by AC Smith
Who do you want to win the Republican nomination after the CNN debate on November 22, 2011? Who is the best Republican candidate?
I always like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, mainly because she is a TRUE conservative and it shows in all of her answers. Bachmann is also about following the law and not finding loopholes around it. I’ve never heard her flip-flop and that tells me that she stands on principles instead of rhetoric. She lives by what she preaches to others and she has no moral baggage. She stands for family values and knows that it is the key to our strength.
Having said that, I have to admit that Newt Gingrich is the best choice at this point when I consider the polls and likelihood of winning unless Bachmann’s numbers come up quickly. Gingrich has intelligence about all of the issues and has good debate skills that can surely be used to beat President Obama.
Stay tuned and keep supporting the Republican candidacy.
What do you think about it? Who is your choice?
Newt talks real purty, but he seems to have character issues. I don’t know that there’s anyone in America with sufficient character to deal with the day of reckoning that will come one America’s sins catch up to it, but I think Cain is our best shot.
As for Bachmann, I submit that women are constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency, and for Congress as well.
I sure don’t want Michele Bachmann as our president, but under what grounds do you find a woman constitutionally inelgible to serve in the executive or legislative branches of our government? How about the judicial branch?
The eligibility clauses in the first two Articles all use the male pronoun; and at the time of ratification only one state even granted women suffrage, and revoked that in 1807. So there was no thought at the time of women fillng those positions. Judicial officers are not referred to in gender-specific terms, so there is no textual basis for excluding women from the Judiciary.
Ok, let’s assume you are correct that the language of the Constitution would prohibit a woman from serving in office (never mind that a precedent to the contrary is now well established), would you support an amdendment to plainly state that women are elgible? Or do you believe that the framers were correct both then and now, and that only men should serve? And if so, why?
Anytime you see or hear the word “he” or “man”, do you always take it in the literal sense that the author or speaker is talking specifically about the male sex? If you ever understand the idea in a generic context, what is your criteria for identifying the difference? When Jesus used the word “he” in his teachings, is that meant to exclude women from following the same rules, or from being saved? When Neil Armstrong talked about a giant leap for mankind, is that something that only men were entitled to celebrate?
No, because women don’t belong in positions of command over men, and We the People should not in the Constitution make any affirmation to the contrary.
Common sense is, for all intents and purposes, the only criterion that matters; and it tells me that the original public meaning of the eligibility clauses was such that there was no more thought of a woman being President than there was of Congress printing money, and that no amendments have imparted to them any meaning that makes women eligible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you are admitting that you are a sexist, and proud of it.
Too bad you feel that way because there are many women that are both qualified and capable of being great leaders. The only thing they are missing is a penis. I guess that’s the only qualifier for you based on your statements.
If by that you mean I’m aware of the fundamental differences between men and women and refuse to pretend they don’t exist, I suppose I am.
Not really, just OK with it.
I don’t suppose you meant to betray your conception of manhood as so disgracefully shallow, but perhaps said betrayal can be instructive to others.