Michele Bachmann admits "Slaughter solution" talk was all wrong
It's unconstitutional. It's fit for a Third World government. The press committed treason for not reporting on it -- to her satisfaction, anyway. That's what Rep. Michele Bachmann was telling any interviewer who would listen about a legislative rule called "deem and pass" -- dubbed by Republicans as the "Slaughter Solution" -- that House Democrats considered using at one point to pass health care reform.
We wondered about all that on Friday, and and took at look at it's history: "Deem and pass" has been on the books since the 1930s and used extensively by both parties ever since.
It looked like Bachmann was wrong. And over the weekend, she admitted as much.
The maneuver was never used in the end, after Democrats mustered enough votes to pass the bill and send it to President Barack Obama for his signature.
But here's a sampling of what the 6th District congresswoman said in the overheated run-up to the House health care vote on Sunday night.
"It's a fiction. It's impossible," she told radio talk show host Chris Baker on March 12. "It doesn't get anymore dishonest. It's breathtakingly unconstitutional."
"Obama's idea for Pelosi to pass a bill and have her members vote on something that they never voted for sounds more like a Chavez tactic in Venezuela than Jefferson," she said March 13 at a state Capitol rally against the bill.
"This has never been used before. There isn't one instance in the history of Congress where the Slaughter - the House rule has been used," Bachmann told ABC News on Tuesday. The deeming rule hasn't been used before."
"Well yeah and the other thing is treason media," Bachmann told Sean Hannity, also on Tuesday. "Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story."
"This is unusual, even for Congress, to pass a bill without voting on it. It's never been done before in the history of Congress," Bachmann insisted on Fox News on Wednesday. "It does great violence to the Constitution."
In Sunday's Star Tribune, Bachmann admitted she had it all wrong.
"The information I got initially was bad. Or, I should say, not accurate," Bachmann told the paper, blaming the fumble on a "constitutional law guy that I know who also does research."