The Other McCain

A grossly unfair oversimplification of Ace’s argument? Sure.

But in a multi-candidate Republican primary campaign where everybody’s cutting each other to ribbons, who can complain — if anyone even notices — when I gratuitously play the sexism card?

And isn’t Ace calling the lady a liar?

Michele Bachmann lives in a strange world. People talk about “moral relativism.” Presumably they would claim she’s not a moral relativist.
But truth is an objective fact, is it not?
Ms. Bachmann seems to confuse premises which are politically helpful to her for premises which are actually true.
That seems like moral relativism to me — the world is not as it is, but as I perceive it to be.

Ace is talking about the assertion by Bachmann “that we’ve been hearing all across the country, that money is changing hands” — candidates paying for Tea Party support. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says:

You know I have a big problem with Michele Bachmann making statements which are not supported by facts and then repeating them endlessly.
Her campaign is up to much worse in South Carolina, where her local campaign manager has suggested that the Gingrich campaign has paid off Tea Party leaders for support.

Professor Jacobson has hopped aboard the Gingrich bandwagon and is savagely lashing Newt’s critics, as is his right. But notice that this pay-for-play accusation comes from South Carolina, which is to the GOP what Chicago is to the Democratic Party: The dirtiest place on the planet.

A South Carolina Republican primary is always fought according to the Al Davis rule — Just win, baby — and they never heard of a “fair fight.” So either:

1. Bachmann’s S.C. guy Wesley Donohue is just slinging mud against Gingrich; or
2. Gingrich and perhaps unnamed others are indeed bribing Tea Party activists for their support.

Are the pay-for-play accusations unproven? Yes, but so were the sexual harassment accusations against Herman Cain, yet the accusations were enough to drive Cain out of the race. And furthermore, just because Bachmann can’t prove that the Gingrich campaign is paying for endorsements doesn’t mean that Bachmann is lying when she says she has “been hearing all across the country” that such shenanigans are afoot.

Maybe the people telling Bachmann this stuff are paranoid, and certainly it is irresponsible for a candidate to repeat such stuff without proof. But you can accuse Bachmann of being a loose cannon without saying she’s engaged in “moral relativism.”

Grossly unfair oversimplification, you see.

Being aboard the Santorum Express myself, I should be happy to sit quietly while Michele Bachmann is accused of lying. Bachmann and Santorum appeal to the same pool of social conservative voters who are crucial in Iowa, so if Ace and Professor Jacobson are calling her a liar, the “smart” thing to do would be to say, “They’re right! You can’t trust that lying hussy!”

Ah, but why do what’s merely “smart,” when genius is an option? Because Professor Jacobson is a Gingrich supporter, and the two-bank carom shot is this headline: 

Gingrich Supporter Calls Bachmann a Liar

But did I say genius? Here’s Ace proclaiming his own allegiance after Thursday’s debate:

I thought Perry did well. He’s still my pick.

Ah, so here we have a three-bank carom:

Gingrich, Perry Supporters: ‘Bachmann Lies’

As I’ve said before, Ace is ax-grinding against Bachmann because he’s still butt-hurt about the way she carved up Perry in the Tampa debate three months ago.

Dude: Let it go. It’s not worth it.

But I’m “Not Good Enough for BlogCon,” so nobody ever listens to me.

UPDATE: Ron Paul is a uniter, not a divider:

Ron Paul Takes Swipes at GOP Rivals,
Says Michele Bachmann ‘Hates Muslims’

That should boost Bachmann’s InTrade rating. Damn it.