Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Who Will Leave First, Anthony Weiner or Ed Rollins?

    Who Will Leave First, Anthony Weiner or Ed Rollins?

    The chorus of voices pointing out the damage Ed Rollins is doing to Michele Bachmann because of the needless and damaging fight Rollins picked with Sarah Palin on his first day on the job is growing:

    • Greta: “My advice? Better to dump Rollins now than to carry his baggage throughout the campaign. If Congresswoman Bachmann is serious about a run (and I think she is), she wants to look Presidential at the beginning and not made to look petty before she even announces by someone who is.”
    • Jennifer Rubin:  “Bachmann has a reputation on the Hill as a tough boss. Perhaps she’ll keep Rollins around, but no one would think ill of her if she canned him. In fact, the sign of a good executive is the willingness to cut dead wood that is dragging the team down.
    • Allahpundit:  “So not only did he antagonize grassroots Palin voters whom his candidate needs, he did it via the same sort of critique he’d leveled at Bachmann, thereby guaranteeing that it’ll be thrown back in her face every time someone in her camp tries to question Palin’s “seriousness.” Brilliant.”
    • Ace: “And he’s calling Palin stupid!

    In another place and at another time, perhaps Rollins’ tactics would be admired.  But not here and not now, and not for Michele Bachmann.

    There are a lot of people who want to support Bachmann (depending of course who else gets in), but with Rollins on the team, it’s a non-starter. 

    In fact, it’s more than a non-starter.  Keeping Rollins on the team guarantees that people who otherwise might consider backing Bachmann against a more establishment candidate will do everything within their power to stop her. 

    Each day Rollins stays on Bachmann’s campaign makes it that much harder to undo the damage.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    narciso | June 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    There's a line that Van Der Leun coined during the last campaign, about RINO's, 'they thirst for Death' any truly dynamic conservative, they deride, Rollins his current client, just five
    months ago.

    Has anyone, Prof, ever considered that the reason there are so many Republicans in the race is that they all see Obama as very vulnerable? Certainly, we're not going to get that take from the drive-bys.

    Regardless – ANY one, ANY ONE of the Republicans are a better choice than Obama. The Republicans may be new and untested in some cases, but they have the principles, the new energy, the fire in the belly, and most of al the moral core that is vastly SUPERIOR to Obama. This is not a Bob Dole set of candidates (nothing against him, but the idea that it was his turn was a problem). Young, new and dynamic is this current crop – SUPPORT THEM!

    One will get through – like sperm – one has to make it to the egg. That's what matters, don't shoot each other.

    Rose June 9, 2011 2:12 AM |

    Uhhh . . . interesting analogy, there! I guess I get your point, but especially given all that is happening next door in New York, it is a wee bit jarring for me to think of the Presidency as a fertile ovum.

    Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a two-step process . . . first the nomination, then head-to-head with Obama in the election campaign. We cannot afford to assume that any Republican can win.

    Let's recall that at this point four years ago, a passel of Democrats were climbing all over one another to get to the golden ring — their party nod — and while few outside observers suspected that upstart, first term Senator Barack Obama would emerge victorious in the end, I have to think that if the Democrat party had somehow nominated one of the true lesser lights to run for the top slot — Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd — the Republican would have likely won, in spite of the economy.

    Or, if the Ds had swung toward a head case like John Edwards, or someone who was also a bit vulnerable, like Bill Richardson, we would have had a much different race — and I think the Rs could have won. I still believe Hillary would have been their strongest candidate in terms of attracting votes, NOT that she would have somehow been a "better" President. She would have been a disaster, in my view. But she would have been a formidable candidate.

    Similarly, I think it does matter who the Republicans nominate because not all of them can win.

    Now, we can agree to disagree about who the potential losers would be, but experience does matter, or at least it should!

    Generally speaking, Republicans are not like Democrats in the sense that they could spit in each others' faces, and tear each others' hair out, and then just as quickly kiss and make up.

    My sense is that if primary voters begin to suspect that Bachmann hired Rollins to try and draw Palin into a cat fight, I think it will backfire. Bachmann will lose support rather than gain it. Therefore, how she handles Rollins at this point will tell us a lot about her candidacy. And she cannot wait too long to act. Any Republican candidate should be prepared to adequately demonstrate a natural inclination, not to panic, but to be decisive.

    In other words, to lead. So I think the ball is now in Bachmann's court.

    Rollins is just a pawn. You know for a fact Michelle Bachman either composed that statement, or signed off for its release.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend