Yesterday, while doing cardio at my gym, I received yet another lesson in the bias of CNN. When I looked up from my book, I found Wolf Blitzer breathlessly reporting on the latest controversy swirling around Michelle Bachmann’s campaign.
Now, let me make clear (yet again) that I have some serious concerns about Mrs. Bachmann and do not back her bid for the Republican presidential nomination. I do, to be sure, appreciate her commitment to small government ideals and her ability to articulate her convictions.
Yet, as I watched Blitzer detail the allegations against her husband’s “Christian counseling business”, that, as per my previous post, allegedly “uses a controversial therapy that encourages homosexual patients to change their sexual orientation“, I wondered at the media obsession with this charismatic politician. At this point in the 2008 election cycle, indeed at any point in that cycle, did Mr. Blitzer — or anyone at CNN for that matter — engage in such critical scrutiny of then-Senator Barack Obama, then a candidate for the Democratic nomination?
The CNN report was not about Mrs. Bachmann’s activities, but her husband’s.
Now, as I recall, Mr. Obama did succeed in securing an earmark (i.e., money from the federal government) for the hospital where his wife worked and subsequently received a substantial raise. There appeared to be a pretty clear connection between his wife’s professional advancement and his official duties.
This is not to say that this information about Mr. Bachmann is irrelevant. It is indeed relevant. And it relates to one (of the many) concerns I have about his wife’s bid for the White House. But, this is simply to point out the bias of CNN, more interested in allegations against the husband of a Republican presidential candidate than in evidence of a Democratic presidential candidate using federal money to help his wife. Why has Mr. Blitzer devoted so much time to this story and so little to the administration’s involvement in the “Gunwalker” scandal?
Will CNN ever exercise the same critical scrutiny of the incumbent President of the United States as it exercises of the spouses of Republican candidates?
Are you serious? I seem to remember all the cable networks looping the Reverend Wright tapes for months and months – and that had virtually no relevance. Bachmann’s married to someone who thinks that you can pray the gay away, which is a certifiably insane opinion.
CNN like the other MSM played Obama’s defense as the alternative media & Fox News explored Obama’s strange, Marxist links such as Reverend Wright & Bill Ayers. CNN is complicit in keeping Obama in power; hence, they will act as an arm of the Democrat Party. I treat them as such. Republicans & Conservatives would be wise to do so as well.
The dumpster diving press is far more vigorous when their editors look the other way than when the editors will print any innuendo loosely connected with a shred of evidence.
Therefore, since the journalist zoo is 80% Democrat liberal, their thirst for truth is lopsided. Nonetheless, when they can not ignore a Lewinsky because Drudge has outed her and them (Isikoff/Newsweek) they report reluctantly and play defense.
It is interesting that the liberals are hacking away at Bachmann’s religion. We once had three pillars of strength in our society: the family, the schools and the church. Liberals have successfully intruded the state into the family and made the cohesive family optional. The public schools are state indoctrination mills where as much is prohibited as is taught. The church is marginalized and monitored for political correctness.
The fact is, statism has at least grown to the tipping point of power in our society. Fly over America has far more religious faith cohesion than the centers of “enlightenment.” It is only natural that liberals attack Bachmann’s faith. They are convinced it informs her principles. And liberals do not like principled individuals. Ask Joe Lieberman.
Repeating your comment still doesn’t make it true.
Just came from a site where some jackass comment about the episode of Bill Maher with Dan Savage et al was “funny”. Apparently liberals consider debasing women (hate sex with Bachmann) and violent rhetoric (wishing for the death or Congressional Republicans) is very amusing. And this was in reply to an article on the anti-Semitism behind the SF circumcision ban bill.
How f*king sad it must be to have a life so full of hate and rage, like Levi.
Maybe Levi means this?
Or maybe it’s just Levi’s lying again. After all he does believe 9/11 was President Bush’s fault.
Levi, it wasn’t until March of 2008 that the Wright issue hit the MSM and they were dragged, kicking and screaming to cover that story. And they dropped the story soon after the Democratic candidate’s speech on race and failed to question his contentions that he hadn’t heard the inflammatory remarks.
Oh, and, that said, this point int the 2008 campaign would be July 2007, roughly eight full months before the MSM explored the Wright issue.
Virtually no relevance, Levi, that a candidate for president sat in the church of an anti-gay, anti-Semitic pastor delivering jeremiads against the country that offered him protection and guaranteed him the liberty to spout such bile?
Oh, and Levi, if you actually read the post, you would know that I do think it’s relevant that Mr. Bachmann was involved in such a program. But, remember he’s not running for president. The man who sat in that hatemonger’s church for 20 years was himself a candidate for national office.
Well, at least with Michele Bachmann to demonize, we will be spared three weeks of reporting on how Sarah Palin left out a semicolon when she used a subordinate clause on her latest Facebook post.
It is absurd that the media is going nuts reporting on MB’s husbands therapy practice and doesn’t even give a damn about Barry Hussein’s top secret, hidden college records.
And the reason Levi thinks “G-d damn America!” has virtually no relevance is because he basically agrees with it.
Marcus Bachmann is in a different category from other candidates’ spouses because Michelle put him there: As far as I know, Rep. Bachmann is the first serious candidate who has publicly declared her decision to be submissive to her spouse — even to the point of changing her career to suit his wishes, though they conflicted with her own.
As far as I know, that’s a first in presidential politics.
Rob, that is indeed a fair criticism.
It is interesting, however, to note that when the two are together, Mr. Bachmann all but melts into the background. She is clearly the stronger presence.
All that said, the point remains that the media seem more interested in scrutinizing that “hen-pecked” spouse’s professional activities than in exploring Barack Obama’s many controversies.
No, it isn’t.
The dynamics of the Bachmann’s marriage is their own business. It is not a matter of public policy being proposed by the Rep. Bachmann. And unless we think she’s running solely because her husband wants her to, I find the story entirely irrelevent.
You didn’t give any info about the site you reference, so I can’t know details, but thinking that a bill that grants newborn Jews ownership of their own genitals is anti-Semitic is very odd thinking, to say the least.
The dynamics of the Bachmann’s marriage is their own business. It is not a matter of public policy being proposed by the Rep. Bachmann. And unless we think she’s running solely because her husband wants her to, I find the story entirely irrelevent.
No it’s not just “their own business”. Anything and everything about each candidate, their spouses and their families that voters may consider important is essentially fair game and have been for years. True, there has been a bias that some GOP candidates have had to work against in the MSM but even so the left has had to field some uncomfortable questioning about their candidates as well. Obama’s relationship with a former domestic terrorist wannabee and his extremist pastor were fair game. John Kerry’s war record in Vietnam was fair game – so was John McCain’s. Tipper Gore’s previous campaign for labelling on music CDs was fair game. In addition to Bill Clinton’s previous philandering, so were questions about Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater connections at the Rose law firm. I don’t care how much a candidate wants to assert that any of this, or the other things out there, are private and wouldn’t impct their job performance anyways. They are running for the most powerful office in the land, if not the world, and if they cannot stand being put under a microscope to get it they should find something else to do. What Mr. Bachmann does for a living is relevant. What Congresswoman Bachmann believes about her role in their marriage is relevant. The list goes on. What each voter decides to do with the information is up to them. Some may not care, others will. To each his own. I want to see every single GOP candidate scrutinized intensely. As the incumbent Obama is fortunate that he mostly gets to skip this process, but he now has a record he has to run on. That’s what he deserves to be hammered for.
Anyone who desires to scrutinize Obama seems to be considered a conspiracy-obsessed crackpot by the left.
JohnAGJ, I agree. All presidential candidates (as well as other candidates for high-ranking political offices) should be scrutinized heavily. But that scrutiny must be applied equally. Personally, I am not convinced that Michele Bachmann is qualified enough to be president. She has only been a state senator and a congresswoman. Whoever the Republican candidate ends up being, it would be nice to know that they might be qualified enough to handle the situation they inherit from Obama. An incompetent Republican president may erase the momentum the conservative movement has been gaining recently.
Levi, if the MSM would have either broke the story, or ran with it as soon as it was exposed, you would have a point. But they didn’t touch it until it got so hot that they looked like fools for not covering it sooner. They came to it reluctantly. With, Bachmann, they are aggressively covering every little thing they can in hopes of finding a scandal. They simply do not treat Democrats with the same scrutiny as they do Conservatives.
What kind of upside-down logic is that? You have to twist yourself into knots to say those two things. It’s somehow worse that Obama went to Wright’s church than it is that Bachmann is married to her husband? Isn’t one of those relationships significantly more intimate than the other?
Stop pretending – you’re erecting arbitrary standards to make excuses for Bachmann while condemning Obama. Like everything else.
#1: “Bachmann’s married to someone who thinks that you can pray the gay away, which is a certifiably insane opinion.”
Levi, how the fu*k would you know? Aren’t you a heterosexual atheist?
But that scrutiny must be applied equally.
I agree but those with a leftist bias apparently do not. Yet we do not live in the days when there were only 3 networks plus CNN. You can criticize the media for bias but it’s up to each campaign to use the many tools available nowadays to effectively get their message out. Frankly, if they can’t figure out how best to do this and overcome a bias which we’ve known about for most of my life anyways then I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to fail because this isn’t some minor office we’re talking about but instead POTUS.
As for Obama, there was enough that was known about his past in 2008 that would normally preclude him from winning office IMO. Hence why I voted against him and all things being the same as they were in 2008, would do so again. The past 3 years have done nothing but reaffirm my reasons for voting against him so I seriously doubt I’ll vote for him in 2012. Of course right now I also seriously doubt that I’ll vote for any Republican, or at least any of the ones currently running.
It’s somehow worse that Obama went to Wright’s church than it is that Bachmann is married to her husband?
Actually Barack Obama credited Wright as his “close confidant”, his “friend and mentor”, and his “spiritual advisor”, as well as being a father figure to Obama who informed all of his policy decisions and beliefs.
Furthermore, Levi, you’re hilariously hypocritical, given that you are now trying to trash Rick Perry and tried to trash Sarah Palin based on their pastors or pastors with whom they even had a passing relationship by claiming having a relationship with a pastor means you believe and support everything that they do. Obama can’t meet that standard, as is typical for ones imposed by racists such as yourself who make excuses based on black skin.
Plus, for all your whining and screaming about “brainwashing”, the evidence is there that, by your standards, Barack and Michelle Obama “brainwashed” their children — and in a church that endorses and supports racist hate towards white people and calls for the murder of Jews.
Your desperation is palpable, Levi. Can’t make any more excuses for your incompetent Obama who you worship as a Messiah, can you? He demonstrates how ignorant, incompetent, and pathetic liberals and “progressives” like you are — complete and total failures, welfare dependents, nothing but a bunch of disgusting racists.
The Reverend Wright ‘story’ is and always has been completely irrelevant. 2.5 years into Obama’s presidency, we don’t have a single episode of him launching into some anti-white tirade, or implementing a black liberation theology agenda, or letting black people out of prison en masse, or anything else that we supposedly should have expected based on his relationship with Reverend Wright. All the accusations and predictions that conservatives made about his temperament and his ideas about race are revealed to have been paranoid delusions that demonstrate more about their own insecurities than anything else. Obama’s mother was white, remember? Lots of conservatives still insist Obama isn’t a legitimate American citizen, remember? The Reverend Wright story does prove that somebody is racist, but it ain’t Obama.
And how many consecutive decades in a row does Fox News have to be the number one cable news network before conservatives stop whining about the liberal media bias? It just isn’t there buddy. The media was stumbling all over themselves when the Rev. Wright thing happened. Simply in terms of logistics, the Rev. Wright story was better media fodder because they had video and audio they could loop over and over again. The assertion that they’ve talked about this Bachmann thing in any similar degree is laughable on its face.
Because you can’t pray anything away! Praying doesn’t work! Praying has the same effect as throwing a penny in a fountain or blowing out your birthday candles. That is to say – none.
You’ve premised your argument for Wright’s irrelevancy on the fallacious notion that somehow, Obama’s relationship with him would affect his presidency, which is something that neither Dan nor I have said in either of our posts. Again, you’ve decided to not address the substance of the argument, choosing instead to divert attention away from what are valid points by way of some of clever specious reasoning.
And you can knock off the “raaaaa-cist” crap anytime now. It didn’t work then, and it hasn’t gained any credibility since.
If, by stumbling, you mean they were stumbling all over themselves to avoid covering, then you would be correct, sir.
Shaka, when the walls fell…
Last time, Levi…
If you continue to attempt to start another ridiculous “Christians are stupidy-stupids” argument, I will happily direct your comments to the spam folder. Stick to the subject, or find another sandbox.
Rob ian is iT @ #11 posts a Huffpo, DailyBeast talking point:
The fact is, Michelle Bachmann in an evangelical Christian and she has delivered some powerful testimony to various congregations.
Therefore, the Progressives see her as a Christian general leading the Christian soldiers onward to war in a crusade to smite the Jews and the atheists and the agnostics and infidels with her terrible, swift sword in a civil, religious crusade to force the slavery of Jesus and Christianity on everyone.
What better proof than to infer that she gets her directions by telepathic waves from the penumbra that emanates for the mysterious ether of the far beyond and her husband translates it and she obeys.
For Progressives, she is Dumbo and her husband is Timothy the Mouse and she flies because she has a tight grip on the magic crow tail feather.
Rob ian is iT poses no intellectual point. He inserts a typical salacious gossip point taken straight from the pseudo-intellectual blatherings of Progressive roadshow sites where they continually test new attack methods and missiles.
Uh, what?
I was told that Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright indicated all kinds of things about how he would conduct himself as President – otherwise why was it a story that got so much traction? What you or Dan (especially you) have said in these individual posts doesn’t matter – the crux of the conservative argument about Reverend Wright was that it demonstrated a litany of things about Obama as a human being and politician. You’re telling me that I’m getting that wrong? Would you care to tell me why conservatives made such a big deal about it, if it wasn’t about the relationship?
I haven’t addressed the substance of your argument? I’m choosing to divert attention away? Gee, I wonder if there is anything I could say that wouldn’t do those things, in your view. You seem to be angling for ways to delete more of my comments, pretending like I’m going off on a tangent or attempting to derail the thread, because I didn’t address your posts in the way that you think that they should be addressed. You’re calling fouls where none exist, and I’m the one diverting?
Notice, too, that I’m not posting in your threads. I don’t like interacting with you, Eric, because of crap like this. I couldn’t care less about what you have to say about anything, really. Is that enough? Can you let me post the way I want to post, the way I’ve been posting here for years, at least in Dan’s threads? An I’ll-ignore-you-if-you-ignore-me, kind of deal?
Helio, sir, you are a treasure.
Welcome to the 2012 Presidential Campaign!!!!!
Oh boy. Everyone else is allowed to talk about religion except for Levi, then? I can’t even say something as innocuous as ‘praying doesn’t work’ without being lectured to and without have ultimatums issued? You’re exactly the kind of hyper-sensitive authoritarian that simply can’t be trusted with even the tiny little slice of meaningless internet power you’ve somehow managed to acquire. So go ahead, delete my posts, ban my IP address, you’re the big man. It’s been completely boring and annoying talking to you.
And once again, Levi show’s he as stable as Shelia Jackson Lee.
Of course, if Rep Bachman really was going to hold to an oath of being ‘submissive to her husband’ then I’d think that should be a plus for liberals, since she could be trusted to keep her oath to ‘protect and defend’ the constitution.
And for the troll…
“Typical White people.”
By whom? Can you perhaps link this? Go ahead….I’ll wait.
Just like Bachmann and Perry, correct?
Because character counts, Levi. The man cited him as one of his greatest influences and attended his church for 20 years, then suddenly decided he wasn’t all that important after all and walked it back. On top of which, nobody in the media seemed interested in calling him on it. It wasn’t the relationship, Levi…it was the dishonesty. Same with Clinton.
Please, spare me. You know exactly what I was referring to, and again decrying censorship in the wake of your earlier train wreck is almost pathetic. Contrary to what you may believe, conservatives remember things. Resorting to mocking people for prayer is precisely what I was referring to.
Hey, I understand completely. You were caught in a terrible mess of your own making, and I called you on it. You’ll notice I never remarked on your absence in my threads – you felt the need to mention that, right?
Umm…no. I’m not in the habit of ignoring outright bullsh*t, Levi, and I’m not going to begin with you. Again, feel free to comment wherever you like, and I’ll reserve the right to respond where I see fit.
Free speech, my man. It rocks!
Actually, you haven’t…here’s your first post here:
You’ve been posting here, as “Levi” since April of this year, 133 comments total. However, if you were posting here under a different nom de plume, perhaps you might reveal that, in which case I’d be more than happy to check again.
But please, Levi…don’t lie to me.
You say it in this post:
See? We were supposed to be worried about his character, what kind of person he was, what kinds of things he was going to do as President, right?
My point was that after 2.5 years of his presidency, if the conservatives’ fears about him were justified, we should have some concrete examples of him doing something racist or anti-American – so where are the examples?
Ah yes, the train wreck wherein you erased one of my comments, declared victory, and then locked the thread for further discussion. Clearly the behavior of someone confident in their abilities and in their arguments….
It isn’t about you responding. What I wouldn’t give if you would just bother responding. And I’m not trying to limit your free speech. This is about you waving around the ‘I’m going to ban you!’ card every time I open my mouth. I mean really, you’re going to accuse me of trying to stifle your free speech, when five minutes ago you told me you were going to cut me off if you didn’t like what I said next?
LOL!
Wait, what’s happening now? You’re accusing me of lying when I say that I’ve been posting for here for years? This is where we are going with it now? You think that’s my first post here? You think I might have been posting under a different name? Ha!
I’ll be right back…
I didn’t declare victory, inasmuch as you had the gall to whine at me about denying you the right to advocate for the censorship of Christians. You brought that one on yourself, kiddo. You did a marvelous job of proving my point, then wanted to continue the “religion is stupid” angle. I simply spared you the embarassment.
Can you actually prove this, or are you simply running on emotion today?
http://www.gaypatriot.net/category/america-held-hostage/
April 2009, does that count as years?
You have 133 comments listed under your current IP. If you perhaps moved, than that’s something different altogether, and I will grant you that.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that you spend a tremendous amount of time here telling people you think they’re stupid. More often than not, you take the time to back up your opinions with valid argument, and I have, on more than one occasion, acknowledged that.
But if you’re insisting that you have some “right” to insult, you are mistaken.
Because you can’t pray anything away! Praying doesn’t work! Praying has the same effect as throwing a penny in a fountain or blowing out your birthday candles. That is to say – none.
So Levi is saying that anyone who believes in prayer is delusional?
Levi, meet Michelle and Barack Obama.
Look at that. Both of them ranting about spirits, going on about “God’s will” and how Obama himself prayed for God to give him commands and, quote, “make (him) an instrument of (God’s) will”.
Can you hear the aneurysm Levi would be having over a Republican saying that? Oh, that’s right, we already have — “theocrat”, “homophobe”, “ignorant”, and “superstitious” are things that Levi has already thrown around toward Republicans that pray.
This is why, Eric, you don’t need to worry about banning Levi. He is a fool, and he demonstrates how liberals and “progressives” like himself are nothing but pathetic hypocrites and liars.
Levi does not have the balls to apply to his Obama the same rules. That’s because Levi is a desperate little hypocrite whose only concern is supporting Obama Party power politics. He shows how completely amoral, disgusting, and unprincipled Obama Party members are.
That’s why he’s going to run away leaving his usual trail of urine behind him. Levi can’t tolerate dissent, and he certainly can’t tolerate the fact that he is consistently and completely bested by those he considers his intellectual inferiors. This is why he screams and bawls and cries and throws temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way.
Prove what?
That you said you were warning me that you might arbitrarily start blocking my posts? You need proof that you just did this?
Absolutely. I stand corrected.
Nice try….
You said I threaten to ban you every time you open your mouth, which you have not proven, kiddo.
Levi @ #29:
And I can’t say anything as innocuous as ‘evolution is almost all theory’ without being lectured to and without being told I am an ignoramus?
Levi, you are a full blown bigot in regard to faith. Your monkey dance is not necessary or the least bit civil. You go out of your way to give your middle finger to faith and then you insist that your middle finger sign is innocuous.
That is why I find you both a coward and a hypocrite. You won’t take your innocuous actions to the point of talking tough love to an Islamic fundamentalist about how he treats women and gays, because you fear his moral incapacity to turn the other cheek. No, sir, Levi is a bully who picks his targets with care. And then he calls his tactics “innocuous.” Charming, capricious, crafty, and cowardly. Mostly, cowardly.
And, Levi, nice tactic. Ignore Eric because you can not stand up to his logic. Stick with good old Dan who, by your estimation, is a sucker for your games.
Levi @ #22:
Why do you fear one network so much that you consider it as the “fair and balanced” equivalence to all the other networks and major print media combined?
Perhaps your faith in hope and change should be made of sterner stuff.
You are a moral relativist weasel with ball bearings for brains and a you puff the warm gas of entitlement out of your rear jet. Light a candle man and stop cursing the darkness. A little common sense won’t cripple you.
And that’s largely my point here with Levi.
I have absolutely no problems with Levi, other than his proclivity for crying foul when he’s caught evading an argument by attempting to incite a flame war, which is the preferred tactic of Alinsky students. They are incapable of countering an argument with anything other than mockery and petty insult.
I welcome his comments, am sincerely interested in his positions, but will not allow him to substitute brazen denigration for argument.
Heliotrope,
Levi hates proof, it confounds him and shows him for the racist, fact denying, lying, truther.
Eric, I don’t know why you call Helio a treasure. Surely it’s not a salacious gossip point to report what Rep. Bachmann has actually said. When a person says he or she has decided to be submissive to his or her spouse (for whatever reason, religious or not), then it’s perfectly reasonable to examine the spouse’s beliefs just as one would examine the candidate’s.
Actually, it isn’t Rob. He’s not running for anything, and to assume that her statement has f*ck-all to do with anything other than their marriage is utterly presumptuous. While it gives fresh meat to the left-wing, it is apropos of nothing, save for giving the progressive base something fresh and new to hate.
By the way, I consider Helio a treasure for his writing style and the wit and wisdom that comes from his age (which I find myself rapidly approaching).
Surely it’s not a salacious gossip point to report what Rep. Bachmann has actually said. When a person says he or she has decided to be submissive to his or her spouse (for whatever reason, religious or not), then it’s perfectly reasonable to examine the spouse’s beliefs just as one would examine the candidate’s.
Except, of course, that this does not and will never apply under any circumstances to Barack Obama or to any Obama Party member, no matter how much they publicly praise their spouse or say that they rely on their spouse’s guidance and wisdom.
I mean, seriously. Can you imagine the aneurysm Rob would have over a Republican candidate advocating and practicing prayer, or the spouse of a Republican candidate exhorting people to pray and perform rituals to keep the spirits clean around them?
So it’s not really “reasonable”; it’s just anti-Republican bigotry of the sort practiced by the gay and lesbian community in a different form. Rob probably thinks himself a reasonable gay because he doesn’t PUBLICLY wish for the rape and death of Republicans like gay community leader Dan Savage does.
I do wish you’d be honest, Rob. Dan Savage revealed that, for all his screaming and whining about suicide, he’d be pleased as punch for half of the country to off themselves. For once, an Obama Party gay told the truth — that gays and lesbians want Republicans dead, support sexual assault of Republicans, and in general want to do all Republicans harm.
Man up and own up. Tell gay Republican teenagers you wish they were dead just like Dan Savage does. Tell them that the gay and lesbian community like Dan Savage will only support them if they obey the Obama Party and in fact will support their death if they don’t.
And then you can go on whining about Marcus Bachmann.
Actually, he is: First Gentleman, or whatever his title would be if Mrs. Bachmann won the presidency. He would have a paid staff and funding, all coming out of the budget for the Executive Office of the President. Even if he were to turn down functioning as “First Gentleman”, as her husband he would be her closest advisor even if she refused to “talk shop” with him. Her decision to marry this man and how they’ve conducted their marriage over the years could call her judgment into question by some. Others wouldn’t give a flying fig. I could care less whether anyone thinks it’s fair or not but when you run for the presidency the character and behavior or your spouse are fair game just as much as it is for the candidate him/herself. It’s up to each voter to decide whether the information they are given about each candidate and their spouses matter a great deal or not when deciding whom to vote.
And here, conveniently bottled and wrapped up with a nice bow, we havean excellent summary of the rantings of the “civility”-obsessed gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party that owns it.
Meanwhile, JohnAGJ, nice attempt at a convenient rationalization, when your own worldview is right there.
There isn’t a chance in hell I’ll vote for Bachmann. She is one of the few GOP candidates that would actually make me consider voting for Obama.
Really? You put your own gay-sex liberalism and need to be pandered to ahead of the country’s welfare?
That says volumes about you right there. Bachmann would be far, far better than Obama in every respect no matter what her husband thinks or who endorses her. But you just can’t get past your sexual orientation, can you? That’s why you actually endorse trashing peoples’ spouses and insisting that your spouse’s worldview should “matter a great deal”; it’s nothing more than rationalization for your decisionmaking being based solely on who panders to your sexual orientation.
Whoops, the excellent summary of the rantings of the “civility”-obsessed gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party that owns it is here.
S Palin lovingly referred to Todd as ‘First Dude’. Although it is not probably gonna happen, it wiould be interesting to see how ms B would refer to Marcus
As for Miss Rita Beads, she’ll always be the The First Lady of GP
Rusty, do me favor, and expound on this, because that entire comment makes no sense whatsoever.
I’m serious…please explain it, ok?
You’re getting slow, NDT. Do a quick search here and you’ll find that I’ve said the same thing. I’ve hardly made it a secret that I do not in any way support her candidacy. Make of that what you will, which you will do regardless.
Sorry Eric. . .
John said: 48 Actually, he is: First Gentleman, or whatever his title would be if Mrs. Bachmann won the presidency.
I said: 51 S Palin lovingly referred to Todd as ‘First Dude’. Although it is not probably gonna happen, it wiould be interesting to see how ms B would refer to Marcus
Then I followed up with my reference to Miss Rita Beads aka NDT
>>It’s been almost 30 years and despite challenges from thousands of hilarious contenders, Rita Beads remains my all time favorite drag name. Rita was a hairy chested, butch mustached, roller-skating, pregnant nun sort of drag queen, back in late 70’s Orlando.
The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness.
“Don’t make me read your beads, bitch!” << jmg
For those younger folk, Miss Rita Beads is sort of like one the of
the Sisters (of Perpetual Indulgence)
channeling Meryl Streep's Sister Aloysius Beauvier in Doubt
and then John followed up with his comment to NDT
Make of that what you will, which you will do regardless.
JohnAGJ @ 15:
BULLSHIT.
And you, John, are a major asshole for taking such a position.
What the miserable whores in the news media consider fair game is irrelevent, no matter how long they’ve so considered it. Focusing on all sorts of little details about a politician’s private life are nothing but a distraction from the actual matters of public policy that voters should attend to. And political leaders, being human beings too, deserve some measure of privacy same as everyone else.
Getting back to the specific matter at hand, the power dynamics, if you will, of the Bachmann’s marriage are wholly unlike Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater Connections, her husband’s perpetual philandering, or John Kerry’s war record. Each of those matters spoke to the individuals character and integrity. Whether or not Michelle Bachmann believes a wife should let her husband wear the only pants in the family does not.
And Tipper Gore’s campaign, while also unlike the Bachmann marriage issue, was not fair game as you assert. She wasn’t running for president; her husband was.
Rob ian is iT:
Certainly, you are permitted it take your intellectually benign curiosity about how “submissive” works in the Bachmann union directly to Mr. and Mrs. Bachmann.
Will you, however, accept their word and explanation? I ask, because I am not certain your curiosity is actually intellectually benign.
Let’s start with this scene: Mrs. Marcus Bachmann is delivering an address on the stage of a crowded amphitheater and Mr. Marcus Bachmann orders her to shed her clothes and satisfy his lust in front of the assembled throngs. Obviously, in your intellectually benign curiosity, you need to know if she would take the role of a hypocrite by refusing to submit. Right?