Bachmann’s Campaign Guru in January: She’s Not a “Serious Player”

Months before signing on to run the Minnesota Republican’s presidential bid, Ed Rollins said she was exactly the wrong candidate for the GOP.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and GOP campaign veteran Ed Rollins.Jonathan Alcorn/ZUMApress.com, Globe Photos/ZUMAPRESS.com.

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


This week, Republican campaign veteran Ed Rollins signed on to run Rep. Michele Bachmann’s presidential operation, ahead of what is expected to be her official declaration later this month in Waterloo, Iowa, the city where she was born. Rollins is a seasoned political consultant who knows conservative GOP politics. He worked on Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election bid, and in 2008 he steered Mike Huckabee’s campaign to an upset victory in the Iowa caucus. So it’s significant that Rollins praised Bachmann, a tea party favorite, on Tuesday as a contender who can appeal to the religious right and be “a very strong candidate in Iowa.” But not too long ago, Rollins had a very different appraisal of the Minnesota Republican.

In late January, Rollins appeared on CNN, where he’s been a frequent commentator, to discuss the Republican Party’s response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. After praising Obama’s speech and the GOP’s official rebuttal, given by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rollins dismissed Bachmann’s poorly produced “tea party response.” In doing so, Rollins questioned Bachmann’s role as a credible Republican leader. Moreover, he suggested Bachmann ought not be representing the Republican Party.

“Michele Bachmann obviously is a member of Congress and a representative of the tea party,” Rollins told CNN viewers. “But at the end of the day, we have to get our serious players out front and talking about the things that matter to be the alternative to the president and Democrats.” In other words, he did not consider Bachmann a “serious” GOP player. (Just this week, Rollins bashed another tea party leader, Sarah Palin, as someone who “has not been serious over the last couple of years.”)

More recently, Rollins dismissed Bachmann’s chances in the 2012 presidential race. In April, weeks after Bachmann revealed her plan to form a presidential exploratory committee, Rollins appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball and offered his two cents about what kind of politician would win the GOP nomination:

At the end of the day, you know, we’re going to have a candidate who has been a governor, I assume. There’s no Washingtonians in this mix. It ain’t going to be Donald Trump. I don’t think it’s going to be Congresswoman Bachmann.

Asked by Mother Jones to explain his recent criticism and dismissal of Bachmann, Rollins quipped in an email, “That was before she hired me! There are great downsides to having been a political analyst with hundreds of appearances over the years. And that is there are quality journalists out there…who pay attention and return to haunt us with our own words.” Rollins went on to say, “My comments regarding the [State of the Union] rebuttal wasn’t meant that she wasn’t serious, it [was] just she wasn’t part of the leadership or a committee chairman and for that reason the mainstream media wasn’t going to carry her message.” That’s not bad spin, but clearly at the time Rollins was characterizing Bachmann as a marginal figure in the Republican Party.

In his email, Rollins added, “Not being part of the establishment and DC crowd could now be a great advantage” for Bachmann. As for his claim that Bachmann (like Trump) couldn’t win the GOP nomination, Rollins said he’d changed his mind because the Minnesota Republican “now has a campaign team and a more open field.”

Even so, Rollins clearly understands at least one of Bachmann’s weaknesses. In an interview after announcing his job with Bachmann, Rollins acknowledged her track record of making controversial (some would say untrue) statements. (As Bill Adair, the editor of the fact-checking site PolitiFact, recently said, “We have checked her 13 times, and [found] seven of her claims to be false and six have been found to be ridiculously false.” Adair noted that Bachmann is “unusual” among politicians in that “she has never gotten a rating higher than false.” ) But Rollins said there was no need to worry about Bachmann on the presidential campaign trail; he would “have a good team around her and we’ll basically make sure that everything is 100 percent fact-checked.” But Rollins’ past remarks about Bachmann raise another question: Who will be vetting the campaign manager?

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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