I think Ms. Bachmann is a dangerous Teabagger who would be a ruinous President. However, I was also quite surprised at how she did in the debate last night.
I concluded that she is intelligent and articulate, takes direction very well from her newfound professional handlers (Ed Rollins, etc) and showed some charisma as well.
So now I am confused.
Is she a vacuuous teabagger who had a good night?
Is she an intelligent politician who has been pandering to teabaggers disengenuously for their support?
Or is she both intelligent and a teabagger who managed to stay away from the crazy juice for one night?
I don't like any of these choices, but I do have to say that she made herself a contender last night.
This is essentially what I'd have posted if my mind had been clearer last night, when I first opened this thread. I find it surprising that yours was the first mention of Ed Rollins: his fingerprints are all over this new-and-improved, ready for Prime Time Bachmann. Everything from her tone of voice to an obvious attempt to reign in the crazy-eyes look she gets shows that she's deadly serious.
Personally, I think the real winner of the debate was Rick Perry. Romney can't win the nomination without Evangelicals, and I just don't see them seriously entertaining a Mormon for President, and that's even before one goes digging into his past positions that made him electable as Governor in Massachusetts. Pawlenty underwhelms everyone he comes into contact with (except, apparently Starinvestor).
Perry will announce soon: all of Newt's staff defections are his guys, anyway. Perry/Bachmann is as likely a ticket as any other, and much more plausible than, say Romney/Santorum or Pawlenty/Cain
<shudders involuntarily>
Ron Paul's supporters remind me of Red Sox fans in the mid-70s: talk about impossible dreams
