US Republican goes against the grain

In the US at the moment the competition for the Republican candidates is getting more competitive. Some candidates have already fallen by the wayside whilst others have steamed ahead.
  From almost the very beginning there have been two candidates who I have adamantly dismissed and hoped to fail. Those two were Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Why? Because of their almost militant stance against gay marriage.
  Opposing it personally is one thing, but when you are in a position of power and influence you really have to ask, just how much should you impose your own views on the general public through influence and legislation? Especially when such views involve discrimination and frankly a rather backward view.
  Rick Santorum is against gay marriage because he believes marriage is for a man and a woman. His views on gay marriage may or may not be founded on Christian beliefs, I'm unsure.
  Michele Bachmann's beliefs definitely are founded on Christian beliefs. Not only does she oppose it but both she and her husband see it almost as some sort of illness that can be cured, which is why Mr Bachman has held "Straight camps."
     Call me narrow minded if you like (although that would be ironic) but if I oppose those two people simply because of their opposition to gay marriage and their opinions on homosexuality, then I think that would be justified.
  Opinions like that are backward and dangerous, not to mention counter-productive so it was refreshing to see a republican speaking out in favour of gay marriage.
   Watch this:

Her name is Maureen Walsh and she is a Republican State Representative in the Washington House of Representatives. She represents the 16th District of Walla Walla, Washington. As of 2012, she is serving her third term.
  Needless to say, she is completely in the right. Frankly there is little logical reason to oppose gay marriage at this point. There is little to no evidence that it would effect society negatively or effect the institution of marriage as we know it.
  It won't wreck marriage, that is nonsense. Do you know what is wrecking straight marriage? Straight people. Because of infidelity, drugs, alcohol, you name it, it's happened.
  The only thing that will happen if gay marriage is legalised is that two people who happen to be of the same sex and who love each other very much will be able to marry. And all the arguments against it frankly are nonsense because I haven't heard one argument that legitimately states one downside that would be exclusive to a gay married couple and that would never happen in a straight marriage. If you can think of one, please do say.
  Oh and if you oppose gay marriage or homosexuality for religious reasons, then maybe you need to pull your head out of your own arse and try joining the 21st Century, and certainly don't try and impose your backwards views on other people.

 I'm 100% for the legalisation of gay marriage and if you're not then you'd better have a good reason otherwise just it happen.


 Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338&feature=player_embedded 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Walsh

Exit right Michele Bachman?

It is getting pretty close to crunch time for those who are running to be nominated Republican candidate for the US Presidential election. The two who came out top were Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the former winning by the narrowest of margins.
   At the bottom however things were very different. Michele Bachmann only gained 6,073 votes, which was only about 5%.
  From the Financial times:

"Ms Bachmann did not signal any intention to bow out of the race following her poor performance."

The overall table of results looks like this:

Iowa caucus result

Candidate	Number of votes
Mitt Romney	30,015 (25%)
Rick Santorum	30,007 (25%)
Ron Paul	26,219 (21%)
Newt Gingrich	16,251 (13%)
Rick Perry	12,604 (10%)
Michele Bachmann	6,073 (5%)

So as you can see, Romney only beat Rick Santorum by eight votes. A photo finish, but very important nevertheless.
  But it's not really a great result for Michele Bachman. In fact it's so bad even Sarah Palin thinks she should "call it quits." When the air headed "hockey mom" Sarah Palin thinks you should call it quits you know it's an uphill struggle.
  Frankly I have little sympathy. Michelle Bachman is a conservative buffoon, and most importantly she is a homophobic and so is her husband. The pair shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House purely for that very reason.
  Needless to say, I am very glad to see that she is doing poorly. I look forward to hearing she has dropped out of the race.

An interesting article in "The Washington Post" is titled "Where did Michele Bachman's Mama Grizzlies go?" In it, it describes the highs and lows of her campaign thus far to be elected Republican nominee.

"There’s no question why a liberal woman would not care for Bachmann, or at least her policies. She is aggressively pro-life, promises to abolish “Obamacare,” and has called for the military to draw up war plans to bomb Iran. But why aren’t conservative women supporting one of their own?
Iowa voters-- both men and women-- told the Des Moines Register that they just don’t see Bachmann as up to the job, no matter her gender. Bachmann was considered the least knowledgeable on the issues of any candidate running for president tied with Gingrich in the Register’s latest poll on the question of who would be least likely to bring real change."

And another quote:

"But more detrimental to Bachmann than the prominent GOP women who are not endorsing are the everyday Republican women who say they’re not voting for her. In Iowa State University’s latest poll of likely caucus-goers, Bachmann was again polling in the single digits, with slightly fewer women (7.2%) supporting her than men (7.3%). Ron Paul, on the other hand, had a huge gender gap, with far more women (31%) supporting his candidacy than men (22%.)"

It's an interesting article and worth reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/where-did-michele-bachmanns-mama-grizzlies-go/2012/01/03/gIQA7Ot4YP_blog.html

Interestingly though some still believe she wouldn't be suited to the role as President because the country is not yet ready for a female president. An interesting sentiment, I wonder what the national attitude would be to such a thing. I personally do not see why in this age such a thing would be counter productive.

All this is food for thought, however one thing I am sure of is that Michelle Bachman is definitely not the sort of person who should be President of the United States. So I hope to see her dropping out of the race very soon.

Sources:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70821a32-362a-11e1-a3fa-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1iUtnftRB