Another Bachmann Gaffe

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal noted another Michele Bachmann gaffe.

It seems that, after sparring with Rick Perry in the recent CNN GOP candidates' debate over HPV vaccinations, Bachmann made the rounds of the talk shows the next morning alleging that the vaccines could cause "mental retardation." The Journal article contended that there is absolutely no evidence to support this very irresponsible and outrageous accusation.

It's bad enough when a candidate's intensity gets in the way of her/his messages. But when Bachmann engages in loose talk about alleged side effects of a vaccine like the one for HPV, it's much, much worse.

Now Michele Bachmann is combining junk/nonexistent science with campaigning. As the Journal editorial pointed out, it would be a very bad thing if Bachmann's wrongheaded allegations cause parents who otherwise would have protected their children from HPV with the vaccine to change their minds and not do so.

It's reminiscent of the British hysteria over a vaccine thought to cause, I believe, autism. Later found to be a totally baseless allegation, as well.

So it seems there is now another reason why I would find it difficult to support Bachmann for president. Her campaigning is looking irresponsible and portrays her very much as not yet ready for prime time.

Bachmann's Fatal Mistake- Gasoline Price Promises

I think Michele Bachmann is gathering momentum in demonstrating that she truly is not yet ready for national political prime time.

One pundit noted, earlier this week, regarding Paul Ryan's being coaxed by GOP moneymen, to consider a presidential run, that running a national campaign will be far more difficult and complex than running to represent Janesville, Wisconisn in Congress.

Obviously, that goes for Bachmann, as well.

But I think Bachmann just made a fatal error. Last night I saw video of her on one of the Fox News programs promising that, if elected, gasoline prices will be less than $2/gallon.

I was stunned, but not totally surprised. This is Bachmann displaying an inability to distinguish Tea Party desires for less government and more free markets, and raw, fawning populism along the lines of the ancient 'bread and circuses' Roman emperors.

A more mature, wise and seasoned Bachmann would have said, on the same topic, something like this,

'When Obama came into office, gasoline was at $1.75. What are you paying now (over $3)? That's because his deliberate anti-oil, anti-coal energy policies are driving up the price of all fossil fuels except natural gas. But we don't yet put natural gas in our car's fuel tanks.

If I'm elected president, I'll reverse his destructive energy policies. I can't, of course, control the price of gasoline or oil- that's the job of the global free markets, in response to global supplies and demand. But I can promise that I'll return as much of this nation's energy policies to free market principles as possible, eliminate the DOE, and transfer whatever useful information-collection and other elements to their most-productive homes in other federal agencies.

The bottom line is in my administration, we'll make responsible, affordable energy a key policy objective.'

Instead, Bachmann comes off as a modern-day King Canute, commanding the price of US gasoline to fall.

Very foolish.

For me, this pretty much spells and end to her viability as a presidential candidate. This sort of dictatorial lunacy will successfully position and portray her, as I and others have already noted, as the GOP version of Wonderboy. An inflexible, power-mad ideologue.

More Reservations About Michele Bachmann

My prior posts concerning Michele Bachmann (spelled incorrectly in the label) all mention her inexperience as an executive.

In my last post I repeated a concern, recently voiced by Dick Morris, that she risks being the conservative or Tea Party equivalent of Wonderboy- long on ideology, short on experience, and no willingness whatsoever to compromise- ever.

As I listened last night to various pundits on Fox News discuss the Iowa Straw Poll results, perhaps Bernie Goldberg's comments on Rick Perry's and Michele Bachmann's religiosity caused me to reflect anew on that strain of the Republican Party.

Goldberg's point was that, in the modern era of campaigning, no candidate can any longer expect to speak to just the audience in front of her/him. Stand-in hostess of Bill O'Reilly's program, conservative radio talk show maven Laura Ingraham, tried to excuse Bachmann's confused explanations regarding her 'submissive' comment by saying that she said it to a friendly church-going crowd.

Goldberg politely but persistently disagreed with Ingraham, noting that Iowa has a preponderance of Evangelical Christians, but that's not going to be true of the rest of the country, and, specifically, not of New Hampshire.

I think he's got a very important point.

For this election cycle, softer social issues are less likely to matter in unseating Wonderboy than clear, concise stands against larger government with more spending, and for a more vibrant private sector. Jobs aren't really the issue, so much as private sector investment and activity. Ideally, jobs will follow, but, really, how, where and when is something we really just have to leave to the private sector.

But Goldberg's point implies that by wearing her faith and religion on her sleeve, Bachmann is probably making a big mistake. And, more fundamentally, may simply be a really bad choice for GOP voters to make. Her insistence on making religion so prominent in her campaign is probably not a winning approach among independents.

Perry has ten years of gubernatorial experience with which to leaven his own religious focus. I don't personally agree with Dick Morris' semi-prediction that Perry will lose to Bachmann in Iowa, to Romney and Bachmann in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina but become a South-only candidate.

For me, considering what occurred in Iowa, then listening to critiques of Bachmann's actions, statements and attitudes in the past week or so, the real concern is that, somehow, the GOP may end up with the wrong presidential candidate. One who won't attract sufficient numbers of Tea Party-like independents.

Romney, everyone generally acknowledges, is soft on real fiscal conservatism. He gave Massachusetts RomneyCare, and now tries to paper over that gigantic mistake. Don't bet on him having true religion when it comes to Tea Party-style fiscal conservatism.

Perry is very populist in his orientation, but I can't stop thinking, as I listen to him, that the nation just isn't ready for another Texan Republican as president. Maybe unfair, but that's what I think.

I don't think Bachmann is really presidential material because she is so strident about her independent stands, while seeming incapable of articulating more productive solutions she would prefer. I suspect that, like Wonderboy, she's a better campaigner than she would be a president. She might even have difficulty with a Republican-controlled Senate and House which are not as far-right as she is.

Karl Rove mentioned that he's heard stories that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan have been so pressed by influential GOP moneymen that both have promised to reconsider their very public refusals to run for president.

Living in New Jersey, I have a close vantage point on Christie. I agree with his belief that he's not ready. He hasn't even cemented his accomplishments here, and makes the occasional public gaffe, like the now-infamous helicopter ride to his son's baseball game.

Paul Ryan is probably more than ready for the Oval Office. In the classic fashion of a manager who has grown into his boss' job, Ryan has done more presidential work as chair of the House Budget Committee than anyone else in Washington. My only concerns are losing him in the House if he loses the nomination and/or general election, and that he may succumb to the Phil Gramm disease. That is, the president is more than accountant-in-chief. Ryan's strengths look good right now, but when actually voting for president, he may look a little narrowly-described.

Then again, if Ryan can pull the independents away from Wonderboy, who really cares? He might be the guy.

The Iowa Straw Poll Results

Well, yesterday's Iowa straw poll results are in, and Tim Pawlenty, though finishing third, is already out.

Michele Bachmann took first by 152 votes over Texas Congressman Ron Paul in what was reported as the second-heaviest straw poll turnout ever.

Oh, yes, and Rick Santorum came fourth.

I hadn't written a post on the Republican Ames debates of last week because I personally found it so predictable. But I enjoyed Dick Morris' commentary about it on Fox News. How he called Gingrich 'cranky,' and Ron Paul a 'flake' who totally marginalized himself by declaring it okay to let Iran have nuclear weapons.

Thus, it shouldn't be too comforting to see Ron Paul run such a close second to Bachmann. There's reason to doubt the electability of either among independents, who will of course determine the 2012 presidential election.

Of the two, though, I'd have to guess that Bachmann is the more probable choice among independents.

Unfortunately, some credible stories have come out in the past two weeks depicting Bachmann as a media-seeking, publicity-crazed, rather unattractive person in private. And despite Bachmann's intentions, Pawlenty's criticisms were correct when he noted that for all her efforts, as merely one of 435 Representatives, her so-called 'leadership' against the TARP, the debt limit increase, and ObamaCare, came to naught.

And, of course, Texas governor Rick Perry's entry further complicates things. Romney didn't really take the Iowa straw poll seriously, leaving Bachmann, at best, nipping at Romney's heels. Perry's poll numbers put him among those two, but, then, he has yet to be seriously tested either by other candidates or the media.

My own hunch is that Romney is probably the conventional GOP favorite, sadly, along the 'it's my turn' line. Bachmann is probably more popular and trustworthy among independents.

And, of course, as I've written before, while Bachmann has plenty of passion and very explicit, desirable beliefs for independents, she also shares Wonderboy's lack of executive experience.

Romney is not trustworthy, too glib and a bit too distant and dispassionate, but has the credentials on paper to be a good centrist president.

From here, we'll just have to see which of the three GOP frontrunners capture the hearts of independents.

Michele Bachmann's Challenge

I've watched Michele Bachmann's rise in the GOP presidential polls with great interest since writing about her candidacy a few weeks ago.

In that post, I wrote,

"Make no mistake- I believe Bachman is motivated, smart, well-educated as she has seen a need for her various political/legislative positions.



I think that, in terms of values and overall conservative disposition, she'd make a great president. But the job is, above and beyond the inevitable crises and presidential initiatives, a very large and potentially-overwhelming executive job. And I'm just not sure Bachman is up to that.


We've got one inexperienced failure in the Oval Office right now.


How does Bachman poll with independents, versus, say, Pawlenty?


Plus, Bachman keeps focusing like a laser on making 2012 a presidential election focused on the economy. If she can succeed with that, and it's clearly any GOP candidate's strongest topic, she might well make voters forget about her lack of executive experience, which matches Wonderboy's weakness, and, instead, vote for her more sensible economic policies.



So I'd move Bachman to preferable, but I'm uncertain on her electability as yet. A strong showing among independents would change my mind."

I haven't seen polls showing Bachmann's standing relative to other GOP candidates among independents, but it's remarkable how she seems to have already elbowed Pawlenty aside in Iowa. According to polls I've seen and heard referenced on Fox News, Bachmann is already about even or ahead of Romney.

On reflection, I remain comfortable with Bachmann in the Oval Office. But to get there, I believe her challenge is to make the primaries and general election about issues, not experience.

Specifically, about fidelity to the Constitution, private sector vitality and spending cuts. These don't actually require executive experience, so much as perseverance to principles and determination to use the powers of the office to drive needed change in the federal government.

In my view, Bachmann's personal and professional lives prior to her political career featured far more significant accomplishments than Wonderboy's did. So it's not like she spent her young adult life carefully scrubbing her track record to run for the Oval Office.

But, in the final analysis, to beat Romney and other former GOP governors, then the First Rookie, she'll have to change the game from experience to values and issues.

From what I've seen so far, I think she could do that. She has energy and a passion that might help her overcome Romney's financial advantage. For that matter, Romney spent considerable money last time and lost the nomination on issues. I think, given the ball and chain on his leg that is Massachusetts' RomneyCare, I think that could happen again, should Bachmann manage to stay focused on the topics that matter for her candidacy.

Michele Bachman's Candidacy

In this post almost a month ago, I provided my personal assessment of the evolving GOP presidential candidate field.

Regarding Michele Bachman, whom I placed among the unelectable, I wrote,

"Bachman- Too little experience. Just too shallow on experience at this point in her life to run successfully against a sitting president."



Ironically, I failed to mention Tim Pawlenty among the undeclared candidates, just as I forgot he was in the South Carolina debate. Embarrassing, but it says how retiring he is. The weird thing is that, right now, he's probably my favorite GOP candidate.

But, back to Michele Bachman. She was the subject of Stephen Moore's feature weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal. Nothing in that piece gave me angst about Bachman's values or beliefs. I liked that she proudly voted against TARP "both times," is appropriately concerned about Libya due to Wonderboy's failure to make a case for the intervention, and reads Von Mises.

Make no mistake- I believe Bachman is motivated, smart, well-educated as she has seen a need for her various political/legislative positions.

I think that, in terms of values and overall conservative disposition, she'd make a great president. But the job is, above and beyond the inevitable crises and presidential initiatives, a very large and potentially-overwhelming executive job. And I'm just not sure Bachman is up to that.

We've got one inexperienced failure in the Oval Office right now.

How does Bachman poll with independents, versus, say, Pawlenty?

But part of me wonders if I'm wrong to judge Bachman by the challenge of running the bloated federal government we have, rather than the smaller government that will be left after she's finished wholesale elimination of functions and cabinet departments.

Maybe it's time we had a Gordian knot-cutter to match, in scope, cutting federal government size the way FDR, LBJ and Wonderboy all expanded it.

Plus, Bachman keeps focusing like a laser on making 2012 a presidential election focused on the economy. If she can succeed with that, and it's clearly any GOP candidate's strongest topic, she might well make voters forget about her lack of executive experience, which matches Wonderboy's weakness, and, instead, vote for her more sensible economic policies.

Finally, I think Bachman is more thoughtful and less likely to go completely off-script and embarrass herself like Sarah Palin tends to do.

So I'd move Bachman to preferable, but I'm uncertain on her electability as yet. A strong showing among independents would change my mind.