What presidential team is more likely to support fathers?

Just what presidential team is more likely to support fathers? The current field is not promising.

SARAH PALIN: The recent finding by an Alaskan bi-partisan panel that Palin unlawfully abused her power by pursuing her family’s grudge against her ex-step brother (Trooper Mike Wooten) following his ugly divorce from her sister demonstrates that Palin might not be sensitive to needs to foster legal regimes that ease rather than promote anger and conflict after divorce. By violating a state ethics law prohibiting public officials from using office for personal benefit we are left with an individual that seems to believe that all is fair in divorce and that there is little room for restraint and reconciliation.

JOE BIDEN: Biden constantly brags that he was one of the chief architects of the federal “Violence Against Women Act.” (VAWA) One problem of course is the name. On the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition website is a bibliography of studies by Martin S. Fiebert of California State University. This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100. The 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analysis demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. According to RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), despite the fact that one third of all domestic violence injuries are suffered by men, women receive an incredible lop-sided share of the VAWA benefits.

Nationally syndicated columnist Cathy Young noted Biden’s VAWA “represents a toxic mix of gender-war feminism that treats such crimes as acts of patriarchal oppression rather than individual wrongdoing, and paternalism that sees women as deserving of special protection.” Young chides Biden who at the 1990 Senate hearings on the bill, proudly reported that he and his brothers were forbidden to lay a hand on their sister even in self-defense, while she enjoyed “absolute impunity”—and added, apparently not as a joke, that he had “the bruises to prove it.” Young correctly concluded, “This is not equality; it’s chivalry masquerading as feminism.” According to Young, VAWA actively discourages dual arrest even though numerous studies show that conflict is often mutual.

JOHN MCCAIN: McCain made the infamous “tar baby” response to a question regarding shared parenting from fathers’ rights activist (and African-American) Tony Taylor. Taylor asked McCain if he “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce.”

McCain testily replied: “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 . . . I’m [not] going [to] 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.” While the politically correct media hopped all over the “tar baby” comment as a slight to African-Americans, it showed that McCain is insensitive if not clueless as to what is happening to children due to the lack of fathers. Though directly asked by Taylor, McCain would not show his support of our troops by supporting legislation that would prevent the common problem of soldiers being subject to loss of child custody simply because they are fighting our nation’s wars oversees and could not be with their children.

BARACK OBAMA: We do not need another president that is long on the “responsible fatherhood” speeches, and short on the issue of father’s rights. Unfortunately, Obama fits that category as exemplified by his now famous Father’s Day speech. Columnist Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormack have criticized Barack Obama for filing legislation (the Responsible Fatherhood Act) that speaks endlessly of “responsible fatherhood” and “paying child support,” but is silent on shared parenting, visitation, and viewing fathers in a positive image. Obama’s larger problem is that he cannot seem to move beyond his own experiences where his father truly abandoned his own family and empathize with by far the largest cause of fatherlessness—court imposed fatherlessness.

Encouragingly, Obama once stated, “We need to see what we can to make sure that fathers are valued, that our policies are encouraging them to be part of their children’s lives, that they are lifted up as important in stitching back together the kind of strong communities that we need for children to thrive.” But such sentiments about helping fathers are rare and lack specifics. Obama, who cannot see beyond the borders of his own childhood and his own father’s abandonment, has never addressed helping fathers that actually want to spend time with their children battle the court system that prevents them.

Glenn Sacks commented, “Obama’s comments are pandering, using the specter of the absent/deadbeat dad as a way to curry favor with women voters.” Jesse Jackson, caught on tape stated that Barack Obama “was talking down to black people.” Jackson was stating the truth—Obama was placing the blame on black fatherlessness on black fathers, not the court system.

At least with Obama the issue of fatherlessness is on his radar screen and was part of his campaign, which cannot be said of McCain. While I will be casting my vote for Obama, it is sad that the entire field is so out of tune with the American public and the needs of fathers and children.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III is spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition. His columns have appeared in newspapers nationwide.

425 views

  • T Finnan

    Punish Biden for VAWA and deprive the NOW and VAWA feminists of the reward that they will ask and obtain when Biden is elected?
    Is the Peter Principle operating among some MRAs?: What happens if social workers cure poverty? Most of us do not want to continue to pay fees to lawyers to feel good and lose. If Biden loses, VAWA and NOW feminists will not be rewarded. MRAs will be stronger during the reauthorization of VAWA with reforms from MRAs. With Biden,we’ll pay with man tax or equal pay or increased support or lawyers for women in contested custody or? Some in MR profit from continued controversy or wish the staus quo to continue. I want top vote Biden out.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    But such sentiments about helping fathers are rare

    No they aren’t. They’ve been a standard part of the deceitful rhetoric for about a decade. It’s an evolved piece of the deception. They can no longer rely on anti-father rhetoric because too many people figured out they’re lying. They merely adjusted their sales pitch.

  • merck

    —“At least with Obama the issue of fatherlessness is on his radar screen and was part of his campaign, which cannot be said of McCain.”

    ________________________________________________________

    Oh boy … you can say that again.

    You know it’s on his “radar screen” in a big way when he picks Joe Biden as his running mate.

    The only question is how extreme their campaign against fathers will be, if elected. Considering the enormous amount of money involved, it will likely be a major part of their game plan.

    McCain may be uneducated on the issue, but feminists and their lackeys Obama/Biden, will be coming after fathers with a vengeance.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    McCain is a member of the U.S. Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood “sponsored by the National Fatherhood Initiative.” Here is where cause for concern begins. “Responsible fatherhood” is a promotional phrase for programs that create a sort of new Orwellian federalism while serving the more traditional dystopian goal of bleeding enormous amounts of money from taxpayers and the programs’ subjects. The National Fatherhood Initiative, started by Republican Party insiders, promotes the agenda. source

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay
  • mruffolo

    America needs an average guy who has leadership skills. Someone who was not trained in American’s law. A man with clear vision for the family, community, and world. A guy with common sense, and the courage to stand up to and reverse feminism’s entrenchment in government policy and procedures.

    America is run by mostly privileged rich guys with heavy influence by their feminized wives.

    America need change, but not from bad to worse for fathers and family.

    I have already moved far away from America’s matriarchy. If Obama and Biden are elected, it will only serve to confirm my belief that America is moving more big government by way of feminism philosophy.

    As a family guy/conservative, Bush ought not to have re-authorized VAWA. I expect, even if McCain is elected, he will re-authorize Social Security’s Child Support Incentive Program, and any other re-funding women’s program due to expire.

  • Denis

    Neither are great or even good for fathers.

    However, one will be a disaster for men and fathers for generations to come. We are already at/near the point of no return.

    The birthrate for caucasians is not even close to that of blacks and hispanics. In the black community 70% of familes have no father present. The percentage is greater in the hispanic community. In 35 years blacks + hispanics will be ~55% of the population.

    Fatherhood-indeed the nuclear family-is on it’s way out in America. The trends are indisputable.

    The question is: can the trend be slowed and reversed?

    With one candidate the answer is: maybe.

    With the other candidate the answer is: No.

    In fact, with the “other candidate” these trends will be accelerated.

    Fatherhood will disappear. The government will be the father. The government will promote all things female…e.g., work…education…the family.

    What role will men and fathers have in this world?

    The role of men and fathers throughout history was the burden of being providers and protectors. These defined the meaning of being “a man”. Men and fathers handled this burden proudly.

    With the “other candidate” the burden men will carry will be the burden of living an emasculated life in a society that has emasculated them.

  • daveinga

    didn’t i hear that mccain was one of the very very very few congressmen to EVER vote against the ritual rubber stamp funding for the unconstitutional vawa?

    i could believe that. what is not believable is someone who appointed biden being anything more than another feminist minion.

    obama/biden is poison for equal rights for men, a guarantee under proper law that we are entitled to expect. any man voting for them is voting for more and more privileges and gov’t handouts for women. no doubt about it. redistribution of wealth is not going to be flowing toward any men by design, only by accident.

  • T Finnan

    In case you think Obama is or would be for any MR. Check out this link from MND http://www.feministsforobama.org/

    Obsma is in the same bed with Biden and the NOW and VAWA feminists. And all you have to do is vote them out.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Ronaldo, we love you, but we all know that drinking the Obama Messiah Kool-Aid is so not a good idea.

    As for Sarah Palin, I downloaded the pdf file of the Branchflower Report. The issue was whether she abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and in allowing her husband Todd to use her offices and his influence as First Gentleman to try to get Mike Wooten fired from the Alaska State Troopers. The findings were that there is no abuse of power in the firing of Monegan, the public safety commissioner serves at the pleasure of the elected Governor.

    That is the basic theory of democratically elected republican government: That all those who work for government are answerable to those elected by the people.

    As to Mike Wooten, I can say this:

    On pages 79-81 of the Report, Mr. Branchflower makes his second Recommendation to the Legislature. That the statute be amended to allow feedback to those who file complaints against peace officers. He noted the frustration felt by Chuck Heath and by Todd and Sarah Palin when officials were tongue tied and unable to explain to them what the investigation found and why the outcome happened the way it happened.

    This is a very common complaint with such grievance procedures.

    Page 67 of the Report found:

    Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start, was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpower in personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assuming that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential of harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retaliatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to lose his job would not de-escalate the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.

    I have an alternative explanation of her motivation.
    Governor Palin is that rare creature in government: a Republican who ACTUALLY ACTS TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Something all conservatives want and are IRRITATED when we elect Republicans who then spend like Democrats. She got rid of the airplane, a perk that Governors Murkowski and Knowles too obviously enjoyed. She got rid of the cook. If she felt three bodyguards from the AST were sufficient, then why not reduce the number from the six who guarded Governor Murkowski?

    At least that would free them up to catch speeders.

    If she felt a genuine threat from Trooper Wooten, she could still draw the conclusion that the three Troopers on her bodyguard detail could still protect her.

    The threat Mike Wooten allegedly made was against Chuck Heath, the Governor’s father. He doesn’t have any Troopers assigned to protect him.

    To say that firing Mike Wooten would not improve safety for the Heath and Palin families, fails to take into consideration certain significant differences between State Trooper and private citizen. Not the least of which is the legal right to wear that uniform and carry that badge, and all the special legal protections and authorizations of force that come with it.

    Example: If Trooper Wooten were to come to Heath’s house and shout, “Chuck, I have a warrant for your arrest!” any action by Heath other than allowing himself to be taken into cuffs would risk a charge of resisting arrest. If Chuck Heath knows that Wooten is no longer in law enforcement, he could lawfully tell him to get lost.

    If Trooper Wooten were to bust down Heath’s door and Heath responded with a taste of 2nd Amendment, that would be assaulting a police officer in addition to resisting arrest and if Trooper Wooten dies from the wound, that could be life imprisonment, as Alaska does not presently have the death penalty.

    But if private citizen Wooten busts his way into the house, its resident could lawfully use deadly force in self defense.

    This report simply does not take these differences into account.

    Given these circumstances, I am willing to give Governor Palin the benefit of the doubt and cut her some slack.

    I would add an additional recommendation to the Alaska Legislature:

    There is something utterly ridiculous in prohibiting a Governor from taking such actions as she to PROTECT HER FAMILY FROM THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE because such is deriving a “personal benefit” and therefore “abusing her power”.

    Having said all that, there is the way that the McCains and the Palins treated Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s unborn child. They are inviting him into their family and Bristol invited him to accompany her to the Republican National Convention where we watched them hold hands.

    Now obviously, Sarah Palin has to be aware of how ANY contact or involvement with Levi and Bristol by Alaska’s welfare and child support agencies can disrupt their relationship and destroy their efforts to form a family.

    “Why the FUCK did you go and sign up for food stamps, welfare, public assistance or even WIC!?!? I thought you loved me! Why didn’t you have the patience to WAIT for my first paycheck!?! Now its gonna be garnished and I won’t have enough left to live on let alone take care of you and our baby!”

    You see, Bristol Palin absolutely positively cannot take even a DIME of government benefits, due to the effect it can have on her mother’s career, as well as her relationship with her baby daddy. They need to give Levi the OPPORTUNITY to marry Bristol and to provide for his new family.

    Unfortunately, too many young mommies have no such incentive, given the goodies the government offers in this redistribution of wealth scheme. Take the benefits, to Hell with what is does to those from whom the money is taken.

    Which incidentally, is what Joe the Plumber was talking about!

    McCain/Palin are not the perfect choice, but they are in a position to at least COMPREHEND what we in the fathers’ rights and mens’ rights movement have to say.

    With Obama/Biden, we might as well be Jews pleading our case to Adolf Hitler.

  • David R. Usher

    The main difference between 1994 and 2008 is that we now know that both parties are dead set against promoting real fatherhood, and are dead set on replacing fathers with “sugar daddy” government.

    At least we know what’s coming.

    Republicans will lose badly this time around. There will be a shake-up in the GOP old-guard. If we are lucky, the party will work on marriage values with tangible policies that give most men and women what they want and need via marriage-positive “responsible marriage” programs.

    I wouldn’t bother to vote were it not for some important state races and propositions.

  • http://www.standyourground.com/forums poiuyt

    And the “sugar daddy government” is dominated by leading-elite males whoms position and power is dependant on selling out males to females. Hard.

    It is the same problem faced by most men across all industrialised society in the worlds northern hemisphere. That is, the tendency for leadership to mean the pfrofligate diminishment of males by males for the benefit and advantage of females.

    And to compound the sinfullness of these mens treachery towards their kind, no good, peacefull or civilly-settled society ever came of it.

  • wadestar

    While I agree that none of the candidates has expressed clear, strong support for fathers, it is clear that Obama/Biden is the ticket that is more clearly hostile to fathers. However, far more important than the candidates views is the fact that the next president will likely get to appoint several new members to the Supreme Court. McCain has promised to appoint non-activist (and conservative) members to the court which should benefit men greatly as the current anti-male laws are challenged. Obama, on the other hand, is sure to appoint members that will be hostile to men.

  • Robert Stevens

    The proper question should be, ” who will damage fathers and men less?” But that question is, at this point irrelevant. Neither candidate and neither party is pro-father or men. It rather like someone trying to murder you, it matters little if they stab or shoot you or they work you to death(child support) you’re just as dead!
    We need an alternative to bad or worse. The only reason the candidates and the major political parties ignore us, is that we have failed to organize. There a lot more disenfranchised fathers and men, than there are homosexuals. Yet the Gay communities have great political power, hells bells they tried to make it against Political correctness law to dislike gays.
    We must create the same effect, using the “D” word (deadbeat) will be enough to make politician pack his bags and have to go get a “real job” Once, we establish that fathers/mens rights are here to stay and that to vote for anything that is against fathers/men will mean the end of a politicians career and any of the terrorist who run the kidnapping and extortion racket laughingly called the family courts start to have fear of us. Then we know we have done something. When a man can go into court against a woman and get a fair shake. Once women, who have hollered “equal, equal” for over forty years ,will have to start to take a turn on the “payside of the equal sign” then gentlemen we will have arrived.
    But none of this will happen until we organize. We must get past the attitude that so many of us have, ie I would rather reign in hell than follow in heaven. We have to put aside difference and promote our agenda. We have to get up in their faces and not stop until they get the message.

  • Luek

    Anyone who would pick the author of VAWA, Joseph “Stalin” Biden as his running mate has ZERO CREDIBILITY as far as I am concerned.

    For a male in today’s misandric society voting for the Obama/Biden ticket would be like a Jew voting for Hitler or a plump chicken voting for Col. Sanders! It is ludicrous to do something like that!

    McCain may be lame but he is no Joe Biden. Screw you Obama!

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/the-gonzman/ The Gonzman

    “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 . . . I’m [not] going [to] 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.”

    Like it or not, in a properly limited government, this is the proper answer for an executive. It is a President’s Job to propose legislation, and then either sign it or veto it.

    Joe Biden Proposed and virtually wrote VAWA.

    Barack Obama voted for it.

    John McCain voted against it.

    That tells you all you need to know. Who would sign a VAWA? Who would Veto it?

    Answer the questions, Rinaldo.

    And if you are fooled by some boilerplate politician-speak uttered by Teleprompter Jesus, may God forgive you if he is elected. I won’t.






Search