So, we will elevate her to someone of presidential stature who is capable of running this country. Someone who has a deep fund of knowledge and understands the complexities of all that go along with governing from the executive office. The fact that such a shallow misinformed person can even be considered a presidential contender says a lot about the average American. This has almost turned into a cliche…young female politician with good looks and the gift of gab being presented as our savior.

Here we go again……

Indeed, if electing Democrats were our objective, then Bachmann’s nomination would likely be an advantage.

But I have a different goal: advancing the equality, inclusion, and respect for my community. And regardless of what it might do for a political party, a Bachmann nomination would say that “part of Satan” and “miserable lifestyle” were acceptable ways of addressing gay people.

Far better would be for Republicans to find such language and ways of thinking to be cause for rejection. That would be progress and advantageous for our future.

Bachmann/Palin 2012!

Think about it.

A person who refuses to compromise can’t get get elected.

If she does get elected and holds true to her “values”, which she’s stupid enough to do, American protests in the streets will put the London riots to shame!

(I thought we were done with the ’60′s)

Bachmann: I have my criteria as what my appointments would be based on, it’s whether you uphold the Constitution, if you’re competent and if you share my views.

Gregory: Share your views. So would a gay judge or potential cabinet appointee have to share your view that homosexuality was ‘of Satan’ to be nominated by a Bachmann administration? If so, isn’t that effectively a ban on openly gay or lesbian appointees?

It’s a little bit late for “Don’t start none, won’t be none.”

We all know our little homily “Don’t speak when it won’t improve the silence”.

The reverse of that is to speak when it will.

It’s possible to be passionate without being angry. (Maybe)

Hey, Michelle, you don’t want to be asked your stance on gays? Fine. If she’d never brought up gays, or built an entire career on attacking gays, I could respect that. But since she *has* done just that, these questions are fair game.

Questions such as, “what newspapers do you read?” or “since you’ve equated being gay to bondage to Satan, how will your presidency treat gay people?” could only be considered “gotcha” questions in the conservative world. They bleat all day long about personal accountability, yet so often show absolutely none themselves.

It was clear she had decided that it’s better to have an awful interview and repeatedly make non-statements, than say anything that could be played in a 10 second clip.