“President Obama is extremely wealthy,” Bachmann said when USA Today askedhow someone with “vast wealth” could connect to the American public. “He and his wife have been wealthy for a number of years, and so I think that’s really the issue. President Obama is wealthy — what does he understand about the common man right now?” (here)
Maybe she pulled a Ronald Reagan and a Pat Buchanan… I mean, unless she really believes that an 8 million dollar networth is more disconnecting than a 250 million dollar networth…
Between them, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have as many children — 12 — as there were tribes of Israel. Ron Paul has five of his own, and in an early debate, perhaps unwilling to be outdone by Michele Bachmann’s fostering of dozens, Paul boasted that when he worked as a physician he delivered “4,000 babies.”
There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.
Lisa Miller is not known for her unbiased views of religion, but this does sort of take the take.
I validate a woman’s choice not to have children or to be a working mother, but I find it increasingly difficult to see others validate the women who stay home raise families. It’s not about the tribes of Israel – which, by the way, is just a stupid statement. I don’t defend Romney or Santorum’s view on women or families, but this article seems to criticize all families who are large.
Come on, folks…. moderation, equality, pluralism, and if you have to criticize, and there are times we should, then don’t do so in a way which generalizes everyone in the same way.
Bachmann’s campaign is looking for “pastor chairmen” in all 99 Iowa counties, each charged with building support not just among churchgoers but with other ministers and church lay leaders. Similar organizing is under way in South Carolina and Florida.
“I think we’re building toward having a more comprehensive evangelical outreach in Iowa than anyone’s ever had before, with the possible exception of when Pat Robertson ran,” said Bob Heckman, a Bachmann consultant and GOP presidential campaign veteran.
Heckman said fiscal conservatives remain important to Bachmann’s campaign, which is also looking for 99 tea-party chairmen in Iowa. Still, there is no question that Bachmann is particularly well-suited to refocus her efforts on reaching Christian conservatives: She distinguished herself in Minnesota as a politician who didn’t merely align herself with the religious right, but rather rose from the heart of the movement.
Both Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann have extreme religious beliefs. In Cantor’s Zionism God expressly desires a piece of land in Middle East be ruled and occupied by Jews. Bachmann’s Dominionism asserts that Christians should play a special role in the American Republic. However, the major news outlets have treated their religous beliefs very differently. While it is open season on Bachmann, Cantor’s Zionism is off limits. In a bizarre marriage of extremism, Zionism and Dominionism are joined at the hip; one never speaking a word against the other. But which one is truly dangerous for America?
Zionism and Dominionism – Yes, too very political and very theological viewpoints, neither of which I believe are ‘biblical.’
When people are elected to Federal Office in the United States, they swear to uphold the Constitution, but many today are taking pledges and running on platforms which promise to protect Israel over and above the United States. Why? Bad theology.
I would like to dedicate this post to my friend, Peter, across the pond, in future America East:
With Representative Michele Bachmann’s victory in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, and Texas Governor Rick Perry’s triumphal entrance into the GOP presidential primary, there’s been a sudden spike of attention drawn to the extremist religious beliefs both candidates have been associated with – up to and including their belief in Christian dominionism. (In the Texas Observer, the New Yorker, and the Daily Beast, for example.) The responses of denial from both the religious right itself and from the centrist Beltway press have been so incongruous as to be laughable – if only the subject matter weren’t so deadly serious. Those responses need to be answered, but more importantly, we need to have the serious discussion they want to prevent.
For example, in an August 18 post, originally entitled, “Beware False Prophets who Fear Evangelicals”, Washington Post religion blogger Lisa Miller cited the three stories I just mentioned, and admitted, “The stories raise real concerns about the world views of two prospective Republican nominees”, then immediately reversed direction: “But their echo-chamber effect reignites old anxieties among liberals about evangelical Christians. Some on the left seem suspicious that a firm belief in Jesus equals a desire to take over the world.” Of course, she cited no examples to bolster this narrative-flipping claim. More importantly, she wrote not one more word about the real concerns she had just admitted.