Bachmann responds to Pawlenty’s repeat criticisms
posted at 10:40 am on July 11, 2011 by Tina Korbe
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty criticized rival Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn.) congressional record, which, admittedly, is a little thin. It wasn’t the first time T-Paw has singled Bachmann out, nor would it be the last. But to the “Meet the Press” appearance, Bachmann issued a response.
Here’s what Pawlenty had to say, first:
I like Congresswoman Bachmann. I’ve campaigned for her. I respect her. But her record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent. … And so we’re not looking for folks who, you know, just have speech capabilities. We’re looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to a conclusion. I’ve done that and she hasn’t.
Yep, exactly the sort of backhanded compliment that does more for other candidates than it does for Pawlenty, who, unfortunately and in the vein of his early “quit worrying about bus tours” comment, comes across looking a little insecure himself.
Bachmann spun it all beautifully in the statement her staff sent out yesterday evening, casting herself as the upbeat candidate against Pawlenty’s dreary carping:
This is an election about the future of our nation – one where voters will have to decide who is best equipped to lead our nation by looking at our records, as well as our vision for the nation. Instead of negativity, I want to focus on my accomplishments.
I have fought the cap-and-trade agenda, rather than implement it, and I will work to end cap-and-trade as President of the United States. I stood up against President Obama’s support of the $700 billion bailout rather than defend it.
I was a leading voice, fighting against Obamacare and the unconstitutional individual mandates; I did not lift my voice in praise of it. My message brought tens of thousands of Americans to Washington D.C. to oppose Obamacare. As President I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed. And I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.
People can count on me as a fighter; I am proud of my record of fighting with resolve, and without apology, for our free markets, for sane fiscal policies, and in opposition to the advancement of the big government left. As President, the American people can count on me to stand by my record of advancing pro-growth policies to put our nation back on the right track.
Arguably, the statements she makes about the future (“As President I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed. And I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.”) matter more than the statements she makes about her past. They indicate what her presidential priorities would be — and the issues she selected as a representative sample hint at just how in-touch with the electorate she’d be.
As far as that actual past goes, she can’t magically make it substantive — and she’ll have to keep battling the obvious observation that she has no executive experience throughout the primaries (if not from her competitors, than from outside outlets). But, to make another obvious observation, neither did President Barack Obama. At any rate, at least one analyst thinks “tilting at windmills” in Congress could actually help Bachmann’s campaign:
Bachmann’s purity makes her largely irrelevant in Congress. She’s not part of the debt ceiling negotiations or someone the leadership consults with on much of anything.
That same purity — coupled with Republican voters’ widespread disdain for “the way Washington works” — is a major strength for Bachmann in the presidential race.
Rating Bachmann’s chances on the numbers of bills she’s sponsored or passed into law is a mistaken measure. Her strength in a Republican primary is based in her willingness to charge at windmills. And, she has done plenty of that during her congressional tenure.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Oh, good: Iranian hackers trying to break into the American energy grid

Reason: Will ObamaCare and patent attacks kill medical innovation?







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
Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.
steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.
Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM
So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.
CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM
The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…
I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.
ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.
Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM
How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?
The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.
Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…
Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Sounds good.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.
Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.
No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM
From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM
How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?
Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM
How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?
Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM
A new way to handle primary debates…..
Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.
Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM
View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.
http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg
2017 here we come.
PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM
I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)
albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.
karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM
It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.
pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Hear!..Hear!..:)
Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*
GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM
A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.
marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.
bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM
There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.
Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.
The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.
Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.
Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.
Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.
ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM
But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.
bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM
I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.
It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.
Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.
No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!
Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Nein, nein, nein
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM
HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM
+1
Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM
There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.
redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.
If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?
triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM
…someone should insist on it!
KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM
I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.
fair and balanced
tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM
I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.
Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.
Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM