In the Corner, Glenn Stanton comments on the juvenile snickering in some quarters about Dr. Marcus Bachmann, whose professional practice includes – as one thing among much else - helping people cope with unwanted same-sex desires. There’s no particular reason you would have heard of Dr. Bachmann, but you may have heard something somewhere about his wife. (I believe she has some sort of political job or something of that nature.)
After carrying out the standard-issue demolition of the offenders (and doing a rollicking good job of it) Stanton adds:
Over the past eight years, I have debated the issue of same-sex marriage and parenting on college campuses around the nation as part of my work at Focus on the Family. I cannot recount how many times people in the audience came to the microphone to question my own sexual orientation because in their mind, it is self-evident that anyone who makes such a careful study of why homosexuality might not be best for folks must obviously be wrestling with his own issues, right? One gentleman even threw in my obvious innate sense of fashion and style as another smoking gun. Seriously. But like Marcus, I also have a hot wife and five offspring we created and are raising together. Might they merely be a cover for something I am yet to realize? I wish the really smart people would let me know.
Glenn, how are we supposed to tell you whether you’re gay when you withhold from us information that is obviously critical to the diagnosis? Namely: is your hot wife running for president? If so, for which party?
Come on, Glenn. Your reluctance to disclose every aspect of your marital life to public scrutiny only confirms how uncomfortable you must be with your sexuality. Normal people love to be publicly hypersexualized. Becoming an iconic representation of some aspect of public sexual consciousness is the American dream. What else is there?
July 19th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
I’ve seen Glenn Stanton speak on video (never live) because I have closely followed the debate and have a bit of an informal (online) friendship with his debate partner Dr. John Corvino (although Glenn knows John much better than I do).
With that, there is a big difference between Glenn Stanton on the one hand and Marcus Bachman on the other and it has to do with the way MB 1. talks, 2. walks, and 3. dances.
I’m not sure the propriety of cracking such jokes. Though a friend cautioned me from drawing ANY conclusions based on the Saturday Night Live skit “Lyle the … …..” If MB is straight, he’s a Lyle.
July 19th, 2011 | 5:38 pm
So apparently Michelle Bachmann is a pill-popping nutcase who obeys the every whim of her secretly homosexual husband. If she stays in the race and does well, it’s only a matter of time before one or both of them is accused of being a child molester.
July 19th, 2011 | 6:33 pm
Brian, I’d expect if she ever wins the nomination, we’ll see headlines like these:
MICHELE BACHMANN LOOKS SCORNFULLY AT KITTENS AND WISHES THEM ILL.
MICHELE BACHMAN WEARS THREE MOON WOLF SHIRT UNIRONICALLY.
Everyone’s a birther now.
July 19th, 2011 | 8:13 pm
If you have ever known anyone who suffers from migraine headaches, you will know that they can be very severe and and even incapacitating. Certainly severe migraines could render someone ineligible for military service, so it is not unreasonable to wonder, depending on the severity of the problem, if someone with serious migraine would be the best choice for commander in chief. It’s a serious issue, and she will have to provide more medical information than her son, the doctor, has given.
However, Michele Bachmann is not going to be the nominee of the Republican Party, and I think everyone knows that.
July 19th, 2011 | 10:42 pm
If Bachmann becomes the nominee, she is under no obligation to produce any more medical information than Obama ever did, which as I understand it was pretty much a piece of paper signed by his doctor saying he was healthy.
July 20th, 2011 | 7:15 am
If Bachmann becomes the nominee, she is under no obligation to produce any more medical information than Obama ever did, which as I understand it was pretty much a piece of paper signed by his doctor saying he was healthy.
Umm, that’s different.
Michelle Bachman does not have a HOPENCHANGE! card, so she does not get free passes.
July 20th, 2011 | 9:11 am
I am not sure why there is instant polarization over every single topic. If Obama had health problems that might impair his performance as president—and it seems clear he didn’t—then he had an obligation to reveal that to the American people before the election and let them take it into account. He did not need to reveal every personal detail of his medical history. The same applies to Michele Bachmann. Is the argument that because Obama didn’t reveal every detail of his medical history, no other candidate should reveal any part of their medical history? If you resent Obama so much, should what he did and didn’t do become the standard for how other candidates should behave?
In any case, Michele Bachmann is not going to be the Republican nominee.
July 20th, 2011 | 9:41 am
David: “[why] should what he did and didn’t do become the standard for how other candidates should behave?”
To quote someone or other on a recent other topic: Fairness. Justice.
July 20th, 2011 | 10:28 am
David: “[why] should what he did and didn’t do become the standard for how other candidates should behave?”
> To quote someone or other on a recent other topic: Fairness. Justice.
Cutting out the actual argument in a post and then rebutting the rest . . . not cute, and not honest.
July 20th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
David, because its about trying to get negative things that stick. If we all were serious about medical conditions disqualifying for the presidency we’d mandate physical exams as part of running for it.
Stuff like this is being brought up as a partisan measure to discredit the candidate. You want to discredit the candidate, so you gloss over it. It’s rational because it aligns with your idea that “michele bachmann will never get the nomination.”
I mean, FDR had polio for heaven’s sake. Bob Dole ran for president at the age of 73, and if elected we would have had a huge risk of our president dying in office. McCain as well.
An anon-sourced report hinting at massive pill use is not an even-minded consideration of migraines. I mean seriously, if we did have a headline saying that she looked at kittens and wished them ill, you’d be posting here saying that a candidate’s stance on kittens was an important news item.
July 20th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Dave,
While I would not deny that partisans on both sides (and the press) would be interested in possible health problems of a presidential candidate for their own reasons, it is simply not unreasonable to be concerned about the health of someone who is running for president. No one tried to hide or minimize Dole, McCain, or Reagan’s age. Remember that Terry Eagleton was dropped as the vice-presidential candidate from the McGovern-Eagleton ticket. Wikipedia says: “Subsequently, McGovern consulted confidentially with preeminent psychiatrists, including Eagleton’s own doctors, who advised him that a recurrence of Eagleton’s depression was possible and could endanger the country should Eagleton become president. On August 1, Eagleton withdrew at McGovern’s request and, after a new search by McGovern, was replaced by Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver.” I remember feeling at the time (as a Democrat) that it was perfectly proper to replace Eagleton. Someone with recurring bouts of depression should probably not be “a heartbeat away from the presidency.” (Wikipedia also says 77% of voters said a history of depression wouldn’t affect their vote. Nobody voted for McCain-Shriver, anyway!)
Not everything has to be seen through partisan eyes. I don’t want to see Bachmann as president (although I think maybe it would be great if she were the Republican nominee—great for Obama’s chances). But I happen to currently know one person, and knew another in the past, who had severe migraine headaches, and they were incapacitating. My good friend Wikipedia says:
I happen to be a very liberal Democrat, and I can’t imagine voting for Michele Bachmann for president, but I would be very concerned if a Democratic candidate for president had a history of severe migraines, and I would want to know it would not impair his or her functioning if elected. Not everything is a partisan issue.
And it’s just foolishness to maintain that because Obama didn’t have his full medical history released, no future Republican candidate should give any medical information. It makes no sense to criticize Obama for doing something and then claim that future candidates should be allowed to do it because Obama got away with it. If the next Republican president has an extramarital affair with an intern, will the argument be, “Well, Clinton did it.” Does bad behavior on the part of a president from one party justify bad behavior on the part of the next president from the other party?
July 20th, 2011 | 3:00 pm
David, not when the tone and intent is partisan. It’s not like we are going to have a rational discussion about this: look at you immediately seizing on “impaired thinking, cognitive difficulties, and mood changes.” You’re taking the worst aspects already, and the MSM is going to be worse.
I mean, we are both commenting at an article about how the MSM is accusing Bachmann’s husband of being gay based on his speech. Come on man, what does it take to convince you coverage like this isn’t done for partisan reasons as opposed to rationally considering how a disease affects someone?
July 20th, 2011 | 3:01 pm
typo, isn’t should read is. This is what I get for squeezing in a final comment.
July 20th, 2011 | 4:13 pm
You’re taking the worst aspects already, and the MSM is going to be worse.
Dave,
All I am saying is that migraines are potentially very serious, and that voters deserve enough information to make an informed choice. It applies to any candidate for president or other high offices, no matter what party they are from.
Come on man, what does it take to convince you coverage like this isn’t done for partisan reasons as opposed to rationally considering how a disease affects someone?
Did someone feed information to the press for partisan reasons? I don’t know. Don’t forget that probably most Democrats would love to see Bachmann as the nominee. Why couldn’t it be one of Bachmann’s Republican rivals who gave information to the press? I think by “partisan” you mean it’s the “liberal mainstream media” trying to hurt a conservative Republican.
This made me think back to the Bush-McCain rivalry for the 2000 nomination, in which the Bush campaign was responsible for circulating rumors that McCain had fathered a black child. It’s one of the ugliest dirty tricks I have ever heard of, and it was one Republican against another.
Reporting daily news is a messy business, and I am sure lots of motives enter into it. Considering the 24-hour news cycle nowadays, I think it is done amazingly well. I really don’t see plots behind every negative news story about candidates. Politics is a rough and tumble business, and nobody knows that better than people who get involved in presidential politics. The last story that was supposed to be designed to destroy Bachmann was about the papacy being the anti-Christ. That was just a few days ago, and nobody is talking about it any more. Unless there is something uncovered to show Bachmann had really serious problems because of migraine, the story will be dead in a few days. The press needs “new news” every 24 hours or so, and anything new that is halfway interesting or controversial is going to get reported and more than likely forgotten in a few days. That’s how news works.
July 20th, 2011 | 4:27 pm
Greg:
Thoroughly enjoyed your post. You’re getting a little too close to the bone brother. My closet is so big it could be called a garage. Allow me to live in comfy warmth of my self-delusion.
July 20th, 2011 | 4:40 pm
Come on man, what does it take to convince you coverage like this isn’t done for partisan reasons as opposed to rationally considering how a disease affects someone?
It’s not like the conservative media are any less biased, so what’s your point? In this case, the MSM is giving us information we need to know.
July 20th, 2011 | 5:02 pm
David Nickol: As Dave notes, this started out as a post about lefties gossiping about Marcus Bachmann’s sexuality for some bizarre reason, and NOT in a “not that there’s anything wrong with that” sort of way. So, just out of curiousity, what’s your position on the decency of said bizarre gossip?
July 20th, 2011 | 5:13 pm
So, just out of curiousity, what’s your position on the decency of said bizarre gossip?
Brian,
I think it is shameful. To make fun of someone who is effeminate is extremely uncharitable, and to “accuse” someone of being gay as if it were something to joke about (whether it is true or not) should be offensive to gay people and people who pretend to be “gay friendly.” If LGBT people and those who claim to be sympathetic to them mock people who are not perfect examples of what is considered masculine and feminine, they are betraying their own basic principles.
July 20th, 2011 | 9:37 pm
Ken:
I just want it to be recognized. If Fox ran something like this on Obama they’d be shouting to high heaven about murdoch-led plots and hyper partisanship. But the reverse gets David asking “why does everything get viewed through the lens of partisanship?”
Dave:
The release is not intending for that. It’s just grabbing a juicy tip and running with it without any serious analysis. Could it be republicans? Maybe, but if it is they seem hellbent on destroying probably one of the few strong VP candidates out there.
I don’t think the dems want her as much as you think. They tried to puff huntsman until it became obvious that he had no base support, and next they’ll hope for a repeat of 2008 and get romney, who is less loved than McCain. We aren’t even at the primary yet, and Bachmann keeps getting slammed because she seems to be making a strong showing among the base.
It’s annoying on both sides. Hillary Clinton got the same treatment, and its not been a good precedent for women candidates at all.
July 20th, 2011 | 10:36 pm
Could it be republicans? Maybe, but if it is they seem hellbent on destroying probably one of the few strong VP candidates out there.
Dave,
The initial story about Bachmann appeared on the conservative* web site The Daily Caller.
*”Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney . . . . “[from the site]
July 21st, 2011 | 5:14 pm
Robert Dole and John McCain were not just old, they were also physically handicapped because of severe war injuries (Dole) and torture (McCain). I remember “worry” about McCain’s skin cancer, but not about the damage to his shoulders and arms.
Migraines are not uncommon, so it is strange that there is all this supposed concern about whether a migraine-prone president could do his/her job. Other presidents have had them—-Jefferson, Grant, probably Kennedy. Robert E. Lee had them, too. I’ve had them since childhood. This is a manufactured “problem”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact