Bachmann SuperPAC Switches To Romney
\
As is losing a top Iowa supporter to Ron Paul isn’t bad enough, Michele Bachmann has also apparently lost the support of a SuperPAC originally formed to support:
A political action committee which had planned to support Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign has very quietly defected to Mitt Romney — and it’s spending big on his behalf.
Citizens for a Working America, the so-called Super PAC which aired TV ads against a Democratic congressional candidate last year, had indicated earlier this year that it was backing the Minnesota congresswoman in the GOP nominating contest. But the group instead made a $475,000 Iowa ad buy on Christmas Eve in support of Romney, according to Federal Election Commission data published today.
The so-called independent expenditure was listed as supporting Romney’s candidacy, and an Iowa political operative who has seen the ad confirmed to The Daily that it’s a 30-second positive spot about the former Massachusetts governor that doesn’t mention any other candidate.
Three political insiders associated with the Super PAC did not immediately return calls and emails seeking comment. But it’s just the latest indication of how far Bachmann’s campaign has fallen since quickly peaking with an Ames Straw Poll win in August. And less than a week before the Iowa caucuses, it will help further position Romney for what’s increasingly shaping up to be a surprise win.
The Washington Post heralded the SuperPAC as a major coup for Bachmann that came just after her victory in Ames:
A trio of well-known conservatives have organized a so-called “super PAC” to aid Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, according to sources familiar with the move.
Citizens for a Working America, as the group is known, will be chaired by former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Ed Brookover, a longtime political consultant and adviser to Bachmann, will be involved as will conservative lawyer and economist Marc Nuttle.
“Michele Bachmann is a principled conservative with the policy prescriptions our country needs to pull out of its economic doldrums,” said Brookover in an email exchange with The Fix. “We look forward to promoting her and her programs to the American public.”
The group was formed in the fall of 2010 and spent more than $250,000 to defeat former South Carolina Democratic Rep. John Spratt. It will now be turned entirely to aid Bachmann. It joins “Keep Conservatives United”, a super PAC formed last month with the express purpose of helping Bachmann win the GOP nomination.
(…)
The formation of a Bachmann super PAC by major conservative heavy hitters is an acknowledgment that without an outside group protecting her flank in the race to come, she could well be outgunned by Perry and Romney.
It’s also an affirmation that Bachmann, Romney and Perry comprise the top tier of the Republican presidential field and are ramping up for a costly battle for the nomination over the next six months.
Of course what we didn’t know at the time is that mid-August would be the peak of Bachmann’s campaign. After her Ames victory, she sank in the polls with the entry of Rick Perry, clearly a more experienced conservative than her, into the race. Then she sank even further with her debate performances, and particularly her bizarre fixation on Perrry’s Gardisil program. She’s never been able to recover, and now I think it’s fair to say that she never will.
I don’t think it was Perry’s experience or even name recognition that sank Bachmann; I personally believe it was simply the fact that she’s a woman. Perry was willing to toe much the same line with the Evangelical SoCon base Bachmann counted on, but he was able to exploit their patriarchal tendencies… so long as there wasn’t anyone else willing to be the Religious Zealot in the room, that crowd was ok with supporting a woman. But as soon as a suitable male substitute came along, they dropped her & haven’t looked back, even as Perry flounders. I discount Santorum from being a truly viable Evangelical vote-getter, simply because I don’t think I’ve ever heard him discuss any policy point without somehow converting it into a discussion about homosexuality, and he does so in a way that’s too creepy and desperately closeted even for Evangelicals to stomach.