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
The Self-Made Man
The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.
The GOP Senate Candidate in Iowa Doesn’t Want Voters to Know Just How Conservative She Really Is
Does Your Child Have “Sluggish Cognitive Tempo”? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?
Why Indians in America Are Mad for India’s New Prime Minister
The Strange History of Wives Gazing at Their Husbands in Political Ads
Transparent is the fall’s only great new show.
Lena Dunham, the Book
More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.