An answer you might get to that here is ‘Well we should have made the election about rape exceptions as that is the #1 issue facing this country’.
My answer to that is that they trivialized life based social issues by handing Dems a reality commercial (of them) showing that so-cons dont even know the basic biology of a female’s reproductive systems, and completely nuked ‘their own’ prolife cause and made those who champion it the laughing stock of the country by becoming a caricature of them.
so-cons should despise them more than anyone Else rather than defend them.
So she asks me "Cant they tie him up till they are rescued??"
Of course, I have the sense not to talk about men's fashion tips.
Since I grew up on a farm and my Dad was a veterinarian, I probably know a lot about female reproductive systems. If you can get past the sheer stupidity of the context of Akin and Mourdock's comments, what they said was even mostly correct. There was a popular statistic tossed around at the time that fully one-third of rapes resulted in pregnancies. That's pure bull hockey, because if it were true, and consensual intercourse resulted in about the same rate (it is actually higher for reasons discussed at that time back in August), then Mrs. Vigilanteman should have been pregnant close to 1000 times, rather than three times.
None of this is the point. These nimrods lost the argument, lost the election and did untold damage to other GOP candidates the moment they allowed themselves to be dragged into that swamp. It was 1000 times worse than George Allen's infamous maccaca moment.