Iowa Conservatives & GOP Politics

[jbrowder24]

For those that might not know, the decision of who should run for president in the U.S. (if not an incumbent) gets its start on the state level, with Iowa being one of the first states to have results. Since it's Obama's first term, he'll go against a Republican candidate that's yet to be determined. Now, winning Iowa does not guarantee the Repubican winner that they'll end up the GOP candidate, it's just one small part of a big process - but it does explain why GOP candidates might consider signing something from an Iowan conservative group. The disgusting article, below.

Michele Bachmann signed a controversial pact Thursday that is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-pornography, and floats the curious notion that African American children were better off during slavery than they are under the Obama administration.

The pledge was drawn up by Bob Vander Plaats, a man who ran for governor of Iowa in 2010 and lost in the Republican primary despite the benefit of an endorsement from Internet legend Chuck Norris. Vander Plaats also sought the high office in Iowa in 2002 and 2006 (as Jim Nussle's running mate) but voters gave him the thumbs down.

Somehow he fancies himself a kingmaker and is hoping that other GOP politicians, desperate to appear so-conservative-it-hurts will sign his pledge [.pdf] titled "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY."

The manifesto is ripe with anti-gay paranoia written by the man who once said, "If we’re teaching the kids, 'don’t smoke, because that’s a risky health style,' the same can be true of the homosexual lifestyle."

But the strangest nugget in the pact that the Republican congresswoman from Minnesota signed was one that hearkens back to the good old days when slavery was legal, meaning that black kids had the priceless benefit of having a traditional home.

"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," the vow states in a bullet-point.
Cheryl Contee of the Jack & Jill political blog explains some of the errors in that portion of the vow.

"Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive," Contree wrote.

"When will Republicans inquire with actual black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points? It has to stop. It is the opposite of persuasive and is another reason Republicans repel us. It’s hard to believe that Michele Bachmann would be foolish enough to sign this pledge," Contree complained.

Vander Plaats says his group, the Family Leader, will not support any candidate who declines to sign the pledge, which means former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman won't be getting their support since Huntsman never signs pledges, according to the Des Moines Register. The paper also reported that a spokesman for Texas representative Ron Paul said the congressman has reservations about the pact.

Bachmann is no stranger to anti-gay rhetoric. Her strategist-husband last year said homosexuals were barbarians who need to be disciplined.

"We have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps," Marcus Bachmann said as a guest on the Christian-based "Point of View" radio talk show May 12, 2010.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...avery.html

I really despise Vander Plaats. He was one of the main people who campaigned against the three judges that lost their seats during the retention vote (due to the judges having ruled in favor of same sex marriage). It will be interesting to see if any other candidates sign this. And man, I can't believe Bachmann is even a serious candidate - something is so wrong with that.

[princealbertofb]

I don't think the slave child necessarily had both parents looking after them. In some cases, slaves were not allowed to marry, nor to live together. They were slaves, they were disposable.

[jbrowder24]

Yeah, there's a lot to be disagreed with, both in ideology and in factuality (a lot of the stuff against gays is pretty wrong and ignorant as well)

[princealbertofb]

I feel you, brutha

[azulai]

Hey, Josh. I've been kind of following this as well. Santorum also signed the "Marriage Vow."
Because of all the criticism they received, the group supposedly edited out the slavery reference.
The news today was Newt Gingrich Seeking To Tweak ‘Marriage Vow’ — From Iowa Conservative Group.

It's unbelievable that Bachmann is leading. Have you seen this? Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay? It's a feature on ABC's Nightline about her husband's clinic and his lies.

[fredv3b]

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson had this to say.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-john...republican

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.

Although I don't imagine he has a decent chance of winning, it is heartening to see he wants to debate this sort of issue rather than quietly not signing the pledge.

[princealbertofb]

If Gary Johnson means it, good for him.

[jimcrackcorn]

This so called pledge is nothing more than a Religious Litmus Test created by a Christian Organization called "Family Leader" who's executive director is Bob Vander Plaats.

If a Republican Presidential Candidate wants to get votes from members of this Christian Organization, they must sign the pledge (Religious Litmus Test).

I'm not worried about those Republican Presidential candidates who sign this pledge. The majority of American voters tend to shy away from candidates who lean to the extreme right or left, which means they will get weeded out in the Presidential Primaries.

In a way, they lessen their chances of winning in the Primaries by signing such a controversial pledge, which makes me wonder why they would sign it in the first place. Could be that they know their chances of winning a Presidential Primary are slim, so they go after the ultra right wing fringe groups to get their votes.

[fredv3b]

I would suggest that the entourages of the candidates know far more about the Republican primaries than you or I. If the candidates sign the pledge then they either reckon that it will win them more important primary votes than it loses, or that it will bring in enough donations to buy advertising to more than make up for the votes lost, or that it will place a rival in a no-win political situation. If signing such pledges were in general mistake then I am sure politicians aides would learn from their mistakes.

[azulai]

What I don't understand is why the fiscally conservative Republicans don't split from the party? I realize it would cost them the voting base that the religious zealots bring, but why not try to build up a serious alternative political group option? I think things would be so much healthier with more than 2 parties, and the Independents never seem to make progress. Does someone have any insight/thoughts to share as I have no idea what I'm talking about.

ETA: According to wiki, the third largest party in the US (based on 2008 membership #s) is the Libertarian Party. Where is this party? Anyone with thoughts to share. TY. mile: