The chorus of voices pointing out the damage Ed Rollins is doing to Michele Bachmann because of the needless and damaging fight Rollins picked with Sarah Palin on his first day on the job is growing:
- Greta: “My advice? Better to dump Rollins now than to carry his baggage throughout the campaign. If Congresswoman Bachmann is serious about a run (and I think she is), she wants to look Presidential at the beginning and not made to look petty before she even announces by someone who is.”
- Jennifer Rubin: “Bachmann has a reputation on the Hill as a tough boss. Perhaps she’ll keep Rollins around, but no one would think ill of her if she canned him. In fact, the sign of a good executive is the willingness to cut dead wood that is dragging the team down.
- Allahpundit: “So not only did he antagonize grassroots Palin voters whom his candidate needs, he did it via the same sort of critique he’d leveled at Bachmann, thereby guaranteeing that it’ll be thrown back in her face every time someone in her camp tries to question Palin’s “seriousness.” Brilliant.”
- Ace: “And he’s calling Palin stupid!
In another place and at another time, perhaps Rollins’ tactics would be admired. But not here and not now, and not for Michele Bachmann.
There are a lot of people who want to support Bachmann (depending of course who else gets in), but with Rollins on the team, it’s a non-starter.
In fact, it’s more than a non-starter. Keeping Rollins on the team guarantees that people who otherwise might consider backing Bachmann against a more establishment candidate will do everything within their power to stop her.
Each day Rollins stays on Bachmann’s campaign makes it that much harder to undo the damage.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I think (or perhaps just hope) that it will be Rollins first. My reasoning is that Bachmann has more sense than Weiner and will respond appropriately before he does. But we'll see.
Sadly, I agree.There is NO NEED to be attacking each other.
If anyone needs an example, just look at Southern California politics, where the Republican primary candidates did such a good job assassinating each other, by the time they had to run against the Democrat, they were dead in the water.
Keep your eye on the ball, people, it's replacing OBAMA, who is a disaster for this country. If you can't say why you're better without bashing your fellow contenders, get out of the race.
Rollins is stupid to burn bridges between two who can show real camaraderie, work together and actually FIX what has gone so terribly wrong.
My rule of thumb is that people who hate Palin hate me and get no quarter. This applies even more to those on "our" side who like to pay lip service to us to get elected then go back to their me-tooism.
This time they get the message or they get out.
I actually somewhat hope Bachmann is Romney's stalking horse. Rollins is toast; if Palinites get credit for pushing him out, Romney becomes that much less credible.
I notice you said, who will leave first . . . which really does highlight the essential distinction, arising out of the fact that one of them is a principal, while the other is a hired gun.
No one can or will force Weiner out. The decision is entirely up to him, at least for the foreseeable future, that is. But the only way Rollins leaves if Bachmann tells him to take a hike. He doubled down when challenged on the statement the first time.
But I think Allahpundit makes the telling point. [H]e did it via the same sort of critique he’d leveled at Bachmann, thereby guaranteeing that it'll be thrown back in her face every time someone in her camp tries to question Palin's "seriousness."
During Watergate, when tapes were released showing that Nixon knew about the cover-up all along, Senator Bob Dole was asked what he would say to the President, given the obvious political consequences this would have for ALL Republicans, not just for Mr. Nixon.
Dole sardonically quipped, "Thanks for the anchor!
Once the implication really sinks in with Bachmann that the Rollins statement redounds negatively on her as well, she'll can him.
Weiner, however, will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.
So the answer, I think, is Rollins.
I struck Bachmann off my list when she hired Rollins. I knew he would mess up big time. I just didn't dream it would be so soon. It is beyond my comprehension why any R would hire Rollins with his record.
I hope Weiner stays. He is a gift to the Republicans, a gift that keeps on giving (which is the reason Democrats want him to resign).
As for Rollins, I do not think this presidential campaign is going to end well for Bachmann, and I am saddened by that thought.
Seems that an informal "happy trails" committee of national Democrats is slowly, slowly beginning to muster, apparently gathering together for an escort ceremony of sorts . . . Anthony Weiner is being gently prodded along in the direction of the plank.
Is there a Republican campaign manager who actually respects conservatives? They all seem to go out of their way to insult them and seem to obsequious towards Democrats. Remember the McCain adviser who resigned rather than criticize Obama?
William, I think it is too late. Rollins has given Palin the attack line she was looking for. Recall when Chris Wallace asked Palin this Sunday about Bachmann and Palin hinted at executive experience? Palin now can say, Bachmann's lack of executive experience is why she made such a poor choice with Rollins.
I live in WI and was strongly considering Bachmann, but am starting to think Pawlenty is a better alternative not that Michele has brought Rollins on board.
There's a line that Van Der Leun coined during the last campaign, about RINO's, 'they thirst for Death' any truly dynamic conservative, they deride, Rollins his current client, just five
months ago.
Has anyone, Prof, ever considered that the reason there are so many Republicans in the race is that they all see Obama as very vulnerable? Certainly, we're not going to get that take from the drive-bys.
Regardless – ANY one, ANY ONE of the Republicans are a better choice than Obama. The Republicans may be new and untested in some cases, but they have the principles, the new energy, the fire in the belly, and most of al the moral core that is vastly SUPERIOR to Obama. This is not a Bob Dole set of candidates (nothing against him, but the idea that it was his turn was a problem). Young, new and dynamic is this current crop – SUPPORT THEM!
One will get through – like sperm – one has to make it to the egg. That's what matters, don't shoot each other.
Rose June 9, 2011 2:12 AM |
Uhhh . . . interesting analogy, there! I guess I get your point, but especially given all that is happening next door in New York, it is a wee bit jarring for me to think of the Presidency as a fertile ovum.
Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a two-step process . . . first the nomination, then head-to-head with Obama in the election campaign. We cannot afford to assume that any Republican can win.
Let's recall that at this point four years ago, a passel of Democrats were climbing all over one another to get to the golden ring — their party nod — and while few outside observers suspected that upstart, first term Senator Barack Obama would emerge victorious in the end, I have to think that if the Democrat party had somehow nominated one of the true lesser lights to run for the top slot — Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd — the Republican would have likely won, in spite of the economy.
Or, if the Ds had swung toward a head case like John Edwards, or someone who was also a bit vulnerable, like Bill Richardson, we would have had a much different race — and I think the Rs could have won. I still believe Hillary would have been their strongest candidate in terms of attracting votes, NOT that she would have somehow been a "better" President. She would have been a disaster, in my view. But she would have been a formidable candidate.
Similarly, I think it does matter who the Republicans nominate because not all of them can win.
Now, we can agree to disagree about who the potential losers would be, but experience does matter, or at least it should!
Generally speaking, Republicans are not like Democrats in the sense that they could spit in each others' faces, and tear each others' hair out, and then just as quickly kiss and make up.
My sense is that if primary voters begin to suspect that Bachmann hired Rollins to try and draw Palin into a cat fight, I think it will backfire. Bachmann will lose support rather than gain it. Therefore, how she handles Rollins at this point will tell us a lot about her candidacy. And she cannot wait too long to act. Any Republican candidate should be prepared to adequately demonstrate a natural inclination, not to panic, but to be decisive.
In other words, to lead. So I think the ball is now in Bachmann's court.
Rollins is just a pawn. You know for a fact Michelle Bachman either composed that statement, or signed off for its release.
Im a Sarah Palin supporter first and a Bachmann supporter 2nd, and could vote for either, but E. Rollins is known for making crackbrained statements. The sidebar on that was that he was speaking off the record and not for Bachmann, so I doubt that she signed off on thaT. But let's hope that this doesn';t turn into another example of the proverbial Republican circular firing squad and keep trained on eliminating the Far East Old Boy's club. Even now they look like they're beginning to drop like flys, with Mitt's latest global warming gaffe and Newt's staff resigning today
Trochilus – I agree – the Primary process is difficult and painful for a reason. The candidates have to be tested, and well, in order to prove their mettle – and in the end they have to walk through the fire and emerge as the toughest steel. It does not do to send in a weak champion at the end.
What I am saying is the left is going to provide that gauntlet of fire, and then some. We don't have to add blowtorches to the line up.
Save our fire for the opponent.
In other words, do not aid the left/Dems in smearing our own.
And, yes, Rollins appears to be as dumb as a paint can.