I wrote yesterday about the scrambled logic employed by former state Rep. Cynthia Davis to defend Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I found it hard to believe that anyone could be as obtuse as Cynthia Davis seems to be. However, as Michael Bersin pointed out earlier, current State Rep. Vicky “Running God’s Way” Hartzler is also an admirer of the Kentucky county clerk.

Hartzler not only speaks up for Kentucky’s premier religious bigot, she is, as Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star notes, the only one of Missouri’s congressional delegation to publicly defend Davis. I suspect that the only reason that she doesn’t go as far over the top as Missouri’s Cynthia Davis does is because her pronouncements so far have been brief (and if she decides to say more, she’ll have her staff to keep her coherent – something that Missouri Davis lacks). Hartzler nevertheless, misfires just as badly when she focuses on freedom of religion without acknowledging the civil rights of those in Davis’ religious cross-hairs, declaring that:

I stand with Kim Davis. It’s a sad day when we imprison someone in America because of their beliefs. Freedom of religion is our first right.

However, both Hartzler and Missouri Davis have even more distinguished company in their desire to defend Kentucky Davis: GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. And unlike Hartzler, Huckabee doesn’t hold back. He’s as over the top and poorly informed as Davis (although a bit more fluent in English). He attempts to draw parallels with the 19th century Dred Scott decision, claiming that it is still the law of the land – even after being informed that it was overturned by the 14th amendment:

“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?'” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”

After correcting Huckabee, Medved then asked the candidate if he would attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling with a constitutional amendment.

“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.'”

“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,” Huckabee said before Medved cut him off for a break.

That, I believe, is similar to the wannabe constitutional argument that our own Cynthia Davis is trying in her labored fashion to promulgate. So what does this mean about Huckabee – and by extension folks like Hartzler and Davis? As Steve Benen remarks:

… I don’t expect Huckabee to be a legal scholar. He’s not an attorney; he has no background in legal scholarship; he’s never even been an elected lawmaker.

But Huckabee is falling short of a junior-high-school level of understanding of the American constitutional system – which is generally not an appealing trait for someone seeking the nation’s highest office.

[…]

Huckabee’s bizarre mistake would be easier to dismiss if similar mistakes weren’t so common. The former governor and Fox News host has somehow convinced himself, for example, that federal “enabling legislation” is necessary in response to court rulings, or they don’t count. He’s also endorsed pre-Civil War nullification schemes and suggested he might deploy federal troops on U.S. soil to prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights.

It’s one thing to have a right-wing governing agenda, but it’s something else when a candidate invents his own brand of crackpot civics and pretends it’s real.

Cynthia Davis is a small time political has-been who has to resort to her own Internet talk show to try to peddle her silliness and Vicky Hartzler is basically just another lack-luster GOP hack. But Mike Huckabee is running for president – president of all of us, not just evangelical Christian fanatics.

Of course, on the other hand, why am I surprised that a GOP presidential candidate sounds a lot like a dim-witted local ex-politician? These individuals are members of a party in which Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate, and which tried to make Sarah Palin Vice-President. They’re members of a party that has turned its back on science, that denies the reality of climate change, that would subjugate foreign policy to partisan political considerations, that endorses discredited Voodoo economics, that would enable tax-cuts for the rich and impose greater tax-burdens on the poor, that is willing to suppress voting rights in the name of non-existent “voter fraud,” that denies that contraception is a health issue, that tries to rewrite history books to support present day ideological druthers, and that has no compunction about trying to impose a myriad fantastical theories and beliefs on the rest of us. Davis, Hartzler and Huckabee are maybe just a little less subtle than some of their other colleagues.

Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Slightly nutty and seriously dim denizen of the lands on the far right shores of dominionist Christian extremism? Now that she no longer has a legislative outlet, she shares her very special political views by means of an internet talk show. Via the Turner Report, we  now have her considered opinion about why same-sex couples want to get married, and, trust me, it has nothing to do with any rationale for same-sex marriage that we’ve ever heard before.

No, same-sex marriage is, according to Davis, a ruse to “drain” the Social Security fund. Seems she “was doing research” on the Social Security Administration Website and found that now that same-sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian partners are eligible for Social Security and Social Security Disability benefits in the same way that married heterosexual couples are. And, goosed by mental incoherence, revelation suddenly blazed forth:

So there you have it. The purpose of changing the definition of marriage was intended to drain the Social Security fund more quickly. When we allow people who are not actually married to receive marital benefits, the end result is that people will “get married” based upon what kind of monetary bonus is available.

It works the other way as well. When people discover they can extract more money from being in a divorced status, they divorce.

This is fraud. Yet, you can’t blame the people for being smart. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Congress who are charged with the duty of controlling their own created bureaucracies.

How could anyone ever think fornication is promotable or merits financial reward? If the Supreme Court jurists, who are supposed to be legally brilliant, are that blind, what can we expect out of our normal citizens?

The part about folks who are “not actually married” must, I think, refer to a statement on the Webpage that indicates benefits may be available to a surviving partner in a non-marital, legal same sex relationship. This refers to state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. These categories of relationship were devised precisely in order to make the legal system fairer for committed same-sex couples without offending folks like Davis who wanted to keep “marriage” exclusively for heterosexuals. At any rate, the provision now makes even more sense since these are folks who would have been married if they had not been denied their constitutional rights.

The provision for divorced spouses is of fairly long standing and is designed to take care of women or men who stayed at  home and provided support for their spouses during their marriages, only to be left with no or minimal Social Security earnings after their divorces. They may, if they wish, calculate their social security income based on their spouses’ work record and receive the equivalent of 50% of what their spouses would receive. Seems only fair to me.

Although Davis might not like extending benefits to same-sex couples – or to anyone – it’s hard to figure where the “fraud”  that has her all riled up can be found. Perhaps she should have done a little more research or asked someone capable of parsing English – and following links on the Social Security Webpages – to explain how these benefits work.

It is a mystery how she  managed to construe anything in the text she cites as promoting “fornication.” There have been people who fornicate for money since the beginning of recorded history, but I don’t think that fact has anything to do with same-sex marriage or the rules for paying out Social Security benefits. Perhaps it’s Davis whose mind is just a little too much “dans la boue,” as one of my French teachers used to say when she heard ideas or language that struck her as crude.

As for draining social security, don’t you think it might have occurred to Davis that these same-sex partners have been paying into the Social Security fund just like the rest of us, but haven’t been able to tap into the same range of benefits? Is it possible that Davis likes having a class of individuals denied the same rights as others for strictly financial reasons?  

Just for funsies, Davis might also think about what would happen if all same-sex marriage partners were magically to become straight overnight. After she yelled “hallelujah,” would she start worrying about the Social Security fund? Wouldn’t these new heterosexuals likely “drain” just as much from the fund through the opposite-sex marriages they might contract?

Perhaps Davis thinks that marriage itself is designed to drain the Social Security fund? Which would explain why she has claimed in the past that marriage is the cure for poverty. It must be all that Social Security fraud that is enriching married heterosexuals.

I took a look at the Turner Report today in order to find out what’s going on down in Joplin and thereabouts. Guess what I found. A copy of a press release from none other than the  über-conservative dreamgirl, Cynthia Davis, erstwhile GOP legislative pain in the you-know-what and more recently, Missouri Constitution Party doyenne, on the reasons she opposes – yes, you read it right, opposes – the right to farm Amendment 1. Her reason:

Normally, the conservative position is to side with less regulation. However, there is a real threat that the Chinese could buy up our farmland. In that scenario, having fewer regulations could allow us to end up with massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench.

Figures that the argument that got to her had to with thwarting those dammed foreigners, but she still gets the main issue right. Corporate farms stand to benefit, not necessarily small farms (she does express a bit of worry about protecting the already amply protected Missouri family farmer). Is this what the Missouri political world would look like if we could cure rightwing delusions and GOP politicians carefully weighed issues based on real, verifiable facts, not hot air, conspiracy theories, and/or which campaign donor stands to benefit the most?

Davis should get some credit for this – the Turner Report post directly below her statement on the issue was that of Missouri House Speaker and money-man Tim Jones, who, predictably asserts that Amendment 1 has been “designed to protect the family farming traditions that are such an important part of our state’s history, and such a vital component of our state’s economy.” Of course, Davis isn’t in elective office anymore – actually, she isn’t even a Republican any more – so she doesn’t have to line up with the GOPers in Jefferson City who have their hands out waiting for Big Ag benefactors to drop some of that green manna from heaven into their grubby paws.

Addenda: Okay. Perhaps I’m giving her too much credit. She doesn’t seem to realize that homegrown, American agricultural corporations are just as likely to create “massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench” as the Chinese variety.  

Today’s the day that October quarterly campaign finance reports are due at the Missouri Ethics Commission. In the Lieutenant Governor race we’re taking a look at the reports for Susan Montee (D), Peter Kinder (r), and, just for kicks, Cynthia Davis (whatever).

First, the summary for Susan Montee (D):

REPORT SUMMARY

MONTEE FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 10/15/2012

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $911,817.87

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $125,510.27

8. Total All Receipts This Election $1,037,328.14

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $270,117.38

34. Total Indebtedness at the Close of This Reporting Period $505,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s decent cash on hand. The campaign indebtedness is a definite “ouch”.

The summary for Peter Kinder (r), the tweeting, hotel staying, and other interesting things incumbent:

REPORT SUMMARY

FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 10/15/2012

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $3,989,554.83

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $279,778.00

8. Total All Receipts This Election $4,273,615.60

14. Total Expenditures This Election $2,379,950.13

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $267,911.03

34. Total Indebtedness at the Close of This Reporting Period $43,086.01

[emphasis added]

You’ve just gotta love those nasty (but true) republican primaries, flushing millions of dollars down the republican campaign consultant industrial complex. The cash on hand is roughly at parity.

The summary for Cynthia Davis (whatever):

REPORT SUMMARY

ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS [pdf] 10/5/2012

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $31,913.67

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $5,345.12

8. Total All Receipts This Election $37,298.91

14. Total Expenditures This Election $18,827.93

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $12,684.89

34. Total Indebtedness at the Close of This Reporting Period $30,000.00

Heh. That’s less than 1% of the total raised by the republican incumbent. You’d think…

Some of the interesting contributions:  

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED – SUPPLEMENTAL

MONTEE FOR MISSOURI 10/15/2012

John Schofield 618 N Union St Independence MO 64050-2673 N/A/retired 9/5/2012 $5.00

Clay F. Jordan 620 Hillcrest Dr Knob Noster MO 65336-1529 None 9/10/2012 $25.00

[emphasis added]

Yeah, there are some high dollar (not as high as the republican incumbent) contributions, but there are a significant number of small dollar contributions. Organized labor (working people!) and attorneys have kicked in to Susan Montee’s campaign, too.

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED – SUPPLEMENTAL

FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER 10/15/2012

Kansas City Chiefs One Arrowhead Drive Kansas City MO 64129 9/25/2012 $2,500.00

[emphasis added]

1-5, folks, 1-5. There are a lot of committee and corporate contributions and a relatively small number of small dollar contributions.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS RECEIVED

ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS 10/5/2012

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSON GIVING $25 OR LESS $865.12

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $1,855.00

14. TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS (NOT COMMITTEES) GIVING $100 OR LESS $40.12

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED – SUPPLEMENTAL

James Clymer 301 Letort Road Millersville PA 17551 Self- employed — Attorney 9/28/2012 $1,000.00

James Jerri White 205 Casey Drive Rosseville TN 38066 Retired 9/22/2012 $275.00

[emphasis added]

Some people in Pennsylvania and Tennessee must have a soft spot in their checkbooks for lost political causes.

Some of the expenditures:

ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES OVER $100 SUPPLEMENTAL FORM

MONTEE FOR MISSOURI 10/15/2012

Baughman Company 1782 Union Street San Francisco CA 94123 9/17/2012 Printing and Copying $7,500.00

The Competence Group 1248 West Altgeld Chicago IL 60614 9/12/2012 Fundraising Expense $6,500.00

Berrick Partnership 2914 Milton Blvd Saint Louis MO 63104-1636 9/17/2012 Research $2,500.00

Kilt Boy Productions PO Box 9216 Peoria IL 61612-9216 9/2/2012 Communications & Video Production $1,500.00

Kilt Boy Productions PO Box 9216 Peoria IL 61612-9216 9/14/2012 Communications & Video Production $1,500.00

Lane Studios 1900 Mersington Court Kansas City MO 64127 9/26/2012 Advertising $2,710.00

Maria Ponce Photography 4553 North Wolcott Ave Chicago IL 60640 9/14/2012 Advertising $2,304.91

Ninth Street Tactics LLC 1625 S 9th St. Saint Louis MO 63104 9/6/2012 Research $2,500.00

[emphasis added]

We like research. We do it all the time.

ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES OVER $100 SUPPLEMENTAL FORM

FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER 10/15/2012

Axiom Strategies 1251 Northwest Briarcliff Pkwy #85 Kansas City MO 64116 9/13/2012 Polling $1,500.00

David Barklage 7925 Clayton RD Ste 200 St Louis MO 63105 9/15/2012 Consultant $2,500.00

636 Media 429 N Main St Ofallon MO 63366 9/25/2012 Advertsing $2,000.00

Capitol Consulting PO Box 931 Jefferson City MO 65102 9/15/2012 Fundrasier $3,500.00

Lindsey Kolb 1021 E Harrison St Room 804A Springfield MO 65807 9/17/2012 Research $300.00

Jaret Jensen 1501 S Independence Harrisonville MO 64701 9/25/2012 Research $2,500.00

[emphasis added]

What kind of research? Political research, sir!

EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY – SUPPLEMENTAL FORM

ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS 10/5/2012

Dues $10.00

Fees – Online Contributions $105.35

Parking $8.00

Postage $21.48

Public Relations $73.77

Social Media $30.00

Supplies $144.15

[emphasis added]

$73.77 for public relations. Outstanding!

It’s always fun to take a look at particularly amusing past mistakes. In that spirit I offer this video of former State Rep. Cynthia Davis regaling a gathering with the reasons they should vote for her, the Constitution Party Candidate, for Lieutenant Governor this fall (h/t The Turner Report):

It’s the standard, sweetly oblivious Tea Party Cynthia we all remember so fondly, patting herself on the back for being the “most constitutional” legislator in Missouri, issuing the routine condemnations of government as incompetent and out to “ruin our lives.”

Oddly, though, Davis doesn’t seem to realize what it means that that she got a chance to fix what she perceived as wrong by serving in government. That fact might suggest to some that government actually serves a legitimate purpose and that we need it. Additionally, if, in democracies at least, individuals can enter government to correct perceived problems – and here I’m not making any judgments about the corrections a Cynthia Davis would pursue – it means that in general government has the power to self-correct through the agency of engaged citizenry, something that is not always true of other social institutions – particularly when it comes to private enterprise of which folks like Davis seem to be so enamoured.

Davis does, though, to give her credit, put her finger on a big problem facing our democracy right now. Seems that Cynthia has learned the hard way that politics involves money – and was shocked to learn that her fellow GOPers did favors in return for hefty campaign dollars. Pervasive corruption she implies, is why she, a seeming bastion of “constitutional” purity, decamped from the GOP.

Of course, a meaner-minded person than I might ask if Davis hadn’t actually been rejected by the party first – and perhaps might still be going great GOP guns if she had prevailed against Scott Rupp in the 2010 state Senatorial primary, or if her short tenure as Chair of the St. Charles Republican Party had been happier. Nevertheless, she deserves credit for speaking up now about a real and very obvious problem in Missouri (and in the wake of Citizens United, elsewhere) where untrammeled campaign donations flow far too freely with no accountability.  Ask yourself, though, if someone as lame as Davis can, in her halting way, identify the biggest problem facing our democracy today, the role of big money, hadn’t we  better get busy and do something about it before it’s too late?

Addendum:  More on money and political favors: Paul Blumenthal and Howard Fineman write that what Super PAC donors really want is a return on their investment. Also, more on the “dark money” that, via, for example, Crossroads GPS, is influencing elections right here in Missouri – just ask Claire McCaskill who’s been blitzed with Crossroads ads and billboards – and who’s now, as a result, according to the most recent poll running behind every one of the sad doofuses vying for the GOP nomination.  

The mind boggles. It seems that Romney’s folks are prepping the stage in the U.K. for his foreign policy “tour” by playing on the same petit bougeois, white resentment they’ve attempted to exploit in the U.S. Seventeen percent of the British population, after all, are ethnic minorities – many from former British colonies like Kenya, home of Obama’s daddy. Actually, if anybody in the Romney camp were capable of honest analysis, they’d have to acknowledge Obama might have more in common with diverse Brits than the American, “Anglo-Saxons” think. The son of a post-colonial Kenyan, he grew up in homes managed by white, Kansan Anglo-Saxons (presumably – the family name was Dunham?).

Remember when Cynthia Davis chided an African-American witness at a House Health Care Committee hearing about what she believed to be the bad dietary habits of “your people”? Of course, poor, dumb Cynthia really thinks like that. But don’t you think it’s pretty bad when a presidential candidate tries to appeal to that mind-set – and embarrasses us all by doing it in an international setting?

Cynthia Davis, former republican member of the General Assembly and now fringe party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, continues to demonstrate her well deserved reputation (weighing in on HB 2051 and Representative Zach Wyatt):

….Missouri legislators made national news last week over a bill to dictate what schools can teach regarding perverted behavior.  This story is particularly interesting to me since I was just in the community of Novinger, Northwest of Kirksville, the week before.  When this area replaced a Democrat with a Republican, they thought it would be an upgrade.  The new representative from Novinger just provided us with an example of why voting for a party alone does not represent our best interests.

The first four years I served in the House, this area was represented by a Republican.  Then for four years, the area was represented by a Democrat.  In 2010, this district reverted back to a Republican who now has betrayed the family-values image of the Republican Party as he held a press conference to announce his private preference of debasing himself with other men.  Making a public spectacle of this information bolstered him to national attention.  Since governments are not dragging people out of their bedrooms, why is his deviant lifestyle relevant to public policy?….

All that’s missing is the spittle.

As for the text:

Fairfax: …Man, that’s just MEAN. That’s MEAN, man.

“…relevant to public policy?”

Uh, we’ll take “right wingnut cultural wedge issues used in public discourse for a generation as a cynical distraction for political gain” for a thousand, Alex.

The stoopid, it burns.

Previously: Campaign Finance: some candidates for Lieutenant Governor have been working the phones of late (February 4, 2012)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Miriam Butt 1029 Yale Columbia MO 65203 retired homemaker 1/23/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Schafer Fertilizer PO Box 2 Martinsburg MO 65264 1/23/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI David Mehr 714 Engleside columbia MO 65201 University of Missouri Physician 1/31/2012 $2,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI James Jenkins 150 N. Central Ave Clayton MO 63105 retired physician 1/31/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Jane Fike 1318 cedarwood Fulton MO 65251 retired retired 1/26/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Patterson Todd 4520 Rockhill Kansas City MO 64110 self consultant 2/3/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI steve gnatz 1117 Forest Wheaton IL 60187 Loyola University Physician 2/3/2012 $1,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Hilda Jones PO Box 57 Williamsburg MO 63388 retired retired 2/3/2012 $5,000.00

C121030 02/06/2012 JUDY BAKER FOR MISSOURI Karen Cox 4929 Westwood Kansas City MO 64112 Children’s Mercy Exec VP 2/3/2012 $1,000.00

[emphasis added]

Even the lunatic fringe is getting into the big money:

C010984 02/06/2012 ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS Kammermann Ext. Co. Inc P.O. 564 3451 Bray Road Farmington MO 63640 2/4/2012 $1,000.00

[emphasis added]

Why bother? Because we’re mean.

Former State Representative Cynthia Davis, an announced Constitution Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, filed her January quarterly campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 9th.

REPORT SUMMARY

ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS [pdf] 1/9/2012

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $4,289.47

6. In-kind Contributions Received This Period $3,784.10

10. Expenditures made by cash or check this period $1,273.20

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $3,999.44

34. Total Indebtedness at the Close of This Reporting Period $30,000.00

[emphasis added]

Nah, can’t go on…

Move along, there’s nothing more to see here.

Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Remember her special blend of naive, petit-bourgeois self-righteousness, triumphalist religiosity and general dimwittedness? Although the term-limited Davis seems to have been too much of a good thing for otherwise crazy-loving Missouri Republicans – she lost her state senate primary race to the more traditionally respectable Scott Rupp – those of us who have been paying attention to the GOP primaries may feel a bit of Davis-tinged deja vu right about now. This feeling is especially acute when we consider primary contender Rick Santorum who shares Davis’ political DNA in spades.

Despite Davis’ failure in Missouri, Santorum’s current popularity in Iowa offers clear evidence that the GOP is far from forswearing his and Davis’ special brand of looney-tunes. While the Missouri GOP realized that Davis lacked the qualities essential to successfully represent the party, and while nobody really thinks Santorum is presidential material, they both equally embody the authoritarian and exclusivist social and religious strains that serve to rev up a sizable segment of the GOP base.  

An excellent example of this GOP cultural model is provided by the particular approach to the problem of resurgent poverty that both Santorum and Davis promote. They seem to think that if you could just force folks (men and women, that is, none of that gay stuff) to get married and stay married, no matter what, poverty would magically go away.  

During her tenure as Chair of the Missouri House Interim Committee on Poverty, Davis’ authored a report (pdf) that is full of gems gleaned from the testimony of exactly two witnesses, both from right-wing religious organizations, one of which, the Ruth Institute, touts marriage between “one man, one woman for life” as its raison d’etre, and from a tour of Sunshine Ministries, an evangelical, faith-based, anti-poverty organization. Not surprisingly, six of the nine conclusions offered in the report seemed to be based on the belief that to cure poverty we only need to promote marriage.

Santorum, for his part, is sure that a simple two-step process will end all poverty for all time:

Number one, graduate from high school. Number two, get married. Before you have children, […] If you do those two things, you will be successful economically. What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more. If you want to have a strong economy, there are two basic things we can do.

There’s nothing wrong with encouraging folks to get an education, nor can the importance of a strong family structure be underestimated; it only stands to reason that people working in tandem usually have twice the resources as those who try to go it alone. But conservatives like Santorum and Davis manage to  get it all backwards. A recent report (pdf) from the Economic Policy Institute analyzes  the available data on the relation between marriage and poverty in the African-American and Latino communities and concludes:

Continually high poverty rates among blacks and Latinos are the result of high unemployment and incarceration rates and declining shares of good jobs in the American economy. The decline of marriage in these groups is a collateral consequence of these negative economic conditions. We can address these problems with full-employment in good jobs and comprehensive criminal justice reform. These policies would not only lift large numbers of Latinos and blacks out of poverty, they would also provide significant benefits to all other racial groups. Additionally, these policies would provide more white, Latino, and black men with the economic security they need to get married.

In other words, instead of broken marriages and out-of-wedlock births leading to poverty, poverty leads to broken marriages and out-of-wedlock births which, in turn, reinforces the whole cycle. Forcing people to get married and stay married won’t provide employment when all the jobs have been shipped off to foreign countries. But blaming the evils of poverty exclusively on individual marital choices does let the rest of us off the hook when it comes to addressing the conditions that make stable family relationships difficult to maintain. Plus, it’s always so gratifying to tell other people what they should do – which is, of course, to be more like us.

It’s probably worthwhile to note that Santorum and Davis are selective in their embrace of the miracle powers of marriage. They don’t agree at all with the Huffington Post‘s Amanda Terkel, who notes that by the Santorum/Davis logic, allowing same-sex partners to marry would “increase the number of marriages in the country and theoretically lower the nation’s poverty rate.” Marriage champion Davis is now the executive director of by an anti-gay marriage group – and Santorum’s position on the issue is notorious. They both argue that by increasing the scope of marriage and permitting even more people to share in its benefits, we will undermine the institution for those who are currently permitted to enter it. In their view of the world, there just doesn’t seem to be enough marriage to go around and heterosexuals have dibs on what there is.

Such observations, however, presuppose that the proponents of the miracle marriage cure actually care about logical consistency, which certainly, given their shared tendency to cast their arguments in terms of caricature, doesn’t seem to be the case. However, the rest of us ought to care – one of these clowns is actually being taken seriously – more or less – as a possible candidate for President of the United States, and the more absurd his utterances, the more the the entire political theater will shift into the realm of the ridiculous. We managed to get rid of Davis, what will it take to exile the Santorums of the right from the political sphere?