Are the left’s attacks on Michele Bachmann hurting them more than her?

Posting pictures of Michele Bachmann

eating a corn dog

harms the left more than her

While there are things Congresswoman Michele Bachmann says I agree with, I have no illusions at all about her ability to either be president, let alone think she is electable to any office outside of her own highly republican district.

Despite the fact that her candidacy for president will die not long after the New Hampshire primary, the left has been relentless in it’s attacks. And not just attacks on her policies and statements. But the constant posting of unflattering pictures of her.

I have been vocal in my disappointment in the republican field. We don’t need the same talking points and slavery to single issue promoters who can’t answer questions with answers like the ones Grover Norquist gives. We need adults with real plans.

Mitt Romney, a successful business man and governor has been a particular disappointment. He should be acting like a chief executive and taking the lead, attacks from his opponents be darned, instead of parroting what everyone other than Ron Paul says.

And just as I call for the republicans to raise the level of debate, the left in my opinion is only making themselves look the fool with their use of unflattering pictures of republican candidates. That will only anger and further motivate the right to work harder to win. Plus, independents are looking for answers. They will support the candidate that gives them. Not the ones who resort to insult and embarrassing photos thinking that will win votes. And that person may well win the election because if neither side is willing to say more than an approved list of talking points, all that’s left to decide whom to vote for is how the candidate carried himself during the election. And then the decision is: do the independents vote for the candidate who resorts to despicable tactics, or the adult?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 MadMikesAmerica
Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on August 19, 2011. Filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Back to Main Page

24 Responses to Are the left’s attacks on Michele Bachmann hurting them more than her?

  1. Leslie Parsley

    August 19, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Don’t gasp, but I actually agree with you re the photos of the candidates eating corn dogs. This was at a state fair, after all – the perfect occasion for all these corny photo ops. As soon as they were over, no doubt the candidates discreetly disposed of them and moved on to a private dining area where they partook of more gourmet fare.

    Pictures are worth a thousand words and candidates are just as vulnerable as we mere mortals who get caught in unflattering poses or situations. The right’s whining about poor wittle Michele being made to look bad should stop and think who are worst enemy is. Just take a listen here:

    There are many reasons the Tea Party is losing members of its fan club and it has nothing to do with unflattering photos. These candidates who are getting in bed with them are just shooting themselves in their footsies – toe by toe.

    • Michael John Scott

      August 19, 2011 at 9:43 am

      Hear! Hear!

      • John Myste

        August 19, 2011 at 10:52 am

        Hear, hear, hear, but …

        The Tea Party is losing steam because they are insane, undemocratic, and too far extreme, even for people who still crave the change they craved before; the same craving that brought Obama into the White House.

        Obama did not deliver the kind of change America was looking for. Things are not very different from when Bush was in office. I am not blaming Obama for this, but simply acknowledging it.

        The Republican Party should observe this as their opportunity. Instead they are trying to find someone who was more like Bush than Bush was, which is the opposite of anything America wants. In the last election, Clinton, a women whose husband presided over a great deal of change ran against an eloquent black man, whose voice and manner was the diametric opposite of Bush; and both were very different from any president in history. Even republicans sought “the opposite of Bush,” and as before, both democrats and Republicans still crave it, and neither Party feels they have it with Obama.

        Four years later, American craves the exact same thing they craved earlier. They feel as if the promise of change, for whatever reason, was not fulfilled.

        Four years later, the Republican Party has an opportunity to exploit this need. The Tea Party is NOT the kind of change America is looking for. Because of their antics, they have divided the Republican Party into camps, one Republican Moderate and the other Republican Radical. There is no place in the Party for the traditional Republican conservative.

        That division represents a departure from the Republican Party’s core strength. The advantage they have always had over the Democratic Party is that they have always been united, almost in a single voice, delivering a fairly consistent message. Whereas the Democratic Party was a collection of bickering sub-parties, each with a different focus and different messages, the Republican Party was one giant elephant raging against them.

        That advantage is gone. Instead they have a different advantage. The democrats have an incumbent competitor who America feels cannot keep the promise of real change, which is what they want. This idea, change, is more important to them than any specific issue, though they may not be thinking of it this way. Emotions and what one senses to be the right answer usually decides who gets his vote. He rationalizes the decision as he tries to figure out why he’s going to vote for the candidate of his choice.

        Since America is showing distaste for more of the same and also a distaste for extreme radicalism, the GOP’s best chance is to promote someone who is obviously not like Obama or Bush, someone who doesn’t favor war, and who does favor moderate economic republican policy, closer to what Reagan supported. If they can find this person, she will become our next president.

        • Michael John Scott

          August 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm

          Sadly, and I never thought I would say this but John is right: “Barack Obama did not deliver the kind of change America was looking for.” I will however vote for him because there is no viable alternative. The ridiculous idea being promoted by the Hard Left Obama Haters of running a candidate against him in the primary, shows their ignorance of national politics. Doing that, regardless of who he or she is, would doom the democrats in the presidential election.

          The fact is this president has been a huge disappointment. That doesn’t mean, however, that I will be joining the ranks of the Obama haters, because these folk won’t give the man a break. The Obama haters condemn the man with their vitriol, refusing to accept his many accomplishments, stressing daily his failures and disappointments. I won’t do that. I still have hope that this president will one day show us the leadership, democratic leadership, we expect of him.

          As to Michele Bachmann and the hot dog? It was just a freaking picture. The meaning, or lack thereof, is strictly in the eye of the beholder.

          • John Myste

            August 19, 2011 at 2:16 pm

            Obama had a tough situation. I am not sure Clinton or any other Political deity could have done better. When frustrated with results, we all look for someone to blame and because Obama was not as impetuous and unyielding as we would have been, we try to blame him. If those of us blaming him for everything had been forced to deal with the challenges he faced, America may have crumbled under our feet. It’s easy to judge, but it it not easy to fight an enemy that has no regard for the American People, but just wants to win. There were too many civilians on the battlefield, and unlike Obama, the enemy was not concerned for their safety.

            That concession, notwithstanding, the gist of my comment speaks not to Obama, but purely of strategy. I love Chess, strategic warfare and political strategy. The correct strategy for the Republican Party seems clear. Due to unfortunate circumstances, they have a clear path to victory, the one I laid out in the above comment.

            They don’t seem to be acknowledging this choice or the unique advantage they have. Instead, they are taking the fanatic route, which is not surprising on the one hand, but on the other, it should be.

            I would vote for Obama either way. I would not vote for a moderate republican or anyone else who identifies herself as a republican. For me that is a deal-breaker. For moderates and swing voters, however, it is just want they want.

          • Dorothy Anderson

            August 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm

            Barack Obama did not deliver the kind of change America was looking for. Yes, true. But it’s rare that politicians do.

            In response to Reagan’s We don’t negotiate with terrorists, The Addicting Info site posted Those patriotic Right-Wing extremists are terrorizing the US Federal Government with their threats, demands, and absolute refusal to compromise.

            I’ll also back him 100%. If he wins a second term (and God I hope he does), I have a feeling he won’t have to compromise anymore; he won’t have to worry about another election. I predict an extremely ugly race.

            After one of the gopper geniuses gets the nod, they’ll have to debate Obama. I’m looking forward to it. 😉

            If the press ignores the lunatic fringe, they’ll probably disappear, just like the Coultergeist. Perhaps not. I’d like to see more of them have a melt down like O’Donnell did on her CNN interview with Piers Morgan.

            Just as we are distancing ourselves from the left loonies, the GOP is beginning to distance themselves from the right loonies. That’s a good sign that amicability can be restored across the aisle.

          • Bradley Scott

            August 19, 2011 at 7:47 pm

            O.K., first, there is no such thing as a campaign promise. Since no elected official, in and of themself, has that kind of broad pen-stroke executive power, we all realize, or should, that we’re talking about campaign ‘intentions.’
            So did the candidate in question try to make good on his intentions for his base, once elected? I would say of Barak Obama, yes, as lackluster as his performance may have been thusfar. Of Georges Bush, one and two, with their “Read my lips…” and ‘Social Security lockbox,’ I would have to say no. On the contrary, it would seem they both told out-right lies to those people most likely to vote for them based on those lies, then amost immediatly did exactly the opposite of what his promised intentions were. That, in itself, is reason enough for me to vote for anyone other than a Republican.

            • John Myste

              August 19, 2011 at 8:32 pm


              “O.K., first, there is no such thing as a campaign promise.”

              If a candidate starts a sentence with this: “I promise you that when I am president …”

              Does that count?

              • Bradley Scott

                August 19, 2011 at 10:13 pm

                How he ends that sentance would be more telling.

      • John Myste

        August 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm

        Mike, I really liked this thread. Can you click the like button for me? I cannot click it as I don’t use Face Book.

        Thanks in advance.

  2. Dan

    August 19, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Oh please– it’s not our fault she has looks like Charlie Manson’s sister with her glazed and crazed eyes. That’s how she looks –

    Her main problem is when she opens her mouth she makes Sarah Palin look like a genius.

    I for one will be voting for Bachmann in the Primary— because I really want her to get the nomination—- to guarantee another 4 years for Obama— not to mention the debates will be a real HOOT!

  3. The Lawyer

    August 19, 2011 at 11:27 am

    You definitely have a point. There is no need to use unflattering pictures of her eating a corn dog. Just let her talk, and roll the cameras, and she will do all the harm to herself.

  4. Bob Keller

    August 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I note with interest that Milton Thornbridge’s essays seem to generate more conversation and more in depth discussion. That is a very good thing.

    • John Myste

      August 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      There is nothing like an intelligent conservative posting on a liberal site to spice it up.

  5. Joe Hagstrom

    August 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    After years of right wing media calling us and our candidates pinkos and socialists, I don’t mind some payback. But as we get closer to the election Miltie is probably correct. Facts and ideas need to rule. I just hope Miltie is correct though. Bush won a presidential election and that didn’t say much for the intellectual capacity of the electorate or the system.

    • Dorothy Anderson

      August 19, 2011 at 4:57 pm

      Right, Joe. But please remember that people “voted” Bush in because he was one of those “Aw shucks” types.

      I don’t mind being called a socialist. I am.

    • The Lawyer

      August 19, 2011 at 10:49 pm

      You are right, Joe. It didn’t. That’s why Perry scares me. I’m certain there are plenty of yahoos around the country who listen to Perry talk and say out loud to their buddies, “He’s one of us. How could you not vote for him?” On the shudder scale, I shuddered on average at 7.5 every time Bush opened his mouth. Perry has thus far registered at 9.0. Man, I don’t like that dude.

      • The Lawyer

        August 19, 2011 at 10:51 pm

        10, so you know, is a potentially life threatening spasmodic convulsion.

  6. lazersedge

    August 19, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Uncle Miltie can post some really good things when he wants to and this one is a good example. I might disagree with you on one thing though Milton and that is Mitt Romney’s path at this point. I think he his being smart by not trying to out “right wing” Bachmann and Perry. Bachmann is completing her self destruction with her ridiculous statements and as you say will not last too long into the primary. The Republican primary will become a two horse race between Perry and Romney. Perry will then self destruct.
    President Obama has had a tough road since he walked into this hornets nest. He had both houses of congress dominated by the Democrats but they let him down and would not back him up at the beginning. They (he and congress) let the Republicans control the agenda for the first two years of Obama’s presidency and then rolled over when the Republicans took over the House. I, like Mike, will vote for Obama because there will be no other other choice but I hope he has learned something in the past 3 years.

    • John Myste

      August 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      Perry will then self destruct.

      That is one possible scenario, but not the likely one. The Republican Party has two main branches, Radical and not as radical. Huntsman, a non concern, and Romney are the only ones on the non radical side.

      As radical candidates like Bachmann fall off, Perry will pick them up. Bachmann followers are not going to suddenly switch sides and support a the non radical candidate, just because Bachmann is no longer running.

      The non radicals are getting less than 25% of the vote the last time I checked. Romney will get Huntsman’s supporters and Perry will get the rest, putting him closer to 75%.

      The only way Romney can avoid this scenario is to convince the 75-80% who are currently voting for radical candidates, that the radical candidates remaining (Perry), cannot beat Obama.

      This works for me. If this happens, then Obama will probably win the general election.

  7. Milton Thornridge

    August 19, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Actually I do appreciate many of President Obama’s actions. He did focus on Afghanistan. The exit strategy from Iraq does look like it will save face for America. The Bush tax cuts were extended and the payroll tax holiday I thought at the time was a good idea. (I no longer think it is as it reall isn’t enough to spur much economic activity)

    My next observation will be in the next comment.

  8. Milton Thornridge

    August 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    I do have to say that I am impressed with the straight forwardness of John Huntsman who said that he accepted Evolution in response to Governor Perry’s non answer.

    Science should absolutely should be used to guide the republican platform. Facts and natural order should be taught in public schools. Not religious treatise. That belongs in church. Sunday school, and Wednesday evenings, and home, by qualified clergy and parents. Jesus taught us The Golden Rule. He didn’t teach math, history and science.

    • The Lawyer

      August 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm

      I watched the last Republican debate and concluded that huntsman was the only moderate on stage. For that, he has no chance. “Jesus taught us The Golden Rule. He didn’t teach math, history and science.” I agree with the sentiment of that completely.

      • John Myste

        August 19, 2011 at 10:58 pm

        Unfortunately, Jesus didn’t know science, as it was not really invented in the sense that we know it today. He probably did not know history that well, either, as he was consumed with “recent history.” I doubt that he knew math very well. Math is really hard without a calculator.