Bachmann, Obama sing similar tune on New York’s gay marriage law

Just watch. From now on, we’re going to start seeing a more “reasonable”, more “sane” type Michele Bachmann. At least that’s how she’s going to try and portray herself. I pray to God, no one lets up on her for her past indiscretions – her past craziness and brings all that crap out in the open for her to answer to and for the world to see. Rest assured if by some small chance she would be elected to any other office, her craziness would return – and with a vengeance.

@Kevin,

I agree. The problem is if she goes moderate (and we’re talking moderate ala Michele) then she loses her tea party and fundamentalist base. What’s a zealot to do?

Praise Jebus, God hates a tailored message, Amen.

I totally agree with Kevin. Michele Bachmann is absolutely a complete wacko when it comes to policy. Plus, she’s pure evil. Her believes are outrageous and she would wreck everything good about our nation. The HUGE problem that will be facing all rational people in the US during the next presidential election is that she (or her campaign supervisor) is EXTREMELY SAVVY (in an evil genious sort of way).
She is playing every single hand she has to the fullest, and is being extremely sneaky and deceptive about every decision she makes and every word she says.
She is clearly no ditz like Palin, and it’s going to be hard not to understimate her. She’s going to be a big challenge for Obama. I just pray like Kevin that reasonable people see through her illusion/dillusion. She is NO GOOD!

Bachmann and Obama don’t sing a similar tune at all. Bachmann wants a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She also wants all legal gay marriages to be nullified. Michelle Bachmann wants the country to be her own personal theocracy, based on her chosen religious beliefs. Her and President Obama are worlds apart when it comes to gay rights issues.

There’s one factor we can’t forget, nor let the media forget. It’s Bachmann’s absurd religious beliefs.

By civil custom and out of an exaggerated respect for the positive role of religious belief and institutions in the US (and please let me note that many religious institutions and people undoubtedly have made a positive contribution to this country), and for the simple monetary and pragmatic fear of offending viewers, readers or listeners, the mainstream media has generally taken a hands off view with regard to the religious beliefs of candidates and how they might influence their behavior and worldview.

Why is this important? Two main reasons.

1. In order for dialogue to occur in a democracy we need some basis on which to reach agreement or at least compromise. If two camps each have their own alleged facts, then this becomes difficult if not impossible.

2. Those who maintain beliefs on the basis of ignorance and unreason and justify this with false epistemologies (an alleged divinely inspired text told me, e.g.) will likely carry this unreasoning stance into all other complex issues. The yahoo who believes the earth is 10,000 years old or less will probably have a hard time making sense of climate science.
(Case in point–Republican John Shimkus, who believes that his god promised Noah that He wouldn’t destroy the earth again. Therefore, we shouldn’t worry about climate change. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html)

So, what standard should be used?

If a candidate for public office asserts religion inspired beliefs in contradiction with settled science or a minimum of rational skepticism, then these beliefs should be fair game for criticism.

The same goes for Bachmann’s (or Obama’s) views on gay marriage. Any time Bachmann speaks to a reporter on this issue, the reporter should press her on her religious beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

Bachmann should be compelled to give a complete account of her views. If she thinks that opposing gay rights is her god’s will, then she should be asked 1) how she knows this, and 2) why she thinks other god believers are wrong. If she believes other Christians are misled and defiling her god’s will, she should say so without ambiguity.

Eric, well put.

Michele Bachmann thinks it’s fine to use the government to impose her religion on other people when it comes to the issue of marriage. But when it comes to much more universal themes of religion, such as carrying for the poor, the eldery, the sick and all of Creation, why is it not fine to use the government to impose those beliefs as well?

Unfortunately Eric, we can’t even hope the mainstream media will press Bachmann for answers or demand she explain her past actions. They are wimps – every last one of them. Oh sure, they might ask some tough questions. She’ll ignore them or steer the topic somewhere else and that’s the end of it. I see it happening over and over and over and it drives me crazy.

Thank God for places like The MN Independent and a few others. By the way, have you guys ever tried to do an interview with Bachmann??? Why do I think she wouldn’t do it??

Kevin,

You may be right. I too have lost confidence in much of the mainstream media. I turned my television off years ago since I was tired of being intellectually insulted by Wolf Blitzer, Glenn Beck and all the other clowns who, disturbingly, find themselves arbiters of political power in the 24/7 news environment.

I don’t want to steer this too far off topic, but you perhaps might be interested in this fascinating blog post about just how low-level the intellectual quality is or can be at the Washington Post:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/26/254290/washington-post-attack-on-clean-energy-oil-industry-talking-points/#more-254290