What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 28, 2011

See If YOU Can Figure Michele Bachmann Out

Give a listen about half way through at 1:20:

Chris Wallace is also confused. A transcript:
CW: Here's what you said in the New Hampshire Debate, let's put it up.

MB [at the debate]:I do support a Constitutional Amendment on...between a man and a woman but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

CW: That's why I'm confused. If you support state rights, why do you also support a constitutional amendment that would prevent any state from recognizing same sex marriage?

MB: That's entirely consistent. The States have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also federal officials, at the federal level, have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment.
She then says that the issue will end up in the courts but she doesn't want judges who'll legislate from the bench.

Wallace tries again at about 2:30 and finally gets somewhere (I think):
CW: Do you want, say, it's a state issue and the states should be able to decide or would you like to see a constitutional amendment so that it's banned everywhere?
And she answers:
MB: It is, it is...both. It's important for your viewers to know that Federal law will trump state law.
And then after a lot of nothing from Bachmann, Wallace almost nails the jello to the wall at about 3:44:
CW: So briefly, you would support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the New York state law.

MB: Yes, I would. I would. That is not inconsistent because the states have the right under the 10th Amendment to do what they'd like to do but the federal government also has the right to pass a federal constitutional amendment.
As Jonathan Capehart points out:
So, Bachmann is fine with what New York did. That’s what states do, thanks to the 10th Amendment. They’re allowed to determine their own laws without interference from Washington. But in the next breath, Bachmann is also in favor of the federal government trumping a state law legalizing same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman through a constitutional amendment.

That didn’t make sense when Bachmann first made this argument at the New Hampshire debate two weeks ago. And it made no sense yesterday. You can be for a state’s right to determine the definition of marriage. You can be for an amendment banning same-sex marriage by etching discrimination into this nation’s founding document. But you can’t be both.
And you thought her John Wayne Gacy stuff was funny.


rich10e said...

"Conservative women in politics run a punishing gauntlet. They endure psychological evaluations and near-gynecological exams their male and liberal counterparts do not. The public is force-fed only their gaffes in 10-second fixes, while similar misstatements by the current president are forgiven as momentary lapses."


EdHeath said...

Mark McKinnon is a "Republican political advisor". The interview was conducted on Fox News, who are surely the most friendly media as far as the Republicans are concerned.

But never mind, we should only believe what we read on Republican candidate's websites, that is the only source for the TRUTH.

Maria said...

"[W]omen in politics run a punishing gauntlet. They endure psychological evaluations and near-gynecological exams their male counterparts do not."

I just corrected that statement. No need for thanks!

Professor Chaos said...

Holy Cow! So she thinks that states should be able to pass any laws they want, but the feds should overturn those laws if she doesn't like them? And then the courts can sort it out, but they shouldn't be the ones to decide? I don't get it.

Oh, and "force-fed only their gaffes?" really? What has Bachmann ever said that wasn't a gaffe? And I do seem to remember Howard dean's scream being played on a continuous loop during the 2004 primaries, but yeah, it's only Republican women that are subjected to media mistreatment. Sure, that seems right.