U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) abandoned her quest for the presidency on Tuesday – withdrawing from the 2012 GOP primary after a disappointing sixth place finish in the Iowa Caucuses.
Meanwhile Texas Gov. Rick Perry – who finished in fifth place in Iowa – announced that he was staying in the race.
Less than four months ago, Bachmann was the Iowa frontrunner and winner of the ostensibly crucial Ames Straw Poll. Her turn as the GOP’s “flavor of the month” didn’t last long, though. By September she had become the first of several high-profile Republican flameouts.
When it finally came time for Iowa Republicans to cast the first votes of the 2012 election, Bachmann drew only 5 percent – a figure that mirrors her single-digit polling nationally and in other early-voting states.
“I have decided to stand aside,” Bachmann said in bowing to the inevitable. “I have no regrets. None whatsoever. We never compromised our principles.”
Maybe that’s how Bachmann sees it …
As we’ve noted previously, Bachmann is perhaps the biggest disappointment of the 2012 GOP field. At a time when specific fiscal policy solutions were desperately needed, she chose instead to pander to the religious right. Unlike proven ideological hypocrites like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (and Perry for that matter), we gave Bachmann a chance to show us what she was made of during the course of the campaign.
“We’re keeping an open mind about Bachmann’s candidacy, hoping that the rhetorical ground she has staked out on the far right of the ideological spectrum ends up being accompanied by some specific fiscal policy,” we wrote a year ago in our initial assessment of the Republican presidential candidates.
She never did that.
“Bachmann had tremendous potential as a candidate – which she reminded us of earlier this year during her brief surge to the top of the uninspiring GOP field,” we wrote back in October.
“Unfortunately, (her) campaign devolved into a steady stream of unforced gaffes, factually-dubious statements and unimpressive, needlessly-shrill debate performances. More importantly, it wound up being precisely the sort of substance-free panderfest that we had hoped Bachmann would rise above.”
Bachmann is the third Republican to drop out of the presidential race, following Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty.
So … who benefits from Bachmann’s exit?
That remains to be seen. Conventional wisdom holds that her South Carolina network (such as it is) would likely shift toward Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, although this race has sufficiently fluid as to defy those sorts of predictions. Obviously Bachmann’s supporters would be swayed to some extent by her endorsement – in the event she chooses to make one.
***
By Crooner January 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm
People figured out she’s not very bright. Good looking, yes.
In fact, I think she’s hotter than Sarah Palin, but part of that is because she looks smarter than Sarah. Alas, she is not.
By Really? January 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm
She’ll make a fine VP for one of the Neocons if they get the crown. I know no political watchers are predicting it but it doesn’t change my mind.
She can bring in da “tea partay” folk for the establishment players.
By Cid January 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm
You were waiting for a finely tuned “fiscal policy from this nutcase?
Good God
Not only was she a paranoid fool
She was just plain
DUMB!
By Really? January 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm
lol….now she can go back to claiming she read “Mises” on the beach.
Strange, she doesn’t seem to absorb any of it…maybe she needs the “books on tape”(or cd) version.
By Stephan January 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Hottie!!!!
By palmetto populist January 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Question.
Michelle, the truely presidential candidate, staked much of her effort on the perception that she was leading a great crusade of people who wanted to take their country back from President Obama, who had “endangered the very survival of the United States of America.”
And the response?
Tepid.
As in hot tea gone stale.
As Will noted previously about Mitt, he got about the same number of votes as he did from the last great round of Iowa caucuses.
I am told that 2008 caucuses set a record for attendence, and this year’s turn-out is hovering in that area, but where are all these revoluntionaries that should be throwing their bodies at the Obama barracades?
Could it be that the Koch (roach) brothers can buy media but not turn out, anger but not participation?
Meanwhile good ol’ boy Rick Perry is cranking it up about Iowa. He says, ““This is a quirky place, a quirky process to say the least, and we’re going to go into places where they have actual primaries and there are going to be real Republicans voting,” he told reporters. “Not that there aren’t real Republicans here in Iowa, but the fact it is was a pretty loosey-goosey process and you had a ton of people who were there that admitted they were Democrats voting in the caucuses last night.”
Couple things for Rick — one, SC’s primary is an open primary (as it should be since the cheapstake SC GOP will only provide the first $180,000 towards its cost) and it does bear a striking (even stinking) similarity to Iowa.
Neither the Iowa caucuses nor the SC primary will require the type of voter ID the SC General Assembly demanded — and the feds rightly killed in its tracks.
So, back to the original question — where are all the revolutionaries who are going to take back our country?
All wires and whisps of smoke. And not a single one of the GOP dwarves — Perry, Bachman, Santorum — could get enough votes to whip poor ol’ Mitt. (Notice I left out Ron Paul, who has an intellectual credo.)
By Crooner January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
This Dem will be voting in the primary. As I did in ’00 for McCain.
By Ken E. January 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I might vote in the primary too, as I did 2000. Haven’t decided. However, I was a registered Republican at the time in a closed-primary state. Thanks GWB for opening my eyes to that sort of foolishness.
By ceilidh10 January 5, 2012 at 11:27 am
Iowa caucuses remind me of an expression written on an old historical Revolutionary War print I’ve owned for years:
“It was a strife of pygmies for the prize of a continent.”
By Andy January 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Gonna miss those crazy eyes. Wish she had stayed a while longer.
By Godslayer January 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Closet lesbian.
By Petey January 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm
“Ms. Bachmann, Larry Flynt on line one.”
By jimlewis,owb January 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Items Listed For Sale in the Des Moines Register
2 Brooms, Deluxe Haley WideAss Models by Boeing
1 50 Gallon Cauldron (Fondue Pot?)
1 Black Pointed Hat
3 Head to Toe Black Capes
2 Pair of Black Lace Crotchless Panties
2 Pair of Stiletto Heeled Storm Trooper Boots
1 Cat o’ Nine Tails (well used)
1 Case Preparation H (wrinkle control)
1 Gross PeePeeFace Urinal Cakes( Romney only)
6 Pints Nikki Haley “They Will Love You” perfume(does not perform as advertised, but works wonders on crotch itch)
Please contact Michele Bachmann at pissonthemy’all.com
Note: 3 matching bras may be available to go with the panties provided Colonel Cuckold, the First Gentleman of South Carolina, returns them cleaned.
By ceilidh10 January 5, 2012 at 11:23 am
drag queen dress for michelle’s husband ?
By Recovering Lobbyist January 4, 2012 at 5:44 pm
If Santorum is really on the rise, he is the most likely beneficiary, at least in the short term. However, if he comes up short in New Hampshire, it could be over for him before it begins.
By eggaday January 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Santorum has a good bit of support in certain areas of our state.
By Robert January 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm
She never had anything to offer and she never had a chance. She was in it to sell books.
By Mr. Dixie January 4, 2012 at 6:17 pm
I always liked Michele – a lot. I just didn’t want her to be President Lady. As hot as she looks now, can you imagine what she must have looked like 30 years ago. I bet she could have made a dead man jump up and run after her. I bet it sure would have been fun having a Tea Party with her. Sarah Palin you don’t even come close.
By dwb619 January 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm
I know what we called a foster parent with a farm and 28 foster children when I was growing up in Possum Kingdom– free labor!
How’s that TEA Party thang workin’ now?
By CriticalMass January 5, 2012 at 2:38 am
You know very little about foster parenting, don’t you?
From wiki:
Bachmann and her husband have also provided foster care for 23 other children,[25][26] all teenage girls. The Bachmanns were licensed from 1992 to 2000 to handle up to THREE FOSTER CHILDREN AT A TIME; the last child arrived in 1998. The Bachmanns began by providing short-term care for girls with eating disorders who were patients in a program at the University of Minnesota. The Bachmann home was legally defined as a treatment home, with a daily reimbursement rate per child from the state. Some girls stayed a few months, others more than a year.[21]
By Ken E. January 5, 2012 at 8:15 am
My issue with the whole foster child thing and Bachmann is that she mentions them as if they were still living with her, not that they were short term wards of hers. She uses them as political props.
By marcus bachmann likes gay teens January 5, 2012 at 6:24 am
can someone please explain to me bachmann’s husband and his gay teen camps? if she had any success, romney’s superpacs would have exposed her hubby as the next jerry sandusky.
By Ken E. January 5, 2012 at 8:12 am
Uh, gay pedophile.
By Ken E. January 5, 2012 at 8:17 am
EDIT: gay “does not equal” pedophile
The comment box thought I was entering an html tag instead of a not equal to sign. Grrr.
By Holy Hypocrites Batman! January 5, 2012 at 9:20 am
I’m just so glad we don’t have to hear any more of her ridiculous, non-sensical rhetoric any more. I had not heard one interview where she did not make broad, non-specific and generally non-factual statements.
She is an attractive lady, but that and the ability to raise foster children (kudos for that) are certainly not enough for anyone to be considered presidential material. And that deranged look she had on her face most of the time!!! Thank God we don’t have to look at that anymore!
By dwb619 January 5, 2012 at 10:07 am
I saw it, You read about it,CriticalMass.
By ceilidh10 January 5, 2012 at 11:20 am
Glad she is gone. She is a dangerous wacko.