printThe following is from my “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?,” now on WND.COM:
“A day after the GOP debate in New Hampshire, mainstream media awoke to Rep. Michele Bachmann’s undeniable abilities and magnetism. Before June 13, this mummified lot had turned to Meghan McCain and Chris Matthews for information about the congresswoman from Minnesota. …
Rep. Bachmann catapulted to fame late in 2008. Yet not a thing was said in the muck-raking media—Republican included—about her background. Just imagine what publicity Debbie Wasserman Schultz (or Sarah Palin) would receive had she provided foster care to 23 children in addition to raising five of her own!
Bachmann, moreover, earned a Master of Laws in tax law from the William & Mary Law School. (Women lawyers tend to flock to the less-taxing field of family law.) Not that you’d know it from the way she has been portrayed, but Bachmann is very clever. …
With a perfectly straight face, Lawrence O’Donnell, also of MSNBC (a fertile seedbed for mind-sapping stupidity), lapped up the sub-intelligent message issued by the “Snooki” of the commentariat: Michele Bachmann is “no better than a poor man’s Sarah Palin,” Meghan McCain announced. …
Americans inhabit a world of reality TV and other frivolity. To win the GOP nomination in this parallel universe, Ron Paul needs political bling—he will want the punch, pizazz and money bombs a Bachmann can provide. …
The complete column is “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?,” now on WND.COM.
UPDATE I (June 17): Just posted to Facebook:
My complete comment at WND: 1) Bachmann as tax attorney: people do what they need to so as to make a living: How many facebook, libertarian-leaning friends have I, a self-employed person, approved who work for the state? The state is, as Prof. Walter Block once put it, acting as a hostage-taker. The Sixteenth, as I put it, is “The Number of the Beast,” and Bachmann is forever tainted for having enforced the law.
2) However, I inhabit reality. Unlike many libertarians, I do believe in winning. We need to win if we want a future in this country. This is no time for robotic, tinny, go-by-the-book formulations and politics. 3) Bachmann under the tutelage of Paul would be a power-horse. You gotta be nuts not to reach for the closest thing to libertarian power we are likely to get. Having lived in “other” societies (check out my book to get a feel for that), I think I’m more passionate about getting to liberty than are people who were born to it, and are losing it bit-by-bit.
4) I’ve studies this woman since her appearance on the scene: Bachmann has the equanimity and force of a male. Her “manly” mind comes packaged in the frame of a well-bred, charming lady. This is America. Reality dictates that Paul needs “Bling.” He should form what will be a winning alliance.
UPDATE II: THIS IS NOT A BACKING OF THE BACHMANN BID. From Facebook, again, in reply to a friend who simply uses inaccurate language, in describing me as a backer of Bachmann’s presidential bid: I have never ever backed Bachmann’s presidential candidacy in my column or in my writing. The column is clear: I have backed a Paul-Bachmann ticket: “the GOP’s winning ticket: Ron Paul for commander in chief; Michele Bachmann as second-in-command.”
UPDATE III: JUDGE NAP. Via Austin Petersen on Facebook:
If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there’s a chance he wouldn’t have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket. Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host — Andrew Napolitano — as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet’s Alix Steel in Washington this week. Paul, though, did say he hadn’t “thought it through.”
You do know that this presidential pairing would advocate open borders. Or simply make laissez-faire immigration official.
UPDATE IV (June 18): The reader in the Comments section wrote this, with respect to my Update above (Judge Nap):
[Paul and Napolitano] would not be doing in the executive branch would be as important (or more so) as what they would be doing, specifically allowing the states to deal with these problems and not providing intrusive, tyrannical top cover for those who profit from these abominations.
Wrong—at least as far as the Judge goes. He has repeatedly claimed that immigration is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. This has been his constitutional argument against just about anything the states are doing to defend their beleaguered citizens. Yet the Judge has also advanced the anarchist’s more-congruent argument: any person in the world has the absolute right to venture wherever, whenever. You can’t have it both ways, or is this an effective intellectual strategy to rule out the legitimacy of any response to the ongoing invasion of considerable swaths of private property along the border?
This libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of humanity to venture wherever, whenever. In a world where absolute private property rights were upheld, this might be a proposition, but not as the statist status quo stands now.
UPDATE V (June 19): Paul Wins Straw Poll.
Writes the campaign for liberty on behalf of Ron Paul:
“And the winner of the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll is . . . RON PAUL!
Those are the words – uttered just minutes ago here at the RLC in New Orleans – that are sending shockwaves throughout the entire GOP establishment.
And it was YOU that made it happen! I can’t tell you how much that means to me.
You see, at last year’s straw poll, establishment darling Mitt Romney defeated me by only one vote.
But this year I defeated my nearest rival by more than 200 votes!
That means the establishment can no longer deny the fact that there is widespread grassroots support within the GOP for a return to constitutional government.”
If you’re in it for winning, Rep. Paul, it’s time to get some of that Bachmann bling, with which to broaden the base.
You can read my new book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” on Kindle now. The print copy is available both from Amazon and from the Publisher. Hurry: Publisher is currently offering free shipping, including to our readers in South Africa. To purchase, click on the “Buy From StairwayPress” Button.
I may agree with Ron Paul on some issues, although not everything, but it seems to me that Ron Paul has as little a chance of winning the Republican nomination as Sarah Palin. On the other hand, at this moment Michele Bachmann seems to have a much better chance than either Ron Paul or Sarah Palin. I don’t know much about Rick Perry as yet, but my initial impression is that he is as stupid as George W. Bush.
I read the first twenty comments on WND, with friends like that; there is not a chance in Hell of either Paul or Bachmann getting within ten miles of the presidency. John Derbyshire is still right, we are doomed. Good article Ilana.
Sarah is cuter looking but 8 years younger and Michelle is pretty good for 55.
While it has been a positive sign that Michelle is against the Libyan War (which Obamaland “declared” via the NATO unconstitutional subterfuge), there are FUNDAMENTAL differences between her and my man Ron (or even Gary Johnson) on interventionism.
She has called for repeal of No Child Left Behind
http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=141385
but not yet the whole Dep’t of Ed.
The main problem is that the American Sheeple want their TSA Goons, their Socialistic Insecure Medicares, and all the goodies that a $ 1,600,000,000,000 deficit will buy. Either Michelle panders to the sheeple to win or she can speak the truth and lose.
I did not like Joseph Farah’s column today against Ron Paul. I don’t agree with Farah’s reasoning on the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble states that we formed the United States to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” yet Farah says that the founders were specifically thinking of the “unborn” in terms of fetuses and not in terms of descendents. Then to say Ron Paul is off the rails because Ron Paul doesn’t share this definition of the unborn seems to be wasting the great opportunity a Paul presidency would be. No matter how good Ron Paul is on war (and how many lives this may save), the economy, and freedom it seems to boil down to abortion and marriage for Farah and a large number of conservatives.
To put it another way, would 4 years of Ron Paul working to make abortion illegal and passing a constitutional amendment on marriage be better than 4 years of Ron Paul ending wars, balancing our budget, and shrinking the federal government? I believe the latter is not only preferable, but possible.
Ilana, would it be possible to have your web team make the comment box larger and perhaps add a preview button? Although I will admit just the physical smallness of the comment box encourages me to be concise.
I, in many cases, write most of my comments in the small box, open word, cut and paste, finish the comment and proofread it, cut and paste back into the box. For a klutz like me it works most of the time.
What year was abortion ‘legalized’ and we have had how many Republican presidents that promised to stop abortion? How long are they going to keep dangling that bait to get elected? Truth is, abortion existed before it was legalized and will continue as long as women want it and have a sharp instrument, legal or not. We can’t assign a police officer for every woman that gets a plus on the stick, even if we knew she did. How is saying ‘I’m against abortion’ changing anything or making another unenforceable law going to change anything? Only changing the human heart of potential mothers will do that is my guess. Personally when someone brings up abortion, I drop them off my ‘trust list.’ I don’t have an answer; but, I know that ‘anti-abortion’ is the liberal conservative’s excuse for continuing the run-away system.
Bachman is an impressive lady. She talks substance and she knows what substance is about. What the GOP needs is brains, class, substance, knowledge, personal appeal — likable leadership that has principles and both feet on the ground. And people who, if supported, can win. Who are those people in the GOP? Paul, Bachman…uh…Bachman, Paul…uh…uh…I’m starting to talk like Comrade O without the teleprompter.
I said out loud in more naive days that Obama could not possibly win. So, you see, it really is foolishness to say that we can’t support somebody because they “can’t win” and so give up without trying — and settling for who? Newt? Mitt? Curly Joe? Paul and Bachman are two people who have what we want in leadership and appeal. Let the idiot Chris Matthews say who can’t win. A tired and “safe” candidate is the last thing we need.
@ Ilana .. I have always liked Bachmann & agree with her 70/80 % of the time , I will take that ( But RP is still choice #1 ) & work on educating her on the other 20/30 percent that she is not seeing right LOLLLL !!!!!
@ MyRon… Your right Bachmann is not a 100 % there yet on off shore conflicts , but she is moving in the RP & GJ direction (& so is Palin ) … which I would consider a positive
@ Tom … I think your initial impression of Gov Goods Hair is Right On !
“I don’t know much about Rick Perry as yet, but my initial impression is that he is as stupid as George W. Bush.”
As evil as they are, the abortion and immigration problems are symptoms of the more overarching issue, i.e. this unconstitutional federal leviathan. Congressman Paul and even the Judge believe in the original intent of the Constitution, especially regarding the limits placed on the three branches. In other words, what they would not be doing in the executive branch would be as important (or more so) as what they would be doing, specifically allowing the states to deal with these problems and not providing intrusive, tyrannical top cover for those who profit from these abominations.
Imagining Paul or Bachmann as President is good, academic sport. I voted for Paul when he ran as a Libertarian. I’ll likely vote for Bachmann this go around on the assumption she’s more electable. (I’ll be watching the polls.) The political reality is there is not enough of us, yet. (I hope I’m wrong.)
On the other hand, the moron Trump is making noise about running as an independent, saying that if he does run either he or Obama will win.
If he’s right, we’re doomed for sure.