American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Q & A Session Following Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Skipp ahead to 16:25.
She could have answered the question better by acknowledging that while in accordance with her private, personal religious preferences, she submits to her husband on matters of the family, that it would improper for him to try and use that submission to influence her on public policy as President. Any such attempt by her husband, therefore, would be illegitimate and she would not submit to him.
Last edited by Jerry; 08-13-11 at 07:03 PM.
If the question was asked without any background to lead to it, then I would say it was inappropriate if it was just a feeler question. Since Bachman actually made the statement...it was a appropriate to ask for a clarification.
This is simple. When she made the comment about being submissive, she was pandering to the religious voters. She was lying. She didn't mean it, as is clear from her record of being an independent woman in congress. Or, at least she doesn't believe women should be submissive all the time.
Politicians absolutely should be asked to clarify crap like this.
Politicians lie. That's what they do. When they're in California they speak a certain way and talk about certain issues, when they're in Iowa, they speak another way and talk about totally different issues, even if they contradict with the issues they spoke about in California. If someone calls you on it, you just float them some non-answer like "submission means respect". Really? In what dictionary? Or, you can just do what Gingrich did and chastise the person who asked you a legitimate question by declaring it a "gotcha" question. He can't keep his campaign fiscally sound, how is he supposed to keep the country fiscally sound? That's a perfectly legitimate question.
Both sides participate in this crap. You're being baffled with bull****.
It was a legitimate question to ask Bachmann, given her ravings. She should have answered it as well, but instead prevaricated and relied on pedantry.
At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. -Dave Williams, George Mason Univ.