Bachmann’s time in a Kibbutz as a teenager makes for a good human-interest story, but as a presiential candidate a better gauge of “does she have the background” is her recent record in Congress. Looking at her sponsored legislation for this session tells a lot:

H.R. 86 – A bill to repeal or cap a broad set of taxes without any provision to compensate for the lost revenue’s impact on the deficit.
STATUS – Buried in a Republican-led committee since January of 2011.

H.R.87.IH – A bill to completely repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Not a single Wall Street reform element is considered worth leaving, so Mrs. Bachmann must believe that simply trusting in the entities that enginnered the crisis to change their behavior on their own is sufficient. Likewise, she must believe that there isn’t a single component of the Consumer Protection Act that was worth leaving intact. If sunshine is the best disinfecant, it makes one wonder how a trained accountant like Mrs. Bachmann believes that allowing things to be hidden is better for this country.
STATUS – Buried in a Republican-led subcommittee since February of 2011.

H.R.849 -The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, which will prohibit any ban on the same of incandescent light bulbs unless certain criteria are met. One of her criteria is that there must be proof that switching to alternative light bulbs will reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by the year 2025 – quite a requirement for someone who considers global warming to be a hoax. She’s also worried about mercury contamination, but her bill doesn’t require any of the targeted settings to eliminate the bulbs with mercury they are already using. 90% of the energy powering incandescent lights is wasted as heat, but if Bachmann has better idea that advances our energy independence interests with as good a bang-for-the-buck as the law she’s looking to repeal, she’s not sharing.
STATUS – Buried in a Republican-led subcommittee since March 2011

H.R.850 – “To facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes.” This is just a $600 million earmark to build a highway bridge through a natural wetlands area in her home state. Hard to call yourself an anti-government deficit hawk when you hold out your hand for over half a billion taxpayer dollars to build a “bridge through nowhere”.
STATUS – Lingering in a Republican-led subcommittee.

H.R.1285 – Military Health Care Affordability Act. This is actually a very well-intentioned piece of legislation in that it prevents increases in military out-of-pocket medical expenses. There’s no provision for how it would be paid for, however, even as she’s looking to spend a half-billion taxpayer dollars building bridges in the middle of Minnesota swamps.
STATUS – Lingering in a Republican-led subcommittee.

H.R.1286 – Healthcare Fiscal Accountability Act of 2011, which make $105 billion in committed funds for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act subject to Congessional review and removal – in other works, if you can’t repeal it, defund it.
STATUS – Buried in a Republican-led subcommittee since April 2011

H.R.1450 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate any time limitation for granting equitable innocent spouse relief. This one makes sense, but she hasn’t been able to get it out of a Republican-led committee since it was parked there in April.

So to recap, the actual legislative accomplishments of Rep. Bachmann in the current session of Congress consist of seven bills. One is worthwhile but has no plan for funding it, and another is sensible, but she hasn’t shown any ability to work with her own party to get it past the committee stage and move the process along. The rest would worsen the deficit, encourage financial misconduct, send a half-billion in pork to her state to build a bridge where the locals don’t want one, and take funding from a Health Care program most Americans actually want.

So five of her seven bills are so ridiculous that they’re buried by the Republcans even as she touts them as accomplishments, and she’s unable to work with her own party to advance the two that are worthwhile. If she can’t actually deliver on any of her agenda items when her own party runs the House, how can people credibly believe that she’d achieve anything as a President who can deliver on her agenda against real opposition?

This doesn’t look good for her:

link to minnesotaindependent.com

Though I’m sure she’ll dissociate herself should this come into the spotlight.

This Dean fellow seems to think being gay is something you should be imprisoned for.

The other current indication of how Bachmann would actually govern comes from her immediate signature on the Family Leader’s pledge titled “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY”.

Let’s take a look at what she’s pledging to fulfill if elected President:

Start with her implicit endorsement of the preamble, which states among other things that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President”.

Wow. Just – wow. Setting aside that this “statistic” would also apply to presidencies of Reagan or either Bush, it’s not out of character for Bachmann to promote a distorted view of history like this. Of course these families stayed together in a “two-parent household” – they were SLAVES, and were held in place against their will. I guess to Bachmann and Bob Vander Plaats, who authored the pledge, there’s a need to harken back to “better times” when people didn’t divorce because they were forced to stay together.

That’s not left-wing hyperbole, by the way – Pledge Item #6 calls for the government imposition of “waiting” and “Cooling off periods” before a divorce can be obtained. No consideration for cases of adultery, marital rape, substance abuse, or criminal behavior by a spouse – the government knows best, and you just need to cool off and try to keep it together with the guy who’s been beating you “for the sake of the kids”.

As for the other Pledge Items ( link to thinkprogress.org ):

– What’s the implication of #2? Will she punish or dismiss members of her administration for infidelity, even if unrelated to their job performance?

– How does someone who beleives in States Rights reconcile Item #4 with states that recognize gay marriage? Same for Item #7.

– Item 8 is a non-starter given that it would take rights away from U.S. citizens who now have them in some states. Easy to pledge to try, though, and say you meant it.

– Item 9 is telling on several levels. Aside from the fact that it doesn’t regard these items as a risk to young males (read the corresponding footnote), it’s a ridiculously vague item to pledge to uphold. I’d love to know how you go about preventing “seduction into promiscuity” in any practical sense, as well as “all forms of pornography”. The current, conservatve-majority Supreme Court has shown too much support for individual freedom and the First Amendment to make those clauses anything but lip-service, and the people signing this pledge know it even as they pen their names for the cameras.

– Item 10 implies that the military does not already have a code of appropriate conduct it can hold its members accountable against regardless of gender. If Bachmann went ahead with this in the literal sense, would she strip current women combat pilots, regardless of their service records and the respect of their peers, of the positions they earned through years of hard work and sacrifice?
— Ban woman from serving on naval vessels that may engage in combat? How does she explain away the double-standard that men are subject to torture if captured, too?

— Explain how someone having such a deep familiarity and admiration for Israel can reconcile support for Pledge item # 10 with the fact that Israel allows not just men and women to serve in combat roles, but that it allows gays and lesbians to serve openly as well? I don’t see her accusing the Israeli military of being an ineffective or dysfunctional organization.

–Explain how she’d apply Item 12 to her policy making. The related footnote implies that the nation would be better off if millions of aborted children were alive and contributing to the economy instead. By this line of reasoning, you’d be a hypocite for not making birth control illegal as well.

— Explain what policy changes would come from Item 14 taht would not amount to the U.S. government legislating in favor of specific religions at the expense of people who disagree with those religious views.

OOh, this is not looking good for her.
link to guardian.co.uk