Chris Cilizza at his Washington Post Blog ("The Fix") examined the Bachmann non-apology ad and coins a new word, "Bach-pology".

Why does the ad feel strange? Because Bachmann is trying to do two very different things at once. For those people who are aware of the "Hardball" incident, she wants to express remorse for what she said. For those people who have no idea about the "Hardball" imbroglio, Bachmann wants to make sure it stays that way and so makes no direct reference to why she would be apologizing for not always using the right words to explain herself.

With all due respect to Mr. Cilizza, what feels strange about this ad is that Bachmann doesn't even come close to an apology for calling Barack Obama anti-American nor did she come close to an apology for calling on the media to investigate members of Congress to find out which are pro-America or anti-America. Furthermore, the implication of her statements in this ad are that Democrats are opposed to freedom and liberty given that they believe government can be used as a force for good. It is the continued black/white fallacy that Bachmann and other conservatives tend towards. The fallacy that they and only they represent freedom and anyone who goes against their beliefs is therefore against freedom.

Bachmann is currently caught between two worlds: The first is that of moderates and Democrats who see her comments for what they truly are (hateful & divisive) and the second is her base of support. They are proud that she has made these remarks and a full apology would cast her as a traitor in their eyes.

On a lighter note, we need a more detailed explanation of this new term coined by Mr. Cilizza. So, use the comments thread to properly define a "Bachpology".

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann