Michele Bachmann hates the gays so much she wants them to pray not to be gay

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Michele Bachmann, now a strong #2 in the Republican presidential field behind Romney (and actually in the lead in Iowa), may be trying to walk back some of her more extreme right-wing positions, but she's still a right-wing extremist. She signed that anti-gay, anti-porn pledge the other day, and now we learn this:

A former patient who sought help from the Christian counseling clinic owned by GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, told ABC News he was advised that prayer could rid him of his homosexual urges and he could eventually be "re-oriented."

"[One counselor's] path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, pray to God that I would no longer be gay," said Andrew Ramirez, who was 17-years-old at the time he sought help from Bachmann & Associates in suburban Minneapolis in 2004. "And God would forgive me if I were straight."

That just the sort of Christian fundamentalist bigotry you find everywhere on the right and throughout much of the Republican Party, including at the very core of Bachmann's theocratic conservative views.

Basically, she thinks that homosexuality is an illness that needs to be cured, an abomination that needs to be destroyed -- by prayer.

And this, as despicable as it is on so many levels, is her family business! Here, watch the ABC News report:

The GOP: True believers, dissemblers, and keeping score

By Richard K. Barry

I was watching Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty on Face the Nation today. I've written before about how much I believe Pawlenty exudes weakness and how poorly I think he will continue to do in the race. Much of my assessment comes from my sense that he is a pandering fool. And, even at that, he just seems bad at pandering, which is not a good thing for a politician.

ThinkProgress had a piece up today in which they quote Pawlenty as saying that science is split on whether or not sexual orientation is a matter of biology. Whatever. We know that Pawlenty has called into question the science of climate change after having previously accepted it. Clearly science in any form is not the man's strong suit, so I would tend to ignore whatever he might say about it. It's just that whatever he says about anything sounds like an opinion of convenience. Hence the ick factor.

All of this has led me to think about constructing a scale to gauge the extent to which prominent Republican politicians actually believe the stuff they keep saying.

We have been seeing many stories about the power of the hard right flank of the conservative movement, its energy and enthusiasm, and how terrified GOP pols are that they will find themselves on a hit list of one of the more vocal Tea Party groups or media outlets that seem to be calling the shots for the entire Republican party.

As for the scale, a "one" would be a Republican who actually believes all of what he or she says publicly. A "ten" would be someone who believes none of it.

Let's call it the GOP Liar's Index.

Now, since I don't think perfection is possible in this life time, I'm going to say that there are no "ones" and no "tens."

Back to Pawlenty. Maybe he's a "five," stuck in the middle and not sure of anything he has to say, which is what makes him look weak - half believing the conservative orthodoxy and half disbelieving it. Not sure.

Bachmann would have been a "two" a few months ago, but my sense is that she is starting to moderate her public opinions away from what she actually believes. Ironically, in her case, the duplicity isn't to placate the Tea Party but to sell herself to more mainstream Americans. She might be a "four" now.

Romney could be a "seven" as he sits very uncomfortably within a hyper-conservative Republican Party, knowing that he has to sell himself to a lot of people on the right who just don't like him.

I don't know about Huntsman. He might be a "two" or a "three." Not to lionize the man, but he does seem to come across as someone who believes the things he says.

If there are people in the GOP who seem to believe everything they say, I suspect that they both have the last name Paul. Yep, these guys are scary in that way.

Palin? I swear that she is too stupid to really believe anything she says but simply mouths the lines that will get her the biggest applause in front of Tea Party crowds or at Fox News and not, inconsequently, the biggest pay check. I just refuse to care any more about Sarah Palin.

John Boehner? I think this poor SOB could be a "nine." He's a Washington insider. The last thing he wants to do is shut down the federal government or play silly right-wing extremist games on the Hill, but that seems to be the way he has to talk about it all if he intends to keep Eric Cantor from taking his job.

Paul Ryan has to be a "two." Another true believer, as I've written.

I'm only having some fun here. Feel free to tell me who you think is being truest to their own values. But I don't think I've ever seen a group of politicians treading so lightly so as not to alienate a movement within their own party that is simply crazy. I'm just saying that some of them, particularly those Republicans in the Senate and House who might be facing Tea Party challenges from the right, are going to be forced to take positions that don't naturally sit well with them. I'm thinking here of the Hatches and Lugares and Snowes.

I don't want to say that politics is too much about who can lie the best, but in 2012 the GOP is sure going to test that theory.

The bottom line may be that for a Republican to be successful electorally, they would have to be either true believers, i.e, totally out of their freakin' minds, or really good liars about being totally out of their freakin' minds.

You will note that I have studiously avoided giving my scale a top or a bottom. Either way we're screwed.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Pawlenty, desperate for attention as ever, says science "in dispute" over homsexuality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back at the end of May, I wrote about the desperation of Tim Pawlenty. While he had been seen as a possible "bridge" candidate linking the somewhat moderate GOP establishment with the party's more right-wing grassroots base (both Tea Party and "social conservative"), he just wasn't catching on.

He was, and remains, fairly well-liked by pundits (including influential conservatives like George Will) and other political and media insiders, but his numbers, reflecting not just a lack of name-recognition but a lack of support broadly, have been consistently poor. The latest RCP national average has him at just 4.5%, eighth in the race behind Romney (the clear frontrunner at 25%), Perry (who may not run), Palin (who almost certainly isn't running), Bachmann (who has emerged as a strong second to Romney), Cain, Paul, and, yes, even Gingrich (who is running a joke of a campaign). He's sixth in Iowa (with Perry not included), close to his homestate of Minnesota and somewhere he should be doing well (or where he must do well to have any shot at the nomination), at just 6.7%, ahead of Paul but behind the others and well back of Romney (19.3%) and Bachmann (12.7%). And he's even further back in New Hampshire, in seventh (if you include Giuliani, who may jump in but likely won't do well) and a long, long way back fro Romney (34.5%).

It's not for lack of trying, though. Pawlenty has, thus far, proven to be a lackluster and often embarrassing candidate unwilling to take on Romney face-to-face, but he's done a great deal to try to appeal to the base, including coming out as a social conservative (i.e., theocrat, bigot) on issues like same-sex marriage and DADT and proposing a ridiculous trickle-down tax/budget plan designed to suck up to Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and other anti-government movers and shakers on the Republican right.

It's just that nothing seems to be working, and so he's still pathetically grasping for attention, trying to emerge possibly as a third option to Romney and Bachmann. And he's doing that by continuing his "social conservative" assault of homosexuality, asserting on Meet the Press this morning that science is "in dispute" over whether being gay is genetic or a choice:

GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?

PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral or if it's partly genetic –

GREGORY: What do you think?

PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

GREGORY: So you think it's not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

PAWLENTY: There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that.

Of course, you can always find one or two scientists, perhaps paid by some right-wing institute, to dispute what the (non-partisan) scientific community has come to accept as established fact, based on all the available research, and thereby to cast doubt on consensus (and to suggest that there's "no scientific conclusion." (This is how conservatives, including Pawlenty himself, dismiss climate change, for example.) As Think Progress notes in this case:

In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professional organizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, "including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," plays a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Is the evidence conclusive to the point of absolute certainty? No, but science rejects absolutism and is never certain about anything. That's the point of science, completely ignored by those on the anti-science right. Is there any "dispute." Yes, if, as with climate change, it comes from those on the right who, largely for partisan/ideological reasons, disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community and reject the overwhelming amount of evidence against them. But there is certainly no dispute among reputable scientists that genetics plays an essential role in determining sexual orientation and that being gay is not a matter of choice.

Of course, none of that matters to Pawlenty, who's really just trying to score some political points by situating himself as an ignorant bigot worthy of support from the GOP base. Will it work? No. His ship has sailed -- if there ever was a ship at all. I, like many others, thought he had a good shot at the nomination if only as a suitable second choice for many across the Republican spectrum. But there's no denying just how bad a candidate he's been, nor just how uninteresting and uninspiring he is. He can push his fiscal/economic bona fides all he wants, but he'll never be Romney, who in Republican circles has extensive credibility in that area. He can push his social conservatism, faux or otherwise, all he wants, but he'll never be Bachmann, who has a long record of advocating extremist right-wing positions on hot-button social issues. And while he could still hang around in a Romney-vs.-Bachmann race, he just doesn't seem like a suitable compromise candidate anymore.

Okay, he's still got a shot, given how weak the Republican field is, but it's longer than ever now. Which may only exacerbate his desperation and push him to say more and more extremist and ridiculous things.

Michele Bachmann signs anti-gay, anti-porn pledge

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Michele Bachmann has risen to the #2 in the Republican presidential field, behind Mitt Romney. Can she actually win the nomination? Yes, particularly if it comes down to a one-on-one against Romney and she manages to secure both Tea Party and "social conservative support" from the grassroots base.

But the question is how she gets there.

While she's certainly crazy, in terms of advocating extremist positions on a wide variety of issues and advancing ridiculous conspiracy theories, the only way she can defeat Romney and whoever else might challenge seriously for the nomination (e.g., Rick Perry, who would eat into her support from social conservatives) is to appear to be not crazy, or at least much less crazy than she really is. This is why she's recently been in walk-back mode, distancing herself from her own views and assertions in order to present herself as a viable presidential possibility, that is, as sane.

But she can only walk back so much. She's still a Tea Party darling and, lest we forget, a rampaging social conservative, and while she needs to appear to be less crazy she also needs to continues to stress her right-wing bona fides in order not to lose her core support, particularly if someone like Perry gets in the race. And, of course, she is what she is. It's as simple as that. She can't run away from herself altogether.

And stress her bona fides she did:

Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge, vowing to support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman, and which calls for a ban on all pornography.

"The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family," sponsored by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative organization, equates same-sex marriage with bigamy and polygamy and calls on candidates to promise to be faithful to their spouses.

Etc., etc. In other words, right-wing evangelical theocracy, just the sort of thing you'd expect from her, along with her anti-government Tea Party views. There is undeniable inconsistency here, of course. How is it possible to combine theocracy with the sort of libertarianism that prevails among Teabaggers? Well, it doesn't matter, and it needn't make all any sense, not as she aggressively courts multiple Republican constituencies. She can talk about small government and the Tenth Amendment while also pushing for an activist, bigoted government regulating morality, a government that leaves our money alone while closely monitoring what we do in our bedrooms or in front of our computers or televisions. Maybe that makes some sort of distorted sense way out on the right. It probably does. Republicans are full of inconsistencies. Bachmann is hardly alone there.

But how would this sort of thing play out in a general election. Not well. While Bachmann may win much of the extremist GOP base, there's no way independents or even many establishment-minded Republicans would ever support her, and this ridiculous pledge just makes matters worse for her in that regard. Which is why she'll need to keep walking back and walking back so much of what she has stood for in the past. Who knows, she might even have to walk this back in the not-so-distant future. Anti-gay bigotry plays well in the GOP, after all, but are Americans really prepared to give up their porn?

**********

Oh, by the way, the pledge also states that black children were better off under slavery than they are now:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

This is appallingly ignorant even by conservative standards.

But Bachmann signed the pledge, so she must believe it. One hopes that the media question her about it and refuse to let her brush it aside.

Elephant Dung #8: Right-wing groups pull out of CPAC over inclusion of gays

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Alright, this has more to do with the conservative "movement" broadly than with the GOP, but still -- these days, you can't have the GOP without the right-wing insanitarium known as CPAC, and the target here is a Republican group. As the right-wing WND is reporting:

Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud. 

Forget financial mismanagement. This is all about the gays. Conservatives don't want them in the military and they certainly don't want them in their own political ranks.

Maybe they're worried about what might be going on in the washroom stalls at CPAC events.

Or what might happen if they ever found themselves in a shower with a GOProuder.

Or maybe they're just a bunch of bigots.

And the bigotry runs so deep that it's threatening to fracture one of the essential cornerstones of conservative politics, CPAC, and with it any attempt to broaden conservatism, and with it the Republican Party.

It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out.