Posted on 06/19/2011 11:31:33 AM PDT by Nachum
Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann joins fellow conservatives Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty in being attacked with glitter by gay rights activists.
According to the Star Tribune, the Minnesota congresswoman was “glittered” Saturday after delivering a speech at the RightOnline Conference. The publication reports that Minneapolis gay-rights activist Rachel E.B. Lang came up to Bachmann and twice chucked glitter at her. (Major Garrett critical of 2012 Bachmann bid because ’she can’t keep anybody on her staff’)
Bachmann continued walking even as Lang yelled, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Lang was quickly removed by security.
“My response to Michele Bachmann’s hateful and anti-gay rhetoric was light-hearted, but these issues are very serious,” Lang said in a statement. “Bachmann’s support of groups like ‘You Can Run But You Cannot Hide’ show exactly how extremist she is — she in no way represents the values of Minnesota and certainly does not represent the values of America.”
During former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s book signing in San Francisco last week, two females threw pink glitter and feathers on him.
Last month, a protester dumped glitter onto Gingrich and his wife Callista during the former House speaker’s book signing.
They are sending a message: “It was glitter this time. Next time it may be acid or a bullet. We can get close to you with stuff.”
Well, whatever it is, this episode is a reminder of the one in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral back around 1990 where several "gay activists" threw condoms around the church and were arrested.
Unless and until they are treated seriously by the law, these jerks will continue to upgrade their projectiles until a tragedy will occur.
AppyPappy wrote:
So you are happier with a liberal anti-gun anti-freedom Democrat than a non-perfect Republican in your eyes. Just wondering which side you were on.
The new Democrat strategy seems to be convincing Republicans to “sit out” the election so they win by default.
I'm on the side of the United States Constitution. I will not vote for a Socialist who views the Constitution as an impediment to big government "assistance programs." If the Republicans can run a candidate who first and foremost will work to return the United States government to operating within the limites of the United States Constitution, they will have my vote. If they run someone who will propose additional spending on social programs, "saving medicare" in its current form and more of the same that we've been getting from both parties for decades.
Actually, if the choice is "Do you want mustard or mayonaise on your crap sandwich?" I'll take the steak and potatoes platter, please. If the GOP won't offer that, then I'm not voting for a crap sandwich with mustard. Sorry.
indylindy wrote:
Bachmann is as close as you are going to get to a Constitutional Conservative.
You might be correct, and I could support a candidate like Bachman or Cain, in spite of any minor disagreements I might have.
EGPWS wrote:
What does this have to do with Michele Bachmann, a conservative?
My response was more to nachum's advice not to "sit this one out." I don't plan on sitting out, but if the Republican leadership thinks they have my vote for Romney because he's "the next guy in line," they will be sadly disappointed. If the stupid party wants to continue with that strategy, the evil party will wipe the floor in 2012. I hope they don't make that mistake, but it's important that Republican "leaders" realize that the race is theirs to lose. If history is any indication, they will try hard to do just that.
It's up to Michele to get out there and show her mettle and convince you.
They sashay and use glitter. We strut and use guns.
If they have proven how easy it is to get close enough with glitter, how long before someone brings acid? Arrest this thug and throw the book at him.
If they have proven how easy it is to get close enough with glitter, how long before someone brings acid? Arrest this thug and throw the book at him.
If it comes down to Romney and Obama, you don’t get another choice. If I’m a liberal and I want Obama elected, my job is to get you to NOT vote for the Republican. If I can get you to sit out, I win.
If it’s Bachman, my job is to drive a wedge between you and Bachman so you will sit out. Same with Palin. You’ve already admitted you are willing to sit out. All I have to do is get you to do it and I think that is easier than you think.
I'm not a fan of career politicians, and I have a good memory. A Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President doubled the budget of the Department of Education in 6 years, and added about fifty percent to the budget of the Department of Energy and to the Department of Health and Human Services over those same 6 years (2001-2007). Many of the same "leaders" who were involved in that are still in the "Republican leadership." IMO, those "leaders" should resign and let some "TEA Party" types who are committed to actually reducing federal spending, federal regulation and returning us to a federal government that lives within the limitations of the United States Constitution.
I'm pretty sure Romney grew the government of Massachusetts in his time as Governor.
Actually, the one candidate I'm most impressed with so far is Herman Cain. I have some issues with him, but he does have executive experience and has led an organization through a major turnaround and back to success. If he stays focused on spending, growth and deregulation, he'll be great. He shows some naïveté, but he is impressive when he speaks. If he can stay focused on spending, deregulation and freedom and avoid pushing FairTax snake oil, he would be a great candidate. He could also focus a bit more on issues of constitutionality and faithfulness to the original intent of the founders. He does speak to this, and his beliefs in this area are pretty strong. Still, he needs to highlight this more.
Actually, it's probably a female (first name is Rachel) or, all things considered, perhaps a transsexual?
The glitter seems harmless. It’s just a silly way of venting at someone for disagreeing with them.
The glitter seems harmless. It’s just a silly way of venting at someone for disagreeing with them.
That’s absurd. There is a big difference between the two.
The goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate in the primary. Then the issue is moot, but it’s nuts to take another Obama term because we can’t get our perfect candidate.
I left the Republican party when they nominated McCain...
Now, if I have a few primary candidates I like, I’ll sign up and vote in the primary...
BUT, if I get some gaystapo gay rights, gungrabbing, greenie weenie, illegal alien loving islamophile, I’ll walk away from the Republicans again...
In fact, if the debt ceiling is raised without attaching a complete repel of Obamacare to the legislation, the Republicans are finished...
“If a conservative did such a thing to a gay speaker we know they would be all over this.”
A conservative sprinkling glitter on a gay speaker would be considered a compliment by those folks.
It’d have to be something like axle grease, spend shell casings, nuts/bolts, or dark beer to offend.
They are vicious - and don’t you dare disagree with them! Look at what is happening in New York with same sex marriage. It is being forced on us by weak, spineless politicians.
Again, I can accept a candidate who is not 100% conservative. I can even accept a candidate who is 50% conservative. What I cannot and will not accept is a candidate like Newt or Romney, who have shown themselves to not be conservative at all.
Hi Pappy, I was surprised to find you on the "liberal anti-gun anti-freedom Democrat" Romney side.
Count me amongst those will NOT vote for whichever version of McStain the 'pubbie elite decides to slate up this time. The R- leadership has proven over and over they gutless and unable/unwilling to lead even when handed the reins. While no one is perfect, I will not vote for a another "moderate, compromise, please vote for me 'cuz I'm not as f'd up as 0bummer" Republican. If YOUR party doesn't want another 4 years of the Obamam, they need to realize Romney if far more unelectable than Palin, Bachmann or Cain. With all due respect, I wish your side would quit questioning the loyalty of those of us unwilling to compromise again, and start questioning the loyalty of the Republican party "leadership."
So if Romney ran against Obama, you would vote for Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.