In an interview that aired tonight, Michele Bachmann attacked Newt Gingrich’s immigration position.
“He probably has the most liberal position on illegal immigration of any of the candidates in the race,” Bachmann told PBS Newshour.
“I think that we will deal with this issue as it comes forward, but we know what Speaker Gingrich’s position is,” she added. “He said quite clearly he would make legal 11 million illegal workers. No other candidate goes that extreme.”
Bachmann also expressed confidence that she could win the Iowa caucuses.
“We have identified already more supporters than even Mike Huckabee had when he won on caucus night. Now our plan is to mobilize and get them out to caucus night,” she said.
Well, Newt does seem to the most Liberal-Democratic Partisan position on taking taxpayer funds via Washington Beltway Insider Trading. He may have profited via his Pubic Sector existence than any of the Candidates, especially making some 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie.
Even if it is legal, that kinda largess makes McCain's Keating 5 game seem like chump change. Especially when he admits taxpayers got "nothing" in return for his paid arrangement with these quasi governmental entities.
Sure Gorelick swindled far more out of the failure, but Newt sure has served himself well via playing the Washington game.
This is a thread about Bachmann attacking Gingrich on immigration. Why do you keep going to the "Beltway Gingrich" well?
This is probably an accurate statement by Bachmann. But what's more interesting is how Bachman loves to aggressively attack every other Republican... except Romney. She's a regular Jennifer Rubin.
While I'm not thrilled with Gingrich's plan, there is no possible honest interpretation under which "[h]e said quite clearly he would make legal 11 million illegal workers."
Statements like this are among the reasons this NH conservative gave up on Bachmann months ago.
I've noticed a lot of NR contributors support ending the War on Drugs. Do you think that if the War on Drugs is ended, everyone who used or sold drugs illegally during the prohibition era should still be prosecuted?
Just wondering, because I support ending the War on Importing Labor.
There was an episode of some TV show last week or so, that showed a bunch of Doctors carrying out an intervention on one of their colleagues who was "hooked" on prescription drugs.
The junkie Doctor, desperate for drugs, said and did anything, unimaginably mean and hurtful things to her friends just so that they give up, and she could walk away to go procure drugs.
Sadly, this is what I think about when I see Michelle Bachmann do things like this lately. Like that junkie coming to grips with the realization that the people surrounding her were going to stop her from getting any more oxycodone, and that her oxy-and-sex fantasy was over, Bachmann's coming to grips with the fact that her ride on the Presidential Express is over, and that those other people running are at fault, is making her say anything that she thinks will help remove them from her path.
She is a good woman, and should step down graciously.
Winning the race needs to be about lifting yourself to the top, not tearing others down.
I love commenters who scold candidates for answering the questions they are asked. Luis Gonzalez presents Bachmann's direct answer to a direct question as if she has taken out an anti-Gingrich ad. Did he even watch the clip?
No, Bachmann was asked specifically about Gingrich's comments during the recent debate and about whether an illegal alien with ties to our country should be sent back. Bachmann talked about the costs of illegal immigration, both in money and in the risks of terrorists' entering the country, both of which she backed up with numbers. In contrast, she said, Gingrich favors the DREAM act, a "powerful magnet," and he would make 11 million illegal workers legal. And she mentioned that his was "the most liberal position" among the candidates' positions, as it is.
You have to be determined to find something to criticize; there is nothing there.
I offered a commentary on my perception of Bachmann at this point in the race, is that disallowed in your world?
She's not going to win the nomination. there's little doubt about that in anyone's mind, so there's no controversy in that part of my statement either.
Then there is this, from your response:
You - "Bachmann was asked specifically about Gingrich's comments during the recent debate and about whether an illegal alien with ties to our country should be sent back. Bachmann talked about the costs of illegal immigration, both in money and in the risks of terrorists' entering the country, both of which she backed up with numbers. In contrast, she said, Gingrich favors the DREAM act, a "powerful magnet," and he would make 11 million illegal workers legal. And she mentioned that his was "the most liberal position" among the candidates' positions, as it is."
The one thing that she didn't do, was to actually answer the question.
Transcript:
"JEFFREY BROWN: Why don't we start right with that subject of last night and immigration? You got into a little bit with Newt Gingrich.
You're against a broad amnesty for illegal immigrants. But what of his specific point? He was -- that example of someone who's been in the country for 20 years, has children, perhaps grandchildren, paid taxes, lots of local ties. Does that person have to be sent back to his home country?"
"Does that person have to be sent back to his home?"
I don't need Michelle Bachmann to sit there and repeat the talking points, or offer platitudes...I need her to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no".
She dodged the direct question (twice) and instead chose to talk about Gingrich.
Bachmann is the candidate Limbaugh and Hannity and that rabble loves. She cut her teeth on talk radio. Her intonation, diction, and technique are very similar.
It's failing. Miserably.
Judging from her performance, and how her yap torpedoed any chance for any substantive debate as a viable candidate, the question of how effective adopting talk radio mannerisms is an effective communication technique is clearly on display.
Didja ever ask exactly how Newt Gingrich connected with the people? It's clearly more than just red meat to the people who get a kick out of being offended by their political opposites on a daily basis.
Were I Bachmann, or a GOP candidate running for 2012 and beyond, whenever Gingrich speaks, I would be opening my notebook and taking notes. Not trying to label him as a liberal in a pathetic attempt to sound relevant.
American, you are a self-described liberal. It is not at all surprising to hear you defend the "‘Most Liberal’ Candidate on Immigration," but most here will be looking elsewhere.
My being a liberal has nothing to do with this discussion.
My choosing a candidate doesn't have to do with what ideology I am. In case you haven't noticed, we've elected candidates that are ideologically devoted, and they've been disasterous.
Unlike Bachmann, Gingrich doesn't just introduce legislation; he gets it passed on a bipartisan basis.
If you want to curl up with only people who think as you do, with alternate solutions that you don't want any part of, then by all means, support candidates like Bachmann who are better suited to epistemc closure confines of talk radio or NRO.
But if you want things to get better, you will learn give and take, and learn that conservatism hasn't ever learned that facet of governance and will continue to fail at it as long as those that are the most strident in advocating it, only have to face a microphone or blog page or website, instead of those that their ideas will affect most.
Gingrich did NOT say he'd make 11 million illegals legal. I'm not a Gingrich fan; I'm voting for Romney. But Bachmann is just mistaken here at best--and misrepresenting Gingrich at worst. He corrected her on that point directly in the debate, but she kept saying it.
He said he would create a path to legality (not citizenship) for SOME of the 11 million, not all of them. He said very clearly he'd deport those with little to no real connection to US society.
The pandering going on about this issue is disheartening to me. There is no way we're going to adopt a policy that deports an elderly grandmother who's been productively working in this country for 30 years. Bachmann and the others should stop pretending that's what they want.
Good for Gingrich for not pandering, but rather trying to engage the problem with realistic thinking.
Its an effective attack, the only problem is it isn't true.
The simple fact is: ALL of the R candidates for President are squishes on immigration.
Given that, perhaps we should use their immigration position as a litmus test! The last one standing would simply be the last one who's record is examined.
Romney and Perry are certainly to the Left of Newt on immigration. The libertarians are even worse.
Ok, Bachmann, what's your plan for dealing with illegal immigration?
What's that? You don't have one? You say, "...I think that we will deal with this issue as it comes forward, but we know what Speaker Gingrich’s position is..."?
In short, you have no plan, eh? None.
Let's all let that sink in for minute.
.
.
.
.
This is why conservatism, especially since the advent of talk radio, cannot govern. Here it is, in all its reality in the person of Bachmann. No solutions. No plan. No indication of how to govern to get to those sweet-sounding plans y'all hear on talk radio. All that simplicity.
See? It's simple. Just ask Bachmann.
"I don't have a plan, but I know that Newt is a liberal, so his plan won't work."
Brilliant.
Y'all need to trade up ideologically. Make Limbaugh and Hannity, Levin, and all the other useless blowhards get honest jobs.
Let me make an equally clear and precise statement:
Cancer must be cured, so we must find a cure for cancer.
The problem with my statement, is the massive lack of anything other than platitudinous value. I am as right with my statement, as Bachmann is with hers...yet cancer will remain uncured, and illegal immigration will remain a problem in the aftermath of both.
I need to hear the details of Michelle's enforcement plan. How does she plan to get rid of 12+ million illegal aliens in the country?
How will she secure the borders?
Bromide does not provide a cure for cancer, nor is it the solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens residing on our soil.
Ouch...
Well, Newt does seem to the most Liberal-Democratic Partisan position on taking taxpayer funds via Washington Beltway Insider Trading. He may have profited via his Pubic Sector existence than any of the Candidates, especially making some 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie.
Even if it is legal, that kinda largess makes McCain's Keating 5 game seem like chump change. Especially when he admits taxpayers got "nothing" in return for his paid arrangement with these quasi governmental entities.
Sure Gorelick swindled far more out of the failure, but Newt sure has served himself well via playing the Washington game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a thread about Bachmann attacking Gingrich on immigration. Why do you keep going to the "Beltway Gingrich" well?
This is probably an accurate statement by Bachmann. But what's more interesting is how Bachman loves to aggressively attack every other Republican... except Romney. She's a regular Jennifer Rubin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I'm not thrilled with Gingrich's plan, there is no possible honest interpretation under which "[h]e said quite clearly he would make legal 11 million illegal workers."
Statements like this are among the reasons this NH conservative gave up on Bachmann months ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've noticed a lot of NR contributors support ending the War on Drugs. Do you think that if the War on Drugs is ended, everyone who used or sold drugs illegally during the prohibition era should still be prosecuted?
Just wondering, because I support ending the War on Importing Labor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was an episode of some TV show last week or so, that showed a bunch of Doctors carrying out an intervention on one of their colleagues who was "hooked" on prescription drugs.
The junkie Doctor, desperate for drugs, said and did anything, unimaginably mean and hurtful things to her friends just so that they give up, and she could walk away to go procure drugs.
Sadly, this is what I think about when I see Michelle Bachmann do things like this lately. Like that junkie coming to grips with the realization that the people surrounding her were going to stop her from getting any more oxycodone, and that her oxy-and-sex fantasy was over, Bachmann's coming to grips with the fact that her ride on the Presidential Express is over, and that those other people running are at fault, is making her say anything that she thinks will help remove them from her path.
She is a good woman, and should step down graciously.
Winning the race needs to be about lifting yourself to the top, not tearing others down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love commenters who scold candidates for answering the questions they are asked. Luis Gonzalez presents Bachmann's direct answer to a direct question as if she has taken out an anti-Gingrich ad. Did he even watch the clip?
No, Bachmann was asked specifically about Gingrich's comments during the recent debate and about whether an illegal alien with ties to our country should be sent back. Bachmann talked about the costs of illegal immigration, both in money and in the risks of terrorists' entering the country, both of which she backed up with numbers. In contrast, she said, Gingrich favors the DREAM act, a "powerful magnet," and he would make 11 million illegal workers legal. And she mentioned that his was "the most liberal position" among the candidates' positions, as it is.
You have to be determined to find something to criticize; there is nothing there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI offered a commentary on my perception of Bachmann at this point in the race, is that disallowed in your world?
She's not going to win the nomination. there's little doubt about that in anyone's mind, so there's no controversy in that part of my statement either.
Then there is this, from your response:
You - "Bachmann was asked specifically about Gingrich's comments during the recent debate and about whether an illegal alien with ties to our country should be sent back. Bachmann talked about the costs of illegal immigration, both in money and in the risks of terrorists' entering the country, both of which she backed up with numbers. In contrast, she said, Gingrich favors the DREAM act, a "powerful magnet," and he would make 11 million illegal workers legal. And she mentioned that his was "the most liberal position" among the candidates' positions, as it is."
The one thing that she didn't do, was to actually answer the question.
Transcript:
"JEFFREY BROWN: Why don't we start right with that subject of last night and immigration? You got into a little bit with Newt Gingrich.
You're against a broad amnesty for illegal immigrants. But what of his specific point? He was -- that example of someone who's been in the country for 20 years, has children, perhaps grandchildren, paid taxes, lots of local ties. Does that person have to be sent back to his home country?"
"Does that person have to be sent back to his home?"
I don't need Michelle Bachmann to sit there and repeat the talking points, or offer platitudes...I need her to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no".
She dodged the direct question (twice) and instead chose to talk about Gingrich.
Hell, at least Gingrich SAID what HE would do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLuis Gonzalez, I notice that you reproduced the question, but not the answer, which was perfectly clear. You are really wasting time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe has discerned that illegal immigration is a huge issue for *us* if not the GOP elites. So good on her, and I hope she runs with this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're right, Hardcastle. There is nothing there.
With Bachmann's analysis, that is.
Bachmann is the candidate Limbaugh and Hannity and that rabble loves. She cut her teeth on talk radio. Her intonation, diction, and technique are very similar.
It's failing. Miserably.
Judging from her performance, and how her yap torpedoed any chance for any substantive debate as a viable candidate, the question of how effective adopting talk radio mannerisms is an effective communication technique is clearly on display.
Didja ever ask exactly how Newt Gingrich connected with the people? It's clearly more than just red meat to the people who get a kick out of being offended by their political opposites on a daily basis.
Were I Bachmann, or a GOP candidate running for 2012 and beyond, whenever Gingrich speaks, I would be opening my notebook and taking notes. Not trying to label him as a liberal in a pathetic attempt to sound relevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmerican, you are a self-described liberal. It is not at all surprising to hear you defend the "‘Most Liberal’ Candidate on Immigration," but most here will be looking elsewhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy being a liberal has nothing to do with this discussion.
My choosing a candidate doesn't have to do with what ideology I am. In case you haven't noticed, we've elected candidates that are ideologically devoted, and they've been disasterous.
Unlike Bachmann, Gingrich doesn't just introduce legislation; he gets it passed on a bipartisan basis.
If you want to curl up with only people who think as you do, with alternate solutions that you don't want any part of, then by all means, support candidates like Bachmann who are better suited to epistemc closure confines of talk radio or NRO.
But if you want things to get better, you will learn give and take, and learn that conservatism hasn't ever learned that facet of governance and will continue to fail at it as long as those that are the most strident in advocating it, only have to face a microphone or blog page or website, instead of those that their ideas will affect most.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anyone read the bible anymore?
External Link
Or does it not apply to our modern world?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you lost and looking for directions? Or just on the wrong thread?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL! Yes & Yes... I was hoping you could lead me in right direction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich did NOT say he'd make 11 million illegals legal. I'm not a Gingrich fan; I'm voting for Romney. But Bachmann is just mistaken here at best--and misrepresenting Gingrich at worst. He corrected her on that point directly in the debate, but she kept saying it.
He said he would create a path to legality (not citizenship) for SOME of the 11 million, not all of them. He said very clearly he'd deport those with little to no real connection to US society.
The pandering going on about this issue is disheartening to me. There is no way we're going to adopt a policy that deports an elderly grandmother who's been productively working in this country for 30 years. Bachmann and the others should stop pretending that's what they want.
Good for Gingrich for not pandering, but rather trying to engage the problem with realistic thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIts an effective attack, the only problem is it isn't true.
The simple fact is: ALL of the R candidates for President are squishes on immigration.
Given that, perhaps we should use their immigration position as a litmus test! The last one standing would simply be the last one who's record is examined.
Romney and Perry are certainly to the Left of Newt on immigration. The libertarians are even worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, Bachmann, what's your plan for dealing with illegal immigration?
What's that? You don't have one? You say, "...I think that we will deal with this issue as it comes forward, but we know what Speaker Gingrich’s position is..."?
In short, you have no plan, eh? None.
Let's all let that sink in for minute.
.
.
.
.
This is why conservatism, especially since the advent of talk radio, cannot govern. Here it is, in all its reality in the person of Bachmann. No solutions. No plan. No indication of how to govern to get to those sweet-sounding plans y'all hear on talk radio. All that simplicity.
See? It's simple. Just ask Bachmann.
"I don't have a plan, but I know that Newt is a liberal, so his plan won't work."
Brilliant.
Y'all need to trade up ideologically. Make Limbaugh and Hannity, Levin, and all the other useless blowhards get honest jobs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBachmann has said many times that the border must be secured and existing laws enforced before we consider any revisions. What is unclear about that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me make an equally clear and precise statement:
Cancer must be cured, so we must find a cure for cancer.
The problem with my statement, is the massive lack of anything other than platitudinous value. I am as right with my statement, as Bachmann is with hers...yet cancer will remain uncured, and illegal immigration will remain a problem in the aftermath of both.
I need to hear the details of Michelle's enforcement plan. How does she plan to get rid of 12+ million illegal aliens in the country?
How will she secure the borders?
Bromide does not provide a cure for cancer, nor is it the solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens residing on our soil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse