To the extent that any candidate stood out as a potential anti-Romney, it was . . . Rep. Michele Bachmann, who started the debate with the surprise announcement that she had filed to run for president of the United States. The TV-friendly conservative, beloved by the tea party, introduced herself to a national audience as a “former federal tax litigation attorney” and “businesswoman,” repeatedly mentioning the 23 foster children that she and her husband have raised. And unlike the other candidates, who are largely former officeholders, Bachmann was able to point to her voting record as a sitting congresswoman to show she’s in the midst of pitched fights over health care reform, financial regulation and federal spending.That was Politico. Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post goes on.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann came into Monday night’s presidential debate in the Queen City as an unknown commodity. She left it as the most talked-about candidate in the 2012 GOP field.That translates to me as Bachmann "beat expectations" by sounding better than Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich, and thus stood out.
That's true.
But Michele Bachmann isn't running against those guys. She's running against Sarah Palin to be the candidate of the religious right and Tea Party against Mitt Romney.
If Palin decides to run, Bachmann will have to go toe to toe with her. But even if Palin doesn't run, Bachmann's has to show that she can catch fire like Palin did in 2008 if she wants to be beat Romney.
And Bachmann didn't do anything to indicate that she could catch fire.
As a result, I rate Bachmann's night pretty much as a failure. If she really wants to compete for the Republican nomination, she'll have to raise her game.
Posts
2 comments:
This wasn't debate, it was a gathering of republican’s/tea baggers that all want the same thing, that is for President Obama to not be re-elected. No plan to help Americans, just more tax breaks for corporations. They're all afraid to step on each others toes and not willing to be honest about anything. Typical republicans/tea baggers.
You seem to be totally caught up in this soap opera of American right wing politics. You even go so far as to assume that because Sarah Palin was appointed by the American ruling elite into significance in 2007 that she has some sort of popular support. She does not.
The American working class are a good, intelligent people. Those fighting to represent the interests of the ruling elite really have no popular support. The Republican candidates are fighting to better represent the same interests that the Obama administration represents. They're not fighting for popular support (in contrast to 2008).
According to the official politics of today, property relations are not to be challenged in response to the decline of the American economy on the global stage. Any solution to the crisis must be bound to the two-party system and must coincide with the interests of the ultra wealthy. This is the perspective of the ruling elite...and you help manage a certain section of their stage of perspective by legitimizing their candidates, and giving them more clout than they deserve.
You can't take such a spectator's viewpoint of the arena of American politics. Like it or not, you serve in an important position politically in Morehead intellectual politics. You have to truly be scientific in your approach to these questions, and cannot legitimize its backwardness with undue attention and an overemphasis on their individual character.
The more serious question immediately posed to the American working class during the current election cycle is that now that Obama's election has demonstrated the democratic mechanisms of American society have failed in their ability to assert the aspirations of the masses, what is our way forward?
Post a Comment