Representative Bachmann has built her career in the House and her state senate on championing divisive social issues. But in running for the President she has tacked very sharply away from her past. For months, she has stonewalled journalists from asking about her record on LGBT issues. The Concord Monitor reports:
Bachmann cut off an interview last week as she was being asked a question about gay marriage and emphasized that she is focused on rebuilding the economy and repealing federal health care reform.
"I'm not involved in light, frivolous matters," she said. "I'm not involved in fringe or side issues. I'm involved in serious issues."
This isn't Michele Bachmann at all. This is her handlers telling her what she needs to say to get the Presidency.
And Gregory did the kind of work an interviewer should do when a candidate is spotted running away from their past. He asked her about it, over and over. He challenged her to own it, or repudiate it (she did neither).
I've seen it described as a "grilling" and would take no issue with that characterization.
Bachmann stays on point to her centrist talking points throughout, and attempt to breeze by saying, "these kind of questions really aren't about what people are concerned about right now." But David Gregory didn't let Ms. Bachmann tap dance away from her past so easily. He presents her with her own words:
"You're the one who said that same-sex marriage was a defining political issue of our time. Those were your words back in 2004."
Up front, he also plays a recording of her most infamous quote:
It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It's anything but gay. ... It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous. ... We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.
Bachmann spends the entire segment repeating the same talking points. Mostly disingenuous crap about respecting all people and not judging.
I'm sympathetic to reporters that it's difficult to get a politician off a talking point and to address the core question. It may well be impossible, short of waterboarding. But, one tool in the belt is to tack back to the question. If nothing else the viewer's attention is drawn to the fact, that "Hey, he or she didn't really answer the question..."
Gregory employs this several times during the course of the short interview.
Gregory tacks back to the question of whether LGBT Americans would have a place in her administration, in judicial or cabinet appointees. She doesn't say "no" which is, of course, the reality. Seeing as no one in the history of America has ever appointed an open LGBT American to a cabinet position it defies any common sense to imagine President Bachmann would break that ground.
Its also nice to see the topic of LGBT inclusion at the cabinet level happening in such a "serious" mainstream level, if only as a foil to her history of homophobia.
And Bachmann's fairly well on record regarding judicial appointments. She signed the National Organization For Marriage pledge, which required making opposition to same-sex marriage a litmus test for any judicial appointments. I think we can assume that any openly LGBT judges would not be considered a good risk in tamping down the threat of "activist judges legislating from the bench." Christian fundamentalists have a deep resentment to LGBT Americans even getting a day in court, they certainly don't want to see LGBTs presiding over any courts. That would be madness.
Gregory pretty well calls BS on Bachmann's "I don't judge" talking point that she falls back on multiple times. "I don't judge" sounds very nice. But in reality it's hard to imagine how you can call large groups of Americans "part of Satan" from a non-judgemental perspective. Gregory does a nice job confronting her on that:
Mr. Gregory: "Do you think that gay Americans hearing quotes like that from you would think that that's, that's honor and dignity coming from you about their circumstance?"
Rep. Bachmann: I am not anyone's judge...
Mr. Gregory: Right.
She later denies that two gay people with kids meets her personal definition for "family." This is an important factor, as the fight for marriage equality is at the heart of it, about giving LGBT Americans access to the same protections under "family law" that heterosexuals enjoy. Denying the recognition of LGBTs as "family" allows the military to continue to deny partner benefits post-DADT, bosses to fire employees for who greets them when they come home at night, and leaves the children of LGBT Americans, and LGBT widows, unprotected and at the mercy of a capricious legal system that sometimes does the right thing, often does not.
If a man who has lived with his partner 19 years, built a home and life together and nurtured him through a serious illness does not qualify as "family," I would ask Representative Bachmann what she would call them?
Ironically, Ms. Bachmann isn't winning any fans from the far right with her new-found, triangulated position. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage was unimpressed by Bachmann's performance in the GOP debate Thursday night. Gallagher criticized Bachmann's support for "traditional marriage" as "far weaker" than that of her rivals. Writing in the National Review she says:
On marriage in this debate, Bachmann was far weaker — not only weaker than Santorum but weaker than Romney as well. She stated her position clearly but did not make an argument for it: “I support the federal marriage amendment; as president, I will not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. In Minnesota, I was the chief author of the constitutional amendment. I have an unblemished record when it comes to this issue of man-woman marriage.”
Unblemished, maybe, but also unexplained.
One wonders how hot the fire of hatred burns inside Ms Gallagher when she finds Bachmann insufficiently homophobic? Of course, in Maggie's strange and myopic world view,
Rick Santorum was the winner Thursday night:
Rick Santorum also scored big points when he said he was the only candidate on the stage last night who came to Iowa and helped un-elect those activist judges who imposed gay marriage on Iowans.
Those
"big points" translated into a populous landslide of
2.89% of Fox News voters claiming the victory for
Santorum.
Gregory's interview is exactly the type of mainstream coverage I'd hoped we'd see on Bachmann's LGBT record. I'd hoped they wouldn't shy away from bringing up her past rhetoric, especially the "part of Satan" quote. You don't get to just walk away from talk like that. On this topic, on this day, David Gregory rocked.
(PS: Check out the look on Bachmann's face at the the 3:24 mark on the video. They don't call her "crazy eyes" for nothing!)
Transcript
Rep. Bachmann::Mr. Gregory: OK. I want to also ask you about your interpretation of the Bible and your feelings about gays and lesbians. You have said in recent years that opposition to same sex marriage is defining a political debate in this country. You're opposed to it, you'd like to see a constitutional ban against it in this country. And during a speech that you gave in 2004 at an education conference, you spoke openly and in detail about gays and lesbians. And I want to play just a portion of that speech and have you react, react to it.
(Videotape, November 6, 2004)
Rep. Bachmann:: It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It's anything but gay. ... It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous. ... We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.
(End videotape)
Mr. Gregory: That is the view President Bachmann would have of gay Americans?
Rep. Bachmann:: Well, I am running for the presidency of the United States. I'm not running to be anyone's judge. I do stand very...
Mr. Gregory: But you have judged them.
Rep. Bachmann:: I, I, I don't judge them. I don't judge them. I am running for presidency of the United States.
Mr. Gregory: Is that the view of gays--gay Americans that President Bachmann would have?
Rep. Bachmann:: Well, my, my view on marriage is that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that's what I stand for. But I ascribe honor and dignity to every person no matter what their background. They have honor and they have dignity.
Mr. Gregory: Do you think that gay Americans hearing quotes like that from you would think that that's, that's honor and dignity coming from you about their circumstance?
Rep. Bachmann:: I am not anyone's judge...
Mr. Gregory: Right.
Rep. Bachmann:: ...and I'm not standing in as anyone's judge.
Mr. Gregory: Congresswoman, you have--I mean, do you think anyone hears that and thinks you haven't made a judgment about gays and lesbians?
Rep. Bachmann:: That's all I can tell you is that I'm not judging.
Mr. Gregory: So your words should stand for themselves?
Rep. Bachmann:: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. That's what's important.
Mr. Gregory: Would you appoint a gay, an openly gay person, to your administration, to your Cabinet, or name them as a judge?
Rep. Bachmann:: My criteria would be the same for that--for, for--which would be, where do you stand on the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views. That's my criteria.
Mr. Gregory: But those views are, are, are pretty clear. So you would, you would--as far as judge, you talked about that, an openly gay person is acceptable as a matter of your administration, as a member of your administration?
Rep. Bachmann:: I, I, I have, I have my criteria for what I--my appointments would be based on, and it's whether you uphold the Constitution, if you're competent, and if you share my views.
Mr. Gregory: So it would not be a factor?
Rep. Bachmann:: I am not out asking any other questions.
Mr. Gregory: One last one on this. Can a gay couple with--who adopt children in your mind be considered a family?
Rep. Bachmann:: When it comes to marriage and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that's, that's been my view, and I think that's important.
Mr. Gregory: So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a family to you?
Rep. Bachmann:: You know, all of these kind of questions really aren't about what people are concerned about right now. This isn't what--this isn't...
Mr. Gregory: Congresswoman, you said it...
Rep. Bachmann:: ...and I'm not judging them.
Mr. Gregory: You said that any, any candidate for president should be asked about his or her views and their record. This is a record of your statement. These were defining political issues for you as your political career advanced. You're the one who said that same-sex marriage was a defining political issue of our time. Those were your words back in 2004. So I'm just asking you about your views on something that has animated your political life.
Rep. Bachmann:: Right. I think my views are clear.
I agree, Rep. Bachman, your views are clear. You hate gay people and love the people who hate them. Time to just own that.
Reminder to New Yorkers:
Daily Kos meet up tonight at 6:30,
Sidnora's diary has details. Be there or be square.