Bachmann signs pact saying children were better off in slavery

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
LiveFreeOrDie's picture
Joined: 09/15/05
Posts: 115
Bachmann signs pact saying children were better off in slavery

Hi friends,

I've missed you. Saw this on facebook and thought of you all. We must have a slew of Michele Bachmann fans, right? What say you?

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, ripe with anti-gay paranoia from 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.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

Although I get the point that the "statement" was trying to make to an extent, it really doesn't make sense. I bet half of the children born today, regardless of skin color, are born to parents that aren't married or the dad isn't around... that's just the day and age that we live in. It's a ridiculous way to try and make your point. I am conservative but admit I haven't heard enough about Michelle Bachmann to say for sure whether she would have my vote come 2012.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

I think she has a point. There are so many positives overlooked throughout history. We need someone like Bachmann to help us see the good in it all.

I mean during WW2, German jews were more likely to live together in tight knit communities where they took care of one another and left smaller carbon footprints. Sure it was because they were in ghettos packed in 3 families to a room but think of the free babysitting and all that help one could get with the housework.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I agree with Lana. :eek:

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum signed the two-page document entitled "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family," on Thursday, but their campaigns emphasized that the "candidate vow" portion of the pledge that they put their stamps of approval on didn't mention slavery. Instead, it condemned gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/09/bachmann-stands-by-marriage-pledge-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/#ixzz1S0bZws50

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"culturedmom" wrote:

I think she has a point. There are so many positives overlooked throughout history. We need someone like Bachmann to help us see the good in it all.

I mean during WW2, German jews were more likely to live together in tight knit communities where they took care of one another and left smaller carbon footprints. Sure it was because they were in ghettos packed in 3 families to a room but think of the free babysitting and all that help one could get with the housework.

*Snort*

Gloria, is M. Bachman's (and R. Santorum's) defense that s/he didn't read the first page of the two page document s/he signed?

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum signed the two-page document entitled "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family," on Thursday, but their campaigns emphasized that the "candidate vow" portion of the pledge that they put their stamps of approval on didn't mention slavery. Instead, it condemned gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography.

The most controversial passage was in the opening statement on the first page of the document, which compared the state of the black family in the slave era to today.

From that, it sounds like that passage wasn't missing from the document she signed - it sounds like she signed the second page of a two page document that included the verbiage about slavery.

I bet it went like this:

Page 1: Document starts out with an intro describing how families are "in trouble" including that delightful blurb about slavery.

Page 2: Candidate vow to protect families from XYZ, and signature line.

Which makes me think that she either needs to read things before she signs them, or that she agreed with the sentiment and they are only now trying to spin it. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she can/does read, and assume the latter.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Which makes me think that she either needs to read things before she signs them, or that she agreed with the sentiment and they are only now trying to spin it. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she can/does read, and assume the latter.

I assume to take her at her word.

At least one presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, condemned the suggestion in the vow’s preamble that black children were better off during slave times. Also Monday, the think tank cited as the basis for the slavery statement denied saying anything like that.

The fact that two candidates, Bachmann and Rick Santorum, quickly signed the 14-point “candidate vow,” then later said they hadn’t read the entire four-page pledge document, highlights the pressure on candidates to prove their social conservative credentials to Iowa voters, politics watchers said.

An introductory passage of the marriage vow drawn up by the Family Leader claimed that a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father than an African-American born after the election of the country’s first black president.

When that statement prompted an outcry, the Family Leader over the weekend apologized and deleted the slavery language from the preamble of the pledge, which calls for presidential candidates to vow fidelity to one’s spouse and to vigorously oppose anything but one-man/one woman marriage, among other provisions.

Bachmann and Santorum pointed out Monday that the candidate vow itself makes no mention of slavery.

“I did not see that language. That was not a part of the vow,” Bachmann told reporters during a campaign stop Monday in Indianola.

Traditional marriage is the bedrock of society, Bachmann said. “Children need a mom and a dad in their life, and that’s why I signed it,” she said.

Slavery was a dark time in American history, and “certainly it would be absurd for anyone to think that a child would be better off raised in slavery than not,” Bachmann said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I’m pleased that this has been taken care of.”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/11/iowa-marriage-pledge-continues-to-stir-controversy/

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Okay, so she just doesn't read stuff before she signs her name to it. Cool.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

I don't think the comparison should have been ever said or stated on this bill.

that said, reports have said she didn't read that part and also the group that started the petition has since removed it.

I think 2parents is ideal, but there are WONDERFUL single parents out there raising wonderful children in the process.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I actually find it a bit more disturbing if she truly didn't read it.

Like, if she read it and agreed with it, that's pretty hateful. But honestly, given the nature of what she was signing (condemning gay marriage, presumably single parent families, et cetera) she's not really winning a lot of "loving and accepting" points from me anyway. Like the best she can get from having not read that line is "slightly less hateful."

If she DIDN'T read that part, that's actually worse to me, because now she's hateful AND kind of dumb, or at least doesn't pay attention to detail. Maybe it's just me, but if I were campaigning to be elected to the very highest public office in the US, and I were signing vows and proclamations to let people know exactly what I stand for, I would take the time to read all two pages of them and make sure that they really did represent me and present me in the best light. The argument that she didn't actually do this means that either

a) they think we are stupid enough to buy that she (and her campaign people) don't carefully read and think about the political implications of everything she puts out, signs, et cetera BEFORE she does it.

or

b) she really is that dumb and short sighted, and surrounds herself with people to help her that really are that dumb and short sighted. Given the fact that it's at least possible that she is going to be the next POTUS, that's not a happy prospect. I'd prefer that she were just hateful, not hateful AND dumb.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I actually find it a bit more disturbing if she truly didn't read it.

who read the Health care bill?

I personally think both are ridiculous. NEVER sign your name to something you haven't read front and back and truly understand.

Don't mistake me for agreeing or supporting her politically (I am a republican who leans very libertarian especially on social issues), but I do think that she is probably picked on more than most in the media. She's the media's new Palin.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"elleon17" wrote:

who read the Health care bill?

I personally think both are ridiculous. NEVER sign your name to something you haven't read front and back and truly understand.

Don't mistake me for agreeing or supporting her politically (I am a republican who leans very libertarian especially on social issues), but I do think that she is probably picked on more than most in the media. She's the media's new Palin.

If that's the defense, it's a pretty crappy one. First of all, everyone who signed the health care bill should have read it. If they didn't, that's not a defense for someone else to not read things either. Two wrongs and all that.

Second of all, from what I read, this was a 2 page document. If you can't even read and think about a 2 pager before you sign, I don't have a ton of confidence that you will read and think about longer documents (like health care bills.)

Didya ever think that maybe the media is hard on certain people because they make it way too easy?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

If that's the defense, it's a pretty crappy one. First of all, everyone who signed the health care bill should have read it. If they didn't, that's not a defense for someone else to not read things either. Two wrongs and all that.

Second of all, from what I read, this was a 2 page document. If you can't even read and think about a 2 pager before you sign, I don't have a ton of confidence that you will read and think about longer documents (like health care bills.)

Didya ever think that maybe the media is hard on certain people because they make it way too easy?

I'm sorry but I don't equate some silly pledge that means nothing as some important document that I need lawyers to go through. I'm sure she didn't either. She probably glanced through it, read the page she was signing, and signed it. Since you don't like her anyway for the part that she DID sign - I'm not sure why you care.

I'm pretty sure that the media is hard on certain people because they are biased. Just like they are going after her now because they read the Bible and prayed at her CHRISTIAN counseling center. *shock* *gasp*

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't equate some silly pledge that means nothing as some important document that I need lawyers to go through. I'm sure she didn't either. She probably glanced through it, read the page she was signing, and signed it. Since you don't like her anyway for the part that she DID sign - I'm not sure why you care.

I'm pretty sure that the media is hard on certain people because they are biased. Just like they are going after her now because they read the Bible and prayed at her CHRISTIAN counseling center. *shock* *gasp*

I've misunderstood your position on marriage. *shakes head in bewilderment*

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't equate some silly pledge that means nothing as some important document that I need lawyers to go through. I'm sure she didn't either. She probably glanced through it, read the page she was signing, and signed it. Since you don't like her anyway for the part that she DID sign - I'm not sure why you care.

I'm pretty sure that the media is hard on certain people because they are biased. Just like they are going after her now because they read the Bible and prayed at her CHRISTIAN counseling center. *shock* *gasp*

To the bolded: To be honest, I really *don't* care. I'm debating it because it's on the debate board, but you're right, it doesn't change my opinion of her. Confirms it, if anything. But if she truly just glanced through it and read the page she was signing, that's a poor choice. As evidenced by the fact that this is news, people actually do read the things that presidential candidates put out there or put their name on that clarify their positions on political issues. As someone who is running for president, she should expect that if she signs a vow about her political position on an issue, many people will read it. Therefore, it would behoove her to make sure that the entire document represents her. If she doesn't bother to do that, the dip in public opinion is completely on her. Just a bit of friendly advice. Wink

I believe the problem with the Christian counseling center was not that they read the bible or prayed, but that they were trying to "convert" homosexuals. Personally, I am torn on that issue. On one hand, I think it's gross to assume that homosexuals *need* converting, and I think that it definitely conveys the message loud and clear that if you are homosexual, what you are is bad and needs to change. Yuck. On the other hand, so long as the people who are going to these centers are adults and going of their own free will, I kind of think they should be allowed to, and that people should be allowed to run them. But I can certainly understand why it's a controversial topic that the media covers. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that she's a Christian, except for the fact that her religion teaches her that gay people need to change. Like, if she were an atheist running a center that says gay people are gross and need to change to be straight (taking religion completely out of it) I think that people would still be up in arms about it. The big difference is that it's fairly unlikely that an atheist would run a center like that, or that non-religious gay people would feel compelled to go to a center like that.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

If that's the defense, it's a pretty crappy one. First of all, everyone who signed the health care bill should have read it. If they didn't, that's not a defense for someone else to not read things either. Two wrongs and all that.

Second of all, from what I read, this was a 2 page document. If you can't even read and think about a 2 pager before you sign, I don't have a ton of confidence that you will read and think about longer documents (like health care bills.)

Didya ever think that maybe the media is hard on certain people because they make it way too easy?

But the majority did not and still expect it to be defended. 2 pages or 2000, if you sign something you should read it. At least we agree on that point.

Or maybe the media picks and chooses what they choose to see?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"elleon17" wrote:

But the majority did not and still expect it to be defended. 2 pages or 2000, if you sign something you should read it. At least we agree on that point.

Or maybe the media picks and chooses what they choose to see?

This is a total derail, but do you have any sources to back up that the majority did not read the health care bill before they signed it? I have heard that particular talking point before but didn't really investigate it. Since you brought it up (although I think it's fairly irrelevent to whether MB should have signed her particular vow) I have been trying to find more info on it, and the only thing I have found is that Baucus said that he basically didn't read all of the legalese - they had the experts (presumably lawyers) do the legal language.

So okay, you can argue he didn't read all of it since he didn't read the legalese. But I don't know if that is common practice (the actual congress people typically read the summaries and not the legalese). Since you don't need to be a lawyer to be elected to congress, it could be totally normal that congress people read "translations" that spell out the meat of the laws they vote on in plain English rather than the statutory language. That actually wouldn't surprise me, but I don't know one way or another.

And regardless of whether it is common practice, is anyone else is quoted as having said that they didn't read it, or proved to have not read it? 1 guy is hardly a majority.

I also found that a common misconception is that Obama said he didn't read it, but that is taken out of context. Apparently they were having some kind of town hall meeting, and a caller was asking about a statute that isn't in the bill (I think it was about death panels or something) and Obama said "I'm not familiar with that statute." (meaning because that statute is not IN the bill) So that is sometimes used to "prove" that Obama didn't read it either.

And that's it. That's all of the "proof" I could find that the lawmakers didn't read the bill before they passed it. The rest was a bunch of angry conservative blogs just saying that they didn't, but that's not really proof - you can say anything you want on the internet.

So total derail, but I am sincerely curious. Do you have any sources that can prove that the majority of congress didn't read the bill? Or are you just like me and have heard it said by angry conservatives enough that you kind of took for granted that it must be true?