Associated Press
Pennsylvania's Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Tom Smith
I wish I knew what was going on with Republican U.S. Senate candidates lately; maybe there's something in the water.
We've seen GOP candidates making very strange decisions in Missouri, Ohio, the state of Washington, Wisconsin, and now in Pennsylvania.
"What [Todd Akin] said I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that," [Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith] told reporters Monday, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News, during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg Monday -- referring to Akin's suggestion that women's bodies can block a pregnancy from rape.
"I lived something similar to that with my own family," Smith said. He then described his daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy -- from consensual sex.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought. Now don't get me wrong. It wasn't rape."
Smith affirmed that he believed his daughter's pregnancy from consensual sex was similar to a rape. "Put yourself in a father's position, yes, I mean it is similar."
If you're thinking to yourself, "There's no way a U.S. Senate candidate would say this, especially after Todd Akin's flap last week," ThinkProgress has the audio. [Update: a video clip is also available.]
Keep in mind, this isn't some fringe Republican activist. Tom Smith, a Tea Partier, won the statewide GOP primary; he introduced vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan just last week at an event in Carnegie, Pennsylvania; and he was on hand for a fundraiser with Mitt Romney just last month.
And in this guy's mind, a rape pregnancy and out-of-wedlock pregnancy are "similar." Indeed, let's also not overlook this choice of words regarding his daughter: "[F]ortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought." Unbelievable.
As best as I can tell, the Romney campaign has not yet commented, but one can hope they'll be asked. Smith is running against incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D) this year. Casey is widely expected to win.
Leave a Comment:
Well of course it would be all about him. He's "the patriarch," right?
I was thinking more or less the same thing. He didn't consent to his daughter's sexual relationship, so obviously it's 'similar' to rape!
Clearly, to these guys women simply don't appear to be people with minds of their own.
He wasn't equating the act of consensual sex and rape, but telling your daughter she should keep the baby instead of aborting. What's missing from the above post is the question that preceded the comment:
So, when he said he "lived something similar to that with my own family" that "something" was trying to advise your daughter (as asked) to "keep the child against her own will" (as asked).
The Democrats so want this election to be about contraception and abortion instead of the economy and jobs. IMHO
Hey Dude RobDon - Are you whacked?
The candidate is an embarrassment to sentient creatures everywhere in the universe!
Rape is physical violence! The Republican brand has shoved this issue in our faces as they have advocated a Personhood Constitutional construct that would in effect force a woman who has experienced physical violence,
(and will have to deal with it as a horrible, nightmarish, crystallizing moment in her life on this planet for the rest of her lifetime),
to carry to term the pregnancy inflicted upon her in the midst of the nightmare even you, RobDon, wouldn't want perpetrated upon yourself!
Dude, think before you bring your drivel to this thread! -Kevo
Democrats did not bring up the issue of contraception and abortion, Republicans did. Then when Republicans are hung by their own petard they cry that the Democrats are being mean and distracting from the economy. Democrats are not the ones passing pointless abortion legislation in the US Congress and they are not the ones who spent 15 minutes during their primary discussing the issue of abortion and contraception (more than any other issue including the economy). Democrats are by and large not the ones passing countless abortion and contraception related policies in states across the country. How you can make this accusation makes zero sense to me. If Republicans wanted to talk about the economy then they'd stop making comments about abortion and contraception related policies and only talk about the economy. Keep in mind these are statements the Republicans are giving before the media. You seem to be implying that it's the media's fault that Republicans answer these questions and then the media reports on what the Republicans say.
I should also point out RobDon conveniently left out the part of the audio where the reporter confirms that Tom Smith was referring to the issue of how the child was conceived. In other words Rob just pulled a fast one here folks.
As you can see no, he was not referring to advise he gave to his daughter. If that were his point he would've clarified "similar in the advise I'd be giving." What he said instead is that as a father the child is from someone who wasn't his daughter's husband. Or, in other words, he's the patriarch and she's the property.
Cartoon, I don't think the media is creating the issue, and while I certainly understand the Akin's roll in reviving the issue, I do think the Democrats want it front and center. The DNC convention will illustrate that point as well.
As to your analysis of Smith's comments, I think he answer "no" to the question if having a baby out of wedlock is similar to rape. He actually says "no" 3 times.
Then he adds that from a pro-life's father perspective of counseling to keep baby, "yes" that "is similar."
Your interpretation has him changing his mind in the middle of the sentence, "No, no, no...yes."
But in the right-wing mind nobody is allowed to comment on, react to, or in anyway even notice what right-wingers are doing and saying. Because, you know, freedom.
Because he DID say no no no yes. Did you even read the transcript?!
Yes he says no no no and then doesn't explain how the difference exists then immediately proceeds to say to the father it's the same. Did you not catch that? No no no I'm not saying that they are similar, but from a father's perspective they are, yes. You need to actually judge people on the basis of what they are ACTUALLY arguing instead of the hypothetical of what you BELIEVE they are attempting to argue.
Again I do not understand this. How is it that people are taking beliefs and asserting them as if they are facts.
Democrats are capitalizing on the stupidity of the Republican Party for bringing the issue forward, yes. It's very opportunistic, I would agree with that. Republicans hold these views and have pushed these views publicly in all the states where they hold power and in the US House where they hold power. Because of this Democrats are pointing out what Republicans have done. Again Republicans are the ones being hung by their own petard. If Republicans wanted to make this election about the economy, at least from my perspective (since now we're arguing opinions), then they would not be passing policies and saying things specifically oriented towards social policy. This is in particular inexcusable, in my mind, because they know that the Democratic Party will pounce on the statement. All Mr. Smith had to say was "I have counseled women before on keeping children they don't want, but I don't want to talk about that issue as I'm not advocating policies to change abortion in the US." That would've ended the story right there. Instead he walked into his own trap and now is crying that it's not fair to quote him verbatim.
I should amend my above statement. The only way his wanting to change the subject from abortion would be acceptable would be if he was no longer attempting to pass policies to change the state of abortion. If he made such a statement, but still pursued the same policies, then no he would still be held to the same standard. That's because his actual acts would not be matching with his statements. The point I was making is that Republicans choose to support these policies, they choose to introduce them in their positions of power and push them into law, and they choose to bring these issues up to the forefront of the American mind. I am always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to speaking- everyone makes mistakes. However the view Mr. Smith is expressing isn't just an oops tongue-in-cheek kind've slip up. The Republican Party has actively engaged in policy making to emphasize the accusations being levied by Democrats. In my mind that makes Democrats correct. If Democrats are incorrect then Republicans must become self-aware and adjust their behavior in such a way as to reflect what it is that they are actually attempting to get passed.
Lol yes. To me this is the bully mentality that seems ever so present in the Republican mind set. It's like the child at the playground who steals someone's lunch box and then acts SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YOU! when the kid whose lunchbox he stole tells on him. What?! No! That's a violation of the playground rules! You can't turn me in! It's your fault I'm in trouble!
No, jackass, it's your fault you're in trouble.
Of course what else would you expect from the party of
projectionpersonal responsibilityI'm a Pennsylvanian, and I disapprove of that clown.
Totally.
Maybe he is attempting to argue against the idea that statutory rape doesn't count.
Yeah, but Casey is also anti-choice. He makes me crazy.
Clearly the problem is really _his— consent as the father, not hers, right? Whether or not she consents to the sex hardly matters if he didn't already agree to it.
Actually the problem is that she had sex before he "gave her hand to the highest bidder" - patriarchy by any name is still patriarchy....
So she consented to sex but he (her father) did not (he's unhappy she had sex before/without marriage) so if he sees her as his property so to speak -- he sees it a bit as if he or his property were raped... on the other hand, he now has 2 properties...
I hope he asked before taking her business to the national stage.
Now this is a very relevant point. Hopefully, he has discussed it and gotten her okay.
New Hampshire: Republican Sheriff candidate Frank Szabo indicated that he would not rule out the use of deadly force to prevent an abortion from taking place. He has since walked back his comment and apologized (that seems to be a Republican requirement of late).
Akin's comments about rate and now this idiot.
Women please if you do not want to be back in the 1950's or later get out and vote Democratic.
Yeah, I mean, it's not about rape, or sex, or your own flesh and blood daughter-it's all similar because it is all equally irrelevant. It's about women as vessels, carrying forth the next generation. Let's all pray it was a boy.
Evidently he was a Democrat before he got rich and switched parties! I guess it's tough when you want to hang around the Republican in-crowd and have to start thinking and acting like them.
I could give a rat's butt if anyone is pro choice or pro life.
What I give a rat's butt about about is the kinds of laws, being passed by mostly men, making those kinds of choices for women. As if forcing women into that position makes those men feel better about themselves.
Pregnancy via rape is just as much a power trip for the man who committed the act as the rape itself, and those types of laws just validate the rapists' power.
If that isn't "big government" I don't know what is.
Women are better qualified to know what they want for themselves than anyone else. These decisions don't come easy, and that's something no man will ever be able to understand, nor anyone who has not ever faced such a decision.
@!$%#ers.
Yes, I'm ticked.
The Raging Grannies say it all:
http://youtu.be/Anc_gP2_QeI
Tom, the point is the decision to have an abortion shouldn't be your decision or the state's. In your case it was your daughter's decision. As a father, your only role was to support your daughter, and maybe give her advice if she asked.
Off camera, Smith added, "Thank the Lord Jesus, at least the boy ain't a Nigra or an A-rab!"
I think this guy was just trying to say that he has first hand knowledge of the difficulty facing women with an unwanted pregnancy because his daughter faced that. Of course it is not at all the same as the issue of rape raised by Akin, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. It was stupid to relate the two issues, but it is interesting that while he is anti-abortion, he said "She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought." It sounds like he is supporting his daughter having the ability to make this choice for herself.
There is no benefit of the doubt when he's totally aware of the firestorm Akin caused. He's reviving the issue!! On the eve of their convention another stunned & stupid steps in it!!
Life is grand!!!
Yep Craig, I caught that too. He's happy his daughter made the "right" choice, but no other woman should have a choice at all. That is what galls me. I would have liked to have seen the AP reporter follow up with whether or not he still wanted his daughter to have that choice or why he wants to take away her choice even after he already knows the choices she would make.
I take it more as he is commending her for making the choice he preferred. If she had made a different choice, I doubt very much that he would have supported her. It's like the old joke about the Model T: you can get it in any color you like as long as it's black. Right wingers are very happy to have people make choices, provided it's the one and only choice that they approve of. That's kind of the whole point of all the anti-woman legislation, closing off every alternative to their one favored outcome.
Jesus walked on this earth talking about God as love, compassion, understanding, truth, and all the good things about love. Thus God in reality would not be for guns or really wanting to hurt someone with a hurricane. If anything, it would be God warning of very dangerous things that go on in this world out of love and would wish people to do better things such as love your neighbor and help others. God has given each of us freewill to make these choices, but in addition to do it with love, compassion, understanding, truth, and all the good things about love, not to be forcing someone to do something against their freewill that gets you no where, but puts people in misery, despair, and death. Republicans, extremists of hatred and the extreme wealthy have all their fancy talk, but have no right to force someone to do something against their freewill that they know nothing about.
Hypocrisy thy name is GOP. While decrying the possibility that up to 5% of Americans may be mandated to get health insurance, they intentionally pass laws that make life more difficult for female Americans who are at least 50% of the population. Even worse they equate a small financial impact for insurance to subjecting a woman to a lifetime of pain by denying her the right to choose pregnancy or not.
As Rush would say ... SLUT !!!
That is such a confused mess of of words and logic(?) that I can't figure out what he's trying to say.
The best I'm coming up with is that he agrees with Akin's statements about the ability to shut it down and his daughter choice not to shut it down when having consensual sex. As a result, she got pregnant, and was faced with the same decision a woman that gets pregnant through a rape that is "not legitimate". To his approval, she made the choice he would expect a rape victim to make -- she choice to have the child. Even better, validating his pro-life position.
Jupiter, you have to go to the link in the story to figure it out and see the logic. The candidate was asked:
So, like I said earlier, when he responded that the what he experience was similar, the "similar" was that he tried to counsel his daughter to "keep the child against her own will" not that consensual sex and rape are similar.
See, RobDon, I didn't get clarity that there was any counsel necessary. You could be right, though. I had already gone to the link, read it, and listened to the audio. I thought he was saying that he didn't need to encourage her to have the child because she had chosen that is what she would do. She knew his position, she had her own pro-choice position, but in this instance, she acted as he would have wanted her to do if she had asked his input. I think your interpretation makes sense if I think about that statement separate from the context of Akin's statements.
I think your interpretation makes sense if I think about that statement separate from the context of Akin's statements.
You have to think of Akin's statement in the context of the quesiton. Here's the "raw" question:
Akin had a similar situation because it met ONE of the TWO criteria in the question (the one listed above), it did NOT meet the second criteria, that of rape.
Jupiter and RobDon
You have to remember - this was 'consensual sex' -- out-of-wedlock. Out-of-wedlock is not a term used for decades and that was his issue for comparison to rape. He was pissed she had pre-marital sex. He's still living in the 50's where his mind is planted.
Makes me think he's one to believe you can put an aspirin between your knees.
It is astoundingly sad that we have allowed people of such poor character to become the leaders of our nation. Real Americans voted for - or failed to vote, or vote against - this guy and people like him and that fact is just profoundly disheartening.
We need civics back in our schools so desperately. Every high school student should be analyzing candidates and participating in a scholastic-based national voting process on election day. They should vote. They should count their votes. They should report their results. And every single one of them who is eligible should be registered to vote before they leave high school.
That we have let things fall so far is a profound failure on our part as a nation. I only hope we catch ourselves before we go careening off the cliff. I also hope we are wise enough to maintain our vigilance even if those who we want to be elected are chosen, as we ultimately cannot allow them to proceed without the checks and balances that an active and aware citizenry provides.
I am sick of this. Republicans are sexaholics. I swear they are addicted to sex. Why is it we never hear this crap from a woman. These stupid men are making the rest of look piggish and foolish. These Republicans are so disconnected from the world and just basic common sense. I think it needs to be pointed out and Melissa Harris-perry pointed out that is just not how the female body works. I think 13 years know better than these 40 something Peter Pans. Steve Benen, if your going to write about this you need to state that is biologically impossible. Conception is a biological process it has nothing to do with the "choice" that the woman makes. A woman cannot chose to get pregnant. I am tired of hearing these dried up old fools talk about it. It's not news. It's not logical.
I can only imagine how the conversations went once Mr. Smith found out his daughter was pregnant. She CHOSE to have her baby and that's fine. It's about the CHOICE that Mr. Smith would like to deny all women.
Something that just scares me so is that 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road, these "natural" or "birth" fathers (the rapists) can come into the mother's life and demand, and get, visitation and custody.
So after being victimized by a rapist, then being forced by these crazy politicians to carry and give birth to their rapist's child, they have to just wave "bye bye" to their child and turn them over to a known rapist. There are no laws in effect to protect these children or their mothers from this situation at any future time. Jail time is shamefully short for rape. Same guys deciding that it's not a very bad crime and six months in jail should discourage future instances. Clearly not working but also not being addressed.
I used to think that I lived in the greatest country on earth. These regressive, anti-science, misogynistic, low-thinking and intellect-impaired so-called people are ruining our once great country.
Please, Rachael or her staff - please add this facet to the discussion. I am a big time Rachael fan - we need more brilliant young women like you, disseminating the news!
Rachel needs to ask Akin if the girl who was ruffied in Steubenville Ohio and the rape posted to Twitter/You Tube was "legitimately" raped. Plus could use some real reporting to blow open a coverup job underway there since not only did the perpetrators do this but others cheered, posted, and forwarded this. Help this poor girl get justice!
http://prinniefied.com/blog/steubenville-big-red-rape-accusations/
The rights of the individual trump all religious rights.
This was supposed to be a country of religious freedom and that is why people came here to escape the religious intolerance of the Catholic church. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is to have a secular government that insures the rights of all it's people and to insure no religion or group of religions force their religion and mandates on others.
Right now, we have a group of religions that hope to control our government and all the people.
Our government should insure that
The rights of the individual will always trump all religious rights.
Religious freedom does not give any religion the right to have the government enforce their mandates on contraceptives, family planning, abortion or anyting else.
the folks who came here, massachusetts, actually came here so they could practice their own brand of religious persecution. that aside, it is fortunate that by the time we got around to revolting most of those tendencies had been bred out of the "founding fathers" and a better outcome was had. thanks TJ et al.
we are supposed to have a secular government, so why is every session of congress opened with a prayer?
i'll only settle for my rights not being trampled by religious or corporate interests.
they use the argument that there is no "freedom from religion" clause in the 1st amendment to justify pushing their particular brand of hate onto the rest of us. i refer them to amendment IX which says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
it is my retained right to be free of these lunatics stomping on the rest of us in the name of their god.
Just a wild guess but is it safe to assume that the conversation that he had with his daughter included plans to support her and help her raise the baby?