Byron York And Chris Wallace Defend "Submissive" Question To Bachmann
August 12, 2011 11:27 am ET by Eric Hananoki
During last night's Fox News debate, moderator Byron York questioned Rep. Michele Bachmann about her 2006 remark that her "husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, 'But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'" York asked Bachmann, "As president, would you be submissive to your husband?" The question received loud boos from the audience, and was the subject of attention in write-ups of the debate.
York defended the question on Fox & Friends this morning, saying: "This is a serious and legitimate question about something she has said and believe me, if she progresses very far in the campaign process, she would have been asked this question. And I personally thought she handled it very well. She handled it much more human -- it was like a very human moment for her."
Appearing on The Mike Gallagher Show, fellow moderator Chris Wallace also defended York's question, saying, that "in these days of women's liberation ... it is worthy of note." Wallace added that "sometimes a difficult or, you know, a somewhat touchy question gets a really good answer and I give him props for that." From the show:
WALLACE: The fact is, she had said this. It seemed, in these days of women's liberation, for her to say 'I didn't want to be a tax lawyer but the Bible says to submit, and so I submitted,' it is -- it is worthy of note. It is something that -- and I think people -- and let's face it, she gave a great answer.
GALLAGHER: Oh, it sure was.
WALLACE: And it gave you a real insight into who she was --
[CROSS-TALK]
GALLAGHER: I think I'm just really hypersensitive about the way these strong, conservative women just get vilified by everybody.
WALLACE: I think he was trying to elicit information and he did elicit information. And I -- look, we're in a tough spot here. They're running for president, we're not running for anything except trying to do our job. And our job is -- as opposed to most of the time, when we ask questions and it's often, you know, not on camera, and not live. The newsgathering process is happening here like the sausage making for everybody to see. But sometimes a difficult or, you know, a somewhat touchy question gets a really good answer and I give him props for that.
Wallace concluded by joking, "I must also say, that after my own problems with Newt Gingrich, the fact that the crowd was booing Byron was really quite wonderful. I was very happy it wasn't me."
Have a little respect. The woman is running for President for crying out loud.
She can not be allowed to have it both ways.
Either she is going to represent the Religious Funny-Mentalists or she is going to Represent mainstream America. The two are mutually exclusive.
She made those statement to appeal to the Funny-Mentalist voter. (Letter of Paul to the Ethesians. They LOVE that stuff!) Well: She's either lying to them, or she's crazy to us.
I want to hear this question asked over and over and over. She's not a legitimate candidate. She's a LOON. She's actually WORSE THAN PALIN. Really.
And there is NOTHING that should be off limits.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Who knows what that "little voice in her head" will tell her what to do.
Focking silence for the past few years from the party, from AM radio, Fox talking heads, etc regarding the smears/name calling/slurs/disrespect this president has been subjected to. He hates white people, it's all about reparations, he's a socialist,communist/marxist, facist, Kenyan who's not American by birth or by values... on and on and on.
I get it - it's hard to call this BS out when it's your job to push this crap day in and day out.
I have to admit the tone of some of the questions from the debate were harder than I expected. Gingriches ? about his staff, Bachmann's question, Wallaces question to Pawlenty about his prior comments regarding Bachmann and to comment on them to her face, etc. I'm glad these questions came up on a Fox Debate not from some MSM sponsored debate - we'd hear the RW media go bonkers of the left media bias.
Finally - Wallace spotlights a few things - "The fact is, she had said this" and "But sometimes a difficult or, you know, a somewhat touchy question gets a really good answer". The media needs to put candidates ON THE SPOT for past comments, votes, positions, etc. that they have made - it is not character assassination or a smear campaign to accurately quote a politician and ask them about it; unless your Gingrich and any of his quotes (accurately reported) are smears. It's not an attack on women or conservatives, or Lwing media bias to ask serious difficult questions that require more than a talking point answer.
How is this a dumb question?
You are wrong. If somebody believes that women should be subservient to men and that person wants to be in a position of power, it's highly pertinent to know how that paternalistic attitude would affect said female's leadership. Would she defer to her husband in the White House? Would he assume the Cheney role of a "shadow president". Not only was it appropriate, but the press would be negligent not to ask this important question.
If Hillary had been elected President; would we ask her if Bill would be calling the shots seeing as he had some experience with the office and all?
I guess the point I am trying to make is this. The president, regardless of who he is, has also received advice and information from lots of sources, and through the years, there have been no doubt many Presidential decisions affected by, and formed with considerable input from their wives.
I would expect it to be no different than Mr. Bachmann advising, and or discussing issues with a potential President Bachmann.
If elected President, she would have a greater committment than to just her husband, and at this point her constituents in Minnesota. She would also be held to account by Congress, and the Judiciary. Checks and balances. It wouldn't matter where her decisions boiled down from, we have recourse in this country to challenge said decisions, and policy positions, be it if they come from her husband, her cabinet members, or god.
Sorry MagnoliaLover, I have to completely disagree with you - it was a very legitimate question to ask Bachmann. And if Hillary had said that wives should submit to their husbands, it would have been the right question to ask her too.
That's right. Michelle Bachmann is a very strong conservative woman... who just happens to do everything her homosexual husband tells her to.
Get over it. It has nothing to do with their being strong or women. It has everything to do with their sharing the same regressive views as their male counterparts, whom we also vilify.
There's nothing "strong" about women whose only purpose to attaining power is to use that power to legislate the role of women back to those exemplified by the characters of Margaret, Betty, and Kitty Anderson on "Father Knows Best" - submissive, quiet, domestic, and out of the workforce and politics and back in the kitchen.
Anything that can be done to expose women like Bachmann needs to be done.
-- Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I'm in love with him, I'm so proud of him. And what submission means to us -- if that's what your question is -- is respect. I respect my husband...and he respects me as his wife. that's how operate our marriage. We respect each other, we love each other. --
Do you suppose Bachmann's husband respects her? And if so, does that make him submissive?
I love it when "wesley" provides us with more evidence that he's just a troll.
Better yet he should be on Sesame Street
What a stupid question from a stupid journalist!