This Todd Akin dude is really unfreakingbelivable.
I mean, does he not get it?
Dude, is is not a change of word here or that you did not mean to diminish rape or anything like that.
IT IS THAT YOU SAID THIS:
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those
things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of
ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s
really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut
that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think
there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and
not attacking the child.”
I went through a much as I could to try to explain how douchbrained this whole thing is.
Because as I noted, he could have just answered the question, this one from Charles Jaco:
“Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy
or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or
not?”
Simple answer, no. And he did not need to give his "scientific" reasoning behind it. Of course I did offer what every Republican candidate should say when getting bogged down in these social issue questions. But, Sweet Todd Akin, the man who could single-handily cost the Republican party the senate, no he said the above ridiculous quote.
But enough of that.
Now that Sweet Todd Akin is doing the martyr thing, what can Missouri Republicans do?
First, I am not so certain that Mr. Akin may nor end up leaving the race.
After all, he did make an apology. He even made a commercial. Hell, even his wife is apologizing for him.
Now Mr. Akin may want to see if all of that ends up shoring support or bleeding it.
Consider that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is not going to spend a red-hot cent on this dude. Karl Rove and his Crossroads group, not one centavo or peso on him. Everyone of consequence on the conservative side is telling him, uh dude, please leave. And that includes the Tea Party. The only viable financial support Mr. Akin will be able to muster at this point is fellow So Cons. And maybe they will not want to touch this guy more radioactive politically than the Fukushima nuke plant in Japan.
I would have to say that at this point, the bleeding is pretty bad.
My hunch is that Mr. Akin wants to do two things for a while.
One, see if he is still really competitive against the Democrat incumbent Dear Leader, President Obama, sycophant Clarie McCaskill. Polling has to be done from the point the interview became public. According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Mr. Akin is actually ahead of Sen. McCaskill by about five percent. The only good news is that Sen. McCaskill has not polled anywhere near 50% and certainly not anywhere north of that magic number. But if Sen. McCaskill makes any substantive gains and or Mr. Akin's numbers free-fall, it does make it harder to justify himself as the choice of the Missouri Republican voters.
Which BTW, in a crowded primary of eight candidates, Mr. Akin won the most with 36%. John Brunner was second with 30% and Tea Party favorite Sarah Steelman finished third with 29%. While Mr. Akin did win, it was not exactly a swarm of Republican voters. The argument can be made that 64% of Missouri GOP voters went with someone else. It is kind of weak, but it can be made that someone else may be able to do better at this point.
And Mr. Akin needs to show that he can somehow raise the big bucks. Somehow, I do not see him raising that kind of money since most of the big sources have all but dried up. There are only so many small donors in Missouri and even the United States that will pony up at this point.
If I were those angry with Mr. Akin, and I am one of them, I think that pressure should be kept on him to realize that he needs to leave. But we also should wait and see if this really hurt him with Missouri voters over all. It should not take more than about two weeks to see if that is the case.
But lets say that Mr. Akin decides against it all to damn the torpedoes and go down gracelessly.
This is a big question that needs to be asked.
Can the Missouri GOP coalesce around an acceptable-to-all-sides candidate and officially endorse him or her? In other words, can the state party suggest that Mr. Akin may have won the primary but that he can not be endorsed by the party at all levels? That this, fill-in-the-blank, literally, is the official party candidate?
And think it is not without precedent?
As Sen. Joe Miller from Alaska.
Oops! My bad!
Mr. Miller was the winner of the Alaska Republican primary in 2010. But incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski did not want to go out quietly. No, she mounted a write-in campaign and she ended up winning reelection.
I did not like that Sen. Murkowski did what she did. After all, Mr. Miller won the primary fair and square. He did not make any outrageous and frankly dangerous comments that Mr. Akin made. he was leading very well in polls. But she did set a road map for a situation like this. And I think that the Missouri Republican party may want to take a good look at this. One thing that will be to their advantage is that the party could help the write-in candidate. That did not happen for Sen. Murkowski, and maybe this was easier to do in Alaska, but it maybe the only option left to save the election.
Todd Akin could have done the right thing today and withdraw from the Missouri senate race. He still might, but it will be complicated. If not, Republicans in Missouri may need to have a back up plan. Because a martyr can not be a drag on the whole when it is not necessary except for pride and vainglory.
Showing posts with label Todd Akin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Todd Akin. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Todd Akin To Take That One Back
This post may be old before it gets published, but if Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin is still the official Republican nominee for the senate seat against incumbent Democrat Clare McCaskill at this time tomorrow night, the dude has a real death wish.
You see, Mr. Akin is an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Mr. Akin opposes all abortion no matter the circumstance. Mr. Akin opposes any abortion even when the life of the mother is threatened. If an incesteous relationship was involved. And in the case of rape.
It was this question from a St. Louis reporter, Charles Jaco, that Mr. Akin, unbelievably answered this way:
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Legitimate rape? A way to shut down that whole thing?
Oh, where the devil to start?
So, let me back up a bit.
Let me make the obvious political observation.
Mr. Akin should not have been suckered into to going down this road. It is what reporters, and I do not know Mr. Jaco's credentials other than here on Wikipedia, love to do to social conservatives, or from here on out this post, So Cons. They love to take them over the cliff. Mr. Akin went off in a rather spectacular manner if I do say so myself.
Now, here is the whole transcript in regards to the abortion question. Had I been Mr. Akin, I would have affirmed my pro-life credentials and when Mr. Jaco wanted to go down the specific road, on the issue of rape, I would have answered something like this.
"Mr. Jaco, I have affirmed my pro-life credentials and will be a voice for the unborn if I am fortunate enough to be elected senator. But the over-arching issues in this election is the massive federal deficit and debt. It is the federal government and implementing Obamacare. It is the over reach of the federal government. It is to return to actually reading and legislating constitutionally. It is to restore our rightful place respected and feared around the world."
But, nooooooo. Mr. Akin went head first into that pool.
So let dissect the comment itself because while being totally heartless and cold, it is pretty much not even factual.
Notice how Mr. Akin uses and interesting word. That word is slice. I may read way more than it is, but slice could be a subliminal message about the abortion proceedure itself.
What does he mean by "legitimate rape"?
Last I checked, when a gal says NO to wanting sexual relations and the dude she is with thinks that is a "hell yeah" but reverse psychology on him and forces himself on her, and her continuing to at this point scream NO, that is rape. Period. Are there situations in which women claim to be raped and in fact were not? Yes, that does happen. And sometimes, it is to cover a consenual encounter that produces a child. A child that is not wanted by a mother and father. But most women, the overwhelming majority, who have been raped do know the difference. Again NO means NO. And I am wondering the names of these doctors that he has spoken with that told him about "legitimate" rapes and this theory, one I have never heard of, shutting the whole thing down. Maybe what Mr. Akin really means is that the rape victim ends up taking the advice of former Texas Republican gubenitorial candidate Clayton Williams, "If it is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." Oh yeah, Mr. Williams did not win that race. One Ann Richards went on to win.
Even the way that Mr. Akin ended the comment is bizarre.
To state the obvious, that the rapist should be punished. And that it would not be right to "attack" the child.
Ahh, but it should be some punishment on the rapist. What does that mean? Some punishment? Hey, how about hardcore punishment? You know, real prison time?
The problem is that judgeing by the previous comment, Mr. Akin generally has a hard to time believing a woman to be raped in the first place.
And that is a serious problem.
There are some really bad dudes out there. They do horrible things to women. Some beat 'em. Some trash-talk 'em. Some rape 'em.
Again, for Mr. Akin's benefit, when a man forces himself on a woman sexually and she says NO and he keeps going, it is R A P E. Period. No qualifiers.
Now, while I would have answered the question differently, what if Mr. Akin had simply said what he really meant to say? That he makes no exception in the case of rape? Would he be on the way to being forced out of this senate race? Probably not. It would have crystalized his position, one that I do not agree with.
Anyone that has read this blog with any regularity know that I am pro-life.
But I am pro-life with these three exceptions.
Threat to the life of the mother.
Incest.
Rape.
It is a legitimate position. One of the reasons that I am pro-life is seeing the effects that abortion does have on all involved. But when a mother's life is threatened, with no hope of survival for either the baby or mother, and she can make that decision, she should have that oppertunity. If a mother was involved in an incesteous relationship, I would not expect her to bring a child to full term. There are a lot of reason why that should not be expected. And the same for rape.
If one does not think I am absolutist on the issue, I am not.
In the perfect world, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, abortion laws would return to the states and guess what?
Some states would ban abortions.
Some states would allow abortion with very strong restrictions.
Some states would allow abortion with little restriction.
Some states would allow abortion in any circumstance.
Federalism, which delineates power to the states, is not perfect. Why some think that it is a messy thing. But it had worked well until the statists twisted it around to give the central government more power.
But back to Mr. Akin.
Why should he get out of this race? I mean, the majority of Missouri Republicans voted to have him be the candidate for the senate, right? In fact. polls showed Mr. Akin pretty far ahead of Sen. McCaskill until this kerfuffle.
Because this man is not only a loose cannon, but uninformed to make such an assertion that he had to know would potentially come back to haunt him. He made this such an issue of his campaign that he gave a convoluted answer that showed a window on a man that, well he is so out there on a position that made him come off totally with no heart and or compassion.
Abortion is a serious issue. It is important to have serious people on the side of life. Mr. Akin comes off as a buffoon. And one that can not be trusted. And one that could very much cost the Republican party potential control of the senate. And give the Democrats ammo that they should not have.
For the sake of the Missouri Republican party and the national Republican party, Congressman Todd Akin must withdraw from the race.
You see, Mr. Akin is an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Mr. Akin opposes all abortion no matter the circumstance. Mr. Akin opposes any abortion even when the life of the mother is threatened. If an incesteous relationship was involved. And in the case of rape.
It was this question from a St. Louis reporter, Charles Jaco, that Mr. Akin, unbelievably answered this way:
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Legitimate rape? A way to shut down that whole thing?
Oh, where the devil to start?
So, let me back up a bit.
Let me make the obvious political observation.
Mr. Akin should not have been suckered into to going down this road. It is what reporters, and I do not know Mr. Jaco's credentials other than here on Wikipedia, love to do to social conservatives, or from here on out this post, So Cons. They love to take them over the cliff. Mr. Akin went off in a rather spectacular manner if I do say so myself.
Now, here is the whole transcript in regards to the abortion question. Had I been Mr. Akin, I would have affirmed my pro-life credentials and when Mr. Jaco wanted to go down the specific road, on the issue of rape, I would have answered something like this.
"Mr. Jaco, I have affirmed my pro-life credentials and will be a voice for the unborn if I am fortunate enough to be elected senator. But the over-arching issues in this election is the massive federal deficit and debt. It is the federal government and implementing Obamacare. It is the over reach of the federal government. It is to return to actually reading and legislating constitutionally. It is to restore our rightful place respected and feared around the world."
But, nooooooo. Mr. Akin went head first into that pool.
So let dissect the comment itself because while being totally heartless and cold, it is pretty much not even factual.
Notice how Mr. Akin uses and interesting word. That word is slice. I may read way more than it is, but slice could be a subliminal message about the abortion proceedure itself.
What does he mean by "legitimate rape"?
Last I checked, when a gal says NO to wanting sexual relations and the dude she is with thinks that is a "hell yeah" but reverse psychology on him and forces himself on her, and her continuing to at this point scream NO, that is rape. Period. Are there situations in which women claim to be raped and in fact were not? Yes, that does happen. And sometimes, it is to cover a consenual encounter that produces a child. A child that is not wanted by a mother and father. But most women, the overwhelming majority, who have been raped do know the difference. Again NO means NO. And I am wondering the names of these doctors that he has spoken with that told him about "legitimate" rapes and this theory, one I have never heard of, shutting the whole thing down. Maybe what Mr. Akin really means is that the rape victim ends up taking the advice of former Texas Republican gubenitorial candidate Clayton Williams, "If it is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." Oh yeah, Mr. Williams did not win that race. One Ann Richards went on to win.
Even the way that Mr. Akin ended the comment is bizarre.
To state the obvious, that the rapist should be punished. And that it would not be right to "attack" the child.
Ahh, but it should be some punishment on the rapist. What does that mean? Some punishment? Hey, how about hardcore punishment? You know, real prison time?
The problem is that judgeing by the previous comment, Mr. Akin generally has a hard to time believing a woman to be raped in the first place.
And that is a serious problem.
There are some really bad dudes out there. They do horrible things to women. Some beat 'em. Some trash-talk 'em. Some rape 'em.
Again, for Mr. Akin's benefit, when a man forces himself on a woman sexually and she says NO and he keeps going, it is R A P E. Period. No qualifiers.
Now, while I would have answered the question differently, what if Mr. Akin had simply said what he really meant to say? That he makes no exception in the case of rape? Would he be on the way to being forced out of this senate race? Probably not. It would have crystalized his position, one that I do not agree with.
Anyone that has read this blog with any regularity know that I am pro-life.
But I am pro-life with these three exceptions.
Threat to the life of the mother.
Incest.
Rape.
It is a legitimate position. One of the reasons that I am pro-life is seeing the effects that abortion does have on all involved. But when a mother's life is threatened, with no hope of survival for either the baby or mother, and she can make that decision, she should have that oppertunity. If a mother was involved in an incesteous relationship, I would not expect her to bring a child to full term. There are a lot of reason why that should not be expected. And the same for rape.
If one does not think I am absolutist on the issue, I am not.
In the perfect world, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, abortion laws would return to the states and guess what?
Some states would ban abortions.
Some states would allow abortion with very strong restrictions.
Some states would allow abortion with little restriction.
Some states would allow abortion in any circumstance.
Federalism, which delineates power to the states, is not perfect. Why some think that it is a messy thing. But it had worked well until the statists twisted it around to give the central government more power.
But back to Mr. Akin.
Why should he get out of this race? I mean, the majority of Missouri Republicans voted to have him be the candidate for the senate, right? In fact. polls showed Mr. Akin pretty far ahead of Sen. McCaskill until this kerfuffle.
Because this man is not only a loose cannon, but uninformed to make such an assertion that he had to know would potentially come back to haunt him. He made this such an issue of his campaign that he gave a convoluted answer that showed a window on a man that, well he is so out there on a position that made him come off totally with no heart and or compassion.
Abortion is a serious issue. It is important to have serious people on the side of life. Mr. Akin comes off as a buffoon. And one that can not be trusted. And one that could very much cost the Republican party potential control of the senate. And give the Democrats ammo that they should not have.
For the sake of the Missouri Republican party and the national Republican party, Congressman Todd Akin must withdraw from the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)