First, Michele Bachmann gets handed an idiotic "pledge" from some Iowa-based Family-Something organization and she actually signs the damn thing! Completely what you'd expect from our Ms. Bachmann.
The pledge requires candidates to vow to not cheat on their spouses (mysteriously, Newt Gingrich declined to sign the pledge), to do everything possible to make life harder for the gays, and defend us against the imaginary threat of Sharia law.
So, of course she signs it, of course she does! But either she didn't really read what she was signing all that closely, or she didn't realize that some people (decent people) might take some offense at this statement in the vow's preamble:
(yes, it has a preamble, of course it has a preamble. That's how you know it's good, like the Constitution)
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.
That line is probably not meant as an endorsement of slavery, but any candidate with any sense would realize that it kinda sounds like the "they were better off as slaves" argument that you sometimes hear from racist assholes. Michele Bachmann is Not one of those politicians.
Then, as only she can do, our Ms. Bachmann finds a way to make it worse.
A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the “vow” portion.
“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said. . .
Okay, you could just stop there. Admit that your candidate didn't really know what she was signing, but pretend that that isn't one of her many disqualifications for public office. It's a pretty weak argument to claim that she only signed the "vow" part, not the adjoining text, but whatever. You work with what you got.
“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible. . .
Okay. You really shouldn't need to state that your candidate is anti-slavery, but considering the current political atmosphere, it probably is a good idea to get that on the record. Show your candidate's sensitive side, she understands that slavery is horrible. That actually might come a s a surprise to some observers. Okay, you're probably going to want to stop there.
But, no. This is Michele Bachmann we're talking about. Of course she won't stop there.
“In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible
and economic enslavement is also horrible.”
Economic enslavement? Really? By which you mean what, having to pay taxes? Having a government that runs a deficit? I'm not sure what she considers "economic enslavement" but did she really just equate it to actual slavery? Actual manacles whips and human auction slavery?
You can read the entire text of the "vow" here: http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf
It's actually pretty short, and fairly entertaining in a freakshow kind of way. Even the footnotes which state things like:
No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism.
No studies have ever proven that gay folks don't purposely choose to be gay, therefore, we can only conclude that they do!
That's so Bachmann!
