GOP Presidential Candidates Unanimously Ensure Gay Apocalypse, Bachmann Fears Lesbian Attack

The Daily Beast has a new profile on GOP Presidential contender Michele Bachmann, Enemy Number One of the Gays, and it’s really scary. I mean — it’s not as scary as being in a bathroom with a lesbian and a nun, but scary.

Speaking of being in a public restroom with a lesbian and a nun — apparently Michele Bachmann has experienced that horror first-hand.

See — back in April 2005, state senator Michele Bachmann held a constituent forum which was attended lesbian named Pamela Arnold (PAM! = lesbian name) who had some questions about Michele’s feelings on gay rights. But when same-sex marriage came up, rather than answering the question, Michele made like a nervous twelve-year-old girl and ditched the meeting altogether, running immediately into the bathroom.

Arnold, who’d come to the meeting specifically for these answers, followed her into the bathroom. Arnold was accompanied by another middle-aged woman, a former nun.

I’ll let The Daily Beast take it from here:

Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. “Help!” she screamed. “Help! I’m being held against my will!”

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was “absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her.” The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, “It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann.”

Well! I think it’s safe to say that Bachmann is probs a closeted homosexual, ’cause anger like that tends to be rooted in self-loathing, but moving on; Michele Bachmann says things that seem crazy to us but make sense to Christian Conservatives, apparently, which seems like not a HUGE deal until you realize how many Evangelicals are out there. According to the PEW Report, 26.3% of Americans are affiliated with “Evangelical Protestant Churches.” Next up is 23.9% Catholics, followed by Mainline Protestant Churches (18%), Unaffiliated (16%) and “Historically Black Churches” (6.9%). Jews and Mormons tie at 1.7% each.

Five out of seven GOP presidential hopefuls spoke out against marriage equality at the debate on Monday night. Furthermore, five out of seven would reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.


So! Which of these Republican options scares you the most? So far Mitt Romney’s Most Likely to Succeed because that’s exactly what we need, a Mormon in charge of the entire freaking country.  The Log Cabin Republicans report that 31% of gay people vote Republican — but that applies to all elections, not just the presidential race. It’s worth mentioning that the Republican affiliation with the Extreme Christian Right and its dependence on that voter base is a fairly recent phenomenon. In other words: it doesn’t have to be this way. Social conservativism is not an inexorable element of the Republican agenda. It’s just become that way.


Michele Bachmann

+ “The immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.”

+ Being gay is “not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan.”

+ “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. 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.”

+ Michele Bachmann hates gay people SO much that she’s no longer close with her lesbian stepsister.

+ Planned Parenthood is “the LensCrafters of abortion.”


Ron Paul:

+ Pro-life, says abortion is murder and life begins at inception
+ Against federal funding for organizations that “promote abortion”
+ Thinks the government should “stay out of the gay and lesbian agenda.”
+ Voted “yes” on banning gay adoptions. (Actually is against all adoptions.)
+ Marriages should be extracted from government involvement altogether.


Herman Cain:

+ Pro-life.
+ Describes Planned Parenthood as “planned genocide.”
+ “Fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and civil unions” but believes it should be left up to the states.


Newt Gingrich:

+ Pro-life
+ Would hold doctors rather than mothers accountable for abortions.
+ Opposes domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples
+ Opposes gays and lesbians adopting children
+ Wants a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.


Mitt Romney:

+ Supports abortion rights in the case of rape or incest
+ Believes the national standard for marriage should be between a man and a woman, but domestic partnerships should be recognized in a way that includes health benefits and rights of survivorship.
+ “Feels that same sex marriage would destroy not only the culture of America but also irreparably damage the education system and thereby children.”
+ Is against gays & lesbians serving openly in the military.


Rick Santorum:

+ “Santorum is possibly the most fervent top-tier anti-abortionist left in the presidential race.”
+ Opposes same-sex marriages because they “crave society’s acceptance of gay’s ‘bad behavior.'”
+ Opposes adoption by same-sex couples.

Tim Pawlenty:

+ Pro life, right to life should extend to the unborn.
+ Gay marriage should be banned with a constitutional amendment.

Basically, if a Republican wins in 2012, we’re completely and totally fucked. What about the prospective candidates not at Monday’s debate?

Tom Miller: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Vern Wuensche: Believes same-sex marriage should be banned and civil unions should not be allowed. Also against adoption by gay couples and in faovor of a Federal Marriage Ammendment.

Sarah Palin: Doesn’t support anything beyond “traditional marriage between a man and a woman” and, puzzlingly, says her “support for same-sex marriage continues only as long as it does not redefine the traditional definition of marriage.” Supports Family Research Council and other anti-gay interest groups.


Of course let’s not forget our gay boyfriend Fred Karger, my favorite Republican candidate of all Republican candidates who’ve ever run for president ever. Well, Abe Lincoln did some rad stuff I guess, but I want Fred Karger to be in charge of something.

Even though Fred Karger probs won’t be invited to any debates, he’s still doing what he can by filing a complaint against Mitt Romney for voter fraud.

I present your moment of Zen:


Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Riese is the 41-year-old Co-Founder of as well as an award-winning writer, video-maker, LGBTQ+ Marketing consultant and aspiring cyber-performance artist who grew up in Michigan, lost her mind in New York and now lives in Los Angeles. Her work has appeared in nine books, magazines including Marie Claire and Curve, and all over the web including Nylon, Queerty, Nerve, Bitch, Emily Books and Jezebel. She had a very popular personal blog once upon a time, and then she recapped The L Word, and then she had the idea to make this place, and now here we all are! In 2016, she was nominated for a GLAAD Award for Outstanding Digital Journalism. She's Jewish and has a cute dog named Carol. Follow her on twitter and instagram.

Riese has written 3182 articles for us.


  1. Republicans: We want smaller government! In fact, we want it so small, it can fit in your bedroom and/or uterus!

  2. Race? What?? ” Supports abortion rights in the case of race or incest”.
    Those people make Stephen Harper seem more bearable.
    They remind me of blond American lady who’s famous and crazy. Was it Ann Coulter? I don’t know, I’m too scared to search who she is.
    If anyone has a masterplan for Obama to get re-elected, like how Sideshow Bob won in the Simpsons, speak up. I looked up dual-citizenships briefly before. I don’t think it would work.

  3. So many feelings, this makes me completely crazed with anger and totally depressed at the same time.

    CNN had a quick interview with Santorum over the weekend(which caused me to scream at the tv for 5 mins.), where the reporter asked his stance on gay marriage. And Santorum kept saying he had “friends that he loved that were gay and he had people that worked for him that were gay. But he didn’t believe in gay marriage.”
    So, let me get this right, you love your gay “friends” but don’t support or believe in any of their rights as a human being? oh, ok yeah that makes sense

    • What I’d like to know is which of us are hanging out with homophobes for them to have all these gay friends? Quit it. You’re not going to change people like Santorum. They are lost causes.

  4. Oh shit. I have to admit I lol’d at the bathroom story… like, if that’s actually how it happened…

  5. I like how the Evangelical map has a very light blue color that isn’t even used anywhere on the entire map.

    Santorum and Bachmann are the scariest. Ron Paul would be scary if he had a snowball’s chance in hell.

      • Um, really? Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be willing to tolerate a homophobic and racist president if it meant the end of the wars and the repeal of the Patriot Act.

        Besides, unlike other GOP candidates he would not reinstate DADT and he is at least more consistent in his beliefs of government involvement in marriage. So I don’t even understand how your comment that he’s ‘as bad as any other Republican when it comes to gays’ has any sort of basis in reality.

        What makes Paul terrifying as a potential president are his economic policies, not his social ones.

        • I think it is just you. The rights of minorities and women (since Paul is also extremely anti-choice) are not less important than the rights violated by the Patriot Act. To see them that way is also a marker of at least some degree of privilege. (Besides, he’s more than just the typical Republican shade of racist – he has ties to white supremacists and overall, his policies, like those of his son Rand, are a throwback to the pre-civil rights movement era.)

          There are a fair number of Republicans who did not support the repeal of DADT but are not looking to overturn it, either. Even John McCain isn’t fighting it anymore. Anyway, the fact that he might be coming from a super-idealistic libertarianism standpoint rather than a homophobic standpoint in his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t make it okay. It’s going to affect us the same way. Policy is what matters, not the thought behind it, and in that sense Paul is not better than other people in his party. The fact that he wants everything at the state level means he wants to preserve the current status quo on gay rights – not fight for REAL rights.

          I agree with you that his economic policies are awful. However, so are his social policies, and I feel like those particularly need to be called out because they show that he is not truly a “libertarian” like he claims – the marker that often gets him excused by the left as the “not as bad” Republican. He isn’t. He’s just a different shade of scary.

          • First, you can’t deny the how much the Patriot Act violates all American’s rights, not just minorities. Secondly you ignore his position on the war.

            The main reason I can tolerate him a little more than other GOP is because of his stance on the wars. Say what you will about the extent of the suffering American GLBT must endure, it does not compare to the suffering endured by Middle Eastern people because of the wars. Trying to say our problems are anywhere close to theirs is insulting and blatantly wrong, which is why war is a bigger issue for me than gay marriage.

            The way I look at it is pretty much like this: time is on our side. We WILL have equality; it’s just a matter of time. Any setbacks from the likes of the GOP are temporary and will get fixed.

            However, in war people die. Women are raped, children become orphans. Time will never fix this. Therefore war must be stopped as soon as possible, and steps must be taken to ensure more don’t start. If I must vote for a homophobic president to accomplish this, I will without hesitation do so even if it threatens my rights.

            Just because I’m gay doesn’t mean I view gay issues as being more important than all others. There are greater problems in the world, and I’d rather focus on them first.

            Also, I never claimed that his reasoning for opposing gay marriage made the belief ok. It just shows a degree of consistency, something that almost every other GOP candidate lacks.

          • “Say what you will about the extent of the suffering American GLBT must endure, it does not compare to the suffering endured by Middle Eastern people because of the wars. Trying to say our problems are anywhere close to theirs is insulting and blatantly wrong, which is why war is a bigger issue for me than gay marriage.”

            Actually, there are still parts of the country – and definitely PARTS OF THE WORLD – where people are beaten up and killed, or denied jobs, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Autostraddle just had an article on a trans* person who was violently assaulted.

            Being gay yourself does not make an Oppression Olympics argument valid. There’s a reason that your entire argument here is covered TWICE by DFD:

            Also, I don’t believe I had to respond to every single little thing you raise. I also notice you didn’t respond to what I had to say about the extent of Paul’s racism, which you can read more about here (including in the various links it provides):

          • “Actually, there are still parts of the country – and definitely PARTS OF THE WORLD – where people are beaten up and killed, or denied jobs, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Autostraddle just had an article on a trans* person who was violently assaulted.”

            Thanks for saving me the trouble and providing the link yourself.


            No, gay rights are not my #1 concern; they’re not even #2.
            That’s as far as we’re going to go with this.

            I’m not going to deny that Paul is racist, but once again it’s like his homophobia, and whether or not you’re willing to tolerate his personal beliefs in exchange for his political policies. His racism and homophobia definitely make him a bad man; they don’t necessarily make him a bad politician or president, his economic policies are what make him a terrible choice.

  6. “But you know that somewhat confusing voting system where Presidents aren’t elected by popular vote but rather by the electoral college results? That’s what keeps us safe from Evangelical overthrow”

    this reminds me of that documentary jesus camp. it’s about how christianity likes to dabble in political issues (or vice versa)

    and consequently reminds me of the marjoe documentary. it’s about this guy (marjoe gortner) who used to be a traveling preacher at the age of 4 (1940’s). it’s full length and free on youtube if you would like to take a peak.

    p.s. why isn’t john huntsman on here. i don’t know where he stands on anything.

  7. I love how people always say homosexual AND lesbian, as if they were two totally separate things.

    Long story short though, these people freak me out.

  8. Great article; however, I want to point out that the effects of doing away with the electoral college would actually be the opposite of an Evangelical overthrow. The primary reason that the electoral college remains in place is precisely so that large states with huge population centers don’t swing elections–if all you needed was a majority of the popular vote, candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas. Heavily populated areas tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic; consequently, the destruction of the electoral college would probably ensure Democratic control of the federal government.

    • the electoral college works kind of like the house of reps, in that bigger states get more vote in the electoral college. so the argument that the electoral college is meant to balance out the population size power of states is incorrect.

      • You’d be right, except for the fact that you need a certain number (270) of electoral votes to get elected. This ensures that candidates can’t just campaign in the states with the most votes; even if one candidate somehow managed to win California (55), Texas (38), and New York (29), they still wouldn’t even come close to winning the electoral vote. The smaller states are therefore guaranteed to receive a candidate’s attention.

        • aren’t the number of electoral college votes given to a state determined by the population size?

          • Yes, they are, you are totally right about that. My point, though, is that simply having differing numbers of votes wouldn’t ensure a balance in the system. Say, for example, that a candidate just needed a plurality of electoral votes, not a set number. That would mean that if you worked really hard, you could win the election with just five or six states. That’s more or less how it would be if we only had a popular vote, too.

            Instead, a candidate has to get 270 electoral votes. This balances the effect of larger populations, because even if you were to get all the big states, you still wouldn’t have enough votes to win the election. Small states have to be vied for, too, especially in close elections.

          • I thought they introduced the electoral college because our Founding Fathers didn’t actually trust the American people and wanted their to be another check/balance? The electoral college doesn’t actually have to vote with how their state population voted, but they always do. The electoral points are balanced by population, but as we saw with Bush/Gore, someone can win less than 50% of the vote and win more electoral votes to become president. I’ve never tried to figure out what the overall percentages are in any other election, though that would be pretty interesting. Hmm… I should. The electoral college system is a huge driving factor in presidential politics. Swing states wouldn’t exist and presidential candidates would have to visit every state, but probably only large cities. God, after the years that has been poured into mastering the current map (the book The Audacity To Win gives some good insight into how Obama’s team mastered the map), imagine what an exciting shitshow it would be to have a straight popular vote. No one would know what they were doing and surprised would abound!

          • The electoral college doesn’t actually have to vote with how their state population voted, but they always do.

            ^ This is correct.

        • i guess i mean this:
          if the electoral college gives, for example, california 55 out of 538 votes, and that proportion of power means that the candidate must also campaign in smaller states, doesn’t that mean that california still holds that same proportion of power when it comes to popular vote?

          • Oh ok, I understand. Basically the issue is that with the electoral college, the state has to go one way or the other. By this, I mean that no matter how close the vote was in the state–it could have been 50.5/49.5 in favor of the GOP–all of the states votes with go to the GOP (with the exception of Nebraska, but let’s not get into that).

            Relying on the popular vote would change all of that. If there were only a popular vote, candidates would flock to the big states to try to get as many of those people as possible; California, in particular, would become far more of a battleground state because Republican candidates would start to really need it. With the electoral college, CA is a done deal for Dems; without it, the GOP would get in there like it was their first girlfriend. If they could split the state, that would be an enormous boon. Same for NY, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

            Does this make sense?

          • Basically, big states like California would have much more power in a popular vote system because it would be possible to split the state. Split states are not possible in an electoral system.

          • OHHHH i get it! okay.

            but how does that mean that destruction of the electoral college would probably ensure democratic control of the federal government?

            … i think i have to go back to high school. i feel so stupid.

          • Thank you, Megan, for explaining something that none of my social studies teachers from grades 7-12 could. I learned something today!

          • If they did a straight popular votes, I don’t think STATES would matter at all. It would be all about cities. It just so happens California has many large cities, but New York doesn’t really. People might actually campaign in New York City, something that doesn’t happen right now because they are in podunk towns in Ohio and Iowa, but they might bypass the rest of the state completely. The second largest city in New York outside the NYC boroughs is Buffalo, but (and I looked this up) there are 69 cities in this country larger than Buffalo. Then again, there are about 300 million people in the U.S. — NYC has 8 million, L.A. has 4 million and it drops down from there. That would be fun to thing about — what becomes the strategy?

          • this is a really interesting idea you’ve put out. what *would* be the strategy? would it all be media focused instead of “i’m going to taylor my ideals based on region” or like…. something else…

  9. i’m a liberal. i’m a democrat. i plan on voting for obama in the upcoming election.

    but i’d like to point out that you’re misrepresenting ron paul.

    “Voted “yes” on banning gay adoptions.”
    he also voted yes on banning straight adoptions. he actually voted “yes” on banning all federally funded adoptions. because he’s a libertarian and doesn’t think the government should be in anyone’s life at all.

      • Can you please add something about Ron Paul’s racism as well?

        From the Houston Chronicle article:
        “Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

        ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,’ Paul wrote.

        Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

        ‘Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,’ Paul said.

        Paul also wrote that although ‘we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.'”

    • For some reason I don’t have a reply button on your last post, so I’m jacking this one.

      So we’ll stick with CA. In a solely popular vote system, the GOP is going to try a lot harder to win it, that’s true. BUT, the Dems are also going to try a lot harder (especially since now, they really don’t have to try at all), and they naturally have an advantage in the state because of the large urban areas. What might be a 55/45 Dem/GOP split normally could easily turn into a 60/40 or higher with the added attention from the Democrats (engaging Hispanics, young voters, non voters, etc).

      Essentially, a popular vote system would aggravate the advantage the Dems already have in highly populated areas.

    • “because he’s a libertarian and doesn’t think the FEDERAL government should be in anyone’s life at all.”

      There, corrected it for you. He’s actually quite fine with government interfering with people’s lives as long as they are state or local governments. Especially if you’re a gay person or a woman who is pregnant.

  10. Aren’t libertarians supposed to support gay rights? What’s Ron Paul doing saying that stuff?

    • Libertarians fall into two basic camps; those who are libertarian all the way around, and those who are pretty much only libertarian when it comes to fiscal issues. I really don’t know enough about Ron Paul to comment on how he straddles that divide, but for many nationally-known “libertarians,” their libertarian-ness is simply an extension of intensely conservative fiscal views. Libertarian sounds better, and you get to wax poetic about the power of the free market.

    • Ron and Rand Paul are their own special types of libertarian that still fall into the Tea Party Loon camp. If they were real libertarians, that’d be great. Unfortunately, they hate gay people just as much as normal Republicans.

      • It’s not unique to them. The “tyranny is okay as long as it’s at the state level” brand of “libertarianism” has been around since at least a few decades before the Civil War, when it was the argument as to why slavery could remain legal.

    • It’s because he thinks everything should be decided at the state level – so instead of all gays getting rights at the federal level right now, that gays in states like Mississippi or South Dakota should have to wait a decade or two for their state to catch up with the rest of the country. He apparently thinks “states’ rights” is more important than “people’s rights.” This is also why he is against Roe v. Wade. He wants to do the same for pregnant women.

      But to answer the general question: Libertarianism in general is a very privilege-denying ideology, so that is why its adherents also tend to be quite privilege-denying.

  11. Michele Bachmann was only so eager to flee the bathroom because she was terrified that if she spent another minute with these women alone in a restroom she’d let her repressed lesbian urges take over and she’d try to make out with one of them.
    She was really only doing a service to the two women, God knows I wouldn’t want Bachmann trying to kiss me. And as we’ve learned from many closeted Republican men, keeping it hidden inside leads to creepy bathroom incidents.

    • This: “And as we’ve learned from many closeted Republican men, keeping it hidden inside leads to creepy bathroom incidents.” just makes me want to google santorum again.

      Creepy, but between doing that just to make sure Dan Savage’s masterpiece is still the first hit and rewatching Neil Patrick Harris’ performance at the Tony’s is all that has kept me from throwing my computer at a wall.

      OH AND PS the NYS assembly (not the whole thing) just passed the marriage equality bill so…. now on to those pesky senators. Anxiety. I really want to continue loving my state for a little while.

  12. The thought of one of these people winning gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.

  13. I would just like to point out the irony that while this was the most recent article posted, there was a Bachmann ad on the front page when I viewed the page. So she fears a lesbian attack, but not bad enough to not have her advertise run on our pages.

  14. I plan on buying a rainbow covered notebook, and labeling it “The Gay Agenda”. In it, I will write down gay things I am planning to do:

    * Put my plaid shirts in the laundry, they are almost a separate load in of themselves

    * Get an alternative lifestyle haircut

    * Read Plath and Woolf

    * Play (Wii) golf

    * Buy boyshorts

    * Have my rights denied to me

  15. I’m not sure I’ve ever felt more nervous/scared about an election.

    Maybe it’s just because I’m tuned in to queer rights issues, but hearing all these candidates state their opposition to same-sex marriage and DADT repeal is jarring, given what I (and recent polls) see as a substantial shift as a nation toward supporting those issues. Like, how could every republican candidate be against gay marriage, when for the first time, the majority of people support it? And when we are finally seeing some other republican lawmakers standing up for DADT repeal and marriage equality? I just have a feeling that if any of these people are elected, it would be a huge momentum killer.

    • “Like, how could every republican candidate be against gay marriage, when for the first time, the majority of people support it? ”

      I honestly think that while some really are filled with homophobic conviction, for some they’re really making themselves look good for the religious Right. The religious right has a lot of pull within the party, and institutions like Focus on the Family and the like STILL have a HUGE audience (I know my mom listens to FotF, and it makes me die a little in inside to have to listen) and whether or not these places consider themselves political or not they will tell their listeners what they think about such issues.

      Abortion and Gay Marriage to the religious right (and the even more radical Tea Party) are their crusades. Some of these candidates may not have strong feelings about these issues, however if they want to align themselves with the party they may feel they need to tow these lines to secure their nomination as these are fights that have left the party up in arms.

      Personally I think it’s short sighted. Like you said studies are showing more people are for gay marriage (or at least support some form of union and spousal rights) INCLUDING CHRISTIANS. Particularly this younger generation who’s getting ready to vote for the first time. If someone was smart (imo) they’d do a 180 on the issue of marriage and keep abortion a vague stance. While some might consider it suicide against the religious right, they might surprise everyone with securing a youth demographic. I know because of the economy I have friends who are leaning towards fiscally conservative policies. However the stance the Republican party has on abortion and gay marriage turns them away entirely.

      *not an expert, just raised in an uber-christian conservative household

    • You know who it is that’s supporting gay rights? The young. The republican party representatives? Not young.

      There will almost always be a disparity between a majority opinion and political ideology because the people running the government are so much older than the majority who lives in it.

    • We have a saying in French : “fighting with the energy of despair”, you know like how animals are the fierciest when they know they’re probs gonna die.
      I think that’s what happening here, Republicans know they’re gonna lose this war so they reacted like threatened animals, they threw logic out by the window and went full-force into survival-mode. Right now it’s scary and infuriating, but let’s not forget that in the long run we already won. We know it, they know it, it’s just a matter of time.

      • @GV – I like that saying. And it is somewhat comforting to know that it’s only a matter of time, I just wish they weren’t fighting so freaking hard against it right now.

        @Ash – I agree that it would be interesting to see what would happen to a republican candidate that came out in support of gay marriage. I think they’d lose a lot of votes, but they could potentially gain a whole lot, too.

    • “Like, how could every republican candidate be against gay marriage, when for the first time, the majority of people support it? ”

      Doesn’t matter if a majority of people support something if individuals don’t bother to vote their beliefs. Candidates court the highest percentage of likely voters. Apparently these candidates think older / more socially conservative people are more likely to vote than younger / more liberal people.

      • Yeah, I completely understand the reasoning. I didn’t mean to sound so naive – this was just my gut reaction/frustration at how out-of-touch so many politicians are with their constituents.

  16. honestly ron paul is the least scary (differently scary?) choice, because he has a brain and exercises logic to arrive at logical ends. sometimes those ends aren’t optimal, but fuck, at least it’s a somewhat semi consistent libertarian ideology and not the ceaseless drone of religious rhetoric being employed in increasingly inconsistent/nonsensical ways. but of course ron paul will never get the nomination, because logic…who needs that?!

    • First of all, he’s not consistent. He is perfectly fine with STATE governments taking away people’s rights. If he were truly libertarian, he’d be angry if people’s rights were being taken away at any level.

      Also, last time I checked, virulent racism is not something that comes from someone who “has a brain and exercises logic to arrive at logical ends”:

      • well, this this is a ‘lesser of the all really evil evils’ situation, i don’t presume to think he’s consistent across the board. just that his ideology is more often grounded in logical (but not un-disturbing) premises. and i agree all the candidates are bigoted and we’re all 100% screwed if any of them could claw their way to the presidency.

        • Except he’s not really the “lesser of all really evil evils.” His economic policies are way more extreme; where most Republicans just want to cut back, he wants to completely defund.

          And his ideas are not based on logic. The idea that everything should be privatized, because any sort of government help is EW COMMUNISM and ANTI-FREEDOM, is not something that comes out of “logic.” We’ve had publicly funded education, and government regulations on business, for over a century and it has not led to a Stalinist dictatorship. To assume that is actually to buy into a logical FALLACY:

          His assumption that his economic policies are good for everyone, and that those who are poor are not just not trying hard enough, are also beliefs that are totally divorced from both logic and empirical evidence. Where they come from is Paul’s economic privilege.

          I mean, he doesn’t even understand why most Black people support affirmative action – that requires a pretty exceptional level of privilege-denial.

    • “the ceaseless drone of religious rhetoric being employed in increasingly inconsistent/nonsensical ways”

      Uh. Did you watch the GOP debate the other night when he said the 1st Amendment only applies to Christians? ‘Cause he said that.

      I really wish people would stanning for this hateful old geezer and actually listen to what he says beyond “i’m against war and pot should be legal”. There’s no more logic to his positions as there is to Bachmann’s, he’s just *slightly* more consistent than the rest of the tea baggers that jumped on his bandwagon. He’s just as crazy and bigoted as the rest of them, if not more so.

      • Also Ron Paul is a creationist. He’s as much of a religious whackjob as the rest. The only difference is that it’s not the ONLY thing that’s making him crazy, it’s also his ultra-extreme, quite idealistic brand of libertarianism.

      • i agree he’s crazy and bigoted, hence why the possibility of any of these people getting elected means i am living on a boat somewhere in international waters, preferably a pirate ship with some big fucking cannons.

        i think the sad fact of it is that his brand of (also religiously infused, not terribly consistent) rhetoric has a certain kind of trickle-down logic to it that *should* appeal to conservatives who have a few brain cells to rub together (i suppose they exist? perhaps they’re like unicorns?)

    • Ron Paul would strip any and all group rights. So you know that right to vote that you enjoy? Gone because it’s specific to women. You know the Civil Rights act? Gone because it’s specific to race. Ron Paul wants to move the United States back to the gold standard. You know who has gold? No one. You know who would be able to buy up all of the gold? Not you. Unions? Gone. Federal Minimum Wage? Gone. Social Security? Gone.

      Ron Paul is soooo much more dangerous than anyone really gives him credit for.

      • i certainly think he’s extraordinarily dangerous too, in a completely different (though adjacent) way. i’m rather partial to government programs, infrastructure, and federal funding for the arts and sciences…and all those other federal goodies that the crazies would tear into shreds if only we’d let them.

  17. I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter who gets elected in the next election. Just the fact that these people are what 1/2 of our political parties (and all their millions and millions of supporters) think are the best people to run our country is proof enough that we’re completely fucked.

    So I’m off to Germany! Who’s with me? We can start our own Autostraddler expat commune, or something. It’ll be fun! And we’ll all have healthcare and 35 days of paid vacation a year!

  18. Also, as pointed out in the Log Cabin Republicans article, there are a lot of issues with that 31% statistic – it comes from the 2010 election, and is skewed by the fact that a) not very many gay people voted that year and b) voters in general in that election were significantly more likely to vote Republican than voters in previous elections.

  19. Kidnapped by lesbians and an ex-nun in a bathroom? Why doesn’t cool shit like that happen to me?

  20. The Republican Party: Home to more repressed gay men than an Exodus International convention…

  21. Sooo any Canadians reading this page? If a Republican gets elected in 2012, I will most likely be moving up there legally or otherwise and will probably need some help.
    [I can cook AND build/fix things!]

    I have a feeling that no matter what happens, at some point in my life, I will be an Auto-expat. And would be very down with an Auto-based commune.

    • unless ralph nader decides to throw his hat into the race. It’s times like these when I wish he would

        • Yeah, plus Nader has some privilege-denying issues, he said some racist stuff about Obama being an “Uncle Tom” after he won last time.

          • i think he said that because obama keeps his politics very central and was pretty much questioning wether obama would pander to the corporations/wall street or keep promises to the voters. that analogy was too much though.

            the only reason I said the whole ralph nader thing is because I don’t want a repeat of the constant bargaining (giving away freebees) with republicans. They have gotten away with a lot by just asking for it. anyway, Im just looking for a candidate that leans to the left enough that he walks sideways

  22. If a republican wins I’m moving to Oz where is everything is awesome and rainbow colored.

  23. I guess I should start figuring out what country I want to flee to if one of these people win.

  24. Newt Gingrich:

    +also opposed to gay wizards, muggle/non-muggle marriage and the house elf civil rights movement.

  25. All of these people are scary to even imagine as president. After saying that I think it is important to understand that the only viable candidate as far as both broad spectrum republican support and enough money to actually do something other than make noise is Romney. The republicans are really fractured right now. The tea party is forcing them to the party to the right which is leaving openings for moderates to jump ship/not give a damn. I’d rather see a third party from the republicans than the democrats to force the issue and cause whichever republican becomes the front runner to spend more money in the primaries.

  26. So the 1st video of the debate put me in a bad mood.

    Then Karger’s video made it all better. I wish he had a better chance at being nominated. I’ll try to play my part.

  27. This isn’t really related to the post, but I just noticed that Google Ads seems to be seriously misreading this page. It asked me if I was “Christian and single” (I am neither) and then it told me to go to to “Find God’s Match” for me.. I clicked on it just to see if it was a joke. It wasn’t.

  28. I literally cannot seriously consider a world in which any of these wackjobs is president, it’s too scary. Like. None of them are even mildly not terrifying! There is no lesser evil!

    I’m not as hardcore Obama can do no wrong as I was last time around, but at least I fundamentally agree with him and he’s NOT FUCKING CRAZY.

    Also, kidnapped by a lesbian and an ex-nun in a bathroom sounds like a good time/excellent party story.

  29. Here’s some sunlight for everyone here:

    Romney polls the best against President Obama, that’s for sure. And, seeing the Mormon Church’s involvement in the whole Prop 8 battle, it’s easy to see why this is terrifying. HOWEVER, in defeating Romney, we have help…

    Not one, not two, but THREE teahadist groups have now formed (or, if they were already here, pledged to work) to defeat Mitt Romney. They want someone like Michelle Bachman (who is such a disaster that, if she were nominated, she would lose her HOME STATE to President Obama. Really. Even when he got spanked in 1984 against Ronald Reagan, even Walter Mondale won his home state, for F#@k‘s sake!). These Republican extremist groups are going to torpedo their party’s best chance just because he’s not batshit crazy enough. Seriously.

    Also, the public’s not buying what these Republican candidates are selling:

    Here’s a little history from this hard-core political wonk:

    In 1972, the Democratic party was all but captured, at a national level, by those to the far left of the political spectrum. This happened because George McGovern, who’s candidacy was fueled by anti-Vietnam sentiments, put all of his own people into the party’s leadership positions once he secured the nomination. As wonderful as a McGovern presidency would have been, he got spanked by Nixon.

    However, his people stayed in the party, and pushed it to the left…. severely. They did it to the point that, for a long time, anyone running for the Democratic nomination had to run HARD to the left to get it. The country, however, was still a mushy-middle place, and punished the Democratic party for going too far out of the mainstream in Presidential elections. Really, if it hadn’t been for the scandal of Watergate (which swept Jimmy Carter into office), Democrats would have been locked out of the White House for 20 years (until Bill Clinton remade the party in his own squishy image).

    We are now seeing the Republicans repeating the errors of Democrats past, only in living colour! The nominating base of the Republican Party is now jarringly teahadist. People who used to have moderate positions (Romney used to be governor of Massachusettes, and used to be pro-choice, pro-health care reform, and FAR more tolerant on gay rights) have to sitch them to please their teahadist masters, or they won’t get the nomination. Look at Newt Gingrich… his days of being a serious candidate ended when he called the GOP plan to destroy Medicare what it was… extremist, right-wing social engineering. If you believe in global warming, evolution, or any consitiutional ammendment other than the second one, you’re toast.

    Even with the economy in the dumps, even with frustration coming at President Obama from both the right AND the left, he’s comfortably beating every contender. The 2010 elections were a blessing for him, because people have now seen what modern Republicans do when they re-take power… attack women, attack children, attack the elderly. They may not be all hugs and puppies over the president, but the more they see of the Republican candidates, the more they’re scared shitless by them.

    My prediction? Romney get the nod, but is cut and bleeding by attacks from within his own party to the point that the Democrats can re-allocate funds from the presidential race towards re-taking the house. Or, Bachman steals the nomination somehow, and Democrats get to spend even less to defeat her. It will be 1984 all over again, only this time, a Democrat will be on the right end of the landslide. And the Republicans will say that they lost because they “weren’t conservative enough”, and the only real contest in 2016 will be who gets the nomination for the Democrats.

    • I don’t know if I’m so confident that Romney will get the party’s anti-Mormon evangelical Christian base.

      But anyway, I think you are correct about Republicans being too far to the right of the country. Especially on gay rights – given the fact that a majority of the public now supports gay marriage, it’s strange that it’s still such a given in the GOP that a good Repub is anti-gay – but not just on that. They also are far to the right of the public on sexual health issues, like sex ed. The vast majority of the public has always supported comprehensive sex ed, but the Republicans still staunchly support abstinence-only – despite the fact that it’s been proven repeatedly not to work. The Democrats really should seize on that issue in particular; it would be a great way to knock the Republicans’ claims of “fiscal responsibility” to point out that they’re all for increasing spending on a program that is both unpopular and ineffective. Talk about “wasteful spending”!

    • I also think the moving-goalposts game the birthers have been playing with Obama really hurts the credibility of the Tea Party movement. They could be “just asking questions” as long as Obama wasn’t releasing his long-form birth certificate – and then once he did, and they suddenly backtracked and re-defined terms, it showed people that no, nothing he do is ever going to be acceptable.

      And now we have the deathers, too. They’re just running themselves into the ground.

  30. Ron Paul wouldn’t be that bad. He would be fair. It’s sad that I’d say after Ron Paul the next best thing would be Sarah Palin for the GOP. Hopefully the economy improves in the next year, would give Obama a strong case.

    Better hope it’s Obama vs. Ron Paul though. After that Palin and Romney are the only ones who aren’t too scary. After all, same-sex marriage became legal in Mass when Romney was in office. So at least he isn’t evil like Bachmann.

  31. American politics is so much more fascinating than British politics, still trying to get my head around it…

    In the UK, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a major politician even mention the word ‘gay’, on the understanding that its now politically a non-issue since the Civil Unions Act in 2004. Not quite marriage but pretty close.

    I find it insane how important religion is to Republican candidates, God seems to get a mention every other minute! Britain’s too multicultural now anyway for it to be worth politicians making a point of their faith, especially since there’s nothing like the sort of vocal, hardlined evangelical base you guys are suffering with.

    Religion has no place in politics, ‘specially if it gets in the way of the gay. :D

  32. Totally doing gay adoption as my controversial research paper in English (would’ve done gay marriage but my professor said it was too much to cover, although gay adoption is quite complex itself..). I think it is crazy all these candidates act like if a gay person is next to them they’ll catch it. It sucks I can’t vote this election since my birthday is not in time, but I’m glad my parents listen to what these people say about homosexuality and already said the Republicans really are nut cases.

Comments are closed.