If you read what the man actually said he isn't very focused on slamming Nathalie Portman.
He's making a reasonable point about what ideals we want for people and how the reality of a famous person like Portman is very different from that of average poor people. You can disagree with the point and so on, but it's hardly a gaffe. If anything, I suspect it's positive political move because he gets out an issue that he wants to be out there.
There is a reasonable argument that in a society where most children grow up with two breadwinners, growing up just one would have an adverse effect on the child. However by speaking specifically about Portman to whom the above would not apply because she will be raising the child with the father. What he is doing is making it seem as if his religious convictions against premarital sex and children out of wedlock are really an economic one, when often, like in this case, they are not.
And then there is this quote:
The assertion that most children to single mothers would starve to death without government assistance is:
1. Ludicrous
2. if it were true, would be a great argument against the conservative position that the government should not get involved in welfare and should leave it up to private charity, if he really believes this, than he should be attacking economic conservatives on this.
the part about Undereducated is phrased in a way that makes it hard to statistically quantify but it isn't as if most single parent mothers are high school dropouts, in 2008 15.5 percent hadn't graduated from high school, while 26.9 had an associate's degree.
The part about very poor could be somewhat subjective but considering 24.6 are below the poverty line saying most are very poor is a exaggerating things.
The part about "can't get a job' is quantifiable Huckabee is simply wrong only 18.7 didn't have a job in 2007, and while i'm sure that number is up since then there is no chance it's over 50% now.
And I can't remember seeing single motherhood being glorified, what I have seen is single mothers being commended with the hard work they do in raising their children but that always includes saying how hard it is to raise a child on your own.
I think that when you say "specifically about Portman" you're buying into a media narrative of what he said. What he is actually quoted as saying is "people see
a Natalie Portman or
some other Hollywood starlet" (my emphasis). It's pretty clear that he isn't really talking about Portman, but just mentioning her because she's a recent example.
The rest of your points seem to be statistical. I won't argue them - I'm sure you're right. Still, it's probably true, as you seem to agree that single mothers raising children do constitute a problem, correct? I mean, I'm not going to fault a politician too much for being hyperbolic when the basic sentiment he's expressing is true - namely, that many kids growing up with single mothers will face poverty and problems in life.
The same seems to go for when you say that Portman is raising her kid with the father. That obviously won't be true for all unmarried mothers but it would reasonably be for all married ones.
As for glorifying single motherhood, I think his precise point is that these things are "glorified" when it comes to the stars. That is what he's talking about. He's saying, it seems, that when talking about single mothers we should focus more on the story of the poor single mom, and not the story of Natalie Portman because she's an exception. Again, I think there are broad truths to making these statements. Just like there may be a glorification of drugs involved in reporting on the drug use of Hollywood stars, since they will not be hurt by it the way a poor person would.
As for your point on welfare state and economic conservatism, I agree. I think I said as much in my earlier post, no?
