Wow. I guess Ed Rollins will take work where he can find it.
As she prepares to enter the race in Iowa later this month, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has signed on high-profile political strategist Ed Rollins to run her presidential campaign, according to two sources close to Bachmann.
Rollins, who was Mike Huckabee’s national campaign director in the 2008 campaign, is an experienced political operative with a well-earned reputation for his tough tactics and willingness to play hardball. He’s probably best known for running the 1984 Reagan-Bush reelection campaign, which Reagan won in a landslide.
That’s why they call these guys ‘mercenaries.’ For a conservative, the drop-off from Reagan’s 1984 campaign to Michele Bachmann’s 2012 freak-show is…I don’t even know how to describe the drop-off.
But Bachmann’s got a pro. How long Rollins can take it is another matter. Imagine the anxiety he will have every moment of every day. I wonder if Rollins will bring Chuck Norris along for the ride.
What makes you think that Rollins has sufficient emotional investment in Bachmann’s “campaign” to feel any anxiety whatsoever? As you say, the guy is a pro, thus he undoubtedly realizes he has no shot. The only thing he’s risking here is, I guess, his professional reputation but as we all know the Village is very forgiving of its own. For him it’s all upside – bet there are a lot of zeros at the end of that check.
“She,” as in Bachmann, has not shot, I meant.
I’m a little surprised Rollins would take this campaign. I mean, he’s — what, 68? Surely with campaigns like Reagan ’84 under his belt he’s not hurting for job offers.
Hell, just going from Huckabee to Bachmann is a serious decline. Bachmann must be throwing a ton of money at him.
From Reagan to Bachmann seems to me like a total horizontal career move. He evidently specializes in dumbasses.
Are you implying that Bachmann has no message discipline? Of course she does. Every time she opens her mouth, she reminds people that she’s crazee. That’s discipline. And I’d bet serious amounts of money there’s nothing spontaneous about it.
She has no shot, but she has enough money and enough of a following to help pull her fellow candidates that much farther into the crazee with her. Not that they need a whole lot of encouragement.
If that’s the worst she can do, she has nothing to lose. Certainly her reputation as a thoughtful statesperson isn’t being put at risk. Quite the opposite; she and Rollins have to be careful that she doesn’t slip up and say something sensible.
People keep saying she has no shot, but from where I sit, as of right now, she has the best shot among any of the candidates to win the nomination with Palin out of the race.
I’ll see if my mind changes after the next debate. I’d put Cain ahead of her if he had more money and fundraising ability, but he hasn’t showed me that he has any prowess on that scale. Bachmann has raised a lot of money in the past, and she’s loved by the base.
I really don’t see it, but damn I hope I’m wrong and you’re right. She’d be the best thing to happen to progressives since Barry Goldwater.
When was the last time a truly “base” candidate won a nomination? I guess Reagan, but she doesn’t have the skills or experience of a Reagan. She’s nuts and she’s stupid. It is usually a compromise candidate that wins. She’ll get Iowa and that’s it.
She’s nuts and she’s stupid.
So was Dubya. I don’t see why people don’t think she can win the nomination. Do you really think Rick Santorum can beat her? Mittens? Who do you think excites the fundies? “Bat Guano crazy” Bachmann or Dog-hater Mittens?
Not being related to a former President?
Here’s my thinking on Bachmann:
I see her as a Pat Buchanan type. In my mind, Pat Buchanan had a very good shot at winning the nomination in 1996. The Establishment did everything that they could to take him down, and they eventually succeeded by the time Super Tuesday came. They were then stuck with Bob Dole, and because of these turn of events, Dole threw the base a bone and nominated Jack Kemp as his running mate. It wasn’t enough, especially because of the three-way race.
I’m seeing the same thing happening this time, except the genie is out of the bottle. With Palin becoming their last VP nomination, the Republicans were forced to defend her nonsense (and as we saw with Paul Revere, they STILL clamor to defend her, including bigger whig types like Ed Morrissey…and even people at the LA Times).
Then the crazy got worse: the Tea Party movement was stolen from Ron Paul, although it was largely unknown and small, and funded by Dick Army with astroturfing bullshit. Then it became more mainstream, so much so that during elections when the funding comes around that they kicked away easy wins in the Senate in Nevada and Delaware, and almost in Pennsylvania.
Anyway, you know the history. The 2012 GOP is not the 2008 GOP. I’m not saying she will win with certainty, but I am saying it’s a similar situation to 1996, and I’m not certain the “Establishment” cane hold off the crazy as they did then. Buchanan would have gotten much closer to winning the nomination without the Estab attacking him to that degree. They’ll no doubt do the same again. But will it be enough? I don’t see how. Process of elimination mixed with a perfect storm of Tea Party hysteria…think about it.
Sorry, not Super Tuesday. I assumed it was Super Tuesday due to the large amount of primaries on the same date.
Nice analysis. I think you underestimate the still-formidable power of the GOP establishment to kill off candidates you don’t like. But yes, their power is reduced as compared to 1996, as they’ve had two decades to “weaponize the Stupid” (to quote Booman) since then.
As for the Buchanan comparison, wasn’t he a much more establishment-oriented candidate than Bachmann, given his prior work for Nixon and Reagan?
Also, it appears Rick Perry might be stirring to steal the crazies’ thunder – we’ll see.
Dammit – candidates “they” don’t like, I meant.
Meh, I think it was nonynony who said it best regarding the Establishment:
So in effect I’m not even sure they have ANY sway, let alone just being reduced in influence.
Buchanan is a weird example. He’s establishment in some ways, but in many ways he’s very fringe. I imagine he’s only partly establishment BECAUSE of his prior work. As in, he should have been deemed fringe a long time ago — you know, when we accepted the fact that people who aren’t white are actually people. So he’s just leftovers, and I doubt he has any sway over the Republican party post George Bush I (I really wish they would fire his Nazi-sympathizing ass, but what can you do?).
In the context of 1996, though, he was not Establishment at all. After all, Palin has admitted to supporting his candidacy in 1996. He was the populist candidate, energizing the crazy to fight for a nomination with no front-runner against an incumbent Democratic president whom the right-wing hated with a passion (yeah yeah, who don’t they hate when it comes to Carter and beyond…).
And dammit, I was right about Super Tuesday originally, according to the Wiki article on Buchanan:
Primaries are no less vicious than general elections. She just has too much video on her that will be used to deadly effect in the following rounds. I could see her staying in contention a lot longer than anybody thinks now, though. Hard to see a frontrunner, or even a couple of them, emerging very early.
And how is Mittens going to attack her? Do you really think she’s going to let an attack go unchallenged? And as others have said, she can raise money. If Palin doesn’t run, she’s their great MILF/GILF hope(meaning the one who’ll give Rich Lowry starbursts).
I see her more easily as the nominee than any of the others.
For one thing, she is currently employed.