Why Michele Bachmann lost

Chris B. writes:

After viewing the embarrassment that overtook the Prime Minister of Australia this past week [here, here, and here], I was watching a clip from the presidential debates earlier on, and I believe I have solved your puzzlement as regards the reason for Michele Bachmann’s loss in the primaries. In the debates one would view the entire panel of candidates, look at the tall, broad shouldered men (not all handsome of course), and listen to their voices. But every time the cameras panned over to Michele it exposed her diminutive shoulders and tiny stature. Moreover, there was that soprano voice. Although more measured than that of a twelve year old boy, it carried about the same authority. In short, she lost because she was unable to man up. I believe it was Hillary Clinton’s inability to man up that resulted in her 2008 loss as well.

- end of initial entry -

January 30

Irv P. writes:

Chris B.’s comment is like chum in the water for a hungry bluefish (me), but I’m not biting. She didn’t “man up.” LAME!

LA replies:

But I thought part of your criticism of her was that she didn’t show enough force, assertiveness, and leadership—i.e., she wasn’t “manly” enough.

Irv P. replies:

No, I had no problem with her. Her problem was simply that she was a woman, so that the influential evangelical leader Bob Vanderplaats endorsed Santorum instead of her on that basis alone. Had she got that endorsement, she would be in Florida right now, moving ahead of the flawed characters we are so displeased with.

As a dumbed down people, we can’t see what is right in front of our eyes (usually because the media tells us what we see, then interprets it for us). Her being out of the race is sickening. But it’s not because she was so small on the stage next to all the big strong men, as Chris B. would have us believe.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 29, 2012 08:30 PM | Send