I do know one thing: Nothing she has said is any crazier than the idea that the federal government can tax, spend and borrow America's way back to economic prosperity. But that's a subject for another day.

Oh, but spending like mad, borrowing from the Chinese to pay for tax cuts to the rich which then saw capital splurged into junk bond schemes and other idiocies... which then caused the global meltdown we're currently experiencing? THAT'S all right.

I'm still trying to decide if you're a clever hoax or not, really. The fact that dear ol' Bachmann seems to feel that anything not Republican is "unAmerican" and we should have McCarthy-like investigations of anyone that isn't a God-fearing conservative seems to indicate to me that she's a scary scary lady who shouldn't be trusted to be the local dogcatcher. Much less an actual representative in the House.

Basic economic lesson: The government can spend way more and stimulate the economy way better than any private enterprise. That's just a simple fact. Maybe this type of spending would be easier if we didn't have the previous President (aided by a GOP-led Congress) spending like mad and going crazy with multiple wars + tax cuts for those that do not need it. But the spending and creation of jobs needs to be done.

Really, you wingnuts like to ramble on about how "tax and spend won't work"... well, apparently the conservative option is "don't tax, and then spend!" which really doesn't do much better. At least "tax and spend" puts money into the coffers for said spending.

You know, I thought the pandering tone of your first column was silly and a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to actually establish a dialogue, but I really wanted to give you another chance. So I read round two, and once again found myself profoundly disappointed with the same-old, so-old.

You yourself claim that you don't know Rep. Bachmann and then blame her idiodicy on the leftist media and selective editing? Garbage. Uninformed, smug, garbage. The only place you have a valid point is that now that she's made a consistent fool out of herself without the media's help, they most certainly have a target on her head, because stupid, antagonizing crap sells ad time.

It also generates hits for websites.

Now, what's wrong with that sentence? the answer: SHE'S IN CONGRESS AND NOT THE HOME!!! You see, the "traditional role of women" has been homemakers who obey their husbands without question. See, this is the problem I have with the conservative movement, the contradictions. Some of their biggest critics of the so-called "women's movement" have been, well, women. Coulter, Schlafly, Bachmann. Women condemning women's progress. We see stuff like this all over the conservative movement. They talk about not expanding government until two guys want to marry each other or somebody wants to burn a flag then all of the sudden the constitution needs another amendment or two. Contradiction you see.

Keeping "Big Brother" out of people's lives. That is until somebody wants to put a harmful substance into their own body. So arresting people for minding their own business is not too much government intervention but somehow providing people necessary medical care is government overstepping it's bounds. Well, at least your consistant. Oh, wait, no your not. Never mind.

Now, I think the porn industry is one of our countries national treasures (something many of your fellow "less government" conservatives wouldn't mind seeing shut down through government intervention I'm sure) but even I understand that the womens movement is and always was all about making sure women got treated equally. What about that does your side seem to take offense with? What offends you guys so much about paying a woman the same as a man for equal work? Or making sure a woman doesn't get passed over for a promotion just because of her vagina? These are the fundamental things the womens movement you and Michelle Bachmann decry so much.

My biggest problem with the woman, and I'm sure I will not be the only one to point this out, is the way she accused her fellow congresspeople of being "Un-American" and essentially called for a return to the McCarthiest era. This may or may not have been political grandstanding but there are some very angry unstable personalities in your own movement that take that kind of talk seriously. Talk radio isn't exactly aimed at the pleasant grandfather types. Unless you think questioning the loyalty of the people for whom you are relying on to help send all that fat pork home is a good political strategy.

You seem to write all of this off with, "It's just Michele being Michele. She's standing up for what she believes in and is being provocative.'" That answer is banal and unenlightening. It doesn't "explain" anything-- it applies to just about every politician of every background.

We want to know where, culturally, she gets a lot of her ideas and claims about America adopting a different currency and re-education camps come from. Does she make it up herself? Do her staffers brief her on this sort of stuff? Where does the material from those hypothetical briefings come from? Does she really think the US is about to be taken over by UN and that Obama is going to send all the young people to re-education camps? Where'd she get the bright idea that we should have an investigation into which congressmen are "anti-american"? Does she really believe that, or is she just trolling for attention?

Inquiring minds want to know, but your defense, evasive writeup didn't satisfy our inquiries.

She describes herself as a "conservative" but just what is she trying to conserve? She espouses and votes for huge Federal intrusions into privacy, espouses and approves of gargantuan military budgets (War on Terror, of which she wholeheartedly approved, and Obama, in my opinion, is scarcely doing any better on that front, his Afghanistan policy is going to be an enormous failure), and basically wants a police state to look into "un-American activities" of some her fellow House members.

I can accept some right-wingers' honest debate of the issues, but it baffles me why right-wingers love or want Bachmann to be a spokesperson. She is logically inconsistent, and has no problem making herself look like a total idiot on TV. She does not come across as thoughtful, bright, pensive, or even well-read about her own Republican colleagues' platform. In short, she strikes me as the proverbial, drooling moron who readily takes the bait. And to make it all a bit creepier, she has that plastered smile on her face the whole time: one wonders if she comes from Stepford.