Slavery Reference Removed From Marriage Pledge As Michele Bachmann Camp Fumbles Response


We reported Friday that the marriage pledge that GOP hopeful Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was first to sign contained a bit of not-so-fine print that made a stomach-churning comparison between the era of slavery and the presidency of Barack Obama. The group behind the pledge has since removed the reference (along with a “sorry you were offended” apology that doesn’t acknowledge the fact that their “research” was a lie), and Bachmann’s campaign delivered a statement with all the sensitivity of a burlap condom.

In case you missed it, Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rick Santorum (R-Google) each signed The Family Leader’s so-called “Marriage Vow” (which actually seeks to destroy tens of thousands of legal marriages) last week, and among all of the anti-gay, anti-porn stuff was a paragraph that insisted that black children born into slavery had a better shot at two-parent glory than those born under President Obama’s watch:

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.

Aside from the obvious offense of making a favorably comparison of any aspect of slavery to anything, the group deliberately sought to draw that comparison between the slave era and the presidency of Barack Obama, using a study that said nothing of the kind, and which was published four years before Obama even took office. The study they cited contained no data from either era.

The passage caused an uproar, and over the weekend, “The Family Leader” removed the reference from “The Marriage Vow,” and released the following “apology“: (emphasis mine)

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man,” the group’s officials said in a statement. “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

This type of “apology” is all too familiar. We’re sorry you were too stupid to “get it,” and now you’re all mad at us, so we took it out because you’re a bunch of crybabies. This one gets extra irony points for having the stones to use the word “misconstrued” after the way they completely made up conclusions from a study by black scholars.

Alas, even after I urged them to stop talking about slavery, Michele Bachmann’s campaign couldn’t help themselves. How did these geniuses respond to Bachmann’s connection with a pledge that made a thudding, trivial comparison with slavery? By making another thudding, trivial comparison with slavery:

“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 and economic enslavement is also horrible.”

It’s almost like a bad used car ad. “Emancipate yourself from high prices at Bachmann Auto Mall!”

Here’s a pro tip: if you really think something is horrible, you don’t then list something far less horrible, and say that it’s horrible, too. Let’s try a few:

Cancer is horrible and economic cancer is also horrible.

Family Guy is horrible, and economic Family Guy is also horrible. (That doesn’t even make sense.)

Michele Bachmann’s campaign is horrible, and Michele Bachmann’s econimic campaign is also horrible. (Okay, that one works.)

The one saving grace here is that it was a spokesperson, and not Rep. Bachmann herself, who made the statement. If the congresswoman is asked about it, she needs to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that slavery was not only way more horrible than economic slavery, but that it actually included economic slavery, along with every other adjective you can put in front of the word slavery.

After that, she should probably stop talking about slavery until she’s had some time to read up on it.

Have a tip we should know?

Filed Under: