MelannaSalt Lake City, UtahThe 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.
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?!?!?
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
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 LawmakersObama talks about fatherhood's importanceObama says
fatherhood trumps schmoozing
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.
Atl134,"BO got 60 - 65 % of the poor vote"Thanks
for providing the statistical support for my point
@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.
@chilly you are right chilly my mistake
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,
@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
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.
Ha has, as has been pointed out, spoken out in support of two parent families.
Even same sex ones.
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
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.
LledravWest Jordan, UTFrom 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.
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
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.
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!
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.
@lost in DCIf 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...
@lostOf 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.
@lost in dcSo 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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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