Media pretty excited over Bachmann’s John Wayne gaffe in Iowa

posted at 6:50 pm on June 27, 2011 by Allahpundit

Watch below courtesy of a YouTube account titled, no joke, “BachmannLovesGacy.” The gaffe: She claimed in an interview with Fox News that she shares the spirit of another famous Waterloo, Iowa, resident, John Wayne. But John Wayne never lived in Waterloo; John Wayne Gacy did, which means this is either (a) another sloppy factual error a la her claiming that Lexington and Concord are located in New Hampshire or (b) some sort of Freudian slip that proves she secretly identifies with lunatics or something. (Bachmann loves Gacy!) Her critics will insist they’re sticking to the first narrative but their read on Bachmann has always been that she’s evil and/or nuts. See, e.g., Matt Taibbi’s long profile of Bachmann in Rolling Stone this month asserting that she’s “grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy” or Colbert King recently dismissing her as “Barbie with fangs.” It’s embarrassing that she wouldn’t know that the Duke lived in Winterset, Iowa, not Waterloo, given that she’s been selling herself over the past few days as a proud Hawkeye, but no one will care in a day. Without the Gacy angle, though, to nudge along the “she’s nuts” storyline, you probably wouldn’t have heard of this; it would have been dismissed as her mixing up two town names that begin with “W” and that would have been it.

In fact, it’s even lamer than that. It turns out there is a Waterloo connection for John Wayne:

Bachmann’s campaign pointed out to ABC News today that actor John Wayne’s parents did live in Waterloo, although the actor himself did not.

And a little internet research proves that point correct.

According to the book “Duke: We’re Glad We Knew You” by Herb Fagen, Clyde and Molly Morrison – actor John Wayne’s parents – lived in Waterloo early in their marriage – but they moved to Winterset before the birth of son Marion Mitchell Morrison (he changed his name to John Wayne professionally).

Says Dave Weigel, “I’m not from a small town, but I’m from a pretty anonymous place (Wilmington, Delaware), and I know that when you’ve got a tenuous local connection to a celebrity, you flaunt it.” Someone probably once told her that John Wayne’s parents met in Waterloo and either she wrongly assumed he’d been born there or else she’s fumbling a talking point about John Wayne’s family being from Waterloo. But this is simply too stupid a story to devote any further thought to, so let’s move on.

A horse-race question for you, then, on the day of her big announcement. Is she actually performing better in Iowa than she might like right now? Trailing Romney by a single point after her big splash at the debate is a sensational debut, especially since he won’t be competing hard in the state. Her net favorable rating is the highest in the field at +53; by comparison, Rick Perry is at +35 and Palin is at +21. If her “Hawkeye pride” campaign catches fire there and she starts to build a big lead over the next few weeks with the Ames straw poll looming in August, why wouldn’t the rest of the field simply concede the state to her and move on to New Hampshire and South Carolina? Rick Perry’s reportedly already hedging his bets in Iowa, and even T-Paw could conceivably bail out early and spin Bachmann’s big win as simple favoritism for the hometown girl. That would diminish the momentum she’ll get from winning the caucuses; it’ll also sharpen the establishment’s focus on South Carolina as the place to stop Bachmann, which will help Pawlenty insofar as he stands a better chance there on paper than Romney does. That in turn might convince big donors to line up for T-Paw before New Hampshire to give him a strong showing there before the race heads to the south. She wants to (and has to) win Iowa, no doubt, but I’m not sure she wants an early walkover.

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 6 7 8

She couldn’t have gotten that law passed while in office? Not buying it.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM

You’re not using your head. Any attempt to change the law while people were filing ethics complaints against her would have reeked of abuse of power. Plus, I don’t know what the makeup of the legislature was. If it was majority democrat then it wouldn’t have happened anyway. She had a good relationship with them until they received orders to destroy her.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 1:36 PM

So dramatic. You are a knight in shining armor defending the damsel in distress. I’m voting for Bachmann.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 1:49 PM

So dramatic. You are a knight in shining armor defending the damsel in distress. I’m voting for Bachmann.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Whatever. The facts speak for themselves.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Most states have rules that preclude lawmakers and sitting executives from prospering from current legislation.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Then how did the governor of Alaska get the law passed?

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 2:29 PM

No “event” caused anything.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM

The definition of the word “event” is not restricted to a happening at a specific place. It does include any happening of importance.

Not withstanding the quibbling over words, the fact remains, Palin WILL pick her family over the voters every time she is forced to make a choice between the two. Her resignation speech was very clear what her priorities are.

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Then how did the governor of Alaska get the law passed?

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 2:29 PM

It was passed after she left, probably because democrats feared the same tactic could be used against them.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM

But it benefits any sitting governor so by that logic, based on what Cindy said as the possible reason Palin had to run from office rather than stand and fight

Most states have rules that preclude lawmakers and sitting executives from prospering from current legislation.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Because she wouldn’t have been able to get that legislation passed … but if the sitting governor could do it, why couldn’t Palin have done it? Why didn’t she look for a solution to the problem that did not involve self-serving preservation that looked one hell of a lot like running away? You can’t – in all honesty – tell me that’s a quality you want in a President? Just like Gingrich tanked himself with the affair and the puffery, Palin 86′d herself as a viable candidate when she quit the job of Governor.

Make the case for her departure that can be defended because I looked for one, because I LIKE THE WOMAN, and couldn’t. It wasn’t a strategic retreat. Bush got hammered day in and day out and he didn’t quit. But Palin WOULD quit. Based on past behavior it is logical to conclude that she would crumble like a moldy cookie.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Man, you’d think she said something like she had visited 57 states or something…

RedbonePro on June 28, 2011 at 3:28 PM

I’m not calling her stupid. I’m saying she’s a quitter when employed as a public servant and all the crap that entails.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Give me a defensible argument that I can use in her defense that doesn’t make ME look stupid as to why she had no other option but to quit. The following governor passed a law to stop the frivolous ethics complaints. There’s no reason she could not have done that. The press hasn’t let up on her – obviously – based on the email release circus last month so THAT situation wasn’t improved by quitting. Make the case for me. I want it. I want to defend her on this. I would like to be able to wrap my head around a scenario that makes it acceptible for the potential future POTUS to drop out of state level office mid term citing “family voted and it was all like YUP and Hell YUP!” Make me a legitimate case and I’m in.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I’m not calling her stupid. I’m saying she’s a quitter when employed as a public servant and all the crap that entails.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I really don’t think you have a firm grasp on the facts.

Anyone that keeps repeating “quitter” is either ill informed or doesn’t like Palin.

That’s just the way it is. I’ve already told you the facts but you insist she could have somehow passed a law even though all bills originate in the legislature. If the Alaskan House didn’t want to introduce the bill then what … Palin can introduce it herself?

When virtually any other politician would have stayed in office regardless of the cost to the state, or how bogged down it became … Palin choose to remove herself and free both the state and herself from the democrats clutches.

Think what you want, but it’d be better if you thought after doing some more reading.

Again … this was a unique situation that couldn’t have happened in any other state. If Alaska had laws like other states, we probably wouldn’t be talking about Palin making a possible presidential run.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Look. The martyr angle doesn’t work either for a future President. It’s fine for saints but no one was going to blame her for the cost to Alaska because of the liberal attacks. if anything that would have backfired on the liberals just as it is in Missouri with Walker. Now THERE is an example of how it’s done. I followed the whole Palin drama and have loved the Facebook posts and speechs. She is a fantastic thorn in Obama’s side. But she is not a leader of a nation.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Imagine if Walker, horrified by the expense to the state, backed down to the protestors ransacking the capitol? Imagine if he had stood up and said that the attacks on himself and his family were just too much and that he felt it was better to back down. Imagine it. It doesn’t work. If you genuinely want to get this nation back on her feet and standing, you do not elect a President who backs away from the fight and plays the martyr.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Maybe in better terms …

Palin doesn’t resign:

Upside: No one can call her a quitter.

Downside: She’s leaves office a couple million in debt. The state has expended probably aroun 3-4 million dollars investigating complaints. Her administration doesn’t complete their goals because half the time is spent with eithics complaints. The media, confident that Palin is dead, leaves her alone except for occassional stories on how they sold their fishing business to pay off their debt.

Here’s another way to look at it. By attacking her as they did, the democrats created precisely what they were trying to prevent … Palin entering the national arena.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Look. The martyr angle doesn’t work either for a future President. It’s fine for saints but no one was going to blame her for the cost to Alaska because of the liberal attacks. if anything that would have backfired on the liberals just as it is in Missouri with Walker. Now THERE is an example of how it’s done. I followed the whole Palin drama and have loved the Facebook posts and speechs. She is a fantastic thorn in Obama’s side. But she is not a leader of a nation.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Dude, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If Palin wanted to play “saint” she could have stayed in office and whined about the mean liberals. Instead she did what she thought was right. Get it? What she thought was right. She spared Alaska and it’s people an ongoing saga of mean liberals attack Sarah.

What she did was in the best interest of the state. No other politician would have put the state before their own political careers. In fact she said if she dies politically so be it.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Imagine if Walker, horrified by the expense to the state, backed down to the protestors ransacking the capitol? Imagine if he had stood up and said that the attacks on himself and his family were just too much and that he felt it was better to back down. Imagine it. It doesn’t work. If you genuinely want to get this nation back on her feet and standing, you do not elect a President who backs away from the fight and plays the martyr.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I don’t think Palin has to prove her resolve or her spine. Instead of going into hiding after she resigned she went on the attack. That’s not a trait of someone who backs down.

But whatever, believe what you want.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM

You know what else? It takes guts to quit a hard won job or office for your family, and women can appreciate that because we face that decision from the moment we find out we are expecting and every day until the kids are out of college. I admire her for making that choice for herself because in this world it is a flash point for feminists and sparks off the whole “Women belong at home anyway” nonsensical debates. Because of what our mothers and grandmothers did, Palin and I and every other woman now has the option to live the life we choose. She chose family. Great. But there it ends until the kids are grown. No one is going to believe that she suddenly holds her family in lower esteem than a job. And if they buy it, they also think she’ll flip back to family. You don’t say “Well. For CEO of 7-11 it’s not worth it, but if you make me President of Microsoft then I’m all in.”

Remember Bush the first and the waffle jokes? If Palin throws in then she was against holding office because of family issues and it was that back-assed watered state of Alaska and who’s even heard of it anyway? But now that it’s President of the US? Oh HELL Yup. I’m in.

Deosn’t work that way in the real world.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Dude, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If Palin wanted to play “saint” she could have stayed in office and whined about the mean liberals. Instead she did what she thought was right. Get it? What she thought was right. She spared Alaska and it’s people an ongoing saga of mean liberals attack Sarah.

What she did was in the best interest of the state. No other politician would have put the state before their own political careers. In fact she said if she dies politically so be it.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM

But you just said it. She fell on her sword to spare Alaska the expense and the drama of the attacks. Martyr.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Deosn’t work that way in the real world.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM

You’re target fixated on the word “quit” and can see nothing else.

You’ve offered no other options Palin could have taken except “she should have passed a bill” or something.

Additionally, no one understand that when Palin did that … she shocked the democrats. She outplayed the players. That’s why they hate her and want to stop her. They know she means and does what she says. To date she has confused, angered and baffled them. The “quitter” commands the national stage and it scares democrats to death.

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 4:40 PM

But you just said it. She fell on her sword to spare Alaska the expense and the drama of the attacks. Martyr.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Your choice would have been?

darwin on June 28, 2011 at 5:04 PM

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I’m not inclined to have an extended dialogue with anyone who really isn’t interested. If you don’t think having her staff fight ethics charges around the clock and her being required to pay the legal fees to defend herself is a good reason to resign, that’s fine. I wish you good luck with your support of Rep. Bachmann, I have nothing but respect for her, as well as most of the candidates willing to serve.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM

She is a fantastic thorn in Obama’s side. But she is not a leader of a nation.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM

So instead you’ll go with the completely untested leadership skills of Michele Bachmann. All right then.

Missy on June 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM

I’m not calling her stupid. I’m saying she’s a quitter when employed as a public servant and all the crap that entails.

BrideOfRove on June 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM

It is good to know that we’ve got at least one American who would happily bankrupt her[?] family just to stay in office and keep her political obligations.

Ever wonder what happened to all of that ‘Stimulus’ money? I don’t. I KNOW that it went out to pay back the Democrats who spent money on those 18+ frivelous lawsuits. ;o)

Family values: Who needs them? /sarc

DannoJyd on June 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM

She started a legal defense fund to cover the expenses. Other than the Trooper-Gate which did not come out in Todd’s favor, understandably, they are covered financially. There are ways to deal with adversity other than bailing out. Not everyone is cut out for dealing with the wrong side of our corrupt, screwed up legal system and when faced with lawsuits they will do anything and everything to get as far the hell away from the horror as possible. I sympathise. I really do.

If you believe sincerely that retreat is acceptible when under attack – and being human really does come down to self preservation – and that that is an admirable quality in a President, vote Sarah. She is definitely a survivor.

BrideOfRove on June 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM

BrideOfRove on June 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM

The legal defense funds were found to be unconstitutional. She tried twice, both were disallowed.

Cindy Munford on June 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM

They are still active and are paying for her legal defense. She’s a politican. That’s what they do. That’s what the Clintons did. She just wasn’t allowed to use it for the Trooper Gate case. Everything else was kosher.

BrideOfRove on June 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8