Monday, June 16, 2008

Absent fathers impact sons

Presidential contender Barak Obama was, amazingly, given the pulpit at a church he visited yesterday. He gave a rousing Father's Day speech which he apparently plagiarized from Bill Cosby. Of course, he was probably preaching to the choir. He should have taken his stump speech to a local high school or Planned Parenthood clinic.

And shades of Bill Clinton, Obama put his finger on another reason not to elect him president:

“I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house,” he continued. “The hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children.”
So he admits he has a hole in his heart. This was Bill Clinton's story and I believe the nation has suffered a great deal from his attempts to make up for that absent father. I do not want to go through any of that again. These men can be tremendously successful in some areas...but the success is part of trying to fill that hole and prove their worth because Dad wasn't there to provide that approval all along. Usually, at some point, that hole filling goes awry. Do we want that to happen while he's POTUS ala Clinton? Not me.

And now a bit of criticism of a church that would subject its congregation to a political stump speech from the pulpit. Apparently, there is something in the air in Chicago that blinds people from the realization that inviting this man into your church, in this high profile way, will open up the church and its members to intense scrutiny that will likely not serve the congregation as a whole. This is no ordinary church shopping family. I'm not saying refuse him entrance, but giving him the pulpit is over the top and can only be seen as a political move on the part of their pastor or eldership that runs that church. So where are the 'separation of church and state' folks on this?


Nashteach said...

You have got to be kidding. First, are you suggesting that anyone who grew up without a father in the home, and feels like they missed out, is unfit to be President? Second, are you suggesting people without fathers in the home have a propensity to seduce young interns and lie to a grand jury about it? That, despite no evidence given, Senator Obama will betray his family because he admits a need to be there for his daughters?

This brings to mind something I read recently- what was it? Oh, yeah:

"When you've got nothing with which to argue the point, get personal."

It's a tired and desperate tactic that is a litmus test of desperation and frustration.

So, it's okay to get personal if you're making stuff up?

Kay Brooks said...

I'm not making anything up. The man admitted, himself, that not having a father is a serious issue. He's ahead of Clinton because he realizes it is a lack. I'm examining that issue as it relates to how it will impact his performance as president. He brought the subject up, not me.

I'm not saying 'anyone' who grew up without a father will turn into a Clinton. Obviously, that's not true. BUT I do believe that the lack of a father, especially in positions such as POTUS, is a serious issue and will be part of how I examine candidates.

And, frankly, he's not far enough into the fatherhood portion of his life to judge his own success at it. His daughters are still very young. I hope he does manage to avoid the usual patterns for their sake, to be sure.

Nashteach said...

You are most certainly implying something not based on facts, but on innuendo and conjecture. You imply that Obama will repeat the personal failures of Bill Clinton. Seeing that Senator Obama spoke more highly of the Reagan model of leadership than the Clinton one, Obama is hardly saying Clinton embodies the type of President he'll be. So where is the connection between Clinton and Obama? The only connection you state is that they were both raised in households with absent fathers (remember Clinton's died, he didn't just leave). Then you subtly remind folks of Clinton's scandals and completely ignore recent media stories providing actual reporting that people close to him suspected John McCain might be committing adultery with a female lobbyist. That John McCain began his relationship with his current wife while he was still married to his first. Do you have that kind of evidence about Obama? No, only innuendo and hardly even that.

Conservatives complain about welfare payments to single mothers, vote against "equal pay for equal work" laws for women, throw terms like "family values" around then send young fathers and mothers to a hundred years war that was justified based on erroneous information. And what do they do when a successful, married man who provides for his family speaks in a house of God about the need for fathers to be present and raise their children? Applaud him for sticking up for two parent families? For encouraging fathers to provide for their children? No, villify him for political gain and suggest he'll probably end up cheating or something equally "awry".

I could care less what you say about Bill Clinton; we Democrats thankfully closed the book on his ways.

Kay Brooks said...

Wow. Did you get it all out?

I'm not saying Obama will be unfaithful to his wife. You're right--McCain has that track record--after spending years in a POW camp he was a different man--not an excuse, just context--just what his first wife said.

But I stand by my personal observation about men who grew up without their dads around. It's a rare one that is this ambitious and doesn't crash and burn at some point because they're still trying to gain dad's approval. I hope, for his daughters' sakes he doesn't. But I've every right to acknowledge my observations and vote in line with them.