Posted on 08/24/2012 2:33:43 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Whittaker Chambers said that "the great failing of American conservatives is they do not retrieve their wounded."
He had it right, as Todd Akin can testify.
In an interview that aired last Sunday, Akin, the Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, was asked whether he opposed abortions for women who had been raped. Akin's reply:
"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. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
As no rape is "legitimate," this was a colossal gaffe.
Yet anyone reading his statement knows what Akin meant. He was saying that in an actual rape – from what doctors have told him – the likelihood of pregnancy is rare. But if a pregnancy did occur, the punishment should be imposed on the rapist not the unborn child.
This was the moral position of those extremists John Paul II and Ronald Reagan. Of more interest, then, was the Republican reaction.
Howls for Akin to get out of the race came from pundits, talk show hosts, members of the Senate and the GOP's monied elite that is raising hundreds of millions in hope of a sweep of both houses of Congress and the White House in November. Akin is henceforth not to get a dime.
Even Paul Ryan, whose position on abortion appears identical to that of Akin, called and urged him to drop out.
Who came to Akin's defense? The Family Research Council. As President Nixon once told me, "Count your friends when you're down."
What does this hysteria over one egregious gaffe reveal?
A deep-seated fear, a gnawing anxiety among Republicans that the positions they have held and hold on social and moral issues, and even on economics and foreign policy, no longer command the support of a majority of their countrymen.
Consider. While the three amigos – John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham – are all for intervention in Syria, the Republican Party has fallen largely silent.
Where are the Republican and neocon hawks of yesteryear now that Barack Obama is pulling out of Afghanistan, when the expected result of a U.S. withdrawal is a Taliban takeover and massacre of many of those Afghans foolish enough to have cast their lot with the Americans?
Any Republicans demanding we stay the course in Afghanistan?
Rather than hearing the old paeans to free trade we used to get from Bush I and II, Republicans now talk about getting tough with China and fighting the "unfair" trade practices of foreign regimes.
Milton Friedman, whose writings Republicans once read as gospel, said we should throw America's markets open to the world, no matter the protectionist policies of others, because cheaper imports benefit all of America's consumers.
No Republican talks like that anymore. Yet none seems to have a solution to these endless trade deficits debilitating our economy other than to ignore them or accuse the Chinese of "currency manipulation."
With homosexual marriage gaining converts among the young, the party of the Moral Majority declines to stand with Chick-fil-A.
On right-to-life, see the Republicans flee from Todd Akin, who committed a gaffe while restating his support for what has been a plank of the Republican platform since 1980.
Bewailing deficits, Republicans demand a balanced budget. And the Ryan budget does that – in 28 years.
Why so long? Because real budget cuts entail real pain.
Where is Mitt Romney going to slash a budget that consumes a fourth of the U.S. economy?
Not defense. Mitt promises to increase that. He cannot cut interest on the debt, which must rise as interest rates climb from today's near-zero levels. He says he will not cut Medicare.
Is he going to cut Social Security? How about taking an ax to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, school lunches, Head Start, aid to education, Pell Grants, EPA, the FBI and the earned income tax credit?
What the reactions to Akin's gaffe and the congressional skinny-dipper in the Sea of Galilee expose is a fear in the soul of the GOP that history is passing it by and the end may be near.
For decades, the GOP has been the party that cuts marginal tax rates, opposes abortion, defends traditional marriage, sends troops to fight for our values abroad and slashes government spending.
Today's GOP establishment is queasy even talking about social issues and recognizes that the new America has had it with the Afghanistans and Iraqs, wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent and contains scores of millions who will punish any politician who threatens their benefits.
The GOP's insoluble problem is that the multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual country they created with their open borders appears not to like the brand of dog food the party sells.
Beating up on Todd Akin is not going to change that.
Born and raised in Missouri. I think Akin is a good man and have supported him since this all started. I also donated this week.
Go Todd!
How appropriate.
Buchanan ids the stereotypical Irish drunk
He is the candidate for the Senate of the state of Missouri to replace Claire.
I have not turned on the boob-tube today, but even as of yesterday Akin ads were running his continuous apology, while Claire was running ads bashing him about the head over social security.
IT is NOT my fault Akin had to go on an apologizing tour.
Since when did the notion of personal responsibility leave conservatism.
Now alllll that aside, donate again and get everybody you know to donate double... Akin needs money to defeat Claire.
For those folks who wish to support Akin, have at it. He’s apparently in to stay and I hope he wins although he has damaged his chances.
For both those who support Akin and those who choose to not do so, there are an abundance of other DESERVING conservative Republican Senatorial candidates who are very deserving of our support. The ones that my family and I have chosen to support with our limited time and funds are:
Josh Mandel in Ohio,
Ted Cruz in Texas,
Rick Berg in North Dakota,
Jeff Flake in Arizona
Deb Fischer in Nebraska,
Richard Mourdock in Indiana
Denny Rehberg in Montana
Pete Hoekstra in Michigan
and, possibly:
George Allen in Virginia and others can be added to the list.
I think all the posters to this thread will agree that this is a list of conservative Republicans very deserving of our support and well-wishes for victory in November.
So an off the cuff comment in one interview makes a candidate for the US senate a moron?
Methinks you're projecting onto a template of your own creation....
I am not Irish but English, but the Irish as well as us English are also known not only for their love of drink but their love of engaging in pugnacious pugilism from time to time. This of course is in contrast to the Mormons who are not jack Mormons as the drinking Mormons are referred to and who do not drink the hard stuff and the only punch they like to partake in is Hawaian Punch which was one of Donny and Marie’s big endorsements since carbonated beverages are not allowed as well.
89% Ping
Prove to me that putting in another eligible candidate will beat McCaskill and I’ll listen. Polling to back it up? Or just gut feelings?
Steelman and Brunner are both ineligible to run.
Its national.
Akin is derided and mocked by everyone now.
LOL, if Romney can't get his campaign message out because of one congressman in one state, the man is utterly hopeless, incompetent as a campaigner and never had a chance to begin with.
BTW, when you see the national polls move as a response to this, please let us know. Until then, that is purely another one of your totally unfounded and unprofessional prognostications.
“Pat Buchanan is a bitter old anti-semitic and bigoted drunk.”
That comment is unfair and uncalled for. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that Pat Buchanan is a drunk.
I have.....my own two eyes seeing him stumbling drunk at San Souci three years ago.
\
I;m told by those who know him that yeah, Pat’s a booze-hound.
Exaggerate much? LMAO!!!!!
Only useful idiots and half ass conservatives (e.g. RINOs) carry water for the left.
And of course, only you know what conservative is. If Rush, Hannity and Malkin disagree with you; obviously, they aren’t conservative.
Why would I care what Reagan thought about trees? When my hay fever is acting up, I tend to agree with him. Would you throw under the rug the man who signed the largest illegal alien amnesty in the history of the world?
His daddy would have told him to shut up and go shovel out the barn. Then Daddy would have told Grandma, "Mother, I'm worried about that boy."
I won’t bother to look but I assume Pat has been given a warm welcome by the indignant
Mike Berry....Houston
And Mike Degiorno here in Music City both good on talk radio
Rush is a republican despite his protestations
And he craves access
Jim Demint stand up too
Amen...applause
Man do I ever enjoy seeing a freeper I admire saying it just right
God bless ya
We are lost in a sea of wobblies and what culture war sorts
It's been argued that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is simply an attempt by the United States to make use of another country's labor resources, without having to adopt their people and their problems. Do you see it that way?
Milton Friedman: Not at all. On the contrary, as far as NAFTA is concerned, it really is a minor thing, from the point of view of the United States. After all, the United States is a very much larger economy than Mexico. The main beneficiary for NAFTA will be Mexico and the people in Mexico, not the people in the United States. There's no doubt in my mind that that is the net effect. Mexico is doing very well by reducing the role of government, by introducing free market ideas, cutting tariffs, getting government out of business, privatizing banks and other businesses that government had taken over. NAFTA will be a little extra push for them, which will help them much more. It will help us a little, but a trifle. You know, nothing is good unless both parties benefit from it, and both Mexico and the United States will benefit from it.
If NAFTA proves to be profitable for the U.S., do you think the Free Trade Agreement will expand to include South America and other countries?
Milton Friedman: I would hope so. NAFTA is misnamed, it's not a Free Trade Agreement, it's a Managed Trade Agreement. I supported NAFTA, as a lesser of evils, but it would be better if we in the United States would simply reduce our tariffs across the board for everybody in the world. As far as Latin America is concerned, it's been showing remarkable changes. Beginning with Chile, going on to Mexico, now Argentina, one country after another in Latin America has unilaterally been lowering its tariffs, opening its markets up. If we are sensible, we certainly will go as rapidly as we can to expand NAFTA to include all of the rest of the Latin American countries. I believe that that is what will happen.
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.