The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The "other candidates" & does sexism benefit Bachmann and Palin?

Which Republican presidential candidate (and noncandidate) dominate the news currently? Does Palin, who is barely newsworthy these days, except as a novelty act, benefit from the fact that the news concentrates on her and not on, say, that guy who just quit CNN? (You know, the nicely dressed blond guy with the butch haircut...). And are Bachmann's views really more newsworthy than those of other declared candidates? And while it may look like sexism, what is the value in name recognition for being constantly in the news?

Who are the others? What are their views? Are they worthy or scary? Have they said or done anything interesting?

There is John Huntsman, "Huntsman was invited to speak at the Kent County Republicans' Lincoln Day Dinner, but then was dis-invited by then-Party Chairwoman Joanne Voorhees when she learned Huntsman had supported civil unions for gay couples in Utah." By the way, Huntsman is "the other Mormon" on the list.

There is Herman Cain " He also pledged to cut corporate tax rates, make permanent the Bush tax breaks, and said he would pursue tougher immigration policies to secure American borders." By the way, he's antigay. just like Bachmann. Also, "He credits the Bush doctrine with making the Mideast revolutions possible, faults the Obama administration for being unprepared to handle them, and voices strong support for "helping Israel defend itself, whatever that takes." Is a Pizza magnate who has never held public office more or less qualified than, say, a partially one-term US senator and former state senator from Illinois, or a partial term Alaska governor?

Newt Gingrich, altulterous hypocrite who is antichoice, antiunion, and suggests that there is a plot out there to kill old people (see his link) and wants religious expression in public places. (it wasn't hypocritical of him to lead impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, even hough he was having an extramarital affair at the time...) Well, actually it WAS hypocritical of him.

Rick Santorum, proudly sanctimonious - you name the issue, he's probably as opposed to the humanist point of view as you can get. Fervently antichoice. Loved by catholics and evangelicals. Wants to tie aid to african countries to stopping abortions.

There's Ron Paul, the libertarian favorite. "We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world."

There's Mitt Romney - Not very exciting, but maybe he has the gravitas that others lack. Whatever that is. Is Romneycare really different from Obamacare? "The U.S. economy and joblessness are considered among Obama's main weaknesses in his re-election effort. Romney is leading in opinion polls among the candidates seeking the Republican 2012 presidential nomination to face Obama."

There's Tim Pawlenty, who really knows anything about him?

Mitch Daniels. Who?

Despite voices decrying the sexism of singling out Bachmann and Palin, those politicians currently have a podium that the others would envy. The exposure is both beneficial and harmful. At this point, Pawlenty could probably say we should farm out defense to little green aliens from Mars, and no one would notice, while Bachmann could say the sky is blue and people would start arguing about what she meant by that, it's not "blue" it's "azure", and anyway it's cloudy, and god made it blue, but the discussion gives her more press regardless.

I would like to see issues and honest discussions, rather than personalities, gotchas, word games, ad hominems, etc, in election politics. I would also like to see everyone join hands and sing "We are the world"...... Damn.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Corey K on July 2, 2011 at 7:17am

Most if not all are not news worthy. Nothing new and nothing great. If anything Bachmann should have more airtime to point out how idiotic she truly is.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 2, 2011 at 8:14am

I think Gingrich and Santorum are equally as idiotic as Bachmann. Maybe they haven't said much today, but maybe they have, and the press isn't paying attention because they can only follow one clown at a time. I don't know. If it's Bachmann's turn, then that should pass fairly soon too. Then it will be - who, the next person who says something stupid? Like they did with evil clown Trump.

I think it will boil down to Romney. Republicans sometimes seem to give in to persistance of the person who has been trying the longest, like they did with Bush I and McCain. Although Bush II was a bit of a novelty and might have been an extension of Bush I. As long as Bachmann is getting the press microscope, Romney can continue flying under the radar and collect money, sort of the tortise in the tortise and hare story. If I'm wrong, you can bill me for a virtual beer. Not that I'll pay of course.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on July 2, 2011 at 8:23am

No one wants to see Santorum or Gingrich naked (feeling nauseous at that thought) which is the Palin/Bachmann street appeal.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 2, 2011 at 9:13am

People want to see Bachmann naked? ick! Palin too, despite the MILF thing. But what do I know, I like men. But not one of them is someone I want to see naked either. Is Vin Diesel running for office?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on July 2, 2011 at 8:08am

Name recognition is good in that it makes people remember a person at the polls. It can also be bad, if they remember a person as that idiot they want to be sure not to vote for. So far, IMO, Mitt Romney is the best of the Republican bunch. I am not sure whether or not he would push his Mormon agenda as President. I don't think the majority of his fellow Non Mormon christians would allow that. His Mormonism doesn't bother me. His Republicanism does. I just don't trust Republicans. They have shown me they are the party for the rich and the religious who have more fun placing blame than finding solutions.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 2, 2011 at 8:57am

I agree. The Mormon aspect is not a concern for me either. Mormonism is no more, or less, delusional than Catholicism, Baptistism, Evangelicalism, Muslimism..... And he seems calmer about his religion than Santorum and Bachman are about theirs, and there is less evidence for hypocritical pandering to the fringes than with Gingrich.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on July 2, 2011 at 10:14am

Excellent run down of the loony tunes and merry melodies running for prexy on the GOP tick! All we need now is for that closet queen, Gov. Hair (R-TX) to enter the fray, and we will have the full panoply of Bellevue-bound theocrats, opportunists, and snake oil salesmen (and women), none of whom stands a ghost of a chance to beat F. D. Obamavelt in 2012. As for Ms. Marcus Bachmann (calling her "Michelle" implies she is anything more than a "help-mate," that Booblical phrase indicating God is a misogynist, just as Marcus is an arch homophobe), I stand mute. Each time her name is brought up I run like crazy to the bathroom and puke out my guts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on July 2, 2011 at 11:59am

I'm not nuts about Obama, but the competition is making him look great.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will Faithless Sophia on July 2, 2011 at 1:32pm

Except for Ron Paul that is, I would vote for him over Obama.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on July 2, 2011 at 1:39pm

I find it strange that he is pro-choice.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 2, 2011 at 11:59pm

I think if he is a true libertarian he has to be pro choice?. However -

wikipedia:

Paul has consistently been pro-religion. For instance, he believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level

Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"^[200] and "an unshakable foe of abortion."^[201] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."^[

^{Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.^[208] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.^[143]}