She's serious...about her ignorance
of the bills she's co-sponsored.
Does it count as a flip flop if you justify your second position by saying you never knew what your first position was, to begin with? That's
the dilemma Michele Bachmann faces with regard to a bill she co-sponsored in 2007 that would have granted collective bargaining rights to first responders.
Bachmann is basically banking on "I didn't know what was in the bill I co-sponsored" being a more acceptable position among conservatives than "I intentionally supported collective bargaining rights for police and firefighters." A Bachmann spokeswoman told Ben Smith:
When the congresswoman first went to Washington in 2007 she was presented this bill and was given bad information on the implications on the bill for firefighters and first responders. When she examined the bill, she came to the conclusion that it violated the 10th amendment, hurt the right to work of first responders in all 50 states, and hurt the ability of first responders to perform their jobs (especially volunteer fireman). When she came to that conclusion, she sent a letter to her constituents explaining why she would oppose the bill, rather than wait for the bill to come up for a vote.
The fiercely anti-union National Right to Work Committee is declaring itself satisfied with her anti-worker credentials, but a flier hitting Bachmann on this issue is apparently being circulated in South Carolina. I don't see that getting much traction, though; there's no question that pleading ignorance—even ignorance of legislation you're co-sponsoring—is a good defense in today's Republican party, and Bachmann is well-equipped to so plead.