Gov. Mitch Daniels and His 2-Time Ex-Wife

Alpha Echo · May 17, 2011

The talk about what Arnold did to the daughter he fathered with his housekeeper had me running across this.

It hasn’t been a linear marriage though. In 1993, when her daughters were between the ages of 8 and 14, Cheri Daniels divorced Mitch, married someone else and moved to California. Three years later, she and Mitch remarried.

This might be a forgotten footnote in the Daniels’ public biography, except for one detail. When Cheri left, she did not bring her daughters with her. She left them in the custody of Mitch.

*snip*

Earlier this year, Rizzuto wrote an essay in Salon about her decision to temporarily move away from her husband and young children to pursue a professional opportunity. When her marriage fell apart during the separation, she decided not to not seek full custody.

*snip*

Rizzuto, whose sons are now 13 and 15, currently lives near her children, their father and his new wife, who have primary custody. She said that she sees the boys three times a week and occasionally talks to them about her decisions. “I feel like it helps them learn that you don’t have to do everything people say you have to do in the way they want you to do it. That you can love other people and still love yourself.”

What do you think?

Why do we always accept when it's the husband who leaves and not when the wife does?

I don't think it's abandonment. If it is, then you'd have to say my own father abandoned me. There were many factors as to why we lived with my mother instead of my father. Abandonment is when the parent who moves out during a divorce is no longer there for his/her children.

I do, however, find it...difficult to grasp. That it would be the mother that moves out rather than the father.

And, seeing them 3x a week isn't quite the same as having them overnight. I don't know if she saw her kids more often during the first divorce when they were younger or not, but that's not much.

The article makes Cheri Daniels seem very cold. I can't tell from it if she really is or not and probably will never know since it's their business and not ours.

But I guess my question is - do you think she's any worse than a man in the same position?

Cranky · May 17, 2011

No, I don't. I think there are plenty of fathers who make a better custodial parent in the event of a divorce, for example. And if we can simply stop thinking that mother=saint/automatically the better parent, we'd have a lot less problems with it.

In fact, I find it vaguely infuriating that it's even a question, to be honest. Who is to say that I am a better parent than my husband, or that my contributions to their upbringing are more important than his? Fathers are more than ATMs for their children, and it's high time they are recognized, rather than simply castigated.

In that same vein, women should not be castigated as being "unnatural" or cold if they choose not to be the custodial parent. It's not always in the children's best interest anyway.

I could go on and on, but I think I'll quit for now.

Alpha Echo · May 17, 2011

I agree with you...I was just giving my opinion of the way the article was written. And I thought the topic was interesting. I didn't mean to offend.

You are completely right that there are many times that the father is the better custodial parent.

I have no idea from this article what kind of mother Cheri Daniels is - and never will. I wasn't judging her, I was judging the way the article was written. In fact, I too, thought it interesting that so many people thought she was awful.

Cranky · May 17, 2011

Argh, I have screwed up. :Hug2:

You didn't offend me in the slightest, Alpha. It was the article, I promise.

Alpha Echo · May 17, 2011

Good.

muravyets · May 17, 2011

What I think is that, personally, following my own natural inclinations, I really sincerely don't give a crap. It's not my business. It's nobody's business but the family in question, and that goes for the Schwarzenegger story and even Newt Gingrich's disgusting stories, or any of the Spitzers or Guilianis or Sanfords, etc, etc, etc, out there in government, as well. It's their private life, and I'd love for them to keep it private.

But they don't, and that's what I do care about. It's the hypocrisy of these philandering moralizers who try to dictate how everyone else should live, and intrude on other people's sex lives and family lives, and attack other people's characters on morals grounds, and spout on and on about "values" and "morality" and "honor." And all the while, they're doing the same or worse of what they denounce others for.

It's the hypocrisy more than the cheating and divorcing, etc., that tells us just how corrupt these people are, in my opinion. I'm willing to forgive public figures having messed-up private lives. I'm not willing to forgive them violating the public trust to cater to their affairs, as some have done, nor am I willing to listen to them dictate morals to others, while their own are so lacking.

ETA: But that's my rant for this general spate of political gossip news. About the OP question particularly: I think the question is kind of unintentionally sexist, to be honest about it. Their relationship isn't perfectly conformist. She is not perfectly conformist. They don't fit the generic social norms. So what? The children are hardly abandoned. Neither parent is actually gone from their lives. What difference does it make if she goes away for a while instead of him?

ETA2: The reason this story prompted my rant is that Daniels is one of those conservative morals crusaders. As governor of Indiana he has unilaterally eliminated all funding for all services provided by Planned Parenthood in his state, thereby blocking access to cancer screenings and basic gynecological care for a large number of women there. He beats the drum constantly on morals issues, against abortion rights, against gay rights, etc., promoting a fantasy of "family values."

Yet he, himself, has lived a not-perfectly-traditional life and has experienced the kinds of stresses and changes that he seems determined to penalize others for. I'm fine with how he and his wife have dealt with their personal issues over time. I do think, however, it should knock him off that high horse of his.

regdog · May 17, 2011

I have infinite respect for a woman who realizes she is not the mother she should be, and her children would be better off being raised by their father.

Cranky · May 17, 2011

regdog said:
I have infinite respect for a woman who realizes she is not the mother she should be, and her children would be better off being raised by their father.

I gotta wonder...what does that mean, "the mother she should be?". Maybe the mother she should be is one who takes the route normally designated for men. Does that mean she's not a good mother? Why is that okay for men, but not for women? See what I mean?

That's why I got so hot under the collar Alpha thought I was mad at her. And I'm not mad at you, either, regdog. I just don't like the default assumptions inherent in that sort of thinking. It really smacks of sexism.

Bubastes · May 17, 2011

What Cranky said.

Don · May 17, 2011

"The mother she should be" strikes me as a throwback to the days of June Cleaver. I've known a good semi-absentee mother or two, as well as a few whose kids wished they'd be absent.

Alpha Echo · May 17, 2011

muravyets said:
It's the hypocrisy more than the cheating and divorcing, etc., that tells us just how corrupt these people are, in my opinion. I'm willing to forgive public figures having messed-up private lives. I'm not willing to forgive them violating the public trust to cater to their affairs, as some have done, nor am I willing to listen to them dictate morals to others, while their own are so lacking.

Agreed.

muravyets said:
ETA: But that's my rant for this general spate of political gossip news. About the OP question particularly: I think the question is kind of unintentionally sexist, to be honest about it. Their relationship isn't perfectly conformist. She is not perfectly conformist. They don't fit the generic social norms. So what? The children are hardly abandoned. Neither parent is actually gone from their lives. What difference does it make if she goes away for a while instead of him?

Again, I agree. It's only because they are in the political spotlight that the situation is even raised at all. Though it doesn't happen often, sometimes, the women are the ones who leave and allow the father to have full custody.

muravyets said:
ETA2: The reason this story prompted my rant is that Daniels is one of those conservative morals crusaders. As governor of Indiana he has unilaterally eliminated all funding for all services provided by Planned Parenthood in his state, thereby blocking access to cancer screenings and basic gynecological care for a large number of women there. He beats the drum constantly on morals issues, against abortion rights, against gay rights, etc., promoting a fantasy of "family values."

Yet he, himself, has lived a not-perfectly-traditional life and has experienced the kinds of stresses and changes that he seems determined to penalize others for. I'm fine with how he and his wife have dealt with their personal issues over time. I do think, however, it should knock him off that high horse of his.

Again, I agree completely. There were some comments on the article stating that same opinion. I don't know much about Daniels, but I disagree strongly with his morals.

JoNightshade · May 17, 2011

Alpha Echo said:
But I guess my question is - do you think she's any worse than a man in the same position?

Nope - but my opinion of a man who would move far away from his young children is pretty low, so that doesn't mean much.

kuwisdelu · May 17, 2011

I figured we just judged according to who's office.

Gregg · May 17, 2011

IMO, most mothers have a strong maternal instinct - they put their children first (sometimes to the dismay of their husbands).
But I know of some mothers who don't have that same instinct and either the children are neglected or the father becomes the primary care-giver - the father becomes the "mom".
Then there's the case (I have personal knowledge) where the father is so domineering that the mother can't cope and is banished. She has to leave her children in the hands of the tyrant father.
How does this affect a possible Daniel's campaign for President? Probably shouldn't matter unless there is evidence he was abusive.
Since Clinton, the bar has been lowered. Remember Gary Hart?
(trust me, I have personal of knowledge when candidate "misbehavior" was ignored by the press.)

Gov. Mitch Daniels and His 2-Time Ex-Wife

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.

Cranky

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.

Cranky

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.

muravyets

Old revolutionary

regdog

The Scavengers

Cranky

Bubastes

bananaed

Don

All Living is Local

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.

JoNightshade

has finally arrived

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Gregg

Life is good