It appears that same-sex marriage is being groomed for a major issue in this election. With Jay Carney insisting that President Obama remains clear that his views are unclear, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann stepped forward this weekend to put the issue front and center in their campaigns. Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from “drifting toward a terrible muddle.” He said that he would be looking for ways to “defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible.”
Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages — making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
The decision of New York to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage guarantees that it will be a hot issue in the campaign. Bachmann is calling for a constitutional amendment.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I have long argued that the states should uniformly adopt a civil union standard and leave “marriages
Source: Reuters
Bachmann’s had her share of government aid
The fiscal conservative from Minnesota and 2012 presidential contender has benefited personally from federal funds and federal farm subsidies.
By Melanie Mason and Matea Gold, Washington Bureau
June 26, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bachmann-20110626,0,1896024.story
Excerpts:
Reporting from Washington— Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.
But theMinnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state ofMinnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.
*****
As Bachmann prepares to formally launch her presidential bid Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, Republican strategists warned that she needs to square her record with her public pronouncements.
“She’s kind of built an area in the field of candidates where she’s the hawk on those kinds of issues, so any sort of issue that will show her record is not totally consistent will affect some of her support,” said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa GOP. “I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker, but I think it’s something she’s going to have to be willing to confront head-on.”
For now, Bachmann is declining to answer questions on the topic. Her congressional and campaign staff did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
mespo,
“This guy defines ‘locker room’ material.”
I’d say the troll defines “stuffed into locker” in locker room material.
@Mike A
That is all well and good.
But the founders chose to safeguard all these unlisted rights by giving the federal government only certain enumerated powers.
Either the feds are exercising one of those powers or they aren’t.
“Since I’m feeling in a generous mood, I’ll even take the high road for a day or so. I’ll be nice, but will continue to argue my points zealously in the free speech zone.
I will bet that the usual suspects will continue the invective and insults unabated and that none of those now complaining about the loss of discourse will do anything to stop them.
And, then you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.”
********************
Ah, so the troll wants credit for behaving as he ought to, and if he doesn’t it’s our fault. And you wonder why many of us think fundy conservatives are deluded? However, I do appreciate his work in solidifying my belief that his ilk are not just wrong on the issues, wrong on the facts, and devoid of intellectual honesty but are –most infamously — incredible boors.
How to win friends and influence people? This guy defines “locker room” material.
mespo,
You beat me to it…lol…
Thanks Elaine…
mespo,
LOL!
“The clinic, based in Lake Elmo, Minn., describes itself on its website as offering “quality Christian counseling” for a large number of mental health problems ….”
**********************
Which, Elaine M, raises the interesting question about why Mr. Bachmann can’t do something therapeutic for Mrs. Bachmann.
More about Bachmann, the Tea Party darling:
Bachmann’s husband got $137,000 in Medicaid funds
Presidential candidate has often blasted growing welfare programs
By Michael Isikoff
National investigative correspondent (NBC News)
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43570552/ns/politics-decision_2012/
Excerpt:
While Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the “welfare rolls,” the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.
The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request.
The clinic, based in Lake Elmo, Minn., describes itself on its website as offering “quality Christian counseling” for a large number of mental health problems ranging from “anger management” to addictions and eating disorders.
The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband’s clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann’s public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment.
kderosa:
Resort to “penumbra” language is unnecessary. My view is that the right to privacy is the principle on which all other personal rights are based. In the most fundamental sense, every power granted to government represents an impingement on my right to be let alone. It is for that reason that my exercise of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not subject to the will of the voters.
OT but …. Some of us have been arguing this issue in the context of the 14th Amendment. There’s some talk of that Amendment regarding the debt ceiling that’s kind of interesting:
“14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional
WASHINGTON — Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” reads the 14th Amendment.
“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’ …”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html
rafflaw: In looking at the two comments above yours, I am reminded of Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2:
Well said Former Fed, but sometimes it is hard to ignore the paid spokespersons.
I have an idea. Why not try acting civilly, and see where that gets you?
Try some professional detachment. Having your arguments attacked, isn’t an attack on you personally.
Also, try calming down the more rabid members of the herd when they step out of line.
Since I’m feeling in a generous mood, I’ll even take the high road for a day or so. I’ll be nice, but will continue to argue my points zealously in the free speech zone.
I will bet that the usual suspects will continue the invective and insults unabated and that none of those now complaining about the loss of discourse will do anything to stop them.
And, then you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.
kderosa:
are you a paid troll? How do I get a job like that? You get paid to do what you do? Now that is something.
I have a feeling there is a touch of envy within the ranks.
Although I am not exactly sure where you lied or were confused by facts or by logic.
I thought your explanation of assessing the merits of a scientific article were spot on. If the son of a bitch is right, he is right whether he has a PhD or a grade school education. Which brings to mind Dr. Krugman and his curious belief in unrestricted spending to bring about prosperity. That dumb ass has a PhD and a Nobel Prize, but he certainly has less understanding of things economic than a 5th grader who has run their own lemonade stand.
I read Suetonius’s work, The Life of the Caesars, he depicted Nero as a whack a doodle if memory serves.
And your calling out Elaine on the Ad Hominem? It certainly sounded to me like she was bad mouthing Lord Monckton and by extension you and anyone who believes climate change is not man made. He who repeats an insult is more guilty than he who initiates the insult.
Otteray Scribe wrote, in part:
“I hope that Professor Turley steps in and moderates the discussion soon…”
______________
While I understand your concerns, Prof. Turley will not intervene unless someone hijacks another’s user name or something similarly egregious. The Turley Blawg is a free speech zone and you, others, and I must strive to maintain our own order.
I largely agree with the rules herein. Unfortunately, we are not within a debate hall where a sergeant-at-arms could remove a heckler when such disruptions occurred. The fullest extent to which I will go now is to politely request that the unruly poster cease—from then on, I am through responding to other posts from that poster.
As we all know—and as Prof Turley has stated several times—the best policy is to ignore those people who try to interrupt discussions. I know, that is very difficult but it *is* the most parsimonious solution.
From My DD:
Source: http://mydd.com/users/joseph-hughes/posts/trolls-gone-wild
And from Democratic Underground:
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×6266805
I just read a couple of news stories about Bachmann supporters attempting to vandalize Wikipedia articles about John Wayne and the founding fathers to make them comport with erroneous and bizarre statements she made. Shades of Palin supporters and their antics.
New Republican meme: when your candidate makes an idiotic and wrong statement, just change history to fit the stupid. Nothing to it.
OS/AY:
I agree that kderosa represents a classic heckler’s veto.
AY, you are probably right, but my last nerve has been sandpapered raw. Buddha is more patient than I am, and certainly more acerbic when dealing with them. I just have a low tolerance for fools, liars and the illogical. My concern is that excellent points by brilliant contributors become lost in a maze of sophomoric lies, insults and downright nuttiness. These efforts have the ghost of Lee Atwater written all over them.
OS, why don’t you have your mommy call Prof Turley and plead your case.
I do like your spin. It’s amusing.
Though it really doesn’t fit the evidence. Those who are polite and serious, like Gyges, get treated nicely and politely.
Those who don’t, don’t.
A bunch of you made your beds over at the Paul Revere thread, now you get to lie in it.