Michele Bachmann Wants to Challenge Obama
Published in der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 14 June 2011
by Martin Klingst (link to original)
(Germany) on 14 June 2011
by Martin Klingst (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Republican group portrait with lady: Six men and one woman debate which of them is best suited to take on Obama in 2012. The bottom line: possibly none of them.
It was a civilized and serious debate. What it wasn’t was lively; it was often boring in the extreme and almost too polite if one considers what kind of poison they usually direct at each other. The seven would-be presidents kept the gloves on and avoided, almost to the point of embarrassment, pointing out the weaknesses of their opponents or taking a shot at their vulnerabilities.
Virtually no one attacked Mitt Romney for the health care reform program he instituted as governor of Massachusetts — a program the Republicans say is nearly identical to the reforms of the Obama plan that they hate so much.
No one jumped on Newt Gingrich’s bandwagon despite his having been Republican speaker of the House in the mid-1990s. Most of his advisers had deserted his campaign a few days earlier en masse, saying Gingrich was chaotic and unpredictable. Then there was also his indebtedness to the Tiffany jewelry concern and the fact that he and his wife chose to go on an Aegean cruise instead of getting involved in the coming campaign predicament.
No one attacked African-American entrepreneur Herman Cain, who boasts he isn’t a politician but also hasn’t a clue about anything other than perhaps tax matters. In the first debate a few weeks ago, he made himself famous with his ignorance of foreign policy and said that if he were elected, he would leave important decisions to capable advisers.
Generally speaking, the overall level of ignorance about foreign policy was striking and, at times, even hair-raising. Contradictions followed one another at lightning speed. Michele Bachmann severely criticized Obama at one point for not reacting quickly enough in Libya and said he was leading from the back ranks. Then she demonstrated her ignorance about support for the Libyan rebels, of whom we know very little and who may already have been infiltrated by al-Qaida.
Of course, foreign policy is seldom important in presidential campaigns, and Election Day is still almost 18 months away. A lot can happen between now and then that could change the political atmosphere in the United States many times, sometimes in Obama’s favor and other times to the benefit of the Republicans.
It’s also far too early to predict which conservative will challenge Obama in the end. It’s not even clear whether it will be one of the seven who participated in Monday's debate. And there’s the possibility that new potential candidates will appear over the next few months. Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska and former vice-presidential candidate, perhaps. Or the governor of Texas. Or his colleague from New Jersey. Possibly even someone whose name hasn’t yet been mentioned.
The battle to pick a Republican contender began late this time — very late, in fact. Many Democrats claim that gives them a big advantage and are already gleefully rubbing their hands. But that’s perhaps premature because amid all the confusion, at least one thing is clear: It’s immaterial which candidate wins. At the end, the Republicans will support their party’s choice, and they will certainly raise campaign funds at least equal to Obama’s overflowing war chest.
No one should underestimate the Republicans’ determination to end Obama’s term in office next year. It will be a hard-fought election, and as often happens, the outcome may be close. To thunderous applause, Michele Bachmann came out with the decisive campaign battle cry: “I want to announce tonight President Obama is a one-term president.” And Newt Gingrich added the campaign motto with, “When 14 million Americans are out of work, we need a new president.”
None of the seven participants especially stood out, either with brilliance or with special wit. But no one really failed, either. At the end, two of them had come out ahead on points: Mitt Romney, who came off as sure-footed, confident and looking almost presidential; and Michele Bachmann, the tax attorney. She argued adeptly, was sharply critical of Obama and made it clear — between the lines — that there was no room for other candidates besides her, especially not Sarah Palin.
According to expectations, the 2012 campaign will revolve around the suffering economy, the high rate of unemployment and the staggering budget deficit. But not one of the seven came up with any new ideas, all of them adhering to their old mantra of reducing taxes, reducing the size of government and reducing the deficit. The rest, they say, will be taken care of by the private sector.
Speaking for all seven, Michele Bachmann trumpeted, “The economy — that’s the great successful history of the Republicans!”* She made the statement as if Republican Ronald Reagan hadn’t run the nation down with his cutbacks, causing lasting damage to the U.S. economy, and as if George W. Bush hadn’t piled billions of dollars onto an already huge deficit with two wars, and as if he hadn’t gone to Congress on his knees, begging them to bail out America’s ailing banks and financial institutions.
The unemployment rate has risen slightly once again. Real estate prices continue to decline, and no improvement is in sight. No wonder impatient voters are dissatisfied with Obama’s economic policies. But it remains to be seen whether the voters think the Republicans can do any better in November 2012 — especially in view of their performance over the previous decade.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
It was a civilized and serious debate. What it wasn’t was lively; it was often boring in the extreme and almost too polite if one considers what kind of poison they usually direct at each other. The seven would-be presidents kept the gloves on and avoided, almost to the point of embarrassment, pointing out the weaknesses of their opponents or taking a shot at their vulnerabilities.
Virtually no one attacked Mitt Romney for the health care reform program he instituted as governor of Massachusetts — a program the Republicans say is nearly identical to the reforms of the Obama plan that they hate so much.
No one jumped on Newt Gingrich’s bandwagon despite his having been Republican speaker of the House in the mid-1990s. Most of his advisers had deserted his campaign a few days earlier en masse, saying Gingrich was chaotic and unpredictable. Then there was also his indebtedness to the Tiffany jewelry concern and the fact that he and his wife chose to go on an Aegean cruise instead of getting involved in the coming campaign predicament.
No one attacked African-American entrepreneur Herman Cain, who boasts he isn’t a politician but also hasn’t a clue about anything other than perhaps tax matters. In the first debate a few weeks ago, he made himself famous with his ignorance of foreign policy and said that if he were elected, he would leave important decisions to capable advisers.
Generally speaking, the overall level of ignorance about foreign policy was striking and, at times, even hair-raising. Contradictions followed one another at lightning speed. Michele Bachmann severely criticized Obama at one point for not reacting quickly enough in Libya and said he was leading from the back ranks. Then she demonstrated her ignorance about support for the Libyan rebels, of whom we know very little and who may already have been infiltrated by al-Qaida.
Of course, foreign policy is seldom important in presidential campaigns, and Election Day is still almost 18 months away. A lot can happen between now and then that could change the political atmosphere in the United States many times, sometimes in Obama’s favor and other times to the benefit of the Republicans.
It’s also far too early to predict which conservative will challenge Obama in the end. It’s not even clear whether it will be one of the seven who participated in Monday's debate. And there’s the possibility that new potential candidates will appear over the next few months. Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska and former vice-presidential candidate, perhaps. Or the governor of Texas. Or his colleague from New Jersey. Possibly even someone whose name hasn’t yet been mentioned.
The battle to pick a Republican contender began late this time — very late, in fact. Many Democrats claim that gives them a big advantage and are already gleefully rubbing their hands. But that’s perhaps premature because amid all the confusion, at least one thing is clear: It’s immaterial which candidate wins. At the end, the Republicans will support their party’s choice, and they will certainly raise campaign funds at least equal to Obama’s overflowing war chest.
No one should underestimate the Republicans’ determination to end Obama’s term in office next year. It will be a hard-fought election, and as often happens, the outcome may be close. To thunderous applause, Michele Bachmann came out with the decisive campaign battle cry: “I want to announce tonight President Obama is a one-term president.” And Newt Gingrich added the campaign motto with, “When 14 million Americans are out of work, we need a new president.”
None of the seven participants especially stood out, either with brilliance or with special wit. But no one really failed, either. At the end, two of them had come out ahead on points: Mitt Romney, who came off as sure-footed, confident and looking almost presidential; and Michele Bachmann, the tax attorney. She argued adeptly, was sharply critical of Obama and made it clear — between the lines — that there was no room for other candidates besides her, especially not Sarah Palin.
According to expectations, the 2012 campaign will revolve around the suffering economy, the high rate of unemployment and the staggering budget deficit. But not one of the seven came up with any new ideas, all of them adhering to their old mantra of reducing taxes, reducing the size of government and reducing the deficit. The rest, they say, will be taken care of by the private sector.
Speaking for all seven, Michele Bachmann trumpeted, “The economy — that’s the great successful history of the Republicans!”* She made the statement as if Republican Ronald Reagan hadn’t run the nation down with his cutbacks, causing lasting damage to the U.S. economy, and as if George W. Bush hadn’t piled billions of dollars onto an already huge deficit with two wars, and as if he hadn’t gone to Congress on his knees, begging them to bail out America’s ailing banks and financial institutions.
The unemployment rate has risen slightly once again. Real estate prices continue to decline, and no improvement is in sight. No wonder impatient voters are dissatisfied with Obama’s economic policies. But it remains to be seen whether the voters think the Republicans can do any better in November 2012 — especially in view of their performance over the previous decade.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.