Todd Akin’s macaca moment

by

You know that old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity? Pretty sure Todd Akin has an opinion on that right about now. And the GOP as a whole.

On Sunday, Akin stuck his foot in his mouth by talking about “legitimate rape” not resulting in pregnancy. He has subsequently apologized but the GOP powers-that-be are having none of it. They want him to step down – before 5 pm today, so they can name a new nominee for November’s general election.

Senator Claire McCaskill spent $2 million to help boost Republican Akin into the nominee slot because she was counting on him being easier to beat than any of the other candidates who were running in the Missouri primary. She probably has not stopped smiling since Sunday. John Brunner and Sarah Steelman, the 2nd and 3rd place finshers in the GOP primary, are probably rolling their eyes and saying “I told you so.”

Missouri is a swing state for the Presidential campaign and one of the states that needs to flip for Republicans to regain control of the Senate. Already, some of the big guns of outside money have pulled their support of Akin. He insists he’s staying in. We’ll see.

Not to be outdone by the GOP, the Dems have their own scandal to deal with – Rep. Kerry Gauthier, a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker, was caught having oral sex at a rest stop with a 17 year old boy. He hasn’t been charged in the July incident, and according to the Washington Post, authorities said he wouldn’t be “because the boy was older than 16, the legal age of consent, and no money was exchanged. Police say the teenager responded to the lawmaker’s Craigslist ad for “no strings attached” sex.”

*Facepalm*

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Todd Akin’s macaca moment”

  1. jbtalcott Says:

    The fact is that Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are as close as two coats of paint on their views about women’s reproductive rights. The proof of that is the number of bills that they have co-sponsored. Just the other day, the Republican Party reaffirmed in their party’s platform that women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be required by law to carry the rapist’s or relative’s child to term.

    This view that at one time was held only by those on the extreme fringe of the Republican Party is now the central core of their philosophy. I fail to understand how any woman of intelligence can be part of such a misogynist culture that is hell bent on denying her the inalienable right to control her own body.

    Another point that needs to be made is the utter disregard the “right to life” crowd has for the precious fetus once it is born. Proof of this can be found in Ryan’s budget approved overwhelmingly by the House Republicans which cuts medicaid, food stamps, school lunch, and a myriad of other services that benefit the children of the least fortunate in our country. This is HYPOCRISY at its finest.

  2. pops Says:

    Not true. You’re repeating propaganda from the Obama campaign.

    Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.

    Please show us the bit about rape.

    Right-to-lifers have no problem allowing women to control their bodies. It’s when they kill the bodies of others that the problem arises.

    It isn’t hypocrisy to assert that it is not the role of the federal government to pay for the medical care, housing, and food of the citizenry. But then I think you’re just trying to perpetuate a dishonest stereotype, so I’m not sure there would be any point in explaining what conservatives actually believe.

  3. JBT Says:

    Pops. Go through my post sentence by sentence and give your rebuttal as to specifically what is not true. Making a blanket statement that I am repeating propaganda doesn’t cut it. If you are going to call me a liar, put your facts where your mouth is or shut up.

  4. pops Says:

    I’m not sure how you missed it the first time. Perhaps you didn’t actually read my comment.

    Just the other day, the Republican Party reaffirmed in their party’s platform that women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be required by law to carry the rapist’s or relative’s child to term.

    Still false. Here’s the plank:

    Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.

    Note that there is no mention of rape or incest. The plank is a statement of principle in the same vein as the Bill of Rights. You will notice that the Bill of Rights likewise does not enumerate exceptions. It would be incorrect to infer that no exceptions to the Bill of Rights are allowable. It is likewise incorrect to infer that no exceptions to a human life amendment would be viewed favorably by conservatives or Republicans, particularly in light of public statements on the subject by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s deference to Romney on that subject.

    Another point that needs to be made is the utter disregard the “right to life” crowd has for the precious fetus once it is born. Proof of this can be found in Ryan’s budget…

    “Proof” is a strong word. The conservative view is that it is not the role of the federal government to provide food stamps, Medicaid, school lunches, or any other of the myriad social programs liberals might propose. The real proof of how conservatives view the life of the erstwhile fetus is in how willing they are to voluntarily donate their own time and money to those in need. You might wish to compare, for example, the charitable donations of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Or Joe Biden and Dick Cheney. Then you might begin to understand who really cares about the less fortunate. Spending someone else’s money for charitable causes is not charity.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: