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.

The Truth About Fox "News"

From Jon Stewart.

For a long time, I've wondered about where Fox "News" comes down on the ideological spectrum - or at least how they see themselves. Do they see themselves as unbiased or do they see themselves as a counterweight to what they perceive as a liberal bias in the media.

Are they in the middle of the seesaw or are they on the other side?

Well now we have our answer:

A partial transcript from Huffingtonpost. After Fox host Chris Wallace says that Fox "tells the other side of the story, Stewart's analysis is in full mock mode:

We don't tell both sides of the story, we tell one side...the other side, the one we perceive is never told. Because as you know, news only comes in two sides. And if the conservative side isn't being told what's being told must be liberal. Fox News isn't fair and balanced. It's balancing the system, man. Don't you get it? The system's unfair and unbalanced. To balance the system, Fox has to be the purest form of right wing resin. Because of how heavy left wing America is. Hollywood, comedians, every single news organization, the Internet, facts, history, science, it's all just left wing bullshit, man....

He summarizes the mock:

Is Fox unbalanced? Yeah. Seriously, their ears are nearly touching the floor. But it's only because the system is unbalanced.

They're not at the center of the seesaw, they're miles to the right.