The focus of this conversation is completely misdirected. Am I the only one the realizes that the problem isn't the single mothers... It's the INVISIBLE fathers. I am blown away by the fact that all the critisizism seems to be on the mothers... the parent that actually sticks around. That is absurd! The real problem... deadbeat dads.The The men that think its ok to leave the women to handle it all on her own. Why don't you talk about that Mr. Huckabee?

that headline made me think he was issuing a denial of being the baby-daddy

"In a recent media interview about my new book, A Simple Government, I discussed the first chapter, 'The Most Important Form of Government Is a Father, Mother, and Children.' "

...& all he's saying is that anyone who isn't a straight white man or his female property ought to realize they are second class citizens. Is that so complicated?

no doubt the reference made to Ms Portman (or Ms Palin) though relevant, isn't as pertinent as the too readily available public subsistence that significantly mitgates the financial risk associated with an "unplanned" pregnancy

on a side note, Ms Portman is all the more beautiful 'with child'!

Her fiancé seems to be enjoying the view in the picture posted with article above.

a lot of people simply ignoring the reality that there is a widespread problem with millions of young girls becoming pregnant without the means to support their child. Whether you like Huckabee or not, remaining objective rather than biased adds more to the discussion. I read no 'slam' from Huckabee, just a reality underscored by referencing a high profile individual's circumstances.

I agree with another poster: Huckabee did not have to say anything at all, and whatever flack he gets from this he deserves. He opened himself up to criticism by revealing his own limited and self-righteous morals. You can't and shouldn't just make generalizations about pregnant single women or any other ethnic, social or demographic group. There are good single mothers and there are bad married mothers (and fathers). This sort of narrow-minded judgmental thinking is exactly what I don't want to see in my president. I'd be curious to hear what Sarah Palin has to say about this comment. Hypocrites!

I agree with almost everything you posted, but a single mother with limited education is statistically the most likely adult American to be in poverty. That isn't a generalization, but a fact. However, including Natalie Portman in this discussion was just ignorant.

They're not in poverty because they are a single mother, it's the other way around. I grew up with a single mother, who actually attended college for most of my childhood. My parents actually did marry, but divorced a few years later because it was a dysfunctional relationship. We were on welfare/food stamps. I've seen first hand, having lived in section 8 housing the correlation between poverty, having a poor quality of education and people having children at a young age during an unstable time in their lives. I think that improving education and providing activities for young kids and high schoolers is the key to providing people opportunities to break out of poverty. Probably the only reason I'm not a single mother is because I had a mother who encouraged me to pursue my career and my own dreams before considering getting married or having children and I also had access to things like after school programs, and other youth activities/programs and sports, which provided me with an amazing mentor and provided me with scholarships to go to a summer camp for a couple years, it provided me with so many opportunities to expand my horizons, mature and see all the different things I could do with my life.

The problem is that people like Mike Huckabee that stand on their high horse and try to impose their own narrow minded religious beliefs on the entire country through the government and laws will whine all day and pretend to be concerned about single mothers and poverty and blah blah blah, but when it comes to fixing the problem by funding education, health care, and programs for children in poor areas they are totally against it. And of course if one of those unwed, young women gets pregnant they don't want her to get an abortion.....they'd much rather her have no choice than to be an unwed single mother so that they can complain about her abusing welfare.

Absolutely it's not his business, but it appears from the story that he was asked a direct question about Natalie Portman and he gave is opinion on it. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but degrading people just on their political affiliation rubs me the wrong way. People can disagree and have conversations about their disagreements but to turn everything into generalized polarization is just plain ignorant.

How, we better stop presenting good things that happen to others on TV and in the movies, then! Gosh, you know, the Cosby Show really gave the wrong idea to blacks in the inner city--that show presented the idea that black people could own big houses and be doctors and lawyers, when, it's a statistical fact that most blacks are not doctors and lawyers.

>_<

The above was sarcastic, FYI. All that aside, does TheHuck have numbers to back up that claim that "the statistical reality" is "that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death."?? Just because you use the word "statistical" in your claim doesn't mean you actually have statistics. My own mom was a single mom for a time and she wasn't on welfare, had been to college and I didn't starve. Besides that, what business is it of his what someone else does in their private lives? I thought he and other Republicans were about getting government out of our lives. The correct way to react to Portman, for TheHuck, would have been to simply say "hey, I'm not going to climb into her life and tell her what's right for her."

The point is, he didn't have to say anything at all. It's truly non of his business. She's a responsible, well educated 29-year-old, not a 16-year-old immature, high school dropout—she has a boyfriend/fianceé and even if they don't marry, I'm sure he will be in the child's life...

Really meant? I think his first statement stands on its own. I see no attack or vitriol there, only a well stated fact, "But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie". I mean, is that untrue? Or are the majority of single mothers rich movie stars?

Yes, but it was kind of a dumb point, if taken literally. Who DOESN'T know that most single moms are not movie stars?

He was taking issue with "glamorizing" Portman. Yet, why not report on it? Does he really think the teens of America are too stupid to realize that they AREN'T rich movie stars who can do whatever they want?

As others have pointed out, a MUCH more appropriate focus for his criticisms would have been the media career of Bristol Palin, who apparently starred in some ABC special that literally glamorized teen pregnancy (depicting a fantasy summer camp for preggo teens. Yeah, that exists.)

Republicans always seem to have to "clarify" or "explain" what they REALLY MEANT about the things they say. It takes at least 24 hours for someone to come up with a workaround statement.

after the typically liberal media maufactures their read on what occurred (Huckabee 'slammed' Portman...huhh? He referenced her with others... "a Natalie Portman or some other starlets") it becomes neceesary to clarify or demand a correction be made.

So he thinks that women are thinking, "Oh look, Natalie Portman is having a child out of wedlock, so can I!" But they can't because they are not millionaires. What else was he saying? He was setting her up as an example of why women think it's "OK" to have children out of wedlock (which he thinks is not OK). You can twist it any way you like but that is what he said and what he meant. Backpedaling doesn't work.

no doubt the reference made to Ms Portman (or Ms Palin) though relevant, isn't as pertinent as the too readily available public subsistence that significantly mitgates the financial risk associated with an "unplanned" pregnancy

Which is exactly why entities like PP should have their funding increased, NOT cut. Should I go ahead and assume you're for cutting that as well?