I think it's more fun to dance to the media's tune and eat our own, don't you?
Posted on 08/23/2012 8:42:36 AM PDT by Perseverando
WASHINGTON – So, let me get this straight.
A worthy Republican challenger to Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri made one dumb comment to an interviewer and the entire Republican establishment is pulling the rug out from under him, essentially conceding the race to a very vulnerable Democrat.
Here’s the entirety of Rep. Todd Akin’s comment defending his pro-life position that has caused such a massive furor: “From what I understand from doctors, that’s (conception as a result of rape) 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, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
Now let’s take this statement apart word for word and see where Akin went wrong.
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s (conception as a result of rape) really rare.” So far, he is absolutely, 100 percent right. It’s exceedingly rare. Some feminist sources claim as many as 5 percent of women raped get pregnant. Though you will find studies placing the percentage at 1 percent to 5 percent, many of them are politically loaded. The fact of the matter is that women can only get pregnant when they are fertile. One-third of women are either too young or too old to get pregnant. A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days out of 30 every month. A fourth of all women in the U.S. of childbearing years have been sterilized. Only half of all rapists deposit sperm in the victim’s vagina. Many sexual attackers are impotent or ejaculate prematurely. But, at the end of the day, it’s very rare for a rape victim to become pregnant
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You know, most Republican elected officials manage to make it through their entire political careers without a major gaffe that gives the MSM and the Democrats the opportunity to paint them in a bad light and thereby alter the dynamics of major and very important elections.
They do this by having enough blithering common sense to think a little bit about what they’re going to say before they say it. Todd Akin apparently doesn’t have this common sense. That along - regardless of how folks might want to parse out what he said - is enough to disqualify him.
If you’re too stupid to watch your tongue when you know the system is already stacked against you, then you have no business running for office.
Republican officeholders, and seekers, are in full denial mode. They deny any association with Akin’s comments, and toss him overboard for good measure.
Missouri voters, however, aren’t running for office. They’re going to the polls to decide whether to given Obama an ally, or Romney an ally.
While this is way beyond a tempest in a teapot, mostly because of the piling on by GOP officeholders/seekers, Akins has two more months to address the voters in Missouri and convince them he’s not some ogre who thinks that if a woman is raped then she must have deserved it.
And since he, in fact, doesn’t believe that fiction which was too-easily created by the more rabid tribunes of the left wing, he has a chance of convincing Missouri voters that they should return to him. Now, if he really believed what the Left is portraying him as believing, that would be another matter. It will require voters to think for themselves, but the Right, at least, is showing some signs of doing just that in this election.
If Akin stays in, I’ll bet he wins it. Are Missouri GOP voters who are mad at Akin now really going to vote for his opponent? Akin shot himself in the foot, but that doesn’t mean the voters in Missouri who want Obama out are going to collectively do the same thing.
Dems are gaining momentum by the hour. It had better happen soon.
Exactly.
My father told me, “When there’s big money involved, someone’s going to find a way to cheat.”
Now, if people will cheat for a few thousand bucks, why would they not cheat for trillions of dollars?
The Democrats and media are not misguided ideologues. They’re just thieves. They want access to the public treasury so they can loot trillions of dollars from it. Follow the money. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
Farah needs to stop feeding the machine. Everyone of consequence in the GOP has commented. Akin is dead to them. Move on.
If players want to work behind the scenes on getting him out, fine, but this story is going on way too long for what it really is. And you can defend Akin to your heart’s content; it doesn’t change the fact that he is toast in the election and he is dragging others down with him.
Compare it to obama's "if my daughters make a mistake I don't want them punished with a baby".
Realistically speaking, what people who would have voted for Akin would change their mind and instead vote for McCaskill as a result of this? Women who think Akin is a cad? A woman is either pro-life or pro-death. What woman is going to go from pro-life to pro-death just because she thinks a pro-life person is a jerk? The only way that happens is if she’s totally led by emotions, and that’s exactly what the dems are trying to do.
And the R’s are playing right along with it.
Somebody needs to ask the media people whether the statutory rapes reported to Planned Parenthood by Lila Rose (or other undercover pro-lifers) are “legitimate rapes” - and if so, whether the dems who pay Planned Parenthood to cover for the rapists are thus showing a callous disregard for rape victims by poo-poohing the seriousness of non-forcible (statutory) rape.
Akin was talking about how the BODY deals with different situations, and particularly that violence and stress can impact whether conception occurs.
Does anybody who’s tried to conceive and had problems - and been told by their doctor that they need to just “relax”, so their body will function normally - really doubt that it CAN make a difference? Not that it is impossible to get pregnant under stressful or violent circumstances; we all know it’s possible because it happens. But Akin was talking about whether violence and stress CAN inhibit conception. How many couples have struggled to conceive, give up and adopt, and then immediately become pregnant?
But if the big stink over what he said is the bit about “legitimate rape” - which he was referring to in terms of the body’s stress response, and not moral repugnance so it’s a totally different context - then let’s discuss Planned Parenthood’s view of statutory rape and their total lack of moral repugnance towards that rape. Let’s find out who REALLY has the war against women.
Let’s compare how many women are incarcerated today because of the way they tried to cope with being raped, versus how many women are incarcerated today because of the way they tried to cope with having an abortion. Let’s get some statistics from the women’s prisons.
The point is that both are horrific, soul-wrenching events - one where the woman is the victim and one where she is the perpetrator. Which harms women more - to be a victim or to be a perpetrator? The women in jails might have some interesting perspectives on that...
Let’s have this discussion. The left will never win this discussion unless we back away from it. Because the left sides against women regarding statutory rape, by protecting the rapists through abortion. And the left sides with women as perpetrators by pushing abortion and infanticide for any reason at any time and pushing AGAINST informed consent laws, parental protections, anti-kidnapping-for-abortion, etc laws.
Women are hurt when they are the victims, and they are hurt when they are the perpetrators. And the left ALWAYS protects and enables the perpetrator. Always.
Frankly, it is not my place as an Ohioan to tell Congressman Akin what to say, think or do. It would be better for all of us, as Republicans, however, if neither he nor his detractors in the Republican Party acted in panic, or continued to display a panic mode.
Frankly, also, I disagree with the apparent purpose of his remarks on rape. While the studies are suspect--because they depend upon people telling the truth about what led to any sexual encounter, and any result--there is a great body of anecdotal evidence that a woman, not emotionally "into" certain actions, is less likely to conceive than one who is. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the underlying issue.
The issue that he was apparently raising, was a conditional one--conditioned not on anything immediately even in play. If at some future time, Roe vs. Wade is overruled, or the Federal Court jurisdiction to hear abortion cases is taken away by Congress, and Missouri can again outlaw abortion; should there be an exception for rape victims? Frankly, I would urge that there should be--provided that the victim acts within a short time frame after the trauma. A girl should not be forced to carry a rapist's baby--if there really was a rape in the classic sense. So I disagree with the Congressman on the whole point over which his unfortunate presentation got him in trouble. But that does not make me inclined to disparage his candidacy.
As the next few weeks roll by, unless the Congressman is an idiot, he will discuss a whole wealth of more immediately applicable issues. Whether he wins or loses will depend on how well he does in making his stand on those more immediately applicable issues resonate with his constituents.
I would not post on this mess--a mess because of the multi-sided hysteria--if the panic behavior of so many prominent Republicans was not such an embarrassment. We do not make ourselves look more moral than the Democrats, who often successfully ignore very significant scandals on their side, by running around like chickens without their heads, over the unfortunate implications of picking the wrong way to try to make a point on a secondary--from the Federal perspective--issue. We simply look like confused "summer warriors." (And I am trying to put it in a kind way!)
William Flax
How about this one ?
“Hitler started out good and then he just went nuts”
That was by Marge Schott. Previous owner of the Cincinnati Reds after which she was forced to relinquish ownership.
Akin if this continues past Labor Day will cost the GOP the seat in Missouri.
The democrats are already using this stupid statement of his as cudgel to beat Republicans with and they show no sign of stopping.
You would think that a lesson would be learned from 2010 from the likes of Angle on O'Donnell (I think that is correct).
It would help if we nominated a candidate with at least a few operating brain cells.
Thanks alot TODD!!
What do the polls say??
Rasmussen released a poll today that has Akin down by 10% (48 McCaskell 38 Akin).
Nuff Said.
>>Akin is either a shill, being paid off by the Democrats, or he’s a moron, in either case one thing is for sure, he’s not going to be elected Senator from the great state of Missouri.<<
Or he misspoke in a way that could be easily misconstrued by the Left, apologized, and has the stones to stay in the race despite the fact that the leftists in the MSM have once again succeeded in stampeding the GOP establishment into a lemming-like run toward the cliffs.
He’ll be polling even with McCaskill within a couple of weeks. Missouri voters aren’t stupid enough to turn Blue over this, even though the GOP establishment has made its belief quite clear that they must indeed be that stupid.
The rules on replacement allowed a replacement if he dies or is determined ineligible. If he voluntarily withdraws, there is nothing about replacing him until three weeks from now. Then, my comprehension of legalese is sometimes flawed. I think it has to do with expecting logic in it.
Another thing the GOP establishment seems to be hard at work on making clear is their disdain for anyone who is either truly pro-life or has a 97.25% conservative rating over 12 years in the House.
Who do you think actually changed from supporting Akin to supporting McCaskill, and why?
If I was in Missouri and wanted a different candidate to replace Akin, I would tell pollsters what it takes to get Akin to be replaced. Maybe that I would vote third party. Maybe that I would vote McCaskill. That doesn’t mean I would EVER actually vote for McCaskill. So even if the polls are accurate, the responses could be based on lots of different thinking.
And we have no idea whether the polls are accurate, either. The lib pollsters created results to encourage Akin to stay in. Rasmussen is generally more conservative and has results that would urge replacement of Akin. Who knows what the truth really is? It’s constantly being manipulated to try to sell something to the public.
What voter who would have voted for Akin would truly vote for McCaskill instead because of this? What would their thinking be?
I live south of the KC-Metro and the local tv stations played with great smirking pleasure Akin’s words, always followed by Claire calling him ‘ignorant’... I do not know if they are still playing his words and giving Claire free advertising time today because I can't watch it.
Further why is anyone shocked or did not expect the GOP-e to run as fast as they could away from Akin. REALLY???? They funded to the exemption of all other candidates a pro-choice Romney....
This wasn’t just a gaffe. There’s no way one could make such an asinine statement on accident. Defending someone with this kind of idiotic thinking is no better than being a Dimocrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.