Some people didn't like it when he asked Michele Bachmann if she'd be "submissive" to her husband as president. He responds to them:
One striking feature of the criticism is that it did not examine, and in some cases didn't even mention, the premise of the question. One can read [Focus on the Family's Glenn] Stanton's critique all the way through and never have any idea of what Bachmann actually said back in 2006 said that formed the basis of the question. [Alexandra] Petri ignored it as well, beyond saying that Bachmann had "once alluded to submissiveness in a speech." To his credit, [Roland] Martin included the entire debate question, but does not appear to have looked any farther into the matter. The critics suggested the question was without basis by simply ignoring its basis.
It was a perfectly legitimate question. The advice given to Christians in Peter's letter to the Colossions is not at all controversial; you hear it at plenty of weddings. But you don't hear it in the political context. Bachmann brought it up when running for office. It's totally legitimate.
TODAY IN SLATE
I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.
Chief Justice John Roberts Says $1,000 Can’t Buy Influence in Congress. Looks Like He’s Wrong.
After This Merger, One Company Could Control One-Third of the Planet's Beer Sales
Hidden Messages in Corporate Logos
If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter
Giving Up on Goodell
How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.