Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.
John Adams
Michele Bachmann, Fox News/Sunday Coverage
It is rare for me to complain about bias on a story carried on Special Report (Fox News Channel's evening newscast), but the reporter covering Michele Bachmann's futile run for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination was providing an absolutely ludicrous pro-Bachmann, lost-touch-with-reality slant leading news story tonight, all but designating Bachmann the "front runner" running a typical strategy, ignoring the other candidates including Romney. Roger Ailes needs to terminate whomever wrote that story. I mean, this story would be embarrassing for Bachmann to run as a campaign commercial.
I have regularly been reviewing polls for months. I have yet to see a single poll where (1) Bachmann has been ahead of Romney or (2) where Bachmann beats Obama.
In only one poll (I'm making reference to polls listed in the current RealClearPolitics, which Fox News is promoting as a "tie" or a even a quasi-victory, does Bachmann even come close to Romney: a Des Moines, IA poll in yesterday (Romney won 23%-22%). This is a single-point observation; to make this point clearer, Obama has several approval polls out there today: Gallup 43%, Rasmussen 49%, Democracy Corps 46%, and last Wednesday's AP had Obama at 52%. But, for instance, in an ARG Iowa poll back in April, Romney, second to Huckabee, led Bachmann 17%-9%
In a last Monday California GOP poll, Romney beat Bachmann 25%-4%. In a last Thursday Florida GOP poll, Romney beat Bachmann 27%-17%. In a week ago last Friday New Hampshire GOP poll Romney beat Bachmann 42%-10%. North Carolina GOP poll: Romney beat Bachmann 20%-5%. In the last Rasmussen general GOP poll a week ago last Thursday, Romney beat Bachmann 33%-19% while PPP had it Romney 22%-8%. In the last NBC/WSJ polls a week ago last Wednesday, Romney beat Bachmann 30%-3%.
In fact, RCP over June shows across polls, Romney beats Bachmann 25%-7.3%. The second-place active candidate is Herman Cain at 10.2%.
As I mentioned in a recent post, in a SurveyUSA poll in Minnesota (both Pawlenty and Bachmann's HOME STATE), Pawlenty ties Obama, but Obama beats Bachmann by 14%. On the other hand, Romney ROUTINELY outpolls other Republicans against Obama; for example, Democracy Corps in today's poll has Romney just 2% under Obama. In an more extensive PPP head-to-head a week ago last Wednesday also head Romney just 2% under Obama, AND EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE DOWN BY AT LEAST 10%.
Now Bachmann has gotten massive publicity and coverage over the last 2 weeks, and she may nudge out Romney on an occasional poll over the next week or two. But let's have a reality check here: Trump who was flirting with running for the GOP peaked in the mid-20's and quickly sank to single digits. I think there's a move here to consolidate the rest of the field to a single contender against Romney. But let's be clear: recent ten-point pickups in a couple of polls for Bachmann reflects more of a temporary honeymoon boost, an artifact of media coverage, which has a very short life.
Another misleading talking point being raised by disingenuous Fox News focuses on low-unfavorables--AMONG PARTISANS. There is no doubt red meat politics motivates the activists or media conservatives--the kind of people whom listen Rush Limbaugh. Keep in mind in essence Michele Bachmann is getting a Sarah Palin boost. The Republicans simply don't have a female Mitt Romney candidate; the two women being listed are manifestly unqualified to be President. The only reason they register in the polls is because they engage in red meat politics and are not serious policy wonks.
To give you an example there is a SurveyUSA Minnesota poll one month ago:
Michele Bachmann
Overall- 23% Favorable, 51% Unfavorable
Among Republicans- 44% Favorable, 22% Unfavorable
Among Independents- 20% Favorable, 54% Unfavorable
I shouldn't have to point out this is EXACTLY the type of thing that makes Sarah Palin unelectable. You have to be able to be able to win over moderates and independents to win the battleground states. I don't care whether the GOP base likes Bachmann because she is echoing predictable talking points. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Now another talking point in the Fox News "news" report--that Bachmann is running a "front runner" campaign. This is patently, knowingly false and misleading. Of course, Bachmann is bashing Obama. ALL THE GOP CANDIDATES are bashing Obama. That is NOT a front runner campaign. Who is running a front runner campaign? Mitt Romney. Hands down. Romney is focusing like a laser beam on the economy and pro-growth policies. In a matter of pure class, unlike Ms. Bachmann, Romney welcomed the shrill Ms. Bachmann, with no legislative accomplishments through this--just her THIRD term in Congress, into the race. She has no comparable business, executive or policy experience, having served professionally as a tax attorney. But let's put Fox News credibility to the test on Bachmann's ignore-the-GOP-field, focus-on-White-House front runner campaign; let's go to the videotape:
“It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party’s nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign.”Why did Romney oppose the SBA pledge? He differed on a couple of points, not whole pledge, which, of course, Michele Bachmann knowingly ignores: (1) a litmus test to judicial nominees, which materially violates the concept of a judiciary as policy-independent; (2) the unintended consequences of stripping hospitals of federal funds going far beyond the Indiana restrictions on Planned Parenthood, which Romney supports. Romney had a preexisting published position, like any responsible politician, and did not believe it's responsible to surrender one's policy positions to arbitrary pledges by special-interest groups.
Now there is a ludicrous kerfuffle over Chris Wallace's interview in yesterday's Fox News Sunday where he sets the context by reciting a number of gaffes by Michele Bachmann and gives her a chance to what he says is currently being said about her: is she a flake? Just like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann then plays the victim card by totally--and conveniently--ignoring the setup for the question. It is clear to anyone with an IQ above an average turnip that Chris Wallace did not start the segment with "are you a flake?" But since Michele Bachmann decided to play the victim card, let's look at the following excerpt from Bachmann's Wikipedia article:
In April 2005, Bachmann was photographed crouching behind some bushes observing a gay rights rally at the state capitol and left when spotted. She said she wasn't hiding behind the bushes, but was resting feet sore from high heels. The following week, at a constituent forum in Scandia, Minnesota, when asked about gay marriage during a question and answer session, Bachmann left the meeting twenty minutes early. When two women asked Bachmann questions in the women's restroom, Bachmann screamed "Help! I'm being held against my will!" and fled in tears. She filed a police report but no charges were filed, with the county attorney concluding that the women "simply wanted to discuss certain issues further" with Bachmann.Finally, let's take a look at Michele Bachmann's convoluted position on "gay marriage". Let me address an earlier item, from the same Wikipedia article, which is highly relevant but others haven't mentioned in this context:
On November 20, 2003, Bachmann and Representative Mary Liz Holberg proposed a constitutional amendment that would bar the state from legally recognizing same-sex marriage.Recall the issue that was behind the Defense of Marriage Act was whether a state could unilaterally impose its standard of marriage on the federal government or on other state through reciprocity agreements. Until a Massachusetts Supreme Court a few years ago decided to overturn the traditional definition of marriage, all 50 states maintained the traditional definition of marriage (between a man and a woman). So the confusion is that Bachmann seems to be okay with New York's legislature with approving gay "marriage". But to be consistent what Bachmann tried to do in 2003 want to strip, say, the Minnesota legislature (or judicial system) from doing exactly what New York has just done. But then Bachmann is trying to argue, "Let's impose the traditional definition of marriage across the board (including the states) via the US Constitution."
Now either you believe in the traditional state regulation of marriage (a tenth amendment argument) or you don't. But if you are restricting regulatory changes, a privilege of state legislatures, you aren't arguing (a US Constitution) tenth amendment. A new US Constitutional amendment necessarily restricts unenumerated states rights.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "You Come To My Senses"
