Pawlenty and Bachmann Spar in Iowa Debate

August 11th, 2011 at 8:11 pm | 77 Comments |

| Print

A spirited debate tonight on Fox News, but one where the winner ultimately turned about to be someone who said the least substantively.

Frontrunner and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney escaped unscathed – no one seriously challenged him, and with expectations that he would be targeted, this alone makes him the winner.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman didn’t have the spark he needed to bring to the debate. While he deserved credit for standing up for gay civil unions – a politically suicidal move in Iowa – he didn’t do so assertively. Asked by the moderator why those who oppose civil unions are wrong, Huntsman said, “they’re not wrong,” and that states should decide. But the converse of that statement is, “I’m not right!”

Huntsman was also asked about why he hadn’t put an economic proposal on the table yet, and his answer sounded shaky. The former governor said that he had only been campaigning for six weeks – not an acceptable answer for someone who is running to president of the United States.

The most talked-about answer that Rep. Michele Bachmann gave would have to be when she was asked what it meant to be submissive to her husband, a question asked by the Washington Examiner’s Byron York. The question was greeted by boos in the crowd, but Bachmann took the question with poise and said that ‘submission’ meant respect for one another.

Ron Paul said he was unconcerned with Iran obtaining a nuke, and suggested that he wasn’t necessarily opposed to slavery – in the hypothetical that a state would be free to legalize it – just that it was out of style and wouldn’t be implemented nowadays.

Pawlenty – what to say? He made a few zingers at the beginning and took some shots at Romney and Bachmann. But his performance fell far short of what it needed to be – the aggressiveness and assertiveness he needed to bring to the table was lacking. A disappointing showing this weekend will be one of the events of his campaign.


For the most recent polling of the Iowa caucuses, click here.

RCP Average: Bachmann (26%), Romney (22%), Pawlenty (8.2%), Paul (7.4%), Cain (6.4%), Gingrich (4.6%), Santorum (3.8%).

Pre-Debate Analysis:

Tim Pawlenty

Conventional wisdom says that former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty needs a win in Iowa to stay competitive in the race. With the news that Rick Perry is running for the Republican nomination, Pawlenty faces the challenge of proving that he can distinguish himself in the packed field.

Looming large over Pawlenty’s involvement in the debate tonight will be the memory of how he backed down during the New Hampshire debate. Here’s a refresher: the Sunday before the New Hampshire debate in June, Pawlenty had gone after Gov. Mitt Romney’s health care plan, styling it ‘Obamneycare’ on Fox News Sunday. During the debate, Pawlenty was asked by CNN’s John King why he chose that term – Pawlenty demurred, instead referring to his achievements in Minnesota, and opponents attacked him on this as a supposed sign of weakness.

No doubt Pawlenty will be thinking of these criticisms tonight – so watch for him to come out swinging aggressively.

Michele Bachmann

The most recent poll for the Iowa caucuses, by Rasmussen Reports, had Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann ahead of the crowded pack – even though Mitt Romney leads nationally. As one of the front-runners to winning the Ames straw poll in Iowa, she has to keep an even hand and fend off attacks – some of which may come from two scathing profiles written of her in the past week, one written in the New Yorker, the other in Newsweek.

Rep. Bachmann outperformed expectations during the New Hampshire debate by giving short, crisp answers to debate questions. In New Hampshire, she put plenty of emphasis on her 23 foster children – watch for that trend to continue today.

Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be on the defensive this evening – as the national front-runner for the Republican nomination, he has more than a few targets on his back. So far, criticism of Romney has not stuck – despite his many vulnerabilities.

Watch for him to emphasize his business experience over his political experience – something that he’s angling for in order to win votes from small businessmen and entrepreneurial-minded voters.

Since Tim Pawlenty has a bit of a chip on his shoulder from the last debate, expect him to have to fend off some aggressive criticism from the Minnesota Governor. Romney’s campaign has been low-key, and one should expect that his debate performance tonight will be as well.

Ron Paul

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is expected to place well on the Ames Straw Poll, and his supporters are boisterous crowd members, judging by previous debates and public appearances.

As always, watch for the most libertarian member of the debate group to flow against the typical answers of the rest of the debaters, especially on the issues of drug legalization, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, as well as American involvement abroad.

Herman Cain

The former pizza magnate performed surprisingly well during the last debate in New Hampshire – a Fox News focus group almost unanimously declared him the winner of the debate. His style has been slim on substance, however – many of his answers are merely other questions. This is a chance to show he’s been reading up on policy and politics, and show that he really has the intellectual abilities required to become president. For whatever you might think of him, his populist style of debating appears appealing to a substantial portion of the Republican electorate.

Jon Huntsman

The former Utah Governor has failed to spark excitement amongst Iowa Republicans, and will mostly be speaking to a national crowd when he debates this afternoon. The question for him will be whether he can encourage grassroots Republicans to get excited about his candidacy, which up until now has been struggling. He has been promoting himself as a moderate Republican, but the key for him will be to show moderation in policy, but not in temperament.

Rick Santorum

The former Senator from Pennsylvannia is running on social issues, something that he should have an audience for in Iowa. But he’s been unable to pick up the mantle of, say, Mike Huckabee. His latest hit? When Texas Gov. Rick Perry – now reportedly announcing his run for the presidency this Saturday – told a crowd that New York’s gay marriage law was a state rights issue, saying, “that’s their business, and that’s fine by me.” Santorum was quick to respond, saying, “it IS our business, and that’s NOT fine by me.” Watch for Santorum to draw parallels between morality and economics whenever he can, a la Huckabee.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is still running for president? The former House speaker’s campaign has suffered a meltdown – everything from communications failures, like calling the Paul Ryan budget – which virtually every House Republican supports – “radical”; to his entire senior staff resigning on one day in June.

He’s going to need to do something spectacular to reboot his campaign – and even that may not achieve much of anything. Some may scoff at ‘conventional wisdom’, but the prevailing mood of the press corps and strategists does have a substantial effect on aspects of the campaign, like fundraising. With a bad reputation around his neck – it seems as if Gingrich is a ‘dead man walking’.

Recent Posts by Tim Mak

77 Comments so far ↓

  • rubbernecker

    Um, I didn’t read the Newsweek piece on Bachmann, but apparently you didn’t read The New Yorker profile. It could hardly be characterized as “scathing.” Skeptical, yes, scathing, no.

    • Smargalicious

      Doesn’t matter.

      Perry, Christie, or Romney are so far superior to Nobama that his demise is shortly due.

      God help us until then.

      • TJ Parker

        Smegmalicious: I would have thought you a Rick Sanscrotum kinda guy.

      • johnqpublic

        Smargalicious is defined as the act of licking off the frothy mixture.
        (google Santorum to find the frothy mixture)

  • Rossg

    If the latest Bachmann article in Newsweek is like their earlier articles on Palin, it’s lame. I’m not a Bachmann fan, but just sayin.

    • WaStateUrbanGOPer

      Ross, the Newsweek Palin articles you mentioned were all puff pieces that did no serious investigation into her. None of them count as serious journalism. They were all celebrity journalism, especially the infamous “jogging suit” cover story from the Fall of ’09 and the cover story from about a year ago by Newseek’s awful religion editor, Lisa Miller. All these stories glossed over this sinister woman’s lies and hypocrisy and astonishing stupidity in favor of the US Weekly/People magazine treatment, with perhaps a touch of Politico’s “who won the day” and “who has hot prospects as a candidate” inanity.

      I haven’t read the Bachmann article yet, but judging from the cover photo (and the even creepier outtakes that “Beast Week” is showcasing), I’m expecting a fairly critical piece. Of course, leave it to the absurd Tina Brown to disappoint me with an article that priortizes reporting on what Michelle Bachmann eats and what she wears over any actual investigative reporting into her politics.

      • Lonewolf

        Newsweek’s relationship to journalism is parallel to Popsicle’s relationship to nutrition.

  • JimBob

    Chris Wallace is a disgraceful wimp and FAUX news is horrible.

  • Oldskool

    Let us know if anyone says anything stu… anything not stupid.

  • TAZ

    ALL of these clowns said they would walk away from a 10 to 1 (spending cuts to revenue increases) deal……….WOW, what a stupid stance.

    How is one gonna back out of that in a general election?

  • jnail

    Why is Huntsman in this thing? He is a total lightwieght.

    Pawlenty is beyond light and why he thinks he should be in this race is beyond me.

    Santorum is useless and Paul is entertaining but a distraction.

    Romney….what a tool

  • bluestatepastor

    They would walk away from a 10 to 1 deal?? Seriously??

    And this is the best pool of candidates the GOP can come up with?

  • JimBob

    Ron Paul vs the Chicago Street Hustler Barry Hussein. Freedom vs Marxism

    • Gus

      You really have absolutely no idea what Marxism is, do you?

      • JimBob

        Yes Gus I do. Is Barry Hussein Vladimir Ilyich Lenin??? No, But he’s much closer to Vladimir than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington James Madison or Ron Paul.

        • agustinvicente

          You’re mixed-metaphor-speak just amazes me. I guess you think it sounds smart and that too amazes me.

        • Primrose

          That is a meaningless statement. We have no idea what the founding fathers would have thought of Marxism since it was not an intellectual idea, let alone the the inspiration for a political movement. And since when is Ron Paul on par with Jefferson intellectually?

        • jakester

          True, back then even the British colonial governmental presence in the pre-USA America was slim to none. There was no modern socialistic or welfare states back then to complain about. 90% of the people were small farmers.

        • elizajane

          Speaking as one who actually knows something about political thought in Russia (and western Europe) at the beginning of the 20th century, to pair Obama’s political thinking with that of Lenin is absolutely hilarious. It is clear that you know absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about Lenin’s vision of society.

        • gocart mozart

          There is your answer Gus. He has no clue.

        • Primrose

          I’m sure that today’s welfare recipients would accept free land in exchange for a welfare check. That was a government hand-out too. And talk about entitlement, they thought they had a right to the land despite other people living on it.

  • anniemargret

    Their rigid stance on taxes is absurd. Makes them all part of a herd mentality with no basis in reality.

    I loved Ron Paul’s non-interventionist attitude because he’s right….I like that he’s not afraid to speak the truth about the dangerous neocon philosophy.

    The panel is hurling good questions at them. Good for Fox (never thought I’d say that)

    • Banty

      Loved him on Iran. I don’t buy into his isolationism, and I don’t think there there is no concern about Iran obtaining nukes.

      But he is saying what any decent historian in the future (any historian not beholden to an ideological or national sponsor, that is) would say concerning Iran, because they would step back and look at the situation and the geography. Iran lives in a nuclear neighborhood, and its nemesis, the one superpower in the world, had recently invaded the country to the right of it, and the country to the left of it. *Of course* Iran is seeking nukes.

  • Oldskool

    I’m flipping back and forth to Jersey Shore. The dialogue is roughly the same but the debate needs dance music.

  • valkayec

    Sorry, but there’s not one GOP candidate that I can support. The only one whom I thought might provide a new agenda for the GOP, to lead it out of the Dark Ages, was Huntsman. But he supported Ryan’s huge deficit/debt expansion plan while not realistically addressing the medical care costs issues that face the nation.

    Frankly, I’m sick and tired of fantasy plan and ideas from millionaire politicians who have no idea how average Americans live and what their struggles are. Moreover, as long as districts are gerrymandered by the party in power to expand their power and prevent real party competition and as long as money via PACs, lobbyists, etc. remain the political norm, American voters will be ill served and our democracy will be in danger of being lost to oligarchy and plutocracy. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is either dumb or bought.

    • JimBob

      And Barry Hussien knows how average Americans live??

      • Frumplestiltskin

        do you even have a life? 21 posts and 6 are by you. Why don’t you talk to your astromonaut son and Doctor of everything daughter about your experiences are Haryale. And you call oldskool a loser, you are such a funny poseur.

      • advocatusdiaboli

        So far and disappointingly, the GOP has failed to provide someone I could vote for and against Obama. Bachmann is a prettier more educated Palin—religious wacko who has very questionable judgement and the world via of a religious fanatic. Obama got my vote last time, but it was more a vote against angry mercurial drunken do-nothing McCain and fanatical ignorant Palin than a vote for Obama who I thought too inexperienced and spineless in his self-interest. My fears about Obama have turned out to be true, but McCain -Palin would have done worse. I don’t want to have to hold my nose again to vote. GOP, get your freaking act together. I won’t vote for Bachmann—ever.

  • rubbernecker

    I’m marveling that the Congresswoman from Fantasy Island insists she’s been vindicated by S & P. Wow!

    • anniemargret

      What a hoot, huh? She’s ‘proud’ that she would have thrown the USA under the bus. Proud! And her TPers would be proud of that, too.

      These are mental midgets. She needs to stay far, far away from the Oval Office. And her equating terrorist suspects against convicted terrorists was sickening. This is a very, very dangerous woman….

      I will say in her defense, that she put the nail in the coffin for Palin. She is articulate and she’s forceful and can think on her feet. That is something Palin could never do. But her vision for America?

      Lord, save us from the Righteous Right!

      And what is this unequivocable defense of Israel, right or wrong? Are they all ready to send our American boys over there to defend that country, bar none? Are they are crazy as loons?


  • JimBob

    No old skool, you just made mine!!

    • Bunker555


      We are waiting for your grand entrance on the Fixed News Politics Blog. We will give you lots of “Liked” hugs and kisses. You’re usually there by midnight, what happened? Your fans beg you to hurry up and share your infinite wisdom.

      Love you,
      Tea Baggers

  • Last Puritan

    My Impression:

    Mitt Romney: he can beat Obama. He’s talking like a politician, like Obama did. Circuitously.

    All Obama opponents should hope that he and his minions go after Romney personally. Especially his Religion. It could do for Christianity what it can’t do for itself, unite the tribes. Even joyful apostates are likely to enter the electoral fray for Mitt.

    True, Mormonism isn’t really a tribe, but Immaculate Conception or not, Jesus in total, is still loved, bread is still broken and the altar cloth still folded. If Obama is to be relieved of his duties, dogma be damned, for the moment, anyway.

    Huntsman: He looked bad and sounded bad, too. He’s doesn’t really know why he’s running. I don’t think he’s power hungry but I do think he’s experiment hungry. Not good enough. At least not good enough to compete.

    Bachmann: “Cant, Folly and Horsefeathers!” She’s Obama w/cluster headaches! Madonna mia, what nonsense!

    The rest don’t really matter.

    And though it’s only a hunch, I’d put unemployment at about 40% with Paul in charge. Rhoubini (sp?) or Paul? It’s no contest, really.

    Final note: President Obama had better drop the ‘it’s the revolutions,’ my people who voted for me, or before you know it he’ll be back in the 57 States, Breathalyzer (sp?), Tire pressure/conservation/oil dependency mode.

    Locusts might be easier on the body politic than morons.

    P.S. I’d like to see Huntsman figure out why he’s running. I like him.

  • Redrabbit

    The anti-tax stance, particularly the defense of corporations and the wealthy, does not seem like a winning formula. Americans WANT revenues, and 63% support more taxes on the wealthy. Bankers, corporations, and the top 1% are not in vogue these days. If the economy remains stagnant or starts trending down once more, then these attitudes are likely to intensify.

    But the GOP seems to have given up on the idea of capitalizing on that anger, in deference to the anti-tax ideology of a small sliver of the electorate.

    • jakester

      Don’t you know, all the little people on the conservative base are one step away from being multimillionaires? After all, fat slobs who make bundles ranting on the radio tell them that taxes are evil.

  • roubaix

    Gingrich kept mentioning this place called Woarshington. Come to think of it, my grandpa used to talk about it too.

  • hisgirlfriday

    T-Paw’s performance tonight made me think he’s resigned he’s not going to be president but just hoping a President Romney would give him a Cabinet spot for attacking Michele Bachmann.

    And I have to say that I am as unsympathetic to Michele Bachman’s views as one can possibly be but for some reason the attacks on her get my feminist ire up in a way that the attacks on Sarah Palin never did. The Newsweek cover was RIDICULOUS and I loathe Tina Brown for turning a once-great magazine into the US Weekly of politics. And then tonight that submission question was just unfair… at least without the moderator also calling out Newt for his relationship with his spouse and her being involved in all of his political decisions.

    Lastly, I think my jaw is still on the floor from Rick Santorum justifying his dislike/distrust of Iran as having something to do with their repression of gays.

    • Banty

      Agree with all of this.

      Much as I dislike Bachmann, some of the questions thrown her way were unfair (and she handled them decently), and T-Paw’s ‘attack’ on her as not having won all of her causes was just silly. By the low standards implicitly set by this particular set of aspirants, she actually came off well.

  • TerryF98

    I just want to know why they all left their clown suits at home. Funniest and most delusional thing an TV last night by a long way.

  • GOPs Establish Anti-Gay Cred In Less Than Two Iowan Minutes / Queerty

    [...] image via What do you think of this post?LOL (0) WTF (0) Hot (0) More Please (0) [...]

  • TJ Parker

    Yawn. All I learned was that none of these individuals is qualified to govern. Can meat-puppet Perry really be the party’s salvation, or is the GOP doomed?

    • tommyudo

      “Doomed”? One can only hope. Not one of these pack of mutations on the stage last night will ever make it to the White House, except as part of a tour group. As for that religious fanatic, Perry, once the Obama people finish their opposition research on him, little Rickie will put on a cowboy hat , be strapped to a little pony and sent packing back to his god forsaken state. Despite the faith I have in the gullibility and short memories of the general public, I don’t think they will vote for another Texas governor with an 85 IQ – “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” GW Bush, 2002.

  • Stewardship

    The format, spread across eight candidates, didn’t allow anyone to provide any depth of thought or ideas. Pawlenty looked like he had the flu and sounded resigned to the fact that his fate is sealed.

    I was mildly shocked that Santorum came across as one of the least looney of the bunch. Cain’s Southern Baptist syntax started to wear on me. Gingrich was, by far, the best; but his baggage is so heavy, his wake so wide, I don’t see how he builds a campaign. Romney played rope-a-dope and no damage was done. Bachman looked extremely odd, but with no way to flesh out her version of her accomplishments, she came up winning points.

    Huntsman disappointed. His comment “…the EPA’s reign of terror” was incongruous and out of place in the context of the question. It obviously was a phrase his handlers had told him to work in somewhere. It fell very flat. Hopefully, he’ll forget it, and tell us what his ten point plan is, and how he’s going to implement it. He also looked like he had indigestion all night.

  • ottovbvs

    Didn’t watch it. All reports, particularly those in the foreign press who don’t feel compelled to hype these happenings, suggest it was a none event. The only frisson came when Pawlenty effectively called Bachmann a liar, but apart from that…meh. The invisible man was Mitt Romney. Must have still been in the Mittness Protection Program.

  • Kevin B

    The most talked-about answer that Rep. Michele Bachmann gave would have to be when she was asked what it meant to be submissive to her husband, a question asked by the Washington Examiner’s Byron York. The question was greeted by boos in the crowd, but Bachmann took the question with poise and said that ’submission’ meant respect for one another.

    A nice follow-up question would be whether Michele Bachman’s husband is submissive to her, or does the respect only go one direction?

    • dmnolan

      Really penetrating inquiry, Byron York. Stellar journalism.
      Get a haircut.

      • Primrose

        It is a legitimate question. She’s claimed she will do things she actively doesn’t want to do because her husband told her too, and not because she thinks he gives really fantastic advice but because the Bible told her to do what he said, whether or not she thinks it is a good idea.

        That would mean that Mr. Bachman is really president. And thus, he should be running not her.

    • rubbernecker

      New definition of submission: “You’re not the boss of me.”

    • think4yourself

      If Bachmann follows the Bible first and exclusively – what about 1 Tim. 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” KVJ

      How can she be President?

      If you like that, read verse 11-15, especially in the New Living Translation along with King James. Speaking of which read 1 Tim 3: 1-3 (also try NLT for clarity) and ask yourself about Newt Gingrich. (the loving money or “lucre” part could apply to most of them).

  • Southern Populist

    Ron Paul said he was unconcerned with Iran obtaining a nuke, and suggested that he wasn’t necessarily opposed to slavery

    Ron Paul said this? That he is not necessarily opposed to slavery in theory?

    I will believe that when I see and hear it myself.

    • Primrose

      I too would like the transcript of that statement. Given his other statements on similar matters it is not beyond belief, but it is too damning to accept without proof.

    • think4yourself

      I didn’t watch the debate but his son said the 1965 Civil Rights Act was a violation of property holders rights. So the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

  • The ‘fiery’ Iowa presidential debate: Winners and losers (The Week) | Breaking News Today

    [...] Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman needed a strong performance to revive his struggling campaign, says Tim Mak at FrumForum. But he just “didn’t have the spark he needed.” The moderate does deserve some [...]

  • Curiosity

    As someone who is socially progressive but idealogically right leaning, these debates always make me throw up a little bit in my mouth.

    I’m not really excited about pulling the lever for Obama – somebody whose idealotry and worldview is different than my own, but honestly it seems like the Republican party is doing nothing but bringing out the crazies. Not one of them would take a 10:1 spending cut to tax increase deal? really? Really!?

    • Kevin B

      My dictionary doesn’t have an entry for “idealotry”. Did you have a different word in mind when you typed that?

    • ottovbvs

      “somebody whose idealotry and worldview is different than my own”

      Do you mean you’re a Rocky Republican. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal? So how is Obama’s worldview different than yours exactly?

    • Oldskool

      Sounds like a clear choice. If Romney gets the nomination, you know he’ll have to pick a half-crazy vp to bring out the crazy vote. And vice-versa if a crazy gets the nomination.

    • Carney

      Once bitten, twice shy. And the GOP has been bitten over and over by past deals in which the left gets what it wants (tax hikes, illegal amnesty) but the right never does (spending cuts, immigration enforcement). What looks like inexplicable intransigence now is the result of past betrayals.

      Telling Charlie Brown he’s being unreasonable for not running up to the football again is not going to work this time.

      • Xunzi Washington

        1. If Dems always get their tax hikes, why are tax rates at 60 year lows?

        2. Funny, when I listen to Republicans talk, their intransigence has everything to do with a refusal to raise taxes at all – under any circumstances — and nothing to do with sniveling about how past spending cuts haven’t happened.

      • Oldskool

        It seems popular on the right to ignore what everyone else has watched the last year, from governors taking away rights to bargain to suicidal hostage-takers in Congress. I myself hope they keep it up.

  • LFC

    The most talked-about answer that Rep. Michele Bachmann gave would have to be when she was asked what it meant to be submissive to her husband, a question asked by the Washington Examiner’s Byron York.

    An vital question for somebody who by word and deed lives by a certain brand of Christianity. The Bible states in several places that a husband rules over his wife, including “wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife.” That’s pretty clear that if Marcus puts his foot down, her duty is to submit to his will.

    Primrose said… It is a legitimate question. She’s claimed she will do things she actively doesn’t want to do because her husband told her too, and not because she thinks he gives really fantastic advice but because the Bible told her to do what he said, whether or not she thinks it is a good idea.

    Primrose, your point is correct, but your tense is wrong. She already submitted to Marcus’s will in her career choices.

    hisgirlfriday said… And then tonight that submission question was just unfair… at least without the moderator also calling out Newt for his relationship with his spouse and her being involved in all of his political decisions.

    HGF, asking advice from your spouse is VERY different than handing them veto power over any decision you make. Bill Clinton obviously asked Hillary’s advice, but there’s no doubt who was President. That doesn’t scare me. With Michele, I’m convinced (by her own words and prior deeds) that if Marcus told her she must do something because it was “God’s will”, she would do it. That scares the f*** out of me.

    • Primrose

      Well, actually my tense should have been conditional since she has and said she would again. But I am with you in response to girl friday. Ms. Ms. Bachman is not saying she is taking his advice. She says she is submitting to his will.

      Again, there are people in my life whose thoughts, even when they go counter to my instinct, I take very, very seriously. I might completely change my mind based on their outlook. But that is a very different situation than doing what that person says always and forever, without exaggeration a Stepford wife.

      That’s a follower not a leader.

  • Lonewolf

    In university, my fraternity had a colourful expression, which could be politely paraphrased as “Never dip your candlewick in crazy wax.”
    With Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Palin and Santorum polling 75% between them, it’s pretty clear that at least 3/4 of respondents are not my frat brothers.

  • anniemargret

    Completely off topic, sorry…but can anyone explain after that explosive and theatrical GOP ‘debate’ last evening, FF has decided to put in a baseball/dating/dieting columns on the top of their page today?

    Just wonderin’….I thought I was tuning into the National Enquirer for a minute.

    The question about ‘submission’ to Bachmann, was, in my opinion, totally fair. This is a woman who has not had a moment’s hesistancy about injecting her religious beliefs alongside her political beliefs. Which is what?

    Most evangelicals take their Bible seriously.. So seriously that many women believe implicitly in the ‘submission’ statement that women should give way to men in decision making.

    So if Ms. Bachmann is the evangelical that she says she is, then does she believe women should be subservient as well? Yes or No? She hedged that question, and if she prefers she doesn’t get any more ‘gotcha’ questions in the religious vein, then she should refrain from injecting her personal beliefs into the mainstream political discourse.

    • Oldskool

      Check this out. It would be a good topic for the weekend, eh?

      [blockquote]A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default – a position put forth by some Republicans.

      Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

      “That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”[/blockquote]

  • The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Bachmann's Defining Moment

    [...] example, as Tim Mak reports, the most talked about moment in the Ames debate was when Byron York asked Bachmann whether, as [...]