Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidates Michele Bachmann (aka Krazy) and Rick Santorum (Ricky) are rushing to find cover, as well as sanity, after the two reportedly supported a pledge containing a controversial racially charged preamble containing the statement, “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Of course since the controversy began the excerpt has been removed from “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” a pledge issued by the uber-conservative Christian organization The Family Leader, an important social conservative group with power to influence uber-conservative right wing “Christian” caucus goers of Iowa.
A Ricky lackey told CNN that the Senator was “pleased” to sign the pledge, but agreed with the Leader’s decision to remove the language about slavery.
“Senator Santorum was pleased to sign the Iowa Family Leader’s pledge because he is committed to standing up for traditional marriage. The bigger question here is why aren’t more Republicans having the courage to stand up for the institution of marriage and signing this pledge,” Virginia Davis said in an email. “With that said, Senator Santorum believed it was the right thing for the Iowa Family Leader to remove the language from the preamble to the pledge about slavery.”
Krazy’s campaign has confirmed the congresswoman signed the pledge saying, “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.”
The Family Leader has the purpose of the pledge “is to have on record the personal convictions of each presidential candidate as it relates to the issue of marriage. The signing of the pledge will be a requirement for future endorsement” by the Iowa-based group.
The pledge reportedly further requires signatories “to defend and to uphold” the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, as well as each signing candidate being required to pledge personal fidelity to his or her spouse and to recognize that “robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”
Besides that last part being exceedingly 19th century like in tone, it’s clear – due to the fidelity pledge – that Newt Gingrich will probably not be signing any time soon; well besides the fact signatories actually have to be running for the presidency.
Other reported provisions include supporting the enactment of safeguards for married and unmarried military personnel from sexual harassment and the “rejection of Sharia Islam.”
After all, what’s a good old fashioned right-wing religious pledge without some line attacking Islam and wanting to protect all of us from Sharia law while forcing its own religious theocracy?
Point is we’ve either got two very stupid presidential candidates who don’t read what they’re signing, or we’ve got two presidential candidates who read the pledge and saw nothing wrong with it. Either way their signatures speak volumes about their willingness to sell themselves to the uber-right, and that’s a concern.
The Liberty Tree 