Representative Michele Bachmann is suspending her presidential campaign this morning after finishing sixth in the Iowa caucuses. In the summer, she briefly became the first female GOP presidential candidate to be a major contender in key early states. What happened to her afterwards won’t encourage other women to seek higher office.
Several “not Romneys” rose and fell last year, but I see Bachmann’s experience as different from that of Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.
Bachmann steadily gained momentum in Iowa during the first half of the summer and peaked at the Ames straw poll in August. All the while, Republican power-brokers publicly fretted about the need to recruit a heavyweight alternative to Mitt Romney. Big money lined up behind Texas Governor Rick Perry, who stepped on Bachmann’s straw poll victory.
Several devastating media narratives arose as Bachmann gained support in Iowa. First, “crazy eyes.” Can anyone tell me with a straight face that Bachmann is more crazy than Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, or any number of other conservative Republicans? There’s hardly any daylight between her and Santorum on any issue. Paul probably has more crackpot ideas than anyone else in the GOP field, but you didn’t see a narrative coalesce about their “craziness.”
Second, Bachmann was deemed a liar or confused candidate who “can’t keep her facts straight.” I agree that Bachmann told a lot of lies, but so did every other Republican candidate who talked about Obama’s “socialist” policies and “government-run health care.” Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich lied brazenly and repeatedly on the campaign stump and in the debates. When did journalists ever call Newt on claiming to have “balanced four budgets in a row”? When did anyone challenge Romney about Obama issuing twice or four times as many government regulations as the previous administration?
Third, Bachmann was portrayed as physically unable to handle the stress of the presidency. Media jumped on reports that she gets headaches, she takes pills for them, she runs late all the time.
Bachmann has long been one of the strongest fundraisers among U.S. House Republicans, but her presidential campaign was never in the same fundraising league as the other major candidates. Nor did she pick up as much in grassroots donations as Herman Cain did shortly after news broke about his alleged sexual harassment.
During the final month before the Iowa caucuses, Bachmann was abandoned by the super-PAC that promised in September to support her campaign.
During the final week before the Iowa caucuses, Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chair deserted her for another candidate.
Bachmann made a lot of tactical errors. She should have spent more time working the rooms at Iowa Republican events, for instance. But she campaigned a lot more in Iowa than Gingrich or Romney did. She was a strong debater, and didn’t tell more lies than most other candidates in the field. She wasn’t rewarded for her efforts. On the contrary, journalists who form conventional wisdom quickly dismissed her while fawning over just-as-crazy Santorum.
Anyone who wonders why women are more reluctant to seek political office should consider Bachmann’s story in this election.
UPDATE: From Bachmann’s remarks at a West Des Moines press conference:
I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. And I told you the truth that our country is in very serious trouble, and that this might be the last election to turn the nation around before we go down the road to socialism […] I didn’t tell you what the polls said that you wanted to hear. I didn’t tell you what I knew to be false. I didn’t try to spin you. I listened to the people of Iowa and all across America, and they agreed that President Obama and his socialist policies must be stopped […]
Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside. And I believe that if we are going to repeal Obamacare, turn our country around and take back our country, we must do so united. And I believe that we must rally around the person that our country and our party and our people select to be that standard-bearer. But make no mistake: I will continue to be a strong voice. I will continue to stand and fight.
12 Comments
Brad Zaun
has redeemed himself for sticking it out, and even stepping up to chair the campaign during a very difficult time that made clear there would be no political benefit to him for doing so.
I knew little about Michele Bachmann prior to the caucus, just vaguely aware of some of the internet babble. There are a lot of things I respect about her. You don’t see many people, male or female, who embark on a campaign like this with little institutional support. Despite some gaffes and missteps, I think she handled herself very well throughout, right up until last night when she gave the kind of speech supporters want to hear, even while knowing that it was over in the morning.
People will point to evangelicals not being comfortable with a woman in charge, but that’s neither here nor there. I don’t think she was abandoned for this reason. It was very clear she lost support because she was deemed “not serious” after receiving multiple scarlet letters from the media.
My sense is that would-be successful women candidates are brought down by relentless nit-picking. It was the same for the Clinton campaign, right down to the “staff issues,” unflattering pictures in the press, and plain, old double-standards. Often it’s quite blatant. Clinton was dogged over her response to drivers licenses for the undocumented. In the very next debate, Obama stumbled all over the stage on the very same question — which in his case, could not have been hard to anticipate — without penalty.
I don’t think any of this is going to change, so my advice is directed at women candidates/leaders. Three things. First of all, if you’re a Christie Vilsack type, you do not put up with the Steve Israels of this world trying to shame you in public for eyeing an open seat. Let’s not rehash Loebsack vs Vilsack — just focus on how Dem leadership managed the situation. If it were me, Israel, Dvorsky and a few others would be on notice to find somebody else for all of the “critical” fundraising.
Second, a much tougher issue. Men are encouraged to build relationships outside of the home; women are not, to their detriment. I suspect a lot of this “staff issues” stuff comes down to not having that one or two trusted advisers/friends who “have your back” come hell or high water. Instead, women pick up professional mercenaries.
Third, and most important. Women could learn a lot from Obama ’08. His campaign assessed the institutional disadvantages early on and worked overtime to find alternative paths to the nomination. The environment is not going to change, you have to shape it to benefit you. In Bachmann’s case, her error was in assuming that existing institutional structures like the Straw Poll and the Family Leader pledge would be to her political benefit. The reality is that existing structures don’t exist to benefit “different” candidates, which is why Obama blew off all of the “rounds” in Iowa and ran a “different” campaign.
albert Wed 4 Jan 11:58 AM
agree
She may or may not be a good manager of staff, but lots of male politicians are tough on their staffers, without it becoming an issue.
Agree that she should have anticipated the need to go around traditional institutions in Iowa, but I wonder how she could have successfully run a “different” campaign here. Obama spent so much money building the infrastructure to pull that off.
desmoinesdem Wed 4 Jan 2:10 PM
Credit
Bachmann was a nut job, but as you say, no bigger nut job than some of the others in the GOP clown car. BUT, having said that, I admire her for how hard she worked. She was indefatigable. Kudos to her. She believed in what she was doing and did it to the max with passion.
rockm Wed 4 Jan 12:10 PM
She is scary
First a necessary reminder; I remain an unrepentant old chauvinist altho I am not a stranger to voting for female candidates.
The stories I read about Bachmann’s Oral Roberts education and her subsequent self proclaimed determination to change our governing functions to more resemble biblical theocracy, frankly really scared me.
I am a product of hard core evangelical protestantism and I recognize those teachings and sentiments when I see them. The blogosphere commentary about her theocratic leanings was not at all far fetched.
As for future women? The “problems” you listed are not fiction, you are correct. Be patient, lady. My generation’s time is limited and just like with gay marriage (which I have grown to accept and would vote for) the times they are a’changin. During your lifetime you might not see the total attitudinal change you wish for, but surely you know it will eventually come about.
But back to Bachmann, as dangerous AND whacky as I felt she was, I did feel terribly about the way the bald headed jerk humiliated her (the old chauvinist in me, eh?) and I credit her for her dignified concession.
conservative-demo Wed 4 Jan 4:08 PM
Newt Gingrich
is appearing in cable tv commercials for Liberty University, talking about what a great place it is to get an education. How is that less scary than Bachmann’s Oral Roberts education?
desmoinesdem Wed 4 Jan 4:26 PM
Newtie's pandering the audience d'week
Bachmann BELIEVES in what I so easily call theocracy. Michelle Bachmann IS sincere, in fact in the group Romney, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, I do credit her with being the only one to be speaking from an inner core and not only pandering when she uses the God talk.
That doesn’t mean I like it.
conservative-demo Wed 4 Jan 4:53 PM
curious
how do you know she wants to build a kingdom on earth while the others are just pandering?
I watched one of her confessionals, or whatever they’re called. I found it quite engaging. Her rap was a careful explanation of why “she” was in politics delivered in dulcet tones: “Nobody likes to run for office. When the Lord called upon me to run again, but this time for Congress, I said why are you calling on me? I’m in Congress because aaaahm a fool for Jesus!”
I remember when Obama was campaigning in South Carolina, at a pentecostal church in Greenville. “Help me be an instrument for God, the way Pastor Ron is an instrument, and the way all of you are. I believe we can build a kingdom right here on earth.” Of course, everybody said this is what he has to do, etc.
Around the same time, I remember a number of urgent bulletins from Mother Jones, Nation and the like, warning of Hillary Clinton’s association with some DC prayer group called The Fellowship (includes Grassley, btw).
When Bachmann was leading in the polls, a rash of articles appeared warning about her extreme views, also rooted in Schaeffer’s movement. Much of it was later debunked.
Imagine my surprise, though: Bachmann and Clinton on the same mission.
I don’t know much about these movements. Is it common practice to build a kingdom on earth using stealth-y women candidates while men deflect secular suspicion by openly pandering to advance careers? It’s a little too Adam and Eve for me.
albert Wed 4 Jan 10:14 PM
Albert, ya got me!!
I guess I really don’t know, in answer to your opening question to me.
conservative-demo Wed 4 Jan 10:52 PM
I don't know much
about these movements and practices — just realized that “confessional” is actually called “testifying.”
albert Wed 4 Jan 10:56 PM
Agnostic
Isn’t it fair to assume that Newt’s an agnostic when it comes to faith in God? I think he’s truly uncomfortable with the litmus tests on abortion rights at least. I would love to get him off the record on so many issues so we could honestly know what he thought. McCain was also uncomfortable saying some of the things he was obligated to say as the GOP nominee in 2008.
McCain for example is and always has been a libertarian on the issue of immigration in reality, I think the same assumption can be made about Gingrich.
At the same time I think there has to be some pandering in a representative democracy, you have to try to reflect the position of some people that you fundamentally disagree with.
moderateiadem Wed 4 Jan 6:03 PM
MB
I don’t like anything much about MB, but of course, I don’t like much about Steve King either, he’s her BFF and when Michelle lost her entire staff in her congressional office, Steve King loaned some of his.
I was actually quite interested in her campaign, and she did a good job. However if I hear “a ONE TERM President” again, I’ll probably toss my cookies. She ran that one into the ground.
I am so far left of Michelle I cannot even conceive of her believing what she professes to believe. Santorum and her are on about the same level of extremism, and that is saying a lot. I couldn’t imagine either one of them trying to work their way to the center for the general election.
she had a lot of problems, a lot of people that did not agree with her, but I do have to give her some respect for actually going for it and sticking with it. I would imagine some of her tea party pals told her “since you are on the tea party caucus, they will all support you.” And they didn’t. I have never seen a Pentacostal woman Preacher either. I would imagine that some of the Fundamentalist Evangelicals didn’t like her out of the kitchen.
wahela Wed 4 Jan 5:55 PM
Woman preachers?
Look up Joyce Meyers.
conservative-demo Wed 4 Jan 6:04 PM