. The fact that the Republicans are sounding like classical liberals or libertarians so that they have ammunition to counter the Obama strategy is not a bad thing…”
Bachmann is also a Ron Paul acoylite, as seen in this piece from 2009 in the Gawker.
Yea, dear LIBERTARIAN Bachmann is one of those audit the fed freaks.
“… But Michele Bachmann, like a few others in Congress, has received an education in liberty courtesy of the Ron Paul Revolution. And educating (and radicalizing) those who have the power to screw up our lives was a big part of the Revolution’s success. We should be happy for this and we should welcome these pivotal moments. We need to keep on pushing the education process forward. Understand that the election of an arrogant, power-hungry Marxist (who happens to be a Democrat, thereby pissing off the Republicans) is our chance to move in and educate, radicalize, and libertarianize the conservatives, especially those who are seated on the margin.
Look at Ron Paul’s HR 1207 – Audit the Federal Reserve. He started with a handful of sponsors, the list built slowly, and then it picked up steam until over half of the House of Representatives decided to co-sponsor it. Michele Bachmann was an early supporter who has been magnificent on many occasions, and I am hoping that she, and others like her, will continue to move forward on many issues critical to liberty. If we can capitalize on Republican resentment over the Obama regime and their war on freedom and free markets, we need to do it, and as often as we can. Along the way, we should welcome those Republicans who are having a change of heart and supporting Ron Paul’s ideas and his vision.
…She’s very articulate and pretty, and seems steady and confident. I’d like to see Bachmann continue along her path, learning from Ron Paul and digging some rebel roots. She’s got the fortitude to fight and the desire to win. Let’s watch this lady carefully over the next couple of years. There’s hope. Thanks to Jed for the story tip….”
Like I said, if this is based on attractiveness, then something is terribly wrong out there.
“…Bachmann “goes to these luncheons on a weekly basis,” said Debbee Keller, Bachmann’s press secretary. Keller noted that Bachmann was reading “Meltdown,” which argues that the New Deal failed and that the Federal Reserve is responsible for the current economic crisis. “Just as Austrian theory suggests,” wrote Woods, “the Fed’s mischief was responsible for the Great Depression.”
“I had a feeling she’d have some interest in the book,” said Woods, “because she asked some good questions. She was taking notes. She was asking if this or that point could be found in the book. I thought I recognized a sincere person who wanted knowledge, not the usual politician who couldn’t care less about what the truth is and just wanted to propagandize.”
Paul didn’t take credit for turning Bachmann on to Austrian theory (“He’ll give credit to everyone on the planet except himself,” laughed Woods) but said he was pleased to see more members of Congress delving into economics. “She’s very open to studying,” said Paul. “In fact, she’s been working really hard to get me back to Minneapolis. She says, ‘You’ll get such a great reception there!’”…”
Her love affair with Ron Paul’s libertarian duplicity goes back at least 2 years.
What you really need to know is that Michele Bachmann is a devotee of Von Mises. Please follow the bouncing pin-heads.
“…I became familiar with Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul in the mid-1990’s after being introduced to Murray Rothbard, the now deceased Austrian economist. Rothbard and my dad died around the same time, and I became fascinated with the intersection of Austrian economics and the freedom movement. I attended every Von Mises Institute conference I could find, and read every book their movement ever published. Ron Paul spoke at every one of these events, and when I wasn’t listening to John Denton say that America had no business getting into World War II, or Bob Barr saying that the federal government (not Tim McVeigh) blew up the building in Oklahoma City, I was intrigued by much of what their movement had to say. As I got older and wiser, I began to realize that the heir of Friedrich Hayek was Milton Friedman, not Murray Rothbard, and that this “Austrian economics movement” was a front for an extremist form of anti-war zealotry. Every single conference break was filled with the most radical of conspiracy theorists you have ever heard, and the political intentions of the major brains behind their operation were not hidden: Utter anarchy. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that insurance companies could come replace the federal government in a given task, I would have a lot more nickels than these people have. But it was an educational experience for me, and my transition out of it began before 9/11. It was 9/11 that completed my paradigm shift away from all these people stood for….”
Bachmann appears to be terribly anti-war. She and Ron Paul are the GOP versions of George McGovern. Remember him? No one seems to remember this little ditty.
The libertarian “right” is anti-national defense.
“...Fundamentally, even people who are appalled at the Ron Paul connection to Lew Rockwell may still have a beef with me over the issue of foreign policy: There is a sort of trendiness to the idea that “America is not the policement of the world”, and I have seen more people quote President Eisenhower on the dangers of the “military industrial complex” in the last two years than I ever thought possible. I will live with my differences between the Paulites and myself over foreign policy. America is the leader of the free world, and that is a descriptive fact, not really worthy of being haggled over. Our responsibility to defend ourselves and our way of life is totally and completely incompatible with Ron Paul’s view of foreign policy. America’s moral responsibility in preventing genocide is indisputable. If at the end of the day, a group of folks attracted to the rhetoric of freedom ideology believe that their objectives can be obtained without a strong and muscular foreign policy, they will find out the hard way that they are wrong. The ability of the United States to deter Jihadists, and better yet, to kill them before they kill us, will be the foundational condition on which a future “freedom at home” may be built. We are at war. We did not start the war. I hope and pray Ron Paul’s followers will come around on this. I know what will change their minds, and I do not like it….”