Mark Goodacre points to the attention Deirdre Good's new book Jesus' Family Values is getting. Her argument is basically that Jesus had no family values, on the following ground:
1. Jesus challenged some of the societal expectations people in his cultural context had about families.
2. Jesus doesn't spend a lot of time on some of the moral perspectives assumed by all first-century Jews because of the background of the Hebrew scriptures, i.e. he focuses on where the people of his time were misinterpreting or violating the spirit of the Hebrew scriptures.
3. Jesus predicts that families will divide over him, without ever saying that those who reject his followers in this way and put them to death are right to cause such division.
4. We see no sign of Jesus calling his foster father Joseph by the name he reserved for his heavenly Father.
She also says (falsely) that the word 'family' never appears in the New Testament. Now the English word never appears in the Greek, but a simple online search would have shown her that many English translations use the word regularly (see the ESV, NIV, HCSB, TNIV, NLT). Maybe she got some not quite true information about the KJV not having the word in the NT (it does have it once), but that has nothing to do with the content of the Greek NT itself but more to do with the English language at the time the KJV was translated (or rather the English language of a couple centuries earlier, which is what the KJV translators were translating the Bible into). [Update: see the comments for a more careful presentation of her view, why it's a little better than this, and why I still disagree with it.]
Now maybe the bulk of her argumentation is good, and maybe her conclusions aren't as radical as this presentation makes it look, but the impression of what I'm getting is that she's trying to send a message that pretty much everything those who speak of "family values" consider to fall under that would have been foreign to Jesus, and he'd in fact take the opposite views on many of those issues. The implicature is that those who say they derive their moral and political views from the Bible on these issues are in fact making them up whole cloth.
As I said in the comments on Mark's post, this is a very strange argument. For one thing, Jesus did speak about family values. He lambasted the Pharisees for taking the money they should have been using to care for their parents and dedicating it to God with a vow so they could use it now and not have to support their parents. He gives his mother to John to take care of her. He treats the love of the father for the prodigal son as an image of perfect, divine love, which affirms such love for wayward children.
Challenging aspects of social structures of the time doesn't mean you reject all of them, particularly aspects of them that you don't challenge. Not treating a subject your audience already agrees with you about is not a sign that you don't agree with them. I'm not sure at all how predicting that people will divide over him amounts to endorsing that division as if the mere division is good. Key features of Jesus' treatment of himself as the Son of God and of the movement following him as wholeheartedly devoted to him explain some of the features of his view of the family that she sees as revisionist of the mother-father-children model.
But it doesn't do to handpick your evidence selectively and then claim that the parts you ignore are nonexistent. Jesus affirms that some are eunuchs for the kingdom of God, but he also insists that this isn't for some. He affirms marriage as important enough that someone can't just decide to get divorced. He allows for exceptions in certain cases, but those are exceptions. If the woman caught in adultery story is genuine, he did mention that what she'd been doing was sin and told her not to do it anymore. John 4 makes similar suggestions with the woman at the well. It's true that his emphasis is often on other things, but it's very clear that he supported the traditional sexual morality of the time.
But the strangest thing about this is that she's assuming Jesus' teaching is all the Bible might say about something, as if the very strong family teaching connections in Proverbs, the Torah commands for parents to teach their children, the sexual morality throughout the Bible (but especially in the Torah and epistles), and the teachings in the epistles about how to live as believers in relationships with husbands, wives, parents, and children are totally unimportant.
If you want to get across the idea that the Bible doesn't support this notion of traditional family values, a good strategy for such deception is to ignore the parts of the Bible that deal with those issues at greater length and to focus on the part that focuses on one person and his all-important role of dealing with the more general problem of sin. It is the rhetorically effective thing to do to get your point across to the biblically illiterate audience who won't see through such selective handpicking of evidence. Of course it's also pretty deceptive.