Bachmann Planning To Sign DeMint-Backed Pledge

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is planning to sign a spending limit pledge that a South Carolina senator has turned into a threshold test for 2012 presidential hopefuls seeking his support.

A schedule sent out Saturday by Bachmann’s campaign says the Republican is signing the pledge Monday during a stop in Columbia.

Bachmann would be the ninth GOP presidential candidate to sign the pledge urging Congress to oppose any increase in the U.S. debt limit unless certain conditions are met.

The pledge is backed by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has not signed it, telling reporters in South Carolina earlier this month that he’s opposed to such pledges.

Thirteen U.S. senators, 37 House member and five governors, including South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, have also signed on.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. Swamp Rat says:

    How can anyone sign a spending limit pledge when the government’s is in such a mess? You can’t set fiscal limits unless a rock solid plan is in place. That’s only basic ECON101 at work here.

    Such pledges are meaningless in today’s ignorant political policies climate. If Bachmann signs the pledge without concrete fiscal responsibility and accountability planning then she is courting economic disaster.

    1. A Voter says:

      Without consequences, a penalty for non-compliance, it’s meaningless.

      1. Swamp Rat says:

        @A Voter
        You can’t have consequences, ergo penalties etc., without a concrete plan of action. This pledge is political BS and window dressing.

  2. kieron says:

    Here’s Bachmann, doing what she does best: window-dressing.

  3. James Stout says:

    Any public official who signs a pledge renders herself/himself ineligible for office, as it compromises the official’s ability to fulfill the Oath of Office. Ms Bachmann has rendered herself completely unqualified for public office even prior to this event, since she is superstitious, prejudiced and uninformed. She is superstitious by virtue of her belief in creation and other primitive beliefs. She is prejudiced against gays, who are valued members of our society. She does not understand history, economics or science.

    1. Swamp Rat says:

      @James S.
      Finally, someone making sense. I agree with you.

  4. Deep Thinker says:

    Michele Bachman is such an oddball I no longer have any relevant opinions about her, just thought you all should know this, since some morons still believe she is a good candidate…….gee I hope those same people get the last golden ticket to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory…..dopes

    1. Rico Suave says:

      Cheap thinker….well you’re half right: You have no relevant opinions about Bachmann. She signs a pledge promising to steer us away from the cliff the Spender in Chief is taking us over, and the liberal loons think that’s insanity. Liberals seized onto Bush’s “stay the course” phrase, and howled that he was a fool, and now our president is pushing the economy over the edge and liberals let him march them like sheep to the slaughter. He increased the budget by a third, tripled the budget deficit, and increased the national debt by over three trillion in two and a half years, doubled the number of people on food stamps, passed out stimulus money like Halloween candy to his union friends, stirred up a class warfare mob, started a new war, and NOT ONE THING HAS GOTTEN BETTER. To make things worse, anyone who tries to stop it is a crazy idiot. What is so anathema to liberals about fiscal restraint???? Can a liberal please explain the brilliance of Obama to us conservative rubes?

      1. James says:

        Keepin mind that: 1) These debts are largely the result of Bush-era spending, and are for obligations already created; 2) Mr Obama’s budget deficits look bad because he put everything into the budget, including the costs of the Irag-Afghanistan wars, which Mr Bush-43 had kept off the books; and 3) Defaulting on our debt obligations results in everyone paying higher intereest rates, effectively a tax increase.

      2. Reasonable says:

        Nothing has gotten better? Employment is starting to go up in both (gasp!) public and private sectors. The DOW now trades regularly at 85-95% of its highest ever close and has doubled in the last couple of years.

        What is so anethema about fiscal restraint to conservatives? Bush started the initial auto and bank bailouts, they were finished by Obama and then broadened as well.
        Show me one fiscal policy proposal by a conservative that actually reduces spending and revenue? There’s no such thing. Oh sure, there’s that Paul Ryan guy who assumes that lowering taxes will drop unemployment to less than 5%. I guess he thinks that the volume of taxes will make up for margin. Of course he could just use modern history as a frame of referrence to realize that IT DOES NOT WORK.

        There is no brilliance to Obama. The only positive thing about him is that he seems to think longer range than Thursday. My assumption of most conservative thinking is roughly “when people have more expendable income they will spend more, and those at the top have the most to spend and create jobs” which is relatively sound. At least the first part.
        However there gets to be a point where that no longer works. Not all wealthy people are job creators, to the contrary they create few if any jobs. How many jobs has Paul Magers created by doubling his income in LA? How many jobs has Joe Mauer created? Brett Favre when he was still around over here? To simply equate wealthy person = job creator is absurd and simply false. Besides, even if they were in the widget creation business as opposed to the running and throwing business, when there aren’t enough serfs with enough extra cash to buy the widget the widget is useless. Supply side economic theory has proved itself false and trickle down economics has shown itself to be trickle up economics.
        So, Obama wants to invest in the future of America. Much like you currently invest in your 401(k) in the hope for greater returns tomorrow. Paul Ryan and his ilk want to cash in all the chips right now for magic beans. Obama and his ilk want to protect the consumer from the credit market that swindled almost everyone leading to this current economic mess (The Dodd-Frank bill) while Bachmann and her ilk seek to defund said bill in the hopes of getting their masters an extra 1% while squeezing the non-investing class that much further.

  5. Marcus Just Admit It says:

    Watch Marcus Bachman’s mannerisms & listen to him talk & then draw your own conclusions on his quest to ‘fix’ gays…….I’m just saying………

    1. Mike says:

      Here is a good video that reiterates your point; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-w7QAEWudQ

    2. Tom says:

      @ Marcus just admit it

      I have listened to him and talk and I agree with you!

  6. drummer says:

    Hope she reads this one.

  7. Paul Solinger says:

    What is it with this woman and pledges? Seriously. This is what Bachmann does. She allows other people to speak for her, and she just signs her name. Anyone who votes for this loon should be ashamed of themselves.

  8. jan says:

    I usually lean Republican but would not vote for any religious fundamentalist candidate. When John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, I voted for Obama instead.. I would vote for Donald Duck over Bachman any day

    1. F.Y.I. says:

      Sweden, in 1991, had 1,535 votes for the Donald Duck Party. They ran on free liquor and wider sidewalks. In the controversial 2002 election, Donald Duck proved his political prowess… He beat out both George W. Bush and Al Gore for district director of the Marion Soil and Water Conservation Board in Salem, Oregon with 4,570 votes, second place Al Gore received 23 votes.

    2. Bill Gross says:

      You “usually lean Republican”. You’re being facetious, right. You can’t believe that anyone would believe that. No one who has ever “leaned Republican” could find the necessary moronic part of their being that would allow them to vote for our current President. As to your claim that you would vote for Donald Duck [a fictitional character] over a legitimate candidate; it really proves that you are, in fact, an elitist progressive.

      1. Reasonable says:

        Why must progressives be elitist? I’ve never understood that moniker. If you’re casting a stone at someone for being elitist, are you basically saying you’re a regressive troglodyte?

        Good launching point for a civil discussion I guess.

  9. Tom says:

    Conservatives and their pledges! Good Grief!

  10. drts says:

    Don’t worry. She runs them by God first.

  11. Angus says:

    We have a care of a DeMinded signing a DeMint Pledge.

    She would sell her soul for a vote but hopefully, the day she does souls are a glut on the market.

  12. Alfred says:

    I think the pledge basically says “I am not an idiot and will not continue the stupid and harmful current policy”.

    Sounds good to me. The government already has too much money. They must cut spending.

    1. James says:

      Alfred,

      Keep in mind that: 1) These debts are largely the result of Bush-era spending, and are for obligations already created; 2) Mr Obama’s budget deficits look bad because he put everything into the budget, including the costs of the Irag-Afghanistan wars, which Mr Bush-43 had kept off the books; and 3) Defaulting on our debt obligations results in everyone paying higher intereest rates, effectively a tax increase.

  13. HooDatIS? says:

    michele buttman will do anything for support
    she needs to go help the homeless or do something nice like normal people and quit following older racist politicans
    http://ethicalfutures.wordpress.com

  14. middle of the road says:

    apparently believing in something and standing up for it publicly is not to the liking of the early posters here. I am no fan of Michelle Bachmann, but at least she has some fiscal restraint, unlike our current president. Now before you all go off and support our current president by blaiming the former president, recall this president was in the senate and voted for everyone of the bills that our former president signed into law. This president has also DOUBLED our national debt since taking office, in two short years. By the way, I am hoping for a moderate from ANY part come the next Presidential election.

    1. Citizen says:

      @middle of the road. And please remember that Obama’s GOP congresscritters also signed off on all the bills that were passed which are now forcing the raising of the debt ceiling. The GOP okayed Obama’s spending before they were against it.

      1. shrugged says:

        Ron Paul introduced an interesting concept. His idea, instead of raising the ceiling and allowing for ever more charges on America’s credit card–instead of not raising the ceiling and facing default…take 1.6 trillion in government bonds, held by the fed, and BURN them. Literally burn them. Poof, debt ceiling? No need. America can shuffle money from its savings account to its debt. Brilliant! There are ways to figure this out as a people standing together rather than divided. Using the phrase—“higher taxes on the wealthy”—doesn’t work. Fair share—does. Using—“higher taxes on corporations”—doesn’t work. Closing loopholes—does. Flat tax!

    2. James says:

      Middle,

      Keepin mind that: 1) These debts are largely the result of Bush-era spending, and are for obligations already created; 2) Mr Obama’s budget deficits look bad because he put everything into the budget, including the costs of the Irag-Afghanistan wars, which Mr Bush-43 had kept off the books; and 3) Defaulting on our debt obligations results in everyone paying higher intereest rates, effectively a tax increase.

  15. Pull in your lips says:

    She kissed on Bush with less restraint! Have people forgotten how she pawed on him? The smooch that was seen around the world?
    Probably the only kiss she has gotten from a man in ages.
    Bush + Bachmann = disaster

    1. Rico Suave says:

      OK, she’s a disaster. So are you saying the current clown in the White Hizzy is a rousing success? Enlighten us please on this logic of yours.

      1. James says:

        Rico,

        Keepin mind that: 1) These debts are largely the result of Bush-era spending, and are for obligations already created; 2) Mr Obama’s budget deficits look bad because he put everything into the budget, including the costs of the Irag-Afghanistan wars, which Mr Bush-43 had kept off the books; and 3) Defaulting on our debt obligations results in everyone paying higher intereest rates, effectively a tax increase.

  16. Citizen says:

    Commentary from the Dismal Political Economist on Michelle Bachman about still another pledge she signed. Too bad she doesn’t pledge herself to doing her congressional job for which she took an oath to Minnesota and the U.S.:
    :
    “The Washington Post has a story about a fund raising letter that Michelle Bachmann (R, Mn) sent out to raise money for his presidential campaign. The letter attacks talk show host and academy award winning actress Whoopi Goldberg. Ms. Goldberg was critical of Ms. Bachmann’s signing of a pledge whose pre-amble stated how much better African American children were under slavery when there was a two parent household.”

  17. d kauls says:

    Here’s a pledge I’d like Ms. Bachmann to take:

    Between now and election day I will try to learn as much as possible about the United States, and its place in the world, so that I can provide some substance to my campaign.

    I will say something only if I know it to be true.

    I will not let my wacked-out religious views influence me too much.

  18. Common sense says:

    She keeps getting elected because she does what she’s told (votes the GOP wants). It’s this characteristic that the GOP will never replace Bachmann. Like it or not, she is loyal to the GOP. She not completely stupid folks, she nknows which side her bread is buttered on.

    1. drummer says:

      You’re right. Not sure that “not completely stupid” is an appropriate standard, though. We used that in 2000 and 2004 and look where it’s got us.

  19. Where's Forrest Gump says:

    Not completely stupid, but stupid enough. Does that about cover it?
    “Stupid is, as stupid does”

    1. Swamp Rat says:

      @ Where’s F.G.?
      Maybe Bachmann should take note of Forrest. “Stupid is, as stupid does.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

Trees Of Hope
Good Question

Listen Live