Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican”

UPDATE:   The wording on slavery was in the Preamble not buried somewhere in the document which confirms that Bachmann and Santorum will sign anything if they think it will get them support, and they both need to drop out of the race for not telling this group to shove it.  This isn't some gaffe but a document they both signed with this in the preamble:

As Politico pointed out, the preamble of the pledge contains this phrase: 

"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."

How can any thinking person sign a document that includes those words in the Preamble is beyond me and hard to believe they are a Republican.  The former candidate for Iowa Governor Bob Vander Plaats should be banned from participating in any official event held by Iowa GOP and if they don't ban him then the RNC needs to take action to have Iowa removed as the first in the nation caucus after this fiasco.  The Republican Party is not big enough for such a bigoted group of people who would even write something like this and the rest of us.  It is a total insult to blacks and even then this values group couldn't even get their history straight.  I am embarrassed that this group is even part of the Republican party for their bigoted pledge.  

This issue is growing legs and shows that neither candidate should be running when you cannot read a pledge before you sign it.  This was one of those that they only had to read the Preamble to know it shouldn't be signed, but they saw the title and signed.  We have had enough of pass something so you can know what it is in the bill and this is on the same level.

Sick and tired of these people and their pledges they want signed or they threaten not to support the candidates that don't sign their pledges  It is time for the candidates to call their bluff and sign no more pledges and if these people don't like it -- tough!   It is also time for the Chair of the RNC to ask the candidates to sign no more pledges.  An elected official  takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and some of the wording in the pledges go against the law of the land.


*****

It is our opinion that Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is 100% correct in his analysis of the Family Leader Pledge -- we applaud him for his stance.  Former candidate for Iowa Governor Bob Vander Plaats and his group are behind this offensive pledge that if you don't meet their idea of perfection and sign the pledge, they will not support you.  What candidate would want that type of support or would agree to put their John Hancock on that pledge?  We were shocked to discover that Bachmann and Santorum signed the pledge and obviously gave no thought to it would be offensive to most Republicans which tells us they will sign anything if they think it will get them support.

This pledge is offensive and intolerant and reeks of a Nanny State for conservatives which many of us have fought against the Democrats wanting to run our lives.  For those who talk about State Rights, this flies in the face of that.  As far as I am concerned Bachmann and Santorum took themselves out of the running after signing this pledge no matter how some conservatives are spinning it.  All it took was a little reading comprehension and any person would understand that this pledge should never have seen the light of day.

Now the group wants to back off on the slavery language in the pledge.  It is too little, too late as it never should have been included and in fact, it is one big intolerant pledge that no Republican candidate for President should ever want to be associated with.  We agree with Huntsman on his no pledge signing as the pledges are getting out of hand with different people/groups demanding you sign their pledge or they are not supporting you.  

Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican” 

July 9, 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada – Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”. Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.  

Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom. This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name. 

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”. 

“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.

Johnson is right that tolerance is missing.  This is one group of the far right who want the Federal Government to step in and tell the states what to do.  I believe that Roe v Wade was overstepping on the part of the Federal Government and likewise I think that a blanket no abortion by the Federal Government would be the same or a Federal Marriage amendment.  Social issues belong in my state and my home not at the Federal level including a Marriage amendment which I oppose as it steps on the rights of states.  I live in a conservative state and would never consider ever living in New England again (once was more than enough).  There is not enough money to make me live in Vermont and I am sure they feel likewise about Oklahoma.

This gem from Kevin Williamson at National Review sums up Governor Perry's stance on social issues and the 10th Amendment and would be a good stance for Republican candidates for President:

Governor Perry really is serious about this Tenth Amendment stuff: He is a social conservative, no doubt, but he’s a federalist first. He’s not crazy about gay marriage or medical marijuana, but his view is that if California wants to go that route, that’s California’s business. Don’t like it? “Don’t move to California,” he says. Kicking hard decisions down to the states isn’t the answer to everything — look at Michigan or Illinois — but more federalism and more competition between the states would be on balance a very fine thing for the country.

Will never support a candidate who doesn't believe in state's rights and wants the Federal Government to tell us how to live.  I will live in a state where I am most comfortable which is Oklahoma or Texas because they are independent thinkers who believe the Federal Government has way overreached into what should be State business.