Tim Pawlenty will sign the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge on gay marriage.
“The campaign has been encouraging people to view the video at Pawlentyfaith.com to hear first hand about the Governor’s strong support for traditional marriage, and after further reviewing the pledge, the Governor wanted to sign it,” says spokesman Alex Conant.
Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have also signed the pledge.
Pathetic. All of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty changed his mind when he realized he needed him name in the news. These pledges are stupid. All of them. I respect all the signers of this pledge less now than I did before. Pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"TPaw Will Now Sign NOM Pledge"
Trinko's Paw will sign the pledge? That's sweet of dear old dad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is pathetic is all the absurd grousing about pledges. I have rarely seen such misplaced energy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePathetic, all of them. We get upset with the other side bends to special interests, but get our panties in a wad when our candidates don't do the same? Perhaps instead of addressing the concerns of a few big donors, these candidates should instead be more concerned with getting their message out on their terms, not to be interpreted by being associated with organizations that may or may not be completely aligned with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNOM, Right to Lifers, tax cutters, NRA, even radical progressives, everyone of any persuasion: Let's do away with pledges, please. They tend to be all-or-nothing, and invite hypocrisy.
It's what you DO, and whether or not we can rely on that in the future, if it is important to us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure NOM will be as effective for his campaign as they were against Gay Marriage in New York.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, but there's an important difference. In New York or any state legislature, or in any courtroom, the politicians and judges can be bribed or intimidated by "same-gender marriage" proponents.
For example, they can say, "If you don't vote our way, then your kids won't get into Harvard, Yale, or Stanford." That's a big problem for the political class.
But at the voting booth, the votes are secret. There is NO example of voters approving "same-gender marriage," only opposition, even in California and Maine. In fact, that's worldwide: No place with "same-gender marriage" anywhere in the world has put the issue to voters there.
Voters don't directly elect a president, of course. There's always the possibility that the Electoral College will be threatened or intimidated.
Remember, Barack Obama ran in 2008 stating that marriage was one man, one woman. Only AFTER being elected did he change his mind. It would be so hard to get his daughters into the best schools, otherwise. Money is money.
May I ask: Can anyone tell me how many of the New York legislators specifically ran on a platform of "same-gender marriage" at their last elections? How many ran against it, or were neutral? Did the voters get what they expected?
This is not a trivial question. Recall that in Canada, which has a somewhat different system, disparate regional court rulings were addressed by the national parliament, which first asked its supreme court if it was a political question (one that could be resolved on a national basis by parliament, answer yes). The Liberal Party, then dominant, put through "same-gender marriage." In the following election, for other reasons the Liberals were on the skids. The major opposition party, which opposed "same-gender marriage," chose to not run on the issue of abolishing it (at the time), which was in effect a promise to the voters that they should toss out the Liberals for other reasons. And so they did. At some future time, the issue can be re-addressed, but the opposition fulfilled its promise then.
Compare this to Mexico or Spain, where socialist legislators voted in "same-gender marriage." Did they run on that issue, or on other issues?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEnough with the pledges!
I agree with many of these organizations' goals, and understand that they want to get some kind of public commitment -- particularly given that telling people whatever they want to hear is practically the defining characteristic of a politician. But a hundred little conservative groups demanding that their particular high horse be the first to get fed is not finally terribly useful, and it's certainly not becoming.
So NOM has gotten its way. Great! And now Pawlenty looks like he folded, and/or like a guy who had to be bullied into supporting a position that he *already clearly supported.*
In any event, the last thing the Republicans need right now is even more tests of ideological purity: "He didn't sign the XX pledge! What a RINO!"
I'm not a Pawlenty fan, but honestly, what good has been done here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find this complaint so strange. It would be one thing not to care one way or the other about pledges, but to regard them as some kind of menace? Passing strange.
NOM did "get its way" (i.e., the way of a sizable portion of the electorate), so how was the pledge not "useful"? (I also fail to see how it is "unbecoming" to write up a pledge, solicit a signature, or sign.) NOM got a commitment, as you say -- which is helpful and informative, "particularly given that telling people whatever they want to hear is practically the defining characteristic of a politician."
I didn't mind when Pawlenty decided to make his own statement instead of signing the earlier pledge, which he apparently considered too detailed, but to the precise extent that signing designates "public commitment," not signing leaves the candidate with something to answer for. That's politics. Good grief.
Anyhow, I seem to be a dissenting voice, but I am pleased that so many of our candidates (practically all of them) appear to be fully on board with respect to life and marriage, and only one or two seem shy about signing pledges to that effect. (The only resolute non-pledger is Huntsman, the oiliest of the lot, in my view.) The pledges give assurances about matters I wasn't sure about before, and they also demonstrate the falsity of the notion that the positions set forth in the pledges are "outside the mainstream."
The tone has been set, which is all to the good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardcastle, the pledge is a "menace" because the primary strategy gay marriage supporters rely on is to pretend they've got a clear majority, and then ridicule & dehumanize anyone who objects. The goal is to get a nice argumentum ad populum going, so that people are literally afraid to object.
This strategy is much easier than actually explaining why two relationships that are clearly dissimilar should be treated as identical under the law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat points. You covered the territory much better than I did. Most of those objecting to pledges so vehemently in recent weeks have actually been opponents of the content of the pledges; they'd love a pledge supporting SSM. So it's discouraging to see people who do agree with the content following along, in the name of some kind of pledge aversion.
I'm pretty sure Perry will sign when he gets on board, so that will mean all the front runners have committed. Every signature will make it harder for the SSM activists to run their scare routine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"they'd love a pledge supporting SSM."
No and it isn't needed. I don't need or want a president pushing gay marriage at the federal level. Let the states determine their own laws, I want these changes, but I care more about how they are brought about. I would rather have a president stay out of it and not sign pledges going either way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess they will have to start pestering someone else to sign this pledge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Pawlenty is showing once again that he lacks a spine, if you say you are not going to sign a pledge, then stick to it.
Whew! Miss Lopez can sleep tonight!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot a fan of the ghettoized "Pawlentyfaith" website. What? Can't have faith stuff on your real campaign website?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat. Just one more issue that the media will hit him with over and over. At the rate things are going, there will not be one GOP candidate I will vote for.
Almost no one who doesn't pay attention to politics everyday has ever heard of NOM. But I guarantee that the MSM will tell focus like a laser on the supposed takeover of the GOP by fundamentalists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuntsman. He's your man. No-pledge Huntsman, he was known as.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePledges are for children: Pledge of Allegiance in schools (upon a time), Boy Scout Pledge, Girl Scout Pledge, Cub Scout and Brownie Pledges, etc.
Outside of politics, what adult pledges are there?
Do we insist on pledges from politicians because we don't trust their word? A written word is more trustworthy than a spoken word coming from a dishonest politician? When a politician gets hammered for going back on his word, it's a spoken word: "Read my lips. No new taxes!" / "I did not have sex with that woman!" / "I am not a crook!" Pledges were not necessary.
When did anything good come from a politician honoring some silly pledge? When did anything bad come from a politician reneging on some silly pledge?
This particular pledge faux controversary was cooked up by the NOM for no other reason to make the NOM seem like some sort of player in the GOP nomination process. Name recognition goes up, influence goes up, donations go up, and these things are the goal more than any duty to traditional marriage.
The Silly Season is officially open and everybody's trying to find a way to elbow themselves onto the stage - and into the big money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on, Henry. First of all the Pledge of Allegiance is hardly just for children. I say it all the time, most recently at a military band concert and a few weeks before that at my daughter's graduation. I'm sure I could come up with other "adult" pledges, but it's late, so I'll just observe that there have already been several of these political pledges circulated during this "silly season," almost all the (adult) candidates have signed them, and I am glad they did. There is nothing puerile about their content.
Second, in none of your examples of reneging did anyone sign a pledge, so, if anything, the examples tend to disprove your point. No, BJ would never have kept a pledge, but then he would never have signed a pledge. It means something to the electorate that some of the more honorable people are willing to solemnize their promises.
Third, your point about NOM is just weird. If you don't like the content of the pledge, just say so, but for those who do like the content, it is a very good thing, indeed, for NOM to "seem like some sort of player." What do you think NOM wants "name recognition," "donations," and "influence" for? To gain a place on Dancing with the Stars? No, NOM is dedicated to protecting traditional marriage. Gallagher has been called loads of names, but I've never heard her called insincere. Do you seriously think she is trying to get rich off SSM?
You people should all just go cast your votes for Huntsman. He thinks just the way you do about pledges. Plus, if he were president, his views on marriage would slowly evolve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse