Skip to comments.Behind the Michele Bachmann 'submissive' question (Byron York provides dithering justification)
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?"
my wife and i watched that,
and we have no respect for byron york.
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?
York’s question was a product of bigotry.
If she were Jewish he’d ask her what would she do if the country were attacked on a Saturday.
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.)
If she were a Muslim - would they have asked this?
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).
Any National Review pundits browsing FR care to reply?
If it’s not worth reading why post it?
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 ..."
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...
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
My larger concern was her answer. Respect is clearly different from submission. Bachman gave a political answer and not a correct Christian answer.
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 . . . “
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am so disgusted with Fox these days.
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!!
Well Ann should know about "girly men."
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.
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.
Your correction is correct! :o)
*TO BYRON YORK:
I actually don't respect you anymore, FWIW.
---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.
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?
Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one to another out of reverence for Christ.”
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 wouldnt 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.
Beware, Christian candidates for office. Get your talking points ready for do-you-believe-the-Bible questions like this.
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.
By the way...did the ‘slave’ do what the master told him to (regardless of how demeaning) from submission or respect?
Think about it.
Youre 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.
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.
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......
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.
“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 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
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