I live in Missouri. Let's not forget that Rush Limbaugh is from Missouri and his brother is still living here. I will be interested in Limbaugh's take on this ... and I'm quite aware that both Limbaughs (or at least their staffs) read Free Republic.
I will also be interested in World Magazine's take on this. Rep. Akin is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary and a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. Those who know my own background know that I'm a hard-right Calvinist, and while Akin moves more in broadly evangelical circles than I do, World Magazine will take some special interest in Akin as not only a Christian conservative but also a Calvinist politician. World Magazine has the ability to do a lot to either organize Christian conservative support for Akin (including dollars) or convince him to back down and drop out, despite his initial statements that he's in for the long haul.
14 posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 12:46:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by PhxTM06: “I’ve heard that left-leaning groups provided him ad money, making him feel like he still has some sort of support base out there. What a tool.”
Not exactly, but close. Shortly before the primary, McCaskill authorized official ads saying Akin was too conservative for Missouri and listing all the conservatives who supported him and his various conservative positions.
You can't control it when your Democratic opponent correctly describes you as the most conservative man in the Republican primary race. It's obvious that McCaskill wanted to face Akin, but it is not at all obvious that Akin did anything wrong to deserve McCaskill’s “endorsement.” In fact, she was quite correct in describing his conservative stances and endorsements.
20 posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 12:48:47 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Ingtar: “I was hearing some reports of local support during lunch.”
You are absolutely right that there are local people in Missouri trying to convince Akin not to drop out. The concern is not that Akin did something smart — his comment was really, really bad — but rather that Akin supporters are not sure they can trust the Missouri Republican leadership to put up the kind of candidate who won in the primary.
275 posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 15:00:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Emperor Palpatine: “This election is about jobs and the economy. NOT ABORTION.”
That, Sir, is precisely the sort of opinion which causes social conservatives fear what the Republican Party leadership will do if Akin pulls out.
Personally I could live with Akin, Steelman, or Brunner (the three main Republican candidates).
I've heard all three of them speak at various events, including Sarah Steelman at a neighbor's home (there are certain benefits of living in a neighborhood of bankers and lawyers and retired colonels and real estate developers) and have met both Akin and Steelman at several different events in our county. Sarah Steelman was our state senator; I've seen Brunner at some events but don't know him beyond the standard political coverage. But we're now getting pummeled with “all real Republicans want Akin out” rhetoric.
20 posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 12:48:47 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Ingtar: “Since it seems to be decided that he will be in the race, we might finally see what happens when someone fights back (referring to Foley, Maccacca).”
At least we can be glad this happened in August and not two weeks before the election. Akin may be able to survive this, and if he makes it through with Christian conservative funding and no national party support, he'll then make an **EXTREMELY** strong case for what happens when social conservatives accept an apology, move on, and fight for our guy.
As Kabar and others have noted, if Akin wins he will owe the Republican leadership absolutely nothing. (And by the way, every feminist and conservative can be pretty sure he'll have to spend six years being a huge advocate of increased penalties against rapists and increased help for rape victims.)
85 posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 13:13:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by PhxTM06: “Do you people never learn? People were saying this same crap about Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell when many people saw that they were basically unelectable. Akin is unelectable. What you’re not counting on is that a man who said something SO stupid, won’t say something equally stupid that will further hurt himself and the GOP. It’s what stupid people do, stupidity is a habit, not a one-time isolated event and Akin is about as dumb as they come.”
There's one difference between Akin and either Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell — he has years of experience in state and national elected office. He's an experienced Congressman seeking to become a Senator.
However, I agree with you about how bad this stupid comment is. This absolutely **MUST** be the last gaffe of this type. I am not convinced you're wrong about stupidity being a learned habit.
The problem here is not Akin opposing the rape exception, but bringing biological inaccuracies into an extremely explosive and emotional fight. He's got to know better, and if he doesn't, that's his own problem. Christian conservatives supported Akin for a reason. It wasn't so we could get something that with one slip of his tongue on an obvious issue would blow up the whole Republican agenda on a national basis.
There are many pro-life web sites that state the same thing Akin said about rape and pregnancy. So this seems to be a common belief among some established pro-life groups. I simply don't know if it's true or not. But this is not something Akin made up. If pro-lifers don't agree with it there needs to be some clean-up in their own literature, which is most likely where Akin got the information.
Good stuff all. Thank you.
You said, at one point, “The problem here is not Akin opposing the rape exception, but bringing biological inaccuracies into an extremely explosive and emotional fight.” This may be the crux of the matter entirely, although no one, NO ONE, has said it. But it may be less inaccurate historically than it is today. All too unfortunately, he may be wrong about the “biological” figures today.
There can be no doubt that the feminist lobby, Rats, and most pubbies fear the attack on abortion like nothing else, and they’re going to defend that right to kill, uh, to the death. They’ve got their own “studies” and “polls” to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that killing a newborn is permitted, even preferable, if that newborn was conceived other than deliberately.
It’s certainly not surprising that someone here posted a piece on such “studies”—two on the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape. 6% was one surmise. IF, and I seriously stress the word, this and another related study are factual (never mind complete—just factual), pregnancy-from-rape has indeed increased, because equally “scientific” studies released in the early 70s reported less than half a percent. It occured to me only this morning that both could be correct.
Rapes reported prior to the sexual revolution that resulted in pregnancies may well have been far fewer than those “legitimate” rape-claims today. The act itself, besides being unwanted and traumatic, was also utterly alien to most victims. The biological resistance to which Akin referred probably did exist. But frequent or even occasional sex is bound to reduce any perceived resistance-factor because the act, in an overwhelming number of cases, is no longer alien. This came home forcefully when I read in that same “studies” post that even contraceptive users succumbed to rape-pregnancies more often than consensual-pregnancies. If that’s true (and I tend to doubt it or the veracity of the control-group), the only reason I can see for their argument that pregnancy occurs more often with rape than with consensual sex is that contraceptive users, by definition, either have or expect to have more sexual encounters than non-users. Again, because the newness or alienation-factor is, in effect, turned off, the victim’s natural biological defenses are far less potent. It’s hard for some to remember, but part of the fear of rape wasn’t simply the invasion or the violence; it was also the fear of universally stigmatized, unwed or extra-marital pregnancy. That fear is almost entirely gone today. And whether that’s progress or not (in some ways it’s wonderful), it may have the unintended consequence of shutting down the body’s resistance.
“You are absolutely right that there are local people in Missouri trying to convince Akin not to drop out. The concern is not that Akin did something smart — his comment was really, really bad — but rather that Akin supporters are not sure they can trust the Missouri Republican leadership to put up the kind of candidate who won in the primary.”
I am one of them. I have already donated to him and will so again since it looks like he is staying in the race. I voted for Steelman, but now I completely back Akin. IF for nothing more than he is a TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE (which is the MOST important consideration to me), and it is a way to stick a finger in the eye of the GOP establishment here in Missouri, that cannot be trusted.
Mike Huckabee, very significant figure in SOCON circles, is NOT throwing Akin under the buse. I’m sick of FR types, that don’t even reside in Missouri, making bold assertions about how Akin should drop out. THEY SHOULD GO POUND SAND.
My third priority on the three legs of conservatism is Fiscal...although I am fiscally conservative. However, after the disgusting nonsense the Tea Party Express pulled in regards to Akin....they are now my adversaries. They care primarily about the “almighty dollar” and that is NOT an acceptable definition of conservatism to me. NEVER put your wallet ahead of morality...NEVER. That is probably why they were ready to back Romney. The fools think the Magic Mormon can somehow salvage the economy...he won’t...plus he will probably do more damage to the morale social fabric of our sin diseased culture.
BTW - Excellent post!
PS - I used to like Rush, but have no use for him or Coulter anymore. They are fiscal conservatives and party loyalists....they are not Socially/morally conservative except when it suits other agendas. So, what the expatriot Rush thinks is actually irrelevant. I’m also starting to think Palin isn’t socially or morally conservative as I falsely assumed. She is too much a “Tea Party Fiscal Conservative.” That type of fiscal conservatism at the expense of morality is just plain wrong.
This absolutely **MUST** be the last gaffe of this type.Can one put a little more pressure on the guy? Anyone standing up for life has a difficult road ahead of him. I hope parents in general are kinder to their children (adult or otherwise) who makes mistakes, than they have been to Todd Akin.