When Is an Earmark Not an Earmark? When its in Michelle Bachmann's District, Natch!

Is consistency too much to ask from these people? I mean, really. You don't like earmarks. Dumb position, but OK, whatever. You are entitled to that position. But this? I don't know if it's "teh crazy" or "teh st00pid". More like "I think that the people that believe this shit are all st00pid, except for me because I get to decide the rules because I am Michelle Bachmann". To wit:

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) hates earmarks. Despises them. On her website, she calls the earmark system "little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense." But when it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what isan earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

Yes, there could be no viable economic reason for a Congresscritter to want a "tea pot museum" (subliminal shot at the Tea Party, perhaps?) in their district. But highways, which as we all know are free and pay for themselves, as opposed to wasteful spending on silly things like rail and other forms of public transportation which have zero economic valuel, are exempt from the definition of an earmark because...well, because!

Consistency, people, consistency. Is that too much to ask?

TPM.