I didn’t know much about Tammy Baldwin before The Washington Times informed me of how amazing she is:
She is a radical feminist who champions gay marriage, abortion on demand, government-funded contraception and war on religious freedom. She is the Sandra Fluke of Wisconsin politics — a postmodern socialist who wants government to underwrite birth control pills and homosexual unions. Ms. Baldwin is the antithesis of the working-class liberalism embodied by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Ms. Baldwin has made no secret of her lesbian lifestyle. She is a vocal supporter of gay pride and the LGBT community. She told the liberal Huffington Post that her Senate candidacy is historic. Ms. Baldwin stressed that “breaking through these glass ceilings has a ripple effect.” In other words, her election would — and should — encourage other avowed gays and lesbians to enter high office. She sees herself as the tip of the spear for the LGBT community — a relentless advocate for homosexual issues. She attacks traditional marriage. She led the fight to repeal the ban on gays openly serving in the military. She consistently assaults our Judeo-Christian heritage.
This sounds like a phenomenal candidate. I understand that in the warped mind of the article’s author all of these wonderful things somehow make Bladwin a bad candidate but The Washington Times managed to convince me that Baldwin is sensationally great and should be elected. If even her worst enemies can’t say anything negative about her, then she must be really good.
P.S. I’m still giggling over “postmodern socialist”, “homosexual issues” and “avowed gays and lesbians.” I think I need to subscribe to this paper because it’s too good to pass up.
Clarissa's Blog 
After reading that, I want to marry her!
LikeLike
She sounds like the perfect candidate. It would be phenomenal if she won in Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I agree. I think Tammy Baldwin would be amazing in the senate. To me, WI and MA are holding the two most important senate races. I would be very happy indeed if Warren and Baldwin won their respective senate seats. (On a side note, af first I thought the article you quoted was praising Balwin because all of those things sounded so wonderful. It wasn’t until I got to the last sentence that I realized that was meant to be a list of “insults.”)
LikeLike
Warren is also fantastic. It’s a very big deal that we have such strong, unapologetically progressive women running for senate at the same time.
Imagine Warren as President. . .
I need to stop fantasizing now. 🙂
LikeLike
Pardon me for going completely off-topic, but I would be interested in your views on this.
LikeLike
I read the piece but I’m still not sure what this is all about. I feel like there is some crucial information that is missing.
Does anybody know?
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minnesota-clarifies-free-online-ed-is-ok/2012/10/19/456a0a3e-1a37-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html
Looks to be the work of the kind of administrator you’ve blogged about before, now thankfully reversed.
LikeLike
Now this makes a lot more sense. When I first read about it, I didn;t know what to make out of it because the entire thing sounded so insane.
LikeLike
I would never vote for any gubernatorial candidate, any candidate for Congress and any Senate candidate unless e supports his/her State secession. I would vote for Obama, though.
LikeLike
I would never vote for any gubernatorial candidate, any candidate for Congress and any Senate candidate unless e supports his/her State secession. I would vote for Obama, though.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that Democratic politicians are rarely as good in real life as the right-wing media makes them sound in their descriptions.
LikeLike
“If even her worst enemies can’t say anything negative about her, then she must be really good.”
The only substantive negative thing I can see is the claim that she “champions … war on religious freedom”. If that were actually true, then it isn’t something I could support. Not that I would trust Kuhner to represent her position on that subject fairly. In my experience, when people complain about a war on religious freedom, they usually mean either freedom from criticism, or freedom to ram their religion down everyone else’s throats.
“Religious freedom” aside, the fact that Kuhner hasn’t identified anything substantively negative about her doesn’t lead me to conclude that she must be “really good”. It might be the case that she is “really bad” in areas that concern me, but don’t concern Kuhner. For example, she might have strongly prejudicial views against men. Or transexual people.
LikeLike
“For example, she might have strongly prejudicial views against men. Or transexual people.”
– These people are desperate for any dirt on Baldwin. If she forgot to feed her dog once, I’m sure we would have all heard a lot about it.
“In my experience, when people complain about a war on religious freedom, they usually mean either freedom from criticism, or freedom to ram their religion down everyone else’s throats.”
– Exactly.
LikeLike
“These people are desperate for any dirt on Baldwin.”
These people wouldn’t consider prejudicial views against trans people to be dirt.
As for prejudicial views against men, it depends upon the views. If Baldwin expressed outright Daly-style manhating, or if her views could be so misrepresented, then I agree they’d use that against her. But there are plenty of traditional views about men which are misandrist, and plenty of overlap between them and some feminist positions, especially radical feminist positions. These views again wouldn’t necessarily be considered to be dirt.
Note that I don’t assume she is a radical feminist, just because Kuhner says she is. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t know what radical feminism is or what distinguishes it from other feminisms.
” If she forgot to feed her dog once, I’m sure we would have all heard a lot about it.”
To my recollection, I’ve never heard of her prior to seeing your post. If I was sufficiently interested I would seek out her own words, not those of critics or supporters, to judge her upon.
LikeLike