This morning on Morning Joe, Gene Robinson said that Michele Bachmann had a "sparkle" to her last night. Morning Joe and others were aglow about Bachmann being the star of the show. Even Robert Gibbs said she won the night (I am hoping that is just political manipulation!).
Howard Kurtz at the Daily Beast wrote "Michele Bachmann all but stole the show at the Republican presidential debate."
Politco gave Bachman 2nd place in the debate or an 86.247 (what the ???) out of 100 calling her "firm and direct".
Gloria Borger wrote on CNN:
I think she sort of stepped out of Sarah Palin's shadow tonight. She was clearly one of the best-prepped candidates here. She let people know the depth of her experience on the intelligence committee, for example.
David Gergen continued the Bachmann lovefest:
But Michele Bachmann, I thought, was the biggest surprise, because she was -- I don't think the country knew her well. She was pithy. She spoke in a much more cleaner sentences. She sprinkled interesting facts into it. And she introduced her biography. The 23 foster children, she said that twice.
Democracy in America from the Economist wrote, "Overall, I thought Bachmann and Santorum most improved on their pre-debate standing."
Finally, Dave Wiegel at Slate wrote, "Bachmann, who's always underrated, was as poised and quick as she's ever been".
The sad thing is that I could continue this list for a few dozen pages (Other sites that called her the winner: Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, NPR, Dana Milbank (At Fox Nation?), Washpo, and even the Des Moines Register. So, this morning, I am left wondering, was I in an alternate universe for two hours watching a different debate? Sure, Michelle Bachmann did not fall on her face, make up some strange historical anti-fact, or look at the wrong camera the entire time, but her answers were mystifying and contradictory.
In at least three circumstances, she contradicted herself within a matter of seconds, making me wonder if she was debating herself. So, let's examine the three answers where it was Bachmann v. Bachmann:
First, on Gay marriage - The question to Bachmann was:
New Hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. This is a question of conflicting interest. I know you're opposed to same-sex marriage.
As president, would you try to overturn -- what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?
Bachmann responded:
Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states ...
The question was rephrased to clarify:
What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level? Anything at all from the White House? Would you come into the state of New Hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?
Bachmann responds:
I'm running for the presidency of the United States. And I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.
So, her answer is very clear, right? States rights are the penultimate and should not be interfered with by the President on this issue. Okay, i don't fully agree, but I can somewhat respect that position - it at least makes some sense.
Then, of course, Bachmann begins fighting with her fiercest competitor - herself:
John, I do support a constitutional amendment on -- on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
Does she not realize that a constitutional amendment would completely supersede the states rights? Seems like Bachmann disagrees with Bachmann.
Second issue of Bachmann v. Bachmann, Libya:
Bachmann's response onto whether or not we should have went into Libya - the specific question - was it in America's vital interest:
No, I don't believe so it is. That isn't just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya.
Very clear answer: invading Libya was not in our vital interest - should not have happened. But, then, the other Bachmann shows up:
President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.
We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.
Okay, so Bachmann #2 says: We should have taken the lead in going into Libya and not let those pesky French do it...
But then Bachmann #1 comes back swinging:
First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation's vital classified secrets.
We to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya
Bachmann #1 is destroying Bachmann #2 - of course we shouldn't have gone into Libya AND we should have taken the lead.
Third case of Bachmann v. Bachmann: who would she choose Johnny Cash or Elvis ?
Her answer: Both
Okay, so while I would clearly be a Cash person, I can accept that Elvis is an icon that is hard to write off. But, what I cannot accept is what she said next, "I've got Christmas with Elvis on my I-pod"...
Ridiculous - if you are going to cop out and choose both - you cannot cite "Christmas with Elvis" as your support for that choice - that is like citing Michael Bolton as evidence for your love for jazz... Just wrong.
Finally, besides her two distinct Bachmann v. Bachmann moments (and the Elvis Christmas moment), she had multiple just incorrect facts that were not challenged at all (big surprise), had an awkward presidential announcement, and multiple Palinisms. Or, as the Media calls it:
A Clear win for Michele Bachmann!