Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson Cites Importance of Fathers, Implies Dads Are to Blame for Family Breakdown in FOX Debate

how are dads suppose to stay and raise their childen’ when 80% of divorces are started wives? stoopit stoopit people.

This was a bit unfair… shame on you glenn, your usually better than that…

he was answering VERY competently and was working up to soemthing, when the bell rang, and the last thing he could get in during that ringing was a mention of fathers.

there was no time to expand on it, and he didnt blame, he spewed a last statement and it was open ended…

fathers are not with the kids..
and we do need more fathers with them…

there was NO attribution, he had no time, there was just the naked fact.

and the naked fact in and of itself does not damn fathers because it says nothing as to WHY they are not their.

while i agree if you want to play the default definition game of the feminsts, that the default impression is that the men are to blame for the SITUATION AS STATED…

but there was literally no time for any of that.. .

we will have to wait till he expands on it, and such to know…

Fred Thompson never really had much of chance of getting my vote. But because of this I definitely will not vote for him. Moreover, I will try to steer as many votes away from him as I can. Men are gradually waking up and when those that I know hear about this I am quite certain Fred won’t have their votes either.

I didn’t hear any anti-father rhetoric in his comments either. What’s the beef?

Beyond “What’s the beef?” – why isn’t his comment being celebrated?

A friend of mine told me about his ex-wife. She has a masters’ degree in education. He has an MBA. One morning, after an argument that occurred two weeks prior, she kissed him good bye before going to work. When he returned from work that evening, she was gone. There was a note stating she was flying home to daddy and mommy. Her childish behavior was the last straw. I guess she thought he would go crawling back to her. He did not. She ran out on him, she filed for divorce. That morning was the last time they saw each other. This was fine with him. However, soon after, her mother and father died, she inherited great sums of money. There was also another issue about a rumor that she was pregnant, gave birth to a boy, but never told him. To this day he has no idea if the rumor was true or not.

These evil actions are not uncommon. Apparently this is happening all the time to many men. If she doesn’t get her way she runs home to daddy and in some cases cry’s DV.

The mother can raise His child the way she sees fit. No father, no male influence. It is harmful to the child, but she doesn’t care, as long as she gets her way. I think that pretty much defines the female mind, selfish to the core.

Artfldgr may be correct that Thompson didn’t have a chance to expand on his comment, but I’d appreciate if he (Thompson) would do so to allow us to know his position.

Rudy’s comment regarding education was more telling. He stated that the right for parents to chose where and how their children are educated may be the single biggest civil rights issue of the 21st century. Well, either he has no idea of the travesty of the family courts or he is ok with them the way they are.

Gotta run…..annoying flashing thing to the left of this page….

I took the comment as blaming fathers in order to keep the money flowing in for lawyers, just as Giuliani criticized Thompson for putting lawyer income above justice and people regarding tort reform.

Thompson is the guy to vote for if lawyer income is your top priority, and freedom, truth, justice, children, and society mean nothing to you.

Thompson is the Trial Lawyer / Bar Association candidate, enemy of fathers and families!

He’ll likely get a lot of votes from dumbed down celebrity worshippers for appearing on Law and Order or whatever TV show he’s on, otherwise he’s a Trial Lawyer / Bar Association patsy candidate.

I would have to agree with roger and others that the simple fact that he mentions the need for fathers is a step in the right direction!!

i didn’t see any anti-male bias either. that normally is the point where the “we need to crack down on men by …” and so forth, usually spews forth. maybe a blessing he was cut off.

if he is in bed w/ lawyers of any kind, then we know where he stands. the enemy of my enemy, etc.

on the other hand (IMHo) if he were really looking for a nitch, pointing out how men are demonized and pointing out how much “the beast” hates men and thereby hurts families, could be just the “ticket”, so to speak. let’s give him time to finish what he was saying.

The hell he did, Glenn. He said “lack of fathers”, and who can argue with that? He didn’t say “deadbeats” or “abandon” or anything like that. He didn’t put the blame anywhere.

If you don’t like Fred, okay. But don’t lie.

P.S. wheresmy40 – get firefox and adblock plus. No more flashy things.

Absolutely. Recognition of the importance of fathers is the first step. Once this is realized the next step is exploration of why the fathers are absence (who and what is responsible). You don’t get to the second step without going through the first.

The lawyers will change their tune once the law and the politics change (the judges will also). I have seen several complete turn arounds in my career. The same lawyers and judges who were pro consumer became pro business when the tides of politics and public opinion changed, etc. The same will happen on this issue. The point is that these lawyers that so many of you love to hate will be an instrument of positive change once the politics and laws get pointed in the right direction.

Hmmm, I didn’t get that from him either…

Denis said: “Moreover, I will try to steer as many votes away from him as I can.”

OK. And just WHO will you steer them towards? Obama? Hitlary?

DCFather:

Practically ALL politicians are lawyers… next reason!

TMOTS

Practically ALL politicians are lawyers… next reason!

Yes, all politicians are aligned with the Bar Association, i.e. exploiting children then blaming fathers for money, bit Thompson was the only one in the debate who made an effort to protect the continued criminalization of fatherhood in the debate, i.e. the gimmick is to turn the father into a criminal if he “stays” with his children, take all his money, then blame him for “abandonment”.

So the politicos pretend fathers walk away when the truth is the mother and government kick him out as an excuse to take his savings/income, and the solution is then to “crack down on deadbeat dads”.

Thompson made it sound like fathers have a choice as to wheter or not they “stay” with their children, a sure indicator that his real intention is the status quo, i.e. get rid of fathes using whatever legal means necessary, take his money and split it between the lawyers and the mother, then blame him for not “staying”, knowing full well “staying” would mean prison for him.

If Thompson had said “we need to stop getting rid of fathers just so lawyers can make money”, then he’d have my vote, but clearly his intention was to maintain the status quo where lawyer income trumps children, fathers, and the Constitution.

Thompson might just as well advocate in favor of child abuse and pedophilia, because that’s what the greed he represents actually causes. At least the others, lawyers or not, were willing to put the exploitation of children on the back burner for at leat one night.

Thompson pointed to the problem of family breakdown and said, “We need more fathers to stay and raise their kids.” The implication is that fathers are the ones leaving their families, right?

Here’s the thing – if we want a very reasonable conspiracy theory kind of thing – it would have been easy to have saved the comment till last so that it could not be expanded upon. As stated, he could go in any direction after that. It was in effect, left to the listener to interpret. We know the right way to go with it. Somebody else could use the same phrase in support of the wrong way. One of the journalists here should contact his campaign and ask for clarification.

“Osama? Hillary?” I guess you haven’t read what I have posted elsewhere on MND for a very long time.

Thompson (and Guiliani) are competing with Hillary for as many female votes that they can get. Neither have in the past, neither will in the future, and neither are now speaking to the father’s vote. They will, and are, speaking to a
“father-problem” voting block: women. They are also trying to position themselves against a true father advocate: Mitt Romney.

“Thompson pointed to the problem of family breakdown and said, “We need more fathers to stay and raise their kids.” The implication is that fathers are the ones leaving their families, right?”

Exactly right. His view is NOT that fathers are pushed out. It is that they are abandoning their families.

Thompson is no friend of men and fathers unless of course they sacrifice their lives to protect a country that has reduced them to fourth class status (behind women, children, and pets).

Here is Thompson’s exact quote:

“Part of the problem in our education system and with our children has to do with the societal breakdown that’s going on in this country. We need more fathers to stay and raise their kids.”

Now, he could have meant this either way. The important thing is that he said that we NEED more fathers to stay.

Regardless of what he really meant, the fact is this. The can’t “make” fathers stay. Such a proposition would be idiotic. Getting fathers to stay suggests one or more policies that make it POSSIBLE for them to stay, such as divorce reform, custody reform, etc.

Given Thompsons strong views on marriage, and his clearly stated views on marriage reform, I conclude he meant that we need to “pave the way” for fathers to stay.

From Thompson’s website: his position on marriage:

Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. To counter coarseness in today’s culture that oftentimes victimizes our children and undermines the traditional values parents want to instill, we must not only protect but strengthen the institutions of family and marriage. I am committed to:

– Using the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life, strengthen the institution of marriage and traditional families, and advance freedom of religion.
– Returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities—the states—and then protecting states from further intrusion by the federal government, the judiciary, and other states.
– Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.

I would point out here that I do not support any of the candidates yet. Thompson and Huckabee are the two front runners who are the most likely to hold marriage reform policy views we want. Until I see their agenda in writing, I know better than to endorse anybody, in light of the obfuscations Republicans pulled on us in the post-1992 era.

David. I read the same stuff but must conclude that I don’t know what he means. Republicans have been usingthe support of marriage theme much more than a decade, and it’s always previously been prelude to anti-father, anti-family policy. I’ve been discussing this elsewhere in the context of poltical philosophy. Here’s what it means to me when government promises to strengthen …. (by copy-paste from political philosophy discussion).

For those who are familiar with Soviet history and the family: on one side of the debate, one can match pretty much point-for-point recent reforms in the US and other western countries with Soviet reform. Step one is ridding society of the pesky bourgeoisie concepts of marriage and family. Such things are not sacred, but merely remnants of political decisions. Step 2 is to realize that’s a big mistake – but rather than recognizing these things as fundamental – they maintained the political philosophy and instituted harsh enforcement procedures; in other words, treating family responsibility as something that only exists as a result of the power of the state and its enforcement mechanisms. The personal is political, intrusion into family life intensifies, and there is no boundary against personal intrusion – for example, against treating those who are unable to comply as criminals and treating those who disagree as mentally ill, dangerous, and unfit for society.

Contrast that with the historical (pre-reform) view in the west. Marriage and family were considered fundamental elements of human life and essential for a healthy society. Family rights were in legal theory inseparable from basic civil rights. There was a limit to government intrusion, at least to the point that such intrusion could not be arbitrary and capricious. Family law could not be used to as a mechanism to deny basic rights to individuals. People who were unable to comply with court orders were not treated as criminals, nor broadly characterized as dangerous misfits as they are today.

You can take it as an open door for public discussion, but Fred Thompson is so far speaking political speak; a bunch of words that in themselves mean nothing. In order for me to see his comments in a positive way, he’s going to have to make it clear that he’s breaking with modern Republican Party tradition and get specific about how he intends to restore civil rights.

Any solution that looks like:

1.) Women
2.) Children
3.) Pets
4.) The Family
5.) Men

is a non-starter. I’m not hanging my hat on an intepretation. I know where Romney stands on same-sex marraige (and the importance of fathers as well as mothers), and I know where he stands on parental authority regarding the gay agenda in the grade schools. He actually faced these issues and showed his cards as Governor of Massachusetts. He sided with men and fathers. These issues are more theory than real-life to the other candidates.

Denis. What are you talking about? Massachusetts has one of the worst records on family issues in the nation, and the Governor was in full support of what happened. He even campaigned strongly and openly anti-father. He strongly favored policies that transformed family law and produced the situation that led to courts declaring a constitutional mandate in favor of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.