Skip to comments.Why Canít I Connect With Michele Bachmann? (Vanity)
Posted on 06/16/2011 5:26:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Michele Bachmann should have me ringing doorbells and doing conservative flips to get her elected but she isnt and I dont know why.
She looks great on paper. She expresses conservatism clearly. She understands the dire situation were in and the remedies. Shes energetic and pleasant. She goes after the agent of our destruction. She can debate. She is attractive. She has a compelling life story.
So whats wrong?
When Michele Bachmann is on TV or radio, or I read her words in print, she has my attention and I agree with her but as soon as shes off the air or I move to another story, shes lost to my mind.
I cant be the only one who has this Michele Bachmann condition. This bothers me because TURNOUT will be what decides this election. TURNOUT will bring us a bullet proof Senate. TURNOUT will keep Democrat voter fraud from giving Obama 4 more years. TURNOUT will bring more states under GOP control. We need a standard bearer candidate that Americans will rally behind in earnest -- TURN OUT!
The roster of GOP candidates is varied and I will vote for the one who wins the primary. I dont think Romney has it. I know Newt wont make the grade, again cant. Huntsman phewt. Ron Paul keeps our feet to the fire but wont beat Obama. Santorum he had me once but now he just seems to be saying his lines. Pawlenty I keep working on remembering that hes in the race. Cain another conservative voice of sanity but wont beat Obama.
Two candidates not yet on the list Sarah Palin and Rick Perry they make me want to campaign for their election! They fire me up! I see them as carrying the flag and rallying the great silent majority of voters. They have it in spades. I want to win back the White House! Obama must go!
So what is it? Ive tried to figure this out logically but I keep hitting an emotional wall.
Does Michele Bachmanns energy belong in the legislature and not the executive? (Something I see as Newts problem (among others) he played a big part in orchestrating the 1994 takeover, then let it wilt away hes not executive material, but rather a good back-bench workhorse).
Id like your thoughts.
For me, it’s her voice, high pitched. Love the gal and would vote for her, just don’t want to hear her talk.
There are many liberals who feel the same way as you do. The MSM is loaded with them.
My wife and I were talking about Bachman after seeing her on Hannity last night. We came to the conclusion that she REALLY dosent have the fight in her. Sure she will pop uo on talk shows and throw a jab out there, so to speak, but she really dosent seem to have that grit its gonna take to win this one. Not to mention experience. I think when the msm gets cranked up on her you will see here ease to the back of the room and then on out the door. Time will tell.
I have to agree with you. This non-stop Great Pumpkin routine is leaving me cold too. IF Palin runs, then we'll talk.
("Wait, did I say IF? I meant WHEN!")
Everyone has a calling and Newt was a natural House Speaker and I think Bachmann would also make a great House speaker.
I see Palin doing excellent as the GOP leaders Michael Steele who seems like a nice person but something is missing that Palin has!
Sounds stupid and simplistic, but it's true.
Ambition just isn’t the same as having a “fire in your belly”.
I’m not sure she is running at all. She is building up a lifestyle that does not lend itself to making 400k a year. She just bought a nearly 2 million dollar home, etc etc.
If she runs, great, she will do awesome.
But to spend endless energy and arguments with others over something that is not even the casre seems fruitless to me.
When and if she decides to run, then we jump in for her. Until then, we eed to keep mitt from getting the nomnation.
Don't know whether your quote is from the General himself, or th script. If he didn't say exactly that...he should have.
He also said (and this is a direct quote):"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
And...."Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack." "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."
My god, we need a leader...and of all the Republican "candidates" and "non-candidates"...I know of only one who embodies - heart, mind, and soul - these prinicples. Only one.
I'll accept a "bradley" or even an "eisenhower" as opposed to leaving the stain in place.
But I want...we NEED....a true leader....a Patton.
This is beginning to sound like the putrid media “Gravitas”
Do you even know Bachmann back ground both women are qualified but are their talents executive, to motivate, or house speaker etc.
I agree. Palin because of her charisma, true conservatism, and perseverence. Perry because of his public conservatism and a real recognition of his electoral vote gathering probability.
Have you....ever....listened to an acutal voice recording of General George S. Patton????
His voice...while not the booming, confident, strident, hollywood voice of the movie...did quite well (tho described - respectfully by those who knew him - as "high" almost falsetto).
His actions determined his successes...not the sound of his voice. I doubt many of the enemy had time to laugh at his voice when he was attacking them...which he did all the time.
Voice hell....give me a leader....I don't care if they sound like Donald Duck!
And since you seem to be all about voices....the stain has a nice voice, doesn't he?? And look where it's gotten us.
Listen to the drumbeat...not the music.
Could it be that Bachmanns strategic thinking is more calculated, while Palins strategic thinking is more tactical?
I believe is the word you're looking for.
Both women are good candidates with some flaws. I could and will happily vote for either if they get the nomination, but right now my first choice was Hermann Cain. After his statement that fedgov shouldn't handle gun control because that is properly reserved for the states, I would need to hear something like "and should be restricted to decisions about felons, insane people..."
I don't trust Perry--he reads the blowing wind VERY well and does what he has to even if his heart is elsewhere. He has starpower but is someone who follows the wind a leader or a follower? I will crawl over broken glass to vote for him if wins the nom, but I will not be happy about it. As long as the wind blows hard in a TEA Party direction, he would be a great president. If we think we've won and the big problem is solved and we relax, not so much.
Lee Rodgers used to say, "Never fall in love with a politician, they'll break your heart every time." I agree with that pretty much except that I still love Reagan...
I believe starpower is a double edged sword. It wins elections and establishes policy, but the better bet is someone who has an unchanging record of action that you agree with and also isn't afraid to talk the talk straight out with rationally supported arguments.
Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini had starpower and all were viciously destructive psychopaths and just plain aholes. That magic and hard to define quality that made people pay attention and CARE can lead to disaster or to a glorious victory for good.
Unfortunately it really does matter in motivation for the vast majority of the people, and not just the foolish ones. We just need to be careful not to fall in love.
We are the TRUE broken-glass voters. There is no way, absolutely none, we will miss our one opportunity to vote against the Marxist Tyrant. Staying home is NOT an option. (Ahem...cue that Patton speech again, wouldya?)
You’re wondering why the MSM hasn’t come at her with their cat-claws yet.
Don’t worry, they will.
Nice post and I agree with you.
I agree with you and your last paragraph pretty-much summed it up:
“Does Michele Bachmanns energy belong in the legislature and not the executive? (Something I see as Newts problem (among others) he played a big part in orchestrating the 1994 takeover, then let it wilt away hes not executive material, but rather a good back-bench workhorse).”
Plus, I sense ‘selfishness’ in her.
Enter Barack Obama.
I enjoyed reading your post (I appreciate your wisdom -- there has been a lot on this thread).
The next conservative candidate for the Office of the President needs to qualify himself or herself by exercising such leadership qualities as defining the debate around Constitutional questions like the Commerce clause, the War Powers Act, the Presidential eligibility issue, and more. Reagan had his failings, but one of his most notable and successful qualities was his determination and ability to lead against the voices who said it was impolitic to do the right thing and defend the Republic.
I couldn’t tell if you were supporting Bachmann or not, was that in support of Bachmann?
So when you say "The roster of GOP candidates is varied and I will vote for the one who wins the primary." I hope you mean it. But when it comes to Perry I for one don't know if I can be as generous since I know too much about the guy and he and I have little in common.
I personally put more stock into being socially conservative as I believe the majority of our nations problems today are the result of the breakdown or growing lack of principals and morality in our nation. The bar has nearly hit rock bottom when it comes to what we expect of our political candidates and leaders today.
I saw those questions as an attempted set up.
I think most of us wanted to hear somebody say, "We're in several wars, only two of which actually concern us, we're broke financially and the @#%&* in WH is giving away money to our enemies; and you're asking deep dish or regular crust?!"
Anyone who did that would immediately be labeled as humorless, harsh and unfriendly at best. Doesn't work and play well with others.
Maybe they could say wars, broke, helping enemies, "...but I guess we do need a little comedic relief from the wreckage of our country" and then give a witty answer and follow up with "Does that help you know me better?". IIRC that was the rationale for the dumb-ass questions.
I was just thinking the very same thing.
I just think they are both great in their own way and they are young yet for now I see Bachmann as the Speaker of the House and Palin leading the GOP to victory.
They are both powerful women.
Do you believe that an Abraham Lincoln or a George Washington would have responded to such silly questions during a presidential debate?
I think Washington would have advised the questioner that his questions reveal that he is not interested in dealing with the issues of the time and removed himself from the debate.
These questions are designed to diminish the character and stature of the candidates. They are not worthy of a response.
If that doesn’t sell well with the public, then the public does not deserve a serious candidate.
Bachmann says the right things. She has the right positions. But she does not convince me that she can deliver on them. With no executive experience, no major legislative accomplishments, no real signs of leading anything... it's hard to see why I should consider her capable of the Presidency.
We look for leadership, vision, inspiration, motivation, from among those who have previous executive experience. Those are rare traits, even in the best of times.
These are not the best of times. We are in a Crisis Era, following an Unraveling Era, the nature of which is that we have suffered about twenty or twenty-five years with a total lack of leaders in leadership positions, in every corner of our society. Liars, cheats, thieves, backstabbers, and frauds are ruling the roost.
We've packed our leadership positions with the PC mindset, affirmative action hires, people with family connections, negotiators, collaborators, capitulators, etc., lackluster leaders at best. In turn, these people foment the destruction of anyone who pops up with the qualities that make someone a natural leader.
Sarah Palin has "it"; none of the others do, on either side.
“Im like you, I dont feel the passion for Bachmann as I do Palin.”
She lacks Palin’s charisma, dynamism, and leadership abilities, she lacks executive experience, and gaffes like when she declared that Concord, NH was the place where “the shot heard round the world” was fired might lead some to suspect that she’s a lightweight.
I haven’t decided yet, but I like her so far. And I think I trust her. Let’s watch see how she does....
I feel much the same way about Bachmann. She is far superior to the RINO stooges, so I could certainly vote for her, but there is something about her that keeps me from enthusiastic support. And I know, at least in part, it has to do with her personal manner.
Frankly, I find her manner somewhat annoying. For instance, there was a light moment in the debate Monday night and even though the camera wasn’t on Michele, I heard her loud horselaugh over everyone else. And I know it’s unfair, but her speaking voice grates on me. The more I listen to her, the more I think about her voice. After a time it becomes almost farsical. It’s to the point that whenever I see her I think of the movie “Fargo” and Frances McDormand’s character, Marge Gunderson: “Ah, hon, ya got Arby’s all over me.”
To be clear, I have nothing against Minnesotans. I don’t love Tim Pawlenty, but I don’t notice his accent. I remain friends with my favorite college professor, a Minnesotan, who, now that I think about it, sounds a whole lot like William H. Macy’s Jerry Lundegaard. So it’s not about where she is from.
There is no way Michele can escape comparison to Sarah Palin. On paper they are relatively even, but Michele comes up wanting, at least for me. Neither has been as consistently conservative as I would like, but I know there are certain compromises required in politics. Both women have admirable personal qualities and resumes. Neither resume is perfect. I wish Palin had finished her term as governor and I wish Michele had executive experience. Both women are bold fighters. Each has worked to hold the line against the Marxist onslaught the past few years.
So why do I instinctively prefer Palin? I think much of it has to do with her communication ability. I know she has an accent (heck, I’ve got a Southern accent), but I don’t even notice it because she has an extra measure of charm and grace that Michele seemingly lacks. Those are intangible qualities Sarah Palin was born with and she knows how to employ them to her advantage. Some people just have an innate abilty to connect with others. In the end I think that’s Sarah’s real advantage over Bachmann.
If Bachmann should not get the the primary nod for her party then I could live with her being Speaker more so than the door prize of a do nothing VP. I am also one of those who believe while Sarah would make a good choice for the party I do not honestly believe she is going to run and give up what she already has. She is poised to become a king maker and that would be better for the party in the end IMO.
“I’ll accept a “bradley” or even an “eisenhower” as opposed to leaving the stain in place.”
We absolutely MUST hose out the Augean Stable, formerly known as the White House.
Interesting point, but the Palin email anal exam she just went through pretty much proves she is exactly who she says she is.
As we know, life isn't fair -- all things and people are not equal (no matter what the LIBS keep telling our kids).
The "connect" gene is strong in Palin (that's what I'm not getting from Bachmann yet) -- it's like watching a movie and the character is sympathetic (you care about them - you connect on an emotional level).
For those ready to tell me I'm investing too much emotionally in a candidate, that is the point of my post. The voters must be invested emotionally in the GOP candidate to VOTE.
Cain's accent is a turn off for me too. I think he is a fantastic business man and a hugely successful person but he doesn't sound like an educated person. Sorry maybe that is just me.
I agree with the poster’s impressions and reactions, and with those who contend that she says the right words but lacks the fire in belly to bring them to fruition in the rough and tumble of a campaign or someday against our enemies - domestic and foreign.
Sadly we no longer live in an Abraham Lincoln or George Washington world. I truly don’t believe such stupid questions would have been asked then—nasty, attacking questions yes, but not droolingly stupid ones.
The dumbing down of students that began in the ‘80s by the teachers unions under the guidance of the Communist Party has resulted in a world where many more people could tell you every contestant in American Idol or Dancing With the Stars than could tell you who is the Speaker of the House.
A large part of the public DOESN’T deserve a serious candidate and those people weren’t watching the debate, but they will hear the MarxStreamMedia ragging on the uptight, nasty Republican who can’t take a little joke. Unfortunately, many of those same people DO vote and do so largely on the free flowing BS from the MSM.
I hate what has been done to us, but it HAS been done and we do have to work within the world we occupy. That doesn’t mean we can’t work to rebuild the world we want.
Maybe in the next debate one of the candidates can be a hero and in the introduction say, “I’m xxxx blah, blah, and I really hope with wars, broke, helping enemies we’re not going to waste time on droolingly stupid questions like deep-dish or regular.”
Head it off at the pass BEFORE they are put on the spot. It’d be extra good if all the other candidates would applaud. Then if the MarxistStream moderator still asks the question, the answer should be, “I’ll take intelligent and pertinent for 400, Alex.” Then if all the others laughed, I think this crap could be finished and the MSModerators would look dopey.
Reagan often deflected crap with humor and wit. It could be done again with good humor but serious impact.
I identify with a lot that you have said.
Also, what I hear from MB when refers to her biography/record it is mostly “5 kids and 23 foster kids” [3 times during the debate alone], and Fed tax attorney. As a legislator she has not accomplished near what SP as an executive. This is not Presidential material IMO.
For me, Palin impresses as being more genuine - Bachmann more political.
Sorry I went so long and didn’t even realize until I hit post what I meant to say (apart from the deliberate destruction of intelligence).
Good humor are the words I was grasping for. Reagan was good humored and I mean that totally apart from his quick and pointed wit.
No matter how the MSM tried to smear him as a nasty Republican, nobody really bought it because they all saw his good humor. He could be quite direct too (I paid for this microphone!), but he could never be made to look mean spirited despite the ongoing attempts by fools.
Perry ? To nominate a candidate from Texas is political suicide.
All of our minds (me included) have been corrupted by 60 years of Progressive/Communist programming. It clouds our judgement, and prevents us from connecting to people who could be real leaders. Conservatives are people who have developed their natural gifts to see more clearly, rather than remained emotionally stunted like progressives. But we are still corrupted by our culture. We are all looking for the “perfect” leader. There never has been and never will be such a creature.
I totally agree with you. She is sorely lacking on the executive front and that really hurts her. People are critical of Herman Cain’s lack of political experience, but in my mind his executive experience outweighs a few terms in the House of Representatives. He rescued both Burger King (for Pillsbury) and Godfather’s. That takes talent.
One thing I can say about Bachmann is this: I am a tax attorney, so I am inclined to give Bachmann credit there that others likley don’t simply because I know how hard it is to earn an LL.M. (Master of laws above and beyond her Juris Doctor) in taxation. That alone is proof of her discipline and drive. I know that in order to even be accepted into an LL.M. program, she had to excel in law school. Unlike Obama, whose grades have never been revealed, she really is qualified to be a law professor.
I believe Michele is running because she thinks she has a chance to win, not because she wants to do some great task(s) for the nation. Call it a vision thing, I sense more of an opportunistic politician then I do a dedicated American with vision for the country. Dido Romey.
My prediction is that is either Perry or Palin will get in. I personally would prefer Palin since I have trust issues with Perry.
I don’t think Perry getting in would prevent Palin from doing so. Her philosophy is ‘the more the merrier’ and better for the voters.
Please elaborate on what indications you are seeing that tell you she is not running. I'm genuinely interested. Are you talking about the fact that she just bought a house in the lower 48? Or that she just bought a campaign bus and had patriotic symbols painted all over it? Or maybe that she just happened to show up in New Hampshire the day Willard announced his candidacy? Or perhaps it is the 2 hour movie set to be released the middle of July? Or could it be the fact that the movie is being released early in 3 states (care to guess which 3)?
I’m an attorney as well. I seriously question who Obama made it through law school. I was on law review and was required to publish articles and edit, etc.
Obama comes across to me as barely 1L level.