McCain opposes shared parenting reform, then makes racial remark
Today, Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked at an Iowa town hall meeting what he would do to reform family law to ensure children are guaranteed equal access both to their fathers and mothers, following a divorce.
A questioner asked McCain whether as president he “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce.”
The Republican presidential candidate responded, “I’m sorry to disappoint you, I am not going to overturn divorce court decisions. That’s why we have courts and that’s why people go to court and get a divorce. If I as President of the United States said this decision has to be overturned without the proper appeals process then I would be disturbing our entire system of government… For me to stand here before all these people and say that I’m going declare divorces invalid because someone feels that they weren’t treated fairly in court, we are getting into a, uh, uh, TAR BABY of enormous proportions.”
The term “tar baby” is considered by some to have racist overtones. According to Wikipedia, a “tar baby” is metaphorically any “sticky situation” that is only aggravated by efforts to solve it. More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
McCain later apologized — not for allowing babies to be separated from their fathers, but rather for using a racially-charged phrase about a tar baby.
McCain squandered a golden opportunity to open a discussion about the devastating effects divorce has on children, and the need to use the democratic process to seek changes in the nation’s family laws. How could this be perceived as “disturbing the entire system of government?” McCain took the question to mean the intervention in family court decisions. Could not the question have been answered as a call for legal reform? Is family law so sacrosanct that even democratically enacted reforms (or merely advocating for them) cannot be explored? Is the stability of the “system of government” that McCain cites more of a priority to him than the fathers and children that need each other so dearly?
Children of divorce are routinely denied access to their fathers. These children think of their fathers as an equal part of their identity; they came from Dad, and in divorce are now separated from him as a matter of course. When fathers are torn away from their kids, a part of the child’s identity is also torn. This is corrosive to the child’s emotional health, and exiles fathers to the periphery of their kids’ lives. McCain just won’t get involved — won’t even discuss family law reform — because this might upset his apple cart: the support which he thinks he will derive from women voters. Do male voters have no memory, that they wouldn’t reject him because of this?
See the video of this doofus in action:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/03/16/mccain.tar.cnn
| More from John Dias
Stumble It!
March 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I think McCain sucks for many other reasons.. so what’s a couple more??
March 16th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Crossed him off the potential vote list. Thanks.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I have mixed feelings on this. Yeah, the guy is a complete jerk and may, given the sober opinion of Mark Steyn, really be crazy. No power on earth would make me vote for straight-jacket, I mean, straight-talk McPain.
On the other hand, at least he’s honest. None of the other candidates would do any different if they were in power, but at least the good senator from Arizona doesn’t glad hand us. His campaign slogen appears to be: Vote for me, then go F*ck yourself. So at least I know where I stand with him. I can live with that.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Vote for me, then go F*ck yourself.
EvilWhiteBoy, this has to be the most succinct summary of pretty well ALL politicians’ utterances. Nicely done.
McCain in his efforts to answer chose either to ignore the question – par for the course with pollies – evade it – also par – or didn’t understand it – par again.
Alternatively he spoke the truth more than he meant to. Foot-in-mouthism. Stability of government today is ensured by enslaving men, marginalising them, persecuting them, while forcing them to pay for all the gifts government has given and keeps giving to the primary, largest voter-block. Women.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am
John McCain’s answer is like Marie Antoinette’s: “Let them eat cake.”
Marie found herself staring into a basket with her neck locked in a stock.
Listening to the blade ride the rails.
Something the North Vietnamese did to him while in the Hanoi Hilton musta done some damage to his brain!
How else can we explain John McCain’s complete inability to make sense?
March 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
[...] day, another tar baby controversy. McCain was asked a question about whether he “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to [...]