Politics

Conservative GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum ‘Taken Aback’ By ‘The Marriage Vow’

No one wants to see ugly media spectacles of infidelity conducted by those in political office. But a new pledge in regards to personal marital fidelity of candidates even took social conservative 2012 Republican candidate Rick Santorum by surprise. Santorum discusses his reaction to the Family Leader “Marriage Vow” with CNN “State of the Union” moderator Candy Crowley :

Santorum has been campaigning on a two-pronged policy attack. One side calling for far-reaching entitlement reform, the other affirming himself as what many already consider to be the strongest social conservative among 2012 presidential candidates.  In CNN’s interview Santorum acknowledges that he would only appoint conservative judges and remove anti-marriage provisions in the tax code. Santorum did not agree that The Family Leader’s pledge was overly intrusive, but did admit it at first took him aback.

“When I first read it I was taken aback by it. I can‘t argue that I wasn’t. But I understand why they’re saying it, because it does undermine people’s respect for the institution, respect for the people governing this country,” said the former Pennsylvania Senator. “If you can‘t be faithful to the people that you’re closest to, then how can we count on you to be faithful to those of us who you represent.”

Conservative GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum ‘Taken Aback’ By ‘The Marriage Vow’So far the pledge has received mixed reactions from 2012 Republican candidates, as Michele Bachmann also decided to sign the vow while fellow candidate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson said the pledge gives Republicans a bad name.

In addition to personal fidelity to his/her spouse the vow calls on candidates to also pledge; vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the institution of marriage, rejection of Sharia Islam, commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA’s $14.3 trillion public debt, fierce defense of the first amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech, among other pro-family commitments.

The Family Leader is an Iowa-based organization that “provides a consistent, courageous voice in the churches, in the legislature, in the media, in the courtroom, in the public square…always standing for God’s truth.” The organization recently apologized and removed a controversial opening statement on the first page of the document, not on the candidates vow, that compared the state of the black family during slavery to today.

Santorum spoke at The Family Leader lecture series this past May.

Comments (152)

1 2 3 4
  • jungle J
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:30pm

    In addition to personal fidelity to his/her spouse the vow calls on candidates to also pledge; vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the institution of marriage, rejection of Sharia Islam, commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA’s $14.3 trillion public debt, fierce defense of the first amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech, among other pro-family commitments

    Report Post »  
    • Erabin
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:36pm

      “fierce defense of the first amendment’s rights of religious liberty”

      “rejection of Sharia Islam”

      Yeah. Does not compute.

      Report Post »  
    • cclevel
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:12pm

      Saying we could tolerate Shiria is to also allow Shiria law which is in stark opposition to most all of the fundamental principals laid out in the Consitution. Explain to me how we could even remotely tolerate their stoning of women in our country for being seen with another man or forcing them to wear burkahs. Certain things simply can not be tolerated that would violate our Constitutions. Sure, we have freedom of religion but not to the point that it would violate the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:25pm

    The key parts these ones who sign the oath have to understand:

    A. They are making a solem promise, and are expected to keep it.
    B. Break it, and the voters will rake them over the coals.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:41pm

      @Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}

      What was your inspiration for the ‘Cat Folks’? When you first started creating them, what were you thinking? Is there a story? Do they know each other and interact in a cat folk universe of their own? Or are they just individual portraits of hundreds of random cat folk?

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:58pm

      @BAIKNOUR

      Can’t answer for SNOW, but I do know that all of you “Euro-liberal-socialists” all interact in a universe of your own.

      ALL YOUR OWN, for sure.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • 101
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:30pm

      Big Government has failed us, you’re watching cereal filler also known as “TV soaps” meaningless waste of time!

      Report Post »  
    • tarkus
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:48pm

      The funny part is that they shouldn’t have to sign an oath promising to keep their marriage VOWS.

      Report Post »  
  • MrObvious
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:22pm

    Sounds like a good enough starting pledge to me.

    Granted, the marriage vow thing is redundant, and signing doesn’t mean the politician will necessarily follow through on those commitments anymore than if they had not signed it; but, it doesn’t sound like anything in it is especially controversial; and, it’s not like there promising to all be good Catholics or something. They don’t even have to be especially religious at all.

    If I were running, I would look it over and, if it only says what the say it says, sign it.

    Personally I would like to see the candidates agree to work on getting rid of the 16th Amendment: the progressive income tax. It’s called progressive for a reason.

    Report Post »  
    • Ookspay
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:42pm

      I say the following with a solid record as a true conservative…

      The gay boat has sailed, we lost, let the gays get married, what do I care? Certain social conservative issues are not worth the time and energy and only distract from the most important message, economy, jobs, taxes, states rights, smaller government, etc; Gay rights, really? Times have changed, let’s move on.

      Report Post » Ookspay  
  • DeltaHawk
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:18pm

    All of these fakes and phonies should eat s*** and die. I’[m sick of it Be your own government and refuse to play the game.

    Report Post »  
    • Cobra Blue
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:13pm

      Trying to pin nay of the politicians down (Republicans included) is like trying to pin jello to the wall. They are all in it for three people…me…myself and mine. You and I never enter the picture unless they want to get re-elected. Any then they say what they know we want to hear…which has nothing to do with how they govern.

      Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:16pm

    What anyone does in their own privacy is their business. If they are ethically and morally faulty it is A HABIT and a PATTERN and will show all over their person.
    What Clinton did in the oval office as the most powerful man in the World, opening himself open to blackmail is EVERYONE’S business. We already knew the patterns. We also know that Clinton proved he would say and DO ANYTHING to avoid responsibility. That’s a problem. If someone‘s wedding vow to their spouse isn’t good enough for you- why would you want them in office in your Democracy period!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:23pm

      @Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:16pm
      ‘What anyone does in their own privacy is their business.What Clinton did in the oval office as the most powerful man in the World, opening himself open to blackmail is EVERYONE’S business. ‘
      ********************
      I don’t think so. I think the spectacle of the United States Congress investigating, debating, interrogating a President on whether he got a ******** or not is more embarassing, shameful, and a sign of the nation’s decline than the deed itself.

      Report Post » Baikonur  
  • glennrocks
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:16pm

    Mitt Romney has always been a good husband. His wife has MS and he takes great care of her.

    Report Post »  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:18pm

      I always knew Mitt was a standup guy.

      Report Post »  
    • ecurbyy
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:54pm

      Ron Paul? Married 54 years now to the same woman. He’s a good man.

      Report Post » ecurbyy  
  • stevoschmidt
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:12pm

    we all know where santorum rests on his beleifs. what are you going to do if your president? candice crowley has got to be the worst interviewer her questions are a joke. if i was santorum i would have went completely off topic and spoke on whatever i felt was most important for potential voters to know about you being president. not what bill clinton would do we all know that one.

    Report Post »  
  • Baikonur
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:08pm

    And how about Bachman‘s husband trying to ’cure’ patients of being gay at his clinic (which receives government funding). Odd and yucky.

    Report Post » Baikonur  
    • chips1
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:30pm

      Yeah! Everyone knows it comes with a high fatality rate.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservativeman
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 9:44pm

      Why shouldn’t it be treated as a disease? It is not unanimous among mental health professionals that it isn’t a disease. It is disordered behavior, it is therefore not “normal”. At a university of Oregon study goats (rams) that mounted other rams were treated successfully and their behavior became normal, they mounted ewes. If it can be treated, if someone wants treatment, then why not allow it.

      Report Post » Conservativeman  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:05pm

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

    BUAHAHAHA! The Grand Old Party needs better pledge writers.

    And Bachmann hasn’t got a prayer, to coin a phrase, especially after her husband’s practice was outed as practicing the disgraceful and discreditted treatment called “Reparative Therapy”, that isn’t seen as a valid treatment for someone with same-sex attraction by a single reputable therapist.

    Here’s the “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” before they removed the language claiming black families were better under slavery than today:

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:11pm

      @Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:05pm
      ************
      Didn’t see your post when I wrote mine. You said it better.

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:21pm

      NEVER was slavery as bad as it is today. Never have so many been so exploited as the black underclass engineered by progressive policies is today! — THAT’S A fact –
      And the Democrats have always been the party of slavery and other forms of exploitation. From the KKK to Jim Crow to Southern Democrats at large to their “Projects” cleverly named to sound like something affirmative. That’s Democrats and THAT”S THEIR History in fact!
      Truth will set you free- but you have to accept it first.

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:24pm

      Yeah. The Blaze commenting system is experiencing some… shall we say, growth pains.

      One does NOT have to go all the way back to the days of American slavery to find a time when black families were better off, in the aggregate, than they are today. How about before Welfare paid families more money to have lots of children with no father in the house? How about before LBJ’s War on Poverty which had the effect of expanding poverty in America? How about before the New Deal? Those were all times when the black family, as a cohesive unit, and all other families as well, was in better shape than it is today.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:28pm

      My experience with lesbians and gays early on was that they had no self esteem. Only about 1 in 10 that I met did. I suppose most develop more self esteem as life goes on. They have no choice as there is only one alternative. The first gay person I knew had low self esteem. Their parents held their siblings in higher esteem and dates only dated them once until they got what they wanted, notched their belt and moved on. Becoming gay was only seemed logical. But I do not think that this person was inherently gay. It was a matter of relationships, lack there of and the quality of the relationships. But genetically gay. I don’t think so. Epigenetically gay. I don’t think so. That is what is being clinged onto now for dear life. My theory is that people are like chickens, chimpanzees and bacteria. The church and such organizations need to do a better job, cuzzz because sociologists and psychologists can draw to many parallels. If liberals have their way, they are going to be like the borg queen in their supposedly selfless society.

      The sad thing is that after a year this throw away person was dumped by their gay partner. From where I stood, it looked like they wanted someone better looking. And around and around we go.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 9:10pm

      @Walkabout:
      Sex and gender are not dichotomies. Very little, if anything, about human beings is one or the other, left or right, up or down. Even Kinsey‘s original research graded people’s sexual orientations on a 6 point (technicly seven point since it includes zero) scale.

      0 = Exclusively Heterosexual
      1 = Mostly Heterosexual
      2 = Hetero-preferring Bisexual
      3 = Evenly Bisexual
      4 = ****-preferring Bisexual
      5 = Mostly Homosexual
      6 = Exclusively Homosexual

      Similarly, I think we can all identify traits that are manly and womanly and individuals around us that have various of those traits to varying degrees, from Manly men, girly men, androgynes, tom boys, and girly girls, etc. And these gender identities are completely independent of the aforementioned sexual orientations.

      Just because someone professes to be a Kinsey 6 in one stage of life in no way prejudices their claim of Kinsey 5-0 at any other time of their life. All it means is that life on the extremes is unlikely in a raw statistical manner. I firmly believe everyone is both bisexual and then nature and nurture both, genetics and upbringing, drive our sexual orientation in the direction it’s going to take, but we still retain an essentially bisexual, some would say pansexual, nature.

      If I were to accept your view of human sexuality, the entire blame for male sexuality is to be laid at the feet of straight girls. If they would spread their le– the wealth, more guys would stay straight.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:30pm

      Kinsey Salted his sample. He drew from a prison population. SEcond you can come up with many hypothesis. But I know the LGBT crowd draw on the Kinsey scales as though it is an article of faith. So there is no reasoning and there is no scientific method. If I had to choose a group of scientists like kids choose baseball teams, I would not choose Kinsey.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on July 11, 2011 at 8:33am

      I didn’t choose Kinsey. And I didn‘t say anything about Kinsey’s data. I merely used the Kinsey scale as an example of not treating sex and gender as a dichotomy, but rather as a sliding scale. Is the Kinsey scale perfect? No., but it’s a good first approximation.

      Noticed you didn’t actually take any exception to what I actually said, just attacked one irrelevant side issue to the way that I said it. Curious that.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
  • Baikonur
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:03pm

    Not to mention that this ‘pledge’ had some disgusting language in the introduction that implied that black people were better off when they were slaves. :(
    Way to go, republicans!

    Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:13pm

      This is the kind of stuff that makes Repubs look like mental midgets. How about a Pledge to serve 1 term and get the hell out.

      Report Post »  
  • Volfie
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:03pm

    I was at first very wary of the pledge, but not as it regards to the fidelity in marriage pledge. I think that Santorum’s reaction is far less enthusiastic than it should be. He is basically saying that it surprised him that someone would ask him to sign a pledge to keep is marriage vows, but don’t worry he intends to keep his marriage vows. The marriage vows were made publicly (though in these days of write your own pledge who knows what was actually pledged). Why would there be any problem at all with making another public pledge in that regard (or the first if your vows were “special”)?

    Regardless of all that, I found the “rejection of Sharia Islam” to be initially disturbing and un-American. In America, we allow freedom of religion to include those religions you may not particularly like. Is this pledge really saying that any Muslim cannot be a part of that pledge? And to extend the pledge to its logical conclusion, is the pledge saying that the President of the U.S. (if signing the pledge) will be officially against Muslims?

    I looked into the pledge. The wording is: “Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.” There is a footnote to that which reads: “We do not oppose peaceful Muslims, only the intolerant system of Sharia Islam….” Well, that is better, but I have never heard extremists called Sharia Islam. It is the most dodgy part of the pledge that will be THE leftist criticism of the signers.

    Report Post »  
    • WHOSYOURMAHDI
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:04pm

      Not anti-islam, anti-sharia. Americans do not understand islam. We think it is a religion like any other, but, in its truer form it is much more than that. It is a three pronged way of life: religious, political and military. Islam has been that way since 622 A.D. Sharia simply refers to the judicial system of islam which is already being used as a defense scenario in U.S. courts to justify beatings, genital mutilation, and honor killings happening in our own back yard. This has nothing to do with religious freedom, yhis has to do with protecting U.S. citizens from foreign legal systems being imposed here.

      Report Post » WHOSYOURMAHDI  
    • awizard
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:26pm

      Volfie; I took a vow twenty nine years ago in a church, in front of near 200 friends/relatives, a pastor, and God himself to love honor … keep myself to my wife (It’s worked out well for us both). Not a special sermon a marriage contract … Why would I have to reaffirm that vow for your sake?.. I think that’s what takes Santorum aback … I would be insulted to be asked to do that.

      “Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.”

      islam in general is not a religion, and sharia in particular is a legal system that we cannot tolerate using in this country. “The pledge” also mentions “peaceful muslims” … many if not most that I know would leave islam if they were not afraid the others would kill them if they converted and would be forced to comply if asked to join in conflict … Such a wonderful, peaceful cult you would call “religion” and apparently not oppose or support.

      Report Post » awizard  
    • joan k
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 9:29pm

      Sharia Law is CONTRARY to the Constitution which is the Law of the Land. NO SHARIA LAW should be allowed at all in the USA for that reason!

      Report Post » joan k  
  • GETLIFE
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:56pm

    If a candidate already has a spouse, hasn’t she/he already made THE Vow of all solemn vows?
    Ooooh… Ahhhhh… “THE MARRIAGE VOW”… sounds like some kind of reality TV show. Cheap and redundant.

    Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:30pm

      I agree! 

      I believe Government has no business in marriage making. I believe that is God’s job. What say you? 

      Hope your well GetLife! 

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:05pm

      They take a vow to uphold the Constitution … and most can’t follow that !!!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:48pm

      As GETLIFE says, married legislators have already sworn to God not to stray. So signing this pledge is an even higher commitment than one spoken in a Church before God? Uh, no. This is a group trying bring influence to politics. To understand their frame of mind, you only have to a phrase that was in this well considered pledge, but which has been removed after Bachmann signed it:

      “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.”

      After Bachmann signed the pledge and it got coverage, they found to their surprise that it sounded a little like Blacks were better off when they were the property of whites than now with a Black presidents. Oops.

      This a circus. Signing this pledge is swearing to discriminate against those different from you. This country has been through this before folks with equal rights for women and blacks. Young people at least don‘t give a dang if you aren’t white or if you’re gay. The next generation doesn’t care. This, I hope is the last gasp of prejudice.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • ecurbyy
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:51pm

      Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for 54 years now. Top that. I put his name out there as often as I can, because it seems the right thing to do and no else does.

      Report Post » ecurbyy  
    • chazman
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:53pm

      How ’bout we all pledge NOT to be Liberal Marxist’s??!!!

      Report Post »  
    • pudssweetie
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:02pm

      Apparently Anthony Weiner didn’t take his marriage vow seriously and neither has a few other politicians who have gotten themselves in trouble for cheating on their wives. How can any Politician fight to keep the Institution of Marriage safe when they themselves cannot do it in their own personal lives.

      Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:55pm

    Is tonite the night the RINO’s cave???

    Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:54pm

    Who cares what “politicians” sign? Also, don’t people have to sign a marriage license?

    I don’t get it, I guess.

    Report Post »  
  • Look4DBigPicture
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:54pm

    I’m beginning to be taken aback by all these pledges and contracts the Republicans have started dreaming up. While agree with the premiss of this pledge, it seems pretty obvious and unnecessary.

    Next topic please….

    Report Post »  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:45pm

      When ANY politician uses the word SOCIAL in their policies, that is a BIG RED FLAG for me. There should be NO social entitlements, except for grandfathered Social Security. Let those under 55 take their own money and invest it wisely. If they don’t, then TOO BAD. NO MORE SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS…..NONE, NADA, NOPE, NOT ONE, NOTHING. Don’t these politicians want to balance the budget? Don’t they want mankind to make their own way and living? Without businesses, there is no money to give. Without the taxpayer, there is still no money. So, if we all take entitlements, where does the money come from if there’s no more businesses? Oh, I forgot, we can just print some.

      NO TO RICK SANTORUM……A BIG NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
  • tifosa
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:53pm

    Yeh, we hope the Republican candidates SIGN ‘EM ALL! Norquist pledge, marriage pledge… whatever comes along… :^)

    Report Post » tifosa  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:17pm

      @tifosa
      *******
      LOL–’read my lips!’

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • tifosa
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:52pm

      Keep on keepin on BAIKONUR! GOBAMA 2012! ٩(ˆ◡ˆ)۶
      *Terrorist, Marxist, Hippie-lovin’, Socialist, Communist, Maoist, Progressive Fistbumps* ;^)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • cicero1776
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:29pm

      @Baikonur

      ************* Read OUR lips!

      For Liberty

      Report Post » cicero1776  
  • Diamond Girl
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:50pm

    Santorum/Bachmann ‘12 works for me!

    Report Post » Diamond Girl  
    • Erabin
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:39pm

      I’m going to guess you are writing from Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq? Because that’d be a GREAT presidency for either of those countries.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:14pm

      Iran or Afganistan would be lucky to have people with actual spines like Rick or Barb . Unlike that jellfish the USA has as POTUS.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • dk_ship
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:44pm

    I am for it too

    Report Post »  
  • WHOSYOURMAHDI
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:44pm

    These things are designed to get that type of reaction from people. It’s a gimmicky way to hammer your opponents on the head and say things like “why won’t you sign the pledge? You must be anti-marriage pro-sharia etc.” That said, so far Bachmann has my vote. She knows what the Bible says about making oaths. Let your yes be yes, and your no, no. In otherwords, if you’ve already given wedding vows, you shouldn’t have to reaffirm them. If you‘ve already said you’re against big gov’t, but still think you need to sign a pledge, that tells me you don’t trust your own integrity.

    Report Post » WHOSYOURMAHDI  
    • sooner12
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:22pm

      @Whos…….You must remember that the MSM will hound you if you don’t sign it.

      Report Post »  
  • rpp
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:43pm

    Rick Santorum would not be bad president. While I think this vow is a good one, let us not forget that it is also part of the marriage vow, and Rick Santorum is a faithful Catholic, by all accounts.

    Report Post » rpp  
  • Ironmaan
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:41pm

    How about a pledge to repeal Obamacare? How about one to shrink government? I really don’t care if you want to screw your life up by cheating on your spouse, just stay out of mine.
    http://guerillatics.com

    Report Post »  
    • Dahart
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:07pm

      To be honest..I am tried of all these meaningless pledges….they never honor them anyways.

      Report Post » Dahart  
    • Erabin
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Yeah, I especially liked that “Contract with America” or how that idiotic piece of paper was called.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:51pm

      Politicians LIE? … Well I am shocked … if they put it in writing I want something that WE can do if they break the PLEDGE .. what good is it if it doesn’t containue CONSEQUENCES?

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:11pm

      How about that Screw America contract called Obamacare. Now that is a 2000 page pile of stupidity.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • chickenfried
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:13pm

      How about just pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of American. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…and the Republic is established and supported by the Constitution. Which is an extension of the Declaration of Independence where the Founders transcribed God’s rights for man (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

      Now, if they will pledge their allegiance to upholding the laws of this land and guarantee to protect my rights, that’s good enough for me.

      Report Post » chickenfried  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:04pm

      They take a pledge to uphold the Consititution .. and most can’t follow that!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
  • saranda
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:38pm

    Could Gary Johnson emerge as the voice of reason amongst a sea of candidates who insist on moving further right on social issues? This might be a guy to watch.

    Report Post »  
    • Dahart
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:49pm

      Funny…I was just thinking the same thing

      Report Post » Dahart  
    • momprayn
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:51pm

      Yeah, we’ll watch him…go right down into the ….sea of forgetfulness.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:50pm

      I agree with MOM

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 4:33am

      Johnson‘s the best candidate but he doesn’t have a prayer. The primaries and caucuses are always dominated by the segment of the GOP which believes the gays are coming to get them. You don‘t sing that tune and you won’t get anywhere.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • Jake in Denver
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:37pm

    So what part of the pledge is controversial?

    Report Post »  
    • Steve
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:58pm

      I’m sure some far right anarchist and some far left socialist/communist will find something. They always do and they always will.

      Waiting for the name calling like Good Germans and Nazi’s

      Report Post »  
    • BIGJAYINPA
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:46pm

      Signing it is one thing. I don’t care if they sign it or not. It is quite another thing to LIVE IT!! Don’t tell me SHOW ME. As far as I know Rick Santorum is and has been always faithful to his vows. You see I was fortunate enough to have him as one of my Senators for a while. Unfortunately my other Senator was Specter and that cost Ricky big time…..Just sayin’

      Report Post » BIGJAYINPA  
    • RED PILL PATRIOT
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 7:11pm

      @STEVE Are you saying that all Germans are somehow Nazi’s. Isn‘t that the same line of thinking that I should apologize for slavery when I wasn’t even alive for it, hence never owned a slave?

      Report Post »  
  • Sola Scriptura
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:36pm

    I’d sign it. Maybe they should all sigh it so the Lame-stream media can’t single any out.

    Report Post » Sola Scriptura  
  • ILUVAMERICA
    Posted on July 10, 2011 at 5:32pm

    HORRAY for Bachmann!!!!!
    She has my vote!!!!!!!
    Who ever refuses to sign are pieces of useless human flesh!

    Report Post » ILUVAMERICA  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:12pm

      Primetime TV mentality. Didn’t they already make their vows? You know, the REAL ones? Personally, I think a candidate has more of what it takes if they refuse to sign this artificial “2012 Elections Special Commemorative Vow.” Do they get a commemorative coin when they sign?

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • Erabin
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:16pm

      Doesn’t make Bachmann less of a waste of flesh and air, though.

      Report Post »  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:18pm

      Who is behind this “vow” anyway? Is it somebody bigger than God– who is usually the One behind original marriage vows?

      Games, games, and more games.

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:35pm

      This stuff is absurd. Who is coming up with these pledges anyway?
      They’re ridiculous. And no candidate should be signing them. All they do is trap people in unnecessary ways.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • conservativeBC
      Posted on July 11, 2011 at 12:53am

      Brothers And Sisters In Palin —WTF!
      check this out
      http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/brothers-and-sisters-in-palin-huh.html?m=0

      Report Post » conservativeBC  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 4:31am

      @ILUVAMERICA – keep showing that Christian love my friend!

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love