More on my hate-hate relationship with Tim Pawlenty

By Richard K. Barry

If you have been reading this blog at all, you may know that I really dislike Tim Pawlenty. I don't know what it is. I just have a thing about him.

While all politicians calculate what they can say and do and what they should not say and do if they are to have electoral success, some simply give up their souls without much of a fight. They are so quick to calculate every move that they no longer, if they ever did, have a center. They stand for nothing.

Okay, that would be way too harsh a characterization of anyone, but if you imagine politics as being conducted on a continuum, Pawlenty is, for me, so far to the side where the calculation for success trumps integrity that I can't stand it.

As you might imagine, I am having a rather good time watching his campaign fail to take off in any appreciable way. And this week I have particularly enjoyed watching him screw up as the indicators mount that he is going nowhere in a hurry.

In no particular order, here are some fun facts:

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from July 14 to 17 had him at 2 per cent. That's behind Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and New Gingrich, and, obviously, well behind Mitt Romney (30 percent) and Michele Bachmann (16 percent). It is also behind Rick Perry, who hasn't even announced, though he got 11 percent, which is relevant for the next fun fact.

As Daily Kos reports:

In a sign that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's campaign is still struggling, Public Policy Polling announced Monday night that Texas Gov. Rick Perry will replace Pawlenty in general election polling match-ups against President Barack Obama.

Pawlenty will still be included in the organization's Republican primary polls but his removal from this company's general election poll match-ups bodes badly for Pawlenty, who has faltered in recent polls, leading some observers to speculate that his campaign is sinking.

The point is that a major polling company has made a decision to pay less attention to Pawlenty. That's never good when it happens.

As if to drive the point home, Pawlenty's team seems to be lowering expectations for the Iowa caucuses, despite the fact that he had earlier hoped to do quite well there. Recently, campaign spokesperson Alex Conant said that "[W]e want to show progress in Ames, do better than sixth or seventh." Sixth or seventh? Wow.

But the icing on the cake for me is the fact that he is not only doing poorly, but he is beginning to climb into the gutter, hoping that something, anything, might work. Such was, no doubt, the calculation when he challenged Michele Bachmann's fitness to lead by implying that she might need to take too much time off due to her migraines. As he said:

All the candidates I think are going to have to be able to demonstrate they can do all the job all the time... there's no real time off in that job.

I am certainly no fan of Michele Bachmann, but this kind of thing by Pawlenty just creeps me out and shows some serious desperation.

And then, true to form, when pressed, he backed off the claim that the migraines would be a problem by calling the whole thing a "side show." First you sling the mud and then you claim that's not what you meant at all. What a backbone.

Maybe failure in Iowa will mean a quick and merciful end to his campaign. Maybe he gets out earlier, but that's unlikely, although 2 percent in current polling isn't much to work with.

As I said, I just don't like the guy and it's not even a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I swear.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Can Michele Bachmann outrun her own mouth? Doubtful

By Richard K. Barry

Roll Call reported today that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is using Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn) presidential campaign to "fundraise, rally activists and mobilize supporters online."

Roll Call has learned the DSCC bought sponsored Google ads that

appear when viewers conduct various searches that include Bachmann's name. Clicking on the ad sends viewers to a petitiion page on the DSCC website that reads, "It's simple - Michele Bachmann is too extreme for America."

Search terms that trigger the ads include Bachmann's name, variations of her name - including misspellings - search terms to coincide with her presidential announcement this week and anything about her platform and key issues such as abortion. Other terms included are "John Wayne" and "lies."

The campaign wonk in me loves to see things like this - simple but clever organizing tools.

I also think that Bachmann will scare the hell out of not only true progressives but also independents once they fully understand what this woman is all about. At some level it appears that Bachmann gets this as she is currently working hard to soften the impact of the some of the crazier shit she has had to say over the past little while. Or, as a headline at TPM refered to it: "Michele Bachmann's Big Presidential Campaign Walkbacks."

Evan McMorris-Santoro wrote today:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is a firebreather. It's a significant part of her charm. But as polls show her to be a serious candidate in the Iowa caucuses - and, therefore, the race for the nomination - Bachmann's been up on TV rounding off some sharp edges.

No longer is President Obama "un-American," as Bachmann said in 2008. Nor is eliminating the minimum wage the top priority it was back in 2005. As she steps into the national spotlight - with the help of big-time campaign strategist Ed Rollins - Bachmann is presenting a kinder, gentler face.

As I wrote a few days ago, she is even moderating her typically homophobic views on gay marriage by talking about states' rights and how New York had the right to sanction gay marriage under the the 10th Amendment.

All of this is to say that she is going to try to reinvent herself as a more reasonable person, though I strongly suspect it's too late for that. I also think that the good folks at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee understand this point very well. Looks like they've got a strategy. It's called the truth.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Yes, Chris Wallace, Michele Bachmann is a flake. Thanks for asking

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, Michele Bachmann is certainly the flavor of the moment in American political discourse. Ever since the media decided that she won the New Hampshire GOP presidential nomination debate because she was disciplined enough not to betray her natural wackiness, we have all been talking about her a lot. Sometimes you just can't help talking about things like this. It's like what happens after going to a circus freak show when you're a kid.

The most interesting thing over the past few days, though, was the posing of a question to Bachmann by Fox News personality Chris Wallace, which has to be on the minds of many. You probably know that he asked her, no doubt based on so many of the nutty things she has said in the past, if she was a flake.

For some reason, she took exception, and still appears not to be ready to accept Wallace's apology, which someone in a position of authority at Fox must have suggested he offer. Or maybe Wallace realized himself that pissing off Fox Nation was not a good way to ensure long-term employment with the network.

That was fun.

What is also interesting is the consideration of that question to Bachmann in the context of an earlier comment made by Wallace in an interview with Jon Stewart.

In the interview, Stewart said the following:

The embarrassment is that I'm given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does.

Wallace replied:

I don't think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, finally, they're getting somebody who tells the other side of the story.

By his comment, it seems obvious to me, as it did to Stewart, that Wallace was blowing the shit out of Fox's claim to be fair and balanced by arguing that it is Fox's job to counter what they see as the liberal bias in the media. Whether or not one thinks the media have a liberal bias, Fox likes to argue that they remain neutral in their presentation of the news, however much nonsense that actually is to most reasonable people.

No great surprise here. It was just nice to have someone at Fox admit that the fair and balanced thing is bullshit. Golly gee, they seem to be driven by an ideological agenda that colors everything they do. Well, duh.

So, when Wallace asked Bachmann if she was a flake, he was badly off script. There is a narrative that all Fox employees are required to embrace. Conservatives are good. Liberals are evil and there are no shades of gray. And that is the so-called "other side" as Wallace sees it.

On that side of things, conservatives are not flakes, and certainly not Michele Bachmann, though she consistently embarrasses herself with mind-blowing ignorance and frightening right-wing extremism.

I'll let Steve Bennen at the Washington Monthly elaborate:

It's a shame Wallace felt the need to apologize for this, because he accidentally asked a good question, even if he regrets it now. Societal norms apparently dictate that unhinged candidates who have no business running for president be shielded from such unpleasantness, but Michele Bachman is arguably the most ridiculous person in Washington. She proudly embraces bizarre conspiracy theories; she routinely says crazy things on national television; she pretends to grasp public policies she doesn't understand; and her worldview is comparable to someone who's suffered serious head trauma. Even as the Republican Party leaps off a right-wing cliff, Bachmann stands out for her unique brand of madness.

So, thank you, Mr. Wallace for asking a question for which very few of us didn't know the answer. I am so very sorry you got in trouble with your network for failing to remember job one at Fox, don't screw around with the pre-approved radical right-wing narrative.

But thank you most of all for putting the question directly to Bachman, on behalf of the non-crazy rest of us, and quite obviously pissing her off. She knew what to expect in an interview on your network. She got the memo from Fox News management. Why didn't you?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Michele Bachmann bobs and weaves on same-sex marriage, sort of

By Richard K. Barry

Though it makes me very uncomfortable to say this, I continue to be grudgingly impressed by Michele Bachmann. I have no doubt that she is a nut-job right-winger. I am certain that if she got anywhere near the presidency, she would be a disaster for the country, yet her comments on New York's decision to sanction same-sex marriage are interesting.

In essence, she played the state's rights card.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, she said that despite her view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, she supports New York's right to institute marriage equality because under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to do so.

BACHMANN: In New York state, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.

WALLACE: So even though you oppose it, then it's ok from - your point of view - for New York to say that same-sex marriage is legal.

BACHMANN: That is up to the people of New York. I think that it's best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it's best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

WALLACE: But you would agree, if it's passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor then it's the state's position.

BACHMANN: It's state law. And the 10th Amendment reserves the right the states.

As ThinkProgress points out:

Bachmann's position is notable given the large number of politically active anti-LGBT activists and Republican lawmakers across the country that would likely let their opposition to equality trump their belief in state's rights. Bachmann later said, however, that she would prefer a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but that before such an amendment was enacted, the states should be free to do as they wish.

What makes this clever on Bachmann's part is that, while few are going to doubt her real intention, she attempts to moderate it just enough to appeal to those who may not be particularly energized by the issue one way or the other or who might not like the ugliness of the homophobia that invariably accompanies opposition to same-sex marriage.

It also enables her to maintain her true position, which appeals to her base, while allowing her to sidestep protracted culture war arguments that can only take her and her party off the message that 'it's about the economy, stupid."

I'm not saying it's going to work, but the fact that she is thinking in these terms makes her, or her advisors, a lot smarter than stubborn social conservatives who will never bust through a certain ceiling of national support.

Certainly this is less important in the nomination race than in the general election, but making a serious run at the nomination surely also means cobbling together a coalition of supporters from both the hard-right and the pragmatic right of the Republican Party and Bachmann is at least showing that she gets that.

And if she's still around for the general election, at either the top or bottom of the ticket (God help us), she's got a way to talk about a very important social conservative issue that may not completely alienate swing voters.

Yeah, she's sucking and blowing at the same time, but is there really going to be any other way to get the GOP presidential nomination or for a Republican to get to the White House?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)