Showdown in Simi Valley: Bachmann vs. Perry

The Minnesota congresswoman has two choices in Wednesday’s presidential debate: Take the fight to Perry—or pull a Pawlenty.

2012 GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry<a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/gageskidmore/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The GOP presidential debate on Wednesday night has been billed as a coming-out for Rick Perry, the tough-rhetoric-slinging governor of Texas who has vaulted to the top position in the Republican field after recently gallivanting into the race. Perry, who ducked out of a candidates’ forum this past weekend to contend with wild fires in the Lone Star State, has yet to appear on a national stage with his fellow presidential wannabes. So Wednesday night at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, all eyes will be on the fella Molly Ivins once dubbed Governor Goodhair, with pundits and voters looking to see whether he’s more hat than cattle—or the opposite. Yet for all the Perrymania, there will be another candidate with something to prove: Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann was the darling of the past two debates. In New Hampshire in June, she confidently stood out among the guys as an I-feel-your-outrage tea party gal who could both stick to her anti-government talking points and remain disciplined enough to avoid saying anything too bizarre or factually dubious. Last month, at an Iowa debate—when she seemed to be the front-runner in that state—she handily fended off attacks by Tim Pawlenty (remember him?), who claimed her record of accomplishments was “nonexistent.” With a calm ferocity, she slapped Pawlenty silly for his past support of versions of cap-and-trade and a health care mandate. She went on to win the absurd but influential Ames straw poll.

For Wednesday’s debate, Bachmann’s challenge is a simple one: Can she effectively go on offense against Perry? The Texas governor’s entry into the race has harmed her chances the most. She’s fallen in the polls, with Perry attracting tea party loyalists. Bachmann, whose campaign manager and deputy campaign manager left their jobs, has been pushed from main story line to subplot. And with the possibility of Iowa moving its caucus to early December—if Arizona proceeds with a plan to schedule its primary in January (ahead of the current February date for Iowa)—Bachmann will have to claw her way back to the top of the heap quickly. Without Iowa, she’s nothing.

To begin this process, she can’t pull a Pawlenty. Prior to the June debate, Pawlenty began swinging at then-front-runner Mitt Romney, referring to Romney’s health care reform overhaul in Massachusetts as “Obamneycare.” But when Pawlenty appeared on stage with Romney, he declined the chance to jab the former Massachusetts governor, puzzling the commentariat, which had tuned in for the much-anticipated Pawlenty-Romney slugfest. Pawlenty’s retreat was quickly processed by the politerati as a sign he didn’t possess the you-know-whats to be a contender.

Bachmann shows no signs of ducking a showdown with Perry at the Reagan corral. Days ago, a super-PAC that supports her presidential campaign—the misleadingly named Keep Conservatives United—ran an attack ad blasting Perry for claiming to be a fiscal-discipline champion despite his spending binges as Texas governor. The ad noted, “There is an honest conservative [in the 2012 race], and she’s not Rick Perry.”

This is an effective line of assault for Bachmann, for it questions Perry’s tea party credentials. The ad also hints at another attack Bachmann might be contemplating. It mockingly referred to Perry as a self-proclaimed “tough hombre.” From Bachmann’s perspective, Perry has been an immigration appeaser. He has denounced the notion of a superfence to protect the border and has basically adopted the stance of the business community, which is not in favor of an immigration crackdown. It seems inevitable, given the tea partiers’ passions about immigration, that Bachmann will use this as a club (or cruise missile) against Perry. Immigration is considered a wedge issue nationally. It may well become one in the fight between Perry and Bachmann (and maybe Sarah Palin?) for the tea party wing.

The only question is whether Bachmann deploys this heavy artillery sooner or later.

At the Reagan library debate, Bachmann will have the opportunity to display her pugilistic capabilities. She certainly needs to stop Perry’s supersized momentum. It’s possible Perry might do that himself—with a poor performance or slip-up. (This is a presidential candidate who two years ago suggested Texas might consider seceding from the union.) And at the moment, it’s clear that what’s doing so well in the polls is the idea of Rick Perry, who remains largely unknown to voters outside his state. But if Perry doesn’t commit any major missteps, Bachmann will have to make a move.

Bachmann demonstrated last month that she can be a fierce defender. Yet going offensive is something else entirely. As the front-runner du jour, Perry has the task of ignoring the other candidates and doing his best to match up well with that Perry idea. Bachmann’s mission will be to take the shine off Perry’s boots.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate