I relied on the fact that the OP called him a “deadbeat dad”. I’ve got no idea if he actually owes the money or not. I’m saying that, even if we assume, arguendo, that that’s true, the actions of the FRC in this case aren’t particularly inappropriate or hypocritical (in spite of the fact that I believe that most of the stuff the FRC stands for is pretty despicable, as are a lot of their tactics.).
Does it matter? This is not a singular event. We’re not basing this on a single event, but rather a massive, overarching trend. I mean, for fuck’s sake, look at the difference! Clinton got a blowjob and got fired because of it. Wiener showed off a somewhat candid photo (seriously, that shit was borderline safe for work) and lost his job. Herman Cain was charged with molestation of more than one woman at his previous workplace and this isn’t the end of his political career. Newt Gingrich has had 5 wives and still has the “pro-family, christian values” crowd on his side. Tom DeLay oversaw the deregulation of businesses (not to mention spoke up their virtues) in Saipan that forced (essentially unwilling) prostitutes who got pregnant to get abortions and that wasn’t the end of his career. The republican party is absolutely fucking RIPE with shit like this, and for some reason they still get to claim to be the “Christian Family Values” party? What the fuck?!
Why do I get the feeling that, had the Dope been around back when certain allegations were going on about President Clinton and a certain intern, Bricker would not have been diving into threads started by people like Scylla or Shodan or magellan01 and asking them why they were so sure Clinton was guilty of this accusation, because he’d surely not been tried yet?
Why do I get the feeling that one of the stupidest things people do around here is criticize some for something they think he might have done under different circumstances? And Bricker, pain-in-the-ass that he is being here, has done precisely what you claim he wouldn’t do in specific instances already.
You know, a few months ago, I had a dream where, in the dream, I got in a fight with my mom, and then when I woke up, I was pissed at her for some of the stuff that the dream her had said, which, of course, was really illogical of me.
My point in telling this story is that I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the real Bricker because his actions are inconsistent with what you think your hypothetical Bricker would have done in a scenario you invented, any more than it was fair of me to be upset with my mom for the stuff that my dream mom said in my dream.
Yet the next line isn’t, “And each time, the court has issued an order confirming her requests.”
See what I mean? What I haven’t seen yet is any court anywhere actually ordering him to pay this. Even the current order is for him to show why he shouldn’t pay, not ordering him to pay.
Bricker, why is it reasonably for a “Family values” group to support anyone who has had a divorce, didn’t keep the kids, and doesn’t pay child support?
I’ll admit that it may be my perception that’s off here. It’s possible that I don’t NOTICE when Bricker is doing this with someone with whom I agree because…well, I agree with them so it’s obviously right and good that they get defended, but that he does do it. My apologies, Bricker. I retract that post.
Does the Family Values group advocate making divorce illegal, requiring both parents to keep the kids (logically impossible, btw)*, and requiring child support in all cases?
*and in this particular case, it appears they have joint custody.
That’s a more overarching complaint, I agree. I don’t really have much to say about the trend, although I might take issue with some of the specifics you mention. In fact, that’s what I’m doing here: taking issue with the specifics you mention.
Your message here sort of seems to say that it doesn’t matter if Walsh really owes the money or not, because of all the other bad stuff other Republicans do.
This is the Aunt Polly System – who actually did what is manifestly unimportant. It doesn’t matter if Walsh is actually guilty or not… he’s a Republican, and they been into some other audacious mischief.
I don’t know, and part of the reason I don’t know is that there seems to be a sort of amorphous definition of “Family Values” in play here. I guess I’d want to know what types of things this particular group believes and what sorts of policies they urge government to adopt. For example, they may have no problem with divorce, or they may accept divorce after some period of counselling, prayer, and/or time period separated. If so, and if Walsh followed whatever guidelines they have, then I don’t see any problem with them supporting him on that basis.
Similarly, after a divorce, presumably there’s some sort of custody arrangement. If he reached such an arrangement with his ex-wife, then proesumably this group wouldn’t have any principled basis to object.
I suppose the group could espouse the position that divorce is never acceptable, in which case I’d agree that their support of him seems a bit self-serving. But I don’t know the first thing about this group, and so I really can’t reach any of those conclusions.
Of course, this is my point. “Family Values” is a term like “Pro-Life”: it usually has nothing to do with what most people would define under the term, is often diametrically opposed to goals that most people would classify under the term, and is really just a euphemism for what the movement really means (Anti-Abortion, Anti-gay).
Ahhhh not defending. Just asking questions. After all, how do we even know that this “Joe Walsh” person even exists at all? Has anybody here actually seen him in person? (Well, I have during the Hotel California tour) And how do we really know that (if he does exist) he even has any children? Maybe this person taking him to court is a delusional stalker! Hmmmmm? Ever thought of that?
You’re quite the deep, critical thinker when it comes to folks like this Congressman aren’t you?
You asked very specific questions to which I gave answers. I have no idea how this follow-on post is supposed to fit into that discussion.
Do I take it you don’t generally like Family Values groups? Well, neither do I. But I don’t go around playing stupid “gotcha” games with them, and then act all pissy when someone points out how stupid that particular game is.