Bachmann wants to have it both ways re: her husband.

[EOTE]

I was listening to Bachmann in Iowa yesterday, she was asked a question about her husband's controversial ministry. Her response was typical republican avoidance, she said that her husband should have nothing to do with this as he's not the one who's running for president. She might have had a point, except for the fact that she's said on multiple occasions that women should be submissive to their husbands. She's even said that the only reason she went to law school is because her husband gave her his blessing. Here are a couple paragraphs from a http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/10/michele-bachmann-s-bible-submissiveness-is-it-a-problem.html">Daily Beast article on Bachmann:

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center, Bachmann talked about “receiving Jesus” at 16, studying hard, meeting her future husband at college, and earning a law degree. “My husband said ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.’ Tax law! I hate taxes—why should I go and do something like that?” she told the audience. “But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband.

So, Bachmann wants to appeal to hardcore fundamentalists by showing them that her husband is the one in charge, so they could feel good about supporting a female politician, knowing that a man would really be in charge of her political actions. Yet now she also wants us to believe that her husband has nothing to do with her presidential campaign and he needs to be left out of any questioning people have regarding her candidacy? Of course, this is blatant hypocrisy. The only question is who is going to point this out?

I admit that I find Sarah Palin a joke. I think she was in it to make a quick buck (and she has been very successful at that), but I don't believe Palin for one minute is a serious contender. Too much of the public considers her to be a joke as well. However, I find Bachmann to be a completely different story. Frankly, she scares the hell out of me. I don't think she has a very good chance of becoming president, but that minute chance is far too big of a chance to take. She needs to be taken very seriously. We need to start pounding hard at this hypocrisy as I believe it will do two things. To a lesser extent, it will point out to her evangelical base that perhaps she wasn't being entirely honest with regard to her assertion that she's subservient to her husband in all things. But to a greater extent, it will remind the more mainstream voters that this is someone who'll say just about anything to get elected and is willing to espouse some very extreme views to appeal to her fundamentalist base.

Even the possibility of a Bachmann presidency needs to be nipped in the bud right now. I think pointing out this obvious hypocrisy is a good way to do it. The only question is how do we go about getting the media to acknowledge it?

[BeyondGeography]

1. That's hot

[dipsydoodle]

4. The mind boggles

:rofl:

[Johonny]

8. +1

[NightWatcher]

2. Bachmann's husband likes it both ways?

That's how rumors get started. I hear he only likes the one way...when the Mrs is out of town.

[Angry Dragon]

3. I say gather all these facts together and save most of them

if she gets the nomination
I want her out of the House
the longer she stays in the race then
she can not decide to run for re-election

[EOTE]

7. Having her out of the house would be very nice.

The people of Minnesota certainly don't deserve a psychotic like her representing them. However, the thought of her as president is far, far scarier. Even though I think that Obama would stand a very good chance against her in a general election, the mere possibility of a Bachmann presidency scares the crap out of me.

[Angry Dragon]

10. I think the republicans will weed her out on thier own

if not then we just keep throwing the facts at her
republicans can not handle facts

[EOTE]

11. That's true, republicans can't handle facts.

They also don't acknowledge ones that don't fit their preconceived view. That's why I think this issue needs to be pressed, and probably soon. You can bet your ass that if she makes it to the general election that they'll not only defend her past and current actions, but attempt to attribute sexism or religious intolerance to those who point out this hypocrisy.

On edit: of -> or.

[blogslut]

5. Valium is a helluva drug

Michele Bachmann is a champion deaf-eared, lying hypocrite. She reminds me of people I've known that are addicted to tranquilizers. They float through the day with blank stares, hearing only what they want to hear and saying whatever it takes to keep their dark secrets secret.

[EOTE]

6. That's definitely Bachmann for you.

I was trying to peg where I've seen those eyes before and now I remember it's from a coworker who was extremely addicted to benzodiazepines. He was a good guy, but completely incompetent. Perhaps Bachmann's drug is her religion. She's definitely addicted to something.

[starroute]

9. There's also the security clearance issue

The president's spouse does not have a security clearance, and the president is not allowed to share classified information with them or have them present at high-level briefing sessions.

So if Bachmann was president, would she be prepared to violate her religious beliefs and ignore her husband's opinion on sensitive issues? Would she tell him, "I know stuff you don't, so butt out"?

Or would she violate the laws of the United States in order to give Marcus the final say on foreign policy and homeland security?

It's a fair question. Someone ought to ask her.

[EOTE]

12. It's more than fair, it's essential.

She simply can't have it both ways and she needs to tell the public now what her views on this really are. She either needs to abandon the fundies or abandon thinking individuals. She can't have them both.

[gratuitous]

13. Except our popular media doesn't ask about personal religion

Stupidhead Bush got away with simply saying that his favorite philosopher, Jesus, "changed his heart." And that was that. Nobody ever asked him the obvious follow-up, "In what way did Jesus change your heart, Mr. Bush?" Nope, Bush made his fatuous statement, totally at odds with his personal behavior, and for 10 years nobody asked him about that.

Crazy Eyes Bachmann is not wrong to count on the exact same treatment. Whatever pronouncements she's made about her religious views or spiritual life, and no matter how much her own conduct deviates from those statements, you can bet that not one reporter anywhere will ask her the first question about the discrepancies. If a question gets anywhere close, she'll ignore it or answer a completely different question, and no one will dare pin her down.

[EOTE]

14. He was the one who convinced Bush to mock a woman on death row.

You know, just like Jesus would do. Or start two preemptive wars, just like Jesus would do. Or shift the tax burden to the lower and middles classes. Just like Jesus would do.

[Time for change]

15. Interesting. I didn't know that about Bachman and her husband

Not surprising though, is it?

Of course the corporate media won't cooperate with any effort to publicize this.... Unless.... she pisses off the oligarchy. If she's really crazy, she just might do that.

What I'm really hoping for is a good strong liberal third party candidate, along with a split between the two we have now. Feingold, Sanders, Grayson.