Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The "Right" kind or parents.

Would they be willing to kick in a $ million or so to the Republican National Committee? If so, then the answer would be, "You bet!"

Julia, I'm sorry if I've upset you. My predefined attitude is that I think it is silly to see everything that happens in such a situation as being the result of political intrigue by a sinister right-wing machine - just as it was stupid for right-wingers to see in the Gonzales case a nefarious scheme wherein Clinton was kissing Castro's butt.

It strikes me like Flip Wilson's "Geraldine" defense - "The Devil made me do it!" - amusing as comedy, but indicative of ignorance if transferred to the real world as an excuse/explanation of everything that happens.

Now let me recapitulate, as I see it, the "truth" of the matter: A guy who did not care about fathering a child outside of his marriage, who did not really care about that child in Cuba before the mother and child departed, who did not object to the mother and child departing, who did not show interest when the mother put the child into foster care, now suddenly develops a moral compass when a stable, well-off Cuban couple in the US wants to adopt his son.

Personally, I think/believe the boy is where he should be: With a family that cares for him and can provide for him. I hope that the judge will find for the adoptive parents. I think/believe that the father's sudden and belated concern for the child he previously showed so little interest in is a bit of machismo bullshit. I hope the judge will tell him to pay attention to the child he already has in Cuba and let the love-child he had heretofore emotionally abandoned find stability and happiness in his new home.

The situation is made worse by the Cuban question, which the exile community - still pissed from Elian Gonzales - will exploit to the fullest. I believe that the biological father had ample time and opportunity to show interest in the welfare of his child and he did not avail himself of it. The boy is a virtual stranger to him and - even more important to the matter -the "father" is a stranger to the child and has been all of his life.

Would he have been a better man if he had said "Screw it, I don't know the kid and don't care what happens to her?

Regarding the fact that he allowed them to leave: Would it have been better if he'd said "No, stay here in Cuba, I can't bear to see you go?"


Well, that's good, because nobody's talking about what should happen to the boy. His father hasn't been consulted, rememberr? The story is about the girl.

Which, I think, helps prove my point.

We have no idea of the circumstances under which the child was conceived (thank God), no idea why the parents didn't marry. For all we know it could have been a classic Romeo/Juliet. My guess is that it wasn't; my point is we don't know the background. It may be that they both thought it was better that way --- but why anyone thinks they can adequately judge this man from newspaper articles I do not know.

And my point is that, while political Liberals will come down on both sides of this argument, based on what each of them perceives to be the best interest of the girl, not one single Conservative will be permitted such latitude. Because sending the girl to live with her father would outrage the vital Republican voting block of Florida's Cuban-American community, not one single Conservative will be allowed to view this situation through anything other than the "Fidel Castro" lens.

Watch and see when the National Republican politicians start to get involved.

Yes to both. That would have removed all ambiguity as to his position.

Mea culpa! Mea Culpa!...I had boy on the brain even though this is about the daughter.

Unless the child was the result of rape - which has never been suggested - I believe that the circumstances of conception are irrelevant to the matter. All that is of real significance is his conduct after becoming a father. He had, IMCO, ample time to make the emotional connection necessary to become a part of the little girl's life and he apparently chose not to.

And we will not know a great deal about him - good or bad - and his case will rest primarily on the trumping power of the "biological parent" card. What we do know, and it should be weighed accordingly, is that this man has, until the question of adoption arose, shown no real interest in his daughter.

But we will learn a great deal about the the adoptors-presumtive because the very dirt under their fingernails will become a part of the record for adoption.

And by what vapid sophistry do you presume to speak so sweepingly for genuine conservatives? You certainly have no competent knowledge - much less any authority - to make pronouncements on my behalf.

And since when does the GOP have any real association with genuine conservative philosophy?

And my point is that we have no idea why there was no contact. Maybe he felt the girl would be better off with only one father to deal with. Maybe he wasn't welcome in that household. Maybe he's a flaming <expletive>, but when we judge him on this we are making a lot of assumptions -- that the two families lived within walking distance or, if not, that a running car was available; that the two were on speaking terms - maybe he had sworn never to see her (the mother) again, for God's sake.

There is absolutely no reason, given the information we have, to assume he chose not to see the child because he didn't care. It's no more valid than to say "wasn't it good of him to back out of their lives, and still show up when he was called."

I think it's a very prejudicial reading.

My expertise is based both on years of observation, added to my complete accuracy in the prediction I have made here regarding exactly who Conservatives will declare themselves on this issue: They will universally side with whatever opinion is necessary to maximize the Cuban-American/Religious Right vote in the Florida 2008 elections. Just as they did in the cases of Teri Schiavo and Elian Gonzalez.

For those arguing the 'best interests of the child", I ask would you be willing to submit custody of your own children to that simple test? I mean, if Madonna said, hey I will raise your child in luxury with the finest education, etc., should that give her custody if she can show that you work too many hours to spend much time with him or her?

My point in this long tortuous discussion has nothing to do with right/left or Dem/GOP other than my surprise the number of people who describe themselves as pro-family who are siding with the foster parents based upon the "best interests" argument.

To me that is a shocking departure from the arguments usually given to keep the state out of family matters.

It does when the republican National Committee can disregard everything that Conservatives declare in odd-numbered years, knowing full well that The Party can count on 100% Conservative loyalty in even-numbered (election) years.