Michele Bachmann said she’s soldiering on, giving no indication that she would bail on her Republican presidential campaign after a last-place showing in the contested Iowa caucuses, while Rick Perry, who finished just ahead of her in fifth, said he’s going back to Texas to “determine whether there is a path forward.”
“I believe I am the best conservative who can and who will beat Barack Obama in 2012,” Bachmann told supporters late Tuesday night following projections that she would be last in the six-way contest. Jon Huntsman decided not to compete in Iowa.
“In 2012, there could be another president in the White House. Who knows? There could be another Michele in the White House,” Bachmann said, referencing her shared name with first lady Michelle Obama.
Despite her pledges to go on, Bachmann campaign manager Keith Nahigian told The Associated Press that he couldn’t say with certainty whether Bachmann would go forward with her candidacy.
“I don’t know yet,” he said. “It’s hard to tell, but everything is planned.”
Asked about the report, Bachmann Communications Director Alice Stewart told Fox News that the AP story said it’s “uncertain.” “That’s true,” she said.
Bachmann’s 6 percent showing was a sharp turn after finishing in first place during the Ames, Iowa, GOP straw poll over the summer.
Perry, who doubled Bachmann’s raw vote total but earned only 11 percent overall, said he’s reassessing what he will do. He’s making that decision in light of the first-in-the-nation vote, but not before the Texas governor announced his campaign was making an ad buy in South Carolina, the third state to vote.
Perry has described the GOP presidential race as a marathon, but after spending the most of any campaign on Iowa advertising, his poor showing in Iowa won’t lend any momentum as the candidates go to New Hampshire, the first primary state of the election season, where Perry places last in polling.
The latest results are actually worse for Bachmann – 5%, not 6%. I think she should get out now and endorse Rick Santorum.
What’s interesting is that Mitt Romney had to spend a heck of a lot more money than Rick Santorum did in order to get the same 25% of the vote. What does that tell you about Mitt Romney as a candidate?
ABC News says Michele won, and I can’t disagree, since she is my preferred candidate, by far. Go Michele!
Excerpt:
With her standing in the polls slipping, Michele Bachmann needed to find a way to capture the spotlight she held earlier this summer.
She just may have done that tonight at the Tea Party Express/CNN debate in Tampa, Florida.
Bachmann, the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, knew her audience well and it showed.
Unlike former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Bachmann took a pass at criticizing front-runner Texas Gov. Perry on Social Security and she refused to weigh in on Perry’s comment last month that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke may be “treasonous.”
Instead she waited patiently to pounce on Perry when the debate turned to the issues she knew would connect with the audience in the hall.
She attacked Perry for his decision to require HPV vaccinations in Texas, calling it “a government injection through executive order” and a “violation of a liberty interest.”
She knows that while the Tea Party activists are not fans of the federal government, they don’t love big business either.
“We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order,” said Bachmann, “there was a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate…The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor and this is just flat out wrong”
She also attacked Perry on illegal immigration – another issue that plays well in a GOP primary.
A longer review from the UK Telegraph emphasizes that Perry got beat up Monday night.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry wasted little time in going straight at each other Wednesday night, sparring over whether the former’s business experience or the latter’s decade as governor of Texas is better training for boosting jobs.
“Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Mr. Perry said, referring to the former liberal Democratic governor who lost the 1988 presidential election.
“George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor,” retorted Mr. Romney, a one-term Massachusetts governor who made his fortune leading a capital investment firm, as he pointed to the man whom Mr. Perry succeeded in 2000.
With the Republican presidential nomination on the line, the Republican field squared off at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in a nationally televised debate in which the candidates clawed slightly at each other, but aimed their chief darts at President Obama on issues such as the economy and his health care initiative.
“Obamacare took over one-sixth of the economy,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. “This is the issue of 2012, together with jobs. This is our window of opportunity. If we fail to repeal Obamacare in 2012, it will be with us forever and it will be socialized medicine.”
But even that issue opened up Mr. Romney to more attacks, this time from the rest of the field, none of whom backed the individual mandate that requires everyone to purchase insurance and that lies at the heart of the health care bills that Mr. Romney signed in Massachusetts and the one Mr. Obama signed, a few years later, for the whole country.
Mr. Perry said Massachusetts’ experiment “was a great opportunity for us as a people to see what will not work, and that is an individual mandate in this country.”
For Mr. Perry, the debate was his first chance personally to mix things up with his fellow candidates, and to show Republican voters that he deserves the early adulation he’s received from many of them.
He seemed to stumble over a couple of answers when asked to square his past rhetoric with his stances as a presidential candidate, but had his strongest moments when he was defending his state’s specific record during his decade as governor.
He also didn’t back down on his criticism of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and said that applied despite former Vice President Dick Cheney, who earlier Wednesday had suggested such language was over the top.
“If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that expect that program to be sound and for them to receive benefits when they reach retirement age, that is just a lie,” Mr. Perry said.
John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) posted this summary:
Here’s my brief summation of tonight’s Republican presidential candidate at the Reagan Presidential Library.
Perry was the winner, mainly because he didn’t make any gaffes–no one did–and he answered some tough questions. He refused to back down from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” However, if he wins the GOP nomination, he just wrote his own attack ad and supplied the video. Granny-scaring is what the Dems do best. The other top-tier candidate, Mitt Romney, was well-spoken and on top of the issues, as he always is.
Michele Bachmann: Held her own but didn’t gain ground. But she needed to move up tonight.
Rick Santorum: Inspired, articulate, and passionate. He won’t be going away.
Jon Huntsman: I like his jobs plan, but he muffed the global warming question.
Newt Gingrich: The best performance tonight. But I fear he has dug himself to big a hole for him to even contend for the nomination.
Ron Paul: I’m not a supporter, but he stood firm with his Libertarian beliefs.
Herman Cain: What happened? The biggest washout tonight. He came across unsure, and his 9-9-9 program sounds like he’s marketing toothpaste, but he’s selling it without confidence.
As for the questions from the moderators, NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s Jonathan Martin, I have this to say: Man, do I miss Tim Russert. And why do you think a question about evolution is relevant?
I was not impressed with Perry’s speaking ability, but he had command of the facts, which is good. Santorum also did well.
First, I don’t think Perry had as strong a performance tonight as he could have. He stumbled several times. Romney had a stronger performance. But then, Romney has been in this dog and pony show since 2007. Perry is just stepping up to this level. He made no major mistakes, but could have been stronger on the HPV issue and a few other issues.
Second, it is clear Perry is the front runner given the pile on from the other candidates. It was not just pushed by MBNBC and the Politico. The other candidates took willful potshots against Rick Perry. Perry, despite some stumbles and the pile on by the moderators and other participants, held his own and will only get stronger the more of these he does.
Third, Michele Bachmann’s star has faded. The recognition of this is the reporter focus on Perry v. Romney buttressed by Bachmann’s own outgoing campaign manager, Ed Rollins, that the race was a two man race between Perry and Romney.
Fourth, Newt Gingrich. What an intellect. What a mind. What a debater. What might have been.
[…]Finally, I think Mitt Romney’s “play it safe” strategy is about to come crashing down on his. In the exchange between Perry and Romney on social security and ponzi schemes, Perry gave a less than stellar answer. But Romney then tried to pile on by rejecting the idea that social security is a failure.Republicans should pay attention to this. Mitt Romney proclaimed making several generations of Americans dependent on the federal government for their retirement a success. That may play well to Washington, D.C. But it increasingly doesn’t even play well with senior citizens worried about their grandchildren’s futures.
I think Romney is just too liberal to win this primary.
WINTERY KNIGHT 