Bachmann announces bid for 4th House term
posted at 10:25 am on January 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
In the end, Michele Bachmann provided no surprises in her post-presidential bid path:
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann announced Wednesday she will seek a fourth term in the U.S. House following her failed presidential bid.
Bachmann declared her plans in an interview with The Associated Press. The Republican congresswoman had been mum on her plans since folding her presidential campaign after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
“I’m looking forward to coming back and bringing a strong, powerful voice to Washington, D.C.,” Bachmann said.
Bachmann will be a formidable candidate in Minnesota’s 6th District, where other Republican hopefuls had stood aside until she made a decision on running for re-election. She is a potent fundraiser, but faces uncertainty over how her Republican-leaning district will be reshaped by redistricting.
Bachmann won her last re-election bid against well-known Taryl Clark by twelve points, so redistricting is probably not a big concern for Bachmann. Minnesota’s Congressional allocation did not change in the last census, although it only narrowly avoided losing a district. The redistricting plan will likely shift the margins around a little, perhaps moving a few precincts of very liberal MN-05 (Keith Ellison’s district) into MN-06, but it’s doubtful that MN-06 will change dramatically enough to endanger Bachmann in 2012.
Besides, Bachmann raised her stature considerably during the presidential campaign. She now has a broader base for fundraising, which builds on what had already been a strength for her in the past. While her hyperbole on Gardasil hurt her in the campaign (and will almost certainly be revisited by the DFL in the district), her overall performance dispelled the “crazy eyes” image that the media had imposed on her during her rise in the House and with Tea Party grassroots. Bachmann ended up presenting the most effective debate attacks on Rick Perry and then later Newt Gingrich, and was a formidable force in those encounters throughout the race.
Some had speculated that Bachmann would run against Amy Klobuchar for the US Senate. Bachmann wisely understood that her strength in MN-06 does not translate statewide, a lesson that her predecessor Mark Kennedy learned the hard way against Klobuchar in 2006. Bachmann might decided to take on Al Franken in 2014, but for now she has a pretty clear path to return to Congress and continue being a representative for the Tea Party agenda. Expect Democrats to spend a lot of money in MN-06 for this reason, and expect it to be a waste of time, cash, and effort, as it was in 2008 and 2010.
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 … 4 5 6
There’s a whole fleet in the Med. One aircraft or drone would have ended the attack. The SEALs fighting for their lives just needed a little help, any help and they got none.
The people in Tripoli could have helped, but they got turned around and told to stand down.
The child running things was paralyzed with political fear and indifference.
He’s told America’s enemies that attacks on us will go unanswered because he doesn’t give a crap.
dogsoldier on May 9, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Sadly Benghazi was ,figuratively speaking, demoted to page 33 in the tabloids (even by Fox News)by a highly sensational murder trial verdict and an equally bombastic kidnapping-rape arrest. Although these two titillating stories had fortuitous, feel good results, they have no more effect on our nation’s destiny and security than a frog fart.Yet they both buried the far more important Benghazi coverup and extortion– which does not augur well for any substantive corrections and prosecutions coming from these hearings.Of course, a MSM in the tank for Obama, would not have adequately covered the hearings anyway but Fox’s relegating Benghazi to the “back pages” tells you all you need to know about the American public–Fox is ratings driven 24/7 and they knew they would lose market share by covering the more crucial story.
MaiDee on May 9, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Not to mention the lack of ambassadors left to die.
The Schaef on May 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM
The Media should be ashamed. My take.
kingsjester on May 9, 2013 at 7:09 AM
As I said before, Hillary will get all the justice that will be left after she remembers and recalls “witnesses” that nobody ever knew about coming to testify in her favor.
Arkysaw was just the warm up. And when the Foster evidence up and disappeared, she was running the show in Virginia and DC.
dockywocky on May 9, 2013 at 8:29 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3017194/posts
To me one of the seminal moments was when talking points woman speirer asked Hicks “if he could be stationed anywhere in the world where would it be.”
She had ask him twice. Few caught on the threat of “do as we say or you go to Siberia.” But it was a direct threat form the Chicago thuggery if you know how they play the game.
rodguy911 on May 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Question for Stewart – what attacks like this occurred under Bush with no hearings afterwards?
Seven hour sustained attacks (which could have lasted longer for all anyone in DC knew when they refused to send help), missing and then dead ambassadors, with no help from anyone on the ground, in the middle of an election?
Seriously, I want to know.
Sure, there have been bombs, where it’s a blast or two and then over. And yes, people have been killed by those bombs.
But sustained attack from armed terrorists? Ambassadors with almost no security killed and dragged through the streets? On the anniversary of 9/11 when boosted security ought to have been an no-brainer?
I really want to hear about these.
Missy on May 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Does Hicks have grounds for a civil suit against his bosses for the demotion, or is that not allowed? I realize he is a white male hair challenged person, but that doesn’t usually count for much.
Fleuries on May 9, 2013 at 9:45 AM
How on earth do you know that American bodies were never dragged through the street after bombings under Bush? Stewart’s segment made you all look like fools, and I’m glad you’ve all seen it.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 9:59 AM
54 attacks on American diplomatic centers, 13 killed under Bush. 3 hearings.
One attack under Obama, 4 killed, 9 hearings.
Do the math.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Missy said Ambassadors. How can you willing be so stupid?
No, Stewart’s segment made him look like a partisan fool.
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Zero lies.
Dozens of lies and cover-ups.
Do the math.
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM
libfreeordie, can you at least admit that the Obama administration lied about Benghazi because the truth ruined their attempt to maintain the impression that Libya was a big success story???
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Except that there aren’t really any cover ups, just lots of conjecture.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Yes, there is. They lied about who changed Rice’s talking points.
How on earth can you deny this? Are you deliberately keeping your head in the sand?
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Subpoena both Hillary & Rice, confront them with the proof of their lies, charge Hillary with Felony Crimes of Perjury as she lied last time while under oath (do so with Rice if she testified last time and also lied under oath), & begin Impeachment proceedings immediately!
easyt65 on May 9, 2013 at 10:17 AM
<
Yes, there is. They lied about who changed Rice’s talking points.
How on earth can you deny this? Are you deliberately keeping your head in the sand?
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM
It was PROVEN FURTHER yesterday that Ambassador Stevens HIMSELF passed on at the start of the THIRD terrorist attack against him that the attack was indeed a TERRORIST ATTACK – “We are under ATTACK”! This was passed on by one of the witnesses to the State Department / the WH before contacting the military attache, the Libyan Govt POC, and the Libyan Military POC to request assistance. The State Dept ws contacted & notified of the ATTACK at 3am Libya time – 9pm Washington DC time
It was proven FURTHER yesterday that the administration knew inside of 12 hours that this was a terrorist attack, the identity of the group that perpetrated it & was claiming responsibility.
It was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a CIA report was sent via CABLE explicitly calling this a terrorist attack & providing much detail – we know the administration then edited that report no less than 3 times, stripping out every reference to terrorism or a terrorist attack. We KNOW that the administration – OBAMA, Hillary, & Rice along with others – were shoveling the BS ‘video’ LIE WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACK!
These 3 men yesterday proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1) this whole Benghazi story coming out of the White House – which Obama himself participated in by insisting it was over a video weeks after the attack – was a calculated conspiratorial LIE to cover up what went on in Benghazi to shelter Obama from the event & protect his re-election chances. Even more heinous, it proved Americans who fought for their lives for hours while waiting for help to come were abandoned – BETRAYED – LEFT TO DIE, that there were assets available & closer that could have responded & that there WAS a ‘stand down’ order given! Opposed to the Lie the administration told, the Libyan Govt was never contacted to coordinate approval through Libyan airspace to go to the rescue in Benghazi!
The very President who promised to find out who did this & make them pay, to find out the truth so this would never happen again,is the man responsible for the lack of security, the death of Stevens, the abandoning / betrayal of 3 Americans, & the top man in this massive coverup! DESPICABLE…and IMPEACHABLE!
easyt65 on May 9, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Mostly because we also have the reports from those events, and no one was working their butts off to cover up what happened, or deny the terrorist nature of the attack.
Also, most of the “attacks” that took place, no one was killed and in more than a few of them there were not even any injuries.
Also, it is a lie to say this is the one and only attack. Those who claim thus are deliberately leaving numerous attacks out of the count for arbitrary reasons, and in focusing on embassy attacks they are further ignoring the number of attempts here at home, most of which were thwarted by dumb luck.
The Schaef on May 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Can Jon Stewart name one ambassador killed on Bush’s watch? Um…I thought so. He’s a washed out comedian who’s getting old and unfunny, he’s following so close into Letterman’s steps that it’s almost sad…
jimver on May 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6