The Deranged Judson Phillips »« Obama Spokesman Misquotes the Bible

Deadbeat Dad Wins ‘Pro-Family’ Award

In a spectacle that reveals the rank hypocrisy at the heart of the “family values” crowd, the Family Research Council just gave an award for supporting those values to a legislator who also owes $100,000 in back child support. This sentence will kill any irony meter ever made:

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh was the only Illinois congressman to be named a “True Blue” member of Congress for “unwavering support of the family” by the Family Research Council Action committee Thursday.

Except his own family, of course. He can screw over his own family and still have “family values” because, of course, that phrase means nothing more than “we hate gays.”

“We thank Cong. Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom,” said FRCA President Tony Perkins. “Cong. Walsh and other ‘True Blue Members’ have voted to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood, end government funding for abortion within the health care law, uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and continue support for school choice. I applaud their commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family.”

“I am proud and honored to be recognized by the Family Research Council as the only member from Illinois with a 100 percent pro-family voting record,” Walsh said in a news release. “Defending American values have always been one of my top priorities, and this reward reaffirms my dedication to that fight.”

And by “American values” he doesn’t mean liberty, equality and justice; he means making gay people and women suffer as much as possible. And being a deadbeat dad.

Comments

  1. fastlane says

    Maybe his ex-wife turned gay? You know, after suffering with this loser for a few years, it makes more sense than anything else these wingnuts say.

  2. vmanis1 says

    `Family’ is now a word that apparently only has one meaning, having to do exclusively with a maximum of one penis and one vagina per family. Just look at what issues energize the `family’ lobby. Fornication (aka Palinry)? Nope. Adultery (aka Gingrichitis)? No. Making it illegal to beat up LGBT kids? Danger! Danger! Family danger ahead!

    It’s easy to poke fun at Walsh for being a deadbeat dad, but before he defaulted on child-support, he was divorced. Regardless of who initiated the divorce, it’s hardly family-friendly. The RC church won’t even allow divorced people to remarry (and, contrary to its claims about what would happen if LGBT rights issues were enacted) has never been persecuted for it.

    There was a lovely Lawrence O’Donnell clip where he declared that the Family Research Council is performance art for its breathtaking hypocrisy in the Walsh affair. Pair this with Rachel Maddow’s claim that Herman Cain’s whole campaign is performance art, and you get a whole new perspective on the loony right.

  3. says

    What does “Obamacare” have to do with “family” unless “pro-family” is now any right-wing pet cause?

    Capital punishment? Pro-family!

    War in Iraq? Pro-family!

    Make it difficult for poor people to vote? Pro-family!

  4. says

    Have you ever noticed that Religious Right organizations tend to follow the same rule as dictatorships: the more positive adjectives in their name, the less true they are. German “Democratic” Republic. “People’s” Republic of China. “Family” “Research” Council. “Liberty” Forum.

  5. D. C. Sessions says

    Y’all don’t understand. That little bit about the support payments is all in the past. Rep. Walsh has accepted Rush Limbaugh into his life as his personal savior and has therefore been forgiven all of his sins.

  6. says

    As slacktivist put it: these “pro-family” organizations aren’t out to support actual, individual, material, concrete families, but some great wooly abstraction called The Family. Allowing same-sex marriage, or allowing them to adopt, compromises that abstraction in a way that, oh, beating your wife or screwing your ex and kids out of child support does not.

    Because waving flags is sooo much easier than dealing with messy, complicated, real human needs.

  7. says

    It’s not hypocrisy if the FRC doesn’t give a damn about deadbeat dads.

    Seriously, I searched their website for “deadbeat dads” and “child support”. The former got zero hits and the latter got 5, all articles about the evils of abortion and divorce. Child support was only mentioned in reference to its enforcement costs.

    The “family values” of the FRC and similar groups are the values of patriarchy: keep women in their place, keep gays in the closet, and make children submit to authority. If anything, child support goes against the grain. I mean, the woman expects you to pay her as if she were some kind of an equal?

  8. says

    Oh, as a follow-up to my last post, I searched for “abortion” and “homosexual” on the FRC website. 543 and 328 hits, respectively. Compared to just 5 for “child support”, none of which were about child support anyway.

    Priorities, priorities…

  9. Larry says

    He’s alright with the FRC cuz he’s alright with Jebus!!!

    Besides, those children have already been born. You all know that the party of life only gives a fuck while they’re waiting to be born. After that, not so much.

  10. says

    Perhaps they consider him pro-family because he’s teaching his own and other families an all important lesson by not paying child support: The man in the family is the boss, period. Do what he tells you or else. That seems to be one of the main priciples of these “pro-family” groups.

  11. jeevmon says

    Family values has never been about valuing actual families. It’s always been about demonstrating hatred of the right people/ things.

  12. flatlander100 says

    Tabby:

    You wrote: “What does “Obamacare” have to do with “family” ?

    Oh, Tabby, Tabby, Tabby, how soon you forget. Don’t you remember how Newt and Rush and Sarah and the gang explained that the provision in Obamacare providing that older folk, once every five years, be permitted, if they wanted to [visits not mandatory] to visit a doctor to discuss “end of life” issues [i.e. living wills] was really a plan by which government doctors, to save money, would convince grandma to kill herself? I mean, they laid out the whole nefarious scheme for you, day after day, on talk radio and Fox News.

    How swiftly you forgot….

  13. jimmiraybob says

    …unless “pro-family” is now any right-wing pet cause?

    Well, there ya go.

    Another way of looking at “pro-family” is tribal code for fuck the hippies. The right wing, fighting the 1960s since the 5th century.

  14. d cwilson says

    <blockquoteHave you ever noticed that Religious Right organizations tend to follow the same rule as dictatorships: the more positive adjectives in their name, the less true they are.

    That’s because being a wingnut is like being from the Bizarro World. “Pro-family” means “fuck over your own family”, “Clear skies” means “let businesses pump out more pollutants”, and “Support our troops” means “send them into battle without proper equipment, hire contractors that will will endanger them through shoddy electrical work, and then short change them on half care once they’re out of the service and no longer useful for the cause”.

  15. briandavis says

    Paying child support would be helping a single mother. It is his pro-family duty to punish single parent families. Doing it to his own family just goes to show how selfless and heroic he is.

  16. says

    There’s more to the story. He’s a hardcore fiscal conservative, whose had trouble with steady employment, foreclosure on his condo, tax leins and failing to pay people for services performed. And a license suspended for driving with lapsed insurance.

    He’s a model of responsibility. He’s spun all this by saying that it means he understands the problems of regular people.

  17. Cambrian Ratcatcher says

    #15 d cwilson-

    I know it was a typo, but “half care” seems oddly apropos- “Isn’t that what they’re already getting?”

  18. Jeremy Shaffer says

    support for school choice

    This is OT but what is “school choice”? Does anyone know what they mean here?

  19. says

    @20: I believe “school choice” means educational vouchers so the wingnuts can send their kids to private Christian schools to be indoctrinated on the public dime.

  20. says

    @20: I believe “school choice” means educational vouchers so the wingnuts can send their kids to private Christian schools to be indoctrinated on the public dime.

    Actually, while that’s what it means to wingnuts, the idea has more honest origins in concern that inner city schools were doing such a poor job that giving parents of inner city schools kids vouchers to attend private schools might actually prove advantageous to the poor.

    Back in the late ’70s and early ’80s, people promoting vouchers for non-religious reasons, frequently cited Marva Collins’s West Side Prep in Chicago. She was a frequent speaker at libertarian events and a compelling promoter of the notion that public schools were selling inner city kids short. Aside from the arguments as to the underlying reasons West Side Prep was getting the results it was getting, there were, indeed, many supporters of school choice who had no religious agenda whatsoever. I knew many of them.

    That said, many conservative Evangelicals today seem especially fond of the idea of other people funding the religious education of their children. But make a Muslim school or an explicitly humanistic or atheistic school an option, and I think you lose some of them. School choice means the choice to attend a Judeo-Christian school, because we’re a Judeo-Christian nation and that’s the only legitimate choice.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply