The Submission Question: Larger Questions on Bachmann Loom

It has been interesting to this Independent the media attention which has been given over Michelle Bachmann's "surprise" question during the Iowa Republican debate.

I mean, was this question REALLY relevant, and just why does there seem to be such media over analysis which continues almost a week after those debates?

Ms. Bachmann, I'm sure, would be more than happy to move on to some really important matters, and I watched her deflect this question at least a dozen times restating her position and beliefs, and reiterating her candidacy based upon so-called "conservative" positions.

Tonight, I even watched as Fox's "anchor" Laura Ingalls once again analyzed Ms. Bachmann's response supposedly "supporting" it, while bringing in Fox's oft used "foil," Bernie Goldberg to attempt to poke holes in Ms. Bachmann's definition of submission, and "respect."

What is so very funny is that it is rather ludicrous to believe that any candidate that runs for public office, not to mention the presidency, would not be influenced by their spouse at times during critical moments.

I mean, Reagan was. So was Jimmy Carter. Both Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter were very influential over their husbands. As is, I'm sure, Michelle Obama on "policy" decisions and positions when push comes to shove.

So why this focus just because this candidate happens to be a woman?

Family of origin influence also is in the psychological makeup of everyone on this planet, for good or ill.

Her husband will be under the magnifying glass, but really should he be?

I don't think Jimmy Carter's brother's travails and some of his antics actually affected Mr. Carter in any adverse way, even his association with "Billy Beer."

And contrary to Mr. Goldberg's positions, to most Christians respect definitely is part of the definition of submission, meaning that most women marry a man they do admire and respect, and in most domestic decisions are to submit to their husband's opinions and judgment, but political matters are not domestic issues between a husband and wife, and a man is also called to respect and cherish his wife.

Having advised and counseled her to pursue a career choice that she maybe hadn't considered, a wise Christian man would leave her to her greater knowledge and experience outside his own area of expertise.

But Mr. Goldberg just may not have that basic understanding if he is not a Christian, and has taken public issue with even those of his own faith for perhaps his own "political" reasons.

The questions on Ms. Bachmann's positions, to this Independent, are many and much more relevant to her candidacy than her definitions of marriage (an institution, actually, with an over 3,000 year history and in which gays also did exist at the time of the signing of the Constitution, but in which time even marriage between a man and woman was defined in this country according to the "common law," which is unchanging for the most part. You know, those "God given" unalienable rights those founders spoke of, which were not to be interfered with by government).

Questions about her stances on Iran, for example, as indeed a "threat" to the United States.

My question: Does this mean you view Iran as as much of a threat in the same vein as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations and Congresses did Viet Nam? I mean, did we not learn our lesson then about offensive, rather than defensive, wars on foreign soil?

Questions about her stances on Israel, also.

My question: Your bio states that you once lived in a kibbutz in Israel. Would that mean that you would continue to sacrifice the lives of your fellow Christians and Americans for the sake of Israel, when of course Christ came to Earth in order to warn the Israelites that if they did continue in their "legalism," with respect to Old Testament scriptural interpretation, they would eventually lose the Temple and the covenant would be broken?

Rather, would you refuse to involve U.S. troops in any further Middle East wars in order to protect American lives outside any true offensive attack on THIS country by a foreign enemy or army? What about the threat of true "terrorists," economic and/or criminal, even a little closer to home, rather than across two continents?

What about your positions on unrestricted and unlimited immigration, as has increased since the Reagan years, in the interests of "diversity" and our own open borders? What about all the outsourcing that has cost so many Americans their former jobs and livelihoods in order to bulk up the global economy and build up the global profits of foreign citizens and governments at the American people's ultimate expense?

Questions about her stances on taxation, of course, as a former tax lawyer.

What is your position on the 16th Amendment, and the Constitutional provisions and intent for higher taxation for "property" owners (corporate or individual), as opposed to those who are paying those taxes for the land holders and corporations where their tax bites are then passed down to the public? What about states that also have an income tax on top of the federal income tax, what is your position there?

Questions about her claims to be a "tea party" believer, without much of an understanding of just what that tea party was all about, especially with respect to global trade.

Ms. Bachmann, as with Mr. Perry (who apparently has written a book, even) "talk the talk" but don't seem to have much of a record of "walking the walk" with respect to Constitutional positions and just where this country has lost its way and is now under global corporate control, rather than Constitutional government.

I would be interested in hearing answers to THOSE questions.

But I think I already know the answers.

The Constitution is in this election season, and most of those candidates are going to do their damnest, once again during election time, to make you believe they have read it.

Or at least have a fundamental understanding of it.

But after election time, of course, will not submit.