home

Submission

Via Digby, Alan Grayson's opponent Daniel Webster does not like people knowing about his religious group, Institute in Basic Life Principles:

[Webster] brings with him 14 years of experience with Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, where Webster has not only attended seminars, but also taught classes and even made an instructional video that raised money for the institute.

The group preaches a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the belief that women should submit to their husbands' authority. [. . .] Webster is an enthusiastic supporter. His six children learn at home, taught by his wife, Sandy, using the institute's curriculum. The family, which also is active in its Orlando Baptist church, has participated in numerous institute seminars over the years.

(Emphasis supplied.) Daniel Webster believes wives should submit to their husbands. No amount of spin from Factcheck.org can change that fact.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Persuades The Persuaded By Whining About Dem Voters | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    Wasting a fine American name like "Daniel Webster" on a slug like that.

    Go read the Digby post (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    and you'll recognize that what's quoted here at TL is only the half of it.  This Webster's a nasty mofo, and calling him a Taliban understates the case.  

    Parent
    I love Digby (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    Whether you call him the "T" word or not he's a theocrat---the real thing.

    Parent
    something tells me (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    we are going to look back on the days of Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gomert as the "good old days"

    Parent
    What a country... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    An atheist or a person who enjoys a spliff on a Friday Night is totally and utterly unelectable, but a guy like this Webster character can secure a major party nod to run for Congress.

    We need a major redefinition of unelectable.

    And forget it if you (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    have the gall to publicly proclaim yourself an atheist or a secular-humanist-agnostic. You could be Socrates and Einstein rolled into one and it wouldn't matter; you'd be done..

    But these circuit riding, snake handlers keep getting elected to higher office and hyped on Fos News.

    Parent

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    we get the government we deserve I guess, and I feel like Stevie Janowski...

    "You and me are the only cool people here Kenny. Everybody else here is just a bunch of posers, and hos, and sh*theads."

    -Stevie Janowski, Eastbound and Down



    Parent
    Institute for Basic Slavery Principles? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:13 PM EST


    Pffft....I got some submission for Daniel :) (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    Where did I put that DominaTracyTrix outfit damn it?

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    Ah the good ol' days,circa 1980, when Gothard was the hottest thing in conservative Christendom. . .I was working as a Mental Health Therapist in an inpatient psychiatric unit. It never ceased to amaze the staff when Gothard would come to town how the women's unit would be suddenly flooded by women apparently destabilized in part by the impact of Gothard's hyper Authoritarian approach to relationships.
       If your husband cheats on you, submit. If he beats you submit. If he gambles away all your money, so that you are left homeless and penniless, with a gaggle of starving kids, you can not leave him. You must submit. Your only right is to pray for him, and accept his behavior as God's will for you.
       Also, Gothard opposes women working outside the home. Goes along with the infamous "cabbage patch controversy" where in Gothard opposed children owning a cabbage patch doll because the relationship to the doll was, in his view, causing strange and destructive behavior in children, that may lead to their not wanting children of their own when grown.
       For more info on Gothard and some of his exploits and views see here

    More fun tidbits (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    A central tenet of the institute's teaching is a command structure that makes the husband the head of the household. The man's wife and his children are to submit to his authority, though the man has the responsibility to treat his loved ones with respect and devotion.

    It would not be natural for a woman to work outside the home and the man to raise the children, one institute director said.

    "That puts a wife in a role that she's not equipped for inwardly or outwardly and puts the man in the same position,'' the Rev. Tom Brandon said.

    "A man is the lover and leader. (The wife's) role is to trust God to supply her needs through the leadership of her husband and to serve
    with him and fulfill his needs.''

    Full text

    A man is the lover? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    I can never be on top?  I'm just supposed to trust God that my orgasm is around here somewhere while I stare at the ceiling?

    I know, I'm vile...but this stuff just kills me.  I could seriously spend the whole day messing with women who settle for servanthood and frown at all the rest of us sluts while we have the time of our lives :)  Yup, planning for a great life, not wasting my life trying to have a great afterlife because nobody can even prove that there is one.

    And you know that Daniel is more than willing to cough up a bit of dough to spend a wee amount of time with a bad girl.  A girl just knows these things.  That is if he is actually straight, otherwise he's willing to cough up a bit of dough to spend some time with a bad boy.


    Parent

    Too funny MT (none / 0) (#67)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    Last paragraph is classic.  LOL.

    Parent
    hey (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    who wants to bet these rules were written by men?

    Parent
    Ya Baby ! (none / 0) (#50)
    by bselznick on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    Mmmmm, "Fulfill his needs".

    Ya baby, we all know what that means.  Where do I sign up?  These GOPers are nasty little buggers.  If it wasn't for their political views, I'd be all in.  

    "Honey, I got a need that requires satisfying right now.  Get in here, and bring me a beer."

    Parent

    if you want to know (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    why dems are not fighting back, Grayson is a pretty good example of why.  
    they will have to fight the other side and their own side.

    imo (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    this is exactly what they should be doing to all those freakin nutbags.


    Parent
    i know. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    I just can't understand why this is so hard for them to get. The DC people like Sally Quinn will pull out the smelling salts but they should have learned to ignore these people eons ago but I guess not.

    DC is a conservative town but the rest of the country not so much.

    Parent

    i preferred "twist", (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    No amount of spin from Factcheck.org can change that

    but that's just me.

    sarcastic, i am disappointed in the obvious weakness displayed in your posts on this thread, i expected better of you. actually, you'd have been well advised to say nothing, but..........................

    facts have an unerring liberal bent. mr. webster's very own, oft stated positions, in his very own words, said using his very own voice, betray him, factcheck.org's poor analysis nothwithstanding.

    his stated position on choice (no abortions, for any reason, ever) is a painfully clear demonstration of his belief that his spouse (and all women) should submit to him. it can't be interpreted, by any rational person, any other way, with a straight face.

    mrs. webster, had she any smarts, would have known better than to publicly rebuke sen. grayson for this ad. by doing so, she's put a legitimate target on her back.

    theocracy will only take you so far.

    You're disappointed in my posts? (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Well then, consider me properly chastened.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:37:46 PM EST
    I'm Very Disappointed in you SAO.

    Though I hope you don't vote in November. Very incivic of me I know.

    Parent

    Heh. You too huh? (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    Just got my voter's guide in the mail yesterday. Grayson and Webster aren't in it, you and I won't be cancelling out each other's vote.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, Dan Webster is not alone (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    millions of evangelicals believe the same thing, and Orlando area is loaded with them.

    Grayson would have been better off emphasizing the no abortion in case of rape or incest angle, & Webster's predilection to let his beliefs influence his work as a legislator.

    Grayson opened the door to make the issue about his finagling the video, regardless of the fact Webster believes wives should submit to their husbands.

    I love Grayson and am pulling for him, donating money and I have no sympathy for Webster.  He's been accused of believing what he in facts believes.  Compare that to what the GOP did to a decorated war hero in 2004 in support of a an awol drunken guardsman and his draft dodging running mate.

    Agree that Grayson screwed up on the video (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    I'm in cheerleader mode for guys I think need to win so that progressives come out in relatively good shape out of this election.

    I actually don't care for Grayson that much to tell you the truth. More bark than bite.

    Parent

    In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan."

    But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible.

    Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands.

    In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own.

    The unedited quote is: "Don't pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, `She should submit to me.' "



    Spin (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    Webster believe wives should submit to their husbands.

    That is a fact.

    Parent

    Not fake (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Daniel Webster believe wives should submit to their husbands.

    That's what I wrote in my post and what I have written in 3 comments to you.

    You know it is true and thus have no response to it other than to point to spin.

    Parent

    If you say so. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    Daniel Webster says so (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    When did he say so? (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    Many times (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    Did you read Digby;s piece? Of course, he says he does not want to impose his views on other people (except for choice and other issues), but he does not deny it ever.

    He admits it.

    Parent

    Why does it matter (none / 0) (#24)
    by abdiel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    if his wife is okay with it?

    Parent
    Are you serious? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    What kind of laws affecting women do you think someone with that extreme belief system will try to enact? Of course it matters.

    Parent
    I did read Diby's piece. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    1. The supposed 13 year-old St. Petersburg Times article Digby "quotes" apparently does not exist.

    2. The quoted "article" says Webster supports that biblical passage for himself and his wife, but it does not actually come out and say that Webster actually said what you say he's said "many times."

    Thin gruel, but then again you are a lot more emotional about FL politics than I am...

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    you should search harder

    St. Petersburg Times

    Full text

    Parent

    Well, it all depends on what (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    you want to believe:

    From the link:

    But Webster said there is no connection between Gothard's seven Bible-
    based principles and the five principles Webster is using to rank
    every measure the House will consider this year.

    Gothard's precepts fall in seven broad areas: responsibility,
    authority, freedom, suffering, stewardship, design and meditation.

    Under Webster's system, House committees will assess bills based on
    whether they meet these requirements: less government, lower taxes,
    personal responsibility, individual freedom and family empowerment.

    Wow

    That's radical stuff.

    Parent

    The blog fell (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    right into a nest of facts that support the initial characterization of Webster. That is, unless he's secretly in heretical rebellion against his own christian organization.

    Parent
    than this blog is normally known for, however it is pretty clear Webster's view is that he supports where the bible says the wife should submit to the husband.

    I withdraw my "this blog has fallen" comment.

    Parent

    its a political ad (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:43:52 PM EST
    Im shocked SHOCKED that a political ad is "loosey goosey"

    Parent
    That's an opinion. (1.50 / 2) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    And that's fact.

    But anyway you slice it Grayson has lied.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Parent

    From Time.com about Gothard (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:03:42 PM EST

    Besides following the chain of command in the family, Christians should also be obedient to their employers and their government, Gothard asserts. Only if an order from a parent, the state or a boss conflicts with God's explicit commandments may it be disobeyed. But first the Christian is supposed to follow six complex steps, beginning with an examination of his own bad attitudes.

    On the side, Gothard dispenses assorted fundamentalist opinions. He favors fasting, tithing and Bible memorization, while opposing liberal Bible criticism, much of higher education, highly rhythmic music, working wives, explicit sex education and any sexual arousal before marriage. As for homosexuality, Gothard says that when it is made "a normal way of life, then it's all over for a society, and we are right at that point."

    Since Gothard's impact is just starting to be felt in liberal churches, most criticisms till now have been raised by Evangelicals. Wheaton Bible Professor Alan Johnson protests that Gothard's docile acceptance of life "takes the sting out of evil and even transforms it into a good." Johnson's colleague Gordon Fee thinks that Gothard's approach to Bible interpretation is simpleminded. "You cannot just stamp the 1st century culture onto the 20th century and say it is the divine order," says Fee.

    Click Me

    Parent

    Maybe, in considering choices (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    between Democrats and Republicans, the "lesser of two evils" is not the best.  The nine concentric circles of hell from Dante's Inferno may be more apt, and in this case, Alan is at nine and Daniel is at one.

    In any event... (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    there is a very definite difference. The Webster reality is only one of many such illustrations. (If we get the Websters of the country, my guess is that what we once thought was the 9th level will surely resemble the much higher abode of Beatrice.)

    Parent
    PolitiFact Florida asked for, and received, a video with Webster's extended comments. The video confirms Gothard's recollection of the 2009 speech.

    "Have verses for (your) wife. I have verses for my wife," Webster said in an unedited excerpt provided by the Institute. "Don't pick the ones that say, 'she should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones you're supposed to do (laughs). So instead (laughs) that you'd love your wife -- even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it ... and, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."



    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    why are you wasting any time defending this creep? If he is a fundamentalist Baptist, which by all appearances he is, then he believes about wives submitting to their husbands. There was a big bru-ha-ha about this back in the 90's when the Southern Baptist Convention made a proclamation that wifes should submit to their husbands.

    Parent
    into the discussion.

    I'm now checking into ruffian's claim, above. If it is factual, I'll happily admit it.

    Parent

    Well, ruffian's right. He did teach it. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    Listening to the audio, Websters says, basically, your wife should submit to you because the bible says so, but you (the husband) shouldn't tell her to do so.

    I'll stand down now on this one.

    Parent

    Thanks SAO (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    It was the placement of the [laugh] that gave it away.

    Parent
    Ya. When you listen to the vid... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    "Have verses for (your) wife. I have verses for my wife," Webster said in an unedited excerpt provided by the Institute. "Don't pick the ones that say, 'she should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones you're supposed to do.
    ...he says:

    "pick the ones YOU'RE supposed to do."

    not,

    "pick the ones you're SUPPOSED to [pick]."

    Parent

    There just seemed to be a subtext of (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    finding the best way to convince her to go along with the program. Here's what works best - volunteer for something yourself! that'll get her!

    Parent
    Same spin (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    Daniel Webster believes wives should submit to their husbands.

    No amount of spin can change that.

    Parent

    It is even spin about spin (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    In that quote he is telling them how to sell the idea of submission to their wives. In essence, 'don't show them this quote, show them the other one'.

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    Chauvinist religous freak is bad enough...never mind a sneaky chauvinist religous freak.

    Parent
    Giving Chauvinist religous freaks (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    a bad name.

    Parent
    Can you show me where this (none / 0) (#39)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    belief entered into one piece of legislation that he either authored or voted for in his 30 years in the FL House and Senate?

    Teri (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Schiavo? What was his behavior there?

    Parent
    Which is EXCATLY like the Taliban (none / 0) (#44)
    by me only on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    in no way whatsoever.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 07:08:03 PM EST
    it is absolutely like the Taliban. That is the kind of things they do in Theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. They go before a minister or other authority who makes the decision for the family.

    Parent
    He wanted to keep her alive, (none / 0) (#45)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    just as her parents wanted.

    Parent
    But not just as she herself wanted, (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    nor as her legal guardian wanted.

    How anyone can believe that forcing a brain-dead person to remain 'alive' is the business of politicians will forever escape me.

    Parent

    If they had said hellfire (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    awaits those who refuse to attach electrodes to her and wait for the next lightening storm, that might've gone along with THAT too..

    She was confirmed as brain dead. Hooking someone like that up to the latest state-of-the-art equipment as part of some grotesque experiment and as a platform for political grandstanding, has nothing to do with anyone being "alive".

    Parent

    Which is (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    exactly the same thing they do with women in the Taliban. The women have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in what happens to them.

    Parent
    I don't believe she had a living will so (none / 0) (#76)
    by coast on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 07:43:26 AM EST
    how do you know what her thoughts were, other than the hearsay of her husband?  My wife and I both have advance directives and haven given copies to each of our families so this type of thing doesn't happen.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    all I have to say is that my husband would know what I wanted whereas my parents WOULD NOT.

    Parent
    I guess that is the problem. (none / 0) (#79)
    by coast on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    If seeing how this worked itself out and all the issues it raised didn't cause not just you but most people to at least have a conversation about this with their families, then I'm not sure that what would.

    By the way, I'm assuming the 6th in your ID refers to 6th congressional district.  If so, I'm originally from your neck-of-the-woods - Dunwoody.  Still have family there, but I don't miss it much.  I have the beach and they have traffic.

    Parent

    Not sure how that's the problem (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    It sounds like Ga6thdem has already "at least had a conversation" with her family, since she said "my husband would know what I wanted".  Beyond that, this was an issue that Terri Schiavo had discussed with her husband and two other family members.  Hence the court's finding.

    While an advanced directive/"living will" would take care of most of these problems, the reality is that most people will not prepare them (let alone wills), particularly those in the age bracket of Terri Schiavo when her health problem arose.

    Parent

    Most people, while they ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    ... should have living wills, do not.  The court in the Schiavo case, however, found that Terri Schiavo made reliable oral declarations of her wishes indicating (among other things) that she would not want to remain "hooked to a machine".  This is, of course, the type of discussion one would have with a spouse, but she also had these conversations with Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo.

    Parent
    That's an understatement (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    "He sponsored a bill that would have made it illegal to kill someone in a persistent vegetative state by withholding food and water from them without a judge's approval"

    wiki

    Parent

    "...made it illegal to kill someone..." (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    I thought it already was illegal?

    Parent
    give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    you know what we're talking about here.

    But sure, campaign on state mandated force-feeding if that's your thing.

    Parent

    But a more serious response to your (none / 0) (#63)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    statement.  Why doesn't Grayson attack that.  Something that Webster did try and pass due to his right to life beliefs, rather this issue.  Just seems silly and a waste of money.  Although he has gotten a bunch of press from it and "any press is good press" I guess.

    Parent
    can you give me one (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    good reason why this (his beliefs) should NOT be an issue in an election?

    I do not believe there is a god.  do you think THAT would be an acceptable issue to Sally Quinn?


    Parent

    It should be, but (none / 0) (#47)
    by me only on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    characterizing him as "Taliban Dan," would make sense, if in 28 years of in the Florida statehouse he had a long record of acting like the Taliban.

    Parent
    good grief (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    its a political ad.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by coast on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    Just pointing out that its a bit silly to get hot and bothered about something that a candidate may believes works for his/her situation but has never tried to put that belief into law.  Likely knowing it would never pass.

    Parent
    That fairly prevalent belief (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    undermines the ability of women to second guess men in general, their husbands and men in positions of authority in particular, and to trust their own thought processes and judgments; a phenomenon which in turn, in the long run, influences particular forms of legislation.

    Parent
    MIStrust their own though processes.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:56:25 PM EST


    cant type today.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    thought processes..