Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behind the Michele Bachmann 'submissive' question (Byron York provides dithering justification)
washington examiner ^ | 8/15/11 | Byron York

Posted on 08/16/2011 6:21:14 AM PDT by Mamzelle

"Whatever the case, Bachmann's answer in Ames Thursday night was by far the most human moment of her appearance in the debate -- a far cry from her tough exchanges with former Minnesota Gov. (and now former candidate) Tim Pawlenty. At their best, debates tell us new things about candidates and allow us to learn more about aspects of their personalities we haven't seen before. Is there any doubt that moment in Ames on Thursday night did just that for Michele Bachmann?"


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bachman; byronyork; ephesians; submission
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
I was at a loss to find a cogent or coherent exerpt in this tangled-up essay. Honestly, it is not worth reading, although it is worth noting how he's backpedaling and seeking some kind of justification for his nauseating and sexist display during the debate. Byron York has gone over to the dark side. Or maybe the purple side, where these prissy pundits get all twisted up trying to relate to a strong female leader, or perhaps a strong mother figure.
1 posted on 08/16/2011 6:21:19 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

my wife and i watched that,

and we have no respect for byron york.


2 posted on 08/16/2011 6:22:14 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
How many times to we have to revisit this hoary old chestnut from Ephesians in a political context? They never quote it in context, and it's just an anti-Christian, and in this case, clearly anti-woman stick to try to beat up on Bachman.

Can't tell you how disgusted I was when York needed to bring up this highly irrelevant and insulting question at the debate.

Hey, Bryon, why aren't YOU married, anyway?

3 posted on 08/16/2011 6:24:03 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

York’s question was a product of bigotry.


4 posted on 08/16/2011 6:31:14 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

If she were Jewish he’d ask her what would she do if the country were attacked on a Saturday.


5 posted on 08/16/2011 6:32:48 AM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

The liberal left and “moderate” conservatives are as frightened of Michele Bachmann as were the English and Charles VII’s French advisors when Joan of Arc showed up, recognized him in a crowd, knew where an historic sword was hidden, and was able to ride a horse and couch a lance.

I hope Bachmann gets nominated. ANY OTHER VIABLE CANDIDATE would be a REPEAT of the George Bush I & II same old same old with no real return to the values which make Amerca such an exceptional country.

DON’T LET THE LIBERAL GOP ESTABLISHMENT AND THE LEFTIST DEMS BURN MICHELE BACHMANN AT THE STAKE (figuratively, of course.)


6 posted on 08/16/2011 6:33:14 AM PDT by ZULU (McConnell and Boehner are the Judas and Ephialtes of the 21st Century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

If she were a Muslim - would they have asked this?


7 posted on 08/16/2011 6:34:03 AM PDT by mr_griz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
"Byron York has gone over to the dark side."

He was smacked around pretty good by Glenn Stanton (Focus on the Family) on the National Review Online site - and Byron offered no rebuttal on that site, either (although he is a frequent contributor).
Shame.

Any National Review pundits browsing FR care to reply?

8 posted on 08/16/2011 6:35:15 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

If it’s not worth reading why post it?


9 posted on 08/16/2011 6:36:11 AM PDT by IbJensen (God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
York’s question was a product of bigotry.

I want Republicans to start beginning some answers with --

"You're a bigot. That question is coming from a profoundly anti-Christian standpoint and I resent it. Much of this country is Christian. Christians deserve respect, just as much as any other religion, and your insinuation that we are a backward, woman hating cult is shameful. Now, in answer to your very prejudiced question, I will say this ..."

10 posted on 08/16/2011 6:38:04 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

But it’s worth commenting on...
I thought it was a super moment in the debate where MB showed great aplomb by letting the boos die down then smiling at York and thanking him nicely for the question...
Excellent timing, emotion, and approrpiate response to idiotic question...


11 posted on 08/16/2011 6:41:24 AM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
To let you know that York is catching a lot of flak for his puerile display during the debate. Not one questioner asked a good question. And York was, by far, the worst. Yet he is often characterized as a conservative.

And I expected the question, and even answered in in my first post. Not worth reading, but worth knowing that York is taking heat for being stupid.

12 posted on 08/16/2011 6:41:24 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

That would be a good start. BTW, I went looking for York’s own religious affiliation and couldn’t find any ~ but if he worked for Huffpo AND CNN and National Review he could be confused.


13 posted on 08/16/2011 6:42:07 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I wonder, what reporter would ever dare ask a similar question of a muslim candidate? (Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender” to the will of Allah.)


14 posted on 08/16/2011 6:42:52 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I think it was a reasonable question.

Those Christians of the not so fundamental category, much less all those who have even less than superficial attachment to the Judeo-Christian segment of the population have a right to know whether or not when she is in the White House just how much authority does her husband have ‘over’ his wife.

Too many have had a knee-jerk reaction to York’s question. I think it was entirely appropriate considering she DID say that a wife was to submit to her husband.

Now you can blast me all to hell and back.


15 posted on 08/16/2011 6:43:34 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I’m soooooooooo sick of the sexism displayed by tv pundits. They have no idea how they come across to women.

Watching the unwatchable Chuck Todd this morning he was talking about both Romney and Perry having major donors behind them. He then went on to say that Bachmann had no such “sugar daddies.” I’m not making this up.


16 posted on 08/16/2011 6:44:02 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Run, Sarah, Run! Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fruser1
King David already answered that question when he sent his troops into a cornfield to collect food on the Sabboth.

We'd know whether or not the individual was sufficiently educated in the myriad of Jewish traditions and commentaries ~ depending on the answer.

I can just see how one of those "almost secular" Reformed guys who skipped Saturday classes would answer the question ~ makes my teeth hurt.

17 posted on 08/16/2011 6:45:07 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kevao

“I wonder, what reporter would ever dare ask a similar question of a muslim candidate? (Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender” to the will of Allah.)”

Well, by golly, I think it would be an appropriate question and I would admire the reporter who asked it.


18 posted on 08/16/2011 6:45:30 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
I don't know how old you are, but this silly take on Ephesians has been batted around like a political volleyball for forty years.

It's not just insulting, it's a crying BORE. And York is old enough to have heard this same shtick a hundred times.

It was a sneering provocation on his part. He always set off my gaydar, anyway...

He must be of the wimmin-haters club.

Hey Byron, how do YOU like cheap shots?

19 posted on 08/16/2011 6:49:07 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I love Michelle Bachmann and everything she stands for and she did a good job answering that question.

Here’s how I bet Sarah Palin would’ve answered the jerk:

Since you are not married, Sir. Let me tell you how successful married couples stay that way. They not only give wise counsel about how they look, what they’re wearing, but they counsel each other about the most important decisions they have to make. Now if you can’t tell me that MicHELLe Obama, Laura Bush, and Hillary Clinton don’t and didn’t influence their husbands decisions then you’re not qualified to ask such a question. Except for Bill Clinton’s sex life, Hillary Clinton ran his life like the professional politician she is today. And not only does MicHELLe Obama run Barack’s life, Valerie Jarrett his other wife makes all of his political decisions.


20 posted on 08/16/2011 6:53:26 AM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

47 Days And FR Is Still Short Of Its Goal

We Are In A Fight For Our Republic

Are You In Or Are You Out?

Support Free Republic

21 posted on 08/16/2011 6:55:58 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
I had a bit of a problem with the question, as it was clearly one designed to attack a true Christian.

My larger concern was her answer. Respect is clearly different from submission. Bachman gave a political answer and not a correct Christian answer.

22 posted on 08/16/2011 6:56:31 AM PDT by Blackandproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Yes.They don't note how Paul builds toward his climax.Yes, women should be submissive to their husbands. Nothing new about that in the Jewish culture of his day. Then he tells us of the necessity of intimacy between a man and a woman,parents and children but lastly he tells us that that man, the husnand must play the role of Christ, he must love wife and children as Christ loves the Church. In short, to give his all.
23 posted on 08/16/2011 6:59:08 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I was raised Catholic, so don’t take this wrong, but it seems that - since JFK - Catholics are exempt from these theological grillings, and it’s only conservative Protestants who who subjected to it. Catholic doctrine has as many points offensive to secularists as does conservative Protestantism - papal infallability, the real presence in the Eucharist, male-only priesthood, eternal hell, prohibition of divorce, views on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality - but it seems Catholic politicians are never grilled about these things, probably because they are usually Democrats and because they say stuff like, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but . . . “


24 posted on 08/16/2011 7:03:00 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
We know Urkel's Rodents in The Libturd Media is going to bring this up again and again regardless of how well she answers it.

If Michele was smart (and she obviously is), she will stop trying to "explain" what she meant and, instead, launch into one of her talking points. As much as I hate talking points, this issue is going to garner her much more air time, face time and print time than any of her stated policy stances.

The best defense is a good offense. The Libturds are obviously going to put her on the defense every chance they get. She is going to have to learn how to take that ball away.

25 posted on 08/16/2011 7:05:59 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

A correction of my statement - I think the Catholic Church does not prohibit divorce, it prohibits remarriage after divorce. And another Catholic belief alien to many secularists - a belief in demons and evil spirits. Palin was made to look like a rube because she believed in them, but the Catholic Church has its well-known exorcism ritual.


26 posted on 08/16/2011 7:07:58 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

It seems that many conservative columnists are anti-woman when it comes to politics. Perhaps they feel threatened because they are insecure in their manhood.


27 posted on 08/16/2011 7:14:01 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mr_griz
If she were a Muslim - would they have asked this?

Probably not, but that doesn't mean asking certain types of questions is always bigoted. Do I think the question was a "gotcha" type? Yes, I do. But I also think that those aspiring to public office should be able to explain how their faith informs their overall outlook and behavior. Such questions, however perceived, would have been quite useful in 2008. I don't think either candidate was prepared to honestly discuss such matters.

28 posted on 08/16/2011 7:18:43 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
Ann Coulter referred to these effeminate National Review twinks as "girly men"--

I am so disgusted with Fox these days.

29 posted on 08/16/2011 7:19:06 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
“Submissive”?? This is a NON-ISSUE.

If the Left would have pressed Billy Boy THIS hard on what “the definition of is-is”, we may have got the guy impeached for good and all.

Enough, this is BS!

For Bachmann to revisit this topic ad infinitum and at the will of the MSM is foolish. She has made herself clear and I should add, she made herself clear on a completely inane and insignificant issue. If you are a grown up, that is more than enough!!

30 posted on 08/16/2011 7:19:14 AM PDT by SMARTY (A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Ann Coulter referred to these effeminate National Review twinks as "girly men"--

Well Ann should know about "girly men."

31 posted on 08/16/2011 7:20:09 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

You’re right, and NR is ostensibly a Catholic/neo-con-jewish organ these days.

Protestants need not apply. Other than Mittens Romney, who is LDS. They’re in the tank for Romney, big-time. But then, Romney has the credentials that NR wants to see: Ivy League degrees.


32 posted on 08/16/2011 7:20:32 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Why aren't Catholics grilled on theological and moral points? You know the answer as well as I do.

Catholic politicians aren't grilled on these things by the press and the pundits, because so many of them (those prominent on the national scene) don't believe any of it, neither the faith nor the morals, and everybody knows it.

If their own BISHOP questions their stand on bedrock right-and-wrong issues like, say, the intentional killing of the innocent, or the twisting of marriage to accommodate open perversion, it's the presstitutes and the pundits who cry "foul" and try to make the Bishop and everybody else shut up on these "divisive" issues.

33 posted on 08/16/2011 7:24:12 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Your correction is correct! :o)


34 posted on 08/16/2011 7:25:44 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
What role does her husband play in her performance in public office? With that in mind, I asked Bachmann this question at the Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Ames, Iowa on Thursday night.

*TO BYRON YORK:

I actually don't respect you anymore, FWIW.

35 posted on 08/16/2011 7:31:03 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


36 posted on 08/16/2011 7:32:59 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Correct, Mrs. Don-o, I hinted at it with my comment about Catholic politicians saying, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but . . .," but you gave the point more emphasis - there's kind of a winking going on between the press and most Catholic politicians, because the press knows the politicians don't believe any of that stuff anyway.

And it's the same with Obama, although he's not a Catholic, he professes to be a Christian but he's never grilled about - or asked to explain his position on - anything in the Bible that offends secular sensibilities.
37 posted on 08/16/2011 7:34:34 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_York


38 posted on 08/16/2011 7:37:33 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
I don't think the press takes purely theological statements seriously on any level, since to them it's all precisely meaningless. Stephen Colbert, for instance, recited the Nicene Creed on TV

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=59606&source=OD_VIDEO:playlist:The+De-Deification+of+the+American+Faithscape

---and nobody's going to question him on any part of it, not one phrase of it, not one word, because they see it as meaningless babble.

But don't try to mess with anybody's between-the-legs issues, or they'll shout you down with Anathemas -- and cut off your mike, and maybe more.

39 posted on 08/16/2011 7:51:09 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("He whom the whole Universe cannot contain, O Mary, enclosed Himself in your womb and was made man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
What I get so sick of is the repetitive predictable "gotcha" questions aimed at Republicans over tough issues like sex, religion and abortion.

In 35+ years of debate-watching, which, including primary debates probably includes more than 150 debates, I have seen scores of "gotcha" questions on abortion directed at conservatives. I have never once seen a tough abortion question asked of a "pro-choice" candidate.

Proposed question (which has never been asked):

"Mr. Obama, you have a long held view that late term abortion should be legal. Many say that a fetus or unborn child going through this procedure suffers tormenting pain undergoing a late-term abortion. Do you believe the researchers and doctors who assert this are wrong in their assessment, and if so, what specifically is that opinion based on?

40 posted on 08/16/2011 7:52:59 AM PDT by cookcounty (Nullius in Verba. "Take no man's word for it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one to another out of reverence for Christ.”


41 posted on 08/16/2011 7:57:47 AM PDT by cookcounty (Nullius in Verba. "Take no man's word for it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackandproud; Dudoight
>> Respect is clearly different from submission.<<

Submission clearly involves respect. She respected the council of her husband. Submission demands respect on the part of both husband and wife. The husband needs to respect the wife to the point that he wouldn’t make demands that were not in concert with love and support. Biblical submission does not portend to derision or abuse but more of respect for ones partner. I would submit that Biblical submission does indeed mean respect.

42 posted on 08/16/2011 8:05:22 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Beware, Christian candidates for office. Get your talking points ready for do-you-believe-the-Bible questions like this.


43 posted on 08/16/2011 8:17:37 AM PDT by Socon-Econ (Socon-Econ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

If only the Christians, historically, in the past centuries had interpreted ‘submission’ to be the same as ‘respect’....

It is no different than asking a muslim if shari’a law supersedes civil and criminal law of the USA.

These questions merit asking. Christians are not exempt from questions, especially after proclaiming a ‘stance’ publicly. Either they stand by them or not, no waffling or reinterpretation.


44 posted on 08/16/2011 8:27:54 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

By the way...did the ‘slave’ do what the master told him to (regardless of how demeaning) from submission or respect?

Think about it.


45 posted on 08/16/2011 8:29:56 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
>>By the way...did the ‘slave’ do what the master told him to (regardless of how demeaning) from submission or respect?<<

You’re equating the partnership of marriage to the relationship of a slave and master? Are you kidding me? Just the fact that you equate the two is enough to discount you assertions but you need to study the original language meaning of the two words used.

46 posted on 08/16/2011 8:36:47 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
>>These questions merit asking. Christians are not exempt from questions, especially after proclaiming a ‘stance’ publicly.<<

Go back and re read my post. I had no contention with the question being asked. My post was in response to the contention that submission did not equal respect.

47 posted on 08/16/2011 8:39:19 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Byron York is now the proud owner of “Journalist who asked the single most stupid question in any Presidential Debate”.

The trophy is a sign to hang around your neck.

Byron, Here’s your sign......


48 posted on 08/16/2011 9:06:36 AM PDT by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Submission in the context of a wife essentially means OBEY or to be subservient to. See, I Peter 3:6.

Submission requires, much, much more than respect and establishes the husband as the head of the house. Submission involves respect, but it is only the beginning.

49 posted on 08/16/2011 9:10:56 AM PDT by Blackandproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“My post was in response to the contention that submission did not equal respect.”

Thus you contend that submission equals respect, right?

I contend that it does not.

SUBMISSION:

Submission is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the power of one’s superior or superiors.

an act of submitting to the authority or control of another

the quality or condition of being submissive to another

from O.Fr. submission, from L. submissionem (nom. submissio) “a lowering, sinking, yielding,” from submissus, pp. of submittere “lower, reduce, yield” (see submit). Sense of “humble obedience” is first

RESPECT:

denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.

an act of giving particular attention : consideration

expressions of high or special regard

A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem

From Middle English, regard, from Old French, from Latin respectus, from past participle of respicere, to look back at, regard : re-, re- + specere, to look at; see spek- in Indo-European roots


50 posted on 08/16/2011 9:15:52 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson