Michele Bachmann Defines Submissiveness

michele-bachmann-submission

In the recent Republican presidential debate held in Iowa on August 11, 2011, one of the moderators asked U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) about her 2006 remarks that she studied tax law because her husband told her to, even though she hated the idea. At the time Bachmann said, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”

He then asked her, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachmann paused for a few moments and then responded with what was, essentially, a non-answer:

Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him,” she said. “And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife. That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other.”

The key words in her answer are … “what submission means … is respect.”

Apparently Michele is unaware that submission and respect have two quite different meanings:

Definition of Respect

  • An attitude of admiration or esteem
  • Regard highly; think much of
  • A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

Definition of Submissive

  • Characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others
  • Inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others
  • Of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility
  • Synonyms: obedient, subordinate, subservient

Michele, you weren’t asked how much you and and your husband respect each other. You were asked: “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

In 2006, you apparently subscribed to these bible instructions. It would seem you have now, for expediency’s sake, chosen to sweep this belief under the rug.

How typical of a politician.

Presidential Debate: John McCain’s Smirk

McCain came out swinging in last night’s presidential debate. He was powerful, pointed, and passionate.

But as the debate wore on and he sat there with a constant smirk on his face whenever Obama was talking, I got so mad I wanted to pick up something and throw it at him!

I’m sure McCain considers his plans for the nation far superior to Obama — and there’s nothing wrong with that. But to sit there with this condescending look on his face was totally uncalled for.

CNN analysts said what they saw was internal anger … that McCain was “seething” inside. Maybe. Maybe not. But even if the analysts were correct, do we want a president who has trouble controlling his temper and who is known for emotional outbursts? Someone who might hit The Button just because an enemy pushed him a little too far? 

And then his snide remarks about Obama’s oratory skills. What’s with that? Afraid that Obama might convince people because he knows how to talk to them on their level?

To me, McCain’s ‘superior’ attitude was simply a demonstration of his sense of inadequacy and inferiority in the face of a person who had far more control, far more self-assurance, and a far better chance of becoming the next President of the United States.