Bachmann

I saw Michele Bachmann interviewed last week by Sean Hannity, and she was solid. Conservatives seem to be in this mood of desperation because they feel there’s no good conservative in the race and they have to settle for Romney. But a good conservative candidate is right there—Bachmann. Why have the conservatives written her off? I myself have said some very critical things about her. But all the candidates have serious flaws. There she is, still standing, still game, eyes still on the most important thing of this year—repealing Obamacare. I support Bachmann and hope she pulls an upset in Iowa.

- end of initial entry -

JC in Houston writes:

I too don’t understand why she doesn’t get more traction. She is definitely head and shoulders above the unholy trinity now leading the polls for the nomination, Romney, Cain and , Lord help us, Newt Gingrich. She is far far better on immigration than any of those three.

BLS writes:

I thought she was terrific in the last debate, for the limited amount of time she had. However, would you feel comfortable voting for a woman as the head of this Nation? I struggle with this thought.

LA replies:

On general principles, I don’t think women should be in high political leadership positions. But my principles are not relevant to the society we’re living in now. If a woman candidate is our best bet, then I will support her.

Randy writes:

Michele Bachmann stated during Saturday’s debate that we must repeal not only Obamacare but all the Great Society programs initiated under Lyndon Johnson. She is the only candidate in decades that had gone back the Goldwater/Reagan position that government wealth redistribution and leveling of society is not the solution but the problem. She is right on and is consistent with the comments I sent you a few days ago regarding the only way our economy can be kept from completely collapsing.

LA replies:

Very interesting. I will have to look up the video/transcript of the debate.

I note that last week there were TWO debates, on Tuesday and Saturday.

BLS writes:

You stated: “But my principles are not relevant to the society we’re living in now.”

So, we should discard them? I understand your point and generally agree—passion versus practicality. Unfortunately, practicality wins every time. Instead of standing and reaffirming principles, we submit to the general consensus, with fingers crossed, hoping that the next vote, or the next candidate will reassert our position. But, it never happens. We continue on a downward trend, always hoping the next moment will deliver sanctification.

I generally like Bachmann. I also think a woman should not be president. I am now on the fringe of society, because the practice of realpolitik has diminished the traditional principles and mores that were once held by the majority. And now, I am encouraged to support this same practice for a temporary reprieve? A temporary reprieve that will likely never happen?

This is the best the conservative movement has to offer (I don’t mean you, I mean the overall group of candidates)? I lose no matter how I vote.

LA replies:

You have a position that no woman should ever be the political leader of a country, period. That is not my position. I have never stated my opposition to female political leaders as an absolute. So it is not a problem for me to vote for a woman for president, if she is the best candidate.

Your position would be like saying: “I am against the women’s franchise. Since women have the franchise in our society, I refuse to vote or participate in our politics, since any election in which women vote is hopelessly tainted.” To which I would reply: We live in the society in which we live. A society without the women’s franchise is preferable, but we don’t have that now. So we must still work for the best that is possible in our current society.

D. Edwards writes:

My wish is for Rep. Bachmann to be the next Speaker of the House. Win or lose the presidency, Rep. Bachmann would be a tremendous asset in that position.

LA replies:

Well she did run for a position in the GOP House leadership last year, and was rejected. Some say that’s why she began her run for the presidency.

Jake F. writes:

Responding to BLS about women leaders in general, not Bachmann specifically:

I would prefer a strong woman to all of the feminized men around us. Strong women, such as Boudicca and Joan of Arc, have led nations and armies; there’s no reason another shouldn’t do so now, in the absence of worthy men. At this point in our history, I would welcome a woman who treats the existential threats arrayed against her country as she would treat mortal threats arrayed against her family: focused, wary of every truce, relentless.

November 15

Alissa writes:

I disagree with Jake F. The reason we have the feminized men around us in the first place is because of all of the “strong women” around us. I admire Joan of Arc but she was a female icon in another era different from ours. If we want worthy men, maybe someone from the blogosphere or another corner will rise up and take charge. Instead of running for President of a country Bachmann should concentrate on her own state and her own community. Bachmann is a wonderful asset but I wouldn’t take any chances.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2011 04:34 PM | Send