2012 Elections

[YellowKing]

So why do so many GOP candidates (at the Presidential, but especially at lower levels of office) run explicitly as social conservatives out to save America from Satan/Allah/Dan Savage?

Because they're politicians playing to their base in order to get elected. Just like politicians from any other party.

[GreenGoo]

First, we've already agreed that every. single. president. has been religious. No one is arguing that (I hope).

Second, some of the quotes ARE very concerning. And some of them aren't. I don't expect you to be able to tell which ones are which, or why, but yes, some of those presidents, saying those things, WOULD be attacked on that basis. Others would not. There is no red herring here.

Third, that you consider ANY of the quotes you posted as being in the same realm as the bible thumping that is going on right now, the volume, the focus, the complete lack of any other platform for some of these candidates is, I can only assume, because you are unable to distinguish between religion as a personal choice, and religion as an opiate of the masses.

Bachmann is on record as being subservient to her husband. Because of religion. All jokes aside, do you really want a president who admits to being under her husband's thumb? And people thought that Obama's half bowing was offensive to national pride. Here we have a woman who has so little self respect and direction that she is willing to spends years of her life returning to school because her husband told her to. This is not the same thing as a discussion between partners and an agreement for what's best for her, or the two of them. This is an order. "Do this" "ok". Assuming she's telling the truth of course.

And that's just one of the absurdities couched in religion that these candidates are proud to announce to the world.

How you can claim that the circus clowns (not all, but more than ) vying for the Republic nominations are in the same league as any of the president's you listed, even on this very specific religious front, makes me question your objectivity on this subject.

[Holman]

It's ridiculous. It's asinine. It's a red herring.

The Christian Right is going to be pissed that you dismiss them as irrelevant. Haven't they done *anything* for your party? I mean, they work pretty hard at it.

But I'm not really so sure that Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Harry Truman would be totally cool with Jerry Falwell.

[SpaceLord]

So my point is that if you inserted these gentlemen into THIS campaign as a Republican, they would be ridiculed, trashed, and so on for statements like these. Another way to put it: if the current Republican candidates had said any of these statements, they would be targeted and touted as religious nuts that want to take your separation of Church and State away from you.

It's ridiculous. It's asinine. It's a red herring.

Nice quoting, msduncan. The faith of the founding men of the Republic is a little more complicated, though. Jefferson re-wrote the Bible to remove any references to the divinity of Jesus. Washington's true feelings about religion are unknown, even whether he received Communion.

They were careful, however, to avoid putting references to religion in the Constitution, and actually explicitly banning religious tests. Looking back, that's a staggering achivement.

Regardless, the religiousness of men over 200 years ago is not directly applicable today.

[RunningMn9]

So...Michelle Bachmann's religious crazy is the same as Thomas jefferson's religious crazy?

I think the "wait...what?" comment was your absurd assertion that all presidents have supported the Christian Right agenda. That's only true if you believe that the Christian Right's agenda is simply to invoke the name of God occasionally.

[msduncan]

So my point is that if you inserted these gentlemen into THIS campaign as a Republican, they would be ridiculed, trashed, and so on for statements like these. Another way to put it: if the current Republican candidates had said any of these statements, they would be targeted and touted as religious nuts that want to take your separation of Church and State away from you.

It's ridiculous. It's asinine. It's a red herring.

Nice quoting, msduncan. The faith of the founding men of the Republic is a little more complicated, though. Jefferson re-wrote the Bible to remove any references to the divinity of Jesus. Washington's true feelings about religion are unknown, even whether he received Communion.

They were careful, however, to avoid putting references to religion in the Constitution, and actually explicitly banning religious tests. Looking back, that's a staggering achivement.

Regardless, the religiousness of men over 200 years ago is not directly applicable today.

True, but my argument wasn't that they weren't careful about separation. My argument is that they said many things (I picked from multiple quotes from each of these guys) that today would have been "OMGRELIGION"ized. Yet none of them made this country into what people are fearmongering about.

And I restate that even George W. Bush, who I consider the most born-again religious of recent times, didn't even reshape the country in this fashion the way people are trying to convince the public that these candidates would.

[msduncan]

So...Michelle Bachmann's religious crazy is the same as Thomas jefferson's religious crazy?

I think the "wait...what?" comment was your absurd assertion that all presidents have supported the Christian Right agenda. That's only true if you believe that the Christian Right's agenda is simply to invoke the name of God occasionally.

Sorry... you are right. George W. Bush spent 8 years shaping this country according to the Christian Right's agenda. Oh wait.... no he didn't.

[Fireball]

The bottom line is that throughout the South you could go school district to school district and find plenty of prayer, God, and references to him in just about every subject.

And that is condemnable and wrong, if the prayer is being led or in any way encouraged by the school administrators.

Hell, you can still go to plenty of high school football games around here and they say a prayer over the loudspeakers before the game -- in DIRECT conflict with court orders.

And that is wrong. The South is a place that embraces, and has long embraced, many condemnable things, public sponsored religious expression being one of them.

Comparing region of the nation to other regions, the South is the most dissimilar from the other regions. And virtually everything unique to the South is something that makes the South a worse place to be.

The more unlike the South America can become, the better a nation America will be.

[msduncan]

Washington's true feelings about religion are unknown, even whether he received Communion.

I'll spare you the multiple quotes that I could pull regarding Washington's references to God that clearly show his religious nature. And as for whether he ever took communion -- not sure it matters. I've never taken communion either.

[Fireball]

Newsflash: Presidents of the United States have been very religious since George Washington took the oath of office, and we are neither a religious State, nor are we "done".

George Washington was not particularly religious, though he did do a great deal of religious posturing. In fact, most of our presidents have not been particularly religious as compared to the public as a whole, perhaps because they have tended to be more worldly and more educated. Looking at our last ten presidents:

Very religious: Bush Jr, Carter

Somewhat religious: Obama, Reagan, Nixon

Not particularly religious: Clinton, Bush Sr, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy

Of the first five presidents, only John Adams was particularly religious. Thomas Jefferson could hardly even be described as a Christian, and Washington was lukewarm towards religion in his personal life and had currents of deism in his belief system.

This argument is nothing more than scare tactics designed to scare the public into thinking a candidate is some sort of radical.

When religious fanatics like Michele Bachmann stop trying to pass laws that fucking TARGET people like me for discrimination and harm, then we can talk about "scare tactics." I know you don't five a half a damn about gay people, but stop pretending like the fears of the gay community are unfounded.

[Fireball]

Point to a president who makes the majority of their policy initiatives directly from the bible (or any other holy reference) and we can talk.

Then we'll be waiting a long time, since it's not going to happen, despite the people here who seem to think so. I don't see anything about most of these candidates that is any more religious than Bush was, for example.

Bush made far too many decisions based on his religious beliefs, and his religiosity was harmful to the country.

[Fireball]

I don't care whether my Presidents go to church on Sunday, or say grace over meals, or write their own heartfelt Easter letters to the nieces and nephews. I just care whether or not they've bought the agenda of the Christian Right, which is really the only thing we're talking about when we talk about "religion" in American politics.

The point is that you could look at every one of our previous Presidents and deduce that they might spearhead the 'agenda' of the Christian right.

No, you cannot.

Hell, everyone assumed Obama would close Gitmo, pull us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and end the Patriot act, but he hasn't.

Obama signed an executive order closing Gitmo, but he cannot relocate the prisoners without funding from Congress. He has pulled our combat troops out of Iraq. He is in the process of winding down Afghanistan (though he never campaigned on ending the war there, so that's a stupid expectation). He's been disappointing on the Patriot Act.

George W. Bush was the most born-again religious type to take office in decades, but for all of his faults he never took us down the road of being a religious state. The best he could do to affect anyone based on his religion were minor acts.

His backwards policies on stem cells, his attacks against America's GLBT population, those things were not "minor acts" to the millions of Americans harmed by them.

Religious Republicans in office place me and people like me in danger. That is not a "scare tactic," it is the truth.

[SpaceLord]

Washington's true feelings about religion are unknown, even whether he received Communion.

I'll spare you the multiple quotes that I could pull regarding Washington's references to God that clearly show his religious nature. And as for whether he ever took communion -- not sure it matters. I've never taken communion either.

I've already read all those quotes, thanks. That's a politician and a general speaking. I take it with a grain of salt.

[YellowKing]

Bachmann is on record as being subservient to her husband. Because of religion. All jokes aside, do you really want a president who admits to being under her husband's thumb? And people thought that Obama's half bowing was offensive to national pride. Here we have a woman who has so little self respect and direction that she is willing to spends years of her life returning to school because her husband told her to. This is not the same thing as a discussion between partners and an agreement for what's best for her, or the two of them. This is an order. "Do this" "ok". Assuming she's telling the truth of course.

Isn't it Bachmann's right to choose what role she wants to serve in her family? Why is that any of your concern? Most importantly, what does it have to do with being President?

When religious fanatics like Michele Bachmann stop trying to pass laws that fucking TARGET people like me for discrimination and harm, then we can talk about "scare tactics." I know you don't five a half a damn about gay people, but stop pretending like the fears of the gay community are unfounded.

You are free to not vote for candidates that scare you. The vast majority of the country is concerned about economics, healthcare, and national security. At any rate, gay rights issues are going to be decided at the state level, not the national level. If anything gay rights related happens at the national level, it's going to be pro-gay. Seriously, there is no way in hell that there is going to be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Ever.

[Fireball]

Isn't it Bachmann's right to choose what role she wants to serve in her family? Why is that any of your concern? Most importantly, what does it have to do with being President?

You don't see the problem with someone being president who believes it is her duty to be subservient and obedient to whatever her unelected spouse demands?

The vast majority of the country is concerned about economics, healthcare, and national security.

All of which got far, far worse under Bush, and are in the process of getting better under Obama.

At any rate, gay rights issues are going to be decided at the state level, not the national level.

Not all of them.

[Pyperkub]

After a little thought, I think it's going to be Romney-Perry (VP).

[GreenGoo]

You are free to not vote for candidates that scare you. The vast majority of the country is concerned about economics, healthcare, and national security. At any rate, gay rights issues are going to be decided at the state level, not the national level. If anything gay rights related happens at the national level, it's going to be pro-gay. Seriously, there is no way in hell that there is going to be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Ever.

Of course I'm not American, although I certainly sound like I think I am on occasion, so my opinion has not actual voting weight behind it.

This particular response has to do with msd complaining about the red herring of social issues being used to slag Rep candidates, not who is going to vote for who. He's specifically concerned with the "witchhunt" of calling these nutters on the exact things they claim to support, as if that is somehow off limits to criticize candidates based on what they say.

It would be cool then, if the vast majority of the Rep candidates would actually talk substantively about economics, healthcare and national security. Instead we might hear some lip service buzzwords on the economy with no actual position, plan, solution being mentioned, and then we're right back at religious base pandering.

If you feel that the vast majority are not concerned with social issues, why do the Reps candidates insist on addressing them (social issues), and pretty much only them?

[YellowKing]

You don't see the problem with someone being president who believes it is her duty to be subservient and obedient to whatever her unelected spouse demands?

I'd say that it is a stretch to think that because her husband wanted her to go back to school, she is a mindless robot that obeys his every whim.

[Exodor]

You don't see the problem with someone being president who believes it is her duty to be subservient and obedient to whatever her unelected spouse demands?

I'd say that it is a stretch to think that because her husband wanted her to go back to school, she is a mindless robot that obeys his every whim.

Why don't we just see what she says

“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.

[YellowKing]

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center,

Politicians play to their base.

[Exodor]

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center,

....and?

Either she's submissive to her husband or she lied to a group of Christians.

[Holman]

Politicians play to their base.

And they all stop doing this when they get into office?

I'm sure Romney's and Pawlenty's social conservative noises are calculated for base-appeal. But MB has always shown every sign of being a true believer. I really think this base produced her, they same way the Far Left produced Dennis Kucinich. She's theirs.

Honestly, the "submissive to her husband" thing is just rhetoric, not because she's lying but because plenty of conservative Christian women say that and believe it without actually being subservient.

I'm more concerned about her "gays are evil," "science is wrong," "government is the enemy," and "God wants us to fight Islam" sort of beliefs.

[YellowKing]

Well let me clarify - I'm not denying that there are people who are kooky in politics. And Bachmann could very well be one of them. I've never gotten the warm fuzzies from her, and if she did turn out to be the nominee I'd have to consider all the facts before deciding what to do. I've never been a fan of the religious right's influence on the Republican party.

By the same token, I do think a lot of the religious backlash against some of these candidates is in many instances largely overblown, as is the perceived influence their religious beliefs will have once in office. (At this rate, I'm surprised we haven't seen people coming out terrified that Romney will want to re-institute Prohibition).

[Exodor]

By the same token, I do think a lot of the religious backlash against some of these candidates is in many instances largely overblown, as is the perceived influence their religious beliefs will have once in office. (At this rate, I'm surprised we haven't seen people coming out terrified that Romney will want to re-institute Prohibition).

That's the thing - I haven't seen this sort of backlash against Romney. It's been focused on Bachmann and now on Perry.

Do you think there's a reason there's so much talk about Bachmann's religion and not, say, Pawlenty's?

[GreenGoo]

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center,

....and?

Either she's submissive to her husband or she lied to a group of Christians.

This. And I agree with YK. She's clearly lying directly into those people's faces. Which, to me, when it's so blatant and unvarnished, is a real issue. If we're so far jaded that we can listen to a clearly bald face lie without blinking, and not have it impact our opinion on who we vote for, then...I don't know.

Something?

[YellowKing]

Why does it have to be a lie?

I've owned 2 Dell computers in my life. One was a machine I bought cheap to fill in as a gaming rig until I could build a better one, and the other was a laptop that I bought from my company when I left.

If I was speaking at a Dell conference, I'd likely point out how I was a proud Dell owner and how their machines had provided me with years of good service. How I had a great deal of experience with their products and their sales team.

That's not a lie. Now in reality, those were only two computers out of the many I've owned. The vast majority of mine were built or heavily modified. If you hated Dell, and heard my speech at the Dell conference, you'd likely take me for some kind of Dell fanboy fanatic who kissed Michael Dell's ass at every opportunity.

Now, if she stands up on the campaign trail and starts telling her constituents that they need to go home and wash the dishes because the Bible says "thou shalt be a slave unto your husband," then yes, let's throw a caution flag onto the field. Talking to a church conference? Meh. There are flavors of Christianity where it is believed that women should be subservient to their husbands. I don't agree with them, but I also don't feel like I have the moral authority to tell somebody how to run their marriage - particularly when they've been married almost as long as I've been alive.

[Exodor]

Why does it have to be a lie?

Because either she allowed her husband to make major, life-changing decisions for her or she didn't. I'm not seeing gray area here.

We're not talking about computer preference, we're talking about going back to college or running for office. If she did those things only because her husband wanted her to do them I think it calls into question her decision making process - which seems vaguely important when running for president.

I said way back in the thread that I wouldn't care about her marriage if it didn't have a direct impact on her viability as leader of the free world.

[Holman]

You guys aren't getting the "subservient to my husband" thing. Its literal meaning has long been domesticated by accommodation to modern life.

And that doesn't make it a lie. Instead, it's something you say to signal several important messages:

1) I am not a wacko feminist.
2) I am proudly in touch with my Christian convictions.
3) I am not so watered-down a Christian woman as to be afraid to say these things.
4) I love my husband.
5) I know the Bible well enough to know it says this, and I take it seriously.
6) I am happy to shock secularists.
7) I know that the larger Scriptural context in which this passage occurs also demands that my husband is as subordinate to Jesus as a woman is to her mate, and, further, that most modern Evangelical interpretations of this scripture take it to involve both partners in a sort of co-subordination to Christ in which the husband's role is fully as selfless and humble as the wife's, and that the outsiders who get their hackles up about what I'm saying to you just don't get it, do they?

The example of her husband "sending her to school" underscores all these messages. MB can say all these things with utter sincerity. You are finding hypocrisy where none exists.

[Exodor]

You guys aren't getting the "subservient to my husband" thing. Its literal meaning has long been domesticated by accommodation to modern life.

And that doesn't make it a lie. Instead, it's something you say to signal several important messages:

The example of her husband "sending her to school" underscores all these messages. MB can say all these things with utter sincerity. You are finding hypocrisy where none exists.

I'm not seeing hypocrisy. I'm seeing someone who lets someone else make major life decisions for them and I have a problem with that in a potential president.

[Holman]

I'm not seeing hypocrisy. I'm seeing someone who lets someone else make major life decisions for them and I have a problem with that in a potential president.

The earlier talk was about her lying to rev up the base. I was trying to show how she could mean what she says without it being a lie or a grossly simple declaration of subservience.

If someone could pin her down for a coherent interview, I'm sure she could give a totally sincere answer about how domestic choices are for the couple together, but she knows that she is being elected President and Marcus isn't.

Regardless, I don't think she's fit to be dogcatcher.

[msduncan]

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center,

....and?

Either she's submissive to her husband or she lied to a group of Christians.

If she lied to Christians you guys would love her.


Amazing that you are still making this religious thing an issue. No...not amazing. Bullshit.

[GreenGoo]

We've covered this msd. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

You seem to be taking this personally, and even more erroneously taking this as an attack on Christianity and/or Republicans (in general). What it is is criticism of either a) fundamental Christianity or b) a lying politician pretending to be a fundamental Christian.

In either case, yes, she deserves all the criticism being heaped on her and then some.

Just as with Palin, I'm shocked that you would consider Bachmann a worthy candidate, or even worthy of your defense. She's not an R, she's either a charlatan or crazy, and it doesn't really matter to me which she turns out to be.

This is not an attack on the Republican party. It's criticism of those who claim fundamental Christianity as their key to the white house. And not even all of them. Just the ones willing to shout it in public.

[pr0ner]

After a little thought, I think it's going to be Romney-Perry (VP).

That ticket would have an excellent chance of spelling victory for the Republicans if the economy still stinks. And even if it doesn't, it would be a fascinating contest.

[YellowKing]

I'm not seeing hypocrisy. I'm seeing someone who lets someone else make major life decisions for them and I have a problem with that in a potential president.

You're inferring a lot from a few sentences.

Let's look at the school thing. She had already graduated from law school. It's not like she's this housewife that had never been educated before suddenly thrust into a university against her will.

Her husband says she should go get a post-doctorate in tax law. Now we don't know how this conversation went. You guys are thinking something like this:

Mr. Bachmann: "Whore of Babylon, get thee back to university and study tax law. This I command you as your master!"
Mrs. Bachmann: "Yes, master. Jesus wills it so."

When in reality it could have gone something like this:

Mr. Bachmann: "Honey, tax law seems to be all the rage these days. What about that as your post-doctorate?"
Mrs. Bachmann: "I don't know....I've never liked taxes."
Mr. Bachmann: "Well, I feel strongly that it's the best route to go from all the articles I'm reading. Seems to be in really high demand."
Mrs. Bachmann: <thinking to self - "He's probably right, even though I'm not really into tax law it would be a strong post-doctorate. As a good Christian man, maybe the Lord is guiding me down this path through him.">

For all we know she came up with the idea of running for Congress, but she was unsure of herself. Her husband reassured her (as I would expect any decent husband to do) - "Honey, go for it! You'd be great." She's unsure, she prays about it, she comes up with the decision.

[GreenGoo]

YK, the exact text of what she told the Christian subservients (or whatever they're called) is available. It goes something like "Hubby told me to go back and get tax something something degree." At which point she tells the audience "I hate taxes" and no, the context is not in general as in "lower taxes for everyone", it's "I don't like taxes so why would I go get a degree that involves taxes?" She then says to the effect "but hubby said do it, so off I went".

Pretty sure the actual quote is in this thread already.

But really bickering over this example is quibbling. She has many more fine examples of what a prime candidate for the Presidency she is. Once we got past this we'd just be onto the next.

[Zarathud]

For all we know she came up with the idea of running for Congress, but she was unsure of herself. Her husband reassured her (as I would expect any decent husband to do) - "Honey, go for it! You'd be great." She's unsure, she prays about it, she comes up with the decision.

This is the more reasonable story of their relationship, if it's normal.

But then why does Michelle Bachmann decide to spin it as not wanting to go, but doing it anyway because she's "being subservient" to her husband? You don't get an LLM when you're not interested in the subject.

Her use of this story as a political ploy not only makes her seem crazy, but it also minimizes her claim to competence. The crassness of the pandering to Christian fundamentalism bothers me, particularly when she had been claiming her not-very-extensive experience in tax law qualified her to be President. Either way, her story stinks.

While Michelle Bachmann's star was briefly rising, I expect we'll see more examples of her craziness as the campaign goes on.

[Exodor]

YK, the exact text of what she told the Christian subservients (or whatever they're called) is available.

It's on this very page!

“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.”

If she lied to Christians you guys would love her.

You realize I go to church every Sunday, right?

But please, continue to make sweeping generalizations about liberals, Christians and pretty much every subject. It's fascinating. really.

Amazing that you are still making this religious thing an issue. No...not amazing. Bullshit.

It really has very little to do with religion. I don't care why she's submissive to her husband, what I care about is why you would want a President who is unable or unwilling to make decisions for themselves.

[YellowKing]

I read the quoted text....repeatedly. Nothing in my examples contradicts what she said. You guys are the ones filling in the blanks by these great leaps of inference.

It really has very little to do with religion. I don't care why she's submissive to her husband, what I care about is why you would want a President who is unable or unwilling to make decisions for themselves.

She listed two examples of being subservient, one of which (running for Congress) seems very much in doubt since she said she was *unsure* - not that she absolutely did not want to run for Congress.

And from these two examples you're saying she is unable or unwilling to make decisions for herself about *everything.* Now who's making sweeping generalizations?

[Edit] - If you watch the actual speech on YouTube - even though it is an anti-Bachmann video that is heavily edited, it becomes clear that she lays the idea for running for Congress on God, not her husband. It is also clear that she was very religious even before she met her husband.

Another point I thought was amusing....if your problem is someone leaving decisions up to God because you don't believe in a higher power, then you must also believe that "God" is an invention of her own mind. So in essence the decisions she makes are based on.....her own ideas.......

[GreenGoo]

Well, as an Atheist, that just makes her seem even crazier than if her husband told her to do it, but that's neither here nor there I guess.

I thought we'd gotten past the burning bush syndrome awhile back.

[Exodor]

And from these two examples you're saying she is unable or unwilling to make decisions for herself about *everything.* Now who's making sweeping generalizations?

Who said that, and where?

Another point I thought was amusing....if your problem is someone leaving decisions up to God because you don't believe in a higher power, then you must also believe that "God" is an invention of her own mind. So in essence the decisions she makes are based on.....her own ideas.......

According to her own words she is submissive to her husband.

Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands