Quantcast
Opinion

Kathleen Parker: President Obama ought to speak out on the need for two-parent families

Comments

Return To Article
  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 14, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    Melanna
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    The worst thing Obama could do to promote two-parent families would be to speak out in support of them. Republican Congresspeople are filibustering legislation they themselves proposed if they think it will benefit Obama - do you really think they will support something he says?!?!?

    9:23 a.m. Dec. 14, 2012

    ==========

    Agreed! Great comment!

    There are some who's political extremeism is so far removed from all reality,
    that ANYTHING Pres. Obama says or does is automatically labeled as evil or wrong.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    The worst thing Obama could do to promote two-parent families would be to speak out in support of them. Republican Congresspeople are filibustering legislation they themselves proposed if they think it will benefit Obama - do you really think they will support something he says?!?!?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    Screwdriver,

    what is a "litening" problem?

    So you admit you listened to bush with the sole intent to criticize. And you accuse us of having a listening problem? (at least I think that was what you were trying to say)

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 14, 2012 4:30 a.m.

    I think there's a litening problem including the Author whose job seems to be "soft" weekly Obama bashing.

    So why don't you just admit that most of you conservatives have never listened to ANY of Obama's speeches or read them. You parrot poorly anything you hear on Faux news and pretend you have any personal idea of what Obama has ecver said or written. I made it a point to get through Bush's speeches so I could criticize honestly. Seems like the least an American could do.

    Obama talks fatherhood - and why he helps coach Sasha's basketball team

    Obama: Fatherhood More Important Than Building Relationships With Lawmakers

    Obama talks about fatherhood's importance

    Obama says fatherhood trumps schmoozing

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:26 p.m.

    I went to a youth detention center to tell Polynesian stories. The inmates were people who broke the law enough times that the justice system finally did something and put them there.

    In talking to them the thing that came out is the reason that many (not all) of them were there is because they had grown up in communities where the fathers were gone. They had grown up in homes run by their mothers.

    Pres. Obama and many others don't address this because it is not politically fashionable. Kathleen Parker was disappointed in him because the perception was (and is) that he is liberal when in reality, he is dogmatic. Fighting poverty is not on his radar screen because the steps to fight poverty, such as responsible procreation where the father and mother are married, are not the politically fashionable one. Again, people thought we had a liberal president and we only have a dogmatic one.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    Atl134,

    "BO got 60 - 65 % of the poor vote"

    Thanks for providing the statistical support for my point

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 3:20 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "Do you HONESTLY believe welfare moms voted for Romney? "

    Statistically, Obama pulled about 60-65% of the poor vote, subcategories biased in normal directions (poor blacks voted more for Obama, poor whites were closer to 50-50 to perhaps even a slight Romney lead, poor women were more for Obama than poor men, etc). That still leaves a third of poor voters going to Romney. That's as close a polling indicator as you are going to get.

    Fact is over 50% of Mississippians don't pay income taxes and Obama got crushed there, so there's a sizable chunk of 47%ers that are voting for Romney. It's not a majority but to pretend it's near 0 is absurd.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 13, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    @chilly
    you are right chilly my mistake

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    George,
    As Chilly pointed out, you are wrong. Before you complain about tired old rhetoric you should check your facts.

    Stalwart,
    Apples and oranges – you like the juice blend?

    Atl134,
    Again, apples and oranges – there are differing demographics within states, not just between states, compare which demographics voted BO, not which states. Do you HONESTLY believe welfare moms voted for Romney? REALLY!?!?!?

    And nowhere is Lledrev saying babies should starve. Nice twist and obfuscation, though.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    @Lledrev
    "The government should not pay single mothers to have more babies. (welfare) "

    So... let the babies starve is your plan?

    "It should not hold up promiscuous women as role models. (Sandra Flucke) "

    Promiscuous? She testified about a friend of hers who suffered from a health condition, and many women use birth control even when they're not having active sex lives.

    "It should not encourage ever increasing support for, and decreasing responsibility for sexual activity. (government provided birth control and abortions)"

    You just complained about poor mothers having babies two points ago when you condemned welfare. Now you want to go after people for not having babies?

    "The president should not openly support gay marriage "

    So we should let gay couples raise kids in a less committed relationship? That'll definitely help what you're trying to solve... (sarcasm alert)

    "including a belief in God on its platform should not be difficult to pass at its party convention."

    We're not a theocracy and non-Christians can be moral people too.

    Clearly, you do not care at all about trying to solve the problem you believe needs to be addressed.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    It takes no effort for Obama to tell the world that a family should consist of a father and a mother who are married. It's just not politically expedient.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    Ha has, as has been pointed out, spoken out in support of two parent families. Even same sex ones.

  • Lledrav West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    I'm stunned by commenter suggestions that the government cant do anything about single motherhood. A nations policies and leader have a huge effect on is morality. Here are some ideas; The government should not pay single mothers to have more babies. (welfare) It should not hold up promiscuous women as role models. (Sandra Flucke) It should not encourage ever increasing support for, and decreasing responsibility for sexual activity. (government provided birth control and abortions) The president should not openly support gay marriage and yet be silent on the importance of fathers in the home. And last but not least, including a belief in God on its platform should not be difficult to pass at its party convention.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    George: "So then explain to us why more married people voted for Obama then(sic) Romney..."

    Not true. 53% of married women and 60% of married men voted for Romney.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Lledrav
    West Jordan, UT

    From your borderline racist - absolutely bigoted remark,
    I will safely assume you are "white", most likely "male" and obviously "Republican".

    So, it must really tear you up knowing we have elected and re-elected a black Democrat as President.

    Must be even harder knowing YOU will be a minority race in America by 2043.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    Lledrav - According to the National Campaign's 2010 study, the eleven states w/ the highest single-parent family percentages were MI, LA, SC, NM, AL, FL, AR, GA, TN, RI, NC. 8 of those states are considered conservative (all voted for Romney), 2 can be considered purple (voted for Obama), and only one is blue (RI). So, 73% of the states w/ the highest single-parent family percentage are conservative and voted for Romney while only 9% are liberal.

    For you, and lost, et all: At what point does the factual landscape of an argument become so overwhelmingly dispositive of your position that you will finally change it?

    As an aside, supporting SSM is supporting a two-parent family, which is primarily (and almost exclusively now) opposed by conservatives.

  • Lledrav West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    Am I the only one who sees the answer to Miss Parkers question as obvious? Obama got elected by minorities and fringe groups, not "Ozzie and Harriet". Of course he's not going to condone the alternate lifestyles of his supporters then turn around and say, "Oh by the way, if you have children they should have a father at home too, like the people who didn't vote for me."
    And how sad a commentary is it when Prof. Graglias truthful observation that the single parent black culture isn't good, gets him attacked. How sad, as Parker says, if Obama would say the same thing it would be lauded. Who the messenger of truth is shouldn't matter. But then history has shown the more truthful a person is, the more likely He is to get crucified.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    Why should he need to speak out?
    He lives it by his own example.

    BTW - I recall when was first elected one of the very 1st things he did was speak to Children about staying in School, and getting a good education, and taking personal responsibilty for it.

    I rember how many Utah Republicans made their kids stay home and skip it all together,
    it was all some sort of his evil Socialist mind-control plot.

    They didn't pay any attention then,
    What makes anyone think they'd pay attention now?

    BTW - What a stupid and silly example those parent taught their kids about America that day!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    Here's a case in which Obama leads by example.

    Besides, if he did speak up about this his words would be twisted into some kind of unrecognizable misquote by the right wing zealots. And in Utah, parents would have to give written permission for their children to be allowed to listen.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    @lost in DC
    If being dependent was Obama's "power base" then he'd have crushed Romney in Mississippi which is the state with the highest percentage of people among the 47%, the worst poverty, the worst obesity rates, the worst education, the worst infant mortality, the worst STD rates...

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    @lost

    Of the ten states that voted for Obama in 2012 by the largest margins (CA, VT, CT, NJ, NY, MA, RI, DE, MD, IL) they have a combined GDP (2010) of $5,283,800,000,000.

    Of the ten states that voted for Romney in 2012 by the largest margins (UT, WY, ID, AL, KY, AR, KS, NE, OK, WV) they have a combined GDP (2010) of $1,096,700,000,000.

    In other words, the ten states that most favored Romney produce only about 21% of the wealth created by the ten that most favored Obama.

    When we compare the per capita GDP average, the Obama ten average is $54,947.40 while the Romney ten is $42,139.60. That means, the average American in one of the Obama group will create about 131% of the wealth that will be created by an average American in the Romney group.

    Of the Obama ten, roughly 13.6% of the population is on food stamps. Of the Romney ten, it is 15.6%.

    All ten of the most educated states voted for Obama. Nine of the ten least educated voted Romney.

    You've been sold a bill of goods.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    @lost in dc
    So then explain to us why more married people voted for Obama then Romney and why more wealthy people voted for Obama then Romney. Your tired old rhetoric holds no water when held up against the facts.time for some new material.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    BO will not speak up to support and encourage two parent families because two parent families are less likely to be dependent on government, thereby reducing BO's power base.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Why not 3 or more parent families? Plural Marriage would increase the numbers and is it still "scripture" in LDS and even in some Major religions. If two are good wouldn't more be even better? After all, A billion or more Muslims can't be wrong, right?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    There's an old familiar saying that actions speak louder than words. Every time the president steps on a public stage with his family beside him he tells us all, by his actions, how important having two parents, especially a kind and considerate father, is to the well being of the children. His actions and his words spoken in public about his family are an indication of the president's belief and commitment to this concept.

    With everything on his plate, for Ms. Parker to suggest that the president is falling short in this category is short sighted at best. The president is doing just fine in the message he sends every day.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 13, 2012 5:56 a.m.

    Obama has spoken on the subject a few times, but as Kathleen says;

    "But the true story of fatherlessness in this country can't be repeated often or forcefully enough."

    I agree. Every time I see some teenage mom pushing a stroller down the isle or side walk, you can't help but think about the cards stacked against either of them. Many have made it out of these types of situations, but only through much heavier odds against them. Far more just don't have the strength or support systems to help them fight off those things that would keep them from being successful.

    So, yes, while Obama has spoken on the subject, it is a subject that can't be reinforced too much.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:50 a.m.

    I agree strongly that two parent families are generally better for a child's development. I'm just not sure what the government can do about it. I'd support President Obama saying it, but would that really change anything?