Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party Response

by Ryan on January 26, 2011

in Election 2010,Election 2012,Politics

Last night we heard a 62-minute campaign speech Obama gave to the nation saying little more than expressing mere platitudes, proclaiming empty promises, while hearkening back to Sputnik and Thomas Edison for some reason.

As has been the tradition, the party out of the White House gives a response to the State of the Union Address.  In stepped young gun Paul Ryan who gave a solid and serious rebuttal to Obama’s waste of time.

However, this was not enough for some.  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann decided to give her own Tea Party response after Paul Ryan was finished, so as not to compete.  That was nice of her I suppose, but having seen it I’m not sure it helped any.  It was nice, but her delivery was weak in my opinion, with charts reminiscent of Ross Perot back when he railed against the deficit nearly 20 years ago.

In my opinion, the Tea Party shouldn’t act like a third party alternative somehow both within and maybe outside the GOP.  It should infuse itself within the Republican Party through running good fiscally conservative candidates while leaving all RINOs the victims of primaries.  I’m not sure if this speech emboldened the old guard more than it jazzed up the new blood.  I thought Paul Ryan’s response was fine.  Maybe Michele should wait in line to give a rebuttal rather than drum up unwanted media attention to the rifts plaguing the new majority party in the House at a time when the President is vulnerable.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Sal January 26, 2011 at 4:15 pm

I tend to agree. I think the whole thing was probably a mistake on her part and serves to marginalize the Tea Party. A separate event the next day would have been more appropriate.


Mike January 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm

I think I disagree. After the way the Republicans governed under Speaker Hastert, especially during Bush’s second term, they are a party on probation. Someone needs to be there to keep them honest until they prove they can be trusted again. The best group to do that is the Tea Party.

That doesn’t mean the Tea Party should set themselves up as a third party, but they haven’t done so. Bachmann’s speech complimented Ryan’s; it didn’t contradict it.

I was fine with the charts because they were explanatory and effective, just like the chart Arlen Specter used in the most effective SOTU response ever in 1994. That said, I think the lefties have a point on the eye thing.

There is no rift. If one eventually develops, it will only be because the GOP abandoned its ideals yet again. If that happens, then we’d better have a rift in the party because if not, we won’t have a party to belong to.


Montana January 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm

Michele Bachmann did not say how we got here from eight years of poor leadership, two wars without end, diminsihed Civil liberties. Its like she crawl out from under a rock just to complain about our current President. We all know that Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works started the Tea Party, grasroots, please. She like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Linda McMahon, they are just not right but funny. I especially like the clip of Bachmann saying that the founding fathers abolished slavery, wow, what a liar, not the first or last time that will happen. Does anyone with self-respect real believe her?


Mike January 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm


You obviously didn’t listen to the speech. If you had, you would know that Bachmann acknowledged the deficits Obama inherited at the beginning of her remarks.

You obviously know nothing about the Tea Party either. The leadership is actually quite decentralized. Many groups are even led by people who never participated in the political process before.

Your comments about slavery expose your ignorance even further. Contrary to the drivel you read at the Huffington post and hear on MSNBC, Bachmann did not say the founding fathers abolished slavery. If you listen to the entire clip, you would know that she acknowledged the existence of slavery in one sentence. She then incorrectly used the word “founder” a few seconds later, but then used the correct term forebearer a few seconds after that when referring to abolitionists like JQ Adams. Using a one word slip to claim Bachmann is ignorant is just as dishonest as someone calling you ignorant because you can’t conjugate the verb crawl properly. In context, Bachmann referred to a stain on our history and how some people, yes some forefathers, and forebearers worked to abolish slavery. Next time, try listening to someone’s remarks in context rather than taking MSNBC’s word for it.

You took statements out of context to assign a different meaning to them. You flat out lied when you said Bachmann didn’t acknowledge the financial situation Obama inherited. You are quick to call Bachmann a liar but the only liar here Montana is you.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: