TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | Faith, Politics, Fathers

Dean Baker: Mortgage Modifications: Another Way to Bail Out Wall St.

Bernard Avishai: The Real Meaning Of The 'Freeze'

Nov. 16-20: Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare
Jeanne Desko: Palin's Blame Game
Chris Hayes: What's Sarah Palin's Future In American Politics?
Richard Kim: Sympathy For The Devil?: Oprah and the Palin Media Blitz

« SERIOUS TALK URGENTLY NEEDED ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS | Home | McCain's Meta-Blame Game »

From: Coffee House

Faith, Politics, Fathers

By Reed Hundt - September 26, 2008, 4:36PM

My son, Nate Hundt, is the regional field director for the Obama campaign in Colorado Springs. He sent me this video:

8 Comments

| Leave a comment

Guy's good.

Posted by SqueakyRat
September 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

Very nice.

Posted by pv2k
September 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink

Excellent post. Your son is doing a great job. I work just north of him in Douglas.

Posted by ghaon
September 26, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink

Interesting. My concern is the ability of Obama to "close the deal" on any issue. Great to talk about an issue, but if you don't take a position on how the government can change to support that issue, you really have done nothing to help. In this case, the best position to take to endorse fatherhood would be to extend to potential father's the same rights potential mother's already enjoy - reproductive choice. No person could force another to become a parent without their express consent - making reproductive choice a true Constitutional right. This not only helps to solidify a right for individuals, it creates a solid moral foundation for both father's and mother's being committed to their children. The entire concept of one person being able to force their choice upon another, with the full backing of government force, must end if we are to move forward on this issue. Fathers who CHOOSE to be fathers can rightfully be forced to take responsibility for that decision - any other approach is an offense to the entire concept of reproductive choice.

Posted by RS
September 26, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

Interesting position there RS. So by your plan, the Alaska hockey dude should have been able to have the US Government force the evangelical girl to have an abortion after he got her pregnant? But that would be exactly what you described when you stated:
"The entire concept of one person being able to force their choice upon another, with the full backing of government force, must end if we are to move forward on this issue."
I think maybe you need to shut up and pay your back child support. Then move to another planet.

Posted by peaceMF
September 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink

peaceMF,

Incredibly good job of twisting what I posted. My point was clear, neither person should be able to force parenthood upon the other. Palin's daughter would still maintain the ultimate choice of what to do with her pregancy and her body, but the "he" who "got her pregnant" (since, like all women, she is only a victim and never an active participant!) would also be able to choose whether he would be a parent to that child or immediately relinguish all parental rights or reponsibilities. He would have to immediately make his decision, since her decision may be dependent upon what he decides. She could complete the pregnancy, or terminate it, regardless of the input from his decision since it is still her body and he can no more force his decision on her than she can force her's upon him. This is NOT complicated, in-spite of efforts of some to make it so.

Posted by RS in reply to a comment from peaceMF
September 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink

okay, that is definitely different than what it appeared you were advocating. thanks for the clarification, and hope you have a long and healthy stay on this planet! actually then i kinda like the 'put up or shut up' idea as regards the father. thanks again for the clarification.

Posted by peaceMF
September 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thanks for your response. I thought maybe I was losing it or simply had lost my ability to communicate. Yep, "put up or shut up" is one way to put it - create a moral obligation on the part of the father upfront, then if the courts need to get involved later to force him to meet his obligations, they have a basis for their reasoning. A child would also benefit from having two voluntarily committed parents.

Posted by RS in reply to a comment from peaceMF
September 27, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

Coming Soon	Nov. 30-Dec. 4
January 12-16