The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Narcisssism, Continued

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 26 Comments

Having previously remarked on Newt Gingrich’s narcissism issues, it would be unfair for me to ignore Michele Bachmann’s comments:

The Minnesota congresswoman was asked by Bloomberg TV’s Al Hunt which of the remaining candidates was the most conservative during an interview Friday, and said none of them measured up to her conservative credentials.
“I was. I was the perfect candidate,” Bachmann said in response. . . .
Pressed by Hunt as to which of the candidates still in the race she considered most conservative, Bachmann again responded by referring to herself as the “perfect” choice.
“America had their chance with the perfect candidate,” Bachmann said.

More than a month after she quit the race, Bachmann still doesn’t have enough emotional distance from her campaign to be able to see the situation more objectively? I’m struggling to explain this.

Hunt asked whether she would endorse any of the remaining candidates, and she refused to do so: “No, not soon. I just haven’t made the decision. . . . Honestly, I don’t think endorsements make a lot of difference.”

Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman endorsed Mitt Romney. Rick Perry and Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich. Yet Bachmann cannot endorse anyone? As if, by endorsing another candidate, she would be lending her saintly aura to an inferior politician?


26 Responses to “Narcisssism, Continued”

  1. ThePaganTemple
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:18 am

    As if, by endorsing another candidate, she would be lending her saintly aura to an inferior politician?

    You just can’t leave it alone, can you? Your man is poised to win two out of three contests today, including in Minnesota, and you’re after Bachmann, for-what, exactly?

    Maybe if somebody wants her endorsement, maybe somebody should ask her for it, and maybe make her an offer, or agree to adopt some position that’s important to her, like education, for example, something she shares in common with Newt. Who knows, maybe she’ll endorse Newt. You know, since he’s the only one who seems to legitimately care about that issue. Or at least is the only one that might actually try to do something about it.

    If this report is accurate, I’m just happy the earlier report that she’d endorsed Mitt was evidently incorrect.

  2. Finrod Felagund
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:42 am

    In other news, a hostess for the tv show Extra had bet that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the Giants, that she’d do an entire show in a bikini:

  3. Monty
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:50 am

    Good article about why Rick Santorum is not a good choice to be candidate.  (To me, it’s painfully obvious – to the sanctimonious Christian wing of the conservative base it is not.)  

  4. Monty
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:50 am
  5. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

    Your definition of “good” clearly differs from mine, then.  This post spends a lot of time attacking strawmen, this after starting with one of the most ridiculous, cherrypicked charts I’ve ever seen.  Yes, Gingrich was Mr. Nice for the first few debates, but that’s seriously changed over the past month.  

  6. rosalie
    February 7th, 2012 @ 10:59 am

    I like Bachmann and admire her.  However, I think she used poor judgment in hiring Rollins in the first place.  I always felt that he wasn’t really on her side.  Maybe narcissism is a requirement for anyone running for president; without it they wouldn’t run.  Then, of course, we have O who cannot be matched when it comes to narcissism.

  7. Bob Belvedere
    February 7th, 2012 @ 11:04 am

     Thank you for that.

    But could somebody spring for a few sandwiches for this lovely, obviously starving gal?

  8. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 11:05 am

    Bachmann is just trying to keep up with Ann Coulter as the person whose stock has plummeted most over this election cycle, although Erick Erickson is coming right up behind both.

  9. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 11:18 am

     Make an offer?

    You mean like, pay for play?

    So you want endorsements to be all about politicians being for sale?


  10. Finrod Felagund
    February 7th, 2012 @ 11:22 am

    Yeah, Erick was getting better once he got off the Perry bandwagon, but now he’s lamely refusing to endorse anyone.  I commented on his post to that effect telling him that if no one does anything, Romney is going to take this nomination by default, so not endorsing anyone is as good as voting for Romney.

  11. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 11:25 am

    I was with Erick on Perry (though technically he never endorsed him), but since Perry flamed out he seems to be on a one man mission to destroy, well, everyone. His anti-Santorum stuff doesn’t even pass the laugh test.  His idea that we can wait out the process and get some magical pixie dust candidate at a brokered convention is just delusional.

  12. Pathfinder's wife
    February 7th, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

    As opposed to the sanctimonious ____wings of the conservative base?

    Come on, the Christians aren’t the only ones with a case of aggressive sanctimony (which is of course one of the problems — can’t very well go after the sanctimony to the point of blasphemy going on over on the other side if you indulge in it yourselves).
    But let’s be honest and admit that sanctimony and narcissism isn’t the sole property of one particular group; otherwise you run the risk of appearing…overly sanctimonious….and hypocritical.

  13. ThePaganTemple
    February 7th, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

     No, I didn’t mean that at all. But why should anyone just expect her to give them her support for nothing? What has any of them done to earn her support or her endorsement? If I was a politician, and somebody wanted my endorsement, the only way they’d get it would be by championing causes I believed in, and assuring me they would do more than just give lip service to them. That’s all I was saying. Stacy is clearly hinting that she should endorse Santorum. My point is, why should she? Why not Newt? For that matter, why should she endorse either one of them or anybody else if they aren’t going to try to lead on issues that are important to her?

  14. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

    Riehl on Erickson:

    But most of us are, at least, still in the fight, while knowing the long odds. Ed’s endorsement of Santorum is one proof of that. Erickson’s throwing up his hands and walking away is basically a concession to Romney and simply another incidence of his being one of the first to quit the battle. Not much new there, unfortunately, not that it matters, either.

  15. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

    Pet peeve: Right wingers adopting Lefty talking points.  Not only does it display laziness, but gives credence to their (the Left’s) sloppy and emotional thinking.

  16. Mike Rogers
    February 7th, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

    I never saw Bachmann in the same light she saw herself.
    Whilst a great congresswoman, she is a lousy executive, and it showed.
    She also cannot simultaneously claim to be presidential and a damsel in distress, and yet 90% of the campaign email I got was “the meanies are attacking me – send more money”! Puhleze.

  17. Pathfinder's wife
    February 7th, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

    Was that for me?  Because I’m not a right-winger.

    And if it is, well, if the sanctimony shoe fits, you should probably wear it — and there isn’t one group out there anymore, that I know of anyway, that hasn’t got a section of people who engage in sanctimonious bs.  It’s too bad, because the bs’ers are the ones that get all the press, and then everyone’s feathers are ruffled, nobody talks, and then perhaps what could be a good idea dies before it even got a chance.
    Oh well, people are stupid creatures under pressure, and tribalism will likely  trump all.

  18. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

    The problem with the article Monty cites (in essence, a paean to Gingrich, featuring a tear-down of Santorum) is that it fails to point out Santorum’s main strength versus Newt.

    That is, Rick rarely acts as though he’s lost his mind, something Newt is doing with unfortunate regularity of late. Had Newt been able to control himself he’d be leading today. But he hasn’t, therefore he isn’t.

  19. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

    Bachmann makes a great cheerleader for the conservative cause, but as with RonPaul she never won much respect from her colleagues in Congress, an indication of either bad judgment or lack of leadership.

  20. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    Not really.  It was meant as a generalized point, that’s all.

    Sorry, to assume you are a “right-winger.”

  21. richard mcenroe
    February 7th, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

    CAGOP invites Gingrich to speak at CA  convention. From the people who brought you Meg Whitman! 

  22. Pathfinder's wife
    February 7th, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

    It’s cool.  I don’t have a problem with right wingers necessarily, but not a member.

    Just wanted to point out that if a person accuses one group of some behavior, it might be a good idea to see where you’re own group is guilty of the same.  And, let’s be honest, most everyone is guilty, so why try to infer that the Christians are the only ones doing it. (and, for the record, not a card carrying Christian either — I’m relapsed).

  23. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

    I see your point.  But, Christians are easy targets nowadays, even on the Right.  That’s the original point I was trying to make.  When the “right side” uses the language of the Left, or the “other side,” it makes it all that much worse, IMO.  This is the vantage point of said “right winger.”

  24. Pathfinder's wife
    February 7th, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

    I don’t even like to see it called “the language of the Left” but rather what it really is — bs.  
    Anyone can do it, nobody is immune, and it is corrosive to whoever engages in it, so it’s a mistake to attribute it to only one side.

    And yeah, Christians seem to get the label quite a bit — it’s a method of silencing.  Not a good — as some of them may have some valid points, and like everyone else, they have a right to freely express their opinions no matter what.

  25. Anonymous
    February 7th, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

    You are correct … “right wingers” use stupid arguments as well. I’ve seen it all too many times on blogs, etc.

  26. Deborah S. Ayer
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:51 am

    Bachmann is right.  Endorsements did zero good for Gingrich and Romney so far.  In fact the only sane candidate that hasn’t received a big named endorsement is kicking everyone’s butts tonight.