Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Frank Bruni begins: "Michele Bachmann is the gift that never stops giving. One week she's confusing the Iowa birthplaces of John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy, two men separated by a bit more than two syllables. The next she's signing a conservative pledge that contains language extolling the family values of slavery."

Michele Bachmann. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Michele Bachmann. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)



Much Ado About Michele

By Frank Bruni, The New York Times

24 July 11

 

ichele Bachnamm is the gift that never stops giving.

One week she's confusing the Iowa birthplaces of John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy, two men separated by a bit more than two syllables. The next she's signing a conservative pledge that contains language extolling the family values of slavery. Her library evidently differs from most. It stocks "Uncle Tom's Little House on the Prairie."

If she's not confronting accusations that a church she supported is anti-Catholic, she's navigating charges that her husband, a counselor, practices a brand of homosexual-to-heterosexual therapy known as "pray away the gay." I once tried to pray away the gay. But sometimes a houseguest just won't leave.

The most recent go-round with Bachmann concerned migraines, and what a go-round it has been. The revelation that she battles them led to a second round of stories about whether focusing on that was sexist and then a third round about whether her aides had been too rough with a headache-inquisitive television reporter who pursued her through a parking lot. In ways she means to and ways she doesn't, Bachmann doesn't merely occupy the spotlight. She sets up house there, stuffs it with velour sectionals and lays out a lavish buffet, so that legions of comers are comfy and well fed.

And that bounty - of half-baked history, hardcore religious conservatism, hard-line pledges and so much more - has made her the star of the 2012 presidential race so far, a recipient of at least twice the coverage that any of her rivals for the Republican nomination receives.

But whipping up attention isn't the same as establishing credibility. Vividness doesn't equal significance. And Bachmann's profile at this point is wildly out of proportion to her probable fate in the election and the long-term impact on it that she'll have.

The smart money remains where it has always been: on Mitt Romney. She still lags leagues behind him in fund-raising, and she finished June with less than a third of the cash on hand that he had. Although her collection pace was brisk, she'll be playing catch-up for a while and doesn't have the coziness with big donors that he and others do.

He's the candidate whom not only Republican leaders but also White House officials strongly expect to see on the ticket. When they make allowances for a twist, they talk not of Bachmann but of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who seems more and more likely to enter the race - and could eat away quickly at her support in particular. Evangelicals worship him.

Sure, Bachmann is positioned to compete strongly in, and very possibly win, the Iowa straw poll in mid-August and the caucus beyond it; South Carolina could be fertile ground for her, too. Yes, a national poll of Republican primary voters that was released early last week gave her a slight edge over Romney. And without question, she has shown more mettle than Sarah Palin, whose breezy ignorance and unfathomable syntax she doesn't share.

But that's a bar so low the world's reigning limbo champ couldn't shimmy under it, and two polls released later in the week had Romney on top, with Perry in second.

While Bachmann was third in one, she was fifth in the other, behind Palin and (he's back!) Rudy Giuliani as well. Like Perry, neither of those two has even declared a candidacy.

Here's what's certain: as she pursues the nomination, the Republican establishment won't line up behind her, because they don't think she has a prayer of broadening her ultraconservative base enough to woo swing voters and topple President Obama. And toppling is what they're all about.

I talked to a bunch of party operatives and analysts last week, and every one of them said that while Bachmann could well cause the early demise of Tim Pawlenty's candidacy and complicate Romney's bid for many months to come, she stands almost no chance of victory. And never did.

So why all the fuss?

She's a bonanza for the news media, which these days have vast acres of not only cable TV but also cyberspace to fill. She's manna for pundits, who can talk only so archly about the vanilla vanguard of Romney, Pawlenty and company. When Bachmann stormed into view, she provided a wanted, needed burst of flavor and color. But flavor and color go only so far. A Delaware woman named Christine O'Donnell can fill you in on that, provided she's not busy with coven duties.

Bachmann has proven a useful pawn for liberals as well, because she conforms to their simplistic nightmare vision of what Republicans are all about and fills them with righteous condescension while sullying the image of the enemy party. As far as they're concerned, the more chatter about Bachmann, the better, and if she somehow manages to beat Romney, well, that will be best of all: one of the luckiest breaks Obama could ever catch.

Beyond that, her biography and ideology accommodate discussions about an especially broad range of hot-button topics. Gender in politics? There was that whole hullabaloo about the Pawlenty adviser who referred to her "sex appeal."

Gay marriage? She built her political career on her war against it. The no-compromise attitude of Tea Party purists in the House? She has vowed not to vote to increase the debt ceiling, no matter the circumstances.

She's like a coat rack with dozens of hooks. You can hang almost anything on her.

So reporters and commentators do, and then they tromp over to the nearby pantry to rummage around there. Bach-mania has become indiscriminate and is now out of hand. For example the gay leaders, television comedians, Twitter-ing entertainment icons (yes, Cher, that's you) and other Bachmann opponents who have lately taken to sifting her husband's voice and mannerisms for any supposedly telltale effeminacy should cut it out. They're trafficking in the sorts of superficial stereotypes they'd excoriate in other contexts.

And the migraine-fixated are putting the cart several time zones ahead of the horse. She's a long way from her Oval Office physical. Besides, the more phlegmatic guys in the pack aren't being subjected to such examinations. For all we know, Jon Huntsman has a plantar wart that's wreaking utter havoc with his stride.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+44 # DPM 2011-07-24 20:25
Yeah, but..."No one ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American people.”
P.T. Barnum
 
 
+9 # Cliffard Stijl 2011-07-24 21:45
Quoting
Yeah, but..."No one ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American people.”
P.T. Barnum


wouldn't it be overestimating, and wouldn't it be stupidity? ignorance implies lack of information.
 
 
+7 # elmont 2011-07-25 05:13
Quoting
Yeah, but..."No one ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American people.”
P.T. Barnum

Not to be too pedantic, but the proper attribution for the quotation is H.L. Mencken, not P.T. Barnum. But I do not disagree with your point.
 
 
+4 # John Gill 2011-07-24 20:52
...,and possibly his...stance? mea culpa
 
 
+32 # Activista 2011-07-24 21:09
"When Michele Bachmann spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition she exposed a profound flaw in the religious right which has virtually unlimited potential for mayhem. She let the world know that she and the religious right believe in such unreasonable nonsense as curses. She said, "I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle."
www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/02/981444/-Israel-and-Bachmanns-Misguided-Christian-Zionism
please re-read and compare with Norway's Breivik Manifesto
 
 
+19 # Kathreen 2011-07-24 22:11
OMG!!!! Please tell me that this is not true>>>>Are we really STILL at this level of absolute mindless limitation???
Come on HUMANITY...Get beyond this infantile rhetoric and WAKE UP...since when did our (read all of Humanity's) survival depend on everyone signing up for a 'worship' of ONE religion...one country...and NOT necessarily the on WE LIVE in...this is insanity!
 
 
-5 # Activista 2011-07-25 16:07
And USrael is scaring World with Muslim fanatics - compared to Bachman these guys are liberal intellectuals.
That these types are part of the government is scary.
And in retrospect - listen to Obama and Clinton speeches in front of AIPAC - close to Bachman
 
 
+34 # klondikekitty 2011-07-24 22:02
OMG, if all you media writers would STOP your coverage of Michele Bachmann's every word and step, perhaps she would fade back into the uninformed and misdirected darkness from which she came! She has some serious mental/emotional issues which require professional help, and most Minnesotans visibly cringe when her name is mentioned. Although i do agree with the premise that her winning the Republican nomination for president would be the best thing ever to happen for Obama's re-election campaign, i am alternately horrified and repulsed at the prospect of her even having a shot at the White House . . .
 
 
+14 # Regina 2011-07-24 22:32
She rolls out the baloney faster than any deli I ever patronized. Also the wry bread. Both are indigestible.
 
 
+12 # Scott Griffith 2011-07-24 22:36
So why is anyone playing a blind bit of attention to her? It was she I first thought of when the news of the fundamentalist Christian killer in Norway broke recently.
 
 
+9 # bluescat48 2011-07-24 22:45
She reminds me of a little kid who demands attention.
 
 
+3 # TomDegan 2011-07-25 00:44
Why is the media making such a big deal out of her migraines - as if she even had a chance to get the nomination.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
 
 
+7 # Hors-D-whores 2011-07-25 00:59
I think I saw the name Michele Bachman and "sex appeal" within the same sentence. BARF! REALLY! Half of the voters are women and she won't have a prayer except with the mentally warped.
 
 
-21 # lnason@umassd.edu 2011-07-25 04:25
Citing the era of slavery is politically foolish. But there is an issue here that progressives need to address.

Sociologist Andrew Billingsley has traced the historical lifeline of the Black family. In 1890 the number of intact Black families with fathers and mothers at home was 80%. Over the next seven decades through 1960, that figure held remarkably constant.

But once the Great Society programs were put in place, the African-American family went into a tailspin.

When the number-crunchers tallied up the results from the 1970 decennial census, they couldn’t believe their eyes – the number of intact Black families had fallen to 64%.

For the next 20 years two-parent families continued their free-fall, reaching a rock-bottom 38% in 1990. And most of the remaining intact families were concentrated in the Black middle class. In the inner city, the traditional Black family had essentially ceased to exist.

Slavery, Jim Crow and discrimination, two World Wars and the Great Depression didn't kill the black family. Progressives need to ask themselves how this happened.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+21 # rmorris 2011-07-25 06:22
"[T}wo World Wars and the Great Depression didn't kill the black family." Nor did it kill the white, or any color family. A true historical perspective, rather than your own frankly racist, classist, and elitist right-wing perspective is needed here. We got to where we are because the wealthy stole and continue to steal, and are now hoarding and controlling way too much wealth.
 
 
+8 # raporeal 2011-07-25 04:26
In a country where ignorance is bliss... can stupidity be far behind?
 
 
+27 # artful 2011-07-25 04:34
"more mettle than Sarah Palin, whose breezy ignorance and unfathomable syntax she doesn't share."
Excuse me, but what planet do you occupy? Bachmann seems terminally ignorant, and probably stupid to boot. She goes way beyond simple inexperience. She displays no interest in the world beyond her own little christian Taliban fairyland. She's an idiot . . . she's a republican . . . but I repeat myself.
 
 
+10 # Pancho 2011-07-25 08:28
I hope my remarks won't be interpreted as a defense of Bachmann, but although she's demonstrably ignorant, she is not as dumb as the prodigiously stupid and lazy Palin.

It took Palin attending five colleges, one twice, in three states over five years to stagger through a degree in reading teleprompters.

Bachmann, on the other hand, was able to pass the bar after graduating from one of America's worst law schools, where Biblical law is felt to be vastly superior to British Common Law, and Bob Jones a more substantial authority than Blackstone. So she's not a complete idiot.

McCain, upon nominating Palin, touted the moron as one of America's foremost experts on energy. If you asked her what a joule was, I'm sure she'd reply "...a legislator from Kotzebue, or one of his family members."

Neither Palin, nor Bachmann, when they misspeak, are able to admit it. They'd rather have their stooges edit Wikipedia to "prove" they were right.
 
 
0 # Dorian Brown 2011-07-30 12:37
Artful,
YOU are SO right!
 
 
+1 # J.Lindsley 2011-07-25 04:38
Such witful reassurance to make my day.
Thanks, Mr. Bruni
 
 
+7 # granny 2011-07-25 05:51
Trouble is, the media slaver over her every mis-uterance. If she were ignored, she'd dry up and wither away, and we might have some intelligent debate over the real issues.
 
 
+4 # todd williams 2011-07-25 06:22
Since you are such a genius Lee Nason, why don't you tell us why this has happened in the black community? Come on now, educate the unwashed, stupid liberals! My guess is that you believe LBJ was the direct cause of the demise of the balck family. Wow, what an insight! I impressed (not)!
 
 
+7 # humanmancalvin 2011-07-25 06:28
This out of step with logic/reality woman is a true danger to American society. She fills the airwaves with her voice of hate, disguised as a Christian world view. She seriously needs mental health guidance. Seriously.
 
 
+15 # teineitalia 2011-07-25 06:46
Bachmann is a Stepford Wife, safe in her own bubble world of fundamentalist absolutes. The fact that she might even be considered presidential material gives ME a migraine.
 
 
+4 # wwway 2011-07-25 07:04
Has anyone considered the possibility that those running for the Republican nomination are just entertaining shills for the media while the party figures out who might be a viable candidate?
 
 
+4 # Pancho 2011-07-25 08:37
When McCain announced his selection of Palin as his Vice Presidential choice, her comments were a vast compendium of half-truths and lies. Despite that, the Republican convention confirmed her nomination by acclamation just a few days later.

That Bush XLI chose an equally stupid bar passer than Bachmann in Quayle, don't necessarily mean he was "viable." Dan was so dumb he threw in his hat for president in the 2000 primaries.

Viability is not necessarily a requirement for the job.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2011-07-25 08:19
To all of you who wonder why the likes of "Bitchman" -and her hubby- experience such high profiles and get a large amount of press coverage, (and I feel the same exasperation as you are experiencing) Frank Bruni addresses that subject clearly in this very article thus and I quote: "So why all the fuss? She's a bonanza for the news media, which these days have vast acres of not only cable TV but also cyberspace to fill. She's manna for pundits -----and so on.
It's just another reason to stick with alternative media for substance.
 
 
0 # VSweet 2011-07-25 08:42
If Michelle Bachman is this CONFUSED now, I shudder and think of her in oval office as President of the United States. OMG!!

In my opinion, both Sarah and Michelle are ticking female hormones ready to explode.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.