Thursday, July 14, 2011

Jon Stewart Questions Marcus Bachmann’s Sexuality

Gawker writes:
 After tonight's Daily Show, we can add Jon Stewart to the ever-growing list of people who can't help but wonder if Marcus Bachmann, husband to Republican presidential candidate Michele and runner of a pray-the-gay-away facility, may be a little light in the loafers.
The Jon Stewart video is here.


  1. You forgot to mention that Stewart brought out none other than Jerry Seinfeld to help with the bit. Needless to say, it was hilarious.

  2. Dan Savage at The Stranger wondered that too.


  4. Again with the leftist commentary. And precisely who gives a flying F what John Stewart thinks about anything other than you apparently? This blog is becoming a proxy for the bastard child of the Huffington Post and Entertainment Tonight.

  5. Oh, fuck off anon@840am. I'm a gay guy, with good gaydar, and the first time I saw Marcus B walk, let alone speak, I knew he was queerer than a 3 dollar bill. The fact that he runs a "clinic" that de-gays people is just icing on the cake.

    Faggots like him need to be outed and ostracized- like Larry Craig, Lindsay Graham and their ilk, they are toxic to society...far more so than normal, well-adjusted gay men or women.

  6. To Dale:

    And you guys are supposed to be the sensitive ones? Keep breaking down those stereotypes.

    You are making my point for me. This is a blog about economics- NOT a gossip column. If you seek to satisfy your prurient nature there are plenty of dark corners of the web for you to do so, just not here.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. I agree with anon. There is a lot of fluffy BS that belongs on FARK or HuffPo. Two posts below this is a story about a guy with a pasta strainer on his head. Maybe change the name of the blog??

  9. @ Anonymous (8:40am),

    Apparently you mistook a libertarian blog for a conservative/right-wing one. Rightist need to understand quickly that true libertarians aren't playing the left/right false dichotomy game.

    There is no more reason for libertarians to take Michelle Bachmann seriously, much less defend her, than to do the same to a Howard Dean or Barack Obama. The more she opens her mouth, the more she exposes herself as a theocon, an authoritarian who would love nothing more than to legislate morality all the way to your bedroom. And that's not even mentioning her support to the Patriot Act and the military industrial complex.

    So fuck her. She deserves all the ridicule she gets, even when it comes from obvious hypocrites like Jon Stewart.

  10. +1 with Dale. Away with you and your tables and charts. Its all Human Action really.

  11. RW must have had a few toddies before this post. Some tolerance is in order. This site is a good info source.

    Here from LRC, Misus, & ZH.

  12. I don't come to EPJ for political gossip, either. However, I recognize that Bob is "Doing God's Work" for Ron Paul. Bachmann has some substantial momentum and needs to be taken down a peg. I don't approve of the methods; voting decisions should be made on the relevant issues. But who am I to tell others what is relevant? Based on past electoral results, My opinion is clearly in the minority regarding what is important in a presidential candidate.

  13. Those dissatisfied should absolutely demand their money back!

  14. Sorry, dub, Bachmann needs to be exposed as the See You Next Tuesday that she is. Her, and her gay husband, want to deny me and my "tribe" civil rights (not special or preferential treatment, merely the same rights enjoyed by others) and their methods are dangerous, destructive and often deadly. Do you have any idea how many gay teens kill themselves each year because of shit her and her faggot husband promote?

    God didn't make me this way so that I could stand around and watch ignorant tools like them get away with what amounts to mass murder.

  15. @Danger Pioneer: That's such a weak cliche. Getting something without cost doesn't mean you must or should withhold your opinions about it. In fact, such opinions can be valuable.

    Although personally I don't really care if gossip stuff is posted here. I subscribe via RSS and just don't click on stories that don't look interesting to me.

  16. I agree, Dale. Perhaps I need to provide a little clarity to my previous point. Bachmann's husband being gay is not a relevant issue to me. I do think Bachmann's position on the gay issue is a relevant issue inasmuch as she is in a position to affect private citizens' lives. From what I've seen, she wants to deny civil rights to a certain segment of the population and that is not OK with me--even though I may not be part of that segment.
    It is evident by the way most people vote (and tune in to mindless cable "news" programs), that they don't see it the same way. It seems for most people that titillating personal details about a politician's private life are more relevant than that politician's philosophy or values. That doesn't mean the masses are right (see Wenzel's post: "Tomasky: Kill the Jews!").
    It simply re-illustrates that democracy is a failure.

    Think about it this way: If Bachmann (or anyone) could not be placed in a position of coercive power over anyone else, or pass laws that infringe on others' lives, It shouldn't matter to you if her husband was a closet queer or what her position was on the issue, OR weather the rest of the population DID think that it was a big deal because it wouldn't have to affect your life.

  17. Just a thought.

    Many heteros counsel other heteros to suppress their lifestyle and change to another (celibacy). Millions do (Catholic church).

    No one attacks the celibates and their counselors as "closet heteros" or claim they "hate heteros"?

    Why can't a gay guy choose whether he wants to be gay, closeted, change his orientation or anything else, so long as he isn't forced to choose one way or other?

    Did I misunderstand and is anyone forcing gays at gun point to go to Bachmann's clinic?

    Aren't these people who voluntarily go there?

  18. dub, thanks for the clarification. I agree 1,000%. If someone doesn't want to hire me, or fires me, because they don't like gay people (or blacks or Jews or women, etc.) it's their loss- they pay the price in the market.

    Anon- you cannot change your orientation. Period. A gay man can (and many are) be married- faithfully, in rare instances- to a woman, but that doesn't change their inherent attraction to the same sex. The preponderance of the evidence, from hundreds of studies, shows that sexual, erotic orientation is fixed at a young age. Denying it is often accompanied by serious emotional issues. Most of the men I've discussed this with (just to add a bit of personal experience) knew they were "different" before they knew what sex was. Very few people that I meet realize that I'm gay until I tell them, but I knew it by the time I was 6 years old and told my parents that I liked boys (which still didn't prepare them for my eventual coming out at 19) because I never fit the stereotypes. However, stereotypes are valid for good reason- if it walks and quacks like a duck...

    Asexuality is a whole 'nother can o worms, as is bisexual behavior.

    Catholic celibacy? Really? Choosing to devote your life to God and an ascetic and celibate life in service to Him is far different.

  19. I'm no fan of Bachmann, but "Her, and her gay husband, want to deny me and my "tribe" civil rights (not special or preferential treatment, merely the same rights enjoyed by others)"

    Such as?
    Don't tell me, marital rights for sodomites and lesbians.
    Do tell.

    But I forgot. Everybody is a victim these days and none more so than the "gay" crowd.

    Yes, you want something, but it isn't a "civil" right.
    You want the state to discriminate in your favor and deny those who disagree to likewise discriminate against "gay" marriage.

    Cry me a river. It used to be queers were genuinely queer/transgressive. Now they want to be just like heterosexuals.
    Go figure.

    No, wait. Don't bother.
    The combox ain't big enough to list all the offense perpetrated against homosexuals by the system/straights/breeders.

    Like I said, I'm no fan of Bachmann, but paranoia is what it is, in or out of the closet.

  20. So we have a commenter here who is a self-described anarchist masquerading as a libertarian (not an uncommon occurrence in my estimation, but that's a separate topic) who advocates defaulting on a legally binding contract e.g. a mortgage in order to escape their responsibilities.

    It's important that the vitriol spewed by some folks here be met with deliberate and resolute defiance because not everyone who lives in America wants her to flourish.