After hearing her speech last month as the SOTU respondent from the Tea Party, I was much less than impressed with Michele Bachmann. Her speech sounded like Republican talking points, while the Republican respondent, Paul Ryan, soundly outdid Ms. Bachmann from a Tea Party (Federalist) standpoint.

I got curious yesterday because of the hard-on people at MichelleMalkin.com were getting over Bachmann and Herman Cain, whom we have already proven to be unacceptable based upon currently available information. I do have huge concerns with regard to Bachmann, based primarily upon her poor performance on SOTU night. The points she articulated were all more Republican than Federalist, while the Republican made more Federalist points than Bachmann even attempted.

But what exactly does the record show? I analyzed Bachmann yesterday, and was actually pleasantly surprised to see that she came in at about 88% on the Federalist scale. Since I expect a candidate to come in at a minimum of 85% in order to consider voting for him or her, that was actually quite refreshing (and something of a relief). I today began to wonder where Mr. Ryan would fall, given his more compelling rhetoric on SOTU night.

Admittedly, the man has some really excellent positions, not the least of which involves "requiring all laws to cite Constitutional authorization" (hmm ... where have we heard THAT before???), but that rhetoric doesn't match his record. It better matches Bachmann's. One big plus for Ryan is an expansive record that covers a wide variety of issues. There is simply no question about where he stands on any issue or what he would do in any situation. Still, as a potential Federalist/Tea Partier, though he talks the talk better than Bachmann, he only walks the walk at about 75%.

Bachmann is head and shoulders above.

I can see where we may have to revisit Michele Bachmann. A great speaker does not a great President make, but it sure helps in getting the foot in the door, even if you have to use a teleprompter ...

RWR