Are you ready for President Bachmann?

posted at 1:52 pm on January 5, 2011 by Allahpundit

I pray that it’s true. Because let me tell you: A “Palin vs. Bachmann” storyline in the primaries would be the political event of a lifetime.

ABC News has learned that Bachmann, R-Minn., also is seriously weighing whether to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

A source close to the three-term congresswoman said Bachmann will travel to Iowa this month for multiple meetings to seek advice from political forces there and party elders close to the caucus process before coming to a final decision regarding a potential presidential run. Bachmann, a native of Waterloo, Iowa, also is set to deliver a keynote speech at an Iowans for Tax Relief PAC fundraiser Jan. 21 in Des Moines, Iowa…

“Nothing is off the table,” Bachmann chief of staff Andy Parrish told ABC News when asked whether the Iowa trip signaled Bachmann’s intent to run for president. “The congresswoman is excited about her first trip to Iowa this year.”

She wouldn’t win but she could make a dent by drawing tea partiers away from base favorites like Palin and Pence. Remember: Bachmann’s a bona fide fundraising phenomenon. She’s one of the few Republicans in the House outside the leadership with a national profile, and she founded Congress’s tea party caucus so her “true conservative” credentials are as sterling as they come. (Well, almost.) She’d get plenty of free media too from the left attacking her relentlessly. And her presence in the race would raise the following question, albeit tacitly: Why Palin instead of her? Granted, Sarahcuda’s got two years as governor, but Bachmann’s got 10 years’ experience as a legislator at the state and federal level. Besides, the national electorate no longer demands executive experience before considering someone for president, as we’ve learned to our considerable dismay.

Anyway. I don’t think she’s serious about this, just looking to capitalize on the media’s primary fee-vah to earn some buzz for a possible Senate run in 2012 when Klobuchar’s seat is up. (Pence’s camp may be pulling something similar, whispering occasionally about a presidential run to put some wind in his sails when he runs for governor.) Exit question: What if she is serious, and is thinking about a third-party run in case the GOP ends up nominating a RINO? She’s been frustrated in her attempts to advance inside the caucus, and she’s likely to be frustrated by the Republican caucus’s inevitable decision to raise the debt ceiling. Even with her fundraising prowess, she’d have a tough time beating Klobuchar or Franken in a state as blue as Minnesota. Maybe she figures she has nothing to lose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sarah Palin has no chance of becomming President and Michelle Bachmann has no chance of becomming President. End of story.

SoulGlo on January 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Eh, I like her, but I don’t see what she offers that Palin doesn’t. Not saying that as a Palin fan, just don’t see much daylight between them.

While it’s true that Russia is a lot further from Michelle’s window than Sarah’s, Michelle doesn’t quit. When they get nasty with her, she just gets meaner.

paulsur on January 5, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Cindy, no.

Right, then she would be accused of of quitting Congress.

you don’t get accused of quitting Congress to make a Presidential run. Neither Obama, McCain or anyone else in modern times has heard that one.

Quitting in mod-term to get book, TV and speech money is a whole different, less upright, deal.

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Sarah Palin has no chance of becomming President and Michelle Bachmann has no chance of becomming President. End of story.

SoulGlo

Palin has a chance, just not in 2012.
Bachmann is just a loony joke of an candidate for anything other than retaining the job that she has.

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 10:47 PM

If Michelle wants to try the primaries, why not!

If Palin wants to run also, then let her run.

So, what’s the problem.

Let each candidate defend his/her stance in the primaries.

To date … Demint is 50, Palin is 49. Michelle is 1. RINOs/CINOs are all ZERO. [I'm speaking for my self.]

TheAlamos on January 5, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Quitting in mod-term to get book, TV and speech money is a whole different, less upright, deal.

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 10:44 PM

She didn’t have the TV or speech money when she resigned and the book money wasn’t anywhere near as much as rumored.

alwaysfiredup on January 5, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Sarah Palin has no chance of becomming President and Michelle Bachmann has no chance of becomming President. End of story.

SoulGlo on January 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

In short. NO REPUBLICAN HAS A CHANCE AGAINST “TEH ONE”.

TheAlamos on January 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM

SoulGlo on January 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Right. Only Huckabee and Romney have a chance against Obama. Democrats know this because they resemble their stereotypes of Republican presidents: cynical opportunists with some easily-caricatured gimmick.

HitNRun on January 5, 2011 at 11:04 PM

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 10:44 PM

You might be fooling yourself but no one else. I don’t care if she runs or not but if she followed you prescription, you would find something else to disqualify her. As noted on other threads you get your hindquarters squarely on your shoulders about anything said about The Won and his family, while running down conservatives in a very “rational” tone. That’s fine but don’t be shocked at meeting resistance on a Right leaning blog.

Cindy Munford on January 5, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Cindy, I don’t mind the resistance or disagreement.I’m not, however, disqualifying Palin, I’m saying that without her doing some stuff to build trust, most Americans simply won’t vote for her in a presidential race.

She’s pretty much just the wrong choice for the R Party to run against Obama in 2012.

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Romney = Romneycare
Huckabee = tax raisin’ preacher

Neither has a chance to become President. Republicans need to stop wasting time with them.

Jason Coleman on January 5, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Link it up to the thread. Expand on your quote and how it is relevant to Rep. Bachmann.
Cindy Munford on January 5, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I appreciate your interest. Isaiah 3:12 is part of a list of the signs of judgment under which Judah and Jerusalem would subsequently undergo. Such signs of judgment are timeless.
Now, does the Bible comment on female magistrates in the New Testament directly? No. Old Testament? Other than Isaiah 3:12, it does not condemn them so to speak. (It also doesn’t speak of magistrates who happen to practice polygamy, bestiality, or incest though, does it?) However, both the OT and NT speak quite a bit about the proper roles of men and women. Women are called “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” (Titus 2:5) Also, Ephesians 5:22-23 states: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” Now, many recoil in horror of this idea of wives submitting to their husbands for fear that the husband would take this as license to abuse her. Quite the contrary is the case. Husbands are called to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27) So, one must ask themselves, would a woman serving as our President be able to accomplish her role as a Christian wife and mother?
One may ask what business is it of mine to ask such a question. My response would be this: why would I wish to vote to take a woman from her home and put her in such a position where she would have to make a choice between serving her husband and children versus the country, where the country would always win? I wonder, why hasn’t/doesn’t her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, run for office and “take [a] seat among the elders” “at the city gate” for his family and people? (Proverbs 31:23)
Now, the common example given of a woman serving as a leader in the OT was Deborah. Two things on this: 1) just because it happened does not mean that it is normative (e.g. just because David and Solomon had many wives, doesn’t mean that that is the way things ought to be, or just because God spoke to Moses through a burning bush does not mean that this is the normal way God speaks to His people), and 2) remembering Isaiah 3, a woman ruling over the people was a sign of judgment against a people and a culture.
I hope this helps clarify what I was saying before.

Send_Me on January 5, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Send_Me on January 5, 2011 at 11:17 PM

God used a woman in a position of authority to restore the nation after the nation had fallen into gross immorality.

Inanemergencydial on January 5, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Sarah Palin has no chance of becomming President and Michelle Bachmann has no chance of becomming President. End of story.

SoulGlo on January 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

And SoulGlo apparently has no chance of spelling “becoming” correctly. Heh.

Jaibones on January 5, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Send_Me on January 5, 2011 at 11:17 PM

I believe that Rep. Bachmann has raised her five children and numerous foster children to adulthood and would not be leaving her husband or children. She has been in Washington as a representative for awhile. But I appreciate the explanation and though I don’t agree, you of course, must always vote your conscience.

Cindy Munford on January 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Please, show me where the Bible advocates men abusing their wives or enslaving other people. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). To quote the Westminster Confession of Faith, Christ is the church’s, that is, His bride’s, Prophet, Priest, and King. From George Whitefield, an evangelist of the 18th century: “Every governor of a family ought to look upon himself as obliged to act in three capacities as a prophet, to instruct; as a priest, to pray for and with; as a king, to govern, direct, and provide for them.” A man who fails to provide for his wife and children (1 Timothy 5:8), protect his wife and children (Nehemiah 4:13-14 ), be a prophet for his wife and children by teaching and “cleans[ing] her by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26, 6:4), and be a priest for his wife and children by calling upon the Lord for and with his family in prayer (Joshua 24:15) dares not call himself a man for he is failing in his duties to his wife and children.

Send_Me on January 6, 2011 at 12:11 AM

God used a woman in a position of authority to restore the nation after the nation had fallen into gross immorality.
Inanemergencydial on January 5, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Quite right, just as God called up Gideon who was threshing wheat in a wine press, which was a woman’s work, and calling him a “mighty warrior.” (Judges 6) Gideon was anything but that, as he was from “the weakest in Manasseh” and was “the least in [his] family”. This leaves one to ask, as I am asking today, “where were all the men?” Also, would we assume that because God used Gideon that all men should strive to be like him? No. Much is written in Scripture as to how men are to act and carry themselves, which is much different than the picture we find of Gideon. Just the same, should all men strive to be polygamists just because David was? No. So, just because God used Deborah in this capacity does not mean it is somehow normative for the church.
Take a look at the following as well from Wayne Grudem’s book “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood”: “Biblical support for the idea that the man has the primary responsibility to protect his family is found in Deuteronomy 20:7-8 (men go forth to war, not women, here and in man Old Testament passages); 24:5; Joshua 1:14; Judges 4:8-10 (Barak does not get the glory because he insisted that a woman accompany him into battle); Nehemiah 4:13-14 (the people are to fight for their brothers, homes, wives, and children, but it does not say they are to fight for their husbands!); Jeremiah 50:37 (it is the disgrace of a nation when its warriors become women); Nahum 3:13 (“Behold, your troops are women in your midst” is a taunt of derision); Matthew 2:13-14 (Joseph is told to protect Mary and baby Jesus by taking them to Egypt); Ephesians 5:25 (a husband’s love should extend even to a willingness to lay down his life for his wife, something many soldiers in battle have done throughout history, to protect their families and homelands), 1 Peter 3:7 (a wife is a “weaker vessel,” and therefore the husband, as generally stronger, has the responsibility to use his strength to protect his wife).” With this in mind, would a woman as commander in chief be consistent with what the Bible teaches?

Send_Me on January 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Putting aside the nonsense of her running for President, I totally dig this lady and hope that she gets lined up to kick Klobuchar’s stupid ass out of the Senate. Bachmann would be great fun as a Senator.

Jaibones on January 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Good grief are we that starved of good candidates?

Hilts on January 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Yes.

Christian Conservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I pray that it’s true. Because let me tell you: A

“Palin vs. Bachmann”

storyline in the primaries would be the political event of a lifetime.

What make you think it wont be Palin/Bachmann vs. Obama/Biden, or Bachmann/Palin vs. Obama/Biden?

That would be the Political event of a lifetime, and bring this old man to blow the dust off of his wallet real fast.

Don L on January 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Good grief are we that starved of good candidates?

Hilts on January 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Not only that, but your contingent of Puritan throwbacks could really hurt you if a female candidate is the only viable choice in 2012.

Send_Me (Back_To_The_16th_Century) is not the first to have expressed such sentiments on HA, and there are sure to be others who agree but don’t want to reveal themselves to the public as 21st century cavemen.

Dark-Star on January 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Send_Me (Back_To_The_16th_Century) is not the first to have expressed such sentiments on HA, and there are sure to be others who agree but don’t want to reveal themselves to the public as 21st century cavemen.
Dark-Star on January 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM

ad hominem: (hŏm’ə-nĕm’, -nəm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

Send_Me on January 6, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Sarah Palin has no chance of becomming President and Michelle Bachmann has no chance of becomming President. End of story.

SoulGlo on January 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Good grief are we that starved of good candidates?

Hilts on January 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Palin has a chance, just not in 2012.
Bachmann is just a loony joke of an candidate for anything other than retaining the job that she has.

audiculous on January 5, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Ditto, ditto & ditto….

AprilOrit on January 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

Send_Me

I don’t think that you should be insisting that anybody’s comments appeal to logic or reason when your comments do not.

Quoting stuff from scripture as a basis for whether people should support female political candidacies is neither logical nor reasonable. It’s something quite other.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM

To those poo-pooing Michele Bachmann, (and those who claim to know us tea-partiers) Bachmann is more compelling than Palin.

bains on January 6, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Quoting stuff from scripture as a basis for whether people should support female political candidacies is neither logical nor reasonable. It’s something quite other.
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM

So, are you then implying that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” only insofar as it doesn’t interfere with our lives or contemporary culture? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

Send_Me on January 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Send_Me,

no, son, what I’m saying is that Scriptural orthodoxy and attempted understanding of Scripture as a basis for the political life of a nation is neither reasonable nor logical.

It is an attempt to subsume reason and logic to faith.
As long as that’s the line that you’re walking and talking, you don’t get to tell others that they must stick to logic and reason. That would make you seem even less logical and less reasonable.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Yes to Bachmann.

Ahhhhh….Bachmann…

Coronagold on January 6, 2011 at 11:51 PM

ahhhhhh twisted and totally baked.

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 12:07 AM

no, son, what I’m saying is that Scriptural orthodoxy and attempted understanding of Scripture as a basis for the political life of a nation is neither reasonable nor logical.

“[S]o that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” except in the area of politics?

It is an attempt to subsume reason and logic to faith.

Did you only take one semester of philosophy?

As long as that’s the line that you’re walking and talking, you don’t get to tell others that they must stick to logic and reason. That would make you seem even less logical and less reasonable.
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

If the Bible is true, then how can I logically do anything besides heed what it says, in all areas of life, not just when it’s politically or culturally convenient?

Send_Me on January 7, 2011 at 10:24 AM

If the Bible is true, then how can I logically do anything besides heed what it says, in all areas of life, not just when it’s politically or culturally convenient?

Send_Me

I studied philosophy and logic sufficient to learn what the truth value of a conditional sentence such as this one is.

You have faith in the truth of the bible, not logical proof of its truth. It seems logical to you to apply its words to all actions only because of your faith that those words are true.

Other people do not share your faith, they have their own.
They act just as logically as you think that you do when they follow what they believe to be true.

And again, you’ve no right to tell them to speak and act logically and reasonably when your words and actions are based entirely on your faith.

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 10:39 AM

You have faith in the truth of the bible, not logical proof of its truth.

Here is why I believe the Bible is true: the Bible is a compilation of 66 books, written by over 40 authors, in three different languages, over a distance of three continents, over a period of 1500 years, yet we cannot find a contradiction of theme anywhere. The Bible writers, though many never knew one another, corroborated one another. Consider Luke 1:1-4, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Also, modern translations of the Bible are taken directly from the original manuscripts, not from other translations of translations. These original manuscripts were written by those who lived during the time of Christ and could be corroborated or rejected by others who lived during the time of Christ. There are over 6,000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the New Testament put down on paper as early as 120 AD. The NT was completed around 95 AD. By comparison, the fewer than 10 copies we have of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars were written over 900 years after the original. The five copies of Aristotle’s Poetics were written 1400-1500 years after the original. The less that five copies of Homer’s Iliad were written more than 2100 years after the was written. These are the best history offers, which is pitiful compared to the Bible. Then there was the Resurrection of Christ, which though we know it happened, since records were written by eyewitnesses in the presence of other eyewitnesses, we cannot explain how it happened apart from the Bible.

Other people do not share your faith, they have their own.
They act just as logically as you think that you do when they follow what they believe to be true.
And again, you’ve no right to tell them to speak and act logically and reasonably when your words and actions are based entirely on your faith.
audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Truth is truth. That is not meant to be an insulting statement, but one of fact. Regardless of whether anyone else shares my faith or not, if what I believe is, in fact, truth, then it’s irrelevant as to whether or not they believe it or not. It’s just true. Whether people believe Napoleon existed or not is irrelevant. The question is: did he? Absolutely, based upon the historical records that we have, written by eyewitnesses as well as his own hand. The same is true for Jesus and the Gospel.

Send_Me on January 7, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Truth is truth. That is not meant to be an insulting statement, but one of fact. Regardless of whether anyone else shares my faith or not, if what I believe is, in fact, truth, then it’s irrelevant as to whether or not they believe it or not. It’s just true.

and tautologies are tautologies.

the fact is, you believe whatever it is that you believe and that your belief is not based on much beside your belief.

if that is your truth, follow it. no one should be insulted by you living by your beliefs. but please allow other people to point out that your beliefs are neither logical nor beyond questioning.

the bible,of course, is far, far older than the time of Jesus and anything written at that time or thereafter is appended to the book

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM

and tautologies are tautologies.

Are you saying then that atheism does not require faith? Based upon what is atheism, or any other belief, more logical than Christianity? And how is natural selection leading to macroevolution not a tautology?

if that is your truth, follow it.

This is a ridiculous statement. Truth is not dependent on the feelings of a person. The answer to 1 + 1 is not dependent upon what I, you, or anyone else believes. Either God exists or He does not. The statement “Jesus is the Son of God” is either true or false. There is no other option. As C.S. Lewis put it: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”

the bible,of course, is far, far older than the time of Jesus and anything written at that time or thereafter is appended to the book
audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I suppose this would be true if you only consider the Old Testament to be the Bible. The New Testament was written after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, which was at least 460 years after Malachi was written.

Send_Me on January 7, 2011 at 3:27 PM

The statement “Jesus is the Son of God” is either true or false

perhaps, or perhaps Jesus is the son of god in the same way that every other man is the son of god, but the truth or falsity of the statement is not definitively known through logic and reason.

you have faith in something. take comfort in that.

adios.

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Good grief are we that starved of good candidates?
Hilts on January 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

No, we have numerous possible great candidates. We also have a corrupt electoral system that is controlled by the left and is set up to destroy any conservative candidates and elect leftists. How can anyone understand that the republican debate series is not even in the control of the republicans and think that we have fair elections? The republican party needs to set up the venues, invite the candidates and choose the moderators. As it is now, democrat operatives control the republican debates. Instead of substantive debates, we tune in to see which of the republican candidates can avoid being destroyed by ‘Do you still beat your wife” questions.

peacenprosperity on January 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM

A perfect example of what goes on and the stupidity of republicans is the brian williams question about birthers to boehner. boehner did not answer that question well. Answering that question well would have been,

“brian, you expect to be considered a serious journalist while asking stupid questions like that? I have never questioned the citizenship of the president and there is no basis for you to ask such a ridiculous question except to damage me somehow. If you have questions about the economy, repealing the government takeover of our health care system or protecting the rights of American citizens from an overreaching administration we can continue, otherwise I won’t keep you from your confernece call with the huffington post and the daily kos.”

peacenprosperity on January 7, 2011 at 4:23 PM

We finally have a couple of women who stand up to the propagandists, state the truth and don’t back down and so many idiots start believing the msm slandering of them (that Palin is stupis or Bachmann is angry or crazy). Sorry, but if you fall for the crap that is put out to destroy conservatives instead of listening to the actual words than you probably are only playing a conservative.

peacenprosperity on January 7, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Bachmann is angry or crazy

so when Bachmann says that she is refusing to fill out the census form, that’s not angry or crazy?

that’s just what a member of the Congress should be saying because that stuff in the Constitution about having the census taken in the manner that the Congress directs doesn’t count, right?

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3