[nopardons]

That's the point, really, isn't it.that she signed a pledge, yet again, but this time added her own "clause", which completely nullified the pledge!

She wants things that she knows aren't going to happen, yet pretends to sign a pledge in "good faith", whilst shredding it. That's worse than flip flopping.

[ejdrapes]

Last time I checked Jim DeMint wasn't complaining about it. I love how people who have no intention of ever supporting Bachmann have so much concern over what she does/doesn't do. Do you know for certain that this legislation mirrors Jim DeMint's pledge? Was Jim DeMint's pledge tied to raising the debt ceiling? Connie Mack also voted no. He said: “The House GOP should not fall in line behind a plan that raises the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to Cut, Cap and Balance our federal budget."

How does this vote today stop the debt ceiling from being raised? Or are you one who believes we have to raise the debt ceiling or the country will go to hell in a handbasket?

[Hieronymus]

The rider does have the function of serving notice that her support demands something more radical than the proposal, and thus any move to water things down will also bring forth a no vote—this is the opposite of most dem votes, which are a call to water things down. Assuming all 9 Republican noes were of this mindset, it means that 181 dems will only vote for something weaker, 9 pubs will only vote for something stronger (MB, Paul, and Mack certainly indicated this), and 229 pubs and 5 dems like this, but would be willing to consider something else.