Tuesday
Aug212012
Todd Akin Stays In... Thinks He Can Win
So Akin is the news of the day again today. He was just on Huckabee moments ago stating that he'll stay in the hotly contended Senate race against Claire McCaskill (who rushed to Akin's defense) because he still thinks he can win, mentioning Public Policy Polling data that has already proven to be a farce, for once actually favoring a Republican with a +9 advantage.
(yeah... that just doesn't happen at PPP)
Here's the apology / plea to his voters not to write him off completely:
Of course the left-wing media is already starting to pile on:
Bringing comparisons to Adolf Hitler
Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Anyone?
Permalink | tagged Abortion, Todd Akin, republican
Reader Comments (55)
Thank goodness the GOP primary voters didn't pick the candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin. Y'all really REALLY dodged a bullet there.
Personally I don't know which was more idiotic on Akin's part: The fact that he actually defied nature by implying a woman's body shuts down while being raped (apparenlty serving as some form of imaginary, mind-over-matter style of birth control, preventing her from becoming impregnated) or the fact the he actually looked at Democrats coming to his defense and a PPP poll saying he held a slim lead and took it as compassionate, honest and truthful.
Both defy logic.
Apparently Todd Akin sees PPP data that generally shows him losing (minus the two most recent that put him +1) and thinks that this fiasco hasn't caused the poll numbers to change one bit... despite the poll oversampled Republicans +9% (I'm not even sure if they've ever oversampled for a Republican that high), far more than any previous polls between himself and McCaskill. It's not a coincidence. If he's incapable of seeing that, and his advisor isn't smart enough to comprehend that despite countless people saying it in print, radio and online... neither should be working for elections.
If only he was a Dem and guilty of lying about serving in Vietnam, then his Senate seat would be assured.
“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”
–Proverbs 16:18
The problem Akin poses for his Party is that he represents a more widespread view that rape exceptions to abortion restrictions are superfluous—if a rape was “really” “legitimate” rape, there wouldn’t be a pregnancy to begin with.
Insulting, offensive, ignorant, flat wrong? Sure. But Akin’s hardly alone in such convictions within the Hate Party. Many share them. It's not for nothing we liken them to an American Taliban.
If that was true, wouldn't the GOP be rallying around Akin?
You see Mach when you derive your political philosophy from a party that uses the prism of hate and racism to describe all life's wrongs, there is no reasoning or explanation that makes sense to them. They recite the simple rote sayings so pathetically hateful that their inbreeds now like a closed society; philosophically breading within themselves. Within our lifetime they’ll be gone.
Proving my theory that liberals are inbreds; here is an article from the Root that discusses Paul Ryan dated a black girl in college and is he a racist? As far as we know she wasn't a 'compostie' but an actual person.
http://www.theroot.com/blogs/paul-ryan/does-paul-ryans-black-girlfriend-matter#comments
Proving my theory that rightwingers are somehow unable to even absorb or take in any news, facts or information that challenges their beliefs, your post makes it quite plain you didn't even read the article you linked to. You may as well have been "reading" a blank wall.
Winston;
You are really one DF. An article that draws comparisons to Strom Thurmond and other racial dog whistle code words for you losers and you claim I haven't read the article?
Are we to take away from this that you've finally found a Republican candidate that is too crazy for you, Skinny?
I know you like to peg anybody that doesn't agree with you as an establishment-type Republican kwawk, but I've been a Libertarian most of my life and still donate to them annually. There are plenty of people I don't agree with in every single political party out there, so it's no big shocker here. In fact in 2008 there were about 69,456,897 people I found to be too crazy for my tastes.
Akin is no 1-in-a-million here... not by anybody's standards. He's also no example of any substantial voter base. There's not a majority of Republicans running around thinking rape victims can't get pregnant no matter what the DWS run DNC would like you to believe. I realize that it's far easier for your side to think such fantasies and to lump him in with all Republicans in hopes it'll make your arguments on real issues a tad bit easier, but that's really just you moonbats fooling yourselves again.
So bring out the next war on women screeches (it's so funny hearing liberal men scream about how unfair we are towards women). Then be sure to push the 'abortions are okay because obviously the treatment of rape and incest victims is such an overwhelming percentage of fine work PPoA does' agenda, that's certain to tug at anybody's heartstrings. Chase after those votes that scream "I don't want to be burdened with a baby!"
/sarcasm
It really is like a bad re-doing of George Carlin's comedy act...
... and pretending "pro-life" is the same as being "anti-woman".
Shock talk taken wwwaaaaaay tooooooo seriously by the left.
My thoughts on Akin:
1). He's good guy; I've met him and donated to his campaign.
2). It's admirable his on-going defense of the unborn.
3). His legitimate rape comment is stupid, insensitive and terribly wrong.
4). The female body shuts down during rape for conception is bull-shit.
He neded to withdraw on Monday. He didn't. He needed to withdraw on Tuesday he didn't. He neds to withdraw ASAP.
If he doesn't, there will be a GOP write-in candidate against him.
Bodies and organs can essentially "shut down" due to shock, stress, etc... however if a woman is already fertile (a.k.a. ovulation, prime time in the month for getting preggers) I don't see it as a logical argument. The mind can influence how a body acts however I think Akin was either grossly misinformed of how that can affect a rape victim, didn't understand how the mind can affect the body or was simply given partial information and then took it upon himself to fill in the blanks.
Other way it sounded pretty stupid. I'm sure he meant well, but he needed to fully understand the facts before putting forth such a talking point. I think many politicians should take that simple philosophy before pushing forward with their own agendas (i.e. Harry Reid saying Mitt hasn't paid taxes in 10 years).
So let me see if I got this straight; so y'all are sayin women CAN get pregnant during legitimate rape? Is that right? Sheeeeez
If Akin's comments aren't representative of the right wing in this country then why the need for all of the life begins at conception/fetal personhood amendments Skinny? The truth is that a lot of people on the right would like for there to be laws against abortion with no execptions, but they can't figure out how to sell this to the American people.
Once a child of rape, molestation or incest is born then that child has all the rights of anybody else and it's means of conception is not held against the child. Obviously if you're extending personhood status back to conception you're pushing back that threshold to the entire time spent in the womb.
I hear a lot of people claim the title of libertarian, but when examined they seem to hold libertarian views on economic issues and strong anti-libertarian views on social issues. I've tried to think up a title that might describe this philosophy. The personal responibility movement? That sounds too positive.
Near as I can tell the philosophy doesn't revolve around liberty, it revolves around trying to ensure that every person is individually held responsible for the natural consequences of their actions in every instance and without exception, yet prohibiting individuals from acting collectively to alter those consequences.
Please explain why I should be held responsible, even collectively, for the actions of another individual?
Because that is how risk is mitigated in life. We buy car insurance because we know that if while the risks in any year that we may get involved in a catastropic car accident in any given year are pretty slim, but if it does happen the cost burden of that car accident will totally wipe us out if we don't colletively plan for it. Same with home insurance. Same with disability insurance.
When we pool our resources to collectively plan for retirement ala Social Security and Medicare it takes away a lot of the risk that we'll get to a place in life where we're ready to retire and circumstances have dictated that we're not able to do so because, perhaps as individuals we had some bad luck in the market, or as it would turn out, weren't such great investors.
The problem with 401ks? It is perfectly possible to be a great planner and a great saver while at the same time being a fairly poor investor, leaving you with little to nothing to retire on.
You could extend the same arguments to public schools. You may choose to not have kids while your neighbor chooses to have 6. But if you choose as a society not to help educate those kids, you'll pay a price later though higher crime rates, higher incarceration costs, lower GDP growth and on and on.
"If Akin's comments aren't representative of the right wing in this country then why the need for all of the life begins at conception/fetal personhood amendments"
The "right-wing" doesn't agree with Akin's legitimate rape comments and find the "woman's body shuts down during rape"a bunch of crap. As for his abortion comments; he's pretty much in-line.
"a lot of people on the right"
Wow, that IS a big number. What survey did you get that one from?
No, that's how I can choose to mitigate some of life's risks. That choice is an essential element of my freedom, and I resent the efforts of collectivists to take it away from me.
Responsibility for a child's education, or lack thereof, belongs to the child's parents or legal guardian, not the childless.
Dang... you beat me to that one.
Because abortion is considered a pretty heinous act by most people Kwawk... it's a pretty easy "sell", as you put it. The only counter-argument you guys can come up with is "eh, uh... but what about, uh... what about rape? YEAH! Rape and molestations! AND INCEST!! YEAH!! What about that Skinny?"
To those "composite" (lol) moonbats I say this... Rape, molestation and incest has CONSISTENTLY accounted for less than ONE PERCENT OF ALL ABORTIONS. Knowing that stat, MANY MANY MORE than your "stat" of "a lot" are perfectly okay with it, especially if performed early on. Once that life goes into a later terms however, that's when we "pro-life wingnuts" tend to cringe.
They cringe even more when they learn Obama was the only politician to voice opposition to BAIPA, which was the thing so many people attacked him over in 08'. If we hadn't run a squishy moderate in 08' that would have actually attacked Obama on his pro-abortion stance I'm sure the election would have been far closer. Apparently McCain was just happy to finally be in the game and not sitting on the electoral sidelines (so to speak).
So let me ask you this Kwawk, is it okay for me to pick and choose FAR LEFT positions (vocally stated and supported ones at that) and make that a blanket slate for ALL DEMOCRATS? Are they all for late term abortions? Does the war on women mean "we have a right to suck out our babies brains if we wanna!"??
We can keep going... Are they all for Socialism? Pretty easy accusation to make given Obama's past in Chicago as "not official member" of the New Party and even vocal admitted socialists in your party. Perhaps all of you are against the Keystone Pipeline. That'll be a tough "sell" to the Unions, huh? How far do you want to go with this? Do all Democrats think they should invade "lily white" neighborhoods and start axin' cracka' babiez?!?
We can play this game all month if you want...
Lots of radical, leftwing positions to choose from.
We don't live in the world according to Mach. Liberty is not absolute. When you decide to live in a society you don't get to do everything your own way. You give up certain liberties for the protections and benefits that that society has to offer.
Bingo! When Akin was speaking he was trying to justify the position he was talking of not allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest. It is that attack on the rape and incest exemptions to anti-abortion laws that people are responding too.
He said it pretty clearly, that he thought there should be punishment in the case of rape but not to punish the baby concieved in that rape.
KwAwk:
Tijuana:
No abortions/no rape exceptions has been the Republican platform for about thirty years now. Your sarcasm is completely misplaced.
The notion that Republicans have finally kicked over the rock marking a candidate Too Crazy and Disgusting Even For Them is plainly false. Akin’s constituents don’t think his anatomical ignorance disqualifies him from a seat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. If he withstands what remains of a GOP establishment, he could actually win Missouri’s Senate seat. Within the Hate Party, political tribalism long ago defeated common decency.
Correct. None of our rights are absolute.
Our society was created to preserve and protect our rights and freedoms. Only under specific circumstances can those rights be limited or revoked, not for mere membership in society.
Mach: Yet, the founders believed fairly strongly in public eduation and public libraries. They believed in a public postal system, and put no requirement in the Constitution that it be self-funding.
Skinny - You're right that we could go back and forth all month on how the two sides use the extremes to paint the whole party on the other side. Both sides do it. Yet it is only the right that has managed to make the tag Republican in Name Only to define people within their own party who are sufficiently extreme enough. It makes it tough to take your complaints seriously if you insist on calling fairly conservative candidates on your side such as John McCain squishy moderates. You want to be defined by the extreme in your party when it suits you.
You concern for the unborn would also be more compelling if you showed more concern for those same children once they're born. Machiavelli, Thomas Miller and TJ are undermining the arguement that you make that you care about the lives of the unborn, by showing that what you seem to want to take away the right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy but then place the full burden of raising children on parents like it's a punative weight to be carried.
You also use late term abortion as in sucking babies brains out as an anti-abortion argument and cry that rape and incest only account for 1%-2% of abortion. Well, third trimester abortion only accounts for 0.01% of all abortions, with 91% of abortions occuring in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
That would make abortions due to rape 100 to 200 times more prevalent than third trimester abortions.
And TJ if you're wondering where I got those numbers.....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
Actually Winston, the party has never put forth any exceptions. Singling out any particular act that resulted in a pregnancy would be nothing more than the left be disingenuous.... not that it matters since all you really care about is finding a wedge and politicizing the crap out of it until November 6th. Even if rape and incest are nowhere stated in the platform, leave it up to the left to find a way to get the useful idiots to assume it does.
Per the approved GOP platform:
Gee... working with women considering abortion.... HOW HOSTILE!!
Yup, they're really cramming their ideology down their throats now, huh?
::sheesh::
I don't know what purple haze you've been living in the last 30 years, but only THIS year has there been a plank escalated to the nation level clearly blanketing all abortion. For me it'll actually be interesting to see the outcome as so many Ron Paul supporters have taken over the GOP at the national delegate level. I've sat through many of those debates. It's perhaps one of the most heated issues within the Liberty movement which is mostly made up of Conservatives and Libertarians (that word Kwawk seems to think only he knows the true definition of).
Bottom line: Abortion is legal. The party platform is based around its legality. What is the point of stating what is and is not acceptable forms of abortion (considering that they're legal anyway). As the GOP platform stands, it's awfully hard (I'd say impossible) to come to the conclusion that it pinpoints rape / incest victims and tells them "no way, Jose".
You leftist are basically saying that our party platform should clearly state that two wrongs actually DO make a right. Instead it states we do oppose abortions and we want to work with women that are considering abortion to look towards other alternatives. If the woman chooses abortion as her only choice, there are no roadblocks there to stop her. We are well within our rights to say it is right or wrong... but the choice she has to make is in no way limited.
"Please, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE US!! DEM GOPers HATES you WIMMMINNNS!!!"
Keep up the bogus fight. Keep waging the so-called "war on women". (All ya got)
After all Sandra Fluke needs to be able to afford another year supply of rubbers.
GOD FORBID!!
And yes, McCain is squishy... he'll roll over when he sees it beneficial to his political career.
So are you saying you're okay with late term abortions because they only represent .01%? It's not uncommon knowledge that an overwhelming majority vehemently disagree with late term abortions... and I was actually in agreement with the rape/incest at 1%. I'm not exactly clear on what you're arguing for here, but whatever it is still doesn't justify the use of abortion as a form of birth control (which it seems to overwhelmingly be these days).
You party uses that 1% to justify all abortion. We don't use late term abortions to justify anti-abortion stances... abortion itself generally provides those sentiments for us. Where they draw the line is up to the individual. Still doesn't change the legality of it.
And yet they felt just as strongly that such issues where not the concern of the Federal government. Also, the existence of public schooling in no way negates the parental primary responsibility towards seeing to the educational needs of their children.
Speaking for myself, I don't believe the "unborn" constitute actual individual human beings and disagree with affirming them individual rights until they demonstrate the trait that defines individuality: the ability to survive outside the womb.
You forgot to include this section Skinny...
So much for the platform being built around legalized abortion.
In any case in a population of 300 million people, when late term abortion is happening on average once every three to four days, I says that I'd defer to thinking that when it is happening there is a pretty good reason for it. It's fairly obvious it isn't happening will nilly. It's literally happening about twice a week.
As for abortion being a form of birth control, I could care less if the abortion takes place early in the pregnancy. Imagine the cries of anguish from wingnuts if abortion was illegal and we had 18 to 20 million more children in our public schools. Millions of more kids on welfare. Millions of more kids with public health insurance. More than likely a million or more kids as juvinille delinquents.
That had a lot to do with the fact that the Constitution was written well before the advent of quick transportation methods and long distance communication methods.
The practice in the early 1800 was when federal land was partitioned and new states created was that one section (square mile) in every township (16 square miles) was set aside for public education. That's not incuding the formation of land grant colleges.
The people of the early 1800s took very seriously the role of government in providing education in the community.
Actually you’ve got that backwards, Skinny, my friend. I want everyone to know how very extreme and uncompromising the GOP position really is and has been for a long time. The GOP position (minus the “women who have REALLY been raped secrete an anti-baby juice”) is indistinguishable from Akin’s.
What disingenuous wankery—and in fact, a great example of wingnuts demanding credit for having been defeated. No party platform accepts the legality of a procedure it defines as
Well, none besides parental notification or consent restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, funding restrictions, lack of access, personhood amendments, mandated ultrasounds, mandatory lectures consisting of extremely questionable “science,” so-called “partial-birth” bans, confusing phony “pregnancy counseling” centers, mandated vaginal probes, legislative micromanagement of medical procedures, hostile, volatile and aggressive nutcases in the front yard, and the ever-present threat of physical violence. No. No roadblocks to speak of, really.
Oh, sure. However, you are quite far outside your rights when you harass and attack, kick, punch, shove, and stab women’s health clinics’ customers and staff, post health workers’ addresses online urging others to hurt or kill them, vandalize, bomb, set fire to, and shoot into women’s health facilities, and murder physicians and clinic workers, or protect people who do.
Your point seems to be—well, I’m not sure what your point is, skinny. That’s a whole truckload of unwarranted sarcasm and eye-rolling over the fact that you folks write your own party platform, an extreme one that lots of women, not to say quite a few men, find repulsive and unacceptable. If you don’t like that, change it. How many times do I have to say it? There’s nothing stupider than wingnuts weeping bitter tears that the Straight Rich White Man’s Party has such limited appeal.
You’d like to use Akin’s drooling, abhorrent ignorance to discuss “the abortion question,” but there’s nothing to discuss. The Republican Party has stopped even hiding its contempt and hostility for women.
Skinny;
Is Sandra Fluke guilty of fraud? I mean look at her; she needs "free" I mean government paid contraception??
Fluke was required, as all students are, to pay for a student health care plan. Such plans should include contraception and fertility control, which are part of women’s healthcare.
It’s sad what a pack of hateful lying feral animals the Republican base has become.
I love sluts.
Fluke should know that as a Catholic institution, Georgetown follows the Catholic Church's teachings on such matters.
“Minnesota’s Kerry Gauthier. Gauthier, a DFL representative, was apprehended at a highway rest stop having oral sex with a seventeen-year-old boy. Gauthier described the incident as a “private matter.” Gauthier’s fellow Democrats are trying to show him the door; one of them referred to him publicly as a “child molester,” while Governor Mark Dayton said, “I believe he is unfit to serve beyond this term.” The Minneapolis Star Tribune, however, reports that Gauthier says he will run for re-election in November.”
Maybe Akin's thinking if this guy won't quit, why should I?
Well said, Thomas. My sentiments exactly. Good man at heart, but a hopeless dope. We have quite enough dopes serving in Congress right now, and don't need another.
Withdraw. Now.
Once again, you lefties choose to paint an entire party based on the actions only of its extreme fringe (and like I said... PLEASE make this the game.... we can play that all the way up to election day.... you lefties aren't exactly the kind, caring, compassionate, little balls of cuddly happiness you try to portray yourselves to be). Next you'll be telling us that's the official GOP platform says "we like to hate... HHHAHAAAAAAAATTTEEEE-AAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
We already know where you stand on the wackadoodle "Mitt's never paid his taxes" laugher.... but how about the other issues? Why do you want to kill cracker babies Winston? Why are you for raping women at Occupy camps? Democrats: the party for oral sex with 17 year old boys at rest stops. (to be continued...)
Sounds like the poor girl's spent her whole college career being a slumpbuster for men (bless her heart) but one thing I can say about her (and the Obama administration).... they are FAR too predictable.
Guess what was in my email when I got home last night... a little Obama campaign email from what appears to be my good friend Sandra Fluke. She called me friend.... are there benefits involved? 'Cuz I think I'd like to pass.
Thank you Dr. Fluke for sharing your wisdom on how one gets pregnant.
How much more desperate can they get?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sure there'll be surprises.
Maybe the next Obama campaign letter will come from the Malik Shadazz and say "listen bitches... we've TRIED to be nice to you, and we've asked you REAL kindly like to send in $3 to homeboy's campaign. Now we're TELLIN' ya'allz... send us $3 or we gonna come marching into your livin' rooms... stranglin' yo wimmmins.... eatin' yo cracka babies.... tossing hand grenadez.... shitz 'bout to get real, ya dig?! Click this link and pay now or ya'all gonna be some sorry-ass muthafuckaz."
That's a very large, very active, very dangerous and quite criminal extreme fringe you've got there. It's an ongoing violent criminal enterprise that mainstream Republicans rarely even bother to disown or distance themselves from. As far as the many roadblocks to women exercising their choice (whose existence you deny) are concerned, all of them were erected by Republican state legislators. Therefore Republican state legislators are part and parcel of what you call the extreme fringe.
Hmmmm. I think you're right about that, skinny.
Ha ha ha ha ha! This is the sort of wackadoodle sarcasm I mean. Which OB-GYN would your wife choose, Skinny: Sandra Fluke or Todd Akin?
Too easy. People as crazy as Nooshans make it like shooting very large fish in a very small barrel.
I'd definitely pick the woman too obivious to realize all the other horney females at school are getting their birth control from somewhere off-campus.
Winston, you really set the bar pretty low for yourselves. Who's better... Fluke or Akin? LOL. What next? Biden or Bozo the Clown? Timothy Geithner or Bernie Madoff? Eric Holder or the Sikh Temple Shooter?
Shorter answer: Fluke - Gotta go with "experience"