Faux News actually calls Bachmann out on BS statement

We’re as surprised as you are. From Talking Points Memo:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN) told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren that the lame duck is “awful.” She listed all of the legislation that is being passed, and said: “In other words, a whole year’s worth of work after the voters already spoke at the polls.” For her part, Van Susteren shot back: “Well that’s because you all didn’t do it before the election.”

Of course, everyone knows they didn’t do much before the election because that would be politically risky. So, in Bachmann’s (and other Republicans’) view, you shouldn’t do anything beore the election because it jeopardizes your chance of winning, but you shouldn’t do anything after because the people will have then voted Congressmembers out of office. So when exactly should Congress do anything, Congresswoman? Besides appear on talk shows, we mean.

MinnPost has a fuller quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: How is lame duck different behind the scenes from the other part of the session?
BACHMANN: If you want my real opinion, the lame duck is awful. In my opinion it is unconstitutional. The 20th amendment passed in 1933 was meant to eliminate all future lame duck sessions. Congress didn’t want to see happen what is happening now. Consider, we are doing all of the spending, the tax bill, a nuclear disarmament treaty, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ they are trying to do amnesty for illegal aliens, all in a couple weeks. In other words, a year’s worth of work after the voters spoke at the polls. So the people spoke; they don’t want what is being passed in Congress. We shouldn’t be doing this. It is really against the 20th Amendment to the constitution.

We had to look up the 20th Amendment, but as with most things involving Bachmann and facts, this appears to be wildly exaggerated if not outright false.


%d bloggers like this: