The Republican Party establishment and its entire campaign infrastructure has given very clear instructions to Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri: you've done irreparable harm to your Senate campaign and it's time to quit.
As of this morning, the right-wing congressman appears to be ignoring the directives. The Akin campaign sent out a fundraising appeal last night, apologizing for his bizarre and offensive remarks on rape, acknowledging he "made a mistake," but concluding, "I have just begun to fight and I'm in this race to the end!"
Akin's also doing something of a damage-control tour. Though he failed to show up for a scheduled interview on CNN last night, the Missouri Republican spent the afternoon chatting with Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity, and overnight, released a new television ad seeking "forgiveness."
"Rape is an evil act," Akin says in the video. "I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims.... The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness."
It still seems as if Akin is confused as to the nature of the controversy, as if his choice of words, and not the underlying sentiment, is the problem. The Republican apparently sees the controversy as a verbal gaffe, rather than an outrageous perspective on women's health and reproductive rights.
So, what happens now?
As Rachel explained last night, there's a key deadline at 5 p.m. today, and if that deadline passes without incident, it will be very difficult for Akin to remove his name from the ballot. It's probably safe to say the congressman's phone will be ringing quite a bit, with party leaders pleading with him to drop out.
But Akin will have a trump card: Missouri voters have not yet turned on him. Public Policy Polling surveyed the state yesterday and found Akin still leading Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) by one point, 44% to 43%, even though, by a 3-to-1 margin, Missouri voters disapprove of his rape comments.
Akin may be a radical, unhinged nut, but he has an "R" after his name, and for much of the state, that may be the only factor that matters.
Leave a Comment:
You are going to be judged by the friends and associates you keep, and that is exactly how Mitt Romney and the Republican Party ought to be judged in this instance. The absurd and scientifically idiotic point lof view espoused by Rep., Akin is not some random blurb from an unhinged individual. This is the core principle of the modern GOP, infiltrated by extreme elements of the Tea Party and made to lurch far to the right of where the party was just a few years ago. Paul Ryan believes the exact same thing as Todd Akin, gleefully joining Akin in sponsoring legislation in the United States Congress that would legislate the idiocy of what Akin said on TV as a mandate against every woman in America. Romney and Ryan are standing right beside Todd Akin on this. Notice how neither one cared to forcefully condemn his remarks or tell him to get out of the race? Because they think the guy is right! - principled progressive
Lawrence O'Donnell reported last night that Ryan called Akin personally yesterday, and asked him to drop out. I think that is terribly hypocritical.
suekzoo1, Ryan and Akin were co-sponsors of H.R. 3, an anti abortion bill that closed the "health of the mother" loophole. Talk about joined at the hip!
Well, THIS, exactly. Akin really only made two mistakes. He spoke plainly and in understandable language, and he said it before the election.
Beyond that, this is what the Repubs and Teabaggers *really* think.
H.R.3 excluded the exception for the health of the mother? Just when I thought my head would stop spinning, I hear this. First of all, it flies in the face of Roe v. Wade and the SCOTUS cases building on that, so it's unconstitutional on it's face. (Even Scalia believes in adhering to precedent, so if this is designed as a vehicle for challenging Roe, it's not a sure thing.) Beyond that, IT'S MURDER, DAMMIT, REAL ACTUAL MURDER OF A LIVING WOMAN, YOU PHONY SO-CALLED "PRO-LIFE" BASTARDS! If you oppose a group, and one of the tactics of that opposition is to kill members of that group, it's called WAR, so they've re-declared their WAR ON WOMEN.
I'm male and almost 66 years old, but I'm losing the ability to talk about this without flying into a rage. How do women of child bearing age control their anger?
@TheActivist...While I agree with you, read the last two paragraphs of the post. These guys ARE judged by the friends they keep. And to a shocking number of people around this increasingly dimwitted country what Akin said is perfectly fine.
.Sofferclese...please keep raging..if you stop your heart will break.
Sofferclese said:
I think you mean, only when he agrees with/feels like it, right?
Oooh, yes, please!
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
What a maverick .........
They are going to crush him ....
We can't be tied to our actual policies , we're running for President for Pete's sake .
Which is the elephant in the room .
Please RomneyRyan explain to us how you view is different , now you've had a chance to see which way the wind blows.
You know if Rush had defended him , the tune would have been different
Has Rush commented yet? Enquiring minds want to know.
This story made it to the BBC, first hit on the world news section of the Ap, but they still managed to ignore (or be oblivious to) Ryan's close links to this man.
Oh, yes, he has. I let you savor your fantasy version for a while. The reality is a little weird, by Rush standards. Limbaugh was actually more or less reasonable in his reaction. Here is Alyssa Rosenberg's comparison between Limbaugh's and Huckabee's takes on this. Key Limbaugh quote: "I’ve had people tell me that a woman’s body shuts down in rape. There’s no evidence for this. I mean it’s absolutely absurd."
OK, Jack, who are you and what have you done with the real Rush Limbaugh?
Well, good for him for once. Never let it be said that I don't give credit where it's due.
Limpy's on the bandwagon to say how silly the assertion that women "shut all that down" in favor of the underlying- women lie to claim rape (illegitimately)
*still crossing fingers from yesterday* Please don't drop out please don't drop out please don't drop out please don't drop out please don't drop out...
..please don't drop out please don't drop out please don't drop out
I'm predicting that in two weeks, after our braindead MSM declares this "old news," the Crossroads and Koch money will begin to flow back in in support of him and a week later, citing the urgent need to take back the Senate, the RNC and RSCC spigot will be turned back on as well.
Are you implying that we have short attention spans? What were we just talking about?
Yargle bargle....Who's on dancing with the stars tonight?
And Akin will still get in - the extreme right wingers will turn out in droves to vote him in.
The money will certainly be there for Akin, as long as he has a chance to win.
Rove, Cornyn, and other potential contributors are more concerned about winning than they are about any moral standard.
Their threats had more to do with the fact that they've never really liked Akin as a Senate candidate, and wouldn't mind replacing him.
Why will their money be there for Akin. Because, above all, they know the first rule of politics: DON'T LOSE!
Karl Rove & others have stopped financially funding him! I think he has to drop out of the race. His replacement will be heavily funded, and every dirty trick will played. This race has become a top priority for the Republicans.
Rove and the NRSC didn't fund him in the primaries, yet he won anyway. He really owes the establishment nothing. He gets his financial support from the Santorum wing of the GOP. Tony Perkins, etc.
I must confess I haven't kept up with this controversy, I don't consider myself an authority fit to tell someone whether to get an abortion or not.
Has someone provided rape vs normal pregnancy figures, and why hasn't consensual (statutory) rape been mentioned?
Shut the @!$%# up, blanks.
Really. Just shut the @!$%# up.
Re: #5.3
Pregnancy rate is the about the same.
Rape is Rape, so why would anyone mention statutory rape in particular?
The argument seems to be that, since we "know" rape doesn't result in pregnancy, any woman who claims her pregnancy is because of rape "must" be lying.
And you correct when you say you are not "an authority fit to tell someone whether to get an abortion or not". NO ONE BUT THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTOR SHOULD MAKE THAT DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shooter, if you are clueless, you have two excellent options: (A) Educate yourself. The numbers are out there, in fact, there was a nice analysis on NPR. You didn't hear any actual facts on Fox News, because they don't want to upset their viewers with truths that contradict long-cherished bigotry. (B) If you don't have time to educate yourself, don't weigh in on issues about which you know nothing. Rachel is good on female biology, you can trust her on this one even if you can't trust her when she says the sky is blue, or that tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs.
Maphi, there is forcible rape and consensual or statutory rape. Is sex between willing partners rape? It is when the state says so. Is it what most people consider rape to be? No. The guy obviously meant "forcible" rape not statutory rape. Akin has two daughters, I think he understands the distinction.
As for the figures, is there documentation somewhere?
"Consensual rape"? Do you even know what the word "rape" means?
Here's a primer: Rape, from the Latin rapere, means "to seize," "to snatch," or "to steal." It doesn't mean "to gently caress" or "to preen". One does not "rape" someone gently to sleep; it is a brutal act, in which one person (most often male) exerts a state of power over another (most often, but not always, female) which culminates in penetration.
"Statutory rape" is a holdover in terms of "illegal sexual intromission" from times when nonlegal persons would have sex (two juveniles) or when one legal adult and one nonlegal person would have sex within some given "acceptable" range (an 18yo boinking his girlfriend one day below the age of consent, as an extreme example). This is not "rape" because the participants are not only consenting, they are capable of forming a concept of "right and wrong" about the situation. There is NOTHING "right" about "rape."
Thus, there is no such thing as "legitimate rape."
There is an additional, and perverse twist to this: Rapists, and in some case legal proceedings, have attempted to qualify as "non-rape" sexual assault cases where there seemed to be sexual responsiveness on the part of the assaultee. This is part of the "power play," an attempt to gain satisfaction during or after the fact of a form of control over the victim. There is no legitimacy, rohypnol or no, about forcing a sexual situation on someone, even to elicit a sexual response. Even worse is when the victim feels guilty because she/he became aroused. It compounds the assault.
You would be welcome to research the problems of "rape" before opening your mouth; you would also be welcome to research the ample links in the last few posts on this issue posted to this blog. It might do you well.
Please observe that if you class "rape" as either "violent rape" or "statutory rape" then, since no violence is involved, incestuous abuse of minor children would mostly fall into the "statutory" side of things and thus not qualify for abortion.
In other words, as far as Akin and Ryan are concerned that little 9yo slut will just have to carry and give birth to her brother.
Bud, you just made the case for "legitimate" rape. One type of rape is forcible, one is not. The same term is used in both instances, leading to Akin making a distinction.
Even for Pooper242, his comment is exceedingly stupid. Nobody else is talking about telling women to get abortions and it is you @sshole repuknicans who have the history of deciding that the only 'fit' persons to decide on women's health issues are old white male republicans.
DC, I understand your point, and leave it to the victim or her parents to decide what actions are appropriate. This whole episode is about an awkward way to describe forcible rape. If Joe Biden had made this statement, it would pass with some comment and no consequences.
As always, IOKIYAD.
Pooper, only in your warped repuke mind is there such a thing as 'legitimate' rape. @sshole, rape is rape and it is never
rightacceptable.Shooter, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.
Rape is not defined by the amount of violence used but the lack of consent on the part of the victim. You don't have to be tied up and nearly killed to be violated. You don't have to have bruises and a torn perineum, you don't have to be bitten and have foreign objects shoved into you, though all those things happen in some rapes.
Rape occurs when the woman (or man, or child) has not said yes, or has been deemed not to have the capacity to say yes (as in children or those incapacitated by drugs or alcohol or due to learning difficulties.)
Pregnancy occurs in rape as often as it occurs in any other random sexual encounter, no more, no less. I am a doctor and I am telling you this (so it must be true.)
This man clearly has some sort of horrible notion about what constitutes rape, a view held by plenty other idiots, that if the woman wasn't torn to pieces, she wasn't really raped.
I have no problem with woman wanting to carry a child to term conceived in rape, I have met many woman as part of my job who have done just that after being raped by their abusive partners. I have no problem with a woman deciding that she does not want to carry the child of her rapist and live with a daily reminder of what she endured.
The point it that it is up to the woman to decide, and no-one else can or should make that decision for her.
Double post
Not that I'd ever take a shooter comment seriously, but there's a distinction to be had...and perhaps immediately dismissed, when it comes to "forcible rape." And statutory rape has nothing to do with it.
"Some people" make a distinction when it comes to rape between
A: a woman who is attacked, and is dragged kicking and screaming someplace where she can be taken against her will, struggling all the time if she hasn't been beaten unconscious; and
B: A woman who agrees to sex to avoid bodily harm because her attacker is threatening bodily harm, but not actually causing it. Date rape often falls into this category: "Come on, we had a good time, I bought dinner, we had some drinks some laughs, it's wrong to just leave me hanging, come on, don't make me angry," and so on and so on, I've not been in that position nor do I watch many Lifetime TV-Movies so forgive me if my language isn't spot-on.
For some people a "yes" is a "yes," regardless of the rationale, thus scenario "B" isn't considered, to them, to be a "legitimate rape." It's why some people have trouble (or claim to have trouble) believing a woman's claims of rape when "B" happens - "you're not beat up, no visible bruises, clearly you didn't put up a fight, are you sure you didn't just 'want it' at the time and now you're feeling a little buyer's remorse, maybe?"
It's one of the reasons why some defensive trainers insist on teaching that you always put up a fight unless a gun or knife is involved - not only might you get away if you fight, but then there's tell-tale physical evidence, on the victim AND the attacker, that this was not consensual, which can possibly be used in a trial.
The waters get potentially even murkier when it comes to "perceived intent," meaning a man never says "do what I tell you to do or you're gonna get hurt" or anything like that, yet the woman feels that she's in such a scenario anyway, feels threatened by his very presence, and "consents" to avoid a threat of physical assault that was never explicitly made.
Bear in mind, I'm not making (or legitimizing) this distinction, only pointing out that some people do. Heck, I'm the guy who's actually "blown it" more than once, waiting for a woman to pretty much use those lights airport techs use to guide planes, to tell me I'm "clear to approach the runway," only to find out days or weeks later that she was waiting for me to assert myself (you know, "like a man"), throw her down and get all It's-A-Man's-World on her.
So maybe I'm a wimp. BUT, I'm a wimp that's never had to be read his Miranda rights.
However - and I think I should add this because some people are going to take my comments as somehow excusing certain types of rape no matter how insistent I am that I'm not - none of this should make a lick of f*cking difference in the context of abortion. If a woman has an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, it shouldn't be up to me or Akin or Shooter or anyone but that woman what should be done about it. A woman shouldn't need to jump through hoops to prove a rape or incest or anything if she's pregnant with a child she doesn't want. Akin's comments, like the comments of many Republicans before him, is a way of making it harder to justify abortion for people to whom they think they need to have it justified so they can judge those who want one. As pro-choice as I am, I have a sliver more respect for people who say "abortion is always wrong, period" because at least they're consistent. Once you start trying to cobble exceptions, you're dealing with someone, somewhere, who gets to decide if a woman's situation merits the exception. And whoever that guy is (and let's face it, if the GOP gets its way, it'll be a guy, or a bunch of guys with a token woman on a board somewhere), we're supposed to assume his judgment is more valid than the woman dealing with the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, which means that mistakes (some of them intentional) will be made. And that's a tragedy, for those women and for the notion that we are free to do with our bodies what we choose.
Tweed, whether or not you think a 17 yr old is capable of consent, most 17 yr olds do. In thought and deed, 17 yr olds consent all over the country, and in some areas, that's rape. It's against the law, it's rape, and it's consensual.Those that want to live by semantics will often be hoist by their own petard.
As an aside regarding Democrats, I recall the Republican Florida congressman ousted for emails to pages, while years earlier a Democrat congressman not only had actual sex with a page, he held a press conference to celebrate it.
I'm less offended by the wrong choice of words by Akin than the rank hypocrisy of Democrats... and yes, it's every woman's choice whether to abort or not.
I'm goin on the assumption that Shooter is really trying get educated.
Shooter, let's say that your girlfriend was mugged at gunpoint or knifepoint. The perp then, pointing the gun at her, tells her to disrobe and then warns that if she struggles he will kill her. There's no blood, no bruising....did she consent, then? Of course not, she did what many in law enforcement would approve of. She saved her life. Or a 16 year old girl has sex with a teacher. Did she consent? It would seem so, but she is not responsible for her actions legally and the teacher was using his influence and age to convince her. Or a female teacher and a male student, same thing.
Rape isn't a crime of sex, it's a crime of control most often with violence or the threat of violence. It is a crime of power of one person over another in a more vulnerable position.
Akin, if he were smart, would not run. But I'm guessing that he will get in again, voted in by right wingers who think that a woman coming home from a club alone at night deserved what she got. Or that college student who stayed up drinking at a party and didn't go home because she was slipped something and then raped while unconscious was asking for it. And Akin doesn't give a crap if he gives the right wing a black eye. And shame on Missouri if he does get in...
DNFT!
You guys do know that you can recover valuable screen real-estate (and do a favor for your blood pressure) by clicking on the little explanation point at the lower right of each of Shooter's comments, and choosing "ignore", right?
as helpfully posted to the MaddowBlog on a number of occasions by Rollo-5302374 (and big BIG thanks to Rollo for tracking this down):
And that is the only reason needed to ignore Shooter.
..donna..have you gone off your meds again?
shooter I'll do the google for you...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
"CONCLUSIONS:
Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization"
Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.
Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2233, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.
STUDY DESIGN:
A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.
RESULTS:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.
CONCLUSIONS:
Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
Rape is defined as any sexual act being performed on a person without the consent of the person in question, although in the vernacular we typically only refer to rape when penetration of some kind occurs (in other instances we refer to this as molestation). There is no "consensual rape" and Shooter's representation here is grossly misinformed. States set the legal age of consent. You cannot legally consent to sexual activity until you have met this age. If that age is 18 then you cannot legally consent to having sex until you are 18. That is where statutory rape laws come into context.
The amount of violence involved in rape is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether or not rape leads to more or less pregnancies. Akin presented this argument as a red herring: he was attempting to distract from the conversation at hand in order to avoid having to discuss the issue of rape. Even if what Akin said is true- so let's postulate the hypothetical here for the sake of the logical argument- that would still mean that in the rare instances when pregnancy does occur as the result of "illegitimate rape" the woman would still not be able to abort the fetus. Even if you state that what he meant was forcible rape- and by definition all rape is forcible, for the record- as opposed to statutory rape this would STILL mean that a raped woman was being forced to bear her rapist's child. In either case the hypothetical leads us to the same problem as the argument initially presented to Akin. Therefore Akin's attempt to dissuade the argument by presenting his legitimate rape statistic was not only factually incoherent, but also logically incoherent.
I should also note that Shooter's arguments are an attempt to justify Akin's position as being true. This therefore means Shooter is inadvertently agreeing with Akin's position, even though his/her goal was clearly to disprove the outrage at Akin. This is why I tell people to stay logically consistent in their arguments. When you use fallacious reasoning or defend fallacious reasoning you end up going into a rabbit hole you cannot escape from. I also just want to make note of the bigamist implication of children consenting to sex and the irony that I feel as a gay person who is denied marriage on the basis that it might lead to bigamy. Shooter has inadvertently justified the idea that a 30 year old man sleeping with a 14 year old is OK for the same reason I have already noted.
I also want to point out that postulating the hypothetical if Biden had said this Democrats would ignore it therefore it's evidence of hypocrisy as just being ludicrous. You cannot postulate a hypothetical and then state that the hypothetical is evidence of something in the real world. A hypothetical is only evidence of the hypothetical itself. It is just as plausible that Biden would be roundly harassed for making such a statement as he has been in the past by both sides- you have no evidence to suggest the contrary; you only have the hypothetical. Stating that this therefore demonstrates rank hypocrisy suggests that you do not understand the actual term. Hypocrisy is when you state that something is not OK and then subsequently engage in that same behavior (it can also be the inverse; you believe something is good and then engage in behavior opposite to the good position). Hypocrisy cannot exist within a hypothetical.
Shooting blanks again! Shooter is the typical low-information voter that lives in a bubble of his own willful blindness! Should "rape" (heaven forbid) ever happen to someone he loves, I can only hope that he takes off his blinders and doesn't say "she asked for it"!
Shea,
Obviously you have gone off yours. So stop projecting. And for the record, you can shut the @!$%# up too.
OK
If you want to know where all this statutory vs violent rape is coming from, it's an old piece of nonsense that some Know Nothings on the right have believed for quite a while, including it would seem our very own Mr. Mitty (aka The Blank aka Airball). Check out this where you can get a little history on this ludicrous silliness:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/
Just check it off as yet another example of the wingnut alternate universe where you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/todd-akin-and-the-right-s-false-fact-machine.html
At least Sh*ter is performing a valuable service for once. He is conclusively demonstrating how it is that Akin did not substantively misspeak. There really are people who are so insanely vile and perverted as to try whittle the plain meaning of 'rape' down to something small enough they feel justified in ignoring.
Shooter,
actually my opinion on that matters every day.
I am a GP in the UK, here we have laws that reflect the capacity of the teenager engaging in sexual intercourse. Every young person I see who is requesting contraception I am required to judge their capacity to be engaging in it. If I feel they are not able to consent and are therefore being abused, I have a duty to report that.
If I feel they have capacity to consent, then I can treat them as an autonomous woman looking to prevent pregnancy.
If the underlying issue Mr Akin has, is that statutary rape laws are unfair and unworkable in the USA then he should be looking to legislate against that.
My feeling is, that that is not what this is about.
He seems quite clearly to be implying that any woman who claims to have been raped and is pregnant is lying. And I find that contemptible.
So the moral of the story is: RNC- It's OK to hold, espouse, and legislate extremist views on women's health issues. Just don't be so honest and loud about it when our brand-new VP pick is your co-sponsor.
Exactly right.
"Shhhhhh - stay very very quiet. Say as little as possible. Lie - as you know you must. Once we get
ultimate power, I mean, have the Presidency, the majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, then we canDICTATE to the rest of those little people, I mean, carry out the mandate as we were elected do,even though those little people didn't realize what it was."And if you want a preview.....visit Florida ......Felon Republican governor , Super-majority house and senate ..they get things done
Restrict voting rights
De-fund schools
Privatize anything that is susceptible (prisons etc)
Tax breaks for businesses
Increase all fees (hidden tax - vehicle registration doubled)
Reject federal funds . 24 billion high speed rail, medicare expansion
See everything improves.
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
oh, that's funny.
Akin's only real crime in the eyes of the Republican establishment appears to be that he broke the First Rule of Fight Club.
Exactly right, Scott. This nonsense has been around for a long time, and as long as the anti-abortion folks used the phrase "forcible rape" the media went along. It was Akin's use of the word "legitimate" that revealed their obsession with blaming the victim.
PPP found that Missouri voters had not turned against Akin, but SurveyUSA found something different.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-missourians-say-akin-should-quit-senate-race?ref=fpb
"The robocall played actual audio of Akin's comment, then asked respondents whether it reflected their views: 13 percent yes, 76 percent said no.
"In a follow-up question, only 35 percent said Akin should continue to run for U.S. Senate, compared with 54 percent who said he should drop out. Among Republicans, 52 percent said he should stay in the race; 33 percent said he should drop out."
The PPP survey first asked if they still support Akin, then asked if they agreed with what he said.
The SurveyUSA first played the audio.
However, the Survey USA poll did not include a question about the McCaskill-Akin matchup.
Republicans are amazing. No matter how often their castle is stormed by angry villagers with torches and pitchforks intent on destroying their monstrous creations, they still come away thinking that their only mistake was in the messaging.
And, by and large, they're right.
The best way to make a republican look stupid...encourage him or her to speak.
I don't think so, DC. The backlash against Akin isn't simply because he didn't give his statement the right amount of rhetorical polish. Ditto for all of the 'war on women' stuff. Marketing will only get you so far if what you are selling is crap.
I think Claire McCaskill was astute in promoting him as her running mate in the primary with those deceptively devious ads. I am not surprised that people have not turned on him yet, as Fox News hasn't covered the controversy at all; and we all know that if it isn't on Fox, the Republican voters don't know about it. If Missouri picks him as there representative for the state, it will just be one more reason for me to never go there.
Bullpucky.
Bolbis, you are so right. A report I read last night showed that FOX had covered this story very little. What propagandists!
... and as the SurveyUSA poll showed, as soon as people actually HEARD what Akin said, most people said he should pull out of the race.
But 52% of the GOP voters surveyed said he should stay in. I bet he hangs his hat on that alone.
So, I guess that means that at least 52% of GOP voters have Fux as their only source of "news". (eyeroll)
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
As obscene, outrageous, Neanderthal and misogynist (in other words, he was speaking “Republicanese”) as his rape comments were, they were not the only things he said that revealed his unfitness for office. ANY office. Akin said that federal money for student loans was “stage three cancer of socialism.” He also said he opposed federal funds for school lunches. School lunches! And he said the Voting Rights Act deserves a “second look.” Methinks HE deserves a second look.
If rape results in 30,000 pregnancies a year, and 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, then 600,000 (SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND!) women get raped every year - EVERY YEAR. How long before they rape us all? Now they'd like to rape us again, and force us to have the rapist's baby? Women had better wise up - and fast - and vote these jerks out of office.
Don't forget, in the world-view of "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CONs, if the women get pregnant, it wasn't rape - they must have enjoyed and therefore, on some level "wanted" it.
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-(
Isn't that they way the news media handle everything this year? Gaffe, technical or tactical error? Conversely, a move might be tactically good or there might be coverage on how a position is presented?
Under no circumstances, however, should the media take sides by presenting the public with partisan points like, oh, arithmetic or science.
I think it's hilarious
As a monument to Rush sits in the MO capitol building.
The GOP gonna ask Kansas and Gov. Brownback to leave the Union?
Well, they missed their chance the first time.
Is anyone else bothered by the "As the father of two daughters ..." thing? I've seen Dems and Repubs use this phrase. What does it mean? Is the implication that those of us who don't have daughters are somehow less qualified to be outraged by rape?
There's a whole world of patriarchy embodied in the phrase and the fact it's the politically shrewd thing to say, whatever side of the aisle you're on.
The reason the comment about his two daughters bothers me is that it proves Akin has raped his wife at least twice. Can't imagine she ever really wanted to have sex with him. Then again, her body didn't shut that thing down.
Possibly. But I think the intended message probably is that he couldn't possibly say or do anything contrary to the interests of women because, hey, he has daughters. He wouldn't do anything to hurt his own children, would he? Paternalistic and sentimental mush is all it is.
Key lesson learned? Never give away your agenda before you are elected if that agenda is unpopular! It is not that they oppose his views,Ryan and Romney share those views as their past proves, it is just that those views are a trigger that might get women and the men who love them to vote for the democrats!
You mean they can't let themselves get specific? It would just be "ammunition" for their opponents?
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
Inform the Misinformed
Akin has misinformation from "doctors." Where are the "doctors" correctly informing all those others who have Akin's same misinformation.
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, probably TNT, USA, Lifetime etc., have doctors on staff. WHY didn't each network bring them out to explain Akin's misinformation. Everyone brings out Akin's misinformation over and over and over.
Bring out the correct information over and over and over.
Yes, unfortunately, there are many TV viewers who feel Akin is not misinformed. He won the MO primary. He is a member of Congress. Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill with him.
Inform the Misinformed
..IMCurious..MSNBC did present Dr Nancy Snyderman on Andrea Mitchell Reports yesterday but I have yet to see any Med Pros on the other networks rebutting this crap.
Todd Akin says he's sorry
Finally, something we agree on.
Todd Akins I have written an open letter to you & you're apology is not accepted. The fact is that your support of H.R. 3 and you voting record shows the true man you are when it comes to Women's Rights. http://www.unitewomen.info/unite-women-blog/
Why do white poor and middle class conservatives still support the GOP when this kind of thing happens and it is so obviously against their economic interests? Because the GOP is their best shot to disenfranchise gays, women and minorities. Yes, they are willing to "pay" for this service. And they think that "trickle down" will only really happen if the non-deserving are out of the way.
Mr. Akin, if your heart holds the idea that women must be forced to live with your beliefs as a matter of law, not theirs...then no, your mistake WAS in the heart you hold AND the words you say.
My two Marine sons have served honorably to defend our freedoms, including freedom of speech for you and I. But they did not face combat to allow you to put into place laws that attack women in the same growing vein the Taliban already does. There is an insidious movement by many GOPers to separate women from rights & freedoms we have worked hard to lawfully hold. Rights we should never have had to fight for, that are ours as surely as any other human's. We won't sit silently in the background while they kick us back down.
I won't sit still & allow you to force your beliefs on me. I VOTE MCCASKILL!
What he means by "I used my word in the wrong way" is, he didn't keep them to himself.
He didn't "misspeak". He screwed up by saying what he, and many others in the "Pro-life" movement, including Paul Ryan, actually believe. In the eyes of the Republicans now begging him to leave the race, his crime was candor, not his backwards, misogynistic, anti-science beliefs.
Put a turban on him, and it is exactly the type of thing you would expect to hear from a member of the Taliban.
I know that it's typically the place of the right to complain about the media, but why aren't they making a bigger deal of the fact that Paul Ryan agrees with Akin on matters of abortion? Just like they are giving Romney a free pass on his welfare lie.