Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Reconsider Bachmann? No.

    Reconsider Bachmann? No.

    Taking another look at Michele Bachmann is one of the memes being pushed by people unhappy with the Newt/Romney choice in the wake of the likely departure from the race of Herman Cain.

    Why does Cain dropping out make Bachmann any better than she was?

    She’s still the person who built her campaign in the early summer around trashing Sarah Palin via Ed Rollins and was happy to ride that wave while it lasted.

    She has not been “accurate” in her portrayal of her own immigration statements earlier in the debates, and she is running around repeating endlessly something that is patently false, that Newt Gingrich wants amnesty for 11 million people, and she has falsely termed a letter Gingrich (along with Grover Norquist, Jack Kemp and others) signed in 2004 in support of a guest worker program an “amnesty” plan.  Repeating things endlessly does not make them true, and we can do better than that.

    Her performance in going after Rick Perry caused Steve Hayward of Power Line Blog to give up on her.

    She has been the only candidate explicitly to try to take advantage of Herman Cain’s latest problems by saying it shows that she is the only consistent candidate.  I think this tweet is accurate:

     

    Reconsider Perry, or consider Rick Santorum for the first time — that I understand although I don’t agree for reasons I previously stated.

    But reconsider Bachmann?  I hope you will just say no.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    BurkeanBadger | November 29, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Bachmann is not going to be reconsidered, at least not in significant numbers. Nor is Perry. I don’t think we’ll see any more “reconsideration” period. Everyone is worn out on this endless cycle of building up “Not Romney” candidates, only to tear them down. They want some stability at long last. Which means, it’s Romney v. Newt. Should be fun to watch

    LI commentors: consider me Bachmann supporter. When the Colorado primaries roll around, and if she is still on the ballot, I will vote for her. My reason is primarily that as a tax attorney, she more than anyone, knows of the insidious loopholes (and incredibly stupid general laws) that create the corporate cronyism that is ruining this nation.

    Lest you think I am sympathetic with the Occupy rabble, this cronyism begins with the politicians that willingly sell their souls for re-election contributions, kick-backs, and future employment guarantees. The people buying our elected officials off are only less-than-scrupulous businessmen working within the rules of a corrupt government.

    The rules have to change.

    Perry, Gingrich, and Romney, over their respective political careers, are all mostly multitasking whores who placated their electoral constituents and satisfied their paying clients. Mind you, I would campaign and vote for anyone not Obama; just saying that I, as a voter, recognize the warts, and hope the Johns take responsibility for the diseases spread by these soiled candidates.

    Professor, while I haven’t given up on Cain yet I have been taking a second look at the other candidates . I agree with your points about Bachmann’s meanness, although it seems that a bit of nastiness may be a good thing in running against Obama. It’s Rick Perry that presents the biggest dilemma.

    Perry still leaves me wrestling with the image of Bush. It doesn’t seem that another Texas governor is going to go over well with voters, given the mistakes of the last one.

    I have one big problem with Perry. From twenty years of living in Texas I know that the governor’s role in the state is quite weak…that most of the power rests with the legislature.

    Given that, how much credit can we actually give to Perry for Texas’ healthy position? I wasn’t impressed with Bush’s skill set. It’s hard to believe Rick Perry has a better one.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Cowboy Curtis in reply to creeper. | November 29, 2011 at 11:21 pm

      He still has to sign bills and appoint justices, right? By which I mean, act of the legislature don’t become law without his Herbie Hancock. Lower posts, too? Which isn’t to state he his king of the realm, but as I understand it, he’s centralized power unto the executive in Texas in a downright transformational way.


         
         0 
         
         0
        creeper in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | November 30, 2011 at 8:41 am

        Sign bills and appoint justices? Good grief, Obama does that. He’s really good at signing stuff and knows how to put in a ceremony.

        It’s not that I want a power-hungry president. We have one of those already. I’m just looking for some examples of leadership from Perry. I hear a lot about what Texas IS but not much about what Perry has DONE.

        Except for Gardasil and free tuition for illegals, nothing about Perry comes to mind. Any Texans on here who can enlighten us?

    IMO, Gingrich could put this amnesty issue to bed by pointing out that in the process of securing the border (which he has said would take to 2014) and enforcing the existing laws on hiring of illegals, a fairly substancial portion of them would self deport because of a lack of money which is what drew them here in the first place. While it may be realistic to say the government can’t possibly deport all 11 – 13 million of the illegals, this smacks of giving in and then encouraging more of the unwanted behavior.

    Most Americans have good reason to be sensitive about the issue because of the self righteous moralizing by liberals on both sides of the isle only to find they really don’t have the spine to deport any of them even if they are in jail. Look at California, half of the prison population is literally illegals and yet they resist deporting even these. What we want is a good faith effort on the part of government officials, a track record of enforcing the Law and not selectively thumbing their noses at the taxpayers who are forced by Law to pay for their generosity. Once credibility is re-established, then and only then can there be a discussion about what to do with the remaining ones.

    Personally, while it may not be fair to the ones who are following the rules by not just showing up in downtown Chicago or NYC, I believe ALL immigration with few exceptions should be halted until the cummulative number of slots over a period of years equals the numbers believed to be in the country. We need to admit we simply can’t absorb every person who wants to come here, its not their RIGHT to come here, its our sovereign RIGHT to decide how many we want based on OUR needs. This means migrant workers too, there is no point bringing more into the country when there are plenty who have overstayed their visas could renew them and then get in line like everyone else.

    btw- anyone who is an illegal who draws public assistance has committed fraud, a felony and those government officials (especially state and local) who knowingly took actions to prevent the identity of citizenship status to verify eligibility should be prosecuted as well. Any illegal caught taking public funds like unemployment, hoc, food stamps, etc, should NOT be deported but JAILED and then when their time is served, be deported to encourage all the rest to self deport.

      As a former public official who oversaw the review of thousands of documents purporting to establish legitimate residency I can assure you a federal law criminalizing the act of a public employee fraudulently or negligently accepting non-complying documents would stop the practice in every state virtually overnight, except maybe in Chicago….


     
     0 
     
     0
    Juba Doobai! | November 30, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Rightly so.

    And I won’t consider Newt, either. Newt is the man who teamed, at Obama’s request, no less, with that vile racist and anti-Semite Al Sharpton whom Obama offered as an expert on education … and Newt, knowing better, consented to work with Sharpton.

    Bachmann is a back-stabber, true. Newt is far, far worse.


    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