He's still all "think about the children!" I don't want to vote for anyone who is out there talking to evangelical churches saying that the solution to many of the world's troubles is to build strong families. I just read his stance on "strong families and fatherhood" on his website and it even cites irrelevant statistics. It's rhetoric designed to sucker in people who stand for "family values" and not only do I not stand for "family values," I dislike political maneuvering like that. Clinton is even worse in that regard.
"Family values" are anti-homosexual, anti-single parenting, and pro-domestic violence. There is no data that suggests that the crime rate or the fall of the economy or anything bad at all is caused by single-parent child rearing or single sex paired child rearing but there IS data to suggest that people who stay in abusive relationships rear violent and criminal children. It's a religious issue and it makes me very mad that people use this "rational" posturing to promote a religious issue for which the rational posturing is either not truly rational or does not support the religious stance. His plan for "strengthening fathering and families" includes domestic violence prevention, increasing child support, and ensuring that child support payments don't go to government collection fees. None of those "strengthen fatherhood," so why is it called "strengthening fatherhood?" Because it's a ploy to make the plan fall under "family values" and thus get support from religious conservatives and religious liberals who think that divorce and homosexuality are evil. Because I see the ploys, I hate the stance.
I don't like candidates who use their religion as a political platform and I don't like candidates to try to hide their religious political platform in some areas by claiming that it is not a religious platform. I further don't like religious platforms designed to mimic more popular religious platforms in order to garner support.
Besides, these people are senators, people who know that the people of the US mandated that the US get out of the Iraq war and know that the Democratic control of Congress was intended by the people to end the war in Iraq, yet almost all of them continue to vote for the war and if they make a gesture vote against it, they don't follow up when the president vetoes it. They have already proven that they have no interest in following the will of their constituents in any meaningful way. I just don't see how I can trust someone to follow the will of the people in running the nation when they can't bear to do it in their current job. They need to grow some fucking balls.
Kucinich may look like an elf but he has balls the size of his head. That's why he gets the totally hot wife.