Skip to comments.Bachmann’s Former Chief Of Staff: Her False Statements Are The Result Of Her ‘Impulsive Nature’
Posted on 09/15/2011 6:50:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On Wednesday night, Anderson Cooper took some time to address how Michele Bachmann‘s recent comment about the danger of the HPV vaccine — relaying a story about a Tampa woman who supposedly shared that her daughter had developed mental retardation following the vaccination — fits in with other misleading and incorrect comments she had made in the recent past.
Now it’s certainly not a new phenomenon for politicians to stretch the truth and manipulate facts. But Bachmann is spreading an all-out falsehood here — a dangerous falsehood at that. It’s not the first time she’s done this by any stretch of the imagination.
He then played various clips of Bachmann making inaccurate statements — such as that President Barack Obama had traveled on a taxpayer-funded, $200 million-a-day trip India with 2,000 people and that he’d released all the oil from strategic reserves — and misleading statements, like the “observation” that swine flu broke out in the 1970s under a Democratic president as well.
So. Do voters care about the truth? Does the fact that Bachmann has slipped in the polls recently have anything to do with these type of statements? To answer these questions, Cooper brought on Bachmann’s former Chief of Staff, Ron Carey, who offered a fairly fascinating theory for why Bachmann has a tendency to share and perpetuate erroneous statements:
Well, Michele is very impulsive from a personality standpoint and, to her credit, she reads an awful lot of information, but sometimes I’m afraid that she reads maybe 80 or 90 percent and leaves out or forgets the ten or 20 percent that can change the outcome, so her impulsive nature coupled with the fact that she sometimes doesn’t digest information as carefully as she should leads to these kinds of impulsive statements that sometimes are just off the mark enough that it makes her into more of a provocative, controversial figure.
One of the challenges I’ve found with working with Michele, and it’s consistent with other people who have worked with her, is the fact that she doesn’t use her staff well. She’s pretty much independent and does her own research. She’ll be out there on the stump, preparing her remarks and speaking off the cuff with no staff intervention or involvement whatsoever, so it’s really difficult to prep her and help her kind of back-check before she goes out speaking because she will be out there speaking and you’ll say, “Where did this come from?” and it’s something that she maybe heard on TV.
CNN political analyst David Gergen then shared his theory on what her statements have to do with her views on science.
Take a look, via CNN:
Terrible of Bachmann to spout the mental retardation line. Lost a lot of respect for her.
It’s weird that these handlers assume that a candidate with a mind of his/her own, who doesn’t have the good sense to depend on a handler, is “impulsive.”
Despise Anderson Cooper.
Without attribution, she’s in the same league as NBC news...
Flaming sexism from a leftist news source.
Anderson Cooper is scum.
Looks like Michelle is getting press. Misstatements and half-truths have served Barry well. Maybe she can jump to the lead by sorta accusing other candidates of crimes.
Something like this coming from a former member of her staff combined with a CNN talking head moron added to a record that mac daddy that he can not run on and you have another round of unapproval statements.
This current administration has NOTHING to run on, NOTHING to show for the money they wasted, and NO plans to correct ANYTHING except more of the same—— WASTE MONEY, WASTE MONEY AND WASTE MONEY.
How things have changed in our risk averse society. Our ancestors died from horrible diseases such as smallpox and bubonic plague, and sometimes ended-up in iron lungs from polio. They would have welcomed the vaccinations that Michelle Bachmann and the internet fear mongers find so risky.
This statement right here makes me wonder just what Carey is up to. A former staffer goes on national TV and complains his former boss didn't use her staff well. His observations about Bachmann's impulsiveness may or may not be correct. But he definitely raises the specter of his own bias with that comment.
At least there is a face and a name associated with the comment and it is not from some unrevealed former staffer, so we can at least vet it.
Impulsive Nature : Is that a synonym for “loose canon”?
A) The guy is responding to leading questions from Cooper, and b) he’s marketing himself. What would anyone expect him to say?
...and in the closet.
Being the President carries a monumental weight to get things right (present company excepted) to prevent being misleading and requireing careful consideration to what is spoken. Agree?
So you think its a positive attribute for Bachmann to speak impulsively from dubious sources of information? A free-spirit this surely makes, but not something very presidential.
There is no arguement that she is conservative. My concern is that she sometimes is too close to the irrationality of ronpaul AND WHAT’S WORSE doesn’t seem to care.
Bachmann would much better serve America as the Senator from Minnesota, we just do not need “impulsiveness” with the power of the Presidency
I liked Bachmann and don’t like Anderson Cooper, but her mental retardation statement is something you would expect from trailer park trash who watches daytime tv or John Edwards.
That comment said a lot about her fitness for office.
I would in a heartbeat.
“I liked Bachmann and dont like Anderson Cooper, but her mental retardation statement is something you would expect from trailer park trash who watches daytime tv or John Edwards.”
John Edwards the presidential candidate or you mean the psychic? I’d say the psychic but there’s no ‘s’ in his name.
oxymoron: impulsive conservative
So, someone says something to her, she repeats it, it’s incorrect, so she’s a liar?
Anderson Cooper is not who I’d consider a reliable source for anything outside the Obama agenda.
Considering our current situation, I would take even ronpaul or jon-boy over nobama. That is not the point, we are not faced with ONLY that option.
I would not take an impulsive conservative over a non-implusive conservative, that IS the point.
The only way Bachmann is going to get the nomination, is if she impulsively snuffs the candidates who keep pulling further in the lead, as she continues slipping further downward.
Impulsiveness could be a factor in her rapid staff turnover. IIRC Carey lasted a couple of months as her chief of staff, and I recently heard that if you count acting COSs, she’s on her eighth in five years.
We need a president who can retain staff better. But I would like her to stay in Congress, she has a good voting record.
Amazing how willing many here are to lap up leftist agitprop when it suits their own political tastes.
One thing is certain. We can cross off the list hitting Obama on his abuse of Executive Orders.
This is not about whether the drug is good or bad, but it is about bypassing the representives of the people in order to impose your will.
It would also be a great idea for any future politicians to make all out efforts to never take a nickel, or have people on staff, that lobby for an interest that produces a product you want to mandate.
It has the appearance of impropriety, and many people are left doubting the sincerety of your professed good intentions.
Romney - advocated mandated state run health insurance.
Perry - came out strongly against SB 1030.
Bachmann - impulsive.
For me the choice isn't hard.
I like her views. A lot.
Should would; however, NOT make a good presidential candidate. That doesn’t mean she would not be a good president, but her political campaign on the big national presidential stage, with the left wing media waiting to pounce on any slight verbal misstep, would be a train wreck.
For me the choice isn't hard.
(Liberal response) So, you want somene with poor impulse control with a finger on the nuclear button?
The last time I disregarded that particular advise things worked out pretty well.
What does Bachmann's conduct in this matter have to do with "depending on handlers"?
If I were a handler, it would never occur to me to say to my client, "You know, if, in the future, a total stranger comes up to you and makes a wild-sounding claim, do not repeat that wild-sounding claim on prime-time TV on the national stage unless you have confirmed the truth of that claim."
For a handler to say that is an insult to the intelligence of the average candidate and, if my client were dumb enough to require that advice, I should not be trying to get them elected to anything.
Any average person on the street with the common sense of a box of rocks knows that you should not do that. A "handler" would not have to tell them.
Michele Bachmann turned herself into the Joe McGinniss of the debate by pushing unproven gossip on the national stage. Actually, it is worse. At least, Joe McGinniss takes the time learn the gossiper's name and a little bit about them before passing on the gossip.
Now, Bachmann is the subject of well deserved ridicule. If you can find that woman so that her claim can be evaluated by medical professionals, there is a $10,000 reward.
I’ve never soured on a politician so quickly, in such a short amount of time. I can barely stand to watch and listen to her now.
I did not know that the choices were limited to:
B.) Impulsive conservative
When you impusively make decisions without any study of the matter whatsoever, you do not have a "conservative". You simply have a quarter being flipped while "heads or tails" is randomly called.
For those of us who have lived with an impulsive female....well I’m not sure that I am comfortable with one in the White House.
No, she is not a "liar".
At best, she is just functioning at the level of an irresponsible, immature child who is old enough to know better.
At worst, she is functioning as Joe McGinniss.
In a prime-time Presidential debate, on the national stage, you need to prove yourself responsible and trustworthy. What kind of a person repeats a wild accusation, with significant health care implications, told to them by a perfect stranger, without any fact checking, at such an occasion?
Only an extremely irresponsible or immature person or a scumbag in the mold of Joe McGinniss.
Think about it.
"Hello, I am Polybius. Your children's immunizations against whooping cough, measles, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis can cause mental retardation. A total stranger that I never met before and never saw again told me so in a crowd. Vote for me for President of the United States."
Michelle did not make the claim herself but was repeating what a woman told her after The Tea Party debate. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good lynching.
If a woman had told Bachmann that Gardisil caused her daughter to spontaneously explode, would you have excused her for repeating the claim?
Repeating lies and misinformation does not absolve you of responsibility simply because you're repeating something you heard.
“Amazing how willing many here are to lap up leftist agitprop when it suits their own political tastes.”
It’s easy to dismiss the message if you attack the messenger. The problem for Bachmann is that Anderson Cooper didn’t create this issue, Bachmann did, and everyone saw it themselves. So, saying that Bachmann impulsively says things that are not accurate isn’t propaganda, it’s a statement of fact that rings true with what many have already observed.
At the very least she's extremely irresponsible considering the seriousness of the accusation. If she didn't know the woman's comment was preposterous, then she's ignorant. If she knew the woman's comment was preposterous, then she's a liar.
All scenarios are bad for her.
Keep on lappin’
Whatever man, attacking Anderson Cooper may be fun, but it won’t make the story go away.
at least I've learned to recognize the tactic.
The difference between the examples you cite and this, is that those examples were, even though true, pretty immaterial to whether those candidates could perform in their job. This issue clearly would be material.
Yep, stuck between being viewed as ignorant or inaccurate is not the place you want to be as a candidate. Worse, in my personal opinion, is that no matter which one is true, she was uncritical in either scenario, and that is exactly the kind of thinking that I don’t want in a leader.
whether or not she knows elvis's birthplace or her opinion of government mandated vaccinations are not important to me in view of her position on the roll of government vs the other big government friendly front runners.
Priorities I guess.
Put down the bong.
Right NOW our choices are practical conservatives (Perry and Cain), RINOs (Mutt and JonBoy), impulsive conservative (Bachmann), Moonbeam Martian and a couple of wannabes. Then we have the holdout COY conservative.
Bachmann’s impulsiveness is not as a conservative, its IMPULSIVE as in “I didn’t know that before I opened my mouth” or WORSE. Anyone looking at the race realistically, knows Bachmann is a long shot, a very long shot that is getting longer. With her getting impusively cranked up about Gardisil OPT-IN/OPT-OUT, looks like she is angling for Mutt’s VP.
If by “my agenda” you mean getting a Republican candidate who gets their facts straight before they get in front of a microphone, then guilty as charged. Credibility matters to most voters, I think.
Bachmann could be the purest Conservative in the race, but if she can’t sell herself as a candidate, I’ll take a pass. Any salesman will tell you, you need at least the appearance of credibility if you are going to be successful.
And the 'common sense' candidate gets nominated/elected, and the country keep sliding further into crapper.
But go ahead & let the media dictate who's worthy of your vote.