Posted on 08/21/2012 10:40:56 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
Rep. Todd Akin, the embattled Senate candidate who used the phrase “legitimate rape” in talking about abortion and pregnancy, said Tuesday afternoon that he would stick to his decision to remain in the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is Romney's failure. Instead of backing Republican Field General Sarah Palin's play with Sarah Steelamn, Oromney JUST HAD to teach Sarah a lesson.
Boy, you sure showed Sarah, dintcha, Mittens?
Ditto to everything you said.
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.
I cannot help but feel glad that someone whom the Left tried to bully out of the race didn't engage in Maoist self-criticism and run. Did he say something stupid? Sure, but who hasn't? Like no Democrat has ever said something stupid? Come on now! The Lib media is making it impossible for conservatives to run for political office unless they are impeccable. Don't you see where this is headed?
Every liberal is forgiven his warts; a conservative is expected to be wartless or else throw in the towel. This is now how one goes about winning a war, gentlemen! I don't know what's going to happen now. I don't know if the official party will back Steelman as an independent or if the seat is now irrevocably lost. But I do know that I am gratified at a very basic level that someone fought back.
What the Left is doing is essentially blacklisting dissident thought. They are essentially trying to say that people who oppose abortions in all cases (including rape and incest) should not be allowed to run for political office in this country. They aren't yet insisting that this requirement be written into law, but they're causing conservatives to self-police to such a ridiculous extent that anyone who holds to this position will never be nominated (because he/she is "unelectable"). Do we really want to do that? To become so paranoid that we daren't nominate a conservative for any office at any time? It has to stop, people! At a certain point we're going to have to realize that the flawless, perfect conservative candidate that the lib media will accept doesn't and never will exist! Hadn't it might as well be now?
The Left currently believes that America before 1/22/1973 was a "theocratic" hell that no sane person would ever want to bring back. Does anyone here remember any "theocracy" before that date? Yet the Left acts as if Roe vs. Wade were the Emancipation Proclamation (and indeed this is just what they claim as each was a point in the unfolding "historical process"). How long before nominating anyone with even a sliver of traditional moral beliefs is unthinkable because our side will panic and want someone "more electable?"
Aren't we allowing the liberals to stampede us into being afraid to be conservative at all? When all is said and done, will the libs allow any other ideology than their own to be regarded as respectable?
As I said, I don't know how this is going to play out in the end, but I do find satisfaction in a conservative Republican who wouldn't panic and run because he was exposed as holding to verboten beliefs.
I'm in my fifties. I've seen the liberal media my entire life. But I've never seen them like this. Even their behavior four years ago was circumspect compared to what they're doing this year. They're pouring themselves into reelecting Obama to such an extent that either the country as we know it or the liberal media as we know it will wind up being destroyed. It all depends on how much the "sheeple" (as some FReepers call them) still believe the old media. If they do it's going to be a terrible surprise for those of us who think alternative sources of information have shoved them aside. But if the media fail . . . if this most blatant, all-or-nothing crusade of theirs fails . . . I don't know how they'll take it.
I hope ever FReeper knows which of these two endings we see in November.
Time for a lot of prayer!
PS--I am going to close by making an observation that I have made before, and one that isn't popular among American conservatives who have been conditioned to think only along certain lines. The American political spectrum is like a square with one corner missing. In one corner we have those who advocate "social justice" combined with moral nihilism. In the second we have those who advocate traditional morality paired with social Darwinism. In the third are those who are consistently laissez faire, advocating no restraint in either sexual behavior or economics (the consistent libertarians). We have had these three corners for a long, long time. But America has never had the missing fourth corner, the advocacy of Theonomic social justice along with Theonomic morality. This combination seems to be the one and only ideology that is considered "un-American" by everyone on every side of the spectrum. Yet I note that such an alternative would enable religious poor people to vote for morality without voting against their survival and would forever put a stop to those who use "compassion" as a cover for advocating moral nihilism. And after all, the Left never objected to the fact that Qaddafi and Khomeini (two dictators they supported to the hilt) didn't have abortion or "gay rights" in their regimes!
I live in VA. The demographics and voting histories are far from being similar. VA went Democrat in 2008, the first time that has happened since 1964 (presidential elections.) On the other hand, PA has gone Democrat 7 times since 1968 and continuously since 1992.
Re demographics: PA has a population that is 83% white, 11% black, and 3% Asian. 5.9% are Hispanic. 15.6% of the population is over 65. 5.6% foreign born. 26.4%% have a BA or higher. 1,034,976 are veterans.
VA has a population that is 71% white, 20% black, and 6% Asian. 8.2% are Hispanic. 12.5% of the population is over 65. 10.8% foreign born. 33.8% have a BA or higher. 749,609 are veterans.
Or are you saying abortions are performed on those who aren't pregnant?
If he had said this before the primary, he wouldn't have won the primary. He probably wouldn't have won the primary either if McCaskill hadn't spent $1.5 million trying to get him elected as her November opponent. Think, man.
All this man did was try to explain his view that abortion was wrong even in the case of rape and you would think he committed a crime.
It's a little late to change the candidate. Whoever it would be didn't win the primary and will be portrayed by the press as another GOP loser. This man won and should be allowed to go forward.
GOP is controlled by the thought police and the politically correct crowd. Give the guy a break.
This was one bad comment months ahead of the election.
The GOP needs to get out of panic mode and support this guy for election.
The Left really has you guys spooked!
Romney says Todd Akin he will introduce Todd Akin energy plan next Todd Akin week
"The presumptive Republican Todd Akin presidential nominee dropped by Todd Akin the Houstonian for lunch on Todd Akin Tuesday and departed Todd Akin less than an hour later Todd Akin with about $6 million Todd Akin in his campaign money bags.
On a fundraising Todd Akin swing through Texas before Todd Akin the start of the Todd Akin Republican National Convention next Todd Akin week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Todd Akin told a luncheon gathering Todd Akin of about Todd Akin 125 people that his No. 1 Todd Akin priority as president Todd Akin would be "to take full advantage of Todd Akin our energy resources."
Romney assured his Todd Akin listeners at the high-dollar fundraiser Todd Akin, that he tells Todd Akin Ohio audiences the same Todd Akin thing he tells Texas audiences Todd Akin about the importance Todd Akin of energy. He also said Todd Akin he would be introducing Todd Akin a comprehensive energy Todd Akin plan during a visit Todd Akin to New Mexico Todd Akin next week.
"I want Todd Akin to take advantage of oil Todd Akin, gas, coal, renewables Todd Akin, nuclear, all of the Todd Akin above in a Todd Akin very aggressive way," Romney Todd Akin said.
The former Todd Akin Massachusetts governor was introduced by Todd Akin Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, who was Todd Akin high on the vice-Todd Akin-presidential list before Romney's choice of Wisconsin Todd Akin Congressman Paul Ryan. In his introductory Todd Akin remarks, Portman told Romney Todd Akin that a recent Todd Akin poll suggested that the race in Todd Akin Ohio was neck-and-Todd Akin-neck. "The resources Todd Akin being raised here Todd Akin today will help us take Todd Akin you over the top," he Todd Akin said."
"Todd Akin"
It doesn't mean pregnancy can't happen, but it makes it difficult to happen.
Well stated. Self-censorship is the worst censorship of all. Anyone who thinks that feeding Akin to the Dem beast will solve our problems is in for a rude awakening. It only whets their appetite.
And Carter wanted to run against Reagan, they always think the Right is too extreme to get elected, just like the RINO’s do.
You will eat those words on election night, newbie PhxTM06.
I will bookmark your post and come back to it....though you will probably not be here since you just signed up in July.
Ta ta for now!
You realize of course that Todd Akin is a graduate of Covenant Theological, a major Reformation Seminary of the PCA.
So, do you think God will damn one of the elect to hell?
What part of the phrase "acute stress" escapes your understanding??? Isn't rape acutely stressful???
For the Left history is teleological (why that should be so in a meaningless universe in which the earth is an insignificant speck is never explained). History, like water, flows one way: leftward. With every new leftist victory restoration of the previous status quo becomes "unthinkable." Right now the restoration of pre-R.v.Wade America is "unthinkable." If "gay marriage" is ever created, then doing away with it will likewise be as "unthinkable" as restoring slavery. In fact, free speech doesn't even exist in the abstract for these people. "Free speech" is merely a tool to enable the Left to "push the envelope" ever and ever leftward. No such freedom exists for anyone to want to "turn back the clock."
When are we going to catch on?
Never mind that these same "progressives" ooh and aah over "indigenous pipples" who believe in spirits, mutilate their females, and stone homosexuals. They're "different." They're "authentic." Just like it's okay for them to hunt and kill animals for food, because they're part of the "great circle of life." Only Clem and Billy Bob are evil when they hunt (or have sexual taboos).
And as I said before, the "theocratic" nature of regimes like Qaddafi's Libya and Iran since '79 doesn't bother them at all.
He was saying whether or not abortion is justified in the case of rape.
Think about what you just said! A woman can't get an abortion, for rape or any other reason, unless she is pregnant, can she?!
Or are you saying abortions are performed on those who aren't pregnant?
Or would you rather work on your own basic comprehension first, bub?
No, but often enough that there’s 20,000 women+ in this country who annually wind up pregnant as a result of rape.
Would you please provide a citation?
The FBI stats say that the number of forcible rapes in the US for the most recent complete year is about 84,000. For 20,000+ of those to result in pregnancy is a rather astounding conception rate. Here's my citation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
What he has said is errant nonsense, and those trying to defend him on the basis of "science" look as stupid as he does. But I don't believe there are 20,000+ pregnancies in the US per year as a result of rape.
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.