This video is just priceless. Rep. Michelle Bachman, easily one of the most embarrassing persons in Congress and also one of the wingnuttiest, spent her five minutes asking inane questions about the Constitutionality of Geithner’s actions:
After about the third time she asked, I would have asked her where in the Constitution it says the desk he is sitting at should be wood. And then asked her to tell me where in the Constitution it says he has to wear clothes.
There are a whole host of things not specifically listed in the Constitution- a wide wide world of government activities- but that doesn’t mean that engaging in those activities is “unconstitutional.” Geithner’s actions do not derive their authority directly from something written into the Constitution several hundred years ago, but from the authority that Congress granted him when they passed the respective bills. In fact, the very reason we have things called “Constitutional Scholars” is because everything isn’t spelled out verbatim in the Constitution.
4tehlulz
I’ve heard that invading countries for lulz isn’t part of the Constitution either, but I don’t remember if Ms. Bachmann has tackled that issue.
wilfred
What would you have asked him?
TenguPhule
I would have pointed out to her that obviously sanity is not a Constitutional requirement to get into Congress.
eastriver
I wonder where in the constitution she’ll find the justification for arming onselves against an unliked energy plan. Oh, that’s right. The Second Ammendment.
Duh.
I wonder if she knows how the congress actually operates. Seriously.
Things to ponder on a Tuesday.
malraux
I love the one world currency fears. She really does live in the bizarro land of the patriot movement.
Colonel Danite
Don’t give her the title just yet. Yes, she’s a formidable contestant but her competition is tough. We have Pence, Boehmer, Cantor and many others on the Republican side and unfortunately a few on the Dem side too. Maybe we can keep a running tally of stupid/ignorant/dangerous comments of the top contestants and then give the "winner" a prize at year’s end.
celticdragon
The air I am breathing is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about oxygen and nitrogen.
Libby
I have this gut feeling that Bachman is thinking she could be the next Sarah Palin. Same creds, but Bachman is marginally more articulate. And she’s showing up on the teevee so often, I’m thinking she’s working on building her name recognition.
Bulworth
I knew Bachman was a congress-critter but I couldn’t imagine her actually being on a committee that had responsibility for, you know, substantive kind of stuff.
John Cole
@wilfred: Why didn’t any of AIG’s counterparties take a haircut. What sort of authority would you have needed to take over AIG? Is is possible that as a company, AIG is not only too big to fail, but too big to take over? Why was there an AIG rep in the room during the Lehman Brothers decisions? What plans do you have to regulate credit default swaps? Hedge funds? What can be done to make sure the failures at OTS don’t happen again?
There are a whole host of questions that should be asked far more useful than that idiocy from Bachman. Quit wasting my time with your insipid bullshit.
jenniebee
She has lots of competition, too. The woman’s a winner in the race to the bottom!
4tehlulz
@Libby: All she needs is a secessionist husband and her transformation to Palinhood is complete.
Joshua Norton
She seems to have replaced Mean Jean Schmidt as the Congressional wingnut dragon lady.
TenguPhule
New Subject Tag?
Brachiator
It’s Bachman Wingnut Overdrive
wilfred
@John Cole:
Cole, go fuck yourself. Simple curiosity is now interpreted as provocation. Crikey, you’ve become quite the self-important asshole.
Kiss my ass, pathetic motherfucker.
scruncher
You’re a better person than me. I muted her when her turn came and I can’t bring myself to watch your clip of her.
JenJen
@4tehlulz:
Or, the next best thing… a therapist husband who practices in removing TEH GAY from his clients.
More here on how to DE-GAY through the help of the Bachmanns; he presented a paper "The Truth About The Homesexual Agenda:"
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/10/mn06_does_goper_bachmanns_husb.php
Dennis-SGMM
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“ The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
It helps to read the Constitution before brandishing it.
Perry Como
The question she asked at the end was actually quite good. Apparently at least one of her staffers has a functioning brain cell. Or got lucky.
The Other Steve
She actually has a law degree, and used to work for the IRS.
Granted her law degree is from Oral Roberts, although her degree in tax law is from the College of William and Mary.
Even so, she is an embarassment to the state.
Cris
Crikey, mere insipid bullshit is now interpreted as extra-insipid bullshit
The Other Steve
Her husband is a Grade A certified nut as well.
West of the Cascades
This woman is nuts, as the premise of her question seems to be whether the legislative body she belongs to has the constitutional authority to give the Treasury and Fed power to do what they are doing. She apparently doesn’t understand that it’s a two-step process. She and her 534 colleagues get power from the Constitution (in Article I, section 8, oddly entitled "Powers of Congress") and then they pass legislation to allow executive or independent agencies to exercise that delegated power. Let’s see … Congress has the power:
– lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
– borrow money on the credit of the United States;
– regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States …;
– coin Money, regulate the Value thereof …;
– make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers …
230 years of constitutional law have never seriously called into question that these provisions in Article I Section 8 do not extend to the sorts of actions Congress has authorized here.
John Cole
@wilfred: Nonsense. I saw you intentionally misinterpret DougJ’s point earlier. I know what you are doing- you are in your “This blog is no different from right-leaning blogs, only the cocoon is different, but I am a true and original thinker” mode which normally only flares up on Israel/Palestine issues.
Ash Can
@wilfred:
Something that wouldn’t put him in the position of having to explain my job to me, for starters.
BDeevDad
How sad is it fr MN that I knew it was Bachman by the title.
wilfred
@John Cole:
That’s bullshit. Now you’re a fucking mind-reader. I asked the question out of genuine curiosity, not out of provocation; it bugged me that in the middle of a critique of the press couldn’t think of anything more productive or original myself and didn’t know why. So I asked.
Insipid? Have you read your posts of late?
JenJen
Also, Bachmann’s spokesperson now says that her comments about starting an armed revolution were just, you know, metaphorical.
John Cole
@wilfred: My apologies then.
Libby
@John Cole: I really wish our useless Congresslizards could come up with Qs like that. I’m betting no one will ask stuff like that. In the end, every one of them just use these things to grandstand for the cameras.
Steve V
Yeah, I think it’s hard to think of a situation more directly involving interstate commerce, but what do I know? What an absolute freak this woman is. She makes me yearn for the days when Bob Dornan was the craziest member of Congress.
Ella in NM
@wilfred:
Now, now, take your medicine if you want to hang out here Willy. You DID ask a REALLY stupid question that could only be interpreted as provocative crap. Say you’re sorry and we’ll all stop hating on you.
4tehlulz
@JenJen: Yeah, I’m aware of that, but that doesn’t hold a candle to a traitorous husband.
Then again, her own personal sedition might just be enough to cover that base.
wilfred
@John Cole:
No worries; me, too.
I watched a great deal of this testimony live on al Jazeera English (not on BBC or CNN) and I thought here is this significant historical moment (and it is, I reckon) and just couldn’t think of anything really worthwhile to ask the guy, other than what, if any, other plans there might be.
wilfred
@Ella in NM:
Blow me.
schrodinger's cat
Why is she in Congress? How does she manage to get and stay elected?
jenniebee
I like the very start of the clip, where she implies that handing lots of dollars over to Wall Street = Government planned economy aka Communism.
We’re through the looking glass here, people.
Libby
@JenJen: I wish we had those LOL faces here for that one.
She’s got the whole "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes and ears" thing down pat.
gbear
I just smile whenever Bachmann goes off the rails. Her bizarrely shaped district was designed to contain the maximum quantity of MN stupid, and the people who live there deserve her (apologies to the couple of intelligent BJ readers who’ve gotten stuck in her district).
The two districts to the south of her district are represented by Keith Ellison (first Muslim in congress) and Betty McCollum (somehow rated most liberal member of congress). I’m in Betty’s district and the only complaint I have is that I never have to convince her to change her mind on any issues.
Nine out of 10 MN liberals LOVE it when Bachmann starts talking. The unhappy 1/10th live in her district.
4tehlulz
I challenge this statement, as it implies that she is ever sane.
Gus
She’s an embarrassment to Minnesota. I do love the fact, though, that her Congressional district abuts mine, the one represented by a traitorous Muslim.
cleek
the pie factory is always hiring.
congrats to the new employee!
mr. whipple
Did anyone hear the Ron Paul kwestion? Sweet jeebus, I needed the secret decoder ring to decifer wtf he was trying to say.
blogenfreude
@Colonel Danite: One word:
Inhofe.
What do I win Monty?
John Cole
You know all the right-wing blogs we quote every day and make fun of? The ones saying all the crazy stupid shit, running around chanting socialism while ripping lipton teabags one at a time and inquiring about Obama’s birth certificate and convinced the baby jesus rode a dinosaur 6,000 years ago?
They are allowed to vote.
Chuck Butcher
@wilfred:
Stupidly will get you that kind of reaction. Work on your bullshit and quit worrying that nobody takes you seriously until you can work up to being worth it.
Cripes sake, she ran out of time on an actual question because she wasted time asking them about her own authority – asshole that she is.
JenJen
@Libby: I’m kind of obsessed with Bachmann, because only she can make me feel better about my own Congresswoman.
gbear
Let’s just say I smile almost all the time.
passerby
She startled me when she began her line of questioning. I had hoped that she would put a different point on it.
But as she went on, it was clear that she lacked the preparation (and ability) to drive home the overall point –or what I was hoping would be the overall point–that the Constitution did not intend that the taxpayer would subsidize private institutions like AIG (multi-national in scope) to the disadvantage of competing institutions, to the tune of Trillion$ of Dollar$.
She only ended up appearing ignorant. Alas. What a rookie.
Chaz
As any first year law student knows, Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce under the "Commerce Clause" (quoted earlier by another commenter).
Joshua Norton
Dornan’s old district now is represented by a liberal latina lady. Times have changed for the old OC.
Paul L.
The Dumbest Person In Congress
Not Waters, Jackson-Lee, Stark, Kucinich, Hinchey or Frank now that Mccommie is gone.
Looks like the progressives said the Barney Frank was quoted out of context were wrong.
TARP’s comp curbs could be extended to all businesses
Say it again on video in Congress.
Frank Talk About Compensation
wilfred
@Chuck Butcher:
Mind your own goddamned business. If you’re going to take cheap shots at people at least try to know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Libby
I’ve asked myself that question. I thought for sure her call for McCarthy hearings against the evil "anti-American" liberals in Congress would have derailed her for sure, but I guess Mr. Cole answered that question for both of us.
Stannate
Michelle Bachman has loftier goals than trying to be the next Sarah Palin. She aspires to be the spiritual successor to Helen Chenoweth.
gbear
Wow, two little rays of sunshine.
Aaron
The answer is under the interstate commerce clause which gives congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and under a long series of decisions that interpret that clause.
John Cole
@passerby: That would have been shocking.
passerby
Unable to edit. Change "subsidize" to "bailout" or some other more appropriate word.
Libby
@JenJen: Gah! How embarrassing. You have my complete sympathy. I can see how Bachman would make you feel marginally better about it.
mr. whipple
@Stannate:
Wow, there’s a blast from the past. I had forgotten about her.
gwangung
She can’t even be a spirtual sucessor to Kristen Chenoweth.
Krista
Wow…sounds like someone needs their apple juice and a nice nap.
slaney black
Hey, the hypocrisy of Bush-kisser Bachmann all storming on the Constitutional barricades notwithstanding, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be on executive branch officials about this.
And I think it’s a disgrace that IMF Timmy can’t at least haul out the General Welfare clause in his own defense.
Wile E. Quixote
@Dennis-SGMM
The wingnuts always get bent about the Constitution because of the 10th amendment which states:
The wingnut interpretation of this is that anything that the Constitution doesn’t specifically allow the federal government to do is effectively prohibited. There is some merit to this argument; prohibition was not enacted until a constitutional amendment was in place, however the War on Some Drugs was enacted without any constiutional amendment being put in place, leading to the question of where the government gets its constitutional authority to mandate drug policy. It’s fun to mess with wingnuts by finding government programs that aren’t specifically allowed by the Constitution but are beloved by wingnuts and then ask them, as innocently as possible, why their pet program shouldn’t be shut down as being unconstitutional (I also like taunting cats with a laser pointer).
Wikipedia has a good page on the 10th amendment, too bad that Bachmann has never read it, or taken a 400 level poli sci class on Constitutional law. I had one class where we spent an entire quarter discussing this, the 14th amendment and the Commerce Clause that gave me food for thought that I’m still chewing on 20 odd years later.
TenguPhule
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We could offer the alternative as them working as slave labor.
someguy
Awesome. We should punish the MF’ers that are punishing us. Maybe extend that to the Fortune 1000 and all their employees, and I could be convinced to send the chairman a little hard money love.
Ash Can
@wilfred:
Uh, Sparky? Guess what — when you post something in a forum, you make it everyone’s business.
Joshua Norton
Really. A "retention bonus" should be their boss telling them "surprise, you still have a job".
Wile E. Quixote
@Brachiator
Can this be a new tag for any Michelle Bachman items? Please? Please John, can it. Please, Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
geg6
@Brachiator:
"Bachman Wingnut Overdrive"
FTW.
Awesome.
Polish the Guillotines
@Brachiator:
I was gonna go with Bachmann Turner Diaries Overdrive.
rmp
I’m from MN but am NOT from her district.
Thank FSM!!
Gus
Her district is an amalgam of blue collar suburbs/exurbs full of Joe the Plumbers and God-bothering farmers.
Lavocat
Teh stoopid. It burns.
wilfred
ooooooooh.
Jaysus.
Tisbah al kheer.
geg6
@Chaz:
Hell, any 8th grade student who has taken a civics class knows this.
Martin
I don’t like that idea.
I would prefer an excise tax (say, 50%?) on earnings over $250K (including cap gains) for all employees in companies that have received government funding (including the funds that passed their way via AIG and others) that will expire once the $830B in taxpayer money invested so far has been recovered. The tax also extends to anyone who worked for those companies in the last 5 years who might now work elsewhere or be retired, including their boards of directors.
Oh, and these industries lose all of their targeted tax benefits.
Ella in NM
@wilfred:
Ella in NM:
Blow me.
@Krista:
And, apparently, a blow job.
John Cole
I can hear the wails of socialism or liberal fascism now.
IN all reality, though, the Democrats are doing a REALLY, REALLY LOUSY job explaining what they are trying to accomplish here. They aren’t really trying to regulate the compensation in the sense they are not saying what is too much money or setting limits on how much they can earn. Honestly, I doubt that more than a handful them care how much they make.
What they are trying to do is regulate the way incentives are offered to executives to do really stupid, illegal, risky, quasi-illegal, unethical and did I mention stupid things that hurt their company, hurt their shareholders, hurt the entire financial system and ruin the entire economy because they get a tidy bonus if they engage in those behaviors. See Joseph Cassano and the head of every one of these firms that left right before the crash with lucrative bonus payouts.
Hank Paulson comes to mind.
AkaDad
Michelle Bachmann is a true Conservative, which is why Liberals hate her. If she was the face and voice of the Republican party, we’d be a permanent majority.
The Moar You Know
@Chuck Butcher: Glad to see you back. Let us know if there’s anything we can do to help.
Pay wilfred no mind, he’s just your typical spray-n-pray street thug, without the class.
Svensker
The thing that gets me is the look on her face. Like she KNOWS what she is talking about and everyone else is so stupid and libtard evil commie bastards who are evading the question, but she KNOWS what they really mean and she is gonna nail ’em, yup, whooooo boy. God, she is stupid and a twit of the first order….wait, isn’t there a word for that?…hmmmm…..tapping foot….oh yeah, wingnut, that’s it!
TenguPhule
Considering their options of outlets, I’m surprised it isn’t worse.
Our media doesn’t hear what’s actually said, they hear what they want to hear.
t jasper parnel
Michelle Bachman is to Obama’s socialism as the white male is to liberal fascism, only in reverse.
Stefan
I’m still waiting for someone to point out to me where in the Constitution it says we can have an air force. An army and navy, yes, I grant that — but an air force? The Founders were completely silent!
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@AkaDad:
Not bad. Not quite classic DougJ, but definitely not bad. It’s just missing a little something.
DrDave
(202) 225-2331
This is the phone number for Congressman Bachmann’s DC office. I suggested spending a dime to let them know that you think their boss is a laughingstock and clearly too stupid to be serving in Congress.
just a thought
jibeaux
@The Moar You Know:
Seconded even though I’m not sure what spray-n-pray means. I’m a rebel like that. I prefer my pointless pissing matches to be about Carolina-Duke, anyway.
We’re glad your back and we’re still thinking about you.
schrodinger's cat
@ John Cole
There must be a rather high concentration of the people you describe in Bachmann’s district. Unfortunately for the rest of us there is no known cure for this problem.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2009/03/20/funny-pictures-am-sorry/
Krista
He’ll probably need to remove the sand from his vagina first.
(J/K Wilfred — I’m just ribbing you. But man, you DO seem rather touchy today.)
AkaDad
Agreed, but I didn’t think you Liberals could handle THAT much truth.
Svensker
@t jasper parnel:
You made my head hurt.
jibeaux
@Svensker:
That was central to his point.
RememberNovember
@wilfred
The Billy Goats Gruff called, they’re getting bored waiting for you.
Mike G
In fact, the very reason we have things called “Constitutional Scholars” is because everything isn’t spelled out verbatim in the Constitution.
Rightards seem to struggle to understand anything that isn’t spelled out verbatim, involves abstract thought or a smidge of intelligent analysis or interpretation. It’s what binds them to their proud-to-be-stupid, Manichean, mendacious, I’m-always-right-and-never-to-blame comic-book ideology. Like pre-Piagetian children, they are stuck in concrete thinking in both senses of the word — their brains are like concrete and they brag about being closed-minded as if it were a virtue.
The Moar You Know
@jibeaux: "spray and pray" is a reference to how some kinds of shootings are conducted, where the offender just starts blasting away without aiming.
t jasper parnel
@jibeaux:
Indeed, and never has that point been made with such care and etc.
Skullduggery
@John Cole:
Democrats applying basic principals of economics (e.g. trying to properly align incentives) to save capitalism = socialism. Also, they’re gay.
JDM
It’s not a hard question: Under Article 1, Congress has plenary power to legislate to protect the public health, safety and welfare. That they did in the legislation she asked about, and Congress is well within those limits in that legislation. Bernanke and Geithner should have been ready to say that. Dicks.
donovong
@akadad:
PLEASE do everything you possibly can to make this happen! I haven’t had this much fun listening to anybody this stupid in a long time! We should even have a Palin/Bachman ticket in 2012 just for the giggles!!
My dog pooped something this morning that was smarter than that Bachman twit.
joe from Lowell
Does anybody else get the impression that Michelle Bachman is a tiger in the sack?
She’s got that hot, crazy thing going on.
I just can’t shake the feeling that nailing her would be like a three-ring circus.
smiley
I’m late to this but FYI, Hannity just played Bachmann’s "where in the constitution" quotes with hearty approval.
Quaker in a Basement
I am NOT hostile! Do you understand me?!? NOT. HOSTILE.
Martin
They aren’t doing as bad a job as it appears.
Once you turn off all the media outlets that are obsessed with octomom and the like, you get a very distorted sense of news since you’re missing the mainstream.
The last 3 months has been one story after another showing that polling is almost 180 degrees from what the political media is talking about. Now, that might be the Democrats fucking up, and I’m sure at least some of it is, but I think more if it is the political media making their own narrative. I don’t mean that in a sinister way, but it seems as though their job is to concern troll and offer contrarian opinions to absolutely everything that shows up. We find a handful of sane voices against every issue (though rarely the same ones from issue to issue) projected against a background of self-important rafter screamers. And it’s not just the pundits but bloggers as well.
I think it’s mostly the stress of not knowing what’s going to happen with all of these big problems and big plans – people just kind of lose the ability to moderate their opinions and how they interpret things, but I don’t see that there’s anything Democrats can do to change that.
Now, it’d be nice to have journalists to help people moderate, but half of them are out of business and the other half are afraid of their job. So pundits/bloggers are getting most of the airtime – and they all should be ignored. All of them. Including Krugman and Larison and Frank Rich and everyone else. We’ve all got a million opinions of our own, we don’t need more. We need facts and we aren’t getting them from these guys.
passerby
@JDM:
But JDM, I thought Bernanke gave a nice, concise and brief "tutorial" in his answer when she went over to him. I guess he had more time to think of what answer she needed.
Heh. Geithner did not have a chance to realize that she didnt understand the powers of government granted by the Constitution and was trying his damnedest to give the "right" answer. I replayed the clip again and I am laughing at how you can see Geithner wrestling with his mild case of bewilderment.
Cyrus
@Paul L.:
LOL. "Mccommie"? That’s great. Paul, who do you call Mccommie? I genuinely want to know. Did you make it up yourself?
Also, I think you’re all being too hard on AkaDad. Look again at what he actually wrote:
He says "we." If AkaDad considers himself a liberal, then that comment is exactly true.
sparky
@Ash Can:
/snorts, stirs
lol whut?
/zzzzzzzz
serge
I find Ms Bachmann to be refreshingly entertaining. She’s so dumb it hurts, and who doesn’t like someone that stupid?
Servius
Actually, that’s addressed in the 10th amendment.
That is, If the constitution doesn’t say the federal government can do something, it can’t. The snarky bits about the desk being wood or wearing clothes are just red herrings.
jerry 101
In Illinois’ 5th District, there would be competition for Bachmann Wingnut Overdrive, if it were even remotely possible for a Republican to win that district this year (or any year in which a known felon is not the "D" side of the ballot).
I present to you the Republican nominee for the Illinois 5th Congressional District Special Election, Ms. Rosanna Pulido (and yes, she’s hispanic). Also known to FreeRepublic.com as "ChicagoLady" (not to mention being the head of the Illinois Minutemen – I still haven’t figured out why Illinois, hundreds of miles from the nearest foreign border, has a minutemen chapter)
Yes. A real life freeper running for national office. A latino woman who’s entire platform is basically: I hate latino’s, gays, black people, the FDA, liberals, muslims, anti-war demonstrators, politicians (who disagree with her), Barack Obama, Matt Lauer, the spanish language, mexicans, well, you get the picture. She hates everyone.
Thank god she doesn’t stand a snowballs chance, but imagine the outrage/hilarity of her being in Congress.
JL
Geithner’s expressions were priceless. He also seemed pleased that her time expired.
passerby
@JL:
Yes, those "WTF" looks that flickered across his face said it all.
He was probably wondering: How the sam hill did she get on this committee?!
slaney black
Really. I don’t understand what we’re all so butthurt about.
It was a legit question. If Democrats had been asking this kind of question we woulda saved a whole lot of grief over the last few years/decades.
Sure, Bushstalker Bachmann is a hypocrite; but who cares?
IMF Timmy should have a basic enough grasp of his constitutional authority to answer that question.
J. Michael Neal
This is an incorrect reading of the 10th Amendment. Here is an alternative version, that was the one originally proposed:
The word "All" was stricken in the debate, and replaced with "The." In other words, the Constitutional Convention rejected the idea that anything not listed in the Constitution can’t be done by the federal government. In practice, that means that the line between what it can do and what it can’t is pretty fuzzy. I consider this to be a feature, rather than a bug, because it allows for the duties of government to change over time in response to a changing world. Though, in response to someone above, I think we’d have been better off if we never created the Air Force, and had it remain the US Army Air Corps.
J. Michael Neal
He did. He repeated several times that the authority came from an act of Congress. The only thing he didn’t say was "Article I, Section 8." Frankly, I don’t care whether the Treasury Secretary can remember which article of the Constitution gives Congress its powers.
J. Michael Neal
Michelle Bachman’s district includes St. Cloud, so you have to expect the stupid to be strong in her.
Mark R
She said "Kazak-a-stan". That was funny.
Ash Can
@jerry 101: She’s a piece of work, all right. The best thing about her, though, is that she’d make Pat "Hispanics Are Destroying America" Buchanan’s head explode.
pikhoved
AhabTRuler
Sorry to be pedantic, but:
History FAIL!
rapido
I despise bachmann, but I do wish I could’ve heard the answer to the one good question she saved for last.
Fulcanelli
Where in the Constitution does it say I can’t hang Michelle Bachmann by her ankles out of an open window on the 37th floor of a skyscraper in a large American city to get her to STFU? Would this result in a Constitutional crisis of a magnitude that would threaten the fabric of Democracy if I did? Or does it just sound like an awful lot of fun?
I remain unsure at this time…
John Cole
@AhabTRuler: I misuse several all the time.
JM
This idiot posted this same stupid comment on two blogs.
Pathetic.
Laura W
One of the smartest people in Congress on Tweety now…Debbie W-Schultz.
I’m tearing already. Christ. What an amazing, dynamic woman.
I can’t imagine having her energy level. I don’t even have 10% of that. Mind boggling.
someguy
That’s right. Those parts of it we really don’t need any more, like the second amendment, sort of evolve into obsolescence. Nobody needs to hunt for a living any more or defend themselves against British invasion or quartering. As for where Congress gets the authority for pay caps or nationalization, it’s in the commerce clause. If you grow even a grain of wheat on your property, they can regulate it if they’ve made a finding that it affects commerce. The wingnuts need to STFU and deal with it; it’s not socialism, it’s well settled law. If they don’t like it… well, they should try to stop trolling for sex in airport bathrooms and the congressional pages’ office and maybe win an election or two.
Roq
Hehe, I felt bad for Geithner there. You could tell by his voice the third time around that he was consciously refraining from saying, "The Constitution gives you the authority to give me the authority, and you have." Because it would’ve been tantamount to calling her a moron.
Being able to remain bland in the face of stupidity is a skill, yo.
AhabTRuler
@John Cole: Oh, then… very well, about your business.
[clicks heels]
joe from Lowell
He’s a witness before a Congressional committee, doing an oversight hearing of his execution of powers granted to him, in that committee’s jurisdiction. She’s a member of that committee.
He couldn’t sit there and lecture a sitting US Representative on what Article 1 is. It would have looked bad.
Bachman’s buffoonery was embarrassing to her, awkward for everyone involved, and a complete waste of time. No wonder Barney was ticked off at her.
Servius
@J. Michael Neal
Actually, the version of the 10th ammendment makes the case for a limited/not evolving view of the powers of the Federal government stronger, not weaker.
Also, the Air Force is clearly part of what the founders would have considered an army whether or not it is a distinct organization.
asiangrrlMN
gbear, I, too, live in Betty McCollum’s district. I, too, like the job she’s been doing, but I wasn’t happy when she trashed Al Franken.
As for Michelle "I crouch behind bushes to spy on the LGBT folks" Bachmann (two Ns because she’s EXTRA nutty), I am a liberal who does not smile when I hear her talk. I rarely do get to hear her talk because I am forever muting her. I am deeply embarrassed that she is a representative for my state, though I had nothing to do with putting her in Congress. I think she is the least intelligent member of the House, and that’s saying quite a bit. OK, if she’s not the least intelligent, she’s in the bottom ten.
georgia pig
Bernanke’s reaction was priceless, too, something like "Huh? You talking to me? Oh yeah, you’re that nut from Minnesota."
slaney black
It was applicable on two blogs.
Bachmann is dumb, and the point she was trying to make was wrong, but her question is one that congresstypes should be asking more often.
Call me nuts, but I do.
ice9
You all don’t get Bachman. Her stupid is precise, and politically very effective: it’s not foolishness, or uncertainty. or dumbness. She is a good politician, and is very dangerous therefore. She knows that she has the certain grace of Jesus, for one, which she carries with her like a club. She is a savvy politician who escaped the slaughter of republicans last November despite saying lots of really obnoxious things. She’s a canary for the far right, and a slippery one at that (mixed metaphors are her specialty, too.) Don’t underestimate her; the truth is, she doesn’t mind being thought stupid by us or anyone else, both because it’s wrong to think her stupid because she’s not, and because so long as the only rap against her is that she’s considered stupid by us liberals she will continue getting elected.
Her questions are not for Geithner or Bernanke, but for her core constituency. Nothing new here; she isn’t listening to the answers. She is well aware of where the constitutional authority comes from. Her mission–probably agreed upon beforehand, probably assigned her by the whip–was to get those two on the record reacting to the concept that the TARP and bailouts are unconstitutional. That they are not unconstitutional, and that the suggestion that they are unconstitutional is stupid, is irrelevant to her and her handlers. The witnesses know what she’s doing, as does the chairman. That video will be useful to her and her superiors; that’s enough for her.
Such a soldier is pretty valuable to the GOP leadership.
It’s also an intentional step to save the real question for the margin of her time, so Frank is maneuvered into cutting her off. Save the best for the margin; then, either the chairman lets the question run, or cuts you off and looks like he’s closing honest debate.
Bachman is an embarassment to us Minnesotans, but she’s not a pushover. I loved my congressman, Jim Ramstad, just because he wasn’t Bachman. It was too much to hope for that we’d elect a democrat in this district. It remains to be seen how Paulsen does in his stead, but I’m doubtful. But Bachman’s an excellent congressman if you are looking for a solid player for Team DeLay, a woman who will do whatever it takes. She is not higher-office ambitious; she truly believes the religious line she spouts (which makes her very dangerous, of course.) She expects to be raptured any minute, believes that Satan walks among us (and is a Democrat), that she is a leader chosen by Christ himself. She is dangerous because she’s a true believer, not because she’s stupid. She does not believe in the crap she offered there, though; she considers it beneath her to consider it above a tactical level, and if you spend all your time wondering at her idiocy you’re missing the real danger.
ice
J. Michael Neal
@Servius: It would make it stronger, except that the Constitutional Convention explicitly voted against it. Had they left the word "All" in, it would have made the case you want. They very clearly did not want to say that. They left it vague.
And, sure, I think the Air Force is constitutional. I just think it was a bad idea.
J. Michael Neal
@slaney black: You;’re nuts. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that you are fucking nuts. Why, exactly, does the Treasury Secretary need to remember which Article of the Constitution is which? Why does he need to remember what Section of a given Article a particular power is enumerated in? Geithner clearly knew what the powers were, and that’s the only part of this that’s at all important.
CalD
Actually I think you’re both wrong. I have to say that this would have been a fair enough question to ask the Congress during deliberation over the bill that granted these extraordinary authorities to the Treasury department. And I don’t pretend to know the answer myself. But every single thing the federal government does actually is, in fact, supposed to derive from the authorities specifically granted to it in the Constitution.
After the last ten years or so it’s probably become too easy to forget that the government isn’t supposed to just go off and do as it damn well pleases, or that anything the President and/or the Congress wants to do is legal just because they say it is. The constitution actually does say specifically that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government therein are variously reserved for the states and the people. You can bend it or stretch it a little here and there but if you don’t like what it says, you’re really supposed to change it.
Luckily, the Constitution also establishes a third branch of the federal government specifically for dealing with these very kinds of questions. So if the gentlewoman from Minnesota wishes to dispute the constitutionality of any part of the recent stimulus bills, she has every right to take her case to the Supreme Court. It is not however, really the place of the Treasury Secretary to make such rulings and badgering the man about it probably won’t change that.
I suppose we could choose to call it encouraging though, that even acknowledging the existence of a Constitution — even if they’re apparently still a little confused about how it works — might just be coming back into fashion among wing-nut Republicans.
someguy
Well, aren’t you the little originalist… learn that at Antonin’s knee, didja? Funny we didn’t hear much from you guys when Bush was using NSA to wiretap Americans.
justaguy2
Hey Jerry
Thanks to the link to Pulido. I don’t think many people know that she won the Republican primary for the runoff for Rahm ‘s Congressional seat.
I can’t understand why she’s not in the local press more. She’s more fun than a barrel of Bachmans. And now that Burris is laying low, there’s a lot of column inches she could be filling with juicy quotes.
Please ask WLS & WTTW to televise the debates. It’s ratings gold!
Miriam
God, everytime I hear Michelle Bachman say anything I get so embarrassed that I am from Minnesota. It is really distressing that there are actual, real dumb people running this country.
Steeplejack
@Brachiator: FTW! "Takin’ Care of Bidness."
hamletta
@ice9: I’m with you.
I think she’s crazy (in the unhinged Freeper/John Bircher sense), but you’re right that she is not stupid.
She’s kinda like Sarah Palin, only better-educated. They really appeal to some people with their folksiness.
And they’re both beautiful women. It’s really interesting to me how they’ve threaded the smart/pretty needle. But that’s a topic for Pandagon and Jezebel.
Steeplejack
@John Cole:
Several. 2a: "more than one." 2b: "more than two but fewer than many." Ahab is being overly pedantic.
OC
MN is my home state so I’ve had the chance to observe her nuttiness for several years. To answer the question I’m sure many of you have asked: yes, she really is that stupid. Might as well be a sack of hammers asking Geithner those questions. Actually the sack of hammers would probably ask more intelligent questions.
AhabTRuler
Overly pedantic! Overly pedantic? I’ll give you….
Hah, you failed to include:
which I would argue is the use that pertains here.
JoeM
I’m not sure if anyone caught this on tape, but this morning Fox and Friends used this clip as the center piece as to how Geitner got a serious grilling yesterday. They really must be as disfunctional in the head as Bauchmann. God I hope someone posts that clip.
passerby
@ice9:
This thread may being dead by now but, I’d like to make this point.
I enjoyed reading your take on the Bachmann overdrive and viewed from your perspective I can totally agree that to think her dumb is to underestimate her.
However, there is one element (and it’s a major element) on which I disagree with you.
"the concept that the TARP and bailouts are unconstitutional. That they are not unconstitutional, and that the suggestion that they are unconstitutional is stupid,"
As I commented up-thread @50: @passerby:
That the constitution did not intend for the government to use the taxpayer to support select, private industries is a debate worth having. Don’t you think?
If present day abominations of the Constitution, built on past violations of the intent of the Constitution, are allowed to continue, are we even living in the same country our forefathers envisioned?
Something is very wrong with what is happening between private financial institutions, politicians in congress, and federal tax dollars.
Corporate control of government is Fascism. In a fascist society, the People have no say.
passerby
@CalD:
CalD, I read your comment after I posted @ 150 and I’m in general agreement with your point.
I’d like to add that all of these Federal employees (and our military for that matter), whether elected or appointed, have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not sworn to uphold the bottom line of financial institutions.
Though Geithner (and Bernanke) was not there to address constitutionality, I am interested to know what his opinion is on this aspect. In what other forum would this opportunity have been possible?
His hands are tied by rule of law but how does the question of constitutionality influence his approach to finding solutions to this mess? or does he even give it any consideration in the performance of his duties as Secretary of the Treasury?
The word "incurious" was often used to describe Sarah Palin. But, seems to me, she wasn’t the only one suffering from lack of curiosity. Our reps need to ask more quesions like this vs their pol grand standing.
I, for one, would be glad to see more focus, more questions asked, on the Constitution with regard to what is happening in our country these days.
Servius
@J. Michael Neal
The second version is not vague. The only way to make it vague would be to leave it out.
The 10th Ammendment clearly says that what the constitution does not delegate to the feds the feds are not to do. It’s that word "reserved" that matters.
ice9
Passer, no thread is dead when we’re still reading.
You are correct in not letting me get away with the universal generality; it is not automatically stupid, and may not be stupid at all. I don’t pretend to have an intelligent opinion on that point. I might argue that anything Bachman cares about I reject; that’s fun, but not especially productive. Also there’s some doubt that Bachman gets why it might or might not be Constitutional; not because she can’t get it, but because she doesn’t need that level of thinking to know that she hates it, she doesn’t bother considering it. Boehner says it, she believes it, that settles it. She hates Geithner’s tie before he chooses it.
ice
The Populist
Well, don’t forget about that bee-otch from New Mexico…she was pretty insane too!
The Populist
Seriously, how much does the GOP pay you to post silly crap like that?
Nice try troll.
guest omen
the way she’s been raising her profile, is she thinking of giving caribou barbie a run for the money?
JWW
John,
In fact, the very reason we have things called “Constitutional Scholars” is because everything isn’t spelled out verbatim in the Constitution.
If that is the truth, what’s the problem with the question? If it were repeated several times and the answer is still unknowing a lost in the woods
I would like to finish this but I hate getting booted from your site for displaying your stupidity.