I must say, I’m shocked, shocked that a conservative family values group would act in a hypocritical fashion.
Oh, and by the way, isn’t the Family Research Council the organization George “Rent Boy” Rekers helped found?
Link to the story:
I don’t know that the FRC is wrong for honoring him. I mean, I’m sure the FRC would prefer it if he paid his child support, but they’re not honoring him for being a good ex-husband or dad. They’re honoring him because he consistently votes in a “good” way, and can be counted on to support their issues. His personal behavior is, for a lobbying/interest group, secondary.
Is this any surprise? “Family Values” at this point really means “Ridiculously backwards anti-gay anti-progressive agenda”. If such groups had been around in the 50s, they would’ve been applauding people with 5 divorces, two mistresses, and one wife who died under uncertain circumstances, as long as they voted against interracial marriage. They are not pro-family. They are simply anti-progress and anti-gay. To give them more attention than a stern look and a hearty “fuck you” is foolish.
Kinda crazy that the first item on the list of laws the family values group is glad Walsh is fighting is a law to make it easier for lower middle class families to afford health care and to keep their children on their own insurance for longer. I’d say most families value being able to afford health insurance more then they value gays not marrying.
But as to the issue in the OP, I think the child support payments are still being argued in court, so he doesn’t really owe the money (yet), his ex-wife just says he does.
Anti-woman and anti-child too. They are about the absolute right of straight white males to do whatever they want to anyone, and everyone else being forced to submit.
(ETA: Oops. I meant to quote post #3. Deal with it.)
Paul Krugman’s take on this: Genuine Hypocrisy, And Attitudes Thereto – An excerpt:
He discusses why he thinks people respond differently to hypocrisy coming from liberals vs. from conservatives.
Maybe the issue is that Republicans expect people to be immoral. I mean, that’s why you have to legislate things like marriage, sex, abortion, drugs, etc., because people can’t be trusted to make those decisions on their own. Walsh simultaneously votes to enforce family values and demonstrate why such votes are needed. That’s everything a Republican could ask for.
Democrats expect people to be able to handle their personal lives on their own, so when someone gets caught cheating, like John Edwards, it’s more of a disappointment.
Fred Clark has addressed The Family on his blog several times, and this is the second item on thenewest entry.
No, that’s not the case. Partly it’s authoritarian thinking which promotes righteousness and dissonance, partly it’s Christian thinking where you simply confess your sins, are forgiven, and can “fall” for as often as you like, but are never permitted to accept the sin. So they can break the marriage every other day, as long as they repent, but never call for people living without marriage or in gay marriage.
The other part is the dissonance: they did a study once where they asked Democrats and Republicans whether they lived up to their own moral standard (personally and as party). A majority of Democrats answered that no, people made mistakes and that they tried; a majority of Republicans answered that yes, they were virtous and never ever made mistakes - although both people polled had previously been caught or admitted to “sinning”. So the dissonance is a strong factor, too.
In addition, the “sins” for which the Rep.s are caught are “acceptable” for their voters: cheating on wives, lying about money - that’s what the voters would do/ are doing.
Advocating gay marriage however can be safely opposed because the voters aren’t tempted to it.
Once again, FRC proves that actions don’t matter, as long as you say the right things.
You might say they’re granting him an indulgence or something.
So it’s certain that Joe Walsh’s ex-wife is telling the truth, and that Joe Walsh is lying?
Why is that, exactly?
I mean, she may well be telling the truth - I don’t know her or know any of the issues involved. But I don’t see any reason to automatically credit her version over his, any more than I see any reason to credit his version over hers.
But in reading the comments of almost every single poster above, it seems to be a given that he does, in fact, owe the money. Only Simplicio points out that the issue is unsettled.
What did the rest of you rely upon in reaching your conclusions?
I’m guessing she would not claim to be owed child support if she doesn’t have papers stating he owes a certain amount and she has not received it.
Heck, I don’t care about Walsh’s personal life, but the more I read about FRC, the more inclined I am to conclude that they’re skeevy, and since they like him, he must be skeevy by association.
Also, because the judge in the case thinks that Mr. Walsh should explain why he doesn’t owe the money.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7656284-418/judge-scolds-rep-joe-walsh-orders-him-to-prove-he-doesnt-owe-back-child-support.html
There is pretty much zero doubt he doesn’t owe money. The precise sum is a matter for negotiations. I’m guessing the 100,000 sum involves interest or some such thing. But it’s really up to him to prove he doesn’t at this time.
And I mean ‘prove to the judge’.
Now, Bricker may say, you know, what do judges know, they’re not really important to the law, I mean, it’s not final-final till the Supreme Court rules on it.
But I think that kind of statement has its head up its buttocks.
Now, Mr. Walsh has said that he does have a reason not to pay this money.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/8173663-418/rep-joe-walsh-i-had-verbal-deal-not-to-pay-child-support.html
It’s a verbal agreement. Which is clearly the second most binding sort of agreement, after the spit-swear.
Oh, wait. No.
Should have been. Should have been. Was? No.
Your call, Bricker.
Well, I was on the fence about his guilt or innocence until your post. Now that I see that you’re defending him, I’m pretty much convinced that he’s guilty.
That’s really all the proof I need right there.
Why wouldn’t you guess that he wouldn’t deny he owes child support unless he had some agreement with her that he didn’t?
In other words, you haven’t seen any papers; no news story I’m aware of his verified their existence, and yet you still infer they exist and that their contents, if known, shore up her position and not his.
Well, I agree with the judge – I think Mr. Walsh should explain that, too.
But since he hasn’t yet had the hearing at which he explains it, I’m not inclined to reach a conclusion ahead of time.
But you are?
I’m not defending him – I have no idea if he owes money, or if he does how much of it he owes.
I’m just wondering why almost everyone else in this thread acts like they already know.
I’m not defending him; I have no idea if he’s worth defending yet.
I’m wondewring why you’re attacking him, since I doubt you know any more about it than I do.