I second Stanley’s analysis. I also saw Michele in person for the first time at David Horowitz’s retreat, and I was amazed at her combination of command and charisma. She spoke at great length about a wide variety of topics and took questions from the very engaged audience — without notes, with clarity and depth, and with a nice mix of humor and charm. She’s got a good lawyer’s mind for getting from A to B to C without losing the big picture, and she has the rare ability to grasp wonky details without sounding like a wonk.
We ended up having a long chat afterwards. She wanted to talk about Gitmo, enemy combatants, and the relative merits of military commissions versus civilian trials. I was really impressed. This was not her area of the law (she was a tax lawyer in real life), but she clearly got it: Her questions were pointed, I got the sense that she really wanted to know why civilian trials were problematic (i.e., she wasn’t looking for a couple of soundbites that she could slide into the next speech), and she was a quick study — there was no need to revisit at the end of the conversation some esoteric point we’d covered at the beginning of the conversation.
Obviously, I was impressed. We ended up collaborating on an op-ed — which ran here on NRO and in the New York Post — on why, if the Obama administration did not reverse its decision to give KSM and the 9/11 jihadists a civilian trial, Congress should step in and force the president’s hand. Michele was a dynamo on this issue, and her forcefulness had a lot to do with the public and congressional pressure that ultimately induced the administration to back down.
It would be a huge mistake to underestimate her. I think she’s going to make a lot of her critics look awfully dumb by the time this is over. The Dems moved heaven and earth to try to unseat her in the last two elections because they know she’s a force to be reckoned with. Oh … and did I mention that she beat them handily?
So, Kurtz and McCarthy both just lo-o-o-o-o-o-ve Bachmann. That puts her so far to the right as to be unelectable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a clear indication of how far to the left our political spectrum moved during the 20th century that Michele Bachmann, an individual whose belief system can be summed up best as "the US constitution", is considered to be "far to the right".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately though impressive she is mortal. All it takes is one Concord to undo her. The standard of omniscience is a lot, lot higher for a conservative woman than for a liberal man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs unelectable as Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean the scouting reports on Bachmann was WRONG?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was also a theme going around, penetrating even here, suggesting that Bachmann is "shrill." Genuinely curious, I asked for evidence. She seemed the opposite of shrill to me. "Well she just is -- stop asking stupid questions" was the kind of response I got.
Heck, to me she seems more serene than shrill.
I did wish she had thought more quickly when responding to the question about "inserting herself into New Hampshire's business" with respect to same-s*x "marriage." Others on the panel saw that that question led right to an opportunity to endorse a marriage amendment, but Bachmann wasn't quite so quick on the draw.
Not a problem, though, she did great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe Shrill
I think she has toned it down a bit (no doubt following the advise of some shrewd advisors) but some obvious example of her shrillness would include her call for an investigation into the "Anti-American Activities" of members of congress.
Or how about advising Minn. constituents to ignore their Census forms (ok, not really shrill, just kinda dumb). Her declarations on gay marriage have definitely been shrill ("most important issue of our lifetime"), as has her mockery of global warming and greenhouse gases ("hoax", "voodoo science")
That's just a few examples, and some of these are indeed slightly dated. As I said it seems she has developed better discipline as a national candidate, but the record is there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBachmann was impressive.
And given that most voters who aren't political junkies and who aren't from Minnesota don't know her already, she did make a great first impression last night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Left (and its media) react the same to both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for the same reason - they are both threats as candidates. Not because of their positions (the left doesn't understand those), but because they share Obama's glamour.
This country has been ready for a black or a female president for a long time, but the candidates who came along were not attractive, philosophically or physically. Obama was youngish, handsome, and personable during the campaign. The Left is worried that Palin and Bachmann have the same characteristics.
Obama has nothing to run on but his image. The ladies also have a message that resonates with a lot of voters. The Left knows this and can't allow them to be heard. No one would listen to a sound conservative woman who looked like nine miles of bad road. But a pleasant appearance can make anyone stop and listen, and that's what we need.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis leftist would love nothing better than the GOP ticket to be Palin/Bachman. And yes, we have no idea what either of them is saying. Stupid is the new smart!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou didn't have to mention that you are a leftist. The fact that your post contains absolutely no substance is a clear indication of what you are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you really a leftist. Why? I thought you guys were "progressives" now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeftists have no idea what anyone is saying...that's why they smile ignorantly as Obama reads his teleprompter. Only those individuals with dead air space between the ears would think for an nanosecond that either Palin or Bachmann are dumb! Personally, I can't wait until 2012 to see "dumb" once and for all eliminated from government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Dennis Miller said, "If Palin's a dunce and Obama's a genius, where do I sign up for 'dunce'?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh Lucian you are spending too much time listening to the Tingle and reading the HuffPuffPo.
If Mr. Stammer'er/Stutter'er/ummmmmmm'er is your idea of smart, I'll go with either dunce who understands what made this country great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLucian, if you can't understand what either of them are saying (but most of us can), doesn't that make you - not them - the one who isn't smart?
Put another way: Albert Einstein and I are having lunch and he's giving me the guts of Quantum Physics, and I don't understand what the heck he's talking about ... by your logic then he's the stupid one?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMakes you a real genius, then, eh Lucian?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBachmann was personally impressive, showing more substance than is usual for her. Unfortunately, she still comes across as an ideologue, taking an all or nothing stance on far too many questions. She is, in effect, Ron Paul with a pretty face. And yet--like all the candidates--she managed to pander to the audience on occasion, something to deplore.
But her instincts are generally sound, so we must prefer her to the progressives--you know, those like Romney and Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Dai---as a Minnesotan, I can tell you she's NOT Ron Paul---she believes in a strong defense and in bopping scum on the head.
She is a lot like him on Domestic Policy, but without the Pothead agenda.
Paul's major problem is that on foreign policy he's Dennis Kucinich. No difference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept unlike Ron Paul, Bauchmann is a friend to Israel. Unlike Paul she does not support Hamas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse