Michele Bachmann is stupid, but not stupid enough to take up such a sure loss:
Amy Myers, a high school sophomore from Cherry Valley, New Jersey, has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging the Minnesota Representative to a debate and public test on the constitution, U.S. history, and civics.
Myers says Bachmann’s frequent errors, misstatements and distortions aren’t just bad for civic discourse — they’re bad for women.
“Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole,” Myers writes.
So to show that Bachmann isn’t a great representative of her gender’s intellectual capacity, Myers proposes a battle of wits.
Bachmann knows she would be wrecked. Aside from the fact that she doesn’t seem to have even the most basic historical facts correct, she has a Teabagger point of view. That means she holds to the false notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation and that it has its founding in Christianity. (A Teabagger who doesn’t know American history? Weird, I know.) This would be more embarrassing than when Christine O’Donnell asked where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state.
I do hope she accepts, though. Now that Donald Trump is fading, the nation really could use another punching bag.
Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Amy Myers, Cherry Hill, Cherry Valley, Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, New Jersey |
For the Sake of Science 
I heard the acceptance must be a written one and since Bachmann, like most teabaggers, is illiterate, she can not answer.
I think everyone that chooses to run for office should have to participate in a reading contest. That would, by default, ensure far fewer republicans make it into public office.
While I believe very strongly in a separation of church in state, it is factually correct to say it does not appear in the constitution.
Evolution is also “only a theory”.
That’s a stupid view on science she expressed, and shame on her for not knowing better, but it doesn’t change the fact that that phrase does not appear in the constitution.
No one was talking about any specific phrasing, and the fact that she didn’t know that amply demonstrated her general stupidity.
Michael: the “exact phrasing” excuse sounds awfully like something a teabagger once said to me. (For the benefit of those ignorant of the origins of the phrase, I’ve taken to avoiding it, instead referring to the Establishment Clause.)