Bachmann weighs in on “monstrous lie”-like Social Security rhetoric
posted at 8:05 pm on September 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Michele Bachmann has been called a “bomb-thrower” before — she’s not exactly known for her diplomacy — but, when it comes to Social Security, she says no need exists to scare people with extreme rhetoric. Is that a reference to Rick Perry’s refreshing talk of monstrous lies and Ponzi schemes? Sure — but Bachmann also skillfully made it about the president.
O. Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa reports:
Without naming competitor Rick Perry (although I did in the questions), Bachmann said federal policymakers have to “keep faith” with current Social Security beneficiaries. ”That’s wrong for any candidate to make senior citizens believe that they should be nervous about something they have come to count on. We need not do that, but I think at the same time we also outline our positive solutions,” Bachmann said. “That’s what I’m trying to do.” …
My direction question to her was this: ”Do you think your party needs to be equally careful in its messaging on Social Security? Using phrases like ‘monstrous lie’ — do you think that is good messaging?”
“I think that it is not good when President Obama, for instance, made the comment — recklessly, in my opinion — that seniors may not get their Social Security checks in August when we were dealing with the debt ceiling debate,” Bachmann said. “That was irresponsible for the president to do that. He created a great deal of fear.
As Politico’s Alexander Burns relays, Bachmann wasn’t the only candidate (Newt, too!) to add to the growing chorus about Social Security — a chorus that says Social Security is firmly established and not a program Republicans can talk recklessly about abolishing (which Perry has not done) or reforming (which he has done) without facing some kind of political fallout. Burns puts it this way:
Perry has actually used similar language to explain that despite his criticism of Social Security’s creation in the New Deal era, he intends to focus on the challenge of how to make the program solvent now. But the fact that new candidates are coming off the sidelines to defend Social Security suggests that Romney isn’t the only one who sees Perry’s stance on the program as a political loser.
It’s helpful to remember that Democrats, too, are vulnerable on entitlements. That is, as Bachmann pointed out, when the president makes it apparent that he’s willing to use Social Security to score political points, he reveals his relative indifference to the actual solvency of the program. (After all, if he cared about that, he would make good on his talk of entitlement reform and work to actually accomplish it!) And as more and more Americans learn the facts about entitlement programs — and Perry’s shockingly true statements about the Ponzi scheme structure of SS will go a long way to ensure they do — they’ll realize to just what extent Dems do just use entitlements to score political points. The choice, as has been said, is not between entitlement programs as we know them now or reformed programs. The choice is between no programs (thanks to impending insolvency!) or reformed programs. Entitlement reform has never been a winning platform, but it should be and Perry — with the shield of the Texas miracle — just might be the candidate to make it be.
Related Posts:
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Religious conservatives wanted someone who didn’t pivot on his principles. If you were to forget for a moment that Mitt Romney was a Mormon and just look at how attractive he was as a candidate to religious conservatives, you’d see that they wouldn’t have wanted to vote for him no matter what his religion was. He pivoted on abortion, believed in big government healthcare, and not only surrendered on same sex marriage but actually gave the left more than they were asking.
There is, on the other hand, lots of evidence that Democrats were not about to vote for a Mormon. But that doesn’t advance the narrative, does it?
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Anti-Mormon evangelical bigots cost Romney the election. OK, how many scapegoats does that make? Let’s see: Latinos; Sarah Palin; Candy Crowley; Chris Christie; evangelical bigots (no doubt from the South, which Romney incredibly carried); anti-abortion zealots; Todd Akin; Christine O’Donnell; Sharron Angle; the primaries; Newt Gingrich…everyone except that weak, unelectable nominee himself.
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Nor does the fact that about 60% of moderates voted for Obama.
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Blah. Don’t bother. Asked her (?) hours ago for a cite or at least where that meme came from and I’m still waiting.
kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM
SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM
shove your concern up your wedge driving pie hole loser.
tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2013 at 5:08 AM
There are a great number of us who’d like to feel more comfortable voting for Republicans out there who have to flog ourselves to make it to the polls. Ya see, we’re as deeply troubled by a big religious government as we are by a big secular government.
The big religious government “might” be our kind of religion or it might be something else more extreme or not extreme enough. But, being a Big Government we either abide by its Big Government laws its way or spend time in the big house, have our property taken, and so forth. No thanks. It’s no worse if a Calvinist dominated government does this than if a Mohammedan dominated government does it or if a secular government does it.
I want a government small enough it doesn’t make a practical difference if it tries to make stupid religious based laws about not working on Tuesday because its the Great God Wumpus’ sacred day. It should be too small to make such laws and too tightly constrained to even consider trying.
I’ve nothing against lawmakers being “informed” by their religion. But, I do insist that if they make a law it be a law that has solid secular reasoning behind it. If some religion figures it’s not legal to bathe your feet on Thursdays for some silly reason they MUST be free to exhort their members to follow that stricture and free to expel those who disobey it. But they must not be allowed, for example, to stone violators to death.
This requires a non-negligible government. But it certainly does not need a government with sheaves of regulations large enough to fill the Statue of Liberty to overflowing. That rather violates the spirit of Liberty, doesn’t it?
{^_^}
herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM
herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM
I asm assuming you are talking about socons when you say “big religious government.” Here’s a hint, not all socons are religious. Many of us and I know several of us on Hotair are agnostic and atheist. We just see the world the way it is and not in theoretical terms.
I never wanted to be a socon. You think as an agnostic, I want to keep being compared to the church lady? I was forced to become a socon basically by Republicans like you who scream “let’s get out of social issues and let’s the states decide.” The problem is you people completely ignore the fact that we have an opposing party that ignores these rules. I was happy to live in my conservative state and vote on things like abortion and gay marrriage just in my state. It was not me who made that a federal issue. My position as a socon came as a direct response to the Democrats and the liberals using federal legislature and judicial fiat to make Massachusetts and California values federal values. You may be okay living by those state’s values because you agree with them, but I am don’t. If fighting to keep the littlest among us from keeping from having their spine snipped with scissors or thining children deserve to grow up with a mom and a dad makes me an extremist- so be it.
melle1228 on March 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM
In answering the opening question just think of the media and that includes all TV, radio, magazines, newspapers that are heavy progressive agenda screamers and the question answers its self. The only unedited TV we saw were the debates but immediately after these debates the crews of the left were falling all over themselves saying what was really said, the code words used, the lies that Mitt used and now the media asks a question as to what went wrong with the election? Gimme a break!
mixplix on March 22, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Probably because the Republican Party has morphed into Democratic Party Lite.
TulsAmerican on March 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM
It is because anti-liberty states have an undue influence on the primary elections. Hold the primaries in order from most to least conservative/red and we will have a great candidate. Stop rewarding the douchebags by allowing them precedence over the reddest states like Texas.
TXJenny on March 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Close the primaries and than see what happens.
Did you ever wonder why the GOP won’t close the primaries to only republicans voting?
oldyeller on March 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Because the RINO leadership in the RNC blocks them in every possible way, and works hard to disenfranchise conservative voters.
The RNC is the problem.
landlines on March 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM
.
Y . E . S . ! ! !
.
ABOLISH OPEN PRIMARIES !
listens2glenn on March 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Why? Bcause conservatives eat their own and RINOs don’t!
redware on March 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM
I’ve never heard anyone offer even a passable argument for why Iowa & New Hampshire must always be first in line in the primaries. I live in Texas, the biggest red state in the union no less, and by the time I vote in the primaries the nomination is essentially wrapped up already.
Again, does anything make sense about this?
Reggie1971 on March 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM
because the liberal wing of the republican party don’t want a conservative.
mmcnamer1 on March 25, 2013 at 7:00 AM
This was not correct, it was veteran’s groups who thought we could not possibly have a commander in cheif that had not served in the military service, that put the kabosh on the Romney campaign starting with the N.H. primary. The veterans groups were organized by the McCain campaign staff. At that time they thought the dem candidate would be Hilary; the fiscal meltdown had not happened.
Fleuries on March 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4