I just saw this article on Bush taking baby steps to start making noncustodial fathers more important in a child's life (ie more than a wallet).

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/l...la-news-letters

It's a drop in the bucket, but a start. I feel strongly that the democrats are out of touch with voters. The party in general could use a mandatory reading of Dale Carnegie, but that's another issue. In this election Democrats all over ignored the scourge of family issues men are facing and pandered for the feminist vote on the far left. Apparently the party is bad at math. According to the U.S. Census Current Population Survey for 2000, in Washington state:

• 120,000 of 270,000 women with children under 5 did not vote;

• 80,000 of 190,000 single women with children did not vote;

• 130,000 of 400,000 human-service professionals did not vote.

While Kerry won Wa, Gregoire will only win by a lawsuit, if at all. On the other hand half of voting americans will go through a divorce. So roughly 1/4 of all americans represent a the view point of a man who has been through a divorce. Add to this number the mothers and sisters of these men and you get a substantial number of voters who care about an issue. BTW the mothers of these men DO vote (ie they aren't among the angry and rabid 20 somethings that profess to hate Bush, but didn't show up to the polls).

The results of the Governor's race are still being tallied by hand as of Dec 12, but the anti father role of Gregoire (among a thousand other blunders) easily marks her defeat. Every member of every father's rights org I belong to voted against her. In fact every divorced father I know voted against her. This number easily makes up the margin for the legal requirement for the machine recount.

This begs the question for both democrats as well as men's and father's rights activists. What low haning fruit is there for the democrats to start appealing to the male voter who is getting 1/3 of his income garnished for a child he didn't want or for a child the mother never allows her to see.

I can think of a few easy ones....for INSTANCE.

In Washington and Oregon, a fathers income may be garnished after the child turns 18 so that the child can go to college. The money doesn't go the child, it continues to go to the mother. As long as the child is in school, the father must pay (until the kid is 21). The child can be flunking every course, but still the money must be paid. Go figure- fathers who are married get the opportunity to say no..... GEEZ DO YOU THINK THIS IS SIMPLE ENOUGH TO FIX????_ Kerry AND Gregoire could have won their elections on this miniscule issue alone.

The issue is not complicated. Even in the absence of wrongdoing, NOW does not want both parents to be meaningful parts of their kids' lives. Yet, in the most liberal of states, MA, the joint legal and physical custody ballot measure received 85% approval as opposed to JK's 63%. NOW is out of touch. The sooner dems disregard NOW's postion on this issue, the better off the party will be.

The single biggest barrier that prevents good dads from spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire. In the not too distant future a lot of political leaders will regret their position not to stand up for the rights of both parents to be meaningful parts of their kids' lives.

I hear you Sandra. But, I have to admit, I will be so proud when our party finally comes out and says, "In the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives." Hopefully, the nightmare will soon be over.

Both parties seem to be holding men's rights hostage. The obvious conspiracy theory is the amount of welfare pork federal Child Support bonuses brings to each state is so large, no one dares stop or even slow down the corruption.

Ultimately this will lead to a widening gap between between rich and poor. I blame democrats for this- NOT the republicans. DSHS here in Wa state is largely corrupt and out of control- it got this way under democratic leadership. Welfare through child support is one item in a list of hundreds of unaccountability from the liberals.

Democrats- don't even bother trying to blame republicans for this....blaming the GOP is about all you've proven yourselves to be good at....HOW ABOUT SOLVING A PROBLEM FOR ONCE W/OUT STEALING MONEY FROM OTHERS??????

Low hanging fruit #2.....FIX CHILD SUPPORT TO A STANDARDIZED LEVEL...not based on how much you can bleed a father for.

Low haning fruit #3....stop rewarding states with CS bonuses that don't have at least 70% of all parenting agreements as 50/50 w/no financial support. The current program ENCOURAGES using children as financial weapons in divorces. YOU ARE FUNDING THE DESTRUCTION OF FAMILIES.

Can you explain #3 ?

Jor El,

There is blame to pass around to each party. Also, each party has people to look towards. The democrats have Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, who was prominent in passage of equal parenting time legislation earlier this year. Clearly, he is a democrat with answers that are not blaming others. He was one of JK's three finalists to run as VP. Undoubtedly, democrats would have earned more of the male vote if JK had chosen him, rather than Edwards. That may have been the difference; who knows?

The bar is set rather low right now. All a candidate has to do is say that in the absence of wrongdoing, he/she believes both parents ought to be meaningful part of their kids' lives. That's not a real hard call - 85% of MA voters agreed with that basic message on a MA referendum. There isn't much room to get hurt by taking that position. Sure, NOW opposes it, but NOW is quickly losing its relevance from such positions. Because of such stances, it finds itself fighting to keep gains that are much more precious to its base, like the right to an abortion. The NOW's stance to promote the separation of kids from their dad was a grave tactical blunder. It also helped to cause the Democratic Party to crash and burn.

It's time to pick up the pieces and move on. NOW would do well for itself to reconsider is promotion of the systemic separation of children from their fathers. If not, the Democratic Party has to openly oppose NOW on that issue. You simply can not win elections when you oppose a super majority of the electorate. By any definition, 85% qualifies as a super majority. Republicans don't have to address the issue, because they are not tied to NOW. Through continued law suits and a better informed public about the devastation caused to children by being separated from their dads, this issue will only grow larger. It doesn't take long to understand that the only thing preventing good dads from spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire.

It is apparent that the public is tired of footing the bill of that devastation. The Democratic Party has no other viable option, but to change.

Simple- States get rewarded with federal dollars for "bringing dads to justice." I can look up the exact tables for your reference, but I trust you are informed enough that you know they exist.

From a budgetary standpoint states are better off financialy in the short term for CREATING fatherless homes because they will get more federal support for a bigger crisis than a solved problem.

With 50/50 parenting with NO redistribution of income- each parent get's treated equally. There is no support check for stealing kids from one parent. Both parents hold jobs and have the option of getting equal time with their kids. I say 70%, because it's almost the inverse of what happens now. States of course don't have to comply with it--- they are free to do whatever they like...but they can do it w/less federal welfare money.

The bottom line is States need to be incentivetized to make fatherhood a priority, at the very least stop rewarding them for creating a bigger problem.

PS - some very GREAT testimony at the ways and means on what father's rights advocates call the child support mafia.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp...ode=view&id=950