I told myself I wasn’t going to do this, because it’s Ed Rollins’ job, but the blatent bias of Politico’s article, Michele Bachmann’s thin legislative resume, requires pointing out Politico’s thinly thought-out attack.

Here is the money line on page one of the Politico article:

Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law, and she’s never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann’s amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control.

Let’s do something Politico didn’t do, think this out. 

For the first 4 years Bachmann was in the House, the House was controlled by Democrats and Nancy Pelosi didn’t allow Republicans to do much of anything other than protest.   It’s not until later in the article, off the home page, that Politico notes:

“Bachmann won a seat in Congress in 2006, becoming the first Republican woman elected to the House from Minnesota. Bachmann was sworn into office in January 2007, just as the new Democratic House majority under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi came into power. “

And for two of those first four years, Obama was President.  So is it really so surprising that Bachmann “has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law”?  Should she have co-sponsored Obamacare, or Stimulus? 

Once again, Politico is forced to admit the thinness of its headline and page one money line, but not until later in the article:

Since coming to the House, Bachmann has been the lead sponsor on 40 bills and resolutions, as well as several amendments. She has also co-sponsored hundreds of other bills, and along with Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a close friend, she has been active on the floor in skewering Obama and the Democrats.

As to the comment about Bachmann not achieving success “even with the House under GOP control,” that would be all of 5 months, right?

This article signifies so much of what has gone wrong at Politico.  The headline is catchy and will result in traffic, and the page one money line is inflammatory against a rising Republican candidate.  But the story is thinly thought out, and the facts which contradict the headline are not revealed until later pages.

Pathetico.