That is not what I said I stated a medical fact. Most people who have migranes also suffer from some degree of bi polar disorder (IIRC it is upwards of 80%). If she does suffer migranes it is important to me to know whether she has this disorder too. If you are suggesting it is because she is a woman...I am one too and I still want to know.
The original author of the Daily Caller article is Jonathan Strong.
Hotair’s Ed Morrisey asks some pertinent questions:
What are the examples of Bachmann being incapacitated by her migraines? Strong only offers one a missed campaign appearance for then-Rep. Roy Blunt in his ultimately successful Senate campaign. She was treated at a hospital and went home the same day. The only other incidents cited by Strongs report came two months earlier, an episode that caused her to miss er no appearances, although she did visit an urgent-care center, and another event in October of last year, in which she laid down for a while and went to urgent care for treatment later.
The heavy use of pills would be familiar to anyone who deals with migraines, but Strongs description sounds more like someone who actively manages their medical condition rather than being the second coming of Neely OHara from Valley of the Dolls
Her husband (a Doctor) helps his wife manage her medical issues and thats a surprise? Migraines require the kind of review described in this passage, because the conditions shift and medications dont always provide consistent relief.
Shouldnt someone who has migraines be in contact with her physicians to ensure that medication works as it should and that the condition doesnt incapacitate the sufferer? And wouldnt it be more strange if Marcus didnt take a supporting role in that effort?
Bachmann doesnt have a reputation for being a political wallflower. She has tirelessly traveled to Tea Party events, appears constantly on talking-head political news shows, and is perhaps the most prodigious fundraiser in the House. Bachmann didnt do all of that by being incapacitated. Ive known Bachmann for several years, and Im only aware of her missing one event (the Blunt appearance) in all of that time. If her migraines were anywhere near as incapacitating as Strongs piece suggests, we would have known about it a year ago or more.
The sourcing on this story doesnt instill much confidence, either. Strongs cites are:
a former aide says.
three people who have worked closely with Bachmann
an adviser to Bachmann who was involved in her 2010
congressional campaign.
The former aide says
the adviser says.
Strong writes that TheDC agreed to provide the sources anonymity because they were providing information only a select group of people could know, at great professional risk. Im not an idealist that says that anonymous sources should never be used, but in this story, anonymity is extremely curious. It doesnt protect whistleblowers calling attention to corruption or wrongdoing; its protecting people who didnt like working for Bachmann.
If the former Bachmann aides fear for the Republic, why arent they openly speaking out? The great professional risk appears to be that politicians wont hire people who are disloyal and stab people in the back, anonymously or not.