Michelle Bachmann made another one of her gaffs during the GOP debate in Nevada this week. It was a stunning mistake and not a slip up.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) criticized President Obama’s foreign policy during Tuesday night’s CNN debate, saying, “Now with the president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our special operations forces in Africa,” she said.
Libya, it should be noted, is in Africa.
Bachmann was referring to Obama’s recent announcement that he will be sending 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to help battle rebels from the Lord’s Resistance Army. [HuffPo]
Then Herman Cain made it clear in an interview that homosexuality was a choice. There goes the gay vote. So many sincerely believe that it is a choice but for his sake, he might have avoided getting into it when a hot button issue could endanger his lead. That is not to say he should be dishonest. There is a sense in which candidates should be able to say at some points “that is a matter of personal belief and I prefer not to discuss it.”
Does the above mean that Americans have seen the last of leaders with a knowledge of geography and a sense of how to proceed? Will candidates ever learn to “stifle themselves” as Archie Bunker’s wife used to say in All in the Family?
loopyloo305
October 21, 2011
I agree with you on Bachmann, Sam Henry, but I disagree on Cain. He is espousing a fundamental belief held by many Christians. Anyone can disagree with his beliefs but to say that he is totally wrong is to say that science is always right and we have seen just recently how untrue that is. Scientist who have a desire to make the facts fit the science are nothing new and to expect people to change their beliefs because of it, is a bridge to far for many of us. To accept homosexuality is one thing, to believe that it is anything other than some desire to validate sin is against many of us’ beliefs. Perhaps it would be a different story if what scientist said was always true, but throughout history there have been too many instances of where they have manipulated the data. If you are going to put your faith in something, why put it in mankind that has proven itself wrong so many times, when you can put it in God who has never been proven wrong. Cains position helps him with many!
samhenry
October 21, 2011
I will amend the post – I thought of it last night.
samiam60
October 21, 2011
Good Morning SamHenry and thank you for an interesting take on these two Candidates. For me personally I can handle the occasional gaff’s in lieu of speaking out on what they believe. Political Correctness has clouded the issues America faces and we need more Politicians to say what they really believe and not what is popular or what people want to hear. At least we know where they really stand on the issues (like it or not) -vs- those Candidates who play the game for the sake of votes. Obama Campaigned in ’08 on what people really wanted to hear and won. He did non of those things and has since brought America to her knees. I like a straight shooter and that is rare today in Americas Political Climate.
samiam60
October 21, 2011
Exhibit A:
samhenry
October 21, 2011
Your straight talk is your gift Sami and you are able to do it as did LL above in an instructive and calm way. That is much appreciated here. I have amended the wording in the post.
I do believe candidates should be honest in their beliefs to a point. It is one thing to say I am for or against gay marriage. I believe that what Cain and others truly believe is the reason someone is gay is a factor of personal belief and I don’t think that is anyone’s business. There are laws on the books about gay marriage; the law so far does not address why someone is gay and especially if it is a choice. It does not make it illegal in most states. Personal choice and views on that choice should remain private. He could have said he was against Gay marriage and ended it or that it is a matter of my belief system that being Gay is a sin. In that he would have remained both honest and support the idea that others in our free society have the right to their beliefs.
This is not to be politically correct. This is to respect the choices of others in a free society. When we get to the point that we have to legislate homosexuality itself as unlawful, that would be the time for Cain’s view to surface and for there to be a vote on it. Meanwhile, it would have been to his advantage as a Christian candidate to have said it was a matter of personal belief if it were a choice or or to have said that he did not want to tread on the belief systems of others in a free society. This would have taken into account the views of those who hold with a scientific explanation.
I have adjusted the title of this post and have clarified the Cain portion. I am here to try to be an objective reporter and to avoid any undue intrusion into the beliefs of others. I respect that. In short, choose the forum. The forum was not how people become gay any more than it was a discussion of theories of the creation. The questioner does not have to impose the forum as Cooper did in Nevada.
samhenry
October 21, 2011
Thank you for the excellent video that reminds us of why Obama was so popular. Transparency in those issues do not have to do with personal choice that is part of a belief system. It has to do with governance and how it should be carried out.
If Cain wants to open the can of worms of why someone is gay then so be it. But it would distract from the fundamental issues of our time now: Jobs, the size of government, government expenditures, treatment of the elderly, etc.
It was his choice to go to an area not up for legislation at this time. As I said, WHY someone is gay is part of a belief system on both sides. When one side seeks to implement a law based on that, then WHY comes into play. As I said, being against sex between 2 adults of the same sex is also one thing but WHY someone is gay is not on the docket at this time. In short he would have got further framing his answer in the context of a belief system even if he felt that he needed to tell the truth as he saw it. He is one of the best candidates we have and I don’t want him to be drawn into an area where Obama can obscure his Administration’s record through this “WHY” issue which at this point is a distraction.
In abortion the candidates don’t overly linger on it. Again the law as it stands allows a choice. Further, WHY the mother seeks one is not an issue and was not even under the pro-abortion legislation. I think there is a line between transparency and sensitivity to belief systems. By sensitivity, I don’t mean political correctness. I mean respect for beliefs of another person.
Here is another example. Wearing the hijab’. That is a function of a belief system. WHY someone believes that this is the true religion and these the true laws does not come into it. That they wish to impose that and Sharia law on others does.
And then there are the practical reasons for not allowing the wearing of the head scarf. Currently where there is terrorism and there is a need to be transparent in identity. One cannot hide hair color or a large portion of one’s face even though both may be changed at a cost.
Again, because wearing the hijab’ is a part of the Muslim belief system and because in that religion it is enforced as a “law,” it is even more unsettling to Christians. Imposing a belief system on us is what the Muslims are trying to do. That is not practicing religion in a setting that allows freedom of choice and has nothing to do with transparency.
PS – Don’t mean to sound like a professor of the right thing to do. I just try to respond with points not pressure.
samiam60
October 21, 2011
Excellent response SamHenry and of course I respect your point of view as always. It is good that we can agree to disagree even in the gray areas. I remember a time in America when there were Sodomy Laws on the books. I have to look into that to see if they still exist or if they have been repealed. I had always thought they were meant to protect small farm animals but perhaps I was wrong. The one question that pops into my mind often is about Child Molesters and if they to are doing this by choice or by being born that way? I even go further and ask the question if Shoplifters do so by choice or if they are just born that way? As you can see that excuse can span a broad range of subjects and lifestyles so like you I remain open to seeing some proof once and for all where those abnormalities come from.
samiam60
October 21, 2011
United States
Main article: Sodomy laws in the United States
See also: LGBT rights in the United States
Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas.
As for the U.S. Armed Forces, because “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,”[36] its ban on sodomy, Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is not entirely without force despite Lawrence v. Texas. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the “conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court,”[37] but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are “factors unique to the military environment” that would place the conduct “outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence.”[38] Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline.[38] Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence precedent in both United States v. Meno[citation needed] and United States v. Bullock.[39]
[edit] Zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States
Sorry about drifting off topic here SamHenry. I tend to do that from time to time.
samhenry
October 21, 2011
You have not drifted far from shore Sami. I am glad you followed this up. I was interested it that aspect of the issue and I am sure others were. It goes along with what laws are on the books. It tells us where our society is on the map now. But remember, all views are protected under the law as well. I talk in lots of circles.
I will be away from this blog most of today but will be checking in. I hope others will want to comment.
samhenry
October 21, 2011
Thank you for continuing the dialogue Sami. I don’t think anyone should use an excuse for their behavior. If it is illegal, then they must pay. Then we get into that gray area of were they insane.
Stealing is a crime. Molesting a child is not generally accepted as morally wrong it is against the law.
I don’t know about the sodomy law – was it national? I thought it still existed in some states. Again where it is the law, it cannot be carried out. WHY they did it doesn’t matter after those legislating have determined that there is no excuse for that behavior. At that point it does not matter if the parties choose to do it or if they are compelled by their nature to do it; it is illegal.
I try to assess issues on the overall context in which they arise and on the structure of the points of view in relation to that context. It is not always easy to do and it can become mechanical and end in nonsense. But always I try to respect beliefs and the law and individuals. That is my goal. I am very understanding of homosexuals and have many friends who are. Do I believe it is a choice? No one will ever know because the reporter does not let his/her personal views to color the issues to the greatest extent possible. Let’s just say “I’m a little bit country; I’m a little bit rock ‘n roll.”