Indeed. People have gotten all soft and goopy about these theological positions that mattered a great deal to our progenitors. They are still important.
But because of this goopiness, it is extremely unlikely, almost unthinkable, that a President Bachmann would take any action in that role which would be deleterious to Catholics. I cannot think of a single area where it would come into play.
I can... harassment of evangelicals by certain Latin American countries, up to and including burning evangelicals out of their homes because they refuse to participate in certain religious practices which, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, may be more pagan than Catholic.
Northern Ireland is on the back burner — Roman Catholics seem to have decided that time is on their side due to Protestants commonly using birth control — but having a Wisconsin Synod member as president during the controversies of a few decades ago would have created significant issues in American relations with Britain as it pertains to Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, President Bachmann standing up for evangelicals in such situations would be viewed very differently than how Hillary Clinton advocates for women's rights in Islamic countries. When a secular American political leader stands up for women's rights and for freedom of religion, that leader is regarded as speaking up for equal rights and secular American values. President Bachmann would have trouble standing up for the rights of evangelicals in some situations without getting accused of anti-Catholic bias.
My basic attitude: “Tough bananas.” I don't favor religious violence by Protestants or Roman Catholics against each other, I assume Michele Bachmann feels the same way, but that doesn't mean someone won't be able to make a claim of anti-Catholic bias.