USA Fallout over Iowa debate question, Is Michele Bachmann Submissive?

The Tea Party queen was asked whether she would defer to her husband as president. Leslie Bennetts says it's an important question—one the Republican candidate shouldn't be allowed to deflect so easily.
Nice try, Michele, but no cigar.
And so far, the same might be said for the national press. As the 2012 presidential campaign gets underway, it looks as if it's going to be a long, hard slog.
When Republican presidential candidates faced off Thursday night in the Iowa debate that set the stage for Saturday's straw poll, it was a conservative columnist who asked Rep. Michele Bachmann a crucial question: what did she mean by her vow to be submissive to her husband?
The audience booed the question, which came from Byron York of the Washington Examiner. Bachmann smiled and said, "Thank you for that question, Byron. What submission means to me—if that's what your question is—it means respect."
No, Congresswoman, in fact, it doesn't. Words have specific meanings, and your definition is incorrect, just as your answer to the question was disingenuous and obfuscatory. But so far, nobody is calling you on it.
From the outset, this whole issue was a problem Bachmann herself created; recalling that she hated the idea of pursuing a degree in tax law, she said she did so only because her husband told her to. "The Lord says, 'Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,'" she explained.
The Bachmann family is entitled to its belief system—one apparently shared by Michele's brother-in-law, who has reinforced Michele's description of her marriage to Marcus Bachmann with similar reference to theology: "He is her husband. The husband is to be the head of the wife, according to God," said Peter Bachmann.
But while she's entitled to define her religious beliefs however she wants, Michele Bachmann is not entitled to weasel out of an important question about presidential power the way she's done so far—nor should the national press corps permit her to do so. And yet on this morning's Today Show, Lester Holt repeatedly asked the wrong follow-up questions in his postdebate interview with Bachmann.
Referring to York's query about submission, Holt asked: "Are you happy the question was asked? Did it need clarification?"
"I was happy that I was able to talk about my wonderful husband," Bachmann replied.
"Was it important to clarify it, and do you think you did clarify your thoughts about it?" Holt persisted.
Bachmann parried smoothly, once again equating submission with respect. "I respect my husband. He is a wonderful, godly man, and he respects me," she said.
But Holt was asking the wrong questions, and he shouldn't have let her get away with evading the central issue here, which is very simple: if American voters elect her as president, or vice president and therefore a heartbeat away from the presidency, who will be making the decisions—Michele Bachmann or her husband? A woman who pursues an entire career she hates the idea of, just because her husband told her to, is not a woman who should be occupying the Oval Office—or anything remotely near it.


Leslie Bennetts


http://www.christianpost.com/news/bachmann-submissive-question-ignites-debate...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Is Michele Bachmann Submissive

[TechnoDevotee]

You know what we need?

A President who is submissive, because that is true leadership!

[delirous8]

@jxsilicon9 and god

isn't there supposed to be a seperation from church and state in politics?

[jxsilicon9]

Why shouldn't the question be asked?She said she does what her husband tells her to do. So will that apply in the white house?

[mlonster]

uhm no often women are tools of men trying to do stupid shit.

(and covering up afterwards..)

[10toria19]

Caught red handed on another lie. That's Michele's constant problem, She's already said what she dreams in another video. Poor little liar, caught again.

[1dcondave]

@berbatovinho77 With the exception of Buddha, all the faiths you mentioned ARE myths, but the resurrection of Jesus is a real event in a specific time and place with an historically verifiable figure, followed by eyewitnesses who went to martyrs' graves still holding to what they saw. To me that makes the difference. Intelligence... history can reveal the "what", science can research "how", but apart from a divine Creator, there is no answer for "why". The fool says in his heart there is no god.

[HHHdahman]

LOL. Id respond with.

"Are you submissive with yours?"

[berbatovinho77]

@1dcondave here is my take on relationships... both parties involved have equal say in every matter of a family. if its male dominant you have results like in the middle east where women are treated like properties. you dont need a stupid false book telling you how to live your life. here is an eye opener... i m sure you think Scientology believers are psychos...well thats what most atheists see when they look at christians :D

[berbatovinho77]

@1dcondave dude god doesnt exist at least not the one u talk about.... ur books are myth stories just like zeus, saturn, thor, shinto gods, allah, krishna, budha.... what makes jesus any different. not even many atheists are intellegent???? look at the studies done comparing atheist IQ to religious IQ... atheists score higher, look at prisons... america is 12% atheist but prison population is only .02% atheist... look at the countries with highest average IQs... majority are atheistic/agnostic.

[1dcondave]

@berbatovinho77 1st, your broad brush generalizations are off-base. Not ALL (perhaps not even many) atheists are intelligent, and there are many well-studied believers possessing a we-ll reasoned defense of the faith. 2nd, you failed to read the passage in question. God's will for marriage puts the responsibility on the man; nay man who can live out God's template for marriage is a man who will earn his wife's respect, and they will submit to one another out of reverence. May God forgive you.