Editorializing in photos: Bachmann edition

Yup.

 

Ah. Wasn't clear if you doubted the story, or thought I fucked up accusing him of calling it Comiskey.

Calling the Cell "Comiskey" would have been fine.

It got a pretty good deal of attention at the time, so I didn't think the link was necessary.

 

Don't know how I missed it.

 

Someone should have told Mel Brooks this 30-40 years ago.

 

Though Nazi jokes like the memory of Marge Schott go on and on . . .

 

Should he know the difference between "affect" and "effect"?

 

All political candidates have gaffes at some point. They are human, after all.

The key is when they commit them. If they commit the gaffes relatively early in the campaign when they and their opponent(s) are not as well known, it creates a bad first impression in the minds of voters. And once you create that bad first impression, it's very hard to overcome it because anything you say or do to contradict that negative impression doesn't reinforce what people already believe to be true. People don't like to be told they're wrong and need to change.

Conversely, if you run a clean, mostly gaffe-free campaign, you have a better chance of getting away with one for the same reason - it contradicts the impression voters already have of you, and therefore is less believable. Case in point - Obama's "Spread The Wealth" snafu to Joe the Plumber at the tail end of the '08 campaign. Had that occurred in February 2008 when Obama was not as well known, it may have cemented his rep as a crazy socialist who didn't share the values of ordinary Americans. But since it happened in October 2008, it flew over voters' heads and Obama still won the election easily.