Tweet
I was appalled to read in the paper this morning the Iowa Christian political organization, Family Leader, is backing down from requiring Republican Presidential candidates to sign the best pledge ever to be used in politics.
Family Leader President, Bob Vander Platts, told me just a few days ago it would still be required. All the pledge does is hold candidates to Republican Party principles. Candidates sign a pledge they will
Swear personal fidelity to their spouse, endorse traditional marriage between one man and one woman, reject forms of Islamic law, oppose abortion and support "robust childbearing and reproduction..
None of this stuff above is controversial. What got liberals all in an uproar was a factual observation in the pledge that Negro families were better off during slavery than they are now. They were better off because horny Negro men could not run off from their wives. What is wrong with pointing this out?
The reason I'm certain we could get all the candidates to sign the pledge is that Mormon Mitt Romney refused to sign it last time. All we need to point out to candidates is that Romney lost the Iowa Caucus, then he lost the election.
Family Leader nixes 'marriage oath' for 2016 candidates
William Petroski, bpetrosk@dmreg.com 5:59 p.m. CDT May 26, 2015
Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive officer of The Family Leader, talks to reporters during a news conference outside the Iowa Capitol last October.(Photo: William Petroski/Register file photo)
The Family Leader, a Christian conservative advocacy group, is not planning to ask Republican presidential candidates to sign a far-reaching, pro-marriage oath as they campaign in the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses.
The group's 14-point pledge generated both praise and controversy prior to the 2012 caucuses. It required candidates to swear personal fidelity to their spouse, endorse traditional marriage between one man and one woman, reject forms of Islamic law, oppose abortion, and support "robust childbearing and reproduction" as beneficial to the United States.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's eventual nominee, refused to sign the 2012 pledge, citing references and provisions in the document that a spokeswoman described at the time as "undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign." However, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, signed the oath, along with former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive officer of The Family Leader, told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday that his organization has no plans at this time to ask candidates to sign the pledge as they campaign in the 2016 race, although he isn't totally closing the door on that possibility.
"One of the reasons why we are not doing it this time is that we saw it as more of a distraction" than as a benefit, Vander Plaats said. "We thought that there were other ways to do this. You know, our opponents want to pick apart things that we do. "
Officials with The Family Leader said they were flooded with positive phone calls and online comments after unveiling the 2012 marriage pledge. But critics strongly opposed a section which said children of slaves were more likely to live in a two-parent household than black children today. Vander Plaats said later that critics were distorting the facts and that his organization never claimed that slavery was better for families. The controversial section was eventually dropped from the document.
Family Leader President, Bob Vander Platts, told me just a few days ago it would still be required. All the pledge does is hold candidates to Republican Party principles. Candidates sign a pledge they will
Swear personal fidelity to their spouse, endorse traditional marriage between one man and one woman, reject forms of Islamic law, oppose abortion and support "robust childbearing and reproduction..
None of this stuff above is controversial. What got liberals all in an uproar was a factual observation in the pledge that Negro families were better off during slavery than they are now. They were better off because horny Negro men could not run off from their wives. What is wrong with pointing this out?
The reason I'm certain we could get all the candidates to sign the pledge is that Mormon Mitt Romney refused to sign it last time. All we need to point out to candidates is that Romney lost the Iowa Caucus, then he lost the election.
Family Leader nixes 'marriage oath' for 2016 candidates
William Petroski, bpetrosk@dmreg.com 5:59 p.m. CDT May 26, 2015Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive officer of The Family Leader, talks to reporters during a news conference outside the Iowa Capitol last October.(Photo: William Petroski/Register file photo)
The Family Leader, a Christian conservative advocacy group, is not planning to ask Republican presidential candidates to sign a far-reaching, pro-marriage oath as they campaign in the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses.
The group's 14-point pledge generated both praise and controversy prior to the 2012 caucuses. It required candidates to swear personal fidelity to their spouse, endorse traditional marriage between one man and one woman, reject forms of Islamic law, oppose abortion, and support "robust childbearing and reproduction" as beneficial to the United States.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's eventual nominee, refused to sign the 2012 pledge, citing references and provisions in the document that a spokeswoman described at the time as "undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign." However, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, signed the oath, along with former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive officer of The Family Leader, told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday that his organization has no plans at this time to ask candidates to sign the pledge as they campaign in the 2016 race, although he isn't totally closing the door on that possibility.
"One of the reasons why we are not doing it this time is that we saw it as more of a distraction" than as a benefit, Vander Plaats said. "We thought that there were other ways to do this. You know, our opponents want to pick apart things that we do. "
Officials with The Family Leader said they were flooded with positive phone calls and online comments after unveiling the 2012 marriage pledge. But critics strongly opposed a section which said children of slaves were more likely to live in a two-parent household than black children today. Vander Plaats said later that critics were distorting the facts and that his organization never claimed that slavery was better for families. The controversial section was eventually dropped from the document.