• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tea party group to Bachmann: Quit the presidential race

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Feel free to show which policies Bachmann holds that other GOPers don't which is causing the Tea Party to throw her under the bus.

Why am I going to try and show you what you want in your strawman.

Where did I say that it'd cause issues with the GOP? Last I checked, the national election includes all American's, the majority of which aren't across the board conservative (Or across the board liberal). During a year when Fiscal issues are on the publics mind more than anything else, huge wedge issue things like abortion and gay marriage which Bachmann pushes a ton and almost a much as fiscal things are nothing but dead weight when pushed to the forefront. This can hurt her with independents, democrats, AND some Republican voters.
Umm, that's not a strawman. You're trying to establish the reason they are stabbing Bachmann in the back as being her position on social issues -- but her positions on those issues are no different than from any of the other GOP candidates. So asking you which policies are causing her to get singled out it hardly a strawman but is a valid question.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're the one trying to establish an analogy by pointing out there are groups who support Obama even though it may be against their agenda (like the anti-war movement), but that is an absurd comparison as you're comparing a group supporting Obama when there is no other candidate running they support -- with a group in the Tea Party not supporting the Tea Party candidate who is running.

First, you show your misunderstanding of the movement. There is no individual leader of the Tea Party Movement, nor individual candidate. Michelle Bachmann championed the Tea Party by her own choice, and many of the Tea Party like her. But the Tea Party has no official "tea party candidate" at this moment.
If you want to see what a strawman actually is, look no further than your own post. I never stated any of the things you tried to explain as being the reason you think I "misunderstand of the movement." What I did say was that no candidate running has championed the Tea Party more than Bachmann. I never said that made her "their candidate,"I implied that should have made her their candidate. Typically, when a politician panders to a group as Bachmann did, they are repaid with support from that group -- they are not repaid by being thrown under a bus.

Secondly, you responded to a post where someone was asking me why the Tea Party doesn't vote third party, and suggested my answer for that shows they don't have conviction...thus, due to the post you were replying to, seemingly implying that they don't have conviction for not voting for a 3rd party. I pointed out that there are third party possibilities that fall more in line with liberal movements and groups views than Obama does, but they don't vote for them, so that complaint lobbied just at the tea party is dishonest.
WTF?? Your post that I responded to was you responding to the OP. No one asked you anything. And even that didn't involve third party candidates. You're seriously confused.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...nn-quit-presidential-race.html#post1059913349
 
Last edited:
Umm, that's not a strawman. You're trying to establish the reason they are stabbing Bachmann in the back as being her position on social issues -- but her positions on those issues are no different than from any of the other GOP candidates. So asking you which policies are causing her to get singled out it hardly a strawman but is a valid question.

Her amount of focus on those issues is significantly different than any other candidate but Santorum. The significant extreme of her social views in some cases, such as her the ties to the notion of "pray the gay away" type of theory, is also different than other candidates.

If you want to see what a strawman actually is, look no further than your own post. I never stated any of the things you tried to explain as being the reason you think I "misunderstand of the movement." What I did say was that no candidate running has championed the Tea Party more than Bachmann. I never said that made her "their candidate,"I implied that should have made her their candidate. Typically, when a politician panders to a group as Bachmann did, they are repaid with support from that group -- they are not repaid by being thrown under a bus.

You also stated there was a "Tea Party Candidate" running, of which there is not. A candidate championing the Tea Party and an official "Tea Party Candidate" are two seperate things.

WTF?? Your post that I responded to was you responding to the OP. No one asked you anything. And even that didn't involve third party candidates. You're seriously confused.


On this you are correct and I offer my apologies and admit my error. I thought you had originally quoted my post talking with Frolicing Dinosaurs concerning the issues of the Tea Party supporting a different candidate as your comments seemed to echo her's. I realize looking back it was referring to a different post of mine. That was my mistake, my apologies.
 
Her amount of focus on those issues is significantly different than any other candidate but Santorum. The significant extreme of her social views in some cases, such as her the ties to the notion of "pray the gay away" type of theory, is also different than other candidates.
Please, even the Tea Partiers who threw her under the bus aren't claiming that. Now you're just making **** up out of whole cloth. Their complaints were:

  • "Michele Bachmann is about Michele Bachmann."
  • "She's a back-bencher and has been a back bencher congressperson for years."
  • "This is not a serious presidential campaign."
  • The executive director also cited Bachmann's recent staffing and fundraising misfortunes.
What they said in terms of her social positions is that they fear she will shift more to the right as her poll numbers decline. They recognize America does not want to elect someone who is too far to the right and that's the problem they have with her.

It's clear to me, even if not to you, their problem with her is their fear she is not electable. That is the only issue they care about. Policies don't matter to them. That Bachmann championed their cause doesn't matter to them. All that matters is winning and they know she can't win.


You also stated there was a "Tea Party Candidate" running, of which there is not. A candidate championing the Tea Party and an official "Tea Party Candidate" are two seperate things.
You're right, I was wrong for saying it like that.
 
The article earlier explains why she is being dismissed. I've watched her do it in interviews also.

Host: Can you tell us how you would deal with the possibility of Al Queda moving into Libya?

Bachmann: I'll tell you what we don't need to do.....that's enact higher taxes on those who are creating jobs in this country.
 
Please, even the Tea Partiers who threw her under the bus aren't claiming that.


You just asked specifically how she was different on social issues.

Now you're just making **** up out of whole cloth. Their complaints were:

  • "Michele Bachmann is about Michele Bachmann."
  • "She's a back-bencher and has been a back bencher congressperson for years."
  • "This is not a serious presidential campaign."
  • The executive director also cited Bachmann's recent staffing and fundraising misfortunes.

The "bachmann is for bachmann" is referring to the fact that despite trying to claim she's the "tea party candidate" her primary focus isn't just on Tea Party issues but on other things just as much, if not more, like social issues. The rest are absolutely about electability and as I said, the movemen ttakes a somewhat pragmatic and realistic approach, focusing both on principles but also in actually getting those principles enacted. Supporting someone that is highly unlikely to win isn't doing that.

JUST caring about winning would be throwing behind Romney from day 1 of the primary. In politics, almost every significant movement that actually works within the party structure tends to look for someone who both upholds their values AND is electable, because otherwise you're pissing in the win. Being 100% principled without giving a damn about viability is a fail proof method to assure your principles don't actually get any tangiable application.

What they said in terms of her social positions is that they fear she will shift more to the right as her poll numbers decline. They recognize America does not want to elect someone who is too far to the right and that's the problem they have with her.


You're absolutely right, and I even suggested that how FAR right she is was a problem:

The significant extreme of her social views

Outside of Santorum, she holds some of the most extreme social views of any republican candidate and as time goes on seems to be pushing them more and more. Hardcore Right social views are not popular, and have nothing to do with the tea party, and thus is problematic for the movement to get a candidate elected that will actually push their princpiles.

It's clear to me, even if not to you, their problem with her is their fear she is not electable.

No, I've been saying this whole time that their problem with her has been that she's unelectable. The difference however is you think that viewing her in that way and shifting support away means abandoning convictions, where as I see it as switching support to other people who are in line with Tea Party issues but are more electable meaning that they have a better chance of actually seeing their convictions materialize into reality rather than just being hypothetical.

That is the only issue they care about. Policies don't matter to them.

And unless they suddenly side with Romney during the primary, that just simply isn't true. Politics is important to them. Its possible to be both pragmatic AND give a damn about their politics. You'd have a point if Bachmann was the only candidate that was in this primary who was attractive to Tea Parties on Tea Party issues. She's not. Paul, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, and Gingrich all are ALSO attractive on many of the issues and are all more electable than Michelle Bachmann. Even if in some cases Bachmann is MORE in line with their views, her unelectability assures that all those views she has in line with them still won't materialize. However, if they find someone who is electable AND is in line with their views, their politics may actually have a chance of happening.

Yes, does the Tea Party have less conviction to their principles than say a staunch communist or libertarian who refuses to vote for a Democrat or Republican respectively and votes 3rd party because that's more in line with what they choose? Yes. However, having less doesn't equal having none. And I'd dare say the Tea Party is no different than the vast majority of American's who vote for people who do not go in line with 100% of what they believe in but is the person who is the best mix of 1) what they support politically and 2) has an actual legitimate shot of potentially being elected.

Supporting a candidate who is almost garaunteed not to win, even if they support everything you like, is a sure way to assure that your principles will never see the light of day. To me, that is being so beholden to your principles that you actually do them a disservice unless there is literally not an acceptable alternative. There ARE a number of acceptable alternatives in thi sparticular instance.

That Bachmann championed their cause doesn't matter to them. All that matters is winning and they know she can't win.

Correct on the first part. Incorrect on the second. All that matters is getting their principles regarding politics enacted into law; and to have that happen they need a candidate that both 1) adhere's to their principles and 2) is electable.

Bachmann doesn't fit that bill. There are others in the primary that do.
 
Back
Top Bottom