Right, but you're missing the point. Michele Bachmann has made it her platform that just about any and all government intervention is harmful to our freedom. I don't see how this issue should be any different??
Why not use quotes rather than interpreting the candidates position yourself?
Barack Obama never ran on the idea of "all government is good", so it's not really hypocritical for him to think x or y shouldn't be solved by government intervention. Bachmann, however, IS running on the idea that "government is bad", so for her to take an issue as inconsequential and small as pornography and inject government intervention into it gives me great pause; if she thinks the government needs to solve that small "problem", who's to say how she will react to bigger problems? How genuine can she actually be if she can't even leave the issue of pornography alone? I'm no Ron Paul fan, but I respect him because he is extremely consistent in his beliefs. Bachmann is no Romney, to be sure, but stuff like this leads me to believe that she is not as genuine as she would have us believe.
All candidates run on the idea that they will improve on the present situation, as Barrack Obama once did and is doing once again. Few would run, and be successful, if they vowed to continue with the policies of their political opponents. This is where the electorate comes in. They have to decide what is important to the future of their country and what the issues really are.
That would exclude the interests of any political party to which, in the juvenile spirit of home team enthusiasm, they had earlier attached themselves. If you allow yourself to be swayed by signing a meaningless bit of wishful thinking, rather than looking at the real issues, then the United States is consigning itself to further debt, despair and disappointment.