I was interviewed on Friday by a journalist from the global AFP newswire. He’s doing an article on the “bizarre” (his words) number of children most of the Republican candidates have. It hadn’t dawned on me, really, that most of the original Republican candidates have numerous children. The Daily Beast pointed out a few months ago, “Six Republican candidates have 34 children among them…and that’s not even counting Michele Bachmann’s 23 foster children.”
My conversation with the journalist was pleasant, but he struggled with a reality that he may have thought impossible. The idea was that a father or mother of so many children would not be able to lead a country.
I hope his premise changed after I spoke with him. I challenged him, “These parents show me that they can lead.” I told him that for me, the larger the family, the more my opinion is validated: yep, this candidate is the real deal.
By “real deal” I mean they value children and family beyond a political stump speech. They don’t just “talk the talk,” they “walk the walk.” Children are blessings. Always. And if they welcome that blessing it tells me that their faith is genuine and that their worldview is sound. The norm is to have the two cute children for perfect photo ops (like most presidents since the first Roosevelt).
I wouldn’t mind having an abnormal leader in office, one whose life isn’t so normal. One that understood the American family a bit better.
Newt is the most “normal” with three marriages and two children. The rest are, I suppose, pretty “bizarre.” Check out these pictures:
I like these images, and I like the thought of watching one of these families enter the White House. It’d be a pleasant change, in my opinion. How about you? Most of the past presidents had few children. Is this a good or bad thing?